On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent
alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g.
travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already
sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route
planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously
plenty for which that doesn't apply.

On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent
alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g.
travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already
sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route
planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously
plenty for which that doesn't apply.

Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it.
Clearances of 15'6" and more that way.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be
more.

Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent
alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g.
travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already
sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route
planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously
plenty for which that doesn't apply.

Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it.
Clearances of 15'6" and more that way.


The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to
me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal.

Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with
the matter, but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage
larger lorries to come this way.

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously_

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939

We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

I think it was already posted here.

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be
more.

Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent
alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g.
travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already
sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route
planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously
plenty for which that doesn't apply.

Did we establish if there are advance height checks as on Upper Richmond
Road on the approach to East Putney?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Mizter T) wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously_

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939

We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted
to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be
more.

Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent
alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g.
travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already
sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route
planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously
plenty for which that doesn't apply.

Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it.
Clearances of 15'6" and more that way.

The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy
to me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal.

Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal
with the matter, but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to
encourage larger lorries to come this way.

The fundamental problem is that it's the South Circular Road which exists
only as a series of sign posts. It should be signed as local roads only and
lorries should be forced to use the M25.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:54:05 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:


On 04/05/2016 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:32, Mizter T wrote:

On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be
more.

Off the top of my head, I can't think there's really a decent
alternative route for high vehicles even vaguely nearby - e.g.
travelling westwards once they come through Forest Hill it's already
sort of too late. Which is why any tall lorry that's had its route
planned properly shouldn't be coming this way, but there's obviously
plenty for which that doesn't apply.

Up the Croxted Road and back down the Norwood road would do it.
Clearances of 15'6" and more that way.

I would expect most big stuff is non-local traffic whose safe routes
should be avoiding the area rather than just the bridge. What's the
betting a fair number of car satnavs will be found in the offending
vehicles ?

The left hand turn from Croxted Rd into Norwood Rd looks pretty iffy to
me for an artic, and Croxted Rd itself isn't ideal.

Lowering the road under the problem bridge would be one way to deal with
the matter,

Not necessarily a practical option if there's something under the
surface that can't be easily moved.

but I suspect that TPTB don't really want to encourage
larger lorries to come this way.

On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could
do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore
flashing lights at level crossings so...

--
Spud

wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could
do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore
flashing lights at level crossings so...

I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in
luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so
that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The
beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging
fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line.

In article , d () wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939

We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be
more.

Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could
do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots
ignore flashing lights at level crossings so...

Are there warning signs in advance though? Those trigger alarms I understand.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 5 May 2016 08:43:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 17:32:41 +0100
Mizter T wrote:
On 04/05/2016 17:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
Couldn't see the signs, obviously…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36200939


We discussed this bridge on the South Circular (on Thurlow Park Rd in
Tulse Hill) recently, maybe it was over on utl (which I've x-posted to).

There's already extensive signage, but I guess there could always be more.

Looking at the signs they've already got I'm not sure what more they could
do other than have overheight flashing warning lights. But then idiots ignore
flashing lights at level crossings so...

I think the only solution is to have a sturdy steel beam, painted in
luminous paint, a few metres before the bridge (and obviously mounted so
that, even if hit, no force is transferred to the bridge parapets). The
beam might be a few cm below the bridge, but there might also be a hanging
fringe below that so it's right in the driver's eye line.

Well he failed to spot the pretty obvious warning signs on the bridge so I
doubt this particular Einstein would have seen a painted beam either. But as
you say, at least the bridge wouldn't get hit.

--
Spud