Carryfast:
muckles:
Only in Carryfast World, not only does he still have a grudge about the Germans, maybe a Doodle Bug hit his outside lavvy, He still has a grudge with the French, for the Napoleonic wars, probably thinks an episode of Sharpe is a front line news report. I wonder if he has a powdered wig.
No just the precedent that it’s reasonable to expect any driver driving here to know the height of their vehicle in feet and inches.
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Carryfast:
caledoniandream:
There are not many council trucks that are too high, most are well under 13 feet or 3 metre, 9 decimetre, 6 centimetre and 2 millimetres (for the more educated ones 
)
Not when the council truck in question is a multi lift flat with a Muir Hill sitting on the deck. 
While your figures don’t exactly make the case for the metric system as I said being a one trick pony of the metre/litre/gramme.
He’s started go ogling random ■■■■ again, to pretend he has inside knowledge…
Carryfast:
caledoniandream:
There are not many council trucks that are too high, most are well under 13 feet or 3 metre, 9 decimetre, 6 centimetre and 2 millimetres (for the more educated ones )
Not when the council truck in question is a multi lift flat with a Muir Hill sitting on the deck. While your figures don’t exactly make the case for the metric system as I said being a one trick pony of the metre/litre/gramme.
A one truck pony that works so well that most of the World has adopted it.
m4rky:
I burst out laughing when I read this 
When a bridge is marked as 4.1 metres it is advising all drivers that this is the highest vehicle that can pass underneath it (well in the UK anyway). It does not advise the actual height of the bridge! Planners will measure the bridge and decide what is the safest heigh vehicle that can travel underneath it and then sign as such. I feel sorry for the driver in this instance as I have taken many a 4m trailer under a 4m bridge - why on earth wouldn’t you?
We are drivers not mathematicians.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to know that a 4 m truck under a 4 m bridge doesn’t allow for clearance regardless of what the council ‘might’ have allowed as a margin in the signing.While we’re actually talking about the possibility of the driver having taken an over 13 foot truck under a marked 13 foot bridge.
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
caledoniandream:
There are not many council trucks that are too high, most are well under 13 feet or 3 metre, 9 decimetre, 6 centimetre and 2 millimetres (for the more educated ones )
Not when the council truck in question is a multi lift flat with a Muir Hill sitting on the deck. While your figures don’t exactly make the case for the metric system as I said being a one trick pony of the metre/litre/gramme.
He’s started go ogling random [zb] again, to pretend he has inside knowledge…
All of us professional drivers can pretty much see why he hit that bridge, it is just CF who hasn’t driven a truck in 30 years and then only for 3 months who can’t see it and keeps coming up with random crap to divert the attention from the fact that he is wrong.
So far we’ve had the ■■■■’s, the Commies, the Federalist and some outdated tractor to blame.
Carryfast:
m4rky:
I burst out laughing when I read this When a bridge is marked as 4.1 metres it is advising all drivers that this is the highest vehicle that can pass underneath it (well in the UK anyway). It does not advise the actual height of the bridge! Planners will measure the bridge and decide what is the safest heigh vehicle that can travel underneath it and then sign as such. I feel sorry for the driver in this instance as I have taken many a 4m trailer under a 4m bridge - why on earth wouldn’t you?
We are drivers not mathematicians.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to know that a 4 m truck under a 4 m bridge doesn’t allow for clearance regardless of what the council ‘might’ have allowed as a margin in the signing.While we’re actually talking about the possibility of the driver having taken an over 13 foot truck under a marked 13 foot bridge.
Wrong again dude, he was taking a 4m truck under a 4.1m bridge, plenty of room.
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake. 
Carryfast:
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
Wrong again dude, he knows his height in metres, the sign is in metres. What part of that can’t you get.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
m4rky:
I burst out laughing when I read this When a bridge is marked as 4.1 metres it is advising all drivers that this is the highest vehicle that can pass underneath it (well in the UK anyway). It does not advise the actual height of the bridge! Planners will measure the bridge and decide what is the safest heigh vehicle that can travel underneath it and then sign as such. I feel sorry for the driver in this instance as I have taken many a 4m trailer under a 4m bridge - why on earth wouldn’t you?
We are drivers not mathematicians.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to know that a 4 m truck under a 4 m bridge doesn’t allow for clearance regardless of what the council ‘might’ have allowed as a margin in the signing.While we’re actually talking about the possibility of the driver having taken an over 13 foot truck under a marked 13 foot bridge.
Wrong again dude, he was taking a 4m truck under a 4.1m bridge, plenty of room.
