A little out of area, but somewhat relevant to me.... no chris before you say it i was not driving  [Image from here is not available to guests]


http://www.epsomguardian.co.uk/news/9025616.BREAKING_NEWS__Lorry_crashes_into_railway_bridge/

 
Yes - that could be one of yours!  [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

[Image from here is not available to guests]

 
i wonder if its the same one as this....   http://allinstew.co.uk/2011/04/72-tonne-railway-bridge-arrives-in-epsom/

 
As a sort of follow on to this topic:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=11525.0;topicseen

Take a look at this bridge bash video from across the pond:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20MCxSFgrnc

 
Another example of a commendably robust railway bridge, in Cheshire - from This is Cheshire:


  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
.......yes but in the video the vehicles are actually hitting a bridge bash beam errected in front of the bridge (and slicing off the tops of the lorries before they actually hit the bridge structure - as designed) [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Here's another effective bridge bash beam, at Pangbourne.

 
"The HGV is currently stuck underneath the bridge, although it is not yet known what caused the crash."

I just love this superb piece of reporting [Image from here is not available to guests]

 

Perhaps the journo might have been on that course about accurate insurance claim reporting, run by a certain Mr J Carrott?

Paul

 
Another example of a lorry driver with a sense of optimism bordering on insanity in even thinking this was possible - from Railway Eye:

[Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
I am glad we are getting round to installing bridge bash beams on low bridges.

I first saw these in Magdeburg in 1996 and thought what a superb idea.

There they have two ways of discouraging high lorries. One large steel girders a couple of metres in front of teh bridge and 600V tram overhead!

In my opinion the tram wires are the best as it means that you've got a proper urban public transport system around town as well.

As a matter of interest does anyone know if the drivers get points on their licence for hitting a bridge?

 
Anyone recognise this bridge?  [Image from here is not available to guests]

From This Is Cheshire:


... particularly HGV drivers ...  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
And again ... from This Is Local London:


Other than to the lorry driver's credibility, perhaps.  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Perhaps 'Applied Impressions' can be employed to use their sign-writing skills to knock-up some cocking great warning signs at this and other low bridge locations.

 
Oh, the irony!  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
And another - from the Westmorland Gazette:

 

There is no specific offence of hitting a bridge, but that does not mean the law has not been broken. Any bridge of a height under 4.95 metres (16' 9") will have the height displayed in a warning sign, or more usually warning signs. Any vehicle with a height of over 3 metres (9' 10") should have a plate showing the height displayed in the cab. Transport operations managers must have protocols in place to ensure drivers can check the height so displayed is accurate. None of this will stop a driver in an unfamiliar vehicle or on an unfamiliar route, or whose mind is on other things, from missing the warnings and hitting the bridge. Assuming he didn't do it intentionally, or as a result of an dangerous act, he will be open to prosecution under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which says:


The offence occurs when, viewed objectively, the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. I cannot see how a competent driver, exercising reasonable care, could drive an oversized vehicle under an undersized bridge. The maximum penalty is a scale 5 fine (^5000). The court must endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 points, and has discretion to impose a disqualification. The sentence must reflect the degree of carelessness, not the effect of the incident. If death or serious injury results, a different, more serious charge would follow. But if no-one is harmed, the legal consequence for the driver should be the same if only a lick of paint is needed for the bridge as it would be were a six-track historic Grade 1 listed bridge to have to be demolished and rebuilt.

If the lapse in concentration was caused by reading the paper, using a mobile phone, lighting a fag, fiddling with the satnav or whatever, our driver may find that whatever excuse he offers will be likely to be disregarded, because case law has grown around these activities. The prosecution may even be for dangerous driving, under section 2 of the RTA 1988. The maximum then is 2 years prison, and an unlimited fine.  Disqualification is mandatory.

