Post number 300. says dump the air on the drive axle… Job sorted.
Radar19:
Carryfast:
stevieboy308:
But once again for a bridge to be marked 13’ then minimum it can measure is 13’3" which is 4.0386m thank you pleaseLet’s get this right you want to make up your own rules by ignoring the marked height on bridges and using a margin which may or may not exist,or may exist to a greater or lesser amount,because of numerous variables.Good luck with that.
While the law states that you have to go by the ‘marked’ height indicated in the cab and on the bridge,obviously in imperial not metric.Any deviation from that regarding international operations being a stupid loophole in the law which needs to be sorted.
UK law requires it to be in feet/inches or both on UK trucks but this truck in question is from Flip Flop land where metric is king so his height indicator would be just in metric.
I can’t count the amount of double deckers I’ve picked up with JUST metric measurements on them…annoys the hell out of me, they obviously aren’t for euroland, not sure about Ireland though but at least put imperial on them as well.
albion1938:
AndrewG:
Lets hope the old ■■■■ gets prosecuted for doing that, some people really have nothing better to do with their lives…pretty [zb] sad really…He was prosecuted for criminal damage, and it was thrown out. And he’s not hurting you is he?
Not hurting me no but how sad is it that some old duffer (or otherwise) sees fit to go around removing correctly measured signs because theyre metric. Metric is the way forward and no matter what the likes of CF think it will become the std measurement in the UK as it has all over the rest of Europe. Those moaning about trailer heights not being in imperial is another UK anomoly, if all trailers had a max std height of 4M as does every country in Europe bridge strikes would be virtually wiped out. Over here if tall loads need to be carried (double pallets insulation/packaging ect the correct truck is used ie 7.5-13 tonne low ride long wheel base rigid or drawbar that keeps to the 4m limit. No haulier in the UK needs 5m plus trailers, its about using the right vehicle for the right job but instead carry on using ridiculously tall weak and un aerodynamic trailers that keep knocking big chunks of bridges out and destroying the trailer in the process 
:
the maoster:
Bloody foreigners coming over here with their poofy metric height measurements!
HTF did they manage that ?
AndrewG:
Not hurting me no but how sad is it that some old duffer (or otherwise) sees fit to go around removing correctly measured signs because theyre metric. Metric is the way forward and no matter what the likes of CF think it will become the std measurement in the UK as it has all over the rest of Europe. Those moaning about trailer heights not being in imperial is another UK anomoly, if all trailers had a max std height of 4M as does every country in Europe bridge strikes would be virtually wiped out. Over here if tall loads need to be carried (double pallets insulation/packaging ect the correct truck is used ie 7.5-13 tonne low ride long wheel base rigid or drawbar that keeps to the 4m limit. No haulier in the UK needs 5m plus trailers, its about using the right vehicle for the right job but instead carry on using ridiculously tall weak and un aerodynamic trailers that keep knocking big chunks of bridges out and destroying the trailer in the process
Metric is only the way forward here for those who want it to be.On that note how sad is it that anyone living in a country,where we have more sense and the measuring standard to do it,to want to throw their own system away by calling for bridge heights to be marked in the equivalent of yards.When there’s a reason why we didn’t do it the case of imperial and the same reason applies in the case of changing to the flawed metric system that only has metres to measure them in.On that note I’d suggest you read the article where you’ll find that the so called old duffer you’re insulting like myself and others is open minded and bright enough to be able to swap between measuring standards according to the job.Whether it’s feet,inches,yards or miles.Or metric if/when he has to.Unfortunately for your ideas the flexibility and accuracy of the different imperial measurement references often proving to be superior for all the different applications when viewed with that attitude.Rather than the often ignorant arrogant attitudes of the metric proponents.
As for 4m truck height limits removing the problem.How does that make any difference in the case of all the 4m and under bridges here and in Europe.Where the point is that measuring and referencing them in metres creates more scope for error than feet and inches does.As in this case.IE the reference point in the form of the metre is too big for the overall measurement and or end level of accuracy required.While in others the metre is too small.Such as measuring the distance between Lands End to John o Groats in metres instead of miles.
