Today's most viewed
| NEWS | | | | | SPORT |  | | | | | | INTERVIEWS | | | | | | | | MIDWEEK TV | | | COMPETITIONS | | | | | | |
|
|
|
Tyre damage could cause "catastrophic" accident
 |
| Ross Niven points out the danger |
MOTORISTS whose tyres are slashed by the sharp bollards on Marlow Bridge could have a "catastrophic" accident if they have a blow-out at high speed.
Marlovians have voiced their fears after the newly installed bollards have left a number of cars crippled and in need of recovery.
On Sunday Austrian tourist Rolf Feichtinger, 63, ripped his two right hand tyres leaving him stranded. He was forced to pay £280 for two new tyres, and said that the dangerous bollards are "bad for the town's image."
Delivery driver Ross Niven from Oxford Road witnessed the accident, and was worried that something more serious could happen in the future: "If it damages the tyres but does not cause them to deflate straight away somebody could be driving on the by-pass at high speed and could get a blow-out, which would be catastrophic."
Mr Niven said that he was aware of two other times that cars had burst their tyres on the bollards, once leaving a man stuck in the middle of the bridge when a tow truck was unable to reach him.
His views on safety were echoed by retired pilot Dave Morton, 61, from Little Marlow, who said he had personally witnessed several collisions: "The problem is people in their big Porsche Cayennes with loads of children in the back.
"They hit the bollards and then they go back onto the motorway with unsafe tyres and eventually there will be an accident."
Mr Morton had a suggestion for the best way to stop the accidents: "They should get rid of the bollards completely and have a height limitation."
 |
| Mr Feichtinger's damaged tyre |
Neil Marshall, deputy mayor of Marlow, called for Bucks County Council to grind off the corners of the bollards: "What I'm suggesting is that they take an angle grinder and smooth off the sharp edges."
Councillor Marshall said that a friend of his shredded their tyres after hitting the bollard: "It's a nuisance. I had a look at the bollards myself and the angle is quite sharp. If they were smoothed off I bet we wouldn't get the same problem."
Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, said that problems were caused by motorists, not the bollards: "The only time the bollards will cause damage is if a vehicle has over-ridden them. The point of the bollards is to make sure that people stay on the highway.
"If damage is caused it is because vehicles are out of control or if speed is a factor.
"We have to give it some time to see if it will achieve the objectives that we intend, and we will continue to investigate any complaints and monitor the situation."
9:25am Thursday 20th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Read All About It, HW on 11:03am Thu 20 Mar 08
If a height restriction was put in place rather than the bollards then people would only moan that it was dangerous and you could potentially knock yourself out if you go over the bringe on a pogo stick. Some people live for the complaint ! I don't hear any residents from Bisham complaining and I imagine that they have to use the brige a fair bit ! Seems to be out of towners who have oversized cars that they are unable to judge through tight spots. I say leave the bollards as they are !!
If a height restriction was put in place rather than the bollards then people would only moan that it was dangerous and you could potentially knock yourself out if you go over the bringe on a pogo stick. Some people live for the complaint ! I don't hear any residents from Bisham complaining and I imagine that they have to use the brige a fair bit ! Seems to be out of towners who have oversized cars that they are unable to judge through tight spots. I say leave the bollards as they are !!
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 11:05am Thu 20 Mar 08
Can someone please tell Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, that there is no need for any width restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. The issue is with vehicle weight and there are many cars that are not too heavy, but are too wide to easily pass through the bollards without causing any damage.
If an accident is caused by these bollards, I would hope he will change his smug attitude and get real.
Can someone please tell Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, that there is no need for any width restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. The issue is with vehicle weight and there are many cars that are not too heavy, but are too wide to easily pass through the bollards without causing any damage.
If an accident is caused by these bollards, I would hope he will change his smug attitude and get real.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 11:14am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Read All About It[/bold] wrote:
If a height restriction was put in place rather than the bollards then people would only moan that it was dangerous and you could potentially knock yourself out if you go over the bringe on a pogo stick. Some people live for the complaint ! I don't hear any residents from Bisham complaining and I imagine that they have to use the brige a fair bit ! Seems to be out of towners who have oversized cars that they are unable to judge through tight spots. I say leave the bollards as they are !![/quote] No one complained until the bollards were changed to cause damage should you make a small mis-judgement or have a vehicle that is too wide for the bollards, yet is not too heavy for the bridge.
Also if you look at the picture in the article you can clearly see the new black tyre slashers do not reach a height high enough that you can see them as you drive through.
If you don't mind (probably because your car is small and therefore not affected) then great, but why should people be unable to use the bridge without risk of damage to their vehicles without good reason?
Read All About It wrote:
If a height restriction was put in place rather than the bollards then people would only moan that it was dangerous and you could potentially knock yourself out if you go over the bringe on a pogo stick. Some people live for the complaint ! I don't hear any residents from Bisham complaining and I imagine that they have to use the brige a fair bit ! Seems to be out of towners who have oversized cars that they are unable to judge through tight spots. I say leave the bollards as they are !!
No one complained until the bollards were changed to cause damage should you make a small mis-judgement or have a vehicle that is too wide for the bollards, yet is not too heavy for the bridge.
Also if you look at the picture in the article you can clearly see the new black tyre slashers do not reach a height high enough that you can see them as you drive through.
If you don't mind (probably because your car is small and therefore not affected) then great, but why should people be unable to use the bridge without risk of damage to their vehicles without good reason?
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 11:15am Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Read All About It[/bold] wrote:
If a height restriction was put in place rather than the bollards then people would only moan that it was dangerous and you could potentially knock yourself out if you go over the bringe on a pogo stick. Some people live for the complaint ! I don't hear any residents from Bisham complaining and I imagine that they have to use the brige a fair bit ! Seems to be out of towners who have oversized cars that they are unable to judge through tight spots. I say leave the bollards as they are !![/quote] No one complained until the bollards were changed to cause damage should you make a small mis-judgement or have a vehicle that is too wide for the bollards, yet is not too heavy for the bridge.
Also if you look at the picture in the article you can clearly see the new black tyre slashers do not reach a height high enough that you can see them as you drive through.
