Debate needed over weight limit on iconic bridge, says police inspector

Police chief: debate needed over weight limit on iconic bridge

Police chief: debate needed over weight limit on iconic bridge

Police chief: debate needed over weight limit on iconic bridge

Police chief: debate needed over weight limit on iconic bridge

First published in News by , Reporter

A DEBATE needs to be had over the right weight limit for Marlow Bridge to avoid "persecuting" families in large vehicles, according the policeman who is responsible for enforcing it.

Inspector Scott Messenger is searching for a solution to the problem which saw drivers of large 4X4 vehicles prevented from crossing for being over the 3-tonne limit during a police operation last year.

Marlow's top-ranking officer said drivers of large vehicles are often unaware of the weight of their cars and cargo, and with some models of Range Rover and Land Rover straddling the 3-tonne mark, it is tough for police to enforce.

If a structural report found the bridge capable of taking more weight, then Inspector Messenger suggested a higher limit such as 3.5 tonnes would mean most 4X4s would fall within it and the limit would be easier to police..

He said: "It’s fair to say that last time we enforced it, depending on who you talk to, it was the most popular or reviled thing in Marlow.

"The bridge is an iconic part of Marlow and there are more sensible ways of dealing with it rather than constant enforcement.

"The limit is very difficult to enforce and I know of a lot of people who just do not know what their vehicles weigh.

"There needs to be a debate about the right weight limit for Marlow Bridge due to the proliferation of 4X4 vehicles, many of which are close to if not over the current limit.

"I want to make it clear we are committed to discouraging large vans and commercial vehicles who clearly should not use the bridge, but I do not want to discriminate against families just for choosing to drive a large car.

"The last thing the police want to do is persecute middle England. The bridge is an iconic structure and we are committed to enforcing the limit, but what the limit is should be debated."

Opinion was divided over a police operation in October which saw fines totalling £800 handed out to commercial vehicles and more controversially, some large cars being asked to turn around.

Marlow MP Dominic Grieve backed the operation, saying drivers of large cars should be prepared to take a detour and use the A404 bypass instead

While Insp. Messenger insists enforcement is still important and the bridge's protection paramount, he believes better signage along with a fresh council study into the limit is a good idea.

He said: "As things have moved on, in conjunction with Transport for Bucks, we need to have a good look at the signage, it’s a work in progress.

"I totally understand the way the council have to work but from a police perspective we work very quickly, and if we identify a problem, we sort it out, whereas the council has to think a lot more strategically and with long term planning.

"There’s the consultation process and the budget restraints and I understand that, but in an ideal world I would look for them to change the limit to 3.5 tons and improve the signage. It would at least clear up the confusion."

Transport for Bucks said it is prepared to have a debate over the situation, insisting the highways authority shares the police’s concern about preserving the bridge.

Spokesman Dan Elworthy said: "As with any project, we always welcome working collaboratively with our colleagues from Thames Valley Police.

"Any request to make changes to weight restrictions on bridges would need thorough investigation and consultation to make sure any changes do not compromise the safety of the bridge.

"We look forward to working with TVP regarding Marlow Bridge to reach the appropriate outcome."

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:29am Sun 2 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

Maybe it's time to grasp the nettle and declare the bridge to be unsuitable for motor vehicles?
Maybe it's time to grasp the nettle and declare the bridge to be unsuitable for motor vehicles? gpn01
  • Score: -11

10:22am Sun 2 Feb 14

maccapaka says...

A debate. Did Inspector Messenger really say that, or is it the BFP getting carried away with the headline. It is quite simple really. If a structural engineer concludes that it is safe to raise the weight limit then do it. If not then the Chelsea tractors will have to find another route. However if there is a debate who is going to be invited to it. Will it be like Question Time, a phone in or a BFP online poll. Can I get tickets for it ?
A debate. Did Inspector Messenger really say that, or is it the BFP getting carried away with the headline. It is quite simple really. If a structural engineer concludes that it is safe to raise the weight limit then do it. If not then the Chelsea tractors will have to find another route. However if there is a debate who is going to be invited to it. Will it be like Question Time, a phone in or a BFP online poll. Can I get tickets for it ? maccapaka
  • Score: 10

11:17am Sun 2 Feb 14

Mr Methane says...

