the nodding donkey:
But he’s really thick. And deliberately obtuse.
And I don’t think he ever drove a truck. He’s to thick.
Driving an over 13’9’’ high truck under a bridge marked 4.2m is what I call really thick.Its clear which category you fit into.
Franglais:
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!
So you’d definitely drive an over 13’9’’ high vehicle under a bridge marked 4.2m because there’s also a sign which reads 14’.Good luck with that.
Exactly what evidence have you got that the 14’ marked height is correct and not a conversion mistake and the bridge actually has 14’ of clearance as opposed to 13’9’‘.
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.
Carryfast:
Exactly what evidence have you got that the 14’ marked height is correct and not a conversion mistake and the bridge actually has 14’ of clearance as opposed to 13’9’‘.
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.
Is that what you think the problem is? I would suggest that if your intelligence is being questioned, it is because:
(i) that vehicle is clearly more than 13’9"
(ii) the bridge clearly does not have the clearance for whatever the actual height of the vehicle is, which is something closer to 16’ rather than 14’ in most people’s opinions on here
(iii) you’ve unsuccessfully tried to make the debate about imperial-to-metric conversions, when the facts negate such hair-splitting
(iv) Ignoring the more salient facts that the driver and his operator are going to get royally reamed by the TC for numptiness above and beyond the call of duty. All the internet arguing in the world is not going to change that.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
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!So you’d definitely drive an over 13’9’’ high vehicle under a bridge marked 4.2m because there’s also a sign which reads 14’.Good luck with that.
Exactly what evidence have you got that the 14’ marked height is correct and not a conversion mistake and the bridge actually has 14’ of clearance as opposed to 13’9’‘.
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.
Question:
If the bridge is incorrectly marked, then what has that to do with any of your previous arguments?
Answer:
Nothing.
Q.
What evidence do you have that is in any possible way true?
A.
None.
If you wouldnt take a 139" trailer under a bridge marked 140"...(in case it was wrongly marked?)...would you take it under a 146" bridge? Or a 15`6" bridge?
Q.
Can you make a sentence out of the following words: hatter as mad a ?
Zac_A:
Carryfast:
Exactly what evidence have you got that the 14’ marked height is correct and not a conversion mistake and the bridge actually has 14’ of clearance as opposed to 13’9’‘.
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.Is that what you think the problem is? I would suggest that if your intelligence is being questioned, it is because:
(i) that vehicle is clearly more than 13’9"
(ii) the bridge clearly does not have the clearance for whatever the actual height of the vehicle is, which is something closer to 16’ rather than 14’ in most people’s opinions on here
(iii) you’ve unsuccessfully tried to make the debate about imperial-to-metric conversions, when the facts negate such hair-splitting
(iv) Ignoring the more salient facts that the driver and his operator are going to get royally reamed by the TC for numptiness above and beyond the call of duty. All the internet arguing in the world is not going to change that.
It’s clearly only connected with the bridge by a matter of inches it’s clearly an interference fit under the bridge.
Less than the 14’ clearance shown would explain it assuming an over 13’9’’ - 14’ high vehicle.Ironically all the supposedly expert drivers defending the bridge marking would have done exactly the same thing.Whereas I’m called thick because I would have stopped owing to the conflicting bridge height markings.Go figure.
Franglais:
If you wouldnt take a 139" trailer under a bridge marked 140"...(in case it was wrongly marked?)...would you take it under a 146" bridge? Or a 15`6" bridge?
In this case the question was would you take a truck, which you know is over 13’9’’ high, under a bridge marked 4.2m.
You obviously would.
Regardless of the fact that it also has a sign marked 14’ which is possibly ( probably ) based on an erroneous conversion of the 4.2m measurement, by someone who has never been taught to think in and work with imperial measurements.
That would explain what’s shown in the pic better than the idea that it shows a truck stuck under it that’s supposedly around 2 feet higher than the marked 14’.
Which would be around the similar difference as the marked lower height of the arch shown.Which itself seems dubious in the extreme.Probably more like 10’9’’ going by the scrape marks and 3’ lower than 13’9’'.
Carryfast:
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.
Nothing to do with being called thick, just that no-one believes you’d actually be driving a truck in the first place! Based on your total failure to find an employer willing to actually take you on in the last 25 years or so.
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
Carryfast:
Exactly what evidence have you got that the 14’ marked height is correct and not a conversion mistake and the bridge actually has 14’ of clearance as opposed to 13’9’‘.