So yes, points can be awarded for hitting a bridge, but there would need to be a prosecution. Often in these cases, the law seems to shrug its shoulders and leave it to civil law to sort out the damages, unless something really nasty happens. The real pain will start for unfortunate driver and his employer when the insurance comes up for renewal. The driver and / or employer will be held responsible for all consequential costs, including the costs of stopping the railway from running. The scale of the problem can be glimpsed in this report from Network Rail

 
I do wonder how interested Network Rail are though. I reported to them a year ago that one of the height restriction signs on the bridge at Nailsea & Backwell was missing, and it's still missing. Their response was that it is a local authority problem, but they would pass the message on. They haven't followed up to check that it has been done though.

 
FTN's careful response is appreciated.  Surely the kernel of this problem, as with so many other road traffic problems, is that, compared with rail, it's the wild west.  The safety measures are token, and observance is not actively pursued, and have not for decades, because 'we mustn't upset the motorist'.

So, take our other thread of the Moor Lane bridge at Weston over the railway, you will have observed in the link that one car followed through the red light at the traffic lights.  Do we think the driver will be prosecuted, even though he is on film?  Do we think that other drivers, in their droves, do not do the same?  Do we think, if there was a camera mounted on the traffic light, painted in bright yellow, they would still chance their arm?

In other words, if the penalty for an HGV driver colliding with a bridge when he should not have done, was to lose his HGV licence, I suspect it would be a rare event to see what is in the image above.



 

 
Of course for repeated occurrences with the same operator, the vehicle operator's license should also be removed. 

 
We rarely get follow-up reports to know what the punishment for these bridge bashes is. But it is unlikely to be a slap on the wrists.

Careless Driving (aka driving without due care and attention) would be the usual offence. This can result in points on your licence if the culpability and harm is deemed to be low. Higher culpability will likely be indicated if you are driving a HGV, and higher harm will likely be indicated if you damage property. There can be other aggravating factors such as the delays to trains and other road users for a 'bridge bash' which the magistrate can consider when deciding the punishment. These aggravating factors may lead to greater points endorsement and a larger fine and may well make the offence serious enough for a discretionary driving ban.

Points can have a very negative effect on a HGV driver, increasing insurance premiums and possibly even loss of employment if contract requires a clean licence.

A ban will obviously result in the loss of employment as a HGV driver.

 
Looking at the Magistrates' Sentencing Guidelines (page 117 deals with careless driving), a bridge strike, whatever the damage, is unlikely to be in the highest category of culpability. A good lawyer, and probably most bad ones too, would argue that the unfortunate state of affairs came about as a result of a momentary lapse of concentration, rather than endemic failure to pay attention, setting the starting point much lower. The offence is triable only summarily, so the defendant cannot be sent to the Crown Court for sentence. The degree of harm or damage is not a factor in deciding what charge to bring - the simple fact of either is an aggravating consideration in careless driving, rather than a reason to go for dangerous driving. The truth is though that whatever happens, the cost to the driver in terms of fine will be considerably less than to the railway. What else happens will cost though. An insurance company, stumping up for a million-quid bill for repairs and cancelled trains, is unlikely to offer a protected no-claims discount next year. As BNM says, points on a licence can be the end of job. Some accidents have led to the truck and container being cut up for removal, with loss of the cargo.

Whilst checking details, I was amazed at how the first few pages of a google search for "careless driving" are taken up by adverts for the sort of law firm that could have helped Chris Huhne out of present predicament had he asked at the time. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.

The vehicle operator, as well as the driver, will be in big trouble if there are not protocols in place to make safe driving a proactive matter. HGV and PSV drivers, who will be the culprit in most cases, are expected to show a higher standard of skill than "amateur" drivers.

Planning flights in light aircraft, one task was always to plot a minimum safety altitude. For a distance of 5 nautical miles either side of the planned track, the pilot checks the chart for the highest point. If that is a terrain peak, he assumes that there could be an antenna up to 300' on top. Then he adds 1000'. If at any point in that flight, he becomes temporarily uncertain of location (or lost), he can climb to that altitude while he sorts it out. A good lorry driver will plan his route in a similar way. Bridge heights are shown on such aids as the AA Truckers Atlas, as well as in various software packages. Satnavs show low bridges if programmed, but should never be relied upon.

 
And another - from Luton Today:

 
Bedfordshire Police: "We will not be taking any further action."

What? Due care and attention at the very least. Wrong message entirely to not prosecute.

 
From the BBC:

 
Three bridge bashes in one day. Two covered in other topics, one because it's a not infrequent occurrence at a station in the area covered by the forum, and another because of it's comedy value:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=3670.15
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14694.0

Details of the third:

From the BBC:

 
The top picture from this article is going viral on Facebook.

 
And another. Apparently "we fit", but the picture suggests they don't...!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29514013

 
From the BBC:

 
Good to see we have at last overcome our squeamishnes about taking the roof off a lorry before it hits the bridge.

As I've posted before I first saw such beams in Magdaburg in 1996 where there is series of low bridges under a viaduct south of the Hbf. They were  a large goal post of heavy duty RSJs placed a couple of metres in front of the bridge. They also have another deterent at some other bridges, 600V tram power lines!

 

I think Germany is one of those countries with a maximum vehicle height of 4 m, except with a special licence. (We don't have a legally-fixed limit.) So tram lines would be above that in all cases, I expect, whatever the bridge height.

 
From the BBC:

 
The Waitrose lorry looks to have been a couple of coats of paint too tall, so the technique of letting the tyres down will work. As long as they weren't let down too far, reflation will leave them undamaged. If they are completely let down before the lorry is moved, there is a likelihood of a stiff bill at KwikFit. And probably at Specsavers too.

I don't know whether bridge strikes are routinely investigated by BTP. If they aren't, then they should be IMHO, to ensure consistency in investigation. Decision making on whether or not to prosecute falls to the Crown Prosecution Service, but the quality of the case papers put before them has a bearing on the outcome.

 
Poor Rose had to wait a bit longer for her Norfolk bronzed turkey then ? At least, I think I am on safer ground in suggesting that the driver wasn't our own dear CfN then ?! [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Thanks for your concern, chuffed, but I am able to confirm that I cannot possibly be blamed for that latest one.  [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Mercedes Sprinter would have passed under that bridge with ease!

 
I wonder if the road under that bridge has recently been resurfaced. A resurface often raises the surface a few inches. I've seen a number of bridge strikes have been reported in the media that the truck had gone under it before a resurface.
This looks to be an inch or two too tall at most.

Edit***
After a little research As suspected the road is scheduled for resurfacing between November and mid December, road works can be seen in the photos attached to some articles.

 
Such a lot on my mind today, and someone has reminded me of turkey. Must order!

It is today my middle daughter's birthday, and as of 8.05 yesterday, courtesy of my youngest daughter, I have become Four Grandchildren, Now! This meant a departure at 03.00 with Mrs FT, N! to mind our oldest grandson, a return at 22.00 without her, followed by a "normal" day at work with me in an unusually affable humour. Luckily, I am no slouch in the kitchen.

Young William will, I am sure, grow to like railways. His elder brother already does, as well as aircraft.


Let's hope they plane off more tarmac than they put back on.

 

That nickname's already taken FT,N!  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Anyone know a good, cheap bricklayer?

As I was going to Tesco in Wokingham this morning, I was struck by just how bad this poor old bridge (on the RGRR over the A321) has got. I don't recall any single strike that was reported as especially bad, so I guess it is just cumulative damage.

The road slopes upwards towards this end, and you can see how vehicles gouge more deeply into the brickwork as that come up the hill and then push the facing bricks off. I wonder just how much worse can it get without jeopardising the train service.

WBC have a plan (or rather several options) to build a new one, either replacing this one or next to it. As usual, they seem determined to get almost all the money from s.106 contributions, so it may not happen at all soon.

 

I know several who can satisfy either one of the conditions, but none who fits the bill on both counts.

 

Network Rail are now going to repair this bridge, closing Finchampstead Raod for next weekend (12th-15th). Apparently there was a particularly serious strike a few weeks ago - though I guess it was still the last camel.

 

....or is it possible NR has been reading this thread as they don't seem bothered by other things falling down.... [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Spare a thought for the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway, which reports the following on its Bridges to Broadway site.  Restoration of the bridge was only completed a few weeks ago.

"We are heartbroken to have to report that Broadway bridge was hit by a skip lorry at 12.50 on November 26th, while the Broadway gang was at work there. The skip scraped along the underside and damaged the paintwork and bolt ends. The lorry made off in reverse without leaving any details, however, we know the owner and registration number. The police have been informed.

To cap it all, Broadway bridge was hit a second time yesterday evening at 22.30hrs, in a similar way. Again the paintwork underneath was damaged, and one bolt was ripped out. The lorry involved was an articulated curtain sider, and after stopping briefly, again made off without leaving details. It must have suffered some damage, as several pieces of steel were left by the roadside. If anyone can give us more information on this second collision, we would be grateful to hear."

 
From the BBC:

 
One of the more expensive incidents - a bridge hit by several cars!The source is BT's homepage


I love the line "It is believed the damage to the cars and the bridge will run into tens of thousands of pounds." - duh! Two wrecked cars runs into tens of thousands.

 
One from 'our' area:

From the Wilts & Gloucestershire Standard:

 
From the BBC:

 
Crane Jib extended? While motoring?

Someone's picking up a P45 there.

"Locomotive"....bloody journalists.

 

I merely quote them here on the Coffee Shop forum, ChrisB ... for our collective amusement.  [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Seems they wanted the juice off rather than the jewson at this incident. [Image from here is not available to guests]

 

Well at least they have corrected it ! the report now on the BBC website refers to a second TRAIN not to a locomotive.
The ORIGINAL BBC report may still be seen as a quote a few posts back in this thread. The UPDATED BBC report may be seen by clicking link.

 
Hardly a week goes by (from last Thurs)...

From Worcester News:

 
Another one, this time on the Cambrian Coast line, no mention of any suspension of rail services:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-32751981

 
Today's report, courtesy of BT internet news comes from Surrey, where a skip lorry driver may be more likely to find himself in hot water than Virginia Water:


Understatement of the week:

 
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/traffic-chaos-for-doncaster-drivers-as-lorry-gets-stuck-under-bridge-1-7517913

I guess this driver got a roasting from his boss!

 
Certainly mashed that trailer. Nearly peeled the roof off. [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Hopefully didn't take any chips out of the bridge.

 
Thank you for your crisp comments.  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Certainly looks tattie...

 
I wonder how many of these idiot lorry drivers ever get prosecuted for careless driving / driving without due care and attention?  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
I'm sure NR puts in a claim against their insurance company - and probably lets their firm take their increasing premiums up with their errant drivers!

 
.....not a road vehicle but it is (was) a railway bridge... [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

http://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/niedersachsen/artikel/644879/frachterunfall-vermutlich-totalschaden-an-friesenbrucke-1#gallery&0&1&644879

 

If you'd rather have that in English, with more pictures, as well, see here.

 
Ach, Schei^e!

That will take a bit of sorting out.

 
I fancy that there may be delays on that line for several days weeks months

 
months years

 
Pah! It didn't catch fire or anything! Nothing compared to what a couple of oil barges can do over here!

 

This may be an important freight link, but as far as passenger trains are concerned it's probably not worth rebuilding. All it carries is the end of a local service from Groningen, and being cross-border but not between big cities that's just a minor branch line. It's run by Arriva - described in one German site as a British rail company (showing journalists are the same all over).

This bit of the bridge is routinely lifted off by a floating crane to let cruise ships escape from the yard that builds them. However, I don't suppose they have a spare one anywhere - and in any case the fixed part and lift gear was damaged too.

 

Oh, the irony!  [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
This wonderful picture from twitter

https://twitter.com/trilljester/status/598903225215897600

 
I laughed at that one. Hard.

The image in question:

[Image from here is not available to guests]

Found this one via Google too:

[Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Thanks for sorting the image bnm

 
A report on the TV says a lorry is stuck under a bridge in Royal Wootton Bassett. No mention on Journey Check so far, nor on twitter.