If you don't mind (probably because your car is small and therefore not affected) then great, but why should people be unable to use the bridge without risk of damage to their vehicles without good reason?
Read All About It wrote:
If a height restriction was put in place rather than the bollards then people would only moan that it was dangerous and you could potentially knock yourself out if you go over the bringe on a pogo stick. Some people live for the complaint ! I don't hear any residents from Bisham complaining and I imagine that they have to use the brige a fair bit ! Seems to be out of towners who have oversized cars that they are unable to judge through tight spots. I say leave the bollards as they are !!
No one complained until the bollards were changed to cause damage should you make a small mis-judgement or have a vehicle that is too wide for the bollards, yet is not too heavy for the bridge.
Also if you look at the picture in the article you can clearly see the new black tyre slashers do not reach a height high enough that you can see them as you drive through.
If you don't mind (probably because your car is small and therefore not affected) then great, but why should people be unable to use the bridge without risk of damage to their vehicles without good reason?
Posted by: Read All About It, HW on 11:34am Thu 20 Mar 08
My car (not that it really matters) happens to be a very big car - its not a 4x4 but its a wide saloon vehicle. I just don't really see the big issue here. Fair enough its the weight of the vehicles thats potentially the problem but can't people just drive more carefully ? Being a resident of Marlow I cross the bridge every morning to get to work and without fail - every day people insist on driving through as fast as they can so's not to get stuck waiting for traffic coming off the bridge so i'm sorry but I have no sympathy for them. I literally drive through with great care, wait for traffic to clear and continue on my way.
My car (not that it really matters) happens to be a very big car - its not a 4x4 but its a wide saloon vehicle. I just don't really see the big issue here. Fair enough its the weight of the vehicles thats potentially the problem but can't people just drive more carefully ? Being a resident of Marlow I cross the bridge every morning to get to work and without fail - every day people insist on driving through as fast as they can so's not to get stuck waiting for traffic coming off the bridge so i'm sorry but I have no sympathy for them. I literally drive through with great care, wait for traffic to clear and continue on my way.
Posted by: Read All About It, HW on 11:39am Thu 20 Mar 08
Also the fact that these bollards have been there for some time now and only a handfull of cars have been damaged would suggest thats its really not that bad. If you consider the 100's of cars that cross the bridge [bold]each way[/bold] every morning and evening (these are vehicles that I see on my way to work and back - add to that the vehicles that I am unaware of using it during the day) and you are talking about hundreds of cars a day and only what 4 ?? If that have had problems
Also the fact that these bollards have been there for some time now and only a handfull of cars have been damaged would suggest thats its really not that bad. If you consider the 100's of cars that cross the bridge
each way every morning and evening (these are vehicles that I see on my way to work and back - add to that the vehicles that I am unaware of using it during the day) and you are talking about hundreds of cars a day and only what 4 ?? If that have had problems
Posted by: MARLOWHOTSPUR, at my desk on 11:57am Thu 20 Mar 08
If people have a vehicle that should fit through the width restriction, but are unable to drive through it without incident, then they are icompetent drivers and should not be on the road. I recommend that the police attend the bridge and force everyone who bursts their tyres to re-take their driving test.
If people have a vehicle that should fit through the width restriction, but are unable to drive through it without incident, then they are icompetent drivers and should not be on the road. I recommend that the police attend the bridge and force everyone who bursts their tyres to re-take their driving test.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:02pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]MARLOWHOTSPUR[/bold] wrote:
If people have a vehicle that should fit through the width restriction, but are unable to drive through it without incident, then they are icompetent drivers and should not be on the road. I recommend that the police attend the bridge and force everyone who bursts their tyres to re-take their driving test. [/quote] ok, but what about cars that are under the weight restriction for the bridge that are too wide for the restrictors? why are they not allowed to use the bridge?
MARLOWHOTSPUR wrote:
If people have a vehicle that should fit through the width restriction, but are unable to drive through it without incident, then they are icompetent drivers and should not be on the road. I recommend that the police attend the bridge and force everyone who bursts their tyres to re-take their driving test.
ok, but what about cars that are under the weight restriction for the bridge that are too wide for the restrictors? why are they not allowed to use the bridge?
Posted by: Read All About It, HW on 12:04pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Answered you're own questuion there mate - They are too wide !
Answered you're own questuion there mate - They are too wide !
Posted by: MARLOWHOTSPUR, at my desk on 12:05pm Thu 20 Mar 08
If the vehicles are thin enough, then unless they are made of mercury thay are unlikely to be over the weight limit.
The incompentents who burst their tyres should be hauled up in front of the beak charged with wasting police time, and their licence taken away. Let's not **** foot about.
If the vehicles are thin enough, then unless they are made of mercury thay are unlikely to be over the weight limit.
The incompentents who burst their tyres should be hauled up in front of the beak charged with wasting police time, and their licence taken away. Let's not **** foot about.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:13pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Read All About It[/bold] wrote:
My car (not that it really matters) happens to be a very big car - its not a 4x4 but its a wide saloon vehicle. I just don't really see the big issue here. Fair enough its the weight of the vehicles thats potentially the problem but can't people just drive more carefully ? Being a resident of Marlow I cross the bridge every morning to get to work and without fail - every day people insist on driving through as fast as they can so's not to get stuck waiting for traffic coming off the bridge so i'm sorry but I have no sympathy for them. I literally drive through with great care, wait for traffic to clear and continue on my way.[/quote] Firstly, it does matter what car you drive. If you have a small/family hatchback, you will never have any issue passing through the width restrictors, if as you do you have a larger saloon or estate car then you will have to drive very slowly to ensure you can pass through, if you have a large 4x4 you may not be able to fit between the restrictors. In my case I drive a sports car, these by design tend to be wider then average and will also have trouble fitting through even though they are no issue as far as weight is concerned. As small/family hatchbacks are the most common cars on the road this would be why there have not been many incidents compared to the number of cars crossing the bridge.
Also it does not take into account the number of people that can no longer use the bridge and do not attempt it due to the risk of damage to their vehicles.
While you may not mind having to drive through with great care (as I myself do and also do not mind for myself) during peak hours this causes a domino effect on the traffic in the high street and adjoining roads.
