Flood depth markers

Batsy

Any chance you could research this further, since you made the observation, and get back to us all so we can go on our next trip full of understanding of the markers etc
Thanks in advance

There are such road markings at Silverton, out of Broken Hill NSW. As you come past the Penrose Park turnoff, the road dips (floodway, I think), and the depth is painted there. Or it was when I was there about 2 years ago.
OBJ

The one at Silverton was over 5 feet couple of years ago and some local detectives in a brand new Mitsubishi Pajero decided to try there luck crossing it

they were lucky to get out of the windows before the car was washed away

Steve, the post had .2m on the bottom which was about 100mm above the ground. The depth at the deepest point would then have been at least 500mm lower.
Discussing this topic with a today he suggested that it was not unrealistic that the sign/signs had been interfered with. I think that may be possible in the odd case but highly unlikely in most instances.
Cheers
Batsy

Ron, I have always understood that a sign declaring "Maximum Height - 4.6m" meant that it was the highest load that could safely pass, and that the actual clearance was some nominal amount above i.e. 5.3m.

If they said "Maximum Height - 5.3m" when the actual clearance was 5.3m some fools with a 5.3m load would proceed, with dramatic outcomes. Mind you, that still happens occasionally at a bridge under a rail line at Palmwoods near here. And elsewhere too!

Actually Ron, I just took a look and the bridges around here have a sign "Clearance x.x Metres" whatever that means in real terms. But I would expect it to mean that a vehicle of x.x metres height could safely pass under the bridge.

Allan - Yes, it appears that the old signage indicating "maximum headroom" is being standardised Australia-wide simply with "clearance" and the figure for the maximum vehicle height that can safely fit under.

However, even that system can become confusing as quite a number of bridges are slanted, with less clearance one side than the other.
I'd presume the authorities are operating on the basis of the lowest height clearance available.

In my case with the bridge at Forbes, the issue was that we were 4.7M high and we had been given full permission to proceed under the bridge, but it initially appeared that there was 100mm less height clearance than we had been authorised to travel at.
As you say, the clearance measurement and the actual height measurement could quite often likely be at substantial variance.

Cheers, Ron.

On the subject of bridges.

Another issue is where the road surface has been built up due to re surfacing and no one has remembered to replace the sign with the new dimensions.

Does not happen, I hear you say. Think again.

There is one famous bridge down near Melbourne which has caught many an unwary traveler heading for the Tasmanian ferry.

A chap I came across tried to take his 5th wheeler under it and shaved the top off the fifth wheeler. Yes his mind was elsewhere at the time, however a fellow whose position shall remain nameless said that a few weeks previously a brand new police communications unit had done exactly the same thing writing off about $300 dollars worth.

The chap said that it seems the road had been resurfaced many times but no one thought to make up a new sign indicating the new reduced height.

The thing that annoys me a lot of the time is that an important road sign has been erected but a bush has been allowed to grow in front of it and so it obscures the sign.
I see it all the time when traveling the Pacific highway from Coffs south to Newcastle.

The simple, inexpensive fix does not seem to be of any importance. In such cases why bother to put up the signage in the first place.

I was once fined (1973) for going through a stop sign which was obscured by a branch of a tree. I could have gotten off I think but it would have cost me more to attend the court in Newcastle as I lived in Sydney. The copper was hiding in the park opposite the offending stop sign so he was more than well aware of the problem but used it to his advantage. It was a rainy night with street lights reflecting off the wet road and also reflecting off the leaves on the branches, making visibility of that sign and road markings virtually impossible.

I did not see the stop sign until the white bar painted on the road went under the front of the car. I was looking for road signage at the time and therefore would have seen it were it visible.

I started to explain to the copper and then thought and said "Ah what's the use". He was obviously getting his quota for the night otherwise he would have strolled over and broken the branch off and the community would have been done a valuable service.

It would have taken many months if not a year for that branch to obscure that sign so there was plenty of time for someone to fix the problem. Why didn't the police make the council fix it, is my question.

Cheers, Bruce.

I meant to say $300,000 worth of Communications Vehicle.

It is actually the 'Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices' and it runs to several hundred pages and generally has several amendments added every year ,it is the 'bible' that traffic control personnel are required to use when putting out their signage , trouble is that it is impossible in a lot of cases to actually place the signage according to the bible due to geographic and flora intrusions.

Like most things they probably changed the name while I was not watching to align with international standards or because the line markers complained that they where being discriminated against.

cheers

Gday Scott
I saw those little red flags on the Merty Merty rd in September. Well worth taking note of as there are big holes in the road.