Franglais:
We are both on TNUK, therefore we are peers.
50/50 ?
I guess CF will want a share, so I suggest 40/40/20 (me, you and CF)
Zac_A:
Franglais:
We are both on TNUK, therefore we are peers.
50/50 ?I guess CF will want a share, so I suggest 40/40/20 (me, you and CF)
OK.
If there is a dispute, CF can do the talking…
Franglais:
Zac_A:
Franglais:
We are both on TNUK, therefore we are peers.
50/50 ?I guess CF will want a share, so I suggest 40/40/20 (me, you and CF)
OK.
If there is a dispute, CF can do the talking……
JUST TAKE THE MONEY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAKE HIM STOP …
Franglais:
Carryfast:
Franglais:
I was going to leave this alone, but…@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
You can’t get a width v height measurement from the pic because of the angle of the camera v the trailer distorting the perspective.
But it’s a reasonable bet that the width of the max arch height lines on the bridge are less than 3m wide.
The height of the trailer looks less than 1.5x that.
So nothing there which wouldn’t fit the scenario of a >14’ high trailer hitting a 4.2m clearance bridge.Firstly you`re still talking imperial and metric in the same sentence, seems foolish to me.
If you know your vehicle ht in metric, obey the metric signage. If you know your vehicle ht in imperial, obey the imperial signage.Scondly, to my eye it is nearer 2 x 3m than 1.5 x 3m, but we`ll ignore that.
Third point.
Does the bridge cross the road at 90deg?
No, so the perspective distortion you mention is relevant here, indeed a quick look at the roof will show that the bridge is offset more than the trailer is. But you ignore that.What error is there due to the camera not being at 90deg to the trailer?
We do need lots of guestimates for that.
Or get out there and do it…Looks to me…(not a good start, I
ll admit)....that the camera is about 3 car lengths from the trailer? 15-ish m? And the camera is in the road. Road width about-ish 7.5m, its 1m from kerb?
So the observer`s point of view is about 2.75m from c/l of trailer (so about 1.5m off side of trailer?)Or a scale drawing on the back of a ■■■ packet?
As it stands I’m seeing nothing there which isn’t consistent with a >14’ high vehicle hitting a 4.2m clearance bridge.
It’s reasonable to assume that the bridge arch width markings are less than 3m call it around 2.8m and the 1.5x possibly even less that vehicle height checks out by actual measurement not by eye.
The truth is if there isn’t safe clearance for 4.3m then there also isn’t safe clearance for 14’.At face value the drivers positioning and confidence suggests that he knew his height and what he was doing.I’d be more than surprised if he took a 14’ > vehicle under that bridge.
If only the operator could post here as to the actual height of that wagon to give us a final verdict.
Franglais:
Zac_A:
Franglais:
We are both on TNUK, therefore we are peers.
50/50 ?I guess CF will want a share, so I suggest 40/40/20 (me, you and CF)
OK.
If there is a dispute, CF can do the talking…
Well, there goes the donkey’s hind leg.
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
You just need to look at the ratio between the police car and the height of the trailer in the OP to get an idea that trailer is 16ft, give or take a inch. Carryfast won’t see that though!The car is a lot closer to the camera than the truck.
Which actually highlights my point even more!
Carryfast:
As it stands I’m seeing nothing there which isn’t consistent with a >14’ high vehicle hitting a 4.2m clearance bridge.
It’s reasonable to assume that the bridge arch width markings are less than 3m call it around 2.8m and the 1.5x possibly even less that vehicle height checks out by actual measurement not by eye.
The truth is if there isn’t safe clearance for 4.3m then there also isn’t safe clearance for 14’.At face value the drivers positioning and confidence suggests that he knew his height and what he was doing.I’d be more than surprised if he took a 14’ > vehicle under that bridge.
If only the operator could post here as to the actual height of that wagon to give us a final verdict.
Mixing metric and imperial…again…and again…
If the operator did post here I daresay someone(?) who didn`t like what they posted, would argue that /their measurement was wrong/they were trying to malign the driver/the bridge was wrongly marked/etc/etc/…
tmcassett:
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
You just need to look at the ratio between the police car and the height of the trailer in the OP to get an idea that trailer is 16ft, give or take a inch. Carryfast won’t see that though!The car is a lot closer to the camera than the truck.
Which actually highlights my point even more!
You think that being closer to the camera makes the size of the car smaller not larger than it actually is in the pic.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
As it stands I’m seeing nothing there which isn’t consistent with a >14’ high vehicle hitting a 4.2m clearance bridge.
