Bridge bashing

[ruggedpeak]

40 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I notice that the low loader is German registered. If it was going to or from a port why what was it doing in Chelmsford?

Good question - possibly following his satnav. They will take you through Chelmsford rather than use the A12 bypass if you have the setting on shortest distance (although not generally via a route under that viaduct). Are there roadworks in town, or did he miss the turn to go up towards Chelmer Valley Retail Park?

[SM42]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

Yes, I remember them, shame when they shut down. I wonder if they sent some down the Severn as that was only a couple of miles away?!

 

Not aware of the river being used.

 

I think most got delivered to marinas on the South coast.

 

Definitely not the sort of thing you would win on Bullseye or be able to afford on a normal wage. 

 

Andy

[SM42]

Back to bridge strikes. 

 

There was one in Wolverhampton  a few weeks ago. 

 

The truck got through 

 

The only problem was that it was now between two low bridges and it wouldn't fit under either despite the damage and deflated tyres. 

 

I believe someone had to come out and convert it to a flat bed.

 

Andy

[PhilJ W]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Good question - possibly following his satnav. They will take you through Chelmsford rather than use the A12 bypass if you have the setting on shortest distance (although not generally via a route under that viaduct). Are there roadworks in town, or did he miss the turn to go up towards Chelmer Valley Retail Park?

The escort vehicle was British as can be seen in the clip. Apparently it only took ten minutes to free the boat.

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Good question - possibly following his satnav.

Oh for ****** sake, how many more times are the Keyboard Experts on here going to keep trotting out this tired old twaddle...???!!! 🤬

Especially when it comes to Special Types loads, drivers don't just hop in their cabs & set off on a jolly, following a cut-price SatNav... 🤬🤬

 

Other matters arising from the 'Chelmsford Yacht'...

1. it might not have used the bypass because of height limits, road overbridges could be just over the usual 16ft6in standard height, but maybe not high enough for this load.

2. it could be on a German low loader because - well, DUUUUHHH!! Maybe it's going to Germany?????? 🙄🙄 just a wild flamin' stab in the dark, y'know??? Far easier to load it once for transport all the way than swap trailers at the borders, for which you'd also need suitable cranes, too.

 

Sheesh, just how hard is it to think all these things through, eh??? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤔🤔😝😝

Rant mode /off.....

Edited May 6 by F-UnitMad

[PhilJ W]

56 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

Oh for ****** sake, how many more times are the Keyboard Experts on here going to keep trotting out this tired old twaddle...???!!! 🤬

Especially when it comes to Special Types loads, drivers don't just hop in their cabs & set off on a jolly, following a cut-price SatNav... 🤬🤬

 

Other matters arising from the 'Chelmsford Yacht'...

1. it might not have used the bypass because of height limits, road overbridges could be just over the usual 16ft6in standard height, but maybe not high enough for this load.

2. it could be on a German low loader because - well, DUUUUHHH!! Maybe it's going to Germany?????? 🙄🙄 just a wild flamin' stab in the dark, y'know??? Far easier to load it once for transport all the way than swap trailers at the borders, for which you'd also need suitable cranes, too.

 

Sheesh, just how hard is it to think all these things through, eh??? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤔🤔😝😝

Rant mode /off.....

That makes sense, it was using that route to avoid a low bridge or bridges on the A12. Likely as not it was heading for Harwich as the load was too big for the Channel Tunnel and the linkspans at Dover. Harwich has the facilities for handling such oversize loads. 

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

Oh for ****** sake, how many more times are the Keyboard Experts on here going to keep trotting out this tired old twaddle...???!!! 🤬

Especially when it comes to Special Types loads, drivers don't just hop in their cabs & set off on a jolly, following a cut-price SatNav... 🤬🤬

 

Other matters arising from the 'Chelmsford Yacht'...

1. it might not have used the bypass because of height limits, road overbridges could be just over the usual 16ft6in standard height, but maybe not high enough for this load.

2. it could be on a German low loader because - well, DUUUUHHH!! Maybe it's going to Germany?????? 🙄🙄 just a wild flamin' stab in the dark, y'know??? Far easier to load it once for transport all the way than swap trailers at the borders, for which you'd also need suitable cranes, too.

 

Sheesh, just how hard is it to think all these things through, eh??? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤔🤔😝😝

Rant mode /off.....

Calm down Captain Keyboard, just a suggestion based on local knowledge and real world experience.

 

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding, if they didn't just jump in and drive off how did the truck get stuck? 🤣 

 

 

[Budgie]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Calm down Captain Keyboard, just a suggestion based on local knowledge and real world experience.

 

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding, if they didn't just jump in and drive off how did the truck get stuck? 🤣 

 

I think you meant to say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". "The proof is in the pudding" is meaningless.

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Budgie said:

I think you meant to say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". "The proof is in the pudding" is meaningless.

 

Depends on the context. 'The proof is in the pudding' could be a variant on 'the dog ate my homework'. 

[ruggedpeak]

8 hours ago, Budgie said:

 

I think you meant to say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". "The proof is in the pudding" is meaningless.

