switchlogic:
I personally think its ridiculous that we’re still faffing round with feet and inches anyway. Metric makes far more sense.
Metric doesn’t make any sense if you try to get under a 13 foot bridge with a 4 metre truck. While marking the bridge at 13 foot 5 inches is a lot more accurate than 4.1 metres.Just as it would be in the case of using yards and tenths of a yard to denote the height.On that note how difficult can it be for Ivan or Fritz etc to measure the truck with an imperial measure in feet and inches before setting off for old England.
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.
switchlogic:
I personally think its ridiculous that we’re still faffing round with feet and inches anyway. Metric makes far more sense.
While marking the bridge at 13 foot 5 inches is a lot more accurate than 4.1 metres.Just as it would be in the case of using yards and tenths of a yard to denote the height.
You could go to another decimal place on the metric measurement and still have an many numbers as the imperial sign.
Personally I think we need to step in line with most of the rest of the commonwealth and go metric, or really finish going metric.
if you belt around euroland flat lit under 4m bridges,then its reasonable to assume you can go under a 4m bridge in the uk irrespective of what it says in feet and inches as jonny flipflop wont see that part.different if its a arch bridge then you might want to lean out and have a look going through,or if it looks dodgy,but 4m is meant to be 4m.
Highways/council have displayed an incorrect measurement on the sign. It’s their fault, they pay for the lorry, and someone senior should lose their job if, as suggested, it’s a repeat.
THE END - (Or it should be anywhere normal people are concerned but, this place, I reckon 5 pages minimum probably ending with handbags)
switchlogic:
I personally think its ridiculous that we’re still faffing round with feet and inches anyway. Metric makes far more sense.
While marking the bridge at 13 foot 5 inches is a lot more accurate than 4.1 metres.Just as it would be in the case of using yards and tenths of a yard to denote the height.
You could go to another decimal place on the metric measurement and still have an many numbers as the imperial sign.
dieseldog999:
if you belt around euroland flat lit under 4m bridges,then its reasonable to assume you can go under a 4m bridge in the uk irrespective of what it says in feet and inches as jonny flipflop wont see that part.different if its a arch bridge then you might want to lean out and have a look going through,or if it looks dodgy,but 4m is meant to be 4m.
The issue is if you belt around blighty with a truck you’ll need to measure it in feet and inches for if/when you predictably meet a bridge marked in feet and inches as in this case.Regardless of what it might also rightly or wrongly say in metres.
Winseer:
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?
What about almost every fridge trailer on the road?
dieseldog999:
if you belt around euroland flat lit under 4m bridges,then its reasonable to assume you can go under a 4m bridge in the uk irrespective of what it says in feet and inches as jonny flipflop wont see that part.different if its a arch bridge then you might want to lean out and have a look going through,or if it looks dodgy,but 4m is meant to be 4m.
The issue is if you belt around blighty with a truck you’ll need to measure it in feet and inches for if/when you predictably meet a bridge marked in feet and inches as in this case.Regardless of what it might also rightly or wrongly say in metres.
It can be so easy:
Metric: everything in 1’s , 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s this is for weight, height, temperature, anything every increase or decrease can be in 1 and in decimals
Imperial: weight in stones, pound and ounces
Imperial: height in foot and inches, yards and miles (1 mile is 1760 yard, 1 yard is 3 feet, 1 feet is 12 inch) there is no logic in, no rythem it’s based on crap’ every decrease or increase is in divides e.g. 1/16 inch etc.
Make life easy, that’s why modern kids learn logic measurements.
The inch is based on the size of a thumb, unlucky if yours is longer or shorter
dieseldog999:
if you belt around euroland flat lit under 4m bridges,then its reasonable to assume you can go under a 4m bridge in the uk irrespective of what it says in feet and inches as jonny flipflop wont see that part.different if its a arch bridge then you might want to lean out and have a look going through,or if it looks dodgy,but 4m is meant to be 4m.
The issue is if you belt around blighty with a truck you’ll need to measure it in feet and inches for if/when you predictably meet a bridge marked in feet and inches as in this case.Regardless of what it might also rightly or wrongly say in metres.
It can be so easy:
Metric: everything in 1’s , 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s this is for weight, height, temperature, anything every increase or decrease can be in 1 and in decimals
Imperial: weight in stones, pound and ounces
Imperial: height in foot and inches, yards and miles (1 mile is 1760 yard, 1 yard is 3 feet, 1 feet is 12 inch) there is no logic in, no rythem it’s based on crap’ every decrease or increase is in divides e.g. 1/16 inch etc.
Make life easy, that’s why modern kids learn logic measurements.
