Just because you’re carrying a digger you should still know your travelling height
Same happened on the A606 near Nottingham some years ago with tragic consequences; the boom struck the bridge, swung round and ripped the side out of a coach coming t’other way; if memory serves me correctly several on the coach lost their lives.
Not the drivers fault, it’s the confusion of the two different height signs. It’s clearly an interference fit only.
How the local rag saw it: https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/live-cornwall-traffic-trerulefoot-lorry-7877990
the nodding donkey:
Not the drivers fault, it’s the confusion of the two different height signs. It’s clearly an interference fit only.
Zac_A:
the nodding donkey:
Not the drivers fault, it’s the confusion of the two different height signs. It’s clearly an interference fit only.
Zac_A:
the nodding donkey:
Not the drivers fault, it’s the confusion of the two different height signs. It’s clearly an interference fit only.
Yep another interference fit under a 14’9’’ high bridge marked 15’ and even the supposed14’9’’ looks a bit low.
I wouldn’t even want to risk taking the Royal Mail artic under it.So yes it’s the driver’s fault regardless.
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
the nodding donkey:
Not the drivers fault, it’s the confusion of the two different height signs. It’s clearly an interference fit only.
Yep another interference fit under a 14’9’’ high bridge marked 15’ and even the supposed14’9’’ looks a bit low.
I wouldn’t even want to risk taking the Royal Mail artic under it.So yes it’s the driver’s fault regardless.
Good old carryfast back in da house for another bridge height debate
robthedog:
Carryfast:
Zac_A:
the nodding donkey:
Not the drivers fault, it’s the confusion of the two different height signs. It’s clearly an interference fit only.
Yep another interference fit under a 14’9’’ high bridge marked 15’ and even the supposed14’9’’ looks a bit low.
I wouldn’t even want to risk taking the Royal Mail artic under it.So yes it’s the driver’s fault regardless.Good old carryfast back in da house for another bridge height debate
If it needs ‘rounding down’ from 4.6m to 4.5m to provide a safety margin then it also needs rounding down from 15’ to 14’9’'.
> Carryfast:
> I wouldn’t even want to risk taking the Royal Mail artic under it.So yes it’s the driver’s fault regardless.
Most likely the RM artic goes back & forward under it 3 or 4 times a day, but I doubt he/she worries about the Metric height as he/she is a UK driver working on Jacob Rees Mogg’s Imperial with which the bridge (like all others in the UK is signed)
I wager that CF could walk under this bridge without stooping
(No Metric Signs for Some Reason 
)
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> I wouldn’t even want to risk taking the Royal Mail artic under it.So yes it’s the driver’s fault regardless.
Most likely the RM artic goes back & forward under it 3 or 4 times a day, but I doubt he/she worries about the Metric height as he/she is a UK driver working on Jacob Rees Mogg’s Imperial with which the bridge (like all others in the UK is signed)I wager that CF could walk under this bridge without stooping
(No Metric Signs for Some Reason
If I see two signs on a bridge and one says 4.5m and one says 15’ I’d stop and ask questions first all bets are off at that point.Especially in the case of a bridge that looks that low by the pic.