If there is a suitable alternative (height restriction) that does not impede the flow of traffic then it should be used.
While many poeple are not affected and therefore feel no action is needed, I have seen no justifacation to not have height resriction instead of width.
Just because you are not affected doesn't mean you have to take the selfish attitude that it shouldn't be changed becasue you're ok.
Read All About It wrote:
My car (not that it really matters) happens to be a very big car - its not a 4x4 but its a wide saloon vehicle. I just don't really see the big issue here. Fair enough its the weight of the vehicles thats potentially the problem but can't people just drive more carefully ? Being a resident of Marlow I cross the bridge every morning to get to work and without fail - every day people insist on driving through as fast as they can so's not to get stuck waiting for traffic coming off the bridge so i'm sorry but I have no sympathy for them. I literally drive through with great care, wait for traffic to clear and continue on my way.
Firstly, it does matter what car you drive. If you have a small/family hatchback, you will never have any issue passing through the width restrictors, if as you do you have a larger saloon or estate car then you will have to drive very slowly to ensure you can pass through, if you have a large 4x4 you may not be able to fit between the restrictors. In my case I drive a sports car, these by design tend to be wider then average and will also have trouble fitting through even though they are no issue as far as weight is concerned. As small/family hatchbacks are the most common cars on the road this would be why there have not been many incidents compared to the number of cars crossing the bridge.
Also it does not take into account the number of people that can no longer use the bridge and do not attempt it due to the risk of damage to their vehicles.
While you may not mind having to drive through with great care (as I myself do and also do not mind for myself) during peak hours this causes a domino effect on the traffic in the high street and adjoining roads.
If there is a suitable alternative (height restriction) that does not impede the flow of traffic then it should be used.
While many poeple are not affected and therefore feel no action is needed, I have seen no justifacation to not have height resriction instead of width.
Just because you are not affected doesn't mean you have to take the selfish attitude that it shouldn't be changed becasue you're ok.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:14pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Read All About It[/bold] wrote:
Answered you're own questuion there mate - They are too wide ![/quote] Too wide for the width resrictors - yes, but for the bridge - no.
Read All About It wrote:
Answered you're own questuion there mate - They are too wide !
Too wide for the width resrictors - yes, but for the bridge - no.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:17pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]MARLOWHOTSPUR[/bold] wrote:
If the vehicles are thin enough, then unless they are made of mercury thay are unlikely to be over the weight limit. The incompentents who burst their tyres should be hauled up in front of the beak charged with wasting police time, and their licence taken away. Let's not **** foot about.[/quote] nice attitude, clearly proves my point, you're not affected in anyway yet feel you have to make inaccurate and uneducated comments like the above.
MARLOWHOTSPUR wrote:
If the vehicles are thin enough, then unless they are made of mercury thay are unlikely to be over the weight limit. The incompentents who burst their tyres should be hauled up in front of the beak charged with wasting police time, and their licence taken away. Let's not **** foot about.
nice attitude, clearly proves my point, you're not affected in anyway yet feel you have to make inaccurate and uneducated comments like the above.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:17pm Thu 20 Mar 08
so does anyone have a reason not to change to height restriction?
so does anyone have a reason not to change to height restriction?
Posted by: Read All About It, HW on 12:25pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Don't get me wrong - I'm not being selfish here just think that if 100's can make it through and only the odd few can't then why should it change. In a nutshell, you are on about changing it just so 4x4 drivers can go through. Why should this be the case ? 4x4 vehicles pay more tax - are you going to try and sort that one out too just so's not to be selfish ?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not being selfish here just think that if 100's can make it through and only the odd few can't then why should it change. In a nutshell, you are on about changing it just so 4x4 drivers can go through. Why should this be the case ? 4x4 vehicles pay more tax - are you going to try and sort that one out too just so's not to be selfish ?
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:44pm Thu 20 Mar 08
i don't agree at all that the only people that are affected are 4x4 drivers, i believe many sports cars for example are also unable to safely use the bridge due to the width restrictors and because some drivers have to crawl through this impacts everyone behind them regardless of what they're driving.
to specifically respond to your question, 4x4 vehicles pay more tax because the elected government has decided to base road tax on emissions and 4x4's in general have higher emissions. This is done to reduce emissions from road vehicles. far enough, whether you agree with it or not at least there's a specific purpose.
The width restrictors are there to protect the bridge from damage, however they will also prevent various sports cars, 4x4's large estate/saloon cars from using it. That is not their purpose therefore if there is an alternative that does not have these issues this should be investigated.
i don't agree at all that the only people that are affected are 4x4 drivers, i believe many sports cars for example are also unable to safely use the bridge due to the width restrictors and because some drivers have to crawl through this impacts everyone behind them regardless of what they're driving.
to specifically respond to your question, 4x4 vehicles pay more tax because the elected government has decided to base road tax on emissions and 4x4's in general have higher emissions. This is done to reduce emissions from road vehicles. far enough, whether you agree with it or not at least there's a specific purpose.
The width restrictors are there to protect the bridge from damage, however they will also prevent various sports cars, 4x4's large estate/saloon cars from using it. That is not their purpose therefore if there is an alternative that does not have these issues this should be investigated.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 12:46pm Thu 20 Mar 08
again, can anyone offer one reason not to change to height restriction?
again, can anyone offer one reason not to change to height restriction?
Posted by: Tharus Bond, Wycombe on 12:59pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]davejones[/bold] wrote:
Can someone please tell Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, that there is no need for any width restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. The issue is with vehicle weight and there are many cars that are not too heavy, but are too wide to easily pass through the bollards without causing any damage. If an accident is caused by these bollards, I would hope he will change his smug attitude and get real.[/quote] most lorries and larger vehicles have a wider wheel base, thus a width restriction does make sense. If the car is too wide then blame the manufacturer and get rid of the low profile tyres as they can be wider than normal tyres.
Also there is the Marlow By-pass that can be used.
