As opposed to good old fashioned 1 metre = 39 inches.
Either way14 feet is still higher than 4.2 metres the marked heights don’t match.
The imperial signage should be rounded down to around 13’9’’ to match the metric signage ?.Which might have been enough to avoid the collision.
To add the difference between 4.26 v 4.3 metres = 1.5 inches.Realistically if they are saying that the bridge is too low to be signed at 4.3m then it’s also too low to be signed at 14 feet.
If it’s too low to be signed at 4.3m then it’s also too low to be signed at 14 feet is more a statement of fact than ‘winning’.
Bearing in mind that going by the photos the margin in this case looks like it was only a matter of an inch or two too low or too high depending on viewpoint.
If it’s too low to be signed at 4.3m then it’s also too low to be signed at 14 feet is more a statement of fact than ‘winning’.
Bearing in mind that going by the photos the margin in this case looks like it was only a matter of an inch or two too low or too high depending on viewpoint.
Dear God…
Currywürst, you do know that the signs don’t actually indicate the actual height of the bridge, right?
If it’s too low to be signed at 4.3m then it’s also too low to be signed at 14 feet is more a statement of fact than ‘winning’.
Bearing in mind that going by the photos the margin in this case looks like it was only a matter of an inch or two too low or too high depending on viewpoint.
Dear God…
Currywürst, you do know that the signs don’t actually indicate the actual height of the bridge, right?
SSShhhhhh !!
Carry on in this vein, and next you`ll be telling us that what comedians show on the telly, might not be real life!
And DO NOT mention Father Christmas
.
.
Nor the Christmas Fairy !! Heart Attacks Incoming!
If it’s too low to be signed at 4.3m then it’s also too low to be signed at 14 feet is more a statement of fact than ‘winning’.
Bearing in mind that going by the photos the margin in this case looks like it was only a matter of an inch or two too low or too high depending on viewpoint.
Dear God…
Currywürst, you do know that the signs don’t actually indicate the actual height of the bridge, right?
So you’re saying that a 13’11" high truck can actually safely go under a bridge marked at 4.2 metres ■■.
Why mark it at less than the available safe clearance shown by the available 14’ marker in that case.Why not 4.3m ? , bearing in mind that 14’ ‘clearance’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2.m.
toonsy:
Tbf Carryfast does have a point. If it’s converted correctly from 14ft and that’s 4.267m then ot should be signed at 4.3m surely?
Either way it’s splitting hairs though because it’s still nowhere near the 16ft of height required for that trailer
I don`t accept that the bridge is exactly 14ft 0". No-where is that established.
However
You think that a sign should indicate more clearance than the actual height available?
Shouldn`t all clearances be rounded down? Not to the nearest. Always err on the side of safety.
The bridge could be somewhere between 140" and 143" to be correctly marked. (rounding to 3" down)
The bridge could be between 4.2m and 4.3m to be correctly marked. (rounding to 0.1m down)
The above is about the actual dimensions.
There are regulations about actual clearances, allowances, tolerances, and markings. They are already on TNUK somewhere in a previous thread I think, but I can`t find them at the moment.
Franglais:
I don`t accept that the bridge is exactly 14ft 0". No-where is that established.
Agreed, and reasons for that are given in that document you linked to
Measurement of headroom 2.29 All bridges with headroom of less than 16’6” (5.03m) at any point over a carriageway should be signed in accordance with the guidance given in the tsM43 section 7. this will, in all situations, allow a minimum safety margin for vehicle (suspension) bounce etc. of 3” or 0.1m
Mind you, in CF’s world with its own rules of mathematics, this may not be necessarily true Same as his rules for planetary physics.
I was surprised to see that document doing a spot of myth-busting
Signing of restricted headroom at bridges General 2.01 there is no primary legislation that sets out a duty to sign low bridges or to seek approval to move high loads. coupled with a common misunderstanding among drivers of the height of a vehicle which can safely be driven under an unsigned bridge, this creates particular difficulties. it is accepted however that, as part of their duty under section 122 of the road traffic regulation Act 19845 to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians), Highway Authorities should sign all bridges over highways with less than 16’6” (5.03m) headroom at any point over the carriageway, and also maintain such signing.
toonsy:
Tbf Carryfast does have a point. If it’s converted correctly from 14ft and that’s 4.267m then ot should be signed at 4.3m surely?
