Another 4m truck hits the 4.1m Bridge?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
161

Carryfast:

Dolph:
While we are on the subject :smiley: , why people mention fuel being measured in imperial gallons, when in fact I never see gallons in UK, not on the fuel station, there everything is in liters. Milk bottles are not in gallons either.
Yet when I read car reviews regarding car fuel consumption it states MPG, what the hell, at the petrol station the display is in liters, why fuel consumption is not given in liter like in Europe, or lets change the petrol station numeracy back to gallons.
In US fuel is in gallons at the pump, milk has 2 main sizes 1 gallon and 1/2 gallon, of course American gallons. But my point is, why we talk about imperial(UK) gallon when there is nowhere to be found?
CF you are very thick headed man, saying imperial measuring system is superior in 21 century is a complete farce.

P.S. If its up to me I’ll standard all measurements in the whole Europe if not the World. Every time when Im in another country Ive to learn new clothing size, new shoe size, new this/that size, freaking time consuming and unnecessary. Even American and British shoe size, clothing size and gallons are different :imp:
Oh yeah and the fuel octane level as well.
Oh yeah can we change this PSI [zb] as well, is so much easier with bar. 15 inch tyre 2.2 bar, 16-17 inch tyre 2.4 bar etc.

As I said zb metric nazis.

No thanks you can shove your Newton Metres and litres/100 km’s and since when did the Americans sell milk in gallons and half gallons rather than quarts ( around a litre ) or bar was a metric measurement rather than kg/cm2.On that note exactly how heavy is the bs Newton as a measure of torque when applied to a lever and as we all know a bar is one atmosphere which is 14.5 psi.

Meanwhile maybe now we know why the Americans chucked you out because you refused to recognise bridge heights in feet and inches. :unamused: :laughing:

You are clueless beyond believe :open_mouth:

162

This thread has now very obviously gone to rat ■■■■.
Totally unbelievable that someone could carry this into the now oblivion…

METRIC IS THE WAY FORWARD AS ITS THE EASIEST TO WORK WITH! IMPERIAL MEASURES ARE OLD AND OUT DATED>>

163

[quote="AndrewG

METRIC IS THE WAY FORWARD AS ITS THE EASIEST TO WORK WITH! IMPERIAL MEASURES ARE OLD AND OUT DATED>>[/quote]
+1

And if you cant multiply metres by 3ft 3 1/4 inches by using mental arithmatric then you shouldn’t be driving a truck !!

164

AndrewG:
This thread has now very obviously gone to rat [zb].
Totally unbelievable that someone could carry this into the now oblivion…

METRIC IS THE WAY FORWARD AS ITS THE EASIEST TO WORK WITH! IMPERIAL MEASURES ARE OLD AND OUT DATED>>

No just that someone has had the nerve to disagree with your dictatorial ideas.On that note I’ll continue to view a tank full of fuel in ‘easier’ to use gallons and measure torque in pounds feet not newton metres and buy beer in pints and measure distance in miles or yards or feet or inches according to application and pressures in psi not kg/cm2.Which obviously by definition means that it’s ‘easier’ to view bridge heights in feet and inches,than using metres and fractions of metres in just the same way that I don’t view them in yards and fractions of yards.

While in this case had the driver been bright enough to know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches,in a country which uses feet and inches to measure bridge heights,the muppet probably wouldn’t have hit the bridge.

IE the only rat zb here is the closed minded ignorant ideas of the metric nazis.

165

raymundo:
And if you cant multiply metres by 3ft 3 1/4 inches by using mental arithmatric then you shouldn’t be driving a truck !!

Great then no one should have any problems in the case of a bridge marked in feet and inches.Although why any need for any mental arithmetic anyway when you should know the height of the vehicle before leaving the yard.In this case,assuming it’s running international,obviously in feet and inches ‘and’ metres.

The issue in this case seeming to be the predictable result of the unnatural nature of using the equivalent of yards and fractions of yards to measure bridge heights v a driver who is too ignorant to know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches.On that note it was the bridge sign authority that got the arithmetic wrong while it was the driver who hit the bridge because he didn’t know and didn’t care about the relevant measurement of the vehicle which probably would have prevented the collision.IE mistake v bleedin ignorance.In just the same way as it would be in the case of a UK driver hitting a continental bridge because he can’t/won’t use a metric height measurement of the vehicle, regardless of the fact that continentals obviously wouldn’t provide a feet and inches equivalent sign anyway.