HER attitude isn't smug! I had an accident in my car a couple of months ago in Flackwell heath where my concentration slipped for a minute and I hit a kerb and damaged my rim, I didn't blame the council for hitting something that was meant to keep me on the ROAD!
davejones wrote:
Can someone please tell Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, that there is no need for any width restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. The issue is with vehicle weight and there are many cars that are not too heavy, but are too wide to easily pass through the bollards without causing any damage. If an accident is caused by these bollards, I would hope he will change his smug attitude and get real.
most lorries and larger vehicles have a wider wheel base, thus a width restriction does make sense. If the car is too wide then blame the manufacturer and get rid of the low profile tyres as they can be wider than normal tyres.
Also there is the Marlow By-pass that can be used.
HER attitude isn't smug! I had an accident in my car a couple of months ago in Flackwell heath where my concentration slipped for a minute and I hit a kerb and damaged my rim, I didn't blame the council for hitting something that was meant to keep me on the ROAD!
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 1:03pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Tharus Bond[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]davejones[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, that there is no need for any width restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. The issue is with vehicle weight and there are many cars that are not too heavy, but are too wide to easily pass through the bollards without causing any damage. If an accident is caused by these bollards, I would hope he will change his smug attitude and get real.[/quote] most lorries and larger vehicles have a wider wheel base, thus a width restriction does make sense. If the car is too wide then blame the manufacturer and get rid of the low profile tyres as they can be wider than normal tyres. Also there is the Marlow By-pass that can be used. HER attitude isn't smug! I had an accident in my car a couple of months ago in Flackwell heath where my concentration slipped for a minute and I hit a kerb and damaged my rim, I didn't blame the council for hitting something that was meant to keep me on the ROAD![/quote] Why would i blame the manufacturer because the width restrictors are too close?
see above why would height restriction not be better?
How does your accident have anything to do with her attitude?
Tharus Bond wrote:
davejones wrote: Can someone please tell Si Khan, Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator for the High Wycombe area, that there is no need for any width restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. The issue is with vehicle weight and there are many cars that are not too heavy, but are too wide to easily pass through the bollards without causing any damage. If an accident is caused by these bollards, I would hope he will change his smug attitude and get real.
most lorries and larger vehicles have a wider wheel base, thus a width restriction does make sense. If the car is too wide then blame the manufacturer and get rid of the low profile tyres as they can be wider than normal tyres. Also there is the Marlow By-pass that can be used. HER attitude isn't smug! I had an accident in my car a couple of months ago in Flackwell heath where my concentration slipped for a minute and I hit a kerb and damaged my rim, I didn't blame the council for hitting something that was meant to keep me on the ROAD!
Why would i blame the manufacturer because the width restrictors are too close?
see above why would height restriction not be better?
How does your accident have anything to do with her attitude?
Posted by: MARLOWHOTSPUR, at my desk on 1:06pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Where's the problem ?
If you car is too wide to go through the restriction or you are incapable of driving through it - DON'T go over the bridge !!
Is it me ?
Where's the problem ?
If you car is too wide to go through the restriction or you are incapable of driving through it - DON'T go over the bridge !!
Is it me ?
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 1:17pm Thu 20 Mar 08
The problem is that the width restriction will prevent people from accessing the bridge, damage vehicles, and increase the congestion of the high street and surrounding roads.
Height restriction would not do any of these things and would still prevent heavy commercial vehicles from damaging the bridge.
Just because you're not affected does not mean that it should remain as it is.
To be honest, if you're not affected and see no issue, then why bother commenting?
The problem is that the width restriction will prevent people from accessing the bridge, damage vehicles, and increase the congestion of the high street and surrounding roads.
Height restriction would not do any of these things and would still prevent heavy commercial vehicles from damaging the bridge.
Just because you're not affected does not mean that it should remain as it is.
To be honest, if you're not affected and see no issue, then why bother commenting?
Posted by: MARLOWHOTSPUR, at my desk on 1:20pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I am affected, I drive a very thin tall car, a height restriction won't help me.
Stay north of the river in the leafy streets of Beaconsfield...
I am affected, I drive a very thin tall car, a height restriction won't help me.
Stay north of the river in the leafy streets of Beaconsfield...
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 1:22pm Thu 20 Mar 08
... ok, so what make/model would this tall thin car be?
Or are you just a loser who's trying argue for the sake of it?
Can i suggest you go and get a life?
... ok, so what make/model would this tall thin car be?
Or are you just a loser who's trying argue for the sake of it?
Can i suggest you go and get a life?
Posted by: MARLOWHOTSPUR, at my desk on 1:26pm Thu 20 Mar 08
No need for that, Dave.
Have a happy and safe easter in your large voiture.
No need for that, Dave.
Have a happy and safe easter in your large voiture.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 1:42pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Many thanks.
I also wish you a happy Easter, but would advise that you're careful driving this tall thin car of yours, it doesn't sound very safe in crosswinds.
Many thanks.
I also wish you a happy Easter, but would advise that you're careful driving this tall thin car of yours, it doesn't sound very safe in crosswinds.
Posted by: Merge in Turn on 1:54pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Watch out for the snow too, the bridge might be a bit slippy.
Watch out for the snow too, the bridge might be a bit slippy.
Posted by: tom, marlow on 2:15pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I thought the real issue was weight and the limit is 3 tonnes (which I read somewhere includes a number of 4x4 models)
Given that there is a minority who seem to ignore the weight restriction, a width restriction is the next best thing.
I suppose they could install a weight sensor that fires a long steel spike into overweight vehicles or sets off tyre slashing knives, but I dont think its been invented yet. Even if it was available someone would whinge about it.
Get real. If you are not comfortable driving trough the width restriction then use the bypass.
In the 20+ years I;ve lived here I've realised that at busy times of day, it really doesnt make much difference which way you go. At quiet times, it doesnt make much difference either.
I thought the real issue was weight and the limit is 3 tonnes (which I read somewhere includes a number of 4x4 models)
Given that there is a minority who seem to ignore the weight restriction, a width restriction is the next best thing.
I suppose they could install a weight sensor that fires a long steel spike into overweight vehicles or sets off tyre slashing knives, but I dont think its been invented yet. Even if it was available someone would whinge about it.
Get real. If you are not comfortable driving trough the width restriction then use the bypass.
In the 20+ years I;ve lived here I've realised that at busy times of day, it really doesnt make much difference which way you go. At quiet times, it doesnt make much difference either.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 3:49pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]tom[/bold] wrote:
I thought the real issue was weight and the limit is 3 tonnes (which I read somewhere includes a number of 4x4 models) Given that there is a minority who seem to ignore the weight restriction, a width restriction is the next best thing. I suppose they could install a weight sensor that fires a long steel spike into overweight vehicles or sets off tyre slashing knives, but I dont think its been invented yet. Even if it was available someone would whinge about it. Get real. If you are not comfortable driving trough the width restriction then use the bypass. In the 20+ years I;ve lived here I've realised that at busy times of day, it really doesnt make much difference which way you go. At quiet times, it doesnt make much difference either.[/quote] Tom, just to clear one thing up, if you have no issue with the width restriction AND no issue with it changing to height restriction, then you really have no need to comment.
I could point out that if the weight limit is 3 tonnes there is only one widely available 4x4 i know of that will breech this and also then surely when two cars are on the bridge at the same time the restriction is being breeched.
I suggest you get real if you feel width is an accurate measurement of weight.
Further depending on where you are going it makes a BIG difference in time going over the bridge compared to joining the by-pass.
In summary you have displayed the same arrogant, selfish and ill informed attitude as the "Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator " who thinks the only way to have your car damaged by these bollards is speeding or if you're out of control.
tom wrote:
I thought the real issue was weight and the limit is 3 tonnes (which I read somewhere includes a number of 4x4 models) Given that there is a minority who seem to ignore the weight restriction, a width restriction is the next best thing. I suppose they could install a weight sensor that fires a long steel spike into overweight vehicles or sets off tyre slashing knives, but I dont think its been invented yet. Even if it was available someone would whinge about it. Get real. If you are not comfortable driving trough the width restriction then use the bypass. In the 20+ years I;ve lived here I've realised that at busy times of day, it really doesnt make much difference which way you go. At quiet times, it doesnt make much difference either.
Tom, just to clear one thing up, if you have no issue with the width restriction AND no issue with it changing to height restriction, then you really have no need to comment.
I could point out that if the weight limit is 3 tonnes there is only one widely available 4x4 i know of that will breech this and also then surely when two cars are on the bridge at the same time the restriction is being breeched.
I suggest you get real if you feel width is an accurate measurement of weight.
Further depending on where you are going it makes a BIG difference in time going over the bridge compared to joining the by-pass.
In summary you have displayed the same arrogant, selfish and ill informed attitude as the "Bucks County Council transportation co-ordinator " who thinks the only way to have your car damaged by these bollards is speeding or if you're out of control.
Posted by: erm, ermsville on 6:23pm Thu 20 Mar 08
I am fat and ripped my trousers on the width restrictions.
I am fat and ripped my trousers on the width restrictions.
Posted by: tom, marlow on 11:03pm Thu 20 Mar 08
ooooh thats told me where to get off.
Of course width isnt an accurate measurement of weight, any more than height is. I think that the new bollards are much less visually intrusive than most width restriction devices (concrete filled tubes) or any height restrictions.
And yes I agree that if your journey is just from one side of the bridge to the other going round the bypass will make a big difference, but you might just as well walk in that case. Most other journeys it really doent make that big a difference.
I'd add to the BCC mans list of ways to have your car damaged by the bollards - trying to drive a car through thats too wide and not being careful enough when you drive through.
I must be more arrogant, selfish and ill-informed than you thought.
ooooh thats told me where to get off.
Of course width isnt an accurate measurement of weight, any more than height is. I think that the new bollards are much less visually intrusive than most width restriction devices (concrete filled tubes) or any height restrictions.
And yes I agree that if your journey is just from one side of the bridge to the other going round the bypass will make a big difference, but you might just as well walk in that case. Most other journeys it really doent make that big a difference.
I'd add to the BCC mans list of ways to have your car damaged by the bollards - trying to drive a car through thats too wide and not being careful enough when you drive through.
I must be more arrogant, selfish and ill-informed than you thought.
Posted by: Ivor on 11:50pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Let’s get this right. In order to enforce a width restriction on the bridge the powers that be have installed a device which has the side effect of slashing a vehicles tyre so it can’t get across?
It’s certainly a most effective idea as a vehicle with burst tyres will definitely not be crossing the bridge.
I dread to think what the device to enforce a height restriction would comprise? Chainsaws hung just above the road perhaps?
[bold]Have you read Ivor’s blog today?[/bold] Click on the “Opinion” link on the menu on the left then click on “Readers Bucks Blog”.
Let’s get this right. In order to enforce a width restriction on the bridge the powers that be have installed a device which has the side effect of slashing a vehicles tyre so it can’t get across?
It’s certainly a most effective idea as a vehicle with burst tyres will definitely not be crossing the bridge.
I dread to think what the device to enforce a height restriction would comprise? Chainsaws hung just above the road perhaps?
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “Opinion” link on the menu on the left then click on “Readers Bucks Blog”.
Posted by: tom, marlow on 9:22am Fri 21 Mar 08
Thats a good scheme Ivor. Has the benefit for any owners of tall vehicles that after the first time they cross the bridge they wont have problems in future - they wont be over height anymore.
Just to put a bit of perspective on this, consider the width restriction in Feildhouse Lane - it prevents large vehicles using residential roads to access Globe park, and is steel and concrete bollards.
Judging from the amount of paint smeared on them and the occasional odd angle they end up at, there are plenty of misjudged attempts to drive through them.
I'd suggest that they cause more expensive damage than the devices on the bridge. Tyres are cheap and easy to replace if you get it wrong.
I really dont understand why everyone is getting so agitated about the whole issue. Marlow bridge is an attractive and historic feature and is getting systematically ruined by the quantity and nature of the traffic over it. It was not designed for this.
Less than a mile away is a modern alternative that was specifically designed for a much larger volume of much heavier vehicles.
Many people may think that battering Marlow bridge into oblivion is acceptable to save them 2 minutes, 5 mins, 10 mins or whatever on their journey. I don't.
Thats a good scheme Ivor. Has the benefit for any owners of tall vehicles that after the first time they cross the bridge they wont have problems in future - they wont be over height anymore.
Just to put a bit of perspective on this, consider the width restriction in Feildhouse Lane - it prevents large vehicles using residential roads to access Globe park, and is steel and concrete bollards.
Judging from the amount of paint smeared on them and the occasional odd angle they end up at, there are plenty of misjudged attempts to drive through them.
I'd suggest that they cause more expensive damage than the devices on the bridge. Tyres are cheap and easy to replace if you get it wrong.
I really dont understand why everyone is getting so agitated about the whole issue. Marlow bridge is an attractive and historic feature and is getting systematically ruined by the quantity and nature of the traffic over it. It was not designed for this.
Less than a mile away is a modern alternative that was specifically designed for a much larger volume of much heavier vehicles.
Many people may think that battering Marlow bridge into oblivion is acceptable to save them 2 minutes, 5 mins, 10 mins or whatever on their journey. I don't.
Posted by: Lewis Le Vert, Marlow on 2:15pm Sat 22 Mar 08
From my daily observations these bollards have stopped the very heavy vehicles crossing the bridge. There is no 4X4, sports car, estate or saloon that cannot pass through the bollards if driven in a competant manner. Damage will only occur if drivers speed through the bollards and are unable to judge the widith available. These people should use the bypass or take another test. Dave Jones does not understand the law regarding weight.It is not the weight of the vehicle, it is the weight the vehicle could be if it is fully loaded. This includes most 4X4 vehicles. What these bollards have not done is to stop the flagrant abuse of the law by many van drivers drivers. At least 250 vans a week break the law and Dave Jones and Dave Morton are correct when they advocate Height Restriction. It would also help if Thames Valley Police monitored the bridge once a week between 8am and 9.15am. A few visits per month would pay for the height restrictors.
From my daily observations these bollards have stopped the very heavy vehicles crossing the bridge. There is no 4X4, sports car, estate or saloon that cannot pass through the bollards if driven in a competant manner. Damage will only occur if drivers speed through the bollards and are unable to judge the widith available. These people should use the bypass or take another test. Dave Jones does not understand the law regarding weight.It is not the weight of the vehicle, it is the weight the vehicle could be if it is fully loaded. This includes most 4X4 vehicles. What these bollards have not done is to stop the flagrant abuse of the law by many van drivers drivers. At least 250 vans a week break the law and Dave Jones and Dave Morton are correct when they advocate Height Restriction. It would also help if Thames Valley Police monitored the bridge once a week between 8am and 9.15am. A few visits per month would pay for the height restrictors.
Posted by: sportsturf, Marlow on 11:39pm Mon 24 Mar 08
ive never read such a crock of sh**t in my life, what vehicle of standard manufacture does not fit thru those bollards, i drve a 4x4 truck, with big tyres, ican fit thru, my friend drives a range rover sport with aftermarket alloys, she fits thru, ive even seen a lamborghini murcellago fit thru, if you are under the weight limit and cannot get your vehicle thru them then you should not be in charge of a vehicle that you do not comprehend its dimensions of..im glad they are there, i followed a 7.5 ton Argois lorry over the bridge on day and he avoided the old width restrictions by going right of them on wrong side of road...i promptly reported him, to police and his depot...so stop moaning about them and learn to drive properly, most of you have probably only lived in marlow 10 minutes..ive been here all my life..
ive never read such a crock of sh**t in my life, what vehicle of standard manufacture does not fit thru those bollards, i drve a 4x4 truck, with big tyres, ican fit thru, my friend drives a range rover sport with aftermarket alloys, she fits thru, ive even seen a lamborghini murcellago fit thru, if you are under the weight limit and cannot get your vehicle thru them then you should not be in charge of a vehicle that you do not comprehend its dimensions of..im glad they are there, i followed a 7.5 ton Argois lorry over the bridge on day and he avoided the old width restrictions by going right of them on wrong side of road...i promptly reported him, to police and his depot...so stop moaning about them and learn to drive properly, most of you have probably only lived in marlow 10 minutes..ive been here all my life..
Posted by: rhona, Marlow on 10:44pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Many people here say they are careful drivers and have never had a problem driving through the bridge. I myself had never even scuffed my tyres going over the bridge despite crossing back AND forth almost everyday since i started driving (10 years ago) but 4 days ago I misjudged the newer, even NARROWER black bollards at night (my car is only a hatchback but still wide enough to only have a few inches clearance so harldy a weight issue) and they sliced a 3inch flap in virtually brand new tyre. The point is, why the hell should people be punished with a £100 bill, disruption to traffic AND the possibility of a dangerous blowout accident for making a 1in1000 slight misjudgement.
Criticise the victims all you like, I'd like to see how you feel when it finally happens to you
Many people here say they are careful drivers and have never had a problem driving through the bridge. I myself had never even scuffed my tyres going over the bridge despite crossing back AND forth almost everyday since i started driving (10 years ago) but 4 days ago I misjudged the newer, even NARROWER black bollards at night (my car is only a hatchback but still wide enough to only have a few inches clearance so harldy a weight issue) and they sliced a 3inch flap in virtually brand new tyre. The point is, why the hell should people be punished with a £100 bill, disruption to traffic AND the possibility of a dangerous blowout accident for making a 1in1000 slight misjudgement.
Criticise the victims all you like, I'd like to see how you feel when it finally happens to you
Posted by: rhona, Marlow on 10:47pm Tue 25 Mar 08
Many people here say they are careful drivers and have never had a problem driving through the bridge. I myself had never even scuffed my tyres going over the bridge despite crossing back AND forth almost everyday since i started driving (10 years ago) but 4 days ago I misjudged the newer, even NARROWER black bollards at night (my car is only a hatchback but still wide enough to only have a few inches clearance so harldy a weight issue) and they sliced a 3inch flap in virtually brand new tyre. The point is, why the hell should people be punished with a £100 bill, disruption to traffic AND the possibility of a dangerous blowout accident for making a 1in1000 slight misjudgement.
