Yes I did intend to type it like that.
This morning what looks like a standard 4m euro trailer has hit the railway bridge at Penyfford, North Wales.
This is the bridge that is marked as 4.1m / 13’ 0" and since 13’0" converts to 3.96 you start to wonder…
dailypost.co.uk/news/north-w … e-12188557
Right click on image, copy image location, paste to post, highlight, use Img button
Thanks vid, looks like I was doing it the hard way while you were posting 
Oh dear. It looks like Highways or the local council will or could be footing the bill.
cav551:
Oh dear. It looks like Highways or the local council will or could be footing the bill.
From my understanding of how they calculate bridge heights.
gov.uk/government/uploads/s … ter-04.pdf (page 31)
For it to be marked at 4.1m it would have to have been measured between 4.18 → 4.27m
For it to be marked at 13’ 0", it would need to have been measured between 13’ 3" and 13’ 6" (4.04m and 4.12m)
So basically one of the measurements on the sign is wrong.
Yes, the strange thing is this is the second time in a few months. There was a big fuss last time about what appears to be an error in the signage but nothing has changed. Our yard is only 5 minutes away and we have a 4.1m trailer but I am not keen on the experiment, we go around the other way 
Here is the last time
People do struggle with the unforgiving nature of a bridge strike, but the logic is absolute. If you drive under a static object and your vehicle doesn’t fit, it’s your fault. No argument. If you have to quibble over 3 centimetres of potential error, you are overheight. Simple. Why try to second-guess it? Go another way. And if you really do think it’s marginal, you can always stop short of the bridge, assess the situation, or proceed with extreme care. But, as the pictures show, these drivers sailed under this bridge without a care in the world, until brought to an abrupt halt. Bridge strikes are caused by inattention, always.
Cosmic:
People do struggle with the unforgiving nature of a bridge strike, but the logic is absolute. If you drive under a static object and your vehicle doesn’t fit, it’s your fault. No argument. If you have to quibble over 3 centimetres of potential error, you are overheight. Simple. Why try to second-guess it? Go another way. And if you really do think it’s marginal, you can always stop short of the bridge, assess the situation, or proceed with extreme care. But, as the pictures show, these drivers sailed under this bridge without a care in the world, until brought to an abrupt halt. Bridge strikes are caused by inattention, always.
You are either a bit thick or intellectually challenged. The truck is 4.0, the bridge says 4.1. Why in the heck would he stop and check. You want every double decker running at max height to stop at each and every motorway bridge to visually check?
This is a council/HA ■■■■ up, nothing to do with the driver. This is the second time in a month that a 4.0 trailer hits a 4.1 bridge.
Cosmic:
People do struggle with the unforgiving nature of a bridge strike, but the logic is absolute. If you drive under a static object and your vehicle doesn’t fit, it’s your fault. No argument. If you have to quibble over 3 centimetres of potential error, you are overheight. Simple. Why try to second-guess it? Go another way. And if you really do think it’s marginal, you can always stop short of the bridge, assess the situation, or proceed with extreme care. But, as the pictures show, these drivers sailed under this bridge without a care in the world, until brought to an abrupt halt. Bridge strikes are caused by inattention, always.
What twaddle! Drivers who drive their 4m trucks all over Europe issue free are quite within their rights to expect their 4m truck to go under a 4.1m bridge. If you can visually accurately measure bridges with your naked eye good for you, but most of rely on signs, which should be correct.
The trailer heights have not been verified in these 2 incidents. Someone thinks one of them looks like 4.0m.
When they do accident investigations, they only deal with clinical facts, not thoughts.
Do I sympathise with the drivers? Yes.
Could this happen to me? Yes.
Could the sign be wrong? Yes.
Does the bridge care? No.
Did those trucks fit under the bridge? No.
Facts not thoughts.
Cosmic:
The trailer heights have not been verified in these 2 incidents. Someone thinks one of them looks like 4.0m.
When they do accident investigations, they only deal with clinical facts, not thoughts.Do I sympathise with the drivers? Yes.
Could this happen to me? Yes.
Could the sign be wrong? Yes.
Does the bridge care? No.
Did those trucks fit under the bridge? No.Facts not thoughts.