166

Nothing dictatorial about my ideas CF its just plain common sense. No one in Europe uses such archaic weights and measures, its all metric. Whichever measurement is used whether litres, kilo’s, metres ect its all basic easy to use arithmatic, the very reason its the only thing taught in schools now. I fill my truck in litres, i travel in kilometres, my wheel nuts are torqued up in n/m, tyre pressure is in bar and speed is defined in kmh, why would anyone in their right mind want to go backwards into the dark ages using such complicated weights and measures such as imperial??
Ive come to the conclusion you argue for arguements sake… :unamused:

167

AndrewG:
Nothing dictatorial about my ideas CF its just plain common sense. No one in Europe uses such archaic weights and measures, its all metric. Whichever measurement is used whether litres, kilo’s, metres ect its all basic easy to use arithmatic, the very reason its the only thing taught in schools now. I fill my truck in litres, i travel in kilometres, my wheel nuts are torqued up in n/m, tyre pressure is in bar and speed is defined in kmh, why would anyone in their right mind want to go backwards into the dark ages using such complicated weights and measures such as imperial??
Ive come to the conclusion you argue for arguements sake… :unamused:

Yes we get it you think metric is best and everyone else must follow you ideas.

Who gives a zb what they do in Europe when this is England where feet and inches and miles and pints and gallons are as relevant as ever not to mention easier to use unless you’re saying that yards was ever the correct way to measure bridge heights,let alone the bs figures involved in metric torque and fuel amounts and fuel consumption and pressures.Especially when you meet a bridge which says 13 feet with a truck measuring 4 metres for example.

While since when was one atmosphere of pressure a metric measurement.Let me guess kg/cm2 is more aggravation than its worth.Just like newton metres etc etc. :unamused:

168

Carryfast:

AndrewG:
Nothing dictatorial about my ideas CF its just plain common sense. No one in Europe uses such archaic weights and measures, its all metric. Whichever measurement is used whether litres, kilo’s, metres ect its all basic easy to use arithmatic, the very reason its the only thing taught in schools now. I fill my truck in litres, i travel in kilometres, my wheel nuts are torqued up in n/m, tyre pressure is in bar and speed is defined in kmh, why would anyone in their right mind want to go backwards into the dark ages using such complicated weights and measures such as imperial??
Ive come to the conclusion you argue for arguements sake… :unamused:

Yes we get it you think metric is best and everyone else must follow you ideas.

Who gives a zb what they do in Europe when this is England where feet and inches and miles and pints and gallons are as relevant as ever not to mention easier to use unless you’re saying that yards was ever the correct way to measure bridge heights,let alone the bs figures involved in metric torque and fuel amounts and fuel consumption and pressures.Especially when you meet a bridge which says 13 feet with a truck measuring 4 metres for example.

While since when was one atmosphere of pressure a metric measurement.Let me guess kg/cm2 is more aggravation than its worth.Just like newton metres. :unamused:

Naaa, this aint England, at least not for all of us. Well if you dont like Europe, why dont you build your own trucks, why drive “stupid” Euro Scania, Mercedes, Renault, build your own.
Imperial measurements are dead in 21st century, the same way the Empire that invented them is dead. Get use to it. Just because some little Englanders like yourself resist common sense, doesn’t mean Imperial measurements are better.
In green are countries who officially adopted metric system as legal, with few exceptions to UK, which continue to use imperial along side metric measurements.

940px-Metric_system_adoption_map.svg.png
940px-Metric_system_adoption_map.svg.png940×477 80.1 KB

169

Dolph:

Carryfast:

AndrewG:
Nothing dictatorial about my ideas CF its just plain common sense. No one in Europe uses such archaic weights and measures, its all metric. Whichever measurement is used whether litres, kilo’s, metres ect its all basic easy to use arithmatic, the very reason its the only thing taught in schools now. I fill my truck in litres, i travel in kilometres, my wheel nuts are torqued up in n/m, tyre pressure is in bar and speed is defined in kmh, why would anyone in their right mind want to go backwards into the dark ages using such complicated weights and measures such as imperial??
Ive come to the conclusion you argue for arguements sake… :unamused:

Yes we get it you think metric is best and everyone else must follow you ideas.

Who gives a zb what they do in Europe when this is England where feet and inches and miles and pints and gallons are as relevant as ever not to mention easier to use unless you’re saying that yards was ever the correct way to measure bridge heights,let alone the bs figures involved in metric torque and fuel amounts and fuel consumption and pressures.Especially when you meet a bridge which says 13 feet with a truck measuring 4 metres for example.