The police sometimes forget that their job is to enforce the law not debate it.
The police sometimes forget that their job is to enforce the law not debate it. Mr Methane
  • Score: 14

12:06pm Sun 2 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed stevet123
  • Score: -6

12:28pm Sun 2 Feb 14

jayeatman says...

Since when was enforcing the law defined as 'persecution'?
I'm sorry Inspector but even in South Bucks, the drivers of vehicles weighing 3tons+ are not 'Middle England'. I suggest you stop debating the law and just get on with enforcing it.
The only debate that needs to be had is an engineering one, not one that might happen to make your job easier.
Since when was enforcing the law defined as 'persecution'? I'm sorry Inspector but even in South Bucks, the drivers of vehicles weighing 3tons+ are not 'Middle England'. I suggest you stop debating the law and just get on with enforcing it. The only debate that needs to be had is an engineering one, not one that might happen to make your job easier. jayeatman
  • Score: 21

12:36pm Sun 2 Feb 14

jayeatman says...

stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
Totally impractical!
Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]Totally impractical! Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense. jayeatman
  • Score: 12

3:46pm Sun 2 Feb 14

J B Blackett says...

stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers.
.
But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow.
.
Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description.
.
And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers. . But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow. . Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description. . And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly. J B Blackett
  • Score: 7

7:55pm Sun 2 Feb 14

s6blr says...

There is NO DEBATE needed - the police need to do their job and ENFORCE the law. If drivers are stupid, or too lazy to RTFM it is not Marlow Bridge's fault, it is their fault .

Should one of their lard rovers break through the bridge and land in the river they'd be quick yo sue when they didn't/wouldn't read!

If there are questions whether the bridge can safely carry more weight, then an ENGINEERING study should be ordered if needed.

Debate ended before it needed to not start!
There is NO DEBATE needed - the police need to do their job and ENFORCE the law. If drivers are stupid, or too lazy to RTFM it is not Marlow Bridge's fault, it is their fault . Should one of their lard rovers break through the bridge and land in the river they'd be quick yo sue when they didn't/wouldn't read! If there are questions whether the bridge can safely carry more weight, then an ENGINEERING study should be ordered if needed. Debate ended before it needed to not start! s6blr
  • Score: 17

9:13pm Sun 2 Feb 14

allrightnow2 says...

Surely, if that is the weight limit that has been deemed sensible then that is the weight limit that should stay - that's not discrimination but safety.
Surely, if that is the weight limit that has been deemed sensible then that is the weight limit that should stay - that's not discrimination but safety. allrightnow2
  • Score: 8

8:59am Mon 3 Feb 14

acjy1985 says...

Something tells me the officer in question drives a large 'family' car
Something tells me the officer in question drives a large 'family' car acjy1985
  • Score: 7

1:20pm Mon 3 Feb 14

J B Blackett says...

acjy1985 wrote:
Something tells me the officer in question drives a large 'family' car
In that case he might be driven personally by a persecution / victim complex.
.
We should feel sorry for him if that is so.
.
Or he might be thinking of the 'family-sized' police vans heading for (or away from) some North Marlow pubs on certain nights - the bollards are quite close on the entrance/exit to the bridge. And the usual arrested drunks etc can't be made to walk all the way to Maidenhead. That would be not nice at all and maybe a sobering experience
.
[quote][p][bold]acjy1985[/bold] wrote: Something tells me the officer in question drives a large 'family' car[/p][/quote]In that case he might be driven personally by a persecution / victim complex. . We should feel sorry for him if that is so. . Or he might be thinking of the 'family-sized' police vans heading for (or away from) some North Marlow pubs on certain nights - the bollards are quite close on the entrance/exit to the bridge. And the usual arrested drunks etc can't be made to walk all the way to Maidenhead. That would be not nice at all and maybe a sobering experience . J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Bartholomew HuckleBerry says...

This police man must be living in Marlow with a big car and also has crony relatives that want this "debate". Why a debate? Follow the rules and the law just like everyone else has to. Simples ! Stop making things so complicated when there is absolutely no need to.
This police man must be living in Marlow with a big car and also has crony relatives that want this "debate". Why a debate? Follow the rules and the law just like everyone else has to. Simples ! Stop making things so complicated when there is absolutely no need to. Bartholomew HuckleBerry
  • Score: 1

2:27pm Mon 3 Feb 14

s6blr says...

How about we debate the weight of the PC / Chief and whether their ego's and over-inflated sense of worth is too much for Marlow Bridge to carry?
How about we debate the weight of the PC / Chief and whether their ego's and over-inflated sense of worth is too much for Marlow Bridge to carry? s6blr
  • Score: 2

5:44pm Mon 3 Feb 14

legiopatrianostra says...

Nice to see the Police using common-sense. Enforcement isn't always the option.
Nice to see the Police using common-sense. Enforcement isn't always the option. legiopatrianostra
  • Score: -3

7:22pm Mon 3 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

jayeatman wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
Totally impractical!
Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
still wrong, as a driver could get a ticket, and be under weight, so if the police think the driver is over weight, then the police should make the driver follow them to a weigh bridge, totally unfair to an underweight vehicle
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]Totally impractical! Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.[/p][/quote]still wrong, as a driver could get a ticket, and be under weight, so if the police think the driver is over weight, then the police should make the driver follow them to a weigh bridge, totally unfair to an underweight vehicle stevet123
  • Score: -3

7:28pm Mon 3 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

s6blr wrote:
There is NO DEBATE needed - the police need to do their job and ENFORCE the law. If drivers are stupid, or too lazy to RTFM it is not Marlow Bridge's fault, it is their fault .

Should one of their lard rovers break through the bridge and land in the river they'd be quick yo sue when they didn't/wouldn't read!

If there are questions whether the bridge can safely carry more weight, then an ENGINEERING study should be ordered if needed.

Debate ended before it needed to not start!
questions whether the bridge can safely carry more weight, then an ENGINEERING study should be ordered if needed

Needed now, so over the years money spent on the bridge to strengthen it,what has happened ?
[quote][p][bold]s6blr[/bold] wrote: There is NO DEBATE needed - the police need to do their job and ENFORCE the law. If drivers are stupid, or too lazy to RTFM it is not Marlow Bridge's fault, it is their fault . Should one of their lard rovers break through the bridge and land in the river they'd be quick yo sue when they didn't/wouldn't read! If there are questions whether the bridge can safely carry more weight, then an ENGINEERING study should be ordered if needed. Debate ended before it needed to not start![/p][/quote]questions whether the bridge can safely carry more weight, then an ENGINEERING study should be ordered if needed Needed now, so over the years money spent on the bridge to strengthen it,what has happened ? stevet123
  • Score: -3

7:33pm Mon 3 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

J B Blackett wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers.
.
But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow.
.
Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description.
.
And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.
perhaps a new bridge to be built between church lane Bisham across the thames to lower pound lane or a temporary one, then the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW, as this bridge is 170 years old, its about time something was done
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers. . But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow. . Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description. . And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.[/p][/quote]perhaps a new bridge to be built between church lane Bisham across the thames to lower pound lane or a temporary one, then the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW, as this bridge is 170 years old, its about time something was done stevet123
  • Score: -3

10:13pm Mon 3 Feb 14

marlowbucks says...