Trust me, if they were over 4m they wouldn’t have got anywhere near the UK. Holland and Germany esp are covered in 4m bridges, many on motorways. Signed as 4m too. That’s a fact for you. Another clinical fact they may like is that 4m is the (often very strictly enforced) height limit for most of Europe.
I’d like to see Cosmic come to a dead stop on a German motorway because a 4m bridge has presented itself. And no, you get no warning, they just appear, because trucks any higher are illegal and therefore shouldn’t be on the road.
I dunno about you folks, but I’d never even consider taking a C+E under a bridge marked as “only” 13’, any more than I’d risk it with the Blackwall Tunnel, also that same marked height.
If you have not measured the height yourself in person, I have taken as a rule of thumb “Always assume your combination is at least 13’9”.
If your cab marker says 13’0" for instance, and you hit a 13’8" bridge - who’s fault is it?
Yours, because you were driving. 
The point I’m making is that there cannot surely be many artic combinations around (box or curtain) that have heights much UNDER 13’9" surely? 
switchlogic:
Cosmic:
People do struggle with the unforgiving nature of a bridge strike, but the logic is absolute. If you drive under a static object and your vehicle doesn’t fit, it’s your fault. No argument. If you have to quibble over 3 centimetres of potential error, you are overheight. Simple. Why try to second-guess it? Go another way. And if you really do think it’s marginal, you can always stop short of the bridge, assess the situation, or proceed with extreme care. But, as the pictures show, these drivers sailed under this bridge without a care in the world, until brought to an abrupt halt. Bridge strikes are caused by inattention, always.What twaddle! Drivers who drive their 4m trucks all over Europe issue free are quite within their rights to expect their 4m truck to go under a 4.1m bridge. If you can visually accurately measure bridges with your naked eye good for you, but most of rely on signs, which should be correct.
To be fair it’s also reasonable to expect that anyone who drives a truck here should be able to understand heights measured in feet and inches just as we have to understand metric over there.On that note a 4m truck ain’t going to go under a 13 foot bridge.Regardless of whether the council has zb’d up the measurement conversion.The double standards of the metric nazis are a joke in that regard.IE it’s only if ‘both’ measurements had been over stated that you’d be right.
Did they re-tarmac the road and not change the sign?
wheelnutt:
You are either a bit thick or intellectually challenged. The truck is 4.0, the bridge says 4.1. Why in the heck would he stop and check.
Because the sign ‘also’ says 13 feet.IE if I’m driving a truck here then I need to know how high it is in bleedin feet and inches not just metres and if a sign is measured in both then I’ll take whichever says the lower. 
I don’t start doing mental arithmetic trying to convert from one system to the other when I see a height warning sign, I go by the units I understand… which is what I would expect the drivers in the two illustrated instances did. The link posted to the government website makes clear that a vehicle which is the exact height mentioned on a roadsign will pass under the relevant bridge. Whether either of these vehicles was actually overheight is irrelevant, one has a right to expect the sign to be correct, bridge strikes have resulted in fatalities.
cav551:
I don’t start doing mental arithmetic trying to convert from one system to the other when I see a height warning sign, I go by the units I understand… which is what I would expect the drivers in the two illustrated instances did. The link posted to the government website makes clear that a vehicle which is the exact height mentioned on a roadsign will pass under the relevant bridge. Whether either of these vehicles was actually overheight is irrelevant, one has a right to expect the sign to be correct, bridge strikes have resulted in fatalities.
You don’t need to convert anything.You just measure the height of the truck in feet and inches when you set off on the trip.Just as I’d measure the height in metres if I’m going over there.In just the same way that you use a 9/16 AF spanner out of your imperial tool kit to tighten a 9/16 AF nut regardless of the fact that a 14 mm might do it and vice versa.
I personally think its ridiculous that we’re still faffing round with feet and inches anyway. Metric makes far more sense. Will annoy certain little Englanders I know but there we go.
Carryfast:
Just as I’d measure the height in metres if I’m going over there.
I don’t think you need to worry to much about working out the heights in the rest of Europe, I’m sure you’ll get under the bridges unless you’ve put stacks on your Allegro.