While since when was one atmosphere of pressure a metric measurement.Let me guess kg/cm2 is more aggravation than its worth.Just like newton metres. :unamused:

Naaa, this aint England, at least not for all of us. Well if you dont like Europe, why dont you build your own trucks, why drive “stupid” Euro Scania, Mercedes, Renault, build your own.
Imperial measurements are dead in 21st century, the same way the Empire that invented them is dead. Get use to it. Just because some little Englanders like yourself resist common sense, doesn’t mean Imperial measurements are better.
In green are countries who officially adopted metric system as legal, with few exceptions to UK, which continue to use imperial along side metric measurements.

As I said which is the more enlightened intelligent outlook.Dealing with both systems.Or being blinkered and ignorant to the point of ( possibly ) driving a 4m truck under a 13 foot bridge because its driver is too ignorant to know its height in both metric and feet and inches before leaving the yard.In a country where feet and inches are the logical common choice for the measurement in question.

While how do you jump to the conclusion that the former equates to ‘not liking Europe’.

While the fact remains,assuming the 13 feet height marker is correct,it isn’t me who’d have driven an over height truck under the bridge even if I’d have been a foreign national.On the basis that I’d know that it’s predictable that I might find a wrong metric marker here. :unamused:

170

Yes we get it you think metric is best and everyone else must follow you ideas.

Who gives a zb what they do in Europe when this is England where feet and inches and miles and pints and gallons are as relevant as ever not to mention easier to use unless you’re saying that yards was ever the correct way to measure bridge heights,let alone the bs figures involved in metric torque and fuel amounts and fuel consumption and pressures.Especially when you meet a bridge which says 13 feet with a truck measuring 4 metres for example.

While since when was one atmosphere of pressure a metric measurement.Let me guess kg/cm2 is more aggravation than its worth.Just like newton metres etc etc. :unamused:

google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc … fEs9ZTdgCg

171

So here in Europe Carryfast, you would say that our measurements of length are difficult ?

Now let me get yours right

12" in 1’
3’ to 1 yd
seems reasonably easy, but then we get to
1760 yards in 1 mile or is that x3 to make it
5280’ to that mile. !
Now I know for easy reference 1 mtr is around 3.3’ so a mtr is just over a yard;

If I’m working at home and need a bit of timber , I will measure it as 4m or 400cm or 4000mm , if it’s anywhere in between i;e 3.6m it will be simple to sort out because it will be 360 cm or 3600mm, cutting that piece down by 1.2m it will be a simple task,not here in the UK. I have a length of timber 4yd,1’,4" , now I need to take of 2’,7". So that will be 7" off of 4"+12" = 16-7 = 5 , carry 1which makes the 2’ now3 to take away from 1, which is actually 1 +3 … Imperial is so easy isn’t, then you have oz, lbs, stones, how does that one go? I can never remember is it 14 or 16 oz in 1 lb?

I’ll stick with mine thank-you mm to Km, gramms to kilos, deciltrs to ltrs, divide or multiply by “10”

And me in my continental spec truck and trailer coming over to the UK, bearing in mind that I already have to work out the UK MPH speed limits to those on my KPH speedometer, ( divide by 5, multiply by 8 ) which I do very well, if I see 4m1 on a bridge advisory sign I will think that it’s safe to go under it. I would expect that whoever put up that sign to have done it properly.
You keep going on about foreign drivers need to know the height of their vehicles, well they do, they are max 4mt. The bridge heights on that photo, metric height and imperial height were not equivalent, not my or any other drivers fault. I would like to think that I would be safe to go under it as I always read the metric sign first. You keep going on about the fact that we should all come over here knowing our trailer heights in the imperial measurements, what would you say if it had been an English driver?
I have worked in the UK and I know that not all trailers have the metric and imperial heights on the front. A driver based here in England picks up a trailer in the yard, he looks at the measurement details on the front and it is only in metric and it says 4 mt 0 . , He hits that same bridge in that photo, I suppose you are going to say that he should have known the height in imperial, or suddenly thought to himself as he approached said bridge at 40 MPH, “hang on a minute, there’s a discrepency between those two figures” think not, he will plod on and bang*
The fault is with whoever authorised that sign going up, without checking first if the two measurements matched.

:imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Rant over.

172

pierrot 14:
So here in Europe Carryfast, you would say that our measurements of length are difficult ?