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.Is that what you think the problem is? I would suggest that if your intelligence is being questioned, it is because:
(i) that vehicle is clearly more than 13’9"
(ii) the bridge clearly does not have the clearance for whatever the actual height of the vehicle is, which is something closer to 16’ rather than 14’ in most people’s opinions on here
(iii) you’ve unsuccessfully tried to make the debate about imperial-to-metric conversions, when the facts negate such hair-splitting
(iv) Ignoring the more salient facts that the driver and his operator are going to get royally reamed by the TC for numptiness above and beyond the call of duty. All the internet arguing in the world is not going to change that.It’s clearly only connected with the bridge by a matter of inches it’s clearly an interference fit under the bridge.
Less than the 14’ clearance shown would explain it assuming an over 13’9’’ - 14’ high vehicle.Ironically all the supposedly expert drivers defending the bridge marking would have done exactly the same thing.Whereas I’m called thick because I would have stopped owing to the conflicting bridge height markings.Go figure.
A quick look at the picture, shows that the curtain is distorted, owning to the fact that the tqilboard section of the trailer has been bend back and down. This points at, is because, the driver driving under the bridge at some speed, and wedging the trailer. The suspension and tyres will also have been compressed somewhat, giving an appearance of a lower vehicle.
But, if you had any real knowledge, or experience, of double deck trailers, or trucks I general for that matter, you’d know that.
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
Carryfast:
Exactly what evidence have you got that the 14’ marked height is correct and not a conversion mistake and the bridge actually has 14’ of clearance as opposed to 13’9’‘.
The irony I’m being called thick because I wouldn’t have driven an over 13’9’’ high truck under it.Is that what you think the problem is? I would suggest that if your intelligence is being questioned, it is because:
(i) that vehicle is clearly more than 13’9"
(ii) the bridge clearly does not have the clearance for whatever the actual height of the vehicle is, which is something closer to 16’ rather than 14’ in most people’s opinions on here
(iii) you’ve unsuccessfully tried to make the debate about imperial-to-metric conversions, when the facts negate such hair-splitting
(iv) Ignoring the more salient facts that the driver and his operator are going to get royally reamed by the TC for numptiness above and beyond the call of duty. All the internet arguing in the world is not going to change that.It’s clearly only connected with the bridge by a matter of inches it’s clearly an interference fit under the bridge.
Less than the 14’ clearance shown would explain it assuming an over 13’9’’ - 14’ high vehicle.Ironically all the supposedly expert drivers defending the bridge marking would have done exactly the same thing.Whereas I’m called thick because I would have stopped owing to the conflicting bridge height markings.Go figure.A quick look at the picture, shows that the curtain is distorted, owning to the fact that the tqilboard section of the trailer has been bend back and down. This points at, is because, the driver driving under the bridge at some speed, and wedging the trailer. The suspension and tyres will also have been compressed somewhat, giving an appearance of a lower vehicle.
But, if you had any real knowledge, or experience, of double deck trailers, or trucks I general for that matter, you’d know that.
If you had any real knowledge you’d know that it’s possible to get 4m high double deckers let alone 14’ high.
You’d also stop at any sign showing 4.2m with an over 13’9’’ high truck.
You’d also understand the definition of an interference fit which is exactly what’s shown in that pic.That trailer ain’t around 2’ higher than that bridge.
The driver obviously knew that the bridge was there and that he was driving a high vehicle by his road position on the approach…
Feel free to explain what went wrong from that point.
Second thoughts ignore that last sentence
Carryfast:
If you had any real knowledge you’d know that it’s possible to get 4m high double deckers let alone 14’ high.
You’d also stop at any sign showing 4.2m with an over 13’9’’ high truck.
You’d also understand the definition of an interference fit which is exactly what’s shown in that pic.That trailer ain’t around 2’ higher than that bridge.
The driver obviously knew that the bridge was there and that he was driving a high vehicle by his road position on the approach…
Feel free to explain what went wrong from that point.
Second thoughts ignore that last sentence
Yeah, well googled. There are 4meter double deckers. But this is obviously not one of those. It’s a pallet network double decker, run for the pallet network, by Norman E Webb, from Chippenham.
We have no idea how much higher than the bridge that the trailer is, because we don’t know the actual height(or clearance) of the bridge. All we know for sure, is that the maximum allowed height of a vehicle to pass under, is either 14’, or 4.2meters.
Why would I stop with a 14’ trailer at a 4.2meter sign?
The driver probably forgot that he had a double decker, I don’t know. He positioned for one of the smaller trucks Norman E Webb run. What went wrong at that point, is that the space between the top of the trailer, and he bottom of the bridge, reduced rapidly…
I really wish you bring a more convincing argument Currywürst. This is not really sport.
Carryfast:
If you had any real knowledge you’d know that it’s possible to get 4m high double deckers let alone 14’ high.
You’d also stop at any sign showing 4.2m with an over 13’9’’ high truck.
You’d also understand the definition of an interference fit which is exactly what’s shown in that pic.That trailer ain’t around 2’ higher than that bridge.
