<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>

There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't even
got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
elsewhere.

In other news, earlier this week...

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/7th-June-2022.jpg

--
Roland Perry

On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>
> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't even
> got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it elsewhere.
>

It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>

>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>elsewhere.
>
>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.

But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
bridge.

I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>
>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>elsewhere.
>>
>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>
>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>bridge.
>
>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.

Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.

In message <t7vr3q$saf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:22:18 on Fri, 10 Jun
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>
>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>elsewhere.
>>>
>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>
>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>bridge.
>>
>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>
>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.

But the cab has stopped short of the low part of the bridge, and the
trailer even more so.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>
>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>elsewhere.
>>>
>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>
>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>bridge.
>>
>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>
>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.
>
The second photograph makes it much clearer it is a skew bridge so the
initial contact would have been on the front RH corner with possibly
some consequent deflection to the left from the course before contact.

In message <8l17ahpgld3u4p1u0n45b5ufqsp0jc5qun@4ax.com>, at 19:03:16 on
Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>
>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>
>>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>bridge.
>>>
>>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>
>>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.
>>
>The second photograph makes it much clearer it is a skew bridge so the
>initial contact would have been on the front RH corner with possibly
>some consequent deflection to the left from the course before contact.

It is however 15ft, which is quite high. And even parcels can be
delivered dangerously through it by HGVs.

https://goo.gl/maps/Mb3HYmmAidyZBU4TA
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:26:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <8l17ahpgld3u4p1u0n45b5ufqsp0jc5qun@4ax.com>, at 19:03:16 on
>Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>>
>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>>elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>
>>>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>>bridge.
>>>>
>>>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>>
>>>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>>>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>>>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.
>>>
>>The second photograph makes it much clearer it is a skew bridge so the
>>initial contact would have been on the front RH corner with possibly
>>some consequent deflection to the left from the course before contact.
>
>It is however 15ft, which is quite high. And even parcels can be
>delivered dangerously
>
:-)

>through it by HGVs.
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/Mb3HYmmAidyZBU4TA
>
The offending trailer is presumably 15ft + too many inches.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:39:34 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:26:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <8l17ahpgld3u4p1u0n45b5ufqsp0jc5qun@4ax.com>, at 19:03:16 on
>>Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>>>elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>>>bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>>>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>>>
>>>>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>>>>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>>>>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.
>>>>
>>>The second photograph makes it much clearer it is a skew bridge so the
>>>initial contact would have been on the front RH corner with possibly
>>>some consequent deflection to the left from the course before contact.
>>
>>It is however 15ft, which is quite high. And even parcels can be
>>delivered dangerously
>>
>:-)
>
>>through it by HGVs.
>>
>>https://goo.gl/maps/Mb3HYmmAidyZBU4TA
>>
>The offending trailer is presumably 15ft + too many inches.
>
P.S. I wonder if it had the correct height indication displayed in the
cab.

On 10/06/2022 17:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>
>>>  There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>> even  got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>
> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the bridge.
>

I don't know what you are looking at but the photos show the tractor
unit under the bridge deck and the photo of the front is too crushed to
show the extent of the damage.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>
>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>
> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
> bridge.
>
> I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
> case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>

It looks to me as though the high trailer unit has hit the bridge, angled
across the road, and tipped over; while the angle of photography perhaps
gives the space incorrect impression that this isn't the case.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <8047ahle62u47f6hkg2k06dejer6ju93tn@4ax.com>, at 19:41:00 on
Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:39:34 +0100, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:26:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <8l17ahpgld3u4p1u0n45b5ufqsp0jc5qun@4ax.com>, at 19:03:16 on
>>>Fri, 10 Jun 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>>>>elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>>>>bridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>>>>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>>>>>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>>>>>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.
>>>>>
>>>>The second photograph makes it much clearer it is a skew bridge so the
>>>>initial contact would have been on the front RH corner with possibly
>>>>some consequent deflection to the left from the course before contact.
>>>
>>>It is however 15ft, which is quite high. And even parcels can be
>>>delivered dangerously
>>>
>>:-)
>>
>>>through it by HGVs.
>>>
>>>https://goo.gl/maps/Mb3HYmmAidyZBU4TA
>>>
>>The offending trailer is presumably 15ft + too many inches.
>>
>P.S. I wonder if it had the correct height indication displayed in the
>cab.

That's always a problem when trailers can be attached and detached, and
might not have a fixed 'roof'. One of the photos I posted several time
before is of a flat-bed which (despite the truck itself being
sufficiently low) the cargo (by co-incidence another truck) came to
grief:

<http://www.perry.co.uk/images/16th-October-2019.jpg>
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:51:49 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> But the cab has stopped short of the low part of the bridge, and the
> trailer even more so.