Now let me get yours right

12" in 1’
3’ to 1 yd
seems reasonably easy, but then we get to
1760 yards in 1 mile or is that x3 to make it
5280’ to that mile. !
Now I know for easy reference 1 mtr is around 3.3’ so 3 mtrs is just over a yard;

If I’m working at home and need a bit of timber , I will measure it as 4m or 400cm or 4000mm , if it’s anywhere in between i;e 3.6m it will be simple to sort out because it will be 360 cm or 3600mm, cutting that piece down by 1.2m it will be a simple task,not here in the UK. I have a length of timber 4yd,1’,4" , now I need to take of 2’,7". So that will be 7" off of 4"+12" = 16-7 = 5 , carry 1which makes the 2’ now3 to take away from 1, which is actually 1 +3 … Imperial is so easy isn’t, then you have oz, lbs, stones, how does that one go? I can never remember is it 14 or 16 oz in 1 lb?

I’ll stick with mine thank-you mm to Km, gramms to kilos, deciltrs to ltrs, divide or multiply by “10”

And me in my continental spec truck and trailer coming over to the UK, bearing in mind that I already have to work out the UK MPH speed limits to those on my KPH speedometer, ( divide by 5, multiply by 8 ) which I do very well, if I see 4m1 on a bridge advisory sign I will think that it’s safe to go under it. I would expect that whoever put up that sign to have done it properly.
You keep going on about foreign drivers need to know the height of their vehicles, well they do, they are max 4mt. The bridge heights on that photo, metric height and imperial height were not equivalent, not my or any other drivers fault. I would like to think that I would be safe to go under it as I always read the metric sign first. You keep going on about the fact that we should all come over here knowing our trailer heights in the imperial measurements, what would you say if it had been an English driver?
I have worked in the UK and I know that not all trailers have the metric and imperial heights on the front. A driver based here in England picks up a trailer in the yard, he looks at the measurement details on the front and it is only in metric and it says 4 mt 0 . , He hits that same bridge in that photo, I suppose you are going to say that he should have known the height in imperial, or suddenly thought to himself as he approached said bridge at 40 MPH, “hang on a minute, there’s a discrepency between those two figures” think not, he will plod on and bang*
The fault is with whoever authorised that sign going up, without checking first if the two measurements matched.

:imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Rant over.

You missed that staple weight that us truckers need all the time. The CWT. Or hundred weight… :unamused: :unamused:

173

pierrot 14:
Now I know for easy reference 1 mtr is around 3.3’ so 3 mtrs is just over a yard;

Maths clearly not your strong point…

174

Roymondo:

pierrot 14:
Now I know for easy reference 1 mtr is around 3.3’ so 3 mtrs is just over a yard;

Maths clearly not your strong point…

ooops Just seen what I posted, silly me (blame it on tonights blend of Ricard, Vin Rouge and Cognac)

Should’ve been 1 mtr is just over “A” yard,
Obviously all that calculating imperial measurements during my post totally addled my grey matter :grimacing: :grimacing: :grimacing:

175

Roymondo:

pierrot 14:
Now I know for easy reference 1 mtr is around 3.3’ so 3 mtrs is just over a yard;

Maths clearly not your strong point…

:grimacing: :grimacing: :grimacing:

Any fool knows that 1 meter is equal to three stone, which converters to fourteen leagues. And three leagues being almost as much as three elbows, it stands to reason that an inch is at least 5 centimeters.

176

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
after ploughing through 5 bleeding pages of waffling pedantic handbags at dawn pish…4.1 bridge gets whacked by a 4m truck…if the trucks measured at 4m…then the fault is the fanny that measured the bridge and ordered the sign…or not?? any chance of a definate answer before cf wakes up from his crypt again?? :unamused:

177

the nodding donkey:
So here in Europe Carryfast, you would say that our measurements of length are difficult ?

Now let me get yours right

12" in 1’
3’ to 1 yd
seems reasonably easy, but then we get to
1760 yards in 1 mile or is that x3 to make it
5280’ to that mile. !
Now I know for easy reference 1 mtr is around 3.3’ so 3 mtrs is just over a yard;

If I’m working at home and need a bit of timber , I will measure it as 4m or 400cm or 4000mm , if it’s anywhere in between i;e 3.6m it will be simple to sort out because it will be 360 cm or 3600mm, cutting that piece down by 1.2m it will be a simple task,not here in the UK. I have a length of timber 4yd,1’,4" , now I need to take of 2’,7". So that will be 7" off of 4"+12" = 16-7 = 5 , carry 1which makes the 2’ now3 to take away from 1, which is actually 1 +3 … Imperial is so easy isn’t, then you have oz, lbs, stones, how does that one go? I can never remember is it 14 or 16 oz in 1 lb?

