But maybe a blind man can also see that bridge doesn’t have 13’3’’ of clearance unless that unit is 13’3’’ high.
But you can abort the pregnancy within the legally stated term time.Which means it never happened.
So possibly hasn’t ‘hit’ any marked 13’3’’ high bridge, with any 13’3’’ high vehicle, before stopping and turning around .
Unless proven otherwise.
It’s not a wind up to say that unit is probably <13’3’’ high. He probably hasn’t hit the bridge with the trailer.
He probably has caught the 13’3’’ marked bridge with a <13’3’‘’ tractor unit.Just the same as if it was running solo.
He has stopped before/without hitting the bridge with any 13’3’’ high vehicle.
Maybe sufficient doubt to at least mitigate any charges.To the point where he might keep his licence and job.
It doesn’t look like he’s the type of driver who’s going to run into a bridge, with an over height vehicle, with sufficient force or misjudgement to do any damage to vehicle or bridge.
Possibly quite the opposite going by the photo.
As I said benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.That’s how our court system is ‘supposed’ to work.
Precisely. Until there is a public announcement that all the witnesses were liars or fools and that no part of his vehicle ever touched the bridge, we are left to wonder why Kent Messenger chose to print the story, why the civil engineers inspected the bridge before allowing trains and why you spent a week fantasising about it on a TN thread.
You’d be better off using your fantasy skills writing lorry p orn about Tuffnal DAF 2300 wagon-and-drags powered by Merlin Spitfire engines running one-hit from Damascus to Muscat. More fun to read. Meanwhile I’ve had enough of this nonsense and will retire to quieter threads. Enjoy!
If a <13’3’’ high tractor unit collided with a bridge marked 13’3’’ then he obviously hasn’t hit the bridge with a 13’3’’ high part of any vehicle.The witnesses saw a collision that’s all they saw backed by the photographic evidence of a tractor unit in conflict with a bridge ( so far ).
It’s also possible that the unit or the container didn’t even connect with the bridge at all it just appeared to have done to the ‘witnesses’.
The driver might be able to retire on the false accusations claim
Maybe the truck was never there and the witness misread the rego, the picture has been photoshopped.
You’re an idiot Carryfast, who wants to argue for argument’s sake.
Here we go again 
Newsflash this evening from the front page of Kent Untrue News Tabloid (K UNT) as follows:
Bridge Hits Lorry Again
It has now emerged that it was the driver’s CB antenna that hit the bridge and sliced through it like a knife through butter. The east half of the bridge then swung out to collide with a passing Merlin-powered Tuffnellz DAF drawbar outfit, which turned over causing its nervous driver to resign, this being the second time the bridge had hit him. In court this morning, the presiding judge, the honourable Geoffrey Carryfast, ruled that the container lorry’s driver be awarded a new gold-plated CB ariel and a job with Tuffnellz. It is hoped that such commonsense justice will continue to prevail in this county.
2 Likes
Geoffrey 
The irony of you lot arguing that 13’3” will fit under 13’3” etc, is that the trucks in cab high marker can be +/- 150mm (6”) out from the true hight and still be ok
As opposed to driver’s defence solicitor has instructed measurement of the bridge height v it’s marked signage.
Also actual physical evidence confirming any collision involving the truck and the bridge.
Also evidence that the driver deliberately left and evaded the scene to hide such evidence of said alleged collision.
The truck was definitely there the picture isn’t photoshopped.
A reg number and witnesses at ground level and a picture of a stationary truck parked near the suspiciously low looking bridge v it’s marked height, isn’t evidence of the container having hit the bridge or even any part of the truck actually hitting the bridge at all.But possibly might have been contact v the <13’3’’ tractor unit.
The driver doesn’t look like he’s in any criminal rush to escape the scene of this catastrophic impact involving the obviously 13’3’'> height container.
Good luck making that stick in court without some reasonable evidence of impact with the bridge other than some rusty evidence of previous contact.
The driver doesn’t look like he’s in any criminal rush to escape the scene [quote]
It is precisely this kind of conspiracy theorising that makes you such a gifted fantasist.
1 Like
No, only CF.
Have you thought about the possibility of what if some inconvenienced motorist/s just falsely, or mistakenly, claimed/reported a collision with the bridge ?.Everything from that point obviously would have gone exactly the same way as if he actually had hit it.
1 Like
The irony is the question of the bridge supposedly even having 13’3’’ of clearance let alone 13’9’’ going by the comparison of the unit v bridge and height above the car.
Or that photographic evidence being proof of any collision with the bridge at all let alone a hit and run attempt.
As opposed to stopped before the bridge and waiting for clearance in traffic to make a required diversion.