Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>

Photos supplied by Leicestershire Police, so presumably just whatever was
to hand, probably a phone camera.

In message <t82c1q$ikg$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:23:38 on Sat, 11 Jun
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t8263m$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.”

Although there seems no interest in pursuing the matter, I'm still very
surprised the HGV flipped over and stopped, so little into the bridge
hole, and with no damage to the trailer's leading edge pictured. Maybe a
photo from the far side would at least have revealed the latter.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t82edq$31a$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:04:10 on Sat, 11 Jun
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 11/06/2022 15:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t8263m$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.

Based on the dozens of bridge-bash photos I've looked at the last ~5yrs,
the most informative are the ones taken from about 50 yds away with a
standard/telephoto lens.
--
Roland Perry