"the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW"
Good suggestion - if possible. If not, then use ANPR based on max permitted gross weight of the vehicle. Not ideal but better than those stupid approach obstructions.
"the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW" Good suggestion - if possible. If not, then use ANPR based on max permitted gross weight of the vehicle. Not ideal but better than those stupid approach obstructions. marlowbucks
  • Score: 3

2:23pm Tue 4 Feb 14

jayeatman says...

stevet123 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
Totally impractical!
Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
still wrong, as a driver could get a ticket, and be under weight, so if the police think the driver is over weight, then the police should make the driver follow them to a weigh bridge, totally unfair to an underweight vehicle
You don't understand the law: It isn't the actual weight that counts: It's the MGW (maximum gross weight). It may not be what you'd like it to be but that's what it is. Enforcing actual weights is impractical.
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]Totally impractical! Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.[/p][/quote]still wrong, as a driver could get a ticket, and be under weight, so if the police think the driver is over weight, then the police should make the driver follow them to a weigh bridge, totally unfair to an underweight vehicle[/p][/quote]You don't understand the law: It isn't the actual weight that counts: It's the MGW (maximum gross weight). It may not be what you'd like it to be but that's what it is. Enforcing actual weights is impractical. jayeatman
  • Score: 5

2:58pm Tue 4 Feb 14

jayeatman says...

stevet123 wrote:
J B Blackett wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers.
.
But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow.
.
Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description.
.
And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.
perhaps a new bridge to be built between church lane Bisham across the thames to lower pound lane or a temporary one, then the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW, as this bridge is 170 years old, its about time something was done
Pretty sure that happened in 1972, just a bit downstream. It's called Marlow Bypass. Marlow Bridge is perfectly fine as it is: To be maintained in good condition, it just needs idiots who are ignorant of the law stopping from driving their obese 4x4s and white vans over it. They already have a perfectly good alternative called a bypass.
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers. . But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow. . Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description. . And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.[/p][/quote]perhaps a new bridge to be built between church lane Bisham across the thames to lower pound lane or a temporary one, then the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW, as this bridge is 170 years old, its about time something was done[/p][/quote]Pretty sure that happened in 1972, just a bit downstream. It's called Marlow Bypass. Marlow Bridge is perfectly fine as it is: To be maintained in good condition, it just needs idiots who are ignorant of the law stopping from driving their obese 4x4s and white vans over it. They already have a perfectly good alternative called a bypass. jayeatman
  • Score: 16

4:56pm Thu 6 Feb 14

m1ckey says...

perhaps an rsj each side of the bridge would solve the problem ,just high enough for a family saloon car to pass underneath, but too low for a Chelsea tractor to pass. simples!!
perhaps an rsj each side of the bridge would solve the problem ,just high enough for a family saloon car to pass underneath, but too low for a Chelsea tractor to pass. simples!! m1ckey
  • Score: -3

5:15pm Thu 6 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

m1ckey wrote:
perhaps an rsj each side of the bridge would solve the problem ,just high enough for a family saloon car to pass underneath, but too low for a Chelsea tractor to pass. simples!!
Heightist!
[quote][p][bold]m1ckey[/bold] wrote: perhaps an rsj each side of the bridge would solve the problem ,just high enough for a family saloon car to pass underneath, but too low for a Chelsea tractor to pass. simples!![/p][/quote]Heightist! gpn01
  • Score: 3

