Carryfast:
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.
Nope, it’s a 16ft trailer - end of story you clueless buffoon!
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.AS you have never driven a wagon on the Continent
Don’t be so harsh on him, the only reason he never got the chance to drive abroad was because his face didn’t fit in the mythical pecking order! 
tmcassett:
Nope, it’s a 16ft trailer - end of story you clueless buffoon!
A 16’ trailer that somehow got UNDER a 4.2m, call it 14’ if you feel brave enough, bridge more or less intact without tearing apart the top of the supposed 2’ higher trailer against the supposed lower 2’ of bridge.Probably because it’s an interference fit.It also doesn’t look like it’s supposedly almost 4’ higher than the 12’3’’ mark of the bridge which also looks closer to 11’ if not less, than 12’3’’ from the road.
While a step frame low load deck height trailer might account for much of the seeming height between its floor and roof bearing in mind the trailer floor looks as low or lower than the height of a car bonnet.
Carryfast:
tmcassett:
Nope, it’s a 16ft trailer - end of story you clueless buffoon!A 16’ trailer that somehow got UNDER a 4.2m, call it 14’ if you feel brave enough, bridge more or less intact without tearing apart the top of the supposed 2’ higher trailer against the supposed lower 2’ of bridge.Probably because it’s an interference fit.It also doesn’t look like it’s supposedly almost 4’ higher than the 12’3’’ mark of the bridge which also looks closer to 11’ if not less, than 12’3’’ from the road.
While a step frame low load deck height trailer might account for much of the seeming height between its floor and roof bearing in mind the trailer floor looks as low or lower than the height of a car bonnet.
I explained all this earlier, but I’m not repeating it, because you choose to be thick as pig ■■■■.
Ok, I’m going to stick my head over the parapet here. I’ve looked at the pictures time and time again, and I think Carryfast is right to say the trailer is NOT a 16fter. Forget all the other rubbish about how bridges are signed, and the whole imperial/metric thing, but the single assertion that it was only a “near hit” rather than a full scale Mad Max job is, I think correct.
The one view that would nail it - showing the height of the trailer in relation to the tractor unit - isn’t shown that I can find (if it is, please point me that way). But the view of the back end does NOT show a massive lean, nor does the front end at the top of the trailer show any major damage. Certainly not 2-foot-of-headboard-slammed-into-a-bridge-type damage. The creases in what can only have been a very badly tensioned curtain (not uncommon at all) seem to be generated by the middle of the roof being depressed. The overall impression is skewed by the fact it’s a stepframe trailer with pram wheels on the arse end - so built for cube rather than weight. If you look again at the headboard, it doesn’t appear to be that high. In fact, it looks not dissimilar to a 14ft 6 hi-cube container.
Do I need to give full career details and driving credentials to allow my contribution to be taken seriously, by the way…? 
Lucy:
Ok, I’m going to stick my head over the parapet here. I’ve looked at the pictures time and time again, and I think Carryfast is right to say the trailer is NOT a 16fter. Forget all the other rubbish about how bridges are signed, and the whole imperial/metric thing, but the single assertion that it was only a “near hit” rather than a full scale Mad Max job is, I think correct.The one view that would nail it - showing the height of the trailer in relation to the tractor unit - isn’t shown that I can find (if it is, please point me that way). But the view of the back end does NOT show a massive lean, nor does the front end at the top of the trailer show any major damage. Certainly not 2-foot-of-headboard-slammed-into-a-bridge-type damage. The creases in what can only have been a very badly tensioned curtain (not uncommon at all) seem to be generated by the middle of the roof being depressed. The overall impression is skewed by the fact it’s a stepframe trailer with pram wheels on the arse end - so built for cube rather than weight. If you look again at the headboard, it doesn’t appear to be that high. In fact, it looks not dissimilar to a 14ft 6 hi-cube container.
Do I need to give full career details and driving credentials to allow my contribution to be taken seriously, by the way…?
I’ll throw something in the mix here, that bridge is 15’9’’ high (FACT!!)
Why it’s marked lower is it kept getting hit by Tallboys if anybody remembers then
Lucy:
Do I need to give full career details and driving credentials to allow my contribution to be taken seriously, by the way…?
Only to the newbies I imagine
Lucy:
but the single assertion that it was only a “near hit” rather than a full scale Mad Max job is, I think correct.
However, TC’s are not currently recognizing a “near hit” or CF’s “interference fit”, it’ll still be a PI for the operator (with all the costs associated with that) and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver. Driver is looking at (on average) 6 weeks suspension of entitlement, and the operator… It depends on how the TC feels about their company.
