Sort of moot if he picked up the trailer and is on the opposite side of ‘the bridge’ v the depot where he’s taking it.
To even be using the A5 from the start there with a 15’> high vehicle seems like some serious non thinking.
Give your head a wobble. You have zero idea of where the depot is in relation to the bridge, so stop trying to prove whatever point it is you’re trying to prove.
To add the point that ‘I’m trying to prove’ is badly driven trucks, using unsuitable alternative non motorway routes, for the drivers’ abilities.Thereby defeating the object of using them for everyone else in terms of journey times.
if not turning them into a dangerous lottery because they don’t have the judgement to keep the thing on the correct side of the road etc.
Or seem to get the fact that a higher vehicle won’t go under a lower bridge.
Blimey it wasn’t me who hit the bridge with an over height truck.He was obviously on route from one side of the bridge to the other.Obviously the M6 is the default choice but it ain’t going under that bridge regardless.
I never said it was you who hit the bridge, I was merely commenting that despite you being like a bloody dog with a bone in your assertion of how c rap the M6 is and he shouldn’t have been using the A5 the fact remains that he had to use the A5 at some point.
Yes he royally screwed up, but the fact remains that is where the depot is.
That fits into the category needed to use it for ‘access’ limited to one side of the bridge not use it as a through route to get from point A on one side of the bridge to point B on the other side of the bridge.
The M6 was the default route.This was the result.
I can’t quite see how this end result has happened, has the damaged car moved position on the top deck?
That would have been an awkward phone call.
It looks like a ‘standard’ (so unmarked) bridge is it?
Yep, 16’6 no restrictions
That car, positioned so nicely vertical between wag and drag(calm down Carryfast), was the one which started the journey on the ‘peak’ over the cab so he must have hit the bridge at a rate of knots to get it where it is! 
1 Like
I looked at that piccie several times…
Did the car on the peak mine it’s way under the one behind it?
Or leap over it?
Either way I can’t see any damage to the lower car…
So obviously I would never qualify for a transporter driver…
As you see it?
Did the car on the peak snag on the bridge, become airborne, and land as seen?
I guess that fits better than anything else.
Must have hit fast, and braked fast too??
Did the car on the peak snag on the bridge, become airborne, and land as seen?
Reckon that’s the truth of it. If you look closely the 2nd car is still strapped down over the wheels!
It might buff out.
never done it and dont wish to but is the car on the “peak” angled up towards the back then
Love the way the airbags have gone off!
Another ■■■■ hit a low railway bridge near me this morning with an artic and container trailer. He reversed back and drove off, but not before other motorists had photographed it and taken his reg number. How did he think he’d get away with that. Much more infuriatingly, he stopped the train I was due to catch to London for a medical appointment I’ve been waiting five years for!! In the end I grabbed a taxi and went to a station where I had a chance of catching another train. I arrived with five minutes to spare. It’s the knock-on effect of poor judgement for the rest of us that these fools cause us to suffer (not gladly). I drove with 16’ high trailers and even drove double-decker buses, and I can recognise numbers and letters - it’s not rocket science. Rant over.
Can you send the transport company your taxi bill?
That company will be lucky to still have name by the end of the month! The Traffic Commissioner will bounce it out of the door, I would imagine: a driver hitting a railway bridge with a 44-tonner is bad enough but a hit-and-run incident is going to see heads roll.