Either way it’s splitting hairs though because it’s still nowhere near the 16ft of height required for that trailer
Going by the pic it doesn’t look like the trailer is around 2 feet higher than the available clearance under the bridge.
It looks like it caught it by a very fine margin as though the driver was confident of being able to clear 14 feet.
The problem isn’t with the 4.2m signage it’s the 14 feet which is wrong.If there’s not sufficient clearance for 4.3m then there’s also not sufficient clearance for 14 feet.
toonsy:
Tbf Carryfast does have a point. If it’s converted correctly from 14ft and that’s 4.267m then ot should be signed at 4.3m surely?
Either way it’s splitting hairs though because it’s still nowhere near the 16ft of height required for that trailer
I don`t accept that the bridge is exactly 14ft 0". No-where is that established.
However
You think that a sign should indicate more clearance than the actual height available?
Shouldn`t all clearances be rounded down? Not to the nearest. Always err on the side of safety.
The bridge could be somewhere between 140" and 143" to be correctly marked. (rounding to 3" down)
The bridge could be between 4.2m and 4.3m to be correctly marked. (rounding to 0.1m down)
The above is about the actual dimensions.
There are regulations about actual clearances, allowances, tolerances, and markings. They are already on TNUK somewhere in a previous thread I think, but I can`t find them at the moment.
Franglais:
I don`t accept that the bridge is exactly 14ft 0". No-where is that established.
Agreed, and reasons for that are given in that document you linked to
Measurement of headroom 2.29 All bridges with headroom of less than 16’6” (5.03m) at any point over a carriageway should/wouldn’t be signed in accordance with the guidance given in the tsM43 section 7. this will, in all situations, allow a minimum safety margin for vehicle (suspension) bounce etc. of 3” or 0.1m
Mind you, in CF’s world with its own rules of mathematics, this may not be necessarily true Same as his rules for planetary physics.
I was surprised to see that document doing a spot of myth-busting
Signing of restricted headroom at bridges General 2.01 there is no primary legislation that sets out a duty to sign low bridges or to seek approval to move high loads. coupled with a common misunderstanding among drivers of the height of a vehicle which can safely be driven under an unsigned bridge, this creates particular difficulties. it is accepted however that, as part of their duty under section 122 of the road traffic regulation Act 19845 to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians), Highway Authorities should sign all bridges over highways with less than 16’6” (5.03m) headroom at any point over the carriageway, and also maintain such signing.
Suggest you show any reason why the bridge shouldn’t be marked at 13’9’’ or 13’10’’ bearing in mind the obvious need to round down to 4.2m to create a ‘safety margin’.
You’d drive a 13’11’’ high truck past a saying 4.2m is what you’re saying.
toonsy:
Tbf Carryfast does have a point. If it’s converted correctly from 14ft and that’s 4.267m then ot should be signed at 4.3m surely?
Either way it’s splitting hairs though because it’s still nowhere near the 16ft of height required for that trailer
I don`t accept that the bridge is exactly 14ft 0". No-where is that established.
However
You think that a sign should indicate more clearance than the actual height available?
Shouldn`t all clearances be rounded down? Not to the nearest. Always err on the side of safety.
The bridge could be somewhere between 140" and 143" to be correctly marked. (rounding to 3" down)
The bridge could be between 4.2m and 4.3m to be correctly marked. (rounding to 0.1m down)
The above is about the actual dimensions.
There are regulations about actual clearances, allowances, tolerances, and markings. They are already on TNUK somewhere in a previous thread I think, but I can`t find them at the moment.
I agree. I’ve also read the book on height signage so I do understand. But it doesn’t change the fact that the two measurements don’t match up.
I can also see why it’s marked like that, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the measurement don’t correspond with one another. Generally speaking the bridge is measured UP to the next three inches (roughly 0.1m) so IF the height clearance is 4.2m that translates to (just under) 13ft 10in, so rounding up makes it 14ft. That part makes sense.
So why not round UP the metres too? 4.3m is 14ft 1in, surely an even greater margin for clearance would reduce the risk of collision?
Either way my ultimate points still stands that it’s stil not the 16ft that trailer requires
toonsy:
Either way my ultimate points still stands that it’s stil not the 16ft that trailer requires
No argument there.
toonsy:
Generally speaking the bridge is measured UP to the next three inches (roughly 0.1m) so IF the height clearance is 4.2m that translates to (just under) 13ft 10in, so rounding up makes it 14ft. That part makes sense.