Criticise the victims all you like, I'd like to see how you feel when it finally happens to you
Many people here say they are careful drivers and have never had a problem driving through the bridge. I myself had never even scuffed my tyres going over the bridge despite crossing back AND forth almost everyday since i started driving (10 years ago) but 4 days ago I misjudged the newer, even NARROWER black bollards at night (my car is only a hatchback but still wide enough to only have a few inches clearance so harldy a weight issue) and they sliced a 3inch flap in virtually brand new tyre. The point is, why the hell should people be punished with a £100 bill, disruption to traffic AND the possibility of a dangerous blowout accident for making a 1in1000 slight misjudgement.
Criticise the victims all you like, I'd like to see how you feel when it finally happens to you
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 9:11am Wed 26 Mar 08
Well thanks for the unsubstansiated facts (at leat 250 vans a week) and the complete b*****ks (tyres are cheap, It is not the weight of the vehicle, it is the weight the vehicle could be if it is fully loaded, completely untrue), but i still haven't seen one good justifacation for the width restriction.
Clearly there is an issue as several people have now had their tyres damaged. IF this is purely down to poor driving then that is an issue for the police to deal with, however i don't remember any part of the driving test requiring you to drive a vehicle througha gap with minimal clearence.
As for the comments that there are no vehicles on the market, that're too wide then prove it. One of you who claims to have lived in Marlow since time began, measure the width between the bollards and publish it, then there can be no dispute.
I don't claim to live in Marlow and never have, i also don't see how the length of time someone has lived there should have any bearing on them being able to comment on the issue, sportsturf.
Well thanks for the unsubstansiated facts (at leat 250 vans a week) and the complete b*****ks (tyres are cheap, It is not the weight of the vehicle, it is the weight the vehicle could be if it is fully loaded, completely untrue), but i still haven't seen one good justifacation for the width restriction.
Clearly there is an issue as several people have now had their tyres damaged. IF this is purely down to poor driving then that is an issue for the police to deal with, however i don't remember any part of the driving test requiring you to drive a vehicle througha gap with minimal clearence.
As for the comments that there are no vehicles on the market, that're too wide then prove it. One of you who claims to have lived in Marlow since time began, measure the width between the bollards and publish it, then there can be no dispute.
I don't claim to live in Marlow and never have, i also don't see how the length of time someone has lived there should have any bearing on them being able to comment on the issue, sportsturf.
Posted by: tom, marlow on 1:55pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote]Well thanks for the unsubstansiated facts (at leat 250 vans a week)[/quote]
I got the impression he'd been out counting them so I dont see what's unsubstantiated about that - seems a plausible number to me. I suppose you can argue about what constitutes a van or whether it was over weight.
[quote]the complete b*****ks (tyres are cheap, It is not the weight of the vehicle, it is the weight the vehicle could be if it is fully loaded, completely untrue),[/quote]
Tyres are cheap compared with the cost of the repairing the damage caused by misjudging a conventional width restriction (or height restriction for that matter)
The limit is stated on the signs as 3 tonnes mgw i.e. max gross weight.
Best definition I could find for mgw was
[quote]Maximum Gross Weight (MGW)
The maximum figure set by the manufacturer for the gross weight. This will normally be the technically permissible maximum based on the carrying capacity of the tyres, axles, coupling, suspension and chassis but may have been adjusted downwards for commercial reasons[/quote]
This includes fuel, passengers and anything else you may be carrying.
You can find that printed on the metal plate inside your car door. Theres loads of stuff in various government web sites about how its you responsibility to make sure that you dont exceed it, but I dont suppose many people go round weighing their car when loaded. I never have.
[quote]One of you who claims to have lived in Marlow since time began, measure the width between the bollards and publish it, then there can be no dispute.[/quote]
Don't need to there's a bleeding great sign saying 6' 6" width restriction. My car is 5'8" so I can go through comfortable in the knowledge that there is plenty of room to spare.
If my car was 6'5" I'd think twice about it.
[quote]someone has lived there should have any bearing on them being able to comment on the issue, sportsturf[/quote]
It doesnt matter how long you live there. If you have some respect for an historic and attractive local landmark, then you dont want to see it get trashed.
Well thanks for the unsubstansiated facts (at leat 250 vans a week)
I got the impression he'd been out counting them so I dont see what's unsubstantiated about that - seems a plausible number to me. I suppose you can argue about what constitutes a van or whether it was over weight.
the complete b*****ks (tyres are cheap, It is not the weight of the vehicle, it is the weight the vehicle could be if it is fully loaded, completely untrue),
Tyres are cheap compared with the cost of the repairing the damage caused by misjudging a conventional width restriction (or height restriction for that matter)
The limit is stated on the signs as 3 tonnes mgw i.e. max gross weight.
Best definition I could find for mgw was
Maximum Gross Weight (MGW)
The maximum figure set by the manufacturer for the gross weight. This will normally be the technically permissible maximum based on the carrying capacity of the tyres, axles, coupling, suspension and chassis but may have been adjusted downwards for commercial reasons
This includes fuel, passengers and anything else you may be carrying.
You can find that printed on the metal plate inside your car door. Theres loads of stuff in various government web sites about how its you responsibility to make sure that you dont exceed it, but I dont suppose many people go round weighing their car when loaded. I never have.
One of you who claims to have lived in Marlow since time began, measure the width between the bollards and publish it, then there can be no dispute.
Don't need to there's a bleeding great sign saying 6' 6" width restriction. My car is 5'8" so I can go through comfortable in the knowledge that there is plenty of room to spare.
If my car was 6'5" I'd think twice about it.
someone has lived there should have any bearing on them being able to comment on the issue, sportsturf
It doesnt matter how long you live there. If you have some respect for an historic and attractive local landmark, then you dont want to see it get trashed.
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 2:42pm Wed 26 Mar 08
ok.
1. I didn't get the impression he'd been counting as i would expect an accurate figure, rather then at least 250 (however if he was counting i wouldn't blame him for stopping once it had got that high)
2. That isn't what you originally said though. I, as do many others, buy decent tyres for my car and i would not consider them cheap. However compared to a house, yes they are. Potentially you could damge your wheels as well and face a bill of thousands, so i wouldn't agree they are cheap.
3.On the issue of the weight, it is extremely rare to find any passenger vehicles that will exceed this. One of the new Landrover Discovery's is the only one i can think of.