The driver obviously knew that the bridge was there and that he was driving a high vehicle by his road position on the approach…
Feel free to explain what went wrong from that point.
Second thoughts ignore that last sentence
Seriously, you could start and continue an argument about a ■■■■ in a lift - and you would be only the person in the lift!
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
If you had any real knowledge you’d know that it’s possible to get 4m high double deckers let alone 14’ high.
You’d also stop at any sign showing 4.2m with an over 13’9’’ high truck.
You’d also understand the definition of an interference fit which is exactly what’s shown in that pic.That trailer ain’t around 2’ higher than that bridge.
The driver obviously knew that the bridge was there and that he was driving a high vehicle by his road position on the approach…
Feel free to explain what went wrong from that point.
Second thoughts ignore that last sentenceYeah, well googled. There are 4meter double deckers. But this is obviously not one of those. It’s a pallet network double decker, run for the pallet network, by Norman E Webb, from Chippenham.
We have no idea how much higher than the bridge that the trailer is, because we don’t know the actual height(or clearance) of the bridge. All we know for sure, is that the maximum allowed height of a vehicle to pass under, is either 14’, or 4.2meters.
Why would I stop with a 14’ trailer at a 4.2meter sign?
The driver probably forgot that he had a double decker, I don’t know. He positioned for one of the smaller trucks Norman E Webb run. What went wrong at that point, is that the space between the top of the trailer, and he bottom of the bridge, reduced rapidly…
I really wish you bring a more convincing argument Currywürst. This is not really sport.
He ‘positioned’ for an up to 14’ high truck by all the markings provided just as you would have done.Obviously without questioning the conflicting 4.2m marking just as you would have done.
You’ve provided no evidence that it was an over 14’ let alone a 16’ double decker.
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.
Carryfast:
You’ve provided no evidence that it was an over 14’ let alone a 16’ double decker.
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.
No evidence is needed. Anyone with a set of eyes can see that’s a 16ft double deck trailer, everyone you are arguing with on this thread knows that’s a 16ft double deck trailer, everyone you are arguing with on this thread are lorry drivers, you are not and havent been for a very long time, and the reasons why are obvious - the end!
Bottom line, you can argue about discrepancies about 4.2m being 13ft 9, 14ft or whatever, anyone who is any sort of driver knows not to be taking a 16ft trailer like that under a marked low arch bridge such as that!
Carryfast:
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.
What evidence is that please?
I`m very sure that you have talked yourself into believing that, but could you please give the evidence you refer to.
Franglais:
Carryfast:
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.What evidence is that please?
I`m very sure that you have talked yourself into believing that, but could you please give the evidence you refer to.
The great big clear 4.2m sign is a clue.
So at worse I’m willing to concede that it’s possible that driver has driven under that bridge numerous times with an up to 4.2m high truck.He forgot that he was driving an over 4.2m truck on the day.
I would have stopped if I was driving a 13’9’'> hight vehicle.
Case closed.
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
It’s clearly only connected with the bridge by a matter of inches it’s clearly an interference fit under the bridge.
Less than the 14’ clearance shown would explain it assuming an over 13’9’’ - 14’ high vehicle.Ironically all the supposedly expert drivers defending the bridge marking would have done exactly the same thing.Whereas I’m called thick because I would have stopped owing to the conflicting bridge height markings.Go figure.A quick look at the picture, shows that the curtain is distorted, owning to the fact that the tqilboard section of the trailer has been bend back and down. This points at, is because, the driver driving under the bridge at some speed, and wedging the trailer. The suspension and tyres will also have been compressed somewhat, giving an appearance of a lower vehicle.
But, if you had any real knowledge, or experience, of double deck trailers, or trucks I general for that matter, you’d know that.
I’m going to advance the argument, by throwing in a curveball.
The fact that the trailer LOOKS to only just be touching the underside of the bridge, may be because the lowest point is not actually at the edge of the bridge, or THIS side of the bridge…
Franglais:
Carryfast:
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.but could you please give the evidence you refer to.
First you’ll need a passport to CF’s dimension, the rules of physics are a little bit different there
Zac_A:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.but could you please give the evidence you refer to.
First you’ll need a passport to CF’s dimension, the rules of physics are a little bit different there
Do you think that Douglas Adams met him, and hence invented the “Improbability Drive”?
Franglais:
Zac_A:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
There is evidence that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge.but could you please give the evidence you refer to.
First you’ll need a passport to CF’s dimension, the rules of physics are a little bit different there
Do you think that Douglas Adams met him, and hence invented the “Improbability Drive”?
I suspect CF could be Zaphod Beeblebrox’s lesser-known brother, but similarly equipped with two heads in order to continue an argument long past the point where everyone else has lost the will to live 