It’s reasonable to assume that the bridge arch width markings are less than 3m call it around 2.8m and the 1.5x possibly even less that vehicle height checks out by actual measurement not by eye.
The truth is if there isn’t safe clearance for 4.3m then there also isn’t safe clearance for 14’.At face value the drivers positioning and confidence suggests that he knew his height and what he was doing.I’d be more than surprised if he took a 14’ > vehicle under that bridge.
If only the operator could post here as to the actual height of that wagon to give us a final verdict.Mixing metric and imperial…again…and again…
The actual height of the bridge and trailer remain the same regardless of which system you use to measure them.
If there isn’t sufficient clearance for 4.3m then there isn’t sufficient clearance for 14’.
It’s 13’9’'.
blue estate:
That particular bridge is marked up wrong ,
You can get a high cube container under there with room to spare
I take 4.27m trailers under easy
I note you say that bridge is wrongly marked.
I hope that others, won`t assume that because their high trailer goes under that bridge, it will go under all bridges marked at 4.2m…
Franglais:
blue estate:
That particular bridge is marked up wrong ,
You can get a high cube container under there with room to spare
I take 4.27m trailers under easyI note you say that bridge is wrongly marked.
I hope that others, won`t assume that because their high trailer goes under that bridge, it will go under all bridges marked at 4.2m…
By definition you’d have to have ignored the height markings to take a 4.2m > and 14’ > high truck under it for the first time.
Why bother marking bridges if drivers are going to make up their own rules on a hit or miss basis.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes like loss of licence and job.
Ironically the’wrong marking’ in this case is the 14’ one which should be read as 13’9’’ unless anyone enjoys the idea of joining the dole queue.
Carryfast:
Why bother marking bridges if drivers are going to make up their own rules on a hit or miss basis.
Nice to agree.
Unless Im mistaken there are no circular prohibition signs on that bridge? So, taking a 2.7m trailer under there is legal. If you dont hit it, you`re OK.
What are the criteria for circular (prohibition) as opposed to triangular (warning) signs for bridges?
Ed
After all no driver in his right mind would make up his own conversions would he?
Move between imperial and metric, when a bridge is already clearly marked in both?
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
You just need to look at the ratio between the police car and the height of the trailer in the OP to get an idea that trailer is 16ft, give or take a inch. Carryfast won’t see that though!The car is a lot closer to the camera than the truck.
Which actually highlights my point even more!
You think that being closer to the camera makes the size of the car smaller not larger than it actually is in the pic.
Can’t be bothered explaining again because you are clearly too stupid to see what’s happening here so I’ve just highlighted my point above again in red!
I give you 10 out of 10 for persistence on this thread, despite “everyone” telling you that you are wrong. I give you 1 out 10 for actual use of your brain and eyes though.
Franglais:
What are the criteria for circular (prohibition) as opposed to triangular (warning) signs for bridges?
Arched bridges have triangular signs.
Harry Monk:
Franglais:
What are the criteria for circular (prohibition) as opposed to triangular (warning) signs for bridges?Arched bridges have triangular signs.
Ah!
So, straight bridges have square signs? That`s clear then. 
Circular, prohibitory signs - MUST NOT pass the sign if the vehicle is higher than the stated clearance. These are found on flat soffit, flat soffit with collision protection beam, and skewed bridges. Simply passing or attempting to pass the sign, in a vehicle higher than that clearance indicated is an offence, regardless of whether you do or do not hit the bridge
Triangular warning signs - SHOULD NOT pass the sign if vehicle is taller than indicated clearance (edit: so as Franglias indicates, no offence unless you hit the bridge, which can result from not keeping a straight line in the middle of the clearance area, often by turning before clearing the bridge, or moving over to one side, usually caused by approaching vehicles)
Now, where’s me crayons so I can draw a pictorial version of that for… well, we know those who need it 
Hello boss,
yea Michael,
Engine broom broom, OK
Gears, OK,
Problem, lorry wont move.
Franglais:
blue estate:
That particular bridge is marked up wrong ,
You can get a high cube container under there with room to spare
I take 4.27m trailers under easyI note you say that bridge is wrongly marked.
I hope that others, won`t assume that because their high trailer goes under that bridge, it will go under all bridges marked at 4.2m…
Covert 14ft to meters 
blue estate:
Franglais:
blue estate:
That particular bridge is marked up wrong ,
You can get a high cube container under there with room to spare
I take 4.27m trailers under easyI note you say that bridge is wrongly marked.
I hope that others, won`t assume that because their high trailer goes under that bridge, it will go under all bridges marked at 4.2m…
Covert 14ft to meters
Not you too!