|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 20, 2017 12:30:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 12:48:11 GMT
Well I wouldn't want to take something approaching 16' high under the bridge without checking things first.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 20, 2017 13:01:49 GMT
It's one or the other, if it looks a bit low, put your foot down like a friend of mine in a Luton van did.
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on May 20, 2017 13:08:32 GMT
its blurred
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 13:10:51 GMT
Vegetation management problem.
People might think its a 7.5t bridge when it could be 1.5t.
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on May 20, 2017 13:52:18 GMT
The height conversation from metric to feet / inches 😊 Next?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 14:02:32 GMT
I wonder if they used metric or imperial to do the actual measurement. If they did it in feet and some prat converted it wrongly it'd be okay.
Is it a photo shop job.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 20, 2017 14:07:07 GMT
The height conversation from metric to feet / inches 😊 Next? Only partially correct, I'm afraid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 14:20:49 GMT
The height conversation from metric to feet / inches 😊 Next? Only partially correct, I'm afraid. Wel ok then, the conversion from metric to imperial? 4 metres is not 16 feet. It's nearer to 12.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 14:22:08 GMT
The A460 has never led to Oxford.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 20, 2017 14:23:14 GMT
Only partially correct, I'm afraid. Wel ok then, the conversion from metric to imperial? 4 metres is not 16 feet. It's nearer to 12. That's the same thing and still only partially correct. Someone will spot the second mistake I'm sure. EDIT as post above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 14:27:04 GMT
Wel ok then, the conversion from metric to imperial? 4 metres is not 16 feet. It's nearer to 12. That's the same thing and still only partially correct. Someone will spot the second mistake I'm sure. EDIT as post above. It's missing the bottom upward pointing triangle.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 20, 2017 14:30:06 GMT
That's the same thing and still only partially correct. Someone will spot the second mistake I'm sure. EDIT as post above. It's missing the bottom upward pointing triangle. No, why would it have one of those? Sarhello got it, the A460 runs from Wolverhampton to Rugeley and doesn't go anywhere near Oxford.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 14:35:09 GMT
It's missing the bottom upward pointing triangle. No, why would it have one of those? Sarhello got it, the A460 runs from Wolverhampton to Rugeley and doesn't go anywhere near Oxford. Because most images of 'uk height restriction sign' seem to show they have one. I don't have my Highway Code to hand to verify it though. Edit - page 23 on here would appear to confirm I am correct. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdfSo it would appear to be incorrect on three counts.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 21, 2017 0:35:53 GMT
If you come from the m4 direction the height sign has only got feet on. As alluded to isent 16ft the max anyway but according to the actual bridge 16ft wouldn't fit as the sign say 4.8m which is 15.9. Its quite a precise amount if still wrong. why not 4.9m, if it is.
|
|