Lucy:
Ok, I’m going to stick my head over the parapet here. I’ve looked at the pictures time and time again, and I think Carryfast is right to say the trailer is NOT a 16fter. Forget all the other rubbish about how bridges are signed, and the whole imperial/metric thing, but the single assertion that it was only a “near hit” rather than a full scale Mad Max job is, I think correct.The one view that would nail it - showing the height of the trailer in relation to the tractor unit - isn’t shown that I can find (if it is, please point me that way). But the view of the back end does NOT show a massive lean, nor does the front end at the top of the trailer show any major damage. Certainly not 2-foot-of-headboard-slammed-into-a-bridge-type damage. The creases in what can only have been a very badly tensioned curtain (not uncommon at all) seem to be generated by the middle of the roof being depressed. The overall impression is skewed by the fact it’s a stepframe trailer with pram wheels on the arse end - so built for cube rather than weight. If you look again at the headboard, it doesn’t appear to be that high. In fact, it looks not dissimilar to a 14ft 6 hi-cube container.
Do I need to give full career details and driving credentials to allow my contribution to be taken seriously, by the way…?
I didn’t say its a 16foot trailer, I said double decker. It is a double decker with an aerodynamic headboard, that slopes down at the front. The back will be anything between 15’9" and 16’2" The way the curtains fold around the rear corners gives it away as a pallet double 8. As do the pictures taken from the other side of the bridge… you did look at the other pictures?
I explained to currywürst earlier, that the end that the trailers end is stuck under, may not be the lowest point. I used to go under that bridge a lot, and if I remember correctly, the road slopes up in the direction that the truck was traveling. (Southbound) .
At last, somebody enters the debate with a reasonable argument.
Zac_A:
However, TC’s are not currently recognizing a “near hit” or CF’s “interference fit”, it’ll still be a PI for the operator (with all the costs associated with that) and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver. Driver is looking at (on average) 6 weeks suspension of entitlement, and the operator… It depends on how the TC feels about their company.
Which would all obviously be mitigated if misleading and/or inaccurate height information, leading the driver into an incorrect assessment of the available clearance, on the approach to the bridge, can be shown to also be a factor.
I’d guess the driver would have an accurate in cab height indicator correctly set for the known height of the vehicle which can be corroborated by the fleet engineer and an impartial expert witness and the driver obviously hasn’t forgot it’s a high vehicle or that he’s approaching a low arched bridge.
It might be an interesting case that shows not all bridge strikes are the same nor black and white.
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
However, TC’s are not currently recognizing a “near hit” or CF’s “interference fit”, it’ll still be a PI for the operator (with all the costs associated with that) and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver. Driver is looking at (on average) 6 weeks suspension of entitlement, and the operator… It depends on how the TC feels about their company.Which would all obviously be mitigated if misleading and/or inaccurate height information, leading the driver into an incorrect assessment of the available clearance, on the approach to the bridge, can be shown to also be a factor.
I’d guess the driver would have an accurate in cab height indicator correctly set for the known height of the vehicle which can be corroborated by the fleet engineer and an impartial expert witness and the driver obviously hasn’t forgot it’s a high vehicle or that he’s approaching a low arched bridge.
It might be an interesting case that shows not all bridge strikes are the same nor black and white.
I’m not explaining it again. You are just trolling now.
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
However, TC’s are not currently recognizing a “near hit” or CF’s “interference fit”, it’ll still be a PI for the operator (with all the costs associated with that) and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver. Driver is looking at (on average) 6 weeks suspension of entitlement, and the operator… It depends on how the TC feels about their company.Which would all obviously be mitigated if misleading and/or inaccurate height information, leading the driver into an incorrect assessment of the available clearance, on the approach to the bridge, can be shown to also be a factor.
I’d guess the driver would have an accurate in cab height indicator correctly set for the known height of the vehicle which can be corroborated by the fleet engineer and an impartial expert witness and the driver obviously hasn’t forgot it’s a high vehicle or that he’s approaching a low arched bridge.
It might be an interesting case that shows not all bridge strikes are the same nor black and white.
Actually, I take it all back. Contact Norman E Webb transport in Chippenham, your expert knowledge may just save them when they go before the TC…
Zac_A:
However, TC’s are not currently recognizing a “near hit” or CF’s “interference fit”, it’ll still be a PI for the operator (with all the costs associated with that) and a Driver Conduct Hearing for the driver. Driver is looking at (on average) 6 weeks suspension of entitlement, and the operator… It depends on how the TC feels about their company.
Very true. I guess I’m just trying to get my (admittedly very easily confuzzled) head around how we ended up with the picture in front of us… 
the nodding donkey:
I didn’t say its a 16foot trailer, I said double decker. It is a double decker with an aerodynamic headboard, that slopes down at the front. The back will be anything between 15’9" and 16’2" The way the curtains fold around the rear corners gives it away as a pallet double 8. As do the pictures taken from the other side of the bridge… you did look at the other pictures?I explained to currywürst earlier, that the end that the trailers end is stuck under, may not be the lowest point. I used to go under that bridge a lot, and if I remember correctly, the road slopes up in the direction that the truck was traveling. (Southbound) .