No I didn't. The phrase I used is well known as the short form of "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/origin-of-the-proof-is-in-the-pudding-meaning

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_proof_is_in_the_pudding

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/origin-of-the-proof-is-in-the-pudding-meaning

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_proof_is_in_the_pudding

 

Amply demonstrating that it is a usage current in American English but not in British English, so, as we assume @Budgie, giving his location as Beckenham, is a British English speaker, they may reasonably query it as RMWeb is a forum domiciled in Britain. 

[ruggedpeak]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Amply demonstrating that it is a usage current in American English but not in British English, so, as we assume @Budgie, giving his location as Beckenham, is a British English speaker, they may reasonably query it as RMWeb is a forum domiciled in Britain. 

Except I am British and have been using the phrase for many number of decades without any issue, as have friends, family and colleagues. Since clearly pedantry is flavour du jour, whilst the links are American they do not provide any proof as to whether it is in use in Britain or not, they were simply top Google search results to make the point that it is a short form of the original phrase. It does not provide any evidence either way as to whether it is in use in the UK, although I am happy to wager that many Brits understand it, as did Budgie since they managed to post about it being the short form. Feel free to do some research to confirm whether or not the short form is in regular use in the UK and report back.

 

I suspect the vast majority of people reading my post on RMWeb knew what I meant, and if they were not immediately familiar with it are more than capable of figuring out.

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

Except I am British and have been using the phrase for many number of decades without any issue, as have friends, family and colleagues. Since clearly pedantry is flavour du jour, whilst the links are American they do not provide any proof as to whether it is in use in Britain or not, they were simply top Google search results to make the point that it is a short form of the original phrase. It does not provide any evidence either way as to whether it is in use in the UK, although I am happy to wager that many Brits understand it, as did Budgie since they managed to post about it being the short form. Feel free to do some research to confirm whether or not the short form is in regular use in the UK and report back.

 

I put the question to Lexi (Mrs Compound2632, alternative nom-de-forum 'Beatrice') who applied the resources of a major British academic publishing house, noted for its dictionaries, to the question. Like me, as a native speaker of British English, she immediately opted for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', rejecting 'the proof is in the pudding' as a corruption.  However, on interrogating a corpus or database of international English texts (that is maintained up-to-date and is a major tool for the research underpinning the above-mentioned dictionaries), she found that 'the proof is in the pudding' is more frequent than 'the proof of the pudding [is in the eating]', with about 2/3 of examples of the former from North American texts - so by no means negligible in British English texts. As a result, she has added 'the proof is in the pudding' as a variant to the set of entries being used for the dictionary she edits, which is a dictionary for foreign learners of English that aims to cover World English, not exclusively British English. 

 

38 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

I suspect the vast majority of people reading my post on RMWeb knew what I meant, and if they were not immediately familiar with it are more than capable of figuring out.

 

Yes, indeed, and that is the point of language - to communicate, not to be correct.

 

Nevertheless, as a slightly old-fashioned English speaker, who cannot bring himself to say 'train station', I would instinctively opt for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', which I would be happy to shorten to 'the proof of the pudding', confident that my hearers would recognise the proverb.

 

I think a foreign learner of English, confronted with 'the proof is in the pudding', would be baffled. Just as well it will now be in their dictionary!

[GrumpyPenguin]

13 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

Especially when it comes to Special Types loads, drivers don't just hop in their cabs & set off on a jolly, following a cut-price SatNav... 🤬🤬

During my long career as an electrical engineer I've done a fair amont of HGV driving, mostly for agencies so I met a huge variety of HGV drivers, virtually all of them had HGV/LGV SatNags.

 

It always amuses me when people that have probably never sat in an HGV cab let alone driven one start spounting nosesence about a subject they know nothing about.

[Hobby]

I assume they are playing a marching song on those keyboards... 🤣

 

(Hat, Coat...)

[SHMD]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I put the question to Lexi (Mrs Compound2632, alternative nom-de-forum 'Beatrice') who applied the resources of a major British academic publishing house, noted for its dictionaries, to the question. Like me, as a native speaker of British English, she immediately opted for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', rejecting 'the proof is in the pudding' as a corruption.  However, on interrogating a corpus or database of international English texts (that is maintained up-to-date and is a major tool for the research underpinning the above-mentioned dictionaries), she found that 'the proof is in the pudding' is more frequent than 'the proof of the pudding [is in the eating]', with about 2/3 of examples of the former from North American texts - so by no means negligible in British English texts. As a result, she has added 'the proof is in the pudding' as a variant to the set of entries being used for the dictionary she edits, which is a dictionary for foreign learners of English that aims to cover World English, not exclusively British English. 

 

 

Yes, indeed, and that is the point of language - to communicate, not to be correct.

 

Nevertheless, as a slightly old-fashioned English speaker, who cannot bring himself to say 'train station', I would instinctively opt for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', which I would be happy to shorten to 'the proof of the pudding', confident that my hearers would recognise the proverb.

 

I think a foreign learner of English, confronted with 'the proof is in the pudding', would be baffled. Just as well it will now be in their dictionary!

 

"Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs!"

 

 

Kev.