Strickly speaking, there wasn’t. Obviously. But that was not the drivers fault.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
m4rky:
I burst out laughing when I read this When a bridge is marked as 4.1 metres it is advising all drivers that this is the highest vehicle that can pass underneath it (well in the UK anyway). It does not advise the actual height of the bridge! Planners will measure the bridge and decide what is the safest heigh vehicle that can travel underneath it and then sign as such. I feel sorry for the driver in this instance as I have taken many a 4m trailer under a 4m bridge - why on earth wouldn’t you?
We are drivers not mathematicians.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to know that a 4 m truck under a 4 m bridge doesn’t allow for clearance regardless of what the council ‘might’ have allowed as a margin in the signing.While we’re actually talking about the possibility of the driver having taken an over 13 foot truck under a marked 13 foot bridge.
Wrong again dude, he was taking a 4m truck under a 4.1m bridge, plenty of room.
Exactly this, Carryfast can argue as much as he likes, or at least until nurse comes round with the meds, but it ain’t going to make an iota of difference to the fact that the bridge had the wrong height sign on it.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
m4rky:
I burst out laughing when I read this When a bridge is marked as 4.1 metres it is advising all drivers that this is the highest vehicle that can pass underneath it (well in the UK anyway). It does not advise the actual height of the bridge! Planners will measure the bridge and decide what is the safest heigh vehicle that can travel underneath it and then sign as such. I feel sorry for the driver in this instance as I have taken many a 4m trailer under a 4m bridge - why on earth wouldn’t you?
We are drivers not mathematicians.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to know that a 4 m truck under a 4 m bridge doesn’t allow for clearance regardless of what the council ‘might’ have allowed as a margin in the signing.While we’re actually talking about the possibility of the driver having taken an over 13 foot truck under a marked 13 foot bridge.
Wrong again dude, he was taking a 4m truck under a 4.1m bridge, plenty of room.
I was referring to the point made by m4rky about taking a 4m truck under a 4m bridge.While in this case it was marked as 13 feet not just 4.1 metres.The obvious inference being that we’ve got drivers running around the country who don’t know or want to know the height of their vehicle in feet and inches.What could possibly go wrong.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
Wrong again dude, he knows his height in metres, the sign is in metres. What part of that can’t you get.
He’ll never get it, bit it’s fun seeing how many pages this thread can run,
I’ve got £10 on 5 pages.
Carryfast:
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
No because he’s foreign and doesn’t take into account the incompetence of those who work for or have worked for councils in England. 
muckles:
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
Wrong again dude, he knows his height in metres, the sign is in metres. What part of that can’t you get.
He’ll never get it, bit it’s fun seeing how many pages this thread can run,
I’ve got £10 on 5 pages.
He’ll never get anything, google is the worst thing for trolls like him. A little knowledge is indeed a very dangerous thing to possess.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
Wrong again dude, he knows his height in metres, the sign is in metres. What part of that can’t you get.
(1) He ‘needs’ to know/should know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches because that’s first and foremost how we denote bridge heights here.
- The sign is also in feet and inches.There being a discrepency between the two heights shown.
Which part of (1) don’t you understand.
Carryfast:
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
muckles:
They might have known what their height was in ft and inches, but arrived at a sign stating 4.1m and thought maybe we’re wrong, because surely the British would know more about converting their archaic system into metric, than a mere Polish Lorry driver.
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
Wrong again dude, he knows his height in metres, the sign is in metres. What part of that can’t you get.
(1) He ‘needs’ to know/should know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches because that’s first and foremost how we denote bridge heights here.
- The sign is also in feet and inches.There being a discrepency between the two heights shown.
Which part of (1) don’t you understand.
Everybody here understands it, it is just you who is clueless as always.
Is your time in the dayroom just about finished?
manski:
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
0
The train must have pushed it down! Simples
roadhog69:
manski:
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
0
The train must have pushed it down! Simples
But did they push in down in Imperial or Metric?
muckles:
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
No because he’s foreign and doesn’t take into account the incompetence of those who work for or have worked for councils in England.
What difference does being foreign make if he’s supposedly bright enough to know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches when he set off and he’s bright enough to know that it’s the 13 feet sign which matters in this case not the 4.1 m one.
Carryfast:
muckles:
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right he knows what it’s height is in feet and inches but decides to go by the higher one of the two signs because the council has made an obvious mistake.
No because he’s foreign and doesn’t take into account the incompetence of those who work for or have worked for councils in England.
What difference does being foreign make if he’s supposedly bright enough to know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches when he set off and he’s bright enough to know that it’s the 13 feet sign which matters in this case not the 4.1 m one.
Who cares, the sign says 4.1m, it is not up to the driver to question that.