It hasnt, but you cannot see it, or choose not to see it.
As it happens, this bridge has a clearly visible (in the 2nd pic) large
RSJ style beam around 1 metre from the bridge deck which is there to
protect the bridge. I live less than 10 miles from it, and travel that
way regularly.
From the marks on the beam, it is clear that many other lorries scrape
under the gap without getting stopped. It has overheight sensors well
before the bridge in both directions, and the road dips down before the
bridge, making it look even lower from a distance, so there really is no
reason apart from 'driving without due care' that the bridge should be
hit so frequently.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>
>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>
>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>> bridge.
>>
>> I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>> case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>
>
> It looks to me as though the high trailer unit has hit the bridge, angled
> across the road, and tipped over; while the angle of photography perhaps
> gives the space incorrect impression that this isn't the case.

The second photo can also give the impression of a stepped approach, with
the main bridge deck lower than the first-encountered beam, both of them
having warning chevrons. If you look at the abutment that’s not so - the
front beam with the 15’0” warning sign and the impressive collection of
scrapes is at the same height. That’s what may be misleading Roland, and
it misled me until I saw a post in a different branch of this thread.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:51:49 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t7vr3q$saf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:22:18 on Fri, 10 Jun
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:05:51 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>
>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>
>>>But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>bridge.
>>>
>>>I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>>case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>
>>Your powers of observation in full flow again. Notice the 15ft height
>>limit sign? A lorry cab would easily fit under that so clearly the
>>trailer hit it, went over and pulled the tractor unit with it.
>
>But the cab has stopped short of the low part of the bridge, and the
>trailer even more so.

Its an angled bridge plus its entirely possible for the unit to roll back
a bit as its tipping over as the driver would probably be too busy extracting
himself from the top of the dashboard to apply the brakes quick enough.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>
>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>
>>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>> bridge.
>>>
>>> I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>> case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>>
>>
>> It looks to me as though the high trailer unit has hit the bridge, angled
>> across the road, and tipped over; while the angle of photography perhaps
>> gives the space incorrect impression that this isn't the case.
>
> The second photo can also give the impression of a stepped approach, with
> the main bridge deck lower than the first-encountered beam, both of them
> having warning chevrons. If you look at the abutment that’s not so - the
> front beam with the 15’0” warning sign and the impressive collection of
> scrapes is at the same height. That’s what may be misleading Roland, and
> it misled me until I saw a post in a different branch of this thread.
>
> Sam
>

Here is said bridge https://goo.gl/maps/y9pKNtVAtSy9LL2o9 complete with
lorry tractor unit. Note the sacrificial beams that a certain person states
are either a) illegal or b) only experimental in certain parts of Surrey.

In message <uKydndm-v-IlrTn_nZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
01:05:44 on Sat, 11 Jun 2022, Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 18:51:49 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> But the cab has stopped short of the low part of the bridge, and the
>> trailer even more so.
>
>It hasnt, but you cannot see it, or choose not to see it.
>As it happens, this bridge has a clearly visible (in the 2nd pic) large
>RSJ style beam around 1 metre from the bridge deck which is there to
>protect the bridge. I live less than 10 miles from it, and travel that
>way regularly.

>From the marks on the beam, it is clear that many other lorries scrape
>under the gap without getting stopped. It has overheight sensors well
>before the bridge in both directions, and the road dips down before the
>bridge, making it look even lower from a distance, so there really is no
>reason apart from 'driving without due care' that the bridge should be
>hit so frequently.

I'm not disputing that bridges like that are hit quite often, scraped
even more often, and counter measures are ignored by one vehicle every
few months (but not by the tens of thousands of others who don't bash
them). After all, I live very close to #3 (or whatever it is this week).

However, the pictures posted here make it very difficult to see how that
trailer would have "flipped" in that way, and especially without the
momentum taking a bit further under the bridge.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t81p3f$o8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:15 on Sat, 11 Jun
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t7vil4$ls7$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:57:56 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 10/06/2022 14:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t7vf8a$hk5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:54 on Fri, 10 Jun
>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-61756009>
>>>>
>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>
>>>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>> bridge.
>>>>
>>>> I'm presuming it didn't go through the bridge backwards, and in any
>>>> case neither the front nor the rear of the drivers cab looks damaged.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks to me as though the high trailer unit has hit the bridge, angled
>>> across the road, and tipped over; while the angle of photography perhaps
>>> gives the space incorrect impression that this isn't the case.
>>
>> The second photo can also give the impression of a stepped approach, with
>> the main bridge deck lower than the first-encountered beam, both of them
>> having warning chevrons. If you look at the abutment that’s not so - the
>> front beam with the 15’0” warning sign and the impressive collection of
>> scrapes is at the same height. That’s what may be misleading Roland, and
>> it misled me until I saw a post in a different branch of this thread.
>
>Here is said bridge https://goo.gl/maps/y9pKNtVAtSy9LL2o9 complete with
>lorry tractor unit.

I posted a similar view, with a trailer too, yesterday. Quite a lot of
splatter on the face of the actual bridge deck too, so the beam isn't
being 100% effective.

>Note the sacrificial beams that a certain person states
>are either a) illegal or b) only experimental in certain parts of Surrey.

<sigh> They are only illegal if not deemed to be part of the bridge
structure itself. It's free-standing ones being added to locations like
this which it's futile to advocate for.

Anyway, here's another one of my regular pictures on the topic, a
[legal] sacrificial beam on another top-ten bashed bridge. And that was
so successful that the last time it was bashed the underpass had to be
closed for almost a year while they repaired that broken sacrificial
beam.

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Stonea-21-Oct-2019.jpg
--
Roland Perry

"Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
news:t80e9f$am3$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>
>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>> bridge.

That is plausible. Suppose the two heights of the bridge are 2 m and 1.8 m.
The 2 m part of the bridge is the first thing the lorry will encounter.

If the lorry is 1.9 m high, it will clear the first part and hit the second.
But if it is 2.1 m, it will hit the first part and never even reach the
second part.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
> news:t80e9f$am3$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>
>>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>> bridge.
>
> That is plausible. Suppose the two heights of the bridge are 2 m and 1.8 m.
> The 2 m part of the bridge is the first thing the lorry will encounter.
>
> If the lorry is 1.9 m high, it will clear the first part and hit the second.
> But if it is 2.1 m, it will hit the first part and never even reach the
> second part.

But when you look carefully there isn’t a low part - both parts are the
same height.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t8263m$ojb$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:42:14 on Sat, 11 Jun
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>> news:t80e9f$am3$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>
>>>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>> bridge.
>>
>> That is plausible. Suppose the two heights of the bridge are 2 m and 1.8 m.
>> The 2 m part of the bridge is the first thing the lorry will encounter.
>>
>> If the lorry is 1.9 m high, it will clear the first part and hit the second.
>> But if it is 2.1 m, it will hit the first part and never even reach the
>> second part.
>
>But when you look carefully there isn’t a low part - both parts are the
>same height.

Yes, however as we have discovered, the press photos have used a rather
distorting lens.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t8263m$ojb$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:42:14 on Sat, 11 Jun
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>> news:t80e9f$am3$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>>> even got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references to it
>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>>> bridge.
>>>
>>> That is plausible. Suppose the two heights of the bridge are 2 m and 1.8 m.
>>> The 2 m part of the bridge is the first thing the lorry will encounter.
>>>
>>> If the lorry is 1.9 m high, it will clear the first part and hit the second.
>>> But if it is 2.1 m, it will hit the first part and never even reach the
>>> second part.
>>
>> But when you look carefully there isn’t a low part - both parts are the
>> same height.
>
> Yes, however as we have discovered, the press photos have used a rather
> distorting lens.

“I didn’t look carefully a the photos and, lacking local knowledge,
launched into a diatribe based on a faulty assumption. Sorry for leading
the discussion astray.”

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

"Sam Wilson" <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t82c1q$ikg$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> That is plausible. Suppose the two heights of the bridge are 2 m and
>>>> 1.8 m.
>>>> The 2 m part of the bridge is the first thing the lorry will encounter.
>>>>
>>>> If the lorry is 1.9 m high, it will clear the first part and hit the
>>>> second.
>>>> But if it is 2.1 m, it will hit the first part and never even reach the
>>>> second part.
>>>
>>> But when you look carefully there isn’t a low part - both parts are the
>>> same height.
>>
>> Yes, however as we have discovered, the press photos have used a rather
>> distorting lens.

Ah, right. I fell into the same trap as other people, into thinking that the
outside edges of the bridge were higher than the central section, based on
the photos.

So the photos showed that the lorry had been stopped when it hit the leading
edge of the bridge and it didn't make it as far as the trailing edge on the
far side. As expected.

On 11/06/2022 15:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t8263m$ojb$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:42:14 on Sat, 11 Jun
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Anna Noyd-Dryver" <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote in message
>>> news:t80e9f$am3$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> There's something very odd about that picture - the truck hasn't
>>>>>>> even  got as far as the bridge. And I can't find any references
>>>>>>> to it
>>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clearly leaning against the bridge abutment. The second photo
>>>>>> shows the cab unit well under the deck of the bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in both cases before having got as far as the low part of the
>>>>> bridge.
>>>
>>> That is plausible. Suppose the two heights of the bridge are 2 m and
>>> 1.8 m.
>>> The 2 m part of the bridge is the first thing the lorry will encounter.
>>>
>>> If the lorry is 1.9 m high, it will clear the first part and hit the
>>> second.
>>> But if it is 2.1 m, it will hit the first part and never even reach the
>>> second part.
>>
>> But when you look carefully there isn’t a low part - both parts are the
>> same height.
>
> Yes, however as we have discovered, the press photos have used a rather
> distorting lens.

Standard medium wide-angle lens.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.