I dont think so. The clearance should always be rounded *down*. Err to the side of safety, dont call a clearance 14ft if there is really only 13ft10. We don`t want a 13ft11 going through.
Vehicle ht can safely be rounded up, not bridge clearances.
ED to add IF the bridge was really 14ft 1inch that is 4.296m
Rounding down in both cases gives 1400" and 4.2m. Perfectly consistent with rounding down for safety. (I dont expect that to draw a line under it )
Metric signs can only be displayed to one decimal place but must be measured to two decimal places. The second decimal is then removed, so if a bridge is 4.27m it becomes 4.2m for the purposes of signage.
toonsy:
I agree. I’ve also read the book on height signage so I do understand. But it doesn’t change the fact that the two measurements don’t match up.
I can also see why it’s marked like that, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the measurement don’t correspond with one another. Generally speaking the bridge is measured UP to the next three inches (roughly 0.1m) so IF the height clearance is 4.2m that translates to (just under) 13ft 10in, so rounding up makes it 14ft. That part makes sense.
So why not round UP the metres too? 4.3m is 14ft 1in, surely an even greater margin for clearance would reduce the risk of collision?
Either way my ultimate points still stands that it’s stil not the 16ft that trailer requires
You don’t create a larger margin for safety by ‘rounding UP’ the marked height from 4.2m to 14 feet.Its exactly the opposite you’ve reduced it by totally defeating the object of the 4.2m marking.
That doesn’t look like a trailer that’s almost 2 feet higher than the marked clearance height of the bridge.
It does look like a trailer that is around two or 3 inches too high for the available clearance.Call it the difference between the 13’9’’ that the sign should say v the 14 feet that it says.
Carryfast:
You don’t create a larger margin for safety by ‘rounding UP’ the marked height from 4.2m to 14 feet.Its exactly the opposite you’ve reduced it by totally defeating the object of the 4.2m marking.
That doesn’t look like a trailer that’s almost 2 feet higher than the marked clearance height of the bridge. It does look like a trailer that is around two or 3 inches too high for the available clearance.Call it the difference between the 13’9’’ that the sign should say v the 14 feet that it says. [/quote]
It’s nothing to do with the signage… it’s because Venus cooked Mars.
Carryfast:
Suggest you show any reason why the bridge shouldn’t be marked at 13’9’’ or 13’10’’ bearing in mind the obvious need to round down to 4.2m to create a ‘safety margin’.
You’d drive a 13’11’’ high truck past a saying 4.2m is what you’re saying.
I said no such thing, don’t add misquoting to your list of sins together with your sub-primary school mathematical abilities. And I don’t need to show any reasons for bridge signings, the authorities do that.
Bottom line is that: if a driver tries to take a vehicle under a bridge which is signed a lower clearance than the height of his vehicle, it’s all on him. Which is precisely what he’s done, unless everyone else on here who has looked at that trailer is completely unable to make a reasonable estimate of the vehicle height (which they aren’t).
Carryfast:
Suggest you show any reason why the bridge shouldn’t be marked at 13’9’’ or 13’10’’ bearing in mind the obvious need to round down to 4.2m to create a ‘safety margin’.
You’d drive a 13’11’’ high truck past a saying 4.2m is what you’re saying.
I said no such thing, don’t add misquoting to your list of sins together with your sub-primary school mathematical abilities. And I don’t need to show any reasons for bridge signings, the authorities do that.
Bottom line is that: if a driver tries to take a vehicle under a bridge which is signed a lower clearance than the height of his vehicle, it’s all on him. Which is precisely what he’s done, unless everyone else on here who has looked at that trailer is completely unable to make a reasonable estimate of the vehicle height (which they aren’t).
You seem to be confused regarding the definition of ‘signed lower clearance’ than the vehicle.
Take a 13’11 or even 14ft vehicle under a 13’9’’ clearance bridge is exactly what the sign is saying and by the pic look like exactly what happened.
That looks like a 3 inch interference fit not a trailer that’s 2 feet higher than the available clearance.Obviously the driver seemed confident enough to believe it.
Ironically for your case I’ve just done a run to Glasgow and saw this.Oh wait the ‘authorities’ obviously agree with my maths not yours.Rounding down indeed.
