Upping Marlow Bridge limit not the answer, says society

Upping bridge limit not the answer, says society

Upping bridge limit not the answer, says society

First published in News by , Reporter

INCREASING the weight limit on Marlow Bridge is not the right way forward, according to a group committed to preserving the town.

Martin Blunkell, chairman of the Marlow Society, responded to Marlow inspector Scott Messenger’s calls for a discussion over the right limit for the iconic structure to allow families with large 4x4 vehicles to cross.

As featured in last week’s MFP, Marlow’s top-ranking police officer said if a study were to show the bridge capable of taking more weight, then a higher limit of three and a half tonnes may be more suitable.

The Marlow Society, which was originally founded to protect the bridge, lobbied Thames Valley Police to carry out last year’s enforcement operation which saw large 4x4s turned away on approach.

And chairman Mr Blunkell said raising the limit would simply shift the problem and tempt even larger vehicles to attempt to cross the bridge, adding motorists have a responsibility to know their own vehicle’s weight.

He said: "We have confidence that the police are doing their best to uphold the law and we recognise the issue.

"But we rely on the good will and the common sense of Marlow people to look after their most precious asset, as there is little money available to repair it if it gets damaged."

Readers have responded to Insp. Messenger’s call for a debate over the historic three-tonne limit, with many insisting the existing restrictions should remain.

Station Road resident Richard Hunt suggested instead of a change to the weight limit, the authorities should consider reducing crossing traffic to one way at a time to reduce weight stress and increase flow.

He said : "With all the projected expansion in our already overcrowded Thames Valley, traffic will gridlock even more. Save the pressure on our bridge if needed by single file movements only on the bridge at any one time, this in turn will reduce the stress weight by as much as 50 per cent during busy times.

"Save and sign our bridge in a sensible way and it will give us all a second way out to the A404 bypass."

Other suggestions include installing cameras on the bridge to catch and fine overweight vehicles, though this is prohibited given the structure’s Grade I listed status.

Bucks Councty Council, the highways authority, insisted any change to weight restrictions would need to be carefully investigated but said it is prepared to work with police towards an "appropriate outcome".

Marlow’s suspension bridge was designed by Willian Tierney Clark and opened in 1832, and is a smaller scale version of Budapest’s famous Széchenyi Chain Bridge spanning the River Danube.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:42pm Sat 8 Feb 14

marlowbucks says...

ANPR cameras need not be installed directly on the structure of the bridge.
ANPR cameras need not be installed directly on the structure of the bridge. marlowbucks
  • Score: 2

1:44pm Sat 8 Feb 14

marlowbucks says...

"Other suggestions include installing cameras on the bridge to catch and fine overweight vehicles, though this is prohibited given the structure’s Grade I listed status."
ANPR cameras need not be installed directly on the structure of the bridge.

(re-posted due prob with quotation)
"Other suggestions include installing cameras on the bridge to catch and fine overweight vehicles, though this is prohibited given the structure’s Grade I listed status." ANPR cameras need not be installed directly on the structure of the bridge. (re-posted due prob with quotation) marlowbucks
  • Score: 2

5:52pm Sat 8 Feb 14

marlaboy says...

The other problem I see is if it became single line of traffic over the bridge controlled by say traffic lights then Marlow High street will become even more jammed at busy times than it is at the moment. I personally think the traffic flow is okay - it's just preventing those large 4 x 4's and loaded transit type vans that cause the damage.
The other problem I see is if it became single line of traffic over the bridge controlled by say traffic lights then Marlow High street will become even more jammed at busy times than it is at the moment. I personally think the traffic flow is okay - it's just preventing those large 4 x 4's and loaded transit type vans that cause the damage. marlaboy
  • Score: 4

9:54pm Sat 8 Feb 14

busman2009 says...