As for 4m truck height limits removing the problem.How does that make any difference in the case of all the 4m and under bridges here and in Europe.Where the point is that measuring and referencing them in metres creates more scope for error than feet and inches does.As in this case.IE the reference point in the form of the metre is too big for the overall measurement and or end level of accuracy required.While in others the metre is too small.Such as measuring the distance between Lands End to John o Groats in metres instead of miles.
[/quote]
oh god,oh god,oh god…by replying here means he will just flog this some more,but at least its getting closer to 15 pages now…anyhooo…if the meter is too small,then i think someone else has surmounted that problem by inventing a thing called a kilometer■■?..i remember someone referring to them in all the films i watched about vietnam so it must be true.
they surely could just standardise the bridge heigts by measuring them and signing them in metres,after taking off a couple of inches to be on the safe side,and calling them at that?..over to you c/f,but finish off your medication 1st…what is it on friday nights anyway…evapourated milk and mogadon??..
dieseldog999:
if the meter is too small,then i think someone else has surmounted that problem by inventing a thing called a kilometer■■?.
And a kilometre = …1,000 metres.
By that logic why do you think we didn’t just get rid of fractions of inches, inches,feet and miles and just use fractions of yards,yards and 1,000’s of yards. 
Oh wait then the single one size fits all reference point would have been just as bleedin stupid,in it’s scope for errors or count,when used for the wrong application ( like bridge heights or the distance from Lands End to John o Groats for example ),as the metre is.
Carryfast:
dieseldog999:
if the meter is too small,then i think someone else has surmounted that problem by inventing a thing called a kilometer■■?.And a kilometre = …1,000 metres.
By that logic why do you think we didn’t just get rid of fractions of inches, inches,feet and miles and just use fractions of yards,yards and 1,000’s of yards.
1.because even though they are all classed as imperial,then they all have different denoimators and saves us getting invilved with furlongs chains,and leagues if we are playing in the sea…
2.how accurate does a 4.1 meter sign need to be when the clearance is meant to be 4.1 meters and your driving a 4 meter truck…unless…some council ■■■■ measured the bridge wrong,which delving into the depths of time past was the original debate untill you did your usual and diverted it t death with your never ending pedantic hammer… 
dieseldog999:
Carryfast:
dieseldog999:
if the meter is too small,then i think someone else has surmounted that problem by inventing a thing called a kilometer■■?.And a kilometre = …1,000 metres.
By that logic why do you think we didn’t just get rid of fractions of inches, inches,feet and miles and just use fractions of yards,yards and 1,000’s of yards.
1.because even though they are all classed as imperial,then they all have different denoimators and saves us getting invilved with furlongs chains,and leagues if we are playing in the sea…
2.how accurate does a 4.1 meter sign need to be when the clearance is meant to be 4.1 meters and your driving a 4 meter truck…unless…some council [zb] measured the bridge wrong,which delving into the depths of time past was the original debate untill you did your usual and diverted it t death with your never ending pedantic hammer…
If we’ve ditched everything except the yard in favour of just fractions and multiples of just yards what ‘different denominators’ did that leave. 
Yes someone got the metric figures wrong.Which as I said isn’t surprising when they’re referencing a 13 foot + inches bridge in yards and fractions of yards or in this case metres.Instead of feet and inches.
On that note do you really want to land an aircraft based on a count down of metres above the ground or feet.
Carryfast:
If we’ve ditched everything except the yard in favour of just fractions and multiples of just yards what ‘different denominators’ did that leave.Yes someone got the metric figures wrong.Which as I said isn’t surprising when they’re referencing a 13 foot + or - inches bridge in yards and fractions of yards or in this case metres.Instead of feet and inches.
On that note do you really want to land an aircraft based on a count down of metres above the ground or feet.