12:43am Fri 7 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

jayeatman wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
J B Blackett wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers.
.
But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow.
.
Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description.
.
And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.
perhaps a new bridge to be built between church lane Bisham across the thames to lower pound lane or a temporary one, then the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW, as this bridge is 170 years old, its about time something was done
Pretty sure that happened in 1972, just a bit downstream. It's called Marlow Bypass. Marlow Bridge is perfectly fine as it is: To be maintained in good condition, it just needs idiots who are ignorant of the law stopping from driving their obese 4x4s and white vans over it. They already have a perfectly good alternative called a bypass.
if you had a brain your be dangerous
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]That would be a bit of a strategic turn-round for the Council and a potential tactical turn-round for some misinformed , misdirected but innocent drivers. . But it might be a turn-on for the TVP who are (allegedly) on the look-out for minor traffic offenders of any description ; particularly in Marlow. . Marlow Bridge is after all over 170 years old and was not built to cope with really heavy loads. It is also a Grade I protected building and probably needs protection from unelected officials of any description. . And how many people can simultaneously walk on it , when two 3 ton vehicles pass in the middle ? There's a puzzle for the planners. Possibly.[/p][/quote]perhaps a new bridge to be built between church lane Bisham across the thames to lower pound lane or a temporary one, then the engineers can strenghten the marlow bridge to 5 ton MGW, as this bridge is 170 years old, its about time something was done[/p][/quote]Pretty sure that happened in 1972, just a bit downstream. It's called Marlow Bypass. Marlow Bridge is perfectly fine as it is: To be maintained in good condition, it just needs idiots who are ignorant of the law stopping from driving their obese 4x4s and white vans over it. They already have a perfectly good alternative called a bypass.[/p][/quote]if you had a brain your be dangerous stevet123
  • Score: -4

12:45am Fri 7 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

jayeatman wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
jayeatman wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed
Totally impractical!
Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
still wrong, as a driver could get a ticket, and be under weight, so if the police think the driver is over weight, then the police should make the driver follow them to a weigh bridge, totally unfair to an underweight vehicle
You don't understand the law: It isn't the actual weight that counts: It's the MGW (maximum gross weight). It may not be what you'd like it to be but that's what it is. Enforcing actual weights is impractical.
well i am telling you it should not go on mgw, as i said before vehicles are under weight when going over
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: Obviously this needs to be looked into, idea would be to have weigh bridges both sides of the bridge, then if the vehicle is over 3 tonnes they they would have to turn round and use the A404, but for intance a long wheel based Mercedes Sprinter van, fully laden is 3.5 ton, but if the van is half full say, and under 3 ton, that van can use the bridge, i know of a guy with a mercedes sprinter van which was empty, so the van was under 2,5 ton, police issued him with a ticket, he thought the ticket, but the police acted on the gross weight of 3.5 ton, which is wrong, so weigh bridges should be installed[/p][/quote]Totally impractical! Weigh your vehicle and then turn round if it's too heavy? Turn round where exactly? A recipe for gridlock. That's why the law is mgw. It's simple, clear and enforcable. Ignorance of the law is no defense.[/p][/quote]still wrong, as a driver could get a ticket, and be under weight, so if the police think the driver is over weight, then the police should make the driver follow them to a weigh bridge, totally unfair to an underweight vehicle[/p][/quote]You don't understand the law: It isn't the actual weight that counts: It's the MGW (maximum gross weight). It may not be what you'd like it to be but that's what it is. Enforcing actual weights is impractical.[/p][/quote]well i am telling you it should not go on mgw, as i said before vehicles are under weight when going over stevet123
  • Score: -8

8:38pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Dickitdo says...

Why does the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT go out of their way to make life complicated for all ordinary people. Most people with a 4x4 will not know what G. V. W. means ,so why do the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT try to make life more complicated , all that is needed is a sign that says MAXIMUM WEIGHT 3 Tonnes.It may not suit the Police , because if they suspect a vehicle is overweight they would have to direct that vehicle to a weighbridge for it to be weighed . The underhand way that the limit is administered at the moment is a complete confidence trick orchestrated by the police to relieve people of their money in fines . And because they can!.
Why does the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT go out of their way to make life complicated for all ordinary people. Most people with a 4x4 will not know what G. V. W. means ,so why do the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT try to make life more complicated , all that is needed is a sign that says MAXIMUM WEIGHT 3 Tonnes.It may not suit the Police , because if they suspect a vehicle is overweight they would have to direct that vehicle to a weighbridge for it to be weighed . The underhand way that the limit is administered at the moment is a complete confidence trick orchestrated by the police to relieve people of their money in fines . And because they can!. Dickitdo
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree