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’>.
Totally irrelevant. Bridge is marked up at 14ft and that is a 15ft 9, 16ft, 16ft 1 double deck trailer. Driver is 100% at fault for taking a trailer considerably higher than the marked height of the bridge under it, you can keep arguing all you want but as per usual you have no idea what you are talking about and you are wrong.
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’>.
Totally irrelevant. Bridge is marked up at 14ft and that is a 15ft 9, 16ft, 16ft 1 double deck trailer. Driver is 100% at fault for taking a trailer considerably higher than the marked height of the bridge under it, you can keep arguing all you want but as per usual you have no idea what you are talking about and you are wrong.
It’s more likely that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge marked incorrectly as 14’ than it’s a supposed 15’9’’ bridge hit by a 16’ trailer.
If the bridge is supposedly 15’9’’ what does that make the supposed 12’3’’ part of it.
Are you suggesting that’s actually 14’ ‘rounded down’ to 12’3’’ ?.
There you go, you’re just guessing, and obsessing, based on what you can see in the picture. Other people have already said this outfit run vehicles which are lower at the front than at the back, others have already said they know this bridge and the clearance on the far side is less than what can be seen on the photographed side of the bridge, all perfectly reasonable explanations for what we can see, to everyone except you.
There you go, you’re just guessing, and obsessing, based on what you can see in the picture. Other people have already said this outfit run vehicles which are lower at the front than at the back, others have already said they know this bridge and the clearance on the far side is less than what can be seen on the photographed side of the bridge, all perfectly reasonable explanations for what we can see, to everyone except you.
Ironically my case is that the bridge isn’t marked low enough.Its a 13’9’’ bridge just like the 4.2m sign says.
The conclusion seems to be the driver lost the plot with a variable height truck measuring < 13’9’’ at its lowest and 16’ at its highest v a variable height bridge which could be 13’9’’ or 15’9’’ depending on which sign you look at and who you talk to.
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’>.
Totally irrelevant. Bridge is marked up at 14ft and that is a 15ft 9, 16ft, 16ft 1 double deck trailer. Driver is 100% at fault for taking a trailer considerably higher than the marked height of the bridge under it, you can keep arguing all you want but as per usual you have no idea what you are talking about and you are wrong.
It’s more likely that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge marked incorrectly as 14’ than it’s a supposed 15’9’’ bridge hit by a 16’ trailer.
If the bridge is supposedly 15’9’’ what does that make the supposed 12’3’’ part of it.
Are you suggesting that’s actually 14’ ‘rounded down’ to 12’3’’ ?.
You know nothing CF very sad argumentative individual
Another picture, which shows that the trailer has been pushed down considerably, if you observe how close that rear underrun bar is to the road surface.
You can also see how the roof has been pushed down after the lower, sloping front portion.
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’>.
Totally irrelevant. Bridge is marked up at 14ft and that is a 15ft 9, 16ft, 16ft 1 double deck trailer. Driver is 100% at fault for taking a trailer considerably higher than the marked height of the bridge under it, you can keep arguing all you want but as per usual you have no idea what you are talking about and you are wrong.
It’s more likely that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge marked incorrectly as 14’ than it’s a supposed 15’9’’ bridge hit by a 16’ trailer.
If the bridge is supposedly 15’9’’ what does that make the supposed 12’3’’ part of it.
Are you suggesting that’s actually 14’ ‘rounded down’ to 12’3’’ ?.
I never said the bridge was 15’9, I have no local knowledge and I have never seen or been anywhere near it, nor am I getting into specifics with minute details about the difference in meters to feet/inches between 13ft 9 and 14ft. My point was that the bridge is signed as 14ft and this trailer is much higher visually than that (to everyone except you). So the fact remains - it’s driver error and you are totally clueless!
the nodding donkey:
Another picture, which shows that the trailer has been pushed down considerably, if you observe how close that rear underrun bar is to the road surface.
You can also see how the roof has been pushed down after the lower, sloping front portion.
I’d suggest that the pic adds weight to Lucy’s comments not yours.
It’s a step frame trailer that just looks tall at the back because of the resulting load deck height below fifth wheel height.The underrun bar height above the road is by necessity lower than the load deck height which itself is obviously more or less at around the diameter of the small diameter trailer wheels.Which as I said is below the bonnet height of a car.
That trailer hasn’t been pushed down anywhere by any lower bridge height of and by a factor of 2’.
Basically it’s a question of what the in cab height indicator was set at v the bridge height marking and 4.2m ain’t 14’.
The driver obviously knew it was a high vehicle v a low arched bridge on the approach.
the nodding donkey:
Another picture, which shows that the trailer has been pushed down considerably, if you observe how close that rear underrun bar is to the road surface.
You can also see how the roof has been pushed down after the lower, sloping front portion.
Carryfast:
It’s more likely that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge marked incorrectly as 14’ than it’s a supposed 15’9’’ bridge hit by a 16’ trailer.
If the bridge is supposedly 15’9’’ what does that make the supposed 12’3’’ part of it.
Are you suggesting that’s actually 14’ ‘rounded down’ to 12’3’’ ?.
I never said the bridge was 15’9’’
But ND did so do you agree or disagree with that ?.
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 [zb]…
Remind me what is 4.2m converted to feet and inches ?.
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 [zb]…
Remind me what is 4.2m converted to feet and inches ?.
Carryfast:
It’s more likely that it’s a 13’9’’ bridge marked incorrectly as 14’ than it’s a supposed 15’9’’ bridge hit by a 16’ trailer.
If the bridge is supposedly 15’9’’ what does that make the supposed 12’3’’ part of it.
Are you suggesting that’s actually 14’ ‘rounded down’ to 12’3’’ ?.
I never said the bridge was 15’9’’
But ND did so do you agree or disagree with that ?.
I neither agree nor disagree with Nodding Donkey about the bridge being 15ft 9. I am not local to the area and have no knowledge of it so cannot comment on what the true height of it is either way. What I have commented on continually in this thread is what I can see visually from the OP picture. The bridge is signed as being 14ft and that trailer is a double deck trailer that is give or take an inch either way of 16ft. Its driver error, I will keep repeating all of this to you as long as you keep responding and making yourself look even more stupid than you usually do on here!
