Width restrictions on rural lanes

[Agent Fruit]

How many of you have encountered width restrictions of 2M (6'6") or less on rural lanes? I know some people choose to ignore them, particularly if they say Except for Access, but I'm law abiding and chicken when it comes to reversing. As you may have seen from my other thread I'm wondering if the difference between a 2.3m and a 2m wide vehicle is a crucial one on a trip that will take in the more remote parts of the UK. It's not the 30cm that concerns me in terms of manoeuvrability, but the possibility of getting stuck or fined.

 

AF

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I can think of a couple of places where it would be crucial close to where I live, a very narrow bridge that at a pinch I can get over in my PVC,that would be impossible in our previous coachbuilt, gated single track lanes another round here, why give yourself the potential aggravation, would be my take on it.

[George Collings]

Width restrictions can be imposed for the obvious reason of a narrow road but also on amenity grounds if the the residents put up a strong enough case. Its usually to stop HGVs using it as a rat run. The trouble is one sign fits all.

[crinklystarfish]

If you are indeed going remote, you will start to notice more width restriction signs. I've come across them pretty frequently. It makes perfect sense to go for the narrower option you refer to. Apart from anything, given the roads you are looking at driving down, you absolutely will at some point run the risk of damaging your 'van on overhanging vegetation etc.

If the 'van were 2.3m or thereabouts, had alloy sandwich panel construction (most do), and polycarbonate windows, it'd look pretty scruffy pretty quickly.

30cm makes a huge difference off the beaten track. For hassle free 'exploration' a pvc with glass windows is the simplest and least stressful solution.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I know we have mirrors to see the vehicle sides, but I'm always nervous about height restrictions in case the bloke with the ruler was having a bad day. Recently bumped into a bloke who'd ripped of his Aerial off despite as he admitted having had the fleeting thought before he went for it thinking is this such a good idea. As a previous poster said width restrictions as you'll know can sometimes be part of traffic calming, but to labor the point I say again why take the chance. I'm reminded of a steel girded bridge like a giant meccano set, that crosses the Loire that almost resulted in the loss of both my mirrors. One from oncoming traffic on the O/S and the other from the unforgiving girders on the N/S. I know I only got away with it by a few centimeters, so now I err on the side of caution :-(

[aultymer]

We have travelled throughout the UK from Lands End to John o Groats and over a few Scottish islands and have never come across a width restriction in our path (yet!). First in an 'A' class Hymer and now in a 999M Rapido.

Our European travels only cover from the North of Denmark to Venice and again we have never had a width problem.

We do not stick to main roads and have had to turn back once in the Peak district when it was obvious the the sat nav had taken us down a lane which, although not legaly restricted, was obviously too narrow. (The hedge was rubbing both sides)

 

If the bin lorry or milk tanker can get in, then so can coachbuilts.

Having said that I managed to scratch the side on our own gatepost when we first brought the van home. Well it was dark and that gatepost just ran out at me!

 

I would not let the thought of width restrictions influence my choice of van.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

aultymer - 2011-07-14 9:07 AM

 

 

I would not let the thought of width restrictions influence my choice of van.

 

Neither would I, but unless I got it wrong ( not unknown ) I don't think that was the question,perhaps the OP could clarify

 

To be fair I doubt the average binman is too fussed about the state of the sides of his vehicle !

[crinklystarfish]

Bin lorries and milk tankers are made of very thick steel /aluminium and can simply bash branches / fence posts out of the way with no consequence. The same is absolutely not true of the vast majority of motor caravans.

I suppose it depends just how off the beaten track the chap wants to go, but if we are talking unclassified roads in places other than uplands where vegetation is not a real issue, then the advice to not let vehicle width influence choice is, respectfully, pretty sketchy in my experience.

Genuine example of me sweating:

[malc d]

To my mind the width problem is not so much ' can I get through' - but it's ' what happens if someone comes the other way'.

 

The last time I had that problem was in Croatia when I went down a narrow gravel track ( described as a road on the map) , with no passing places and warnings of mine fields on either side.