We count using a base ten system. Quite useful really because we have ten fingers and can use them to help us if we get confused. Extending the base ten system to units of measurement (and currency) is logical.
You just know if we were all pro imperial Carryfast would be pro metric. The ultimate devil’s advocate, just likes to be contrary
We count using a base ten system. Quite useful really because we have ten fingers and can use them to help us if we get confused. Extending the base ten system to units of measurement (and currency) is logical.
[/quote]
pardon■■? 
dieseldog999:
We count using a base ten system. Quite useful really because we have ten fingers and can use them to help us if we get confused. Extending the base ten system to units of measurement (and currency) is logical.pardon■■?
Are they your hands? Is that why you butchered my quote!!! 
I also noticed, the picture is titled “imperial hands” which reinforces my point. (Not that I think it’ll matter!)
Captain Caveman 76:
We count using a base ten system. Quite useful really because we have ten fingers and can use them to help us if we get confused. Extending the base ten system to units of measurement (and currency) is logical.
So it’s better for pilots to land a plane in 10’s of metres ( or yards ) increments rather than 10’s and 5’s of feet.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ok18QiPkL1o 3.49 - 5.08
Or measure a 13 foot bridge in yards and tenths of yards rather than feet and inches.The fact is no one uses their fingers to measure or calculate or count the figure in either case.IE it’s the idea of one reference standard fits all which is more of an issue than the denominations of the count used to denote the increments.
Carryfast:
Such as measuring the distance between Lands End to John o Groats in metres instead of miles.
A lot of this thread has gone way off topic and is having a go at certain poster/s and I have skipped through most of it (especially quote after quote 
pet hate)
Google= Lands end to John ‘o’ Groats just for information
874 Miles
1.407 Kilometres
1.407.000 metres
As far as I can tell (11 pages at last looking) this all boils down to an incorrect bridge marking. And carryfast was right in the first instance by saying know the height of your vehicle
Google says:
4.1 mtrs = rounding up =13’6’’
13’ = rounding up = 3.97 metres
4.0 mtrs = 13.123
A 4.0 metre trailer will not (did not) go under that bridge marked wrongly at 4.1 metres and 13’ 
Should have checked 5th wheel height!!!
Personally I check height of trailer (as stated on the front usually) I know my 5th wheel height then set my imperial height indicator in the cab (strict company procedure) I then drive like I stole it
dri-diddly-iver:
Personally I check height of trailer (as stated on the front usually) I know my 5th wheel height then set my imperial height indicator in the cab (strict company procedure) I then drive like I stole it
Unless you see a bridge marked as 13 feet ahead of your 4m vehicle. 
Carryfast:
So it’s better for pilots to land a plane in 10’s of metres ( or yards ) increments rather than 10’s and 5’s of feet.
Why not 10’s and 5’s of metres?
(Am I right in saying vertical measurements are imperial but horizontal ones are metric in aviation?)
possibly debateable depending on if your flying spitfires or a fokker??
this post is another good reason of me wishing that adolf would have won…then there would only be commonense and metric. 
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
So it’s better for pilots to land a plane in 10’s of metres ( or yards ) increments rather than 10’s and 5’s of feet.Why not 10’s and 5’s of metres?
(Am I right in saying vertical measurements are imperial but horizontal ones are metric in aviation?)
You said only 10’s not 5’s. While I’m guessing that you wouldn’t want to be a passenger on a plane approaching the runway with a decent rate of around 10 metres or more per second or for that matter the pilot to have no further idea of his height when the wheels are still around more than 15 feet off the deck. While we’ve discussed aviation a while back or elsewhere.It’s a mixture but it’s fair to say unless it’s China or Russia then imperial wins out.
dieseldog999:
possibly debateable depending on if your flying spitfires or a fokker??this post is another good reason of me wishing that adolf would have won…then there would only be commonense and metric.
I’m sure that Lancasters were flying in feet over Germany not metres.With a wingspan of 102 feet.Dropping 4,000 lb and 500 lb bombs.In which case I’m sure Adolf would have agreed with you.