As I said basing every measurement on fractions of the same yard equivalent ( metre ) doesn’t make much sense whether it’s measuring bridge heights ( or flying aircraft ) in yards and decimal fractions of a yard or precision engineering in fractions of a yard.Instead of tenths,hundredths and thousandths of an inch among numerous other possible fractions as required and suit best.IE imperial provides a more relevant measurement for every application.In this case feet and inches rather than yards and fractions of yards.Or 100 miles instead of 160 thousand metres or for that matter just the simple small figure of 2 lbs means expressing it as no less than almost 2 kilo ( 1,000 ) grams in metric.IE metric is a one trick pony of inflexible measurement and Napoleon can keep it.
dieseldog999:
if you belt around euroland flat lit under 4m bridges,then its reasonable to assume you can go under a 4m bridge in the uk irrespective of what it says in feet and inches as jonny flipflop wont see that part.different if its a arch bridge then you might want to lean out and have a look going through,or if it looks dodgy,but 4m is meant to be 4m.
The issue is if you belt around blighty with a truck you’ll need to measure it in feet and inches for if/when you predictably meet a bridge marked in feet and inches as in this case.Regardless of what it might also rightly or wrongly say in metres.
It can be so easy:
Metric: everything in 1’s , 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s this is for weight, height, temperature, anything every increase or decrease can be in 1 and in decimals
Imperial: weight in stones, pound and ounces
Imperial: height in foot and inches, yards and miles (1 mile is 1760 yard, 1 yard is 3 feet, 1 feet is 12 inch) there is no logic in, no rythem it’s based on crap’ every decrease or increase is in divides e.g. 1/16 inch etc.
Make life easy, that’s why modern kids learn logic measurements.
As I said basing every measurement on fractions of the same yard equivalent ( metre ) doesn’t make much sense whether it’s measuring bridge heights ( or flying aircraft ) in yards and decimal fractions of a yard or precision engineering in fractions of a yard.Instead of tenths,hundredths and thousandths of an inch among numerous other possible fractions as required and suit best.IE imperial provides a more relevant measurement for every application.In this case feet and inches rather than yards and fractions of yards.Or 100 miles instead of 160 thousand metres or for that matter just the simple small figure of 2 lbs means expressing it as no less than almost 2 kilo ( 1,000 ) grams in metric.IE metric is a one trick pony of inflexible measurement and Napoleon can keep it.
Now you really are starting to waffle… I’m getting the popcorn.
switchlogic:
I personally think its ridiculous that we’re still faffing round with feet and inches anyway. Metric makes far more sense.
While marking the bridge at 13 foot 5 inches is a lot more accurate than 4.1 metres.Just as it would be in the case of using yards and tenths of a yard to denote the height.
You could go to another decimal place on the metric measurement and still have an many numbers as the imperial sign.
Like 4.47 yards you mean .That’s progress.
So your idea of progress is to bring in a decimal system of measurement.
You know there is already a decimal system used by much of the World and that most of us have been educated in?
Its council fault, pure and simple.
Europe maximum measurements are as follows: Height - 4,00m, width - 2,55m, length - 18,75m, from my Bulgarian C class book, this is valid for the whole Continent, everything else is classed as oversize vehicle. If you drive thru 20-30 countries in 4m truck with no problem you should not have problem in UK when the sign say 4,1m. And many times if not all times, in Europe there is a bit of tolerance - if bridge say 4m height its more, might be 5 or 10 centimeters, but its more.
merc0447:
Maybe im still asleep but that bridge is 13’0 (3.96) and the lorry is standard euro spec 13’1 (4.00)
So what the [zb] are you lot talking about blaming councils etc? The lorry is too high by an inch.
Bridge is 4.1m truck is 4.0m. 10cm spare, crack on. Bang. Oops.
Council has the wrong sign up, can’t blame the driver especially a European one. He approaches a bridge in a 4.0m truck, sees a sign stating 4.1m and some weird number in feet, why would he even convert the height in feet there is no need, the height in metric is clearly displayed.
Look at it from a different perspective, your truck’s height is given in feet and inches, do you convert every bridge height you approach that has both heights given and convert the one in metres to feet and inches and pick the lowest one? Of course not, you go by the height in feet and inches so why shouldn’t this European driver do the same when the height is clearly marked in metres?
Bridge heights aren’t a guessing game where you pick the lowest height given having to convert one unit of measurement into another. Some pillock put the wrong sign up. End of.
Winseer:
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.
I’d just do it if it was a drayman’s lorry or a flatbed or other such low C+E.
While marking the bridge at 13 foot 5 inches is a lot more accurate than 4.1 metres.Just as it would be in the case of using yards and tenths of a yard to denote the height.On that note how difficult can it be for Ivan or Fritz etc to measure the truck with an imperial measure in feet and inches before setting off for old England.
