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.
(Ignoring tolerances) If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
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.
(Ignoring tolerances) If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Remind me why are you defending the 14’ signage with a safe clearance of 4.2m in that case if you agree that 13’9’’ is consistent with 4.2m.While 14’ obviously isnt…
It’s quite possible that the driver in this case took a 14’ compliant vehicle under a bridge with only 13’9’’ of safe clearance according to the 4.2m measurement.
The damage seems consistent with that difference.
Franglais: If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Edit to add but 14’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2m.Under exactly what circumstances would 4.2m of safe clearance be consistent with 14’ ?.The truth is the numbers should match.
Franglais: If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Edit to add but 14’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2m.Under exactly what circumstances would 4.2m of safe clearance be consistent with 14’ ?.The truth is the numbers should match.
One more time. I’ll keep it simple.
The actual bridge clearance is measured.
The actual clearance is, say 14’4"
The clearance stated on the sign, is deliberately given LOWER than the real clearance, to make sure that vehicles have enough room.
So the sign states 14’, because that gives enough CLEARANCE.
The measurement in meters does NOT have to be exactly the same as the measurement in Feet. It only has to be lower than the actual CLEARANCE of the bridge.
There needs to be no correlation between the two numbers as such, as long as both numbers are LOWER than the actual CLEARANCE height of the bridge.
Just to emphasise it for you.
The height on the sign, is not the actual measured CLEARANCE of the bridge. It is the maximum height of a vehicle, allowed to drive underneath it.
But you would know that, if you had ever driven a truck.
Franglais: If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Edit to add but 14’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2m.Under exactly what circumstances would 4.2m of safe clearance be consistent with 14’ ?.The truth is the numbers should match.
One more time. I’ll keep it simple.
The actual bridge clearance is measured.
The actual clearance is, say 14’4"
The clearance stated on the sign, is deliberately given LOWER than the real clearance, to make sure that vehicles have enough room.
So the sign states 14’, because that gives enough CLEARANCE.
The measurement in meters does NOT have to be exactly the same as the measurement in Feet. It only has to be lower than the actual CLEARANCE of the bridge.
There needs to be no correlation between the two numbers as such, as long as both numbers are LOWER than the actual CLEARANCE height of the bridge.
Just to emphasise it for you.
The height on the sign, is not the actual measured CLEARANCE of the bridge. It is the maximum height of a vehicle, allowed to drive underneath it.
But you would know that, if you had ever driven a truck.
One more time if the so called safe maximum height of a truck allowed to drive under it is 4.2m then by the same standard it’s 13’9’’ not bleedin 14’.
I drove plenty of trucks which were closer to 14’ high than 13 feet and there’s no way that I’d have taken a 14’ or even 13’10’’ high truck under any bridge marked 4.2m.
Strange how I’m the only poster who noticed the discrepancy in that regard.
Never drove a truck you’re avin a bleedin laugh.
But to be honest the fact that vehicle heights and knowing your vehicle height is something that is still not taught during your HGV driving test baffles me. Because quite often when you do HGV training it is all just pre-set as your gonna be using the same trailer throughout your training.
Honestly, at this point it should be mandatory to somehow include it in the training. How? No idea. But it is stupidly clear at this point that some training needs to be given on this.
There are several questions on vehicle heights in the Mod4 test, so it is covered. Trainers should cover it in detail and TM’s should make it part of their routines especially when your picking up multiple trailers.
Before Metric, a bridge was measured to the inch.Whatever the height was, it was rounded down to 3 inch, 6 inch 9 inch or 0 inch. Then 3 inches were taken off. A 14 ft 5 inch bridge was therefore rounded down from 14-5 to 14-3 and then down to 14-0. If that makes sense.
Franglais: If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Edit to add but 14’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2m.Under exactly what circumstances would 4.2m of safe clearance be consistent with 14’ ?.The truth is the numbers should match.
From this thread 23rd Feb:
Franglais:
IF the bridge was really 14ft 1inch that is 4.296m
Rounding down in both cases gives 14`00" and 4.2m. Perfectly consistent with rounding down for safety.
There is a formula for giving dimensions. The signs we have seen, and you have noted, seem to be consistent with that formula.
The signs might not be consistent with some other formula, that you have invented.
I can see that there are signs with 4.2m marked that are alongside, both 139" and 140" signs.
I can see that might be confusing.
But once you understand how the signage is determined, Metric and Imperial running in parallel. Not merely converting one to the other
then surely it makes sense.
Read whichever sign you like, (Imperial or Metric, your choice!) either independently gives a safe figure.
Don`t read them both and confuse yourself.
SWEDISH BLUE:
Before Metric, a bridge was measured to the inch.Whatever the height was, it was rounded down to 3 inch, 6 inch 9 inch or 0 inch. Then 3 inches were taken off. A 14 ft 5 inch bridge was therefore rounded down from 14-5 to 14-3 and then down to 14-0. If that makes sense.
Which explains the 4.2m mark how ?.
4.2m is 13’9’’ not 14’.Let alone 14’5’’ ‘rounded down’ to 14’.
But to be honest the fact that vehicle heights and knowing your vehicle height is something that is still not taught during your HGV driving test baffles me. Because quite often when you do HGV training it is all just pre-set as your gonna be using the same trailer throughout your training.
Honestly, at this point it should be mandatory to somehow include it in the training. How? No idea. But it is stupidly clear at this point that some training needs to be given on this.
There are several questions on vehicle heights in the Mod4 test, so it is covered. Trainers should cover it in detail and TM’s should make it part of their routines especially when your picking up multiple trailers.
Would you drive an over 13’9’’ high vehicle under a bridge that’s marked at 4.2m seems a simple enough question.Together with a simple enough to predict result of trying.
I have been told (but don’t know if it’s true) that there is more clearance for a bridge signposted at a certain height if there is a pavement running beneath the bridge as the height is then measured from the kerb top rather than the road surface. Like I say, I don’t know if it is true but from observation it appears that it might be.
Franglais: If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Edit to add but 14’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2m.Under exactly what circumstances would 4.2m of safe clearance be consistent with 14’ ?.The truth is the numbers should match.
From this thread 23rd Feb:
Franglais:
IF the bridge was really 14ft 1inch that is 4.296m
Rounding down in both cases gives 14`00" and 4.2m. Perfectly consistent with rounding down for safety.
There is a formula for giving dimensions. The signs we have seen, and you have noted, seem to be consistent with that formula.
The signs might not be consistent with some other formula, that you have invented.
I can see that there are signs with 4.2m marked that are alongside, both 139" and 140" signs.
I can see that might be confusing.
But once you understand how the signage is determined, Metric and Imperial running in parallel. Not merely converting one to the other
then surely it makes sense.
Read whichever sign you like, (Imperial or Metric, your choice!) either independently gives a safe figure.
Don`t read them both and confuse yourself.
Let’s get this right you’d drive a 13’10’’ let alone 14’ high truck under a bridge marked as 4.2m on the basis that the 4.2m height shown has obviously been rounded down from over 2.9m, because the 14’ sign can’t possibly be wrong and has obviously supposedly been rounded down by just an inch from an actual height of 14’1’‘.
That looks like exactly what happened in this case.A 14’ high truck tried to get under a less than 14’ high bridge because someone messed up the conversion from metres to feet and inches on the signs and the driver couldn’t think in both systems.
Also don’t believe that the lower arched part of the bridge is only less than 2’ lower than the higher part.The marks on the underside seem to confirm it.
Franglais: If true height was 4.22m for example, that is 13ft10…inches.
Rounding down in both cases gives:
4.2m and 13`9" …just like the sign you saw. Perfectly consistent.
Thank you for that example.
Edit to add but 14’ is closer to 4.3m than 4.2m.Under exactly what circumstances would 4.2m of safe clearance be consistent with 14’ ?.The truth is the numbers should match.