I’ll stick with mine thank-you mm to Km, gramms to kilos, deciltrs to ltrs, divide or multiply by “10”

And me in my continental spec truck and trailer coming over to the UK, bearing in mind that I already have to work out the UK MPH speed limits to those on my KPH speedometer, ( divide by 5, multiply by 8 ) which I do very well, if I see 4m1 on a bridge advisory sign I will think that it’s safe to go under it. I would expect that whoever put up that sign to have done it properly.
You keep going on about foreign drivers need to know the height of their vehicles, well they do, they are max 4mt. The bridge heights on that photo, metric height and imperial height were not equivalent, not my or any other drivers fault. I would like to think that I would be safe to go under it as I always read the metric sign first. You keep going on about the fact that we should all come over here knowing our trailer heights in the imperial measurements, what would you say if it had been an English driver?
I have worked in the UK and I know that not all trailers have the metric and imperial heights on the front. A driver based here in England picks up a trailer in the yard, he looks at the measurement details on the front and it is only in metric and it says 4 mt 0 . , He hits that same bridge in that photo, I suppose you are going to say that he should have known the height in imperial, or suddenly thought to himself as he approached said bridge at 40 MPH, “hang on a minute, there’s a discrepency between those two figures” think not, he will plod on and bang*
The fault is with whoever authorised that sign going up, without checking first if the two measurements matched.

:imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :imp: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Rant over.

Let’s start with your wood work comparison.If I’m cutting a piece of wood more or less than exact amounts of yards IE more or less than 3/6/9/12 feet I don’t bother with yards at all.I use feet and inches.So let’s say 13 foot 6 inches.I buy 14 feet of timber and cut off 6 inches.However I might want that to end up as 13 feet 5 and 5/8 th inches.Remind us how many different reference points you’ll need to refer to for the same piece on a ruler marked out in metres,centimetres and mm’s.Bearing in mind I’ll need to count to only the relevant feet/inches and eighth markers also bearing in mind I’ve also got the choice of sixteenths,thirty seconds and sixty fourths of an inch to choose from in the case of precision sheet metal work for example.

As for the bridge issue as I said we use feet and inches because,like the wood work example,that’s the best option for the job.Not yards and tenths of yards or metres.That’s our choice.I’d suggest if you want to drive in our country then it’s best to drive on the left,understand how far a mile and yard is,and know the height of the vehicle in feet and inches. :bulb:

178

dieseldog999:
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
after ploughing through 5 bleeding pages of waffling pedantic handbags at dawn pish…4.1 bridge gets whacked by a 4m truck…if the trucks measured at 4m…then the fault is the fanny that measured the bridge and ordered the sign…or not?? any chance of a definate answer before cf wakes up from his crypt again?? :unamused:

It wasn’t a 4.1 metre bridge it was marked as a 13 foot bridge which the driver possibly wouldn’t have hit ‘if’ he’d been bright enough to know the height of the truck in feet and inches before he left the yard.Rather than relying on a mistaken metric sign in a country not known for measuring bridges in Metres ( or yards ).

179

Carryfast:
Rather than relying on a mistaken metric sign in a country not known for measuring bridges in Metres ( or yards ).

All new height restriction or warning signs are dual unit. The option of imperial units only has been removed from the latest version of TSRGD (despite the protests of some of the little Englanders in the Torys).

Yes, he legally should have had the height displayed in feet and inches when he was driving in the UK (and we don’t know if he did or not), but when seeing a dual unit sign the driver would probably pay attention to the units they were most familiar with and check their height against that, rather than reading both sets of units to check their vehicle was within both of them.

180

the only thing wrong with that is that his yard was in flipflop land,and he no doubt ran under 500 4m bridges before hitting this one…if im abroad,i know i can get under a 4m…i dont give a toss whatever else it says,as it dont say anything else…hence jonny flipflop wouldnt think to look further than 4.m…i tend to notice 13-9 in the uk for fridges,other than that.its metric and if lower than 13-9 its a case of doing my sums.i wouldnt think any taliban driver would see anything other than 4.1m as theres really no need for him to do so.the bridge height is wrong…not the talibans fault…or am i the only one that thinks so…
oh…and by the way…that new guy that posted the war and peace just msgd me and says that your a fanny…honest…he did…just a wee while ago…honestly…i was shocked…id have a word with him if i was you… :open_mouth: