Zac_A:
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
Excellent.
tmcassett:
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!
It’s more likely that the 14’ marking is an erroneous conversion of 4.2m than that trailer being around 2’ higher than that supposed 14’ bridge.
Ironically I’m obviously the better driver than him because I’d have stopped when I saw the 4.2m sign because that trailer is deffo over 13’9’‘.
16’ the jury is out but either way he obviously knew that he was driving a high vehicle but forgot all about exactly how high or it really is a >14’ high double decker and he believed the sign.
Carryfast:
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.
Over and out, from me.
What you all seem to have forgotten is that CF has never driven a lorry in a country (actually any country outside the UK) where the signs are only in metric (no Feet & Inches ") so obviously he is confused.
He has never needed to know metric heights in any of his rare - long forgotten - days of going to work.
Going way, way back many of us only ran 4m trailers and hardly drove in the UK so we knew that a 13ft bridge was normally marked a bit low so we could get a 4m / 13.1234’ trailer under it.
ISTR remember Blackwall tunnel Northbound was signed 13’ (maybe still is) and we would set the lights flashing on approach, but most of us knew we could get through if we were careful on the left-hand bends.
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
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!
It’s more likely that the 14’ marking is an erroneous conversion of 4.2m than that trailer being around 2’ higher than that supposed 14’ bridge.
Ironically I’m obviously the better driver than him because I’d have stopped when I saw the 4.2m sign because that trailer is deffo over 13’9’‘.
16’ the jury is out but either way he obviously knew that he was driving a high vehicle but forgot all about exactly how high or it really is a >14’ high double decker and he believed the sign.
The jury’s not out at all! Everyone here and blind Freddy can see that trailer is substantially over 4.3 metres high.
Star down under.:
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
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!
It’s more likely that the 14’ marking is an erroneous conversion of 4.2m than that trailer being around 2’ higher than that supposed 14’ bridge.
Ironically I’m obviously the better driver than him because I’d have stopped when I saw the 4.2m sign because that trailer is deffo over 13’9’‘.
16’ the jury is out but either way he obviously knew that he was driving a high vehicle but forgot all about exactly how high or it really is a >14’ high double decker and he believed the sign.The jury’s not out at all! Everyone here and blind Freddy can see that trailer is substantially over 4.3 metres high.
Even Stevie Wonder can see that supposed ‘substantially over’ 4.3m trailer has somehow got ‘under’ a 4.2m bridge with its roof still intact let alone it’s corner posts.
While the 14’ marking has obviously defeated the object of the 4.2m marking.
As I said something went wrong from the point when the driver took the correct road position for a high vehicle v the arched bridge.
I would have stopped when I saw the conflicting 4.2m v 14’ marking whether I was driving a 13’9’’ > high let alone a 16’ high truck.
Eureka! Finally I understand and now it makes sense: CF is the haulage industry’s equivalent of Rain Man but instead of “One minute to Wapner” CF is fixated on “13’9” and 4.2 m".
This thread is like an old train wreck that hasn’t been cleared away, even though you knew how bad it was at the time, you can’t help but look as you’re passing it for the umpteenth time… 
Zac_A:
Eureka! Finally I understand and now it makes sense: CF is the haulage industry’s equivalent of Rain Man but instead of “One minute to Wapner” CF is fixated on “13’9” and 4.2 m".This thread is like an old train wreck that hasn’t been cleared away, even though you knew how bad it was at the time, you can’t help but look as you’re passing it for the umpteenth time…
Ironically no matter how many times I look at that pic I’m not seeing a 16’ high truck that tried and failed spectacularly to get under a 14’ bridge.
But I do see a 4.2m sign which is …13’9’’ just like the Scottish make it.
Carryfast:
Ironically no matter how many times I look at that pic I’m not seeing a 16’ high truck that tried and failed spectacularly to get under a 14’ bridge.
But I do see a 4.2m sign which is …13’9’’ just like the Scottish make it.
Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. Everyone else except you can see what is going on in the OP picture. Some numpty has tried to take a 16ft double deck trailer under a 14ft bridge. The driver deserves to have his licence taken off him. Why you can’t see that perhaps explains a lot about your lack of employment driving a lorry since the 1990’s
Fixed it for you CF, now it only shows heights you might know about.
He hasn’t hit the bridge, CF. He’s delivering it!
Are you deliberately obtuse, or naturally dense?
tmcassett:
Now you are just arguing for the sake of it.
That’s because it’s “one minute to Wapner”, then he’s going to the strip where he’ll be “Counting cards with Charlie Babbit”.
■■■■ it! As insane as he is, there’s a tiny portion of me that (dare I say it) almost admires someone who in the face of unanimous opposition, can still somehow cling to their delusion, like King Canute was supposed to do.
whisperingsmith:
Fixed it for you CF, now it only shows heights you might know about.0
But it still doesn’t make that trailer around 2’ higher than that bridgeI.I also don’t think that there’s 12’3’’ of clearance under the 12’3’’ mark either.
Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.
> Carryfast:
> Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.
AS you have never driven a wagon on the Continent you have no need to know, and if you had of done you would have known your trailer height in metric not imperial
Go carryfast go you’ll win the argument in the end
There won’t be anyone left to argue with
But you’ll still carry on
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.AS you have never driven a wagon on the Continent you have no need to know, and if you had of done you would have known your trailer height in metric not imperial
Suggest you read everything I’ve written here based on the fact that I am of a select few generation that by necessity was taught to understand and think in both systems of measurement.Including making things from metric drawings on imperial calibrated machines.
To be fair my simplistic 39’’ = 1m just means that I’m even more likely to stop and even less likely to take out any 4.2m bridges with a 13’9’’ > high truck.
Carryfast:
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.AS you have never driven a wagon on the Continent you have no need to know, and if you had of done you would have known your trailer height in metric not imperial
Suggest you read everything I’ve written here based on the fact that I am of a select few generation that by necessity was taught to understand and think in both systems of measurement.Including making things from metric drawings on imperial calibrated machines.
To be fair my simplistic 39’’ = 1m just means that I’m even more likely to stop and even less likely to take out any 4.2m bridges with a 13’9’’ > high truck.
Thick as pig ■■■■…
Carryfast:
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.AS you have never driven a wagon on the Continent you have no need to know, and if you had of done you would have known your trailer height in metric not imperial
Suggest you read everything I’ve written here based on the fact that I am of a select few generation that by necessity was taught to understand and think in both systems of measurement.Including making things from metric drawings on imperial calibrated machines.
To be fair my simplistic 39’’ = 1m just means that I’m even more likely to stop and even less likely to take out any 4.2m bridges with a 13’9’’ > high truck.
Go Boy
Did you ever take a truck measured in feet & inches across the water?? NO NEVER !!
I don’t think anyone here would let you loose in a lorry/wagon/truck over 4m either in the UK or across the water.
EDIT: No one in their right mind would let CF loose in one of their wagons, BUT like most of us, we would see that his skills were best utilised on handball in the Warehouse.
Not that he would do much, but he is so obviously skilled in obfuscation that his output could be put down to the ‘Leatherhead Lump’ it could be contagious, but so far only CF has shown the symptons.