From this thread 23rd Feb:
Franglais:
IF the bridge was really 14ft 1inch that is 4.296m
Rounding down in both cases gives 14`00" and 4.2m. Perfectly consistent with rounding down for safety.
There is a formula for giving dimensions. The signs we have seen, and you have noted, seem to be consistent with that formula.
The signs might not be consistent with some other formula, that you have invented.
I can see that there are signs with 4.2m marked that are alongside, both 139" and 140" signs.
I can see that might be confusing.
But once you understand how the signage is determined, Metric and Imperial running in parallel. Not merely converting one to the other
then surely it makes sense.
Read whichever sign you like, (Imperial or Metric, your choice!) either independently gives a safe figure.
Don`t read them both and confuse yourself.
Thick as ■■■■
Sorry, I tried, I really tried.
But he’s really thick. And deliberately obtuse.
And I don’t think he ever drove a truck. He’s to thick.
But to be honest the fact that vehicle heights and knowing your vehicle height is something that is still not taught during your HGV driving test baffles me. Because quite often when you do HGV training it is all just pre-set as your gonna be using the same trailer throughout your training.
Honestly, at this point it should be mandatory to somehow include it in the training. How? No idea. But it is stupidly clear at this point that some training needs to be given on this.
Oh ffs
When you first get into a truck are you saying that these clowns fail to notice that they are pulling a HIGH trailer?
So because it ain’t physicalky pointed out to them they fail to notice?
So consequently because they are not ‘trained’ in it, that is why they fail to notice a bridge…seriously?
Do you belong to the generation of drivers that have to be shown and told every ■■■■ detail before they do anything?
I took my course pulling flats, I went on to pull flats for ages afterwards.
The first time I pulled a trailer of height…guess what my first thought was?
the nodding donkey:
Ok, in the above post, Currywürst’s last answer dropped out of the quote for some reason. I’m obviously talking about him, not Franglais.
Thanks.
But not everyone would see that as “obvious”!
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right you’d drive a 13’10’’ let alone 14’ high truck under a bridge marked as 4.2m
Let`s try again…
Franglais:
Read whichever sign you like, (Imperial or Metric, your choice!) either independently gives a safe figure.
Don`t read them both and confuse yourself.
If you know your truck height in Imperial: read the Imperial sign.
If you know your truck height in Metric:…wait for it…
…
…read…
… the Metric sign!
Not that it matters much with CF’s mathematical (in)ability and bizarre personal reality, but a bridge can legally be signed in: imperial-only, or imperial+metric, but never legally in metric only. Metric signs were added for the assistance of European drivers. So, imperial signage has to take precedence.
The evidence of the photo is unarguable: that vehicle is clearly (to any normal person’s observational skills) far too tall for the bridge clearance signed.
Both the driver and their operator are deeply in the soft stuff with the authorities and will be receiving invitations to see their TC (guaranteed no tea and no biscuits).
If CF is so certain his POV has any validity he should offer his “expertise” as a transport consultant for the inevitable PI and DCH that are going to result from this incident.
But to be honest the fact that vehicle heights and knowing your vehicle height is something that is still not taught during your HGV driving test baffles me. Because quite often when you do HGV training it is all just pre-set as your gonna be using the same trailer throughout your training.
Honestly, at this point it should be mandatory to somehow include it in the training. How? No idea. But it is stupidly clear at this point that some training needs to be given on this.
Oh ffs
When you first get into a truck are you saying that these clowns fail to notice that they are pulling a HIGH trailer?
So because it ain’t physicalky pointed out to them they fail to notice?
So consequently because they are not ‘trained’ in it, that is why they fail to notice a bridge…seriously?
Do you belong to the generation of drivers that have to be shown and told every [zb] detail before they do anything?
I took my course pulling flats, I went on to pull flats for ages afterwards.
The first time I pulled a trailer of height…guess what my first thought was?
If he failed to notice the bridge v the trailer height why did he move to the centre of the road between the lines denoting the marked height of the arch.