Ahhhh! That makes sense! So the back wall hasn’t pushed back because the shape of the roof means there’s enough length in the physical roof covering for it to compact, without pulling the front and back end with it! And that explains why the front end looks so untouched! I did look at the other picture but the penny didn’t drop - although I did briefly wonder if it was a teardrop, then dismissed the idea as they’ve gone out of fashion, and the trailer looks reasonably recent - I’ll look again with fresh eyes now. 
I knew I had to be missing something, thanks ND. 
CF, you take “obsessive and delusional” to a whole new level. 
Haha, why is this still going? The trailer will be repaired before this thread runs out of puff!
It is a teardrop/ aerodynamic trailer, so the front and the aluminium roof fitted in nicely. The steel RSJ’s in the back of the trailer stopped this Evel Knievel.
I know someone who had taken a 14’6’’ under this one. So the bridge is at least that in old money!
Please don’t blame Norman Webb. He was going to Bognor from Chippenham/ Melksham and was clearly asked to use the A34.
I don’t know about everyone else, but I keep thinking about the height of my lorry when I am approaching a bridge.
I laugh at petrol forecourts that only have the metric height markers. I always end up leaning out the window to see the roof!
Cheers
robthedog:
Lucy:
Ok, I’m going to stick my head over the parapet here. I’ve looked at the pictures time and time again, and I think Carryfast is right to say the trailer is NOT a 16fter. Forget all the other rubbish about how bridges are signed, and the whole imperial/metric thing, but the single assertion that it was only a “near hit” rather than a full scale Mad Max job is, I think correct.The one view that would nail it - showing the height of the trailer in relation to the tractor unit - isn’t shown that I can find (if it is, please point me that way). But the view of the back end does NOT show a massive lean, nor does the front end at the top of the trailer show any major damage. Certainly not 2-foot-of-headboard-slammed-into-a-bridge-type damage. The creases in what can only have been a very badly tensioned curtain (not uncommon at all) seem to be generated by the middle of the roof being depressed. The overall impression is skewed by the fact it’s a stepframe trailer with pram wheels on the arse end - so built for cube rather than weight. If you look again at the headboard, it doesn’t appear to be that high. In fact, it looks not dissimilar to a 14ft 6 hi-cube container.
Do I need to give full career details and driving credentials to allow my contribution to be taken seriously, by the way…?
I’ll throw something in the mix here, that bridge is 15’9’’ high (FACT!!)
Why it’s marked lower is it kept getting hit by Tallboys if anybody remembers then
Are you sure? I thought that was the other one, just a bit back, that was replaced with a 16’6" + bridge.
AgentSime:
Haha, why is this still going? The trailer will be repaired before this thread runs out of puff!It is a teardrop/ aerodynamic trailer, so the front and the aluminium roof fitted in nicely. The steel RSJ’s in the back of the trailer stopped this Evel Knievel.
I know someone who had taken a 14’6’’ under this one. So the bridge is at least that in old money!
Please don’t blame Norman Webb. He was going to Bognor from Chippenham/ Melksham and was clearly asked to use the A34.
I don’t know about everyone else, but I keep thinking about the height of my lorry when I am approaching a bridge.
I laugh at petrol forecourts that only have the metric height markers. I always end up leaning out the window to see the roof!
Cheers
If he wasn’t thinking about the height of the lorry then why did he go between the high arch markers and lines at least do the job properly.
A 14’6’’ bridge let’s mark it as 4.2m or 13’9’’ in old money.It doesn’t make sense.
Zac_A:
CF, you take “obsessive and delusional” to a whole new level.
Bearing in mind that these types of collision can be career ending and O licence threatening stuff I’d suggest that the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be applied obsessively.A bridge marked as both 13’9’’ and 14’ is at least reasonable doubt or grounds for mitigation so long as the vehicle isn’t proven to be 14’>.
the nodding donkey:
I’ll throw something in the mix here, that bridge is 15’9’’ high (FACT!!)Why it’s marked lower is it kept getting hit by Tallboys if anybody remembers then
So they’ve marked a supposed 15’9’’ high bridge as 4.2m.Maybe they should also have marked the 12’3’’ part of the bridge as 10’3’’ to match going by the white van paint left under it.
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
CF, you take “obsessive and delusional” to a whole new level.Bearing in mind that these types of collision can be career ending and O licence threatening stuff I’d suggest that the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be applied obsessively.A bridge marked as both 13’9’’ and 14’ is at least reasonable doubt or grounds for mitigation so long as the vehicle isn’t proven to be 14’>.
The bridge is not marked as both 13’9" and 14’
Thick as pig ■■■■…