4. Fantastic, so can you tell me is this the old width restriction or has it been revised to represent the new style bollards?
Also how did a lamborghini murcellago pass through as stated by sportsturf when they are 2045mm and the restriction is 1980mm?
5. I totally agree, however i believe most people would not ike they're cars trashed either. If you vehicle is not too heavy for the bridge you should not be restricted access to it. Or just make it a footbridge only if you feel the need for preserving it overides it's purpose.
ok.
1. I didn't get the impression he'd been counting as i would expect an accurate figure, rather then at least 250 (however if he was counting i wouldn't blame him for stopping once it had got that high)
2. That isn't what you originally said though. I, as do many others, buy decent tyres for my car and i would not consider them cheap. However compared to a house, yes they are. Potentially you could damge your wheels as well and face a bill of thousands, so i wouldn't agree they are cheap.
3.On the issue of the weight, it is extremely rare to find any passenger vehicles that will exceed this. One of the new Landrover Discovery's is the only one i can think of.
4. Fantastic, so can you tell me is this the old width restriction or has it been revised to represent the new style bollards?
Also how did a lamborghini murcellago pass through as stated by sportsturf when they are 2045mm and the restriction is 1980mm?
5. I totally agree, however i believe most people would not ike they're cars trashed either. If you vehicle is not too heavy for the bridge you should not be restricted access to it. Or just make it a footbridge only if you feel the need for preserving it overides it's purpose.
Posted by: tom, marlow on 3:09pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote]One of the new Landrover Discovery's is the only one i can think of.[/quote]
and bigger Range Rovers, Porsche Cayenne S. Probably come up with a few more. Loads of them round here, its probably the same in beaconsfield.
Ironically, in light of discussion about vans, I think a lot of transits are OK, provided you dont overloads them
One of the new Landrover Discovery's is the only one i can think of.
and bigger Range Rovers, Porsche Cayenne S. Probably come up with a few more. Loads of them round here, its probably the same in beaconsfield.
Ironically, in light of discussion about vans, I think a lot of transits are OK, provided you dont overloads them
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 4:30pm Wed 26 Mar 08
The Range Rover, yes by 100 Kg (going by MGW)and the Porsche by 80Kg (only the S the standard Cayenne is just under). However the Porsche will fit through, but the RangeRover won't.
Transit vans are an interesting one, taking the MGW, they're nearly all over, some by a significant amount, yet they will all fit through the width restrictor.
The Range Rover, yes by 100 Kg (going by MGW)and the Porsche by 80Kg (only the S the standard Cayenne is just under). However the Porsche will fit through, but the RangeRover won't.
Transit vans are an interesting one, taking the MGW, they're nearly all over, some by a significant amount, yet they will all fit through the width restrictor.
Posted by: tom, marlow on 5:50pm Wed 26 Mar 08
But if you set a height restriction low enough to stop a transit then you are going to upset just as many people. When I have a roof box on my car, theres a few car park entrances that are pretty tight.
What it really needs is a bit of technology. Camera reads the number plate, looks up the vehicle on the dvla database and if its mgw is too big, lights up a sign saying "if you drive over the bridge you'll get a £60 ticket"
That'll annoy the camera haters :-))
BTW when I drove over the bridge and back this afternoon I saw 4 transits cross the bridge on the way out and 2 on the way back. Thats in 2 30 second intervals. 250 a week sounds very plausible
But if you set a height restriction low enough to stop a transit then you are going to upset just as many people. When I have a roof box on my car, theres a few car park entrances that are pretty tight.
What it really needs is a bit of technology. Camera reads the number plate, looks up the vehicle on the dvla database and if its mgw is too big, lights up a sign saying "if you drive over the bridge you'll get a £60 ticket"
That'll annoy the camera haters :-))
BTW when I drove over the bridge and back this afternoon I saw 4 transits cross the bridge on the way out and 2 on the way back. Thats in 2 30 second intervals. 250 a week sounds very plausible
Posted by: davejones, Beaconsfield on 9:05am Thu 27 Mar 08
Fair enough, I totally agree with you.
The camera would be fairly unobtrusive, wouldn't create a bottle-neck for the traffic and would be far more likely to prevent people using the bridge when they're over the weight limit.
Also if the numbers that use the bridge currently, but are over the limit are as high as you suspect it would pay for itself in no time.
Fair enough, I totally agree with you.
The camera would be fairly unobtrusive, wouldn't create a bottle-neck for the traffic and would be far more likely to prevent people using the bridge when they're over the weight limit.
Also if the numbers that use the bridge currently, but are over the limit are as high as you suspect it would pay for itself in no time.
Posted by: Lewis Le Vert, Marlow on 9:30am Fri 28 Mar 08
Maximum Gross Weight (MGW)
The maximum figure set by the manufacturer for the gross weight. This will normally be the technically permissible maximum based on the carrying capacity of the tyres, axles, coupling, suspension and chassis. The vehicle does not have to weigh over 3tons when loaded it has to be capable of weighing over 3tons. Ask Billinghurst & Sons whose empty vehicle was spotted by a rare police visit and they were fined. The van will have its weight capacity shown on the metal plate inside the drivers door so there is no excuse.
PS I have completed surveys lasting over 1.5 hours and I was optomistic when I said at least 250 vehicles a week broke the law as I only multiplied the average week day abuse by 5 and did not allow for any abuse at the weekends.
Height restriction is the only answer but the bollards will deter those who cannot drive safely.
Maximum Gross Weight (MGW)
The maximum figure set by the manufacturer for the gross weight. This will normally be the technically permissible maximum based on the carrying capacity of the tyres, axles, coupling, suspension and chassis. The vehicle does not have to weigh over 3tons when loaded it has to be capable of weighing over 3tons. Ask Billinghurst & Sons whose empty vehicle was spotted by a rare police visit and they were fined. The van will have its weight capacity shown on the metal plate inside the drivers door so there is no excuse.
PS I have completed surveys lasting over 1.5 hours and I was optomistic when I said at least 250 vehicles a week broke the law as I only multiplied the average week day abuse by 5 and did not allow for any abuse at the weekends.
Height restriction is the only answer but the bollards will deter those who cannot drive safely.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
