Lorry stuck under Marsh House Lane bridge in Orford

PICS ADDED Lorry stuck under Marsh House Lane bridge

The lorry

The lorry

First published in News

A LORRY has become jammed under the railway bridge on Marsh House Lane in Orford for the second time in two weeks.

The wagon became stuck after 10.30am at the bridge between Hume Street and O'Leary Street - causing the road to be closed.

Only a fortnight ago, a HGV also crashed into the same bridge in a similar fashion with its roof becoming trapped under the undercarriage.

Engineers from Network Rail were called at 11am to check any damage to the bridge.

Trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use. 

Marsh House Lane is still closed and police are advising drivers to avoid the area.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:21am Fri 23 Nov 12

moleogod says...

another one. is the height correct on the bridge?
another one. is the height correct on the bridge? moleogod
  • Score: 0

11:35am Fri 23 Nov 12

hayday says...

The height markers are spot on. There are a couple of issues here though. Firstly, the bridge that frequently gets struck lorries carries the old sidings line and is significantly lower than the mainline bridge. Secondly, the signage is in feet and inches and a lot of commercial drivers these days tend to be (not all but just saying) eastern european who are used to metric dimensions (I actually thought that as part of the EU we should be displaying both)
The height markers are spot on. There are a couple of issues here though. Firstly, the bridge that frequently gets struck lorries carries the old sidings line and is significantly lower than the mainline bridge. Secondly, the signage is in feet and inches and a lot of commercial drivers these days tend to be (not all but just saying) eastern european who are used to metric dimensions (I actually thought that as part of the EU we should be displaying both) hayday
  • Score: 0

11:39am Fri 23 Nov 12

moleogod says...

oh so its WBC fault i can go with that. WBC get your bridge marking's in order
oh so its WBC fault i can go with that. WBC get your bridge marking's in order moleogod
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Nick Tessla says...

moleogod wrote:
oh so its WBC fault i can go with that. WBC get your bridge marking's in order
Is it the Council's responsibility or the owner of the bridge, which I imagine would be railtrack.



If this keeps happening perhaos they should forget about the nike logo or the old heraldic symbol for te town and replace it with a crest showing bridge with HGV passant.
[quote][p][bold]moleogod[/bold] wrote: oh so its WBC fault i can go with that. WBC get your bridge marking's in order[/p][/quote]Is it the Council's responsibility or the owner of the bridge, which I imagine would be railtrack. If this keeps happening perhaos they should forget about the nike logo or the old heraldic symbol for te town and replace it with a crest showing bridge with HGV passant. Nick Tessla
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

hillbilly 73 says...

hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester
hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester hillbilly 73
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Fri 23 Nov 12

ffsgetalife says...

If the signs are present and correct does this intimate that the drivers non-English speaking or just plain stupid?? If you drive a vehicle, you should know the measurements of that vehicle in every measurement used by the country you are driving in. Ridiculous. The bridge is going to become unsafe at this rate.
If the signs are present and correct does this intimate that the drivers non-English speaking or just plain stupid?? If you drive a vehicle, you should know the measurements of that vehicle in every measurement used by the country you are driving in. Ridiculous. The bridge is going to become unsafe at this rate. ffsgetalife
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Nick Tessla says...

It has to be wondered why two such incidents occur in such rapid succession.


Is it the same transport company? - I tried looking at the previous photos but they wouldn't display.
It has to be wondered why two such incidents occur in such rapid succession. Is it the same transport company? - I tried looking at the previous photos but they wouldn't display. Nick Tessla
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Cleopatra says...

hillbilly 73 wrote:
hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester
The report says, trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use.
[quote][p][bold]hillbilly 73[/bold] wrote: hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester[/p][/quote]The report says, trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use. Cleopatra
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Nick Tessla says...

Cleopatra wrote:
hillbilly 73 wrote: hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester
The report says, trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use.
If the bridge is redundant then would it not be better to remove it and prevent any further incidents?
[quote][p][bold]Cleopatra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hillbilly 73[/bold] wrote: hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester[/p][/quote]The report says, trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use.[/p][/quote]If the bridge is redundant then would it not be better to remove it and prevent any further incidents? Nick Tessla
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Fri 23 Nov 12

AJH123 says...

This railway bridge isnt redundant, its the main line between liverpool and Manchester, I passed over the bridge myself on Saturday, last time this happened someone on here stated that there are 4 lines over the bridge but only two of them are in use but the bridge itself is most definately not redundant
This railway bridge isnt redundant, its the main line between liverpool and Manchester, I passed over the bridge myself on Saturday, last time this happened someone on here stated that there are 4 lines over the bridge but only two of them are in use but the bridge itself is most definately not redundant AJH123
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Shaven Headed Prophet says...

AJH123 wrote:
This railway bridge isnt redundant, its the main line between liverpool and Manchester, I passed over the bridge myself on Saturday, last time this happened someone on here stated that there are 4 lines over the bridge but only two of them are in use but the bridge itself is most definately not redundant
There are two bridges next to each other. One is unused, the other is the Liverpool - Manchester line.

Last time it was the unused bridge that was struck and it looks like the same bridge, to me, in the photo.
[quote][p][bold]AJH123[/bold] wrote: This railway bridge isnt redundant, its the main line between liverpool and Manchester, I passed over the bridge myself on Saturday, last time this happened someone on here stated that there are 4 lines over the bridge but only two of them are in use but the bridge itself is most definately not redundant[/p][/quote]There are two bridges next to each other. One is unused, the other is the Liverpool - Manchester line. Last time it was the unused bridge that was struck and it looks like the same bridge, to me, in the photo. Shaven Headed Prophet
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Fri 23 Nov 12

AJH123 says...

Shaven Headed Prophet - that would make sense the lorry has hit the bridge from the same direction as last time
Shaven Headed Prophet - that would make sense the lorry has hit the bridge from the same direction as last time AJH123
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Fri 23 Nov 12

grappenhall boy says...

Another bridge delivery !
Another bridge delivery ! grappenhall boy
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Casual Postman of Orford says...

Must be a Pole dropping off a delivery on orford lane!
Must be a Pole dropping off a delivery on orford lane! Casual Postman of Orford
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Fri 23 Nov 12

The Maestro says...

Casual Postman of Orford wrote:
Must be a Pole dropping off a delivery on orford lane!
you have a thing about Polish truck drivers! Its a UK vehicle read the reg plate. Also why should we display signs in metric just because the EU say so, we go over there and have to adapt to driving on the wrong side of the road and in KPH not MPH.
[quote][p][bold]Casual Postman of Orford[/bold] wrote: Must be a Pole dropping off a delivery on orford lane![/p][/quote]you have a thing about Polish truck drivers! Its a UK vehicle read the reg plate. Also why should we display signs in metric just because the EU say so, we go over there and have to adapt to driving on the wrong side of the road and in KPH not MPH. The Maestro
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Fri 23 Nov 12

cirian75 says...

The height marker must be wrong.

The drivers can't be that daft!
The height marker must be wrong. The drivers can't be that daft! cirian75
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

GAZDELUX says...

It was the other way last time and the bridge is marked 14.9 and both hgvs that been stuck are both 14.9 same as bridge but they always give bridges extra ins ... But this bridge marking must be wrong!!
It was the other way last time and the bridge is marked 14.9 and both hgvs that been stuck are both 14.9 same as bridge but they always give bridges extra ins ... But this bridge marking must be wrong!! GAZDELUX
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Fri 23 Nov 12

notatcreamfields says...

Probably the most likely thing with be sat navs diverting lorries down there to avoid traffic and the sat navs will be assuming the user is in a car. There's plenty of drivers blindly following their sat nav in both cars and trucks even though anyone with a brain could see it wasn't a very good idea.
Probably the most likely thing with be sat navs diverting lorries down there to avoid traffic and the sat navs will be assuming the user is in a car. There's plenty of drivers blindly following their sat nav in both cars and trucks even though anyone with a brain could see it wasn't a very good idea. notatcreamfields
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Medler says...

The Maestro wrote:
Casual Postman of Orford wrote:
Must be a Pole dropping off a delivery on orford lane!
you have a thing about Polish truck drivers! Its a UK vehicle read the reg plate. Also why should we display signs in metric just because the EU say so, we go over there and have to adapt to driving on the wrong side of the road and in KPH not MPH.
It's very unlikely that a foreign truck would hit this bridge, as European Trucks will normally run at 4m, that’s about 13ft 2. If the truck that have hit it are marked up at the same height as the Bridge, somebody needs to get out with a tape measure a bit sharpish, most bridge heights are most marked up lower than they are, so either the height of the trucks are wrong or the bridge height is wrong.


As for Metrication, it has nothing to do with the EU, Metrication started in this Country before we joined and considering I’m 46 and was educated in the metric system I think it’s high time we actually went metric.
The Germans joke that Britain is going Metric, Inch by Inch.
[quote][p][bold]The Maestro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Casual Postman of Orford[/bold] wrote: Must be a Pole dropping off a delivery on orford lane![/p][/quote]you have a thing about Polish truck drivers! Its a UK vehicle read the reg plate. Also why should we display signs in metric just because the EU say so, we go over there and have to adapt to driving on the wrong side of the road and in KPH not MPH.[/p][/quote]It's very unlikely that a foreign truck would hit this bridge, as European Trucks will normally run at 4m, that’s about 13ft 2. If the truck that have hit it are marked up at the same height as the Bridge, somebody needs to get out with a tape measure a bit sharpish, most bridge heights are most marked up lower than they are, so either the height of the trucks are wrong or the bridge height is wrong. As for Metrication, it has nothing to do with the EU, Metrication started in this Country before we joined and considering I’m 46 and was educated in the metric system I think it’s high time we actually went metric. The Germans joke that Britain is going Metric, Inch by Inch. Medler
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Fri 23 Nov 12

old-codger says...

A LORRY has become jammed under the railway bridge on Marsh House Lane in Orford for the second time in two weeks. . . . .

This should read another lorry otherwise it sounds like the same lorry but thats WG for you..
A LORRY has become jammed under the railway bridge on Marsh House Lane in Orford for the second time in two weeks. . . . . This should read another lorry otherwise it sounds like the same lorry but thats WG for you.. old-codger
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Fri 23 Nov 12

old-codger says...

notatcreamfields says...
7:35pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Probably the most likely thing with be sat navs diverting lorries down there to avoid traffic and the sat navs will be assuming the user is in a car. . . . . . . . .

Thats very true notatcreamfields these sat navs have to be set for anything other than a car, They can be set for low bridge warnings as well as speed traps. Also any european language..
notatcreamfields says... 7:35pm Fri 23 Nov 12 Probably the most likely thing with be sat navs diverting lorries down there to avoid traffic and the sat navs will be assuming the user is in a car. . . . . . . . . Thats very true notatcreamfields these sat navs have to be set for anything other than a car, They can be set for low bridge warnings as well as speed traps. Also any european language.. old-codger
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Trevbert says...

this road has been resurfaced, is it a possibility that the tarmac is now higher than before and that the sign hasnt been updated to show this....

the bridge that is in use is a good few foot taller that the disused one - if its dis-used then surely its removal would make sense? as many old railway bridge in warrington have been removed... just an idea
this road has been resurfaced, is it a possibility that the tarmac is now higher than before and that the sign hasnt been updated to show this.... the bridge that is in use is a good few foot taller that the disused one - if its dis-used then surely its removal would make sense? as many old railway bridge in warrington have been removed... just an idea Trevbert
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Fri 23 Nov 12

JoeyLad says...

old-codger wrote:
A LORRY has become jammed under the railway bridge on Marsh House Lane in Orford for the second time in two weeks. . . . .

This should read another lorry otherwise it sounds like the same lorry but thats WG for you..
I've actually never come across pedant-ism like this before. You are Victor Meldrew!
[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: A LORRY has become jammed under the railway bridge on Marsh House Lane in Orford for the second time in two weeks. . . . . This should read another lorry otherwise it sounds like the same lorry but thats WG for you..[/p][/quote]I've actually never come across pedant-ism like this before. You are Victor Meldrew! JoeyLad
  • Score: 0

10:13am Sat 24 Nov 12

MikeJT says...

Its a british truck belonging to a company based on Trafford Park. We will ahve to wait for the results (as if they ever get announced) of the investigations for the cause. Road measurement MAY be an issue as there have been cases in the past of measurements being accurate vertically at the point of measure BUT not taking account of dips in the road approaching the bridge. This would effectively reduce the headroom available for longer vehicles. Driver error and/or vehicle set up may also be at fault.
Its a british truck belonging to a company based on Trafford Park. We will ahve to wait for the results (as if they ever get announced) of the investigations for the cause. Road measurement MAY be an issue as there have been cases in the past of measurements being accurate vertically at the point of measure BUT not taking account of dips in the road approaching the bridge. This would effectively reduce the headroom available for longer vehicles. Driver error and/or vehicle set up may also be at fault. MikeJT
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Sat 24 Nov 12

paulfromwire says...

I used to drive for Worthingtons a few years ago. Spoke to one of my ex work colleagues and was informed that most of their trailers are 15'3. Surely now the council should be thinking about putting a low bridge warning at the corner of O'Leary St and the other where Padgate lane ends and Marsh house lane starts.
I used to drive for Worthingtons a few years ago. Spoke to one of my ex work colleagues and was informed that most of their trailers are 15'3. Surely now the council should be thinking about putting a low bridge warning at the corner of O'Leary St and the other where Padgate lane ends and Marsh house lane starts. paulfromwire
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Sat 24 Nov 12

runway says...

The bridge has been struck many times over the years, yet the council have failed to do anything to improve warnings of the low bridge but others around Warrington also.

There are no warning signs on the approach to the bridge.

Also how much would it cost to put up a sign in metric.
The bridge has been struck many times over the years, yet the council have failed to do anything to improve warnings of the low bridge but others around Warrington also. There are no warning signs on the approach to the bridge. Also how much would it cost to put up a sign in metric. runway
  • Score: 0

8:19am Sun 25 Nov 12

MikeJT says...

Looking at Google map images of the approach roads there are warning signs on the approach to the bridge. From Marsh House Lane the warnign sign is 300m before (BUT after the last available alternative route junction). From Padgate the warning sign is actually only about 50 yards from the bridge. This direction is further confusing as the current rail bridge (which drivers would go under first) does not have a height indicator on it. This is probably on the basis of "well, if they can get under the low bridge then the higher one is OK".

Subject to their being no problem in relation to signage (eg:- incorrect height) then this will squarely be driver error, as each driver has a legal responsibility to know the height of their vehicle and to observe the road signs. However, cause is not yet known.

On the signage issue, being at a lose end in the early hours of the morning I had a look at the Highways Agency/Department of Transport rules on low bridge signage. They are so wishy washy its untrue. Comments like if a bridge is below **** it should have a warn sign......."should"? Surely it should be "must!"
Looking at Google map images of the approach roads there are warning signs on the approach to the bridge. From Marsh House Lane the warnign sign is 300m before (BUT after the last available alternative route junction). From Padgate the warning sign is actually only about 50 yards from the bridge. This direction is further confusing as the current rail bridge (which drivers would go under first) does not have a height indicator on it. This is probably on the basis of "well, if they can get under the low bridge then the higher one is OK". Subject to their being no problem in relation to signage (eg:- incorrect height) then this will squarely be driver error, as each driver has a legal responsibility to know the height of their vehicle and to observe the road signs. However, cause is not yet known. On the signage issue, being at a lose end in the early hours of the morning I had a look at the Highways Agency/Department of Transport rules on low bridge signage. They are so wishy washy its untrue. Comments like if a bridge is below **** it should have a warn sign......."should"? Surely it should be "must!" MikeJT
  • Score: 0

11:06am Sun 25 Nov 12

comedymeister says...

The lorry was loaded with Vicks vapour rub. That explains why there was no congestion for hours.
The lorry was loaded with Vicks vapour rub. That explains why there was no congestion for hours. comedymeister
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Sun 25 Nov 12

runway says...

MikeJT wrote:
Looking at Google map images of the approach roads there are warning signs on the approach to the bridge. From Marsh House Lane the warnign sign is 300m before (BUT after the last available alternative route junction). From Padgate the warning sign is actually only about 50 yards from the bridge. This direction is further confusing as the current rail bridge (which drivers would go under first) does not have a height indicator on it. This is probably on the basis of "well, if they can get under the low bridge then the higher one is OK".

Subject to their being no problem in relation to signage (eg:- incorrect height) then this will squarely be driver error, as each driver has a legal responsibility to know the height of their vehicle and to observe the road signs. However, cause is not yet known.

On the signage issue, being at a lose end in the early hours of the morning I had a look at the Highways Agency/Department of Transport rules on low bridge signage. They are so wishy washy its untrue. Comments like if a bridge is below **** it should have a warn sign......."should"? Surely it should be "must!"
So there are a couple of signs! It might also be the true that the responsibility is with the driver but the fact is that bridge has been hit many times which suggests the signs are inadequate and the moral responsibility lies with the council who have failed to sign the low bridge properly. It has also failed to follow DFT guidelines.
[quote][p][bold]MikeJT[/bold] wrote: Looking at Google map images of the approach roads there are warning signs on the approach to the bridge. From Marsh House Lane the warnign sign is 300m before (BUT after the last available alternative route junction). From Padgate the warning sign is actually only about 50 yards from the bridge. This direction is further confusing as the current rail bridge (which drivers would go under first) does not have a height indicator on it. This is probably on the basis of "well, if they can get under the low bridge then the higher one is OK". Subject to their being no problem in relation to signage (eg:- incorrect height) then this will squarely be driver error, as each driver has a legal responsibility to know the height of their vehicle and to observe the road signs. However, cause is not yet known. On the signage issue, being at a lose end in the early hours of the morning I had a look at the Highways Agency/Department of Transport rules on low bridge signage. They are so wishy washy its untrue. Comments like if a bridge is below **** it should have a warn sign......."should"? Surely it should be "must!"[/p][/quote]So there are a couple of signs! It might also be the true that the responsibility is with the driver but the fact is that bridge has been hit many times which suggests the signs are inadequate and the moral responsibility lies with the council who have failed to sign the low bridge properly. It has also failed to follow DFT guidelines. runway
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Sun 25 Nov 12

The Maestro says...

runway wrote:
MikeJT wrote:
Looking at Google map images of the approach roads there are warning signs on the approach to the bridge. From Marsh House Lane the warnign sign is 300m before (BUT after the last available alternative route junction). From Padgate the warning sign is actually only about 50 yards from the bridge. This direction is further confusing as the current rail bridge (which drivers would go under first) does not have a height indicator on it. This is probably on the basis of "well, if they can get under the low bridge then the higher one is OK".

Subject to their being no problem in relation to signage (eg:- incorrect height) then this will squarely be driver error, as each driver has a legal responsibility to know the height of their vehicle and to observe the road signs. However, cause is not yet known.

On the signage issue, being at a lose end in the early hours of the morning I had a look at the Highways Agency/Department of Transport rules on low bridge signage. They are so wishy washy its untrue. Comments like if a bridge is below **** it should have a warn sign......."should"? Surely it should be "must!"
So there are a couple of signs! It might also be the true that the responsibility is with the driver but the fact is that bridge has been hit many times which suggests the signs are inadequate and the moral responsibility lies with the council who have failed to sign the low bridge properly. It has also failed to follow DFT guidelines.
The council will no doubt blame network rail as its their bridge, network rail will blame the council and so on. Given the bridge isn't used and may never be used again why not remove it and sell it for scrap, use the money earned to invest in improving the road under the main bridge so that there are no further problems
[quote][p][bold]runway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeJT[/bold] wrote: Looking at Google map images of the approach roads there are warning signs on the approach to the bridge. From Marsh House Lane the warnign sign is 300m before (BUT after the last available alternative route junction). From Padgate the warning sign is actually only about 50 yards from the bridge. This direction is further confusing as the current rail bridge (which drivers would go under first) does not have a height indicator on it. This is probably on the basis of "well, if they can get under the low bridge then the higher one is OK". Subject to their being no problem in relation to signage (eg:- incorrect height) then this will squarely be driver error, as each driver has a legal responsibility to know the height of their vehicle and to observe the road signs. However, cause is not yet known. On the signage issue, being at a lose end in the early hours of the morning I had a look at the Highways Agency/Department of Transport rules on low bridge signage. They are so wishy washy its untrue. Comments like if a bridge is below **** it should have a warn sign......."should"? Surely it should be "must!"[/p][/quote]So there are a couple of signs! It might also be the true that the responsibility is with the driver but the fact is that bridge has been hit many times which suggests the signs are inadequate and the moral responsibility lies with the council who have failed to sign the low bridge properly. It has also failed to follow DFT guidelines.[/p][/quote]The council will no doubt blame network rail as its their bridge, network rail will blame the council and so on. Given the bridge isn't used and may never be used again why not remove it and sell it for scrap, use the money earned to invest in improving the road under the main bridge so that there are no further problems The Maestro
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Sun 25 Nov 12

hillbilly 73 says...

Cleopatra wrote:
hillbilly 73 wrote: hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester
The report says, trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use.
my point was that if they are right next each other then they must use the same footings so if one gets damaged it will cause damage to the other.
[quote][p][bold]Cleopatra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hillbilly 73[/bold] wrote: hope they check the bridge out for any movments as this is the main line track from liverpool to manchester[/p][/quote]The report says, trains will not be affected as the railway bridge is not in use.[/p][/quote]my point was that if they are right next each other then they must use the same footings so if one gets damaged it will cause damage to the other. hillbilly 73
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Sun 25 Nov 12

p8bntballlad says...

comedymeister wrote:
The lorry was loaded with Vicks vapour rub. That explains why there was no congestion for hours.
Brilliant :-)
[quote][p][bold]comedymeister[/bold] wrote: The lorry was loaded with Vicks vapour rub. That explains why there was no congestion for hours.[/p][/quote]Brilliant :-) p8bntballlad
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Sun 25 Nov 12

old-codger says...

JoeyLad says...
10:04pm Fri 23 Nov 12 ..
I've actually never come across pedant-ism like this before. You are Victor Meldrew!”....

Another Troll like comment from the master of them all...
Did you go to green lane school...??..
JoeyLad says... 10:04pm Fri 23 Nov 12 .. I've actually never come across pedant-ism like this before. You are Victor Meldrew!”.... Another Troll like comment from the master of them all... Did you go to green lane school...??.. old-codger
  • Score: 0

8:47am Tue 27 Nov 12

richiepooh says...

well Im glad this lorry managed to deliver the bridge to orford as according to WG the last time this bridge was hit it had shunted it to padgate.
well Im glad this lorry managed to deliver the bridge to orford as according to WG the last time this bridge was hit it had shunted it to padgate. richiepooh
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 28 Nov 12

GAZDELUX says...

It was driver error as the company says and thr trailor was 15.3 so the driver was in fault!! The driver should know the height as it says so in the cab by law
It was driver error as the company says and thr trailor was 15.3 so the driver was in fault!! The driver should know the height as it says so in the cab by law GAZDELUX
  • Score: 0

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