I have to say anyone using the bridge should know what the signs mean, and there is no excuse for not knowing what your vehicles Maximum weight is, If You don't know or can't be bothered to find out I suggest you send your driving licence back as you should not be driving. Restrictions are there for a reason. You may not like it but don't moan when you get a fine
I have to say anyone using the bridge should know what the signs mean, and there is no excuse for not knowing what your vehicles Maximum weight is, If You don't know or can't be bothered to find out I suggest you send your driving licence back as you should not be driving. Restrictions are there for a reason. You may not like it but don't moan when you get a fine busman2009
  • Score: 4

12:25am Sun 9 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Made sense the first time.
Made sense the first time. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

12:27am Sun 9 Feb 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

(I said that twice because I like repeating myself.)

I like repeating myself.
(I said that twice because I like repeating myself.) I like repeating myself. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: -3

1:17am Mon 10 Feb 14

stevet123 says...

mr blunkell says>>>>>>>>>> And chairman Mr Blunkell said raising the limit would simply shift the problem and tempt even larger vehicles to attempt to cross the bridge, adding motorists have a responsibility to know their own vehicle’s weight, is he just plain stupid ?, for a start the bridge has width restrictions so anything wide would be getting cut tires from the bell shape restrictors, and he says everyone should know the weight of there vehicle, well motor cars do not have weights put on them, perhaps he would like to chat to car manufactorers, then people could work out there body weight, and know if they are over weight, ie: 4 people x 15 stone is 60 stone which is over half a ton plus cars weight, mr bunkell what school did you attend
mr blunkell says>>>>>>>>>> And chairman Mr Blunkell said raising the limit would simply shift the problem and tempt even larger vehicles to attempt to cross the bridge, adding motorists have a responsibility to know their own vehicle’s weight, is he just plain stupid ?, for a start the bridge has width restrictions so anything wide would be getting cut tires from the bell shape restrictors, and he says everyone should know the weight of there vehicle, well motor cars do not have weights put on them, perhaps he would like to chat to car manufactorers, then people could work out there body weight, and know if they are over weight, ie: 4 people x 15 stone is 60 stone which is over half a ton plus cars weight, mr bunkell what school did you attend stevet123
  • Score: -1

9:22am Mon 10 Feb 14

Edgar Brooks says...

stevet123 wrote:
mr blunkell says>>>>
>>>>>
> And chairman Mr Blunkell said raising the limit would simply shift the problem and tempt even larger vehicles to attempt to cross the bridge, adding motorists have a responsibility to know their own vehicle’s weight, is he just plain stupid ?, for a start the bridge has width restrictions so anything wide would be getting cut tires from the bell shape restrictors, and he says everyone should know the weight of there vehicle, well motor cars do not have weights put on them, perhaps he would like to chat to car manufactorers, then people could work out there body weight, and know if they are over weight, ie: 4 people x 15 stone is 60 stone which is over half a ton plus cars weight, mr bunkell what school did you attend
Obviously a better school than yours; 60 stone = 840 lbs, and half a ton = 1120 lbs.
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: mr blunkell says>>>> >>>>> > And chairman Mr Blunkell said raising the limit would simply shift the problem and tempt even larger vehicles to attempt to cross the bridge, adding motorists have a responsibility to know their own vehicle’s weight, is he just plain stupid ?, for a start the bridge has width restrictions so anything wide would be getting cut tires from the bell shape restrictors, and he says everyone should know the weight of there vehicle, well motor cars do not have weights put on them, perhaps he would like to chat to car manufactorers, then people could work out there body weight, and know if they are over weight, ie: 4 people x 15 stone is 60 stone which is over half a ton plus cars weight, mr bunkell what school did you attend[/p][/quote]Obviously a better school than yours; 60 stone = 840 lbs, and half a ton = 1120 lbs. Edgar Brooks
  • Score: 2

9:49am Mon 10 Feb 14

s6blr says...

If people are (a) too stupid (b) lazy to read or (c) don't give a darn about RTFM'ing then they deserve what they get! And in this case a ticket :) for breaking the law...!
If people are (a) too stupid (b) lazy to read or (c) don't give a darn about RTFM'ing then they deserve what they get! And in this case a ticket :) for breaking the law...! s6blr
  • Score: -1

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