( Looked a bit like Crinklys photo above).

 

Decided to chicken out and reversed to a 'junction' where I could turn round.

 

I've often heard the argument that " well buses get through" or " the dustmen get through" but I doubt if they have to pay for any damage to their vehicles.

 

 

 

;-)

[Agent Fruit]

aultymer - 2011-07-14 9:07 AM

I would not let the thought of width restrictions influence my choice of van.

 

This is absolutely my point. I don't want to buy something that'll restrict where I can go unnecessarily. If the extra 30cm will make no difference then I'd be swayed strongly towards the Ixeo tardis on wheels, but if that'd have me cursing at the ends of lanes with signs saying 6'6" then I'd forsake the luxury and buy a PVC that'll let me go where I want, or rather wherever a 6m van could go.

 

Looking at dimensions of vans, on the Vantage website the width of the body of the Sol (Fiat Ducato) is 2050mm without mirrors and I believe that this is the measurement that is relevant to any restriction. At only 5cm over I wonder if this would scrape through, if you'll excuse the expression.

 

Crinklystarfish - I didn't know there was an option for anything other than glass windows.....I learn something new every day. Thank goodness for this forum and its people. Thank you!

 

AF (a chappess, for the record) :-D

[aultymer]

Dear me, a few rather simplistic retorts to my assertion that if a bin lorry or tanker can go - then so can I.

Do you think that other drivers just 'bash branches' out of the way'?

 

I would have thought that the expanse of glass around any driver would inhibit that kind of behavior.

If it doesent then the daily 'bashin' of the milk tanker will clear a wide enough path for me.

 

The OP chapess did not specify going off road and If there is tarmac then most coachbuilts will get through.

Her question was about legal restriction signs, not peoples personal choice of van size - there may be many good reasons for having a PVC but I do not consider width restrictions on public roads to be one of them.

 

Anyway there is always the Toad for really wee places.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I can only say from my own perspective I do find a PVC less of a stress factor than my previous coach-built for many reasons, but width restrictions when dealing with what only amount to a few centimetres would seem irrelevant most of the time to me as I'd avoid width restrictions in any event. It's all swings and roundabouts. Perhaps a Motor Bike and a tent to really get off the beaten track, oh no I'm too old for that. :-D

[Agent Fruit]

aultymer - 2011-07-14 10:50 AM

Her question was about legal restriction signs, not peoples personal choice of van size - there may be many good reasons for having a PVC but I do not consider width restrictions on public roads to be one of them..

 

Yes it was - it seems like opinion is split.....some say width restrictions should influence choice, some say it shouldn't. It's all very confusing! And you say there are many good reasons for having a PVC other than this, which is what I don't fully understand. As I look around the Ixeo 585 it all makes perfect sense - it's enormous and would be very easy to live in for an extended trip, but it doesn't do much else for me. When I look around PVC's I think blimey this would be a nightmare to live in with a muddy smelly dog and loads of gear, but I walk away thinking I really really want one........

 

Is the decision this hard because I am indeed a chappess? ;-)

 

AF

[Brian Kirby]

Before the fight starts! :-) One of the problems with width restrictions is that they are not always signed in advance, so one can progress some way down one's route from A to B before hitting the restriction at C. Using one of the sat navs that allows vehicle dimensions to be entered should keep you legal in UK and most of central Europe, but the restrictions have still not been mapped for the whole spread of the European mapping supplied, and the mapping info is limited to restrictions and does not eliminate routing down unrestricted, but nevertheless narrow, roads.

 

With respect, I'm not sure of the value of contributions along the lines of "we've been everywhere and never found a problem". We too have travelled quite widely, and have found ourselves confronted by narrow village streets, narrow bridges, and narrow access roads between rows of parked cars. Some were restricted at the width of our van, so we went round, others were just as found. Ours is only 2070mm wide plus mirrors: fortunately, the mirrors are higher than those on parked cars. :-)

 

I think the answer is that those who haven't met the problem - rather like the man who fell from the roof of the Empire State building saying "so far so good" - just haven't yet been in the wrong place at the wrong time! I'm not arguing with anyone else's experience: just suggesting that it may not be universally reliable as a guide to whether others will encounter the problem. So much depends on where you go, and what you meet.

