Harry Jellicoe

1. 1. no specific speed restriction on road

   “The section of road where this incident occurred is subject to no specific speed restriction. The national speed limit applied.”

2. 2. bridge height restriction

   “The nature of the bridge construction imposes a height restriction on vehicles passing underneath of 4.6m (15 Feet 3 Inches).”

3. 3. limited height visibility for high sided vehicles

   “The arch of the bridge Is such that the full height Is only avaliable to vehicles using the centre of the carriageway. The bridge properly bears clear signage advising of that risk and gulding high sided vehicles towards the centre of the carriageway.”

4. 4. inadequate priority signage for high sided vehicles

   “recelved evidence that on both approaches to the bridge there is clear signage warning drivers of the existence of the bridge and its height restriction, and advising high sided vehicles to utilise the centre of the available carriageway.”

5. 5. insufficient priority signage for high sided vehicles

   “light of the current signage and proper recommendation that high sided vehicles utilise the centre of the carriageway, given the restricted line of vision through the bridge arch, you may feel that the current speed limit is too high and requires revision. Likewise, there Is no signage Indicating priority of passage where high sided vehicles are required to utilise the full carriageway.”

6. 6. potential hazard for unfamiliar drivers

   “there was a clear consensus among the local drivers who gave evidence that this location posed a significant potential hazard, for the reasons given above, particularly for those motorists who were not familiar with the area.”

Linked reports

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.