 
The Adver has this:

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14232978.Road_shut_as_lorry_is_stuck_under_Swindon_bridge/

[Image from here is not available to guests]

 
Running Horse bridge claims another lorry. 

Biggest delay was to the 05:58 from Swansea.  It was already running late after door problems at Newport, but left Swindon 30 minutes late and was 34 late by Paddington.

Also, as mentioned in the article, it didn't do much for bus services in Swindon either!

 
The original Swindon Evening Advertiser link now contains an update on the situation and - as a bonus - a photographic history of strikes on the bridge!

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14232978.UPDATE__Road_shut_as_lorry_hits_Swindon_bridge/

 
It, erm, strikes me that at 14' 9' or 4.5m, that this bridge is particularly at risk, as the standard unmarked bridge height is 16' 6" or 5.1m, so really quite close in height to this one. Most of the strikes appear to have been caused by vehicles heading out of Swindon, from what I can tell from assorted photos.

Given the number of hits this bridge has taken over the past few years, I'm surprised the local authority and Network Rail haven't considered reducing the carriageway height by a couple of feet to cure this problem. It would also be possible to erect some kind of overheight warning device of some sort at the traffic light controlled junction immediately before this bridge in either direction (the traffic lights could change to red on the approach of anything too large even?), as a left turn at either set of lights provides a suitable escape for any overheight vehicles.

 
I'm pretty certain there is an overheight sensor and warning equipment on the western approach (i.e. coming from Mannington roundabout/John Lewis). I don't recall seeing any in the other direction (from the Dick Lovett side), and that's the way this truck was heading. I'll take a look at stupid-o'clock tomorrow as I pootle to the station.

 
This brought Swindon to a standstill this morning, trains, cars and buses. It didn't help the diversion was through the now long running joke that is the Bruce Street Bridges works.  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 

That's true, but not for drivers - there's a 3" minimum clearance that is allowed by reducing the signed height. The Rules (Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 4: Warning Signs) say:

But what was the logic behind saying "this bridge is particularly at risk"? I guess it's that a driver might spot lower low bridges as too low just by eye, but this one would not stand out so much. Whether that's reason enough to concentrate efforts to heighten bridges on such high low bridges in particular I'm not so sure. 

 

I am not sure that would work there is a flood spot nearby at the Running Horse Pub. Lowering the road here by 2ft might just be enough to cause flooding here.

 
I noticed a while ago, what I believe is the sensor on the Mannington side, appeared to have been knocked and was leaning at an angle. Having passed it tonight it is still leaning, so perhaps it may not have been working properly?

 

Google Street View (date July 2015) shows detectors and warning signs on the A3102 both ways. It also shows the collision protection beams bolted onto the abutments - belt and braces, as it were. But they work - I don't think the trains were delayed at all. 

DfT have a page linking to several guides on low bridges and how be nice to them. The truck driver's guide says:
That's less than the 16'6"" (5.03 m) due to that 3" clearance.

The "Protocol for Highway Managers & Bridge Owners" explains about protection measures:
How easy is it going to be to comply with both of those two points to consider at once?

And:
I'm not convinced by that reference to the Highways Act 1980. I presume it means section 178, which says (in part):
Since railways usually count as statutory undertakings, this appears not to be a blanket ban on beams across roads on two counts.

 

That was exactly my logic! The fact it's only just a low bridge I suspect tempts people to have a go - perhaps fatigue, unfamiliar vehicle, time pressure, inexperienced drivers or those unfamiliar with the area could be contributory factors (but not really an excuse of course!). I was mostly just postulating out loud, so please forgive any technical oversights or pie in the sky ideas!

This bridge seems to be particularly vulnerable as its been hit repeatedly over recent years and obviously carries a significant transport link in the GWML and is on a main arterial road through Swindon - given the disruption bridge strikes cause here it would seem sensible to me to mitigate the risk of further bridge strikes at this particular location.

I did look on google street view and didn't see any evidence of overheight sensors or signs, so apologies for missing that! Would seem sensible to me if those sensors were linked to the traffic lights either side of the bridge - a red light is usually pretty unambiguous and requires no thought for most drivers to respond to, but I'm sure some regulations or another, as you have highlighted, would preclude that.

 

The sensors are well before the bridge, to give enough time to see the sign and manoeuvre to turn left. I think the signs say "TURN LEFT" - obviously they are not illuminated in Street View, but that didn't stop one of them getting pixellated anyway.

 

Running places where the public can come and where we have lots of visitors over the years

* Very tall people are so used to ducking that they always do
* Very low clearances are so obviously duck-unders that everyone stoops
... and it's those who are just a bit too tall for a slightly low lintel who are knocking their heads

 
28 Jan - The sensor on the Mannington side still appears to be pointing skywards as Rob mentioned earlier.

 
Even if it is just a few inches too low for the lorry, the driver has the ultimate responsibilty for the incident. The operator of the lorry can also be culpable. Routes should be planned with low bridges (and weight limits, power cables, narrow lanes etc) in mind before anyone starts the engine. Software exists to enable freight operators to do exactly that.

 

It is also mandatory for all tall vehicles (I'm not 100% sure above what height this becomes mandatory) to have their overall height clearly marked and visible from the driving position - I would assume any missing labels would result in a roadworthiness test fail.

 
Interesting quote from a previous post on collision protection beams having to be bolted to the bridge abutments:

"the Highways Act 1980 does not permit free standing supports over the highway as they would create an additional and avoidable hazard to traffic."

Don't understand why would they be an additonal and avoidable hazard to traffic. Surely the whole point is to take the top off a too high a vehicle before it hits the bridge. The Germans don't have any such qualms, I first saw very substantial  free standing beams (RSJs) in Magdeburg in 1996. They also ahve 600 V tram wires as well on other low bridges!

Please explain.

 

I've seen the same thing said about their not being allowed in other places, but as the rest of that post shows I can't trace it to the act in question. But, being literal (or legalistic) a separate portal would be a hazard - it's an obstruction the same height as a bridge which is one - it is additional - not part of the bridge - and avoidable in the sense that you can build the bridge, and have it perform its purpose, without one.

 
There is an obvious answer - build another bridge, just before the existing one.

 

Follow up story in the Advertiser has a picture

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14237730.Car_smash_put_bridge_lorry_warning_system_out_of_order/

 
Ah! I stand corrected: it was heading towards Swindon from Mannington. I had earlier assumed it was going the other way.

 

I don't know about the legal requirements either, offhand - but I do have clear label markings in the cab of my delivery van to remind me that my vehicle's height is 9' 6", and its width is 8' 1".

There is a Brunel railway overbridge in Keynsham (a village between Bristol and Bath) with a signposted headroom clearance of 9' 6" on the approaching downhill side - but I have negotiated it with plenty of clearance, due to the tolerances.  [Image from here is not available to guests]

 
The law says:

Regulation 10(2) Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986


A classic example of mixed units there, possible intended to cause confusion, but it is 12 feet in old money.

This being Britain, though, there is obviously a list of exemptions from this requirement, including EU vehicles of less than 4 metres height on international journeys, any vehicle highly unlikely to meet a low bridge on its travels, agricultural vehicles in certain circumstances, etc, etc.

 

Curiouserly, Regulation 10 starts off with:

Most of those cases would need to be measured, or at least checked, after each loading - so we are not talking about a permanent marking inside the cab. I also suspect that none of these would arise in the normal line of business of Waitrose (or its competitors).

More relevantly, if the regulation had been in force in 1978, it would not have prevented the bridge strike and consequent derailment at Oyne (as the inspector pointed out). It was in fact already in preparation at the time, and first enacted in the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 1978, coming into force on the 6th March 1979.

 

With its population of 16,500 souls, Keynsham is rather large to be described as a village. As an aside, I note that Nailsea is home to a mere 15,500 - does that make it a hamlet?  [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests] [Image from here is not available to guests]

 

From the Uxbridge English Dictionary:

"Hamlet: Only half of the upper leg of a pig, cured"