[Agent Fruit]

1footinthegrave - 2011-07-14 11:04 AM

 

I can only say from my own perspective I do find a PVC less of a stress factor than my previous coach-built for many reasons, but width restrictions when dealing with what only amount to a few centimetres would seem irrelevant most of the time to me as I'd avoid width restrictions in any event. It's all swings and roundabouts. Perhaps a Motor Bike and a tent to really get off the beaten track, oh no I'm too old for that. :-D

 

Another good point I hadn't thought of. If I saw a width restriction would I go down the lane in a PVC either if I only had my dog to assist in any reversing manoeuvres? As an aside, which I'm always very interested to hear, why do you find your PVC less stressful than your previous coach-built?

 

AF

[Usinmyknaus]

There are lots of roads with mandatory width restrictions in my usual weekend area which covers up to 2 hours drive from my home and I must obey the signs owing to the fragility of my van's sides, windows and shoulder fairings and the inevitable penalty of hours of making little circles with polish to remove scratches.

 

If a site I have pre-booked has a 6' 6" access-only limit on the approach road I always ask the site owner for a briefing before entering the road. Of course even this is not infallible as I found when I was assured by an (lady) owner in Devon that the 2-miles of narrow, dead-end lane would be " absolutely fine" - it would have been had I been driving a bull-dozer or a cement truck. It took me one and a half days to polish out all the scratches aquired in just the half mile before I could turn round and go back.

 

Many "normal" country roads in Sussex and Surrey are an ordeal to use owing to overgrown trees and hedges becoming an increasing hazard through landowners' and the local authorities' lack of maintenance. Charlie Brown (Peanuts cartoon) dreaded the "kite-eating tree" and I empathise with him as I must contend with very many "Knaus-eating trees". I will be braving a very narrow lane tomorrow to access a CS in Kent - I have done the trip once before so I know I should get away with just light damage and an hour or two's polishing penance.

 

My next van will unquestionably, absolutely, irrevocably, be a PVC with glass windows.

 

Bob

 

 

[colin]

There are relatively very few actual width restrictive roads that would stop a 2.3m van as opposed to 2m van but as been point out previously it's more meeting traffic coming the other way, thats why I'm happier in a panel van than a coachbuilt, dispite the fact I ocasionaly drive a roadcrane.

btw I live on a road that a coachbuilt and car cannot pass each other except in passing places and I commute along another such road, what is ammazing is how often some one in a corsa or such like expects vans or trucks to reverse as they themselves can't!

p.s. yes drivers of large vehicles drive 'straight throu' branches, there have been two icidences localy this school year of double decker school bus's smashing front top windows

[JamesFrance]

I agree with 1 Foot that a PVC is much easier to drive.

 

It is not just the measured width making a difference, but a PVC usually tapers in at the top, so is much less likely to have problems with the trees we have lining many of the roads where I live for instance. As has been said already commercial drivers are not too bothered about minor scratching of the upper body.

 

In normal driving I never found extra length to be a problem, or a long wheelbase, but maximum width at the top doesn't suit me at all.

 

If you are used to driving large vehicles you would probably not notice much difference, but if you have only driven cars I think you would find a panel van easier.

[aultymer]

"rather like the man who fell from the roof of the Empire State building saying "so far so good". "

 

What did he say the second time?

 

When someone has been there, done that and lived, it is a bit different from your man.

I understand it is called passing on ones experiences. Some people find it of value some can't.

 

The double decker bus story is a good one since it illustrates that the tree damage will occur above the height of most vans.

[malc d]

aultymer - 2011-07-14 1:02 PM

 

"rather like the man who fell from the roof of the Empire State building saying "so far so good". "

 

What did he say the second time?

 

When someone has been there, done that and lived, it is a bit different from your man.

I understand it is called passing on ones experiences. Some people find it of value some can't.

 

The double decker bus story is a good one since it illustrates that the tree damage will occur above the height of most vans.

 

 

 

Seems to me that most of the above ARE people '"passing on ones experiences" -

 

Always useful to read I think.

 

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Agent Fruit - 2011-07-14 11:19 AM

 

As I look around the Ixeo 585 it all makes perfect sense - it's enormous and would be very easy to live in for an extended trip, but it doesn't do much else for me.

 

....When I look around PVC's I think blimey this would be a nightmare to live in with a muddy smelly dog and loads of gear, but I walk away thinking I really really want one........

 

AF

 

Well,it all depends on what you want(..and NO!..you can't have both! ;-) ),"the liveability" of the Ixeo coachbuilt.. Versus the perceived "nimbleness" if a panel van..

Neither choice is totally right or wrong...

(..although of cause during their usage,each will at some stage show their limitations..)

[crinklystarfish]

aultymer - 2011-07-14 10:50 AMDear me, a few rather simplistic retorts to my assertion that if a bin lorry or tanker can go - then so can I.Do you think that other drivers just 'bash branches' out of the way'?...

Yup, that's what they do, though usually with the superstructure behind the driver and not with the cab.

 ...and If there is tarmac then most coachbuilts will get through.

No one is claiming a 'coachbuilt' wouldn't, it's about getting through and not risking unnecessary damage. Very relevant to the opening poster if she's considering traversing lanes that are width restricted and about to purchase an (expensive) 'van.

Apologies to AF for my she was a he assumption.

[ips]

After numerous sat nav cock ups the latest being sent down a very very narrow lane with no chance to turn around and eventually having to traverse a very deep, very steep and very scary Ford (I didnt know there was still some around) I am staying on A roads unless I know the road is ok. After the aformentioned incident I ripped my sat nav out and chucked it on the floor much to mrs ips disapproval (there was also lots of very bad language) then clearly stated that the only thing I wanted for my birthday (this sat if anyone has forgotten to send my card) is a decent road atlas.

In conclusion if you want to go off piste even on so called B roads that you dont know or havent got directions for from site books etc then in my opinion a PVC is the order of the day. I would have liked a PVC but couldnt find one with a fixed bed and a garage for the scooter and room to swing my cat.

[Brian Kirby]

Agent Fruit - 2011-07-14 10:24 AM

 

aultymer - 2011-07-14 9:07 AM

I would not let the thought of width restrictions influence my choice of van.

 

This is absolutely my point. I don't want to buy something that'll restrict where I can go unnecessarily. If the extra 30cm will make no difference then I'd be swayed strongly towards the Ixeo tardis on wheels, but if that'd have me cursing at the ends of lanes with signs saying 6'6" then I'd forsake the luxury and buy a PVC that'll let me go where I want, or rather wherever a 6m van could go.

 

Looking at dimensions of vans, on the Vantage website the width of the body of the Sol (Fiat Ducato) is 2050mm without mirrors and I believe that this is the measurement that is relevant to any restriction. At only 5cm over I wonder if this would scrape through, if you'll excuse the expression.

 

Crinklystarfish - I didn't know there was an option for anything other than glass windows.....I learn something new every day. Thank goodness for this forum and its people. Thank you!

 

AF (a chappess, for the record) :-D

 

Coachbuilt vans are generally much more prone to damage from roadside vegetation etc than PVCs. Much of the side of a coachbuilt is sheet aluminium, which is inherently softer and thinner than the steel flanks of a PVC. However, that aluminium is also often onto a timber frame, and is usually only backed by some form of expanded plastics insulation. In relation to a 3,500kg rolling mass, this is flimsy. If you snag something tough, the van will suffer damage. A 25mm diameter poorly cut back branch will crease the aluminium. A 6mm ditto twig will probably only leave a sap stain.

 

The comment about coachbuilts being square in cross section while PVCs taper in at roof level is highly relevant, depending on road camber. A sharp camber can leave the nearside of a coachbuilt overhanging the edge of the road, exacerbated if an awning is clagged to its side. This is highly likely to catch and break off twigs etc: ours often does. Overhanging trees have to be steered around. Like that man said, so far so good! :-) So, PVC less likely to get snagged in the roadside jungle than coachbuilt.

 

By contrast, the steel flanked PVC is curved and profiled to give it additional rigidity, and the sheet steel is backed by pressed steel horizontal and vertical members. It is not a tank, but it is tougher and will probably only sap stain where the coachbuilt may crease. That sap stain can quite easily be polished out with a cutting compound: you do not want to use such methods on the softer, thinner, paint finish on the aluminium.

 

The windows of coachbuilts generally protrude from the van's flanks, are invariably of plastic, and the material used is notoriously easily scratched. Roadside vegetation has many components, some lush, soft, and fresh, some hard, dead, and stiff. The soft stuff can be "leaned" on, the other stuff can't. If the hard stuff is concealed by the lush stuff, the windows get scratched. The scratches can generally be polished out, but it is a time consuming bore.

 

PVC windows may be of glass, if a "window van" base has been used, or of the same plastic as those used for coachbuilts. The glass variety will lie flush with the vehicle flanks, the plastic will protrude, as in a coachbuilt. The glass is less vulnerable, and harder, than the plastic, so less prone to damage. However, it is single glazed, so more prone to condensation in cold weather.

 

Finally, the PVC is inherently stronger in almost any accident. The exception would probably be a head-on impact. Any other impact, from any other quarter, will cause severe damage to a coachbuilt, and side swipes are liable to remove the entire side of the van. Unless the damage to a panel van is sufficient to affect internal fittings, it will generally be far easier, quicker, and probably cheaper, to repair.

 

Regarding width, I'm afraid you just have to judge and decide. It is impossible to state with certainty that this or that width will, or will not, give problems. All that can be stated is that there are numerous width restrictions on many roads, urban and rural, some of which are temporary. The restrictions are not of fixed dimensions, so it is not possible even to give rough guidance, except that few, if any, are below 2.0 metres or 6' 6". As an instance, there is a 7' 0" width restriction on the A306 northbound approach to Hammersmith Bridge in London. PVC, tight. 2.3M coach built. Hmmmmm! :-)

 

So, really all that can be said is that the narrower the van, the lower the likelihood that you would get caught out. However, that is just probability, not certainty. Eel trap roads, those where the road narrows as you progress, to the point when you truly risk getting stuck, exist in all areas. Most delivery vans will pass, wider vehicles may not. So, it all depends on how much time you are prepared to spend trying, and then looking for alternative routes, and how important it is for you to drive your van to your objective.

 

That is the problem with this. Some you win, some you lose. All you can do is set the wins against the losses, and decide where you think the balance lies. There is no "correct" answer, just a balance that everyone has to find to suit their view on the disadvantages and advantages of each van.

 

My sense is that this is really about the heart and the head. The heart says Burstner, the head says PVC. If you are prepared to compromise on the places you can actually reach from time to time, and are prepared to spend some time researching routes, and maybe some time backing out of awkward situations, you should be fine with a coachbuilt. If you are prepared to re-think your preference for a sprawling lounge area, and can accept sitting instead in a part rotated passenger seat with your feet on the part rotated driver's seat, you can reduce the width of a coachbuilt to little more than that of a PVC (though not with Burstner). That may provide an attractive half-way house on wheels. If it is primarily the thought of having to reverse single handed that worries you, budget for a really good reversing/rear view camera, such as the Waeco twin lens. That makes life much easier. I know. I've got one! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

malc d - 2011-07-14 1:25 PM...................................Seems to me that most of the above ARE people '"passing on ones experiences" - ................................

 

Oh yes! Just my experiences, of course, but definitely based on real life, not imaginings! The problem is that the absence of something in someone's travels does not prove that it doesn't exist, merely that they have not yet encountered them. On the other hand, I know these things do exist, precisely because I have encountered them. Why stating that should have become a source of irritation, I don't know. However, if it was the way I expressed my reservation, I apologise. It was not intentional.