 

[ruggedpeak]

18 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I put the question to Lexi (Mrs Compound2632, alternative nom-de-forum 'Beatrice') who applied the resources of a major British academic publishing house, noted for its dictionaries, to the question. Like me, as a native speaker of British English, she immediately opted for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', rejecting 'the proof is in the pudding' as a corruption.  However, on interrogating a corpus or database of international English texts (that is maintained up-to-date and is a major tool for the research underpinning the above-mentioned dictionaries), she found that 'the proof is in the pudding' is more frequent than 'the proof of the pudding [is in the eating]', with about 2/3 of examples of the former from North American texts - so by no means negligible in British English texts. As a result, she has added 'the proof is in the pudding' as a variant to the set of entries being used for the dictionary she edits, which is a dictionary for foreign learners of English that aims to cover World English, not exclusively British English. 

 

 

Yes, indeed, and that is the point of language - to communicate, not to be correct.

 

Nevertheless, as a slightly old-fashioned English speaker, who cannot bring himself to say 'train station', I would instinctively opt for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', which I would be happy to shorten to 'the proof of the pudding', confident that my hearers would recognise the proverb.

 

I think a foreign learner of English, confronted with 'the proof is in the pudding', would be baffled. Just as well it will now be in their dictionary!

So the outcome of this is the conclusion that people learning English might not immediately understand the short form of the phrase. Given the full phrase itself is a bit of a word salad they'd probably struggle to understand with it in either form.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

So the outcome of this is the conclusion that people learning English might not immediately understand the short form of the phrase. Given the full phrase itself is a bit of a word salad they'd probably struggle to understand with it in either form.

 

Generally true of learners and idioms, and why they need to by Lexi's dictionary! But many learners are keen to learn idioms and once learned, will want to use them more than a native speaker would, in order to demonstrate their proficiency. If anyone says it's raining cats and dogs, odds are English is a second, learnt, language!

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

During my long career as an electrical engineer I've done a fair amont of HGV driving, mostly for agencies so I met a huge variety of HGV drivers, virtually all of them had HGV/LGV SatNags.

 

It always amuses me when people that have probably never sat in an HGV cab let alone driven one start spounting nosesence about a subject they know nothing about.

Amuses me when people jump to conclusions without considering the possiblity that their opinion based upon zero evidence may be wrong.

 

I have spent quite a bit of time around LGV's, mostly inspecting them and their drivers as well as working on safety initiatives to reduce LGV related fatalities. Time working at multi-agency enforcement and compliance stop sites gives me something of an insight to the issues, and the presence of satnavs is by no means universal nor does it guarantee things don't get hit as my experience of attending incidents has shown me. I could fill several pages of all the things I have had to deal with with LGV drivers, and various bridges around London that continue to get hit by lorries despite the magical satnavs.....

 

Here's what NR say based upon actual evidence:

 

Most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and buses, at a cost of around £13,000 per strike –costing the UK taxpayer around £23m in a year.

 

Our research has shown 43 per cent of lorry drivers admit to not measuring their vehicle before heading out on the road, and 52 per cent admit to not taking low bridges into account.

 

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/railway-safety-campaigns/wise-up-size-up/

 

So the idea that was originally put out in response to my post was that no one gets in their truck without doing their homework properly and everyone has a super-duper satnav is simply not true as trucks still hit bridges and other things, or get wedged in viaducts.

 

Worth repeating those stats 43% of drivers don't check the vehicle height and 52% don't take low bridges into account. I think the keyboard warriors are the ones in denial of reality that a significant proportion of LGV drivers are not as professional as they should be.

 

The proof is in the pudding......🤣 and the data.

Edited May 7 by ruggedpeak
typo

[Hobby]

Would an HGV satnav actually show the width of that bridge? My initial thought that it wouldn't as it'd be set for narrow gaps rather than wider ones where a normal HGV wouldn't have any issues. On the same tack(!) is there a width sign before that bridge?

 

I tend to think of this as a genuine "sh*t happens" sort of bash!

Edited May 7 by Hobby

[PhilJ W]

I don't know of any width signs on the bridge. But apparently they'd freed the boat and on their way in about ten minutes. I think they were probably creeping through the arch as they were not sure it would fit. When they realised it was likely to get stuck they simply backed up a few feet, adjusted the load by slightly tilting it and were then on their way.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, ruggedpeak said:

 

Most of the vehicles that hit railway bridges are Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and buses, at a cost of around £13,000 per strike –costing the UK taxpayer around £23m in a year.

 

Our research has shown 43 per cent of lorry drivers admit to not measuring their vehicle before heading out on the road, and 52 per cent admit to not taking low bridges into account.

 

 

Its not just lorries though.  In this part of the country there's a lot of level crossings, some of which have (or used to have) an avoiding bridge nearby that's so low that even ordinary traffic has to be careful.  Not unkown for drivers or small vans 4x4s or even cars to forget they've got a roof box or something on a roof rack. 

 

http://ukrailways1970tilltoday.me.uk/Littleport-signal-box.html

 

The lowest I've come across is Bishton on the S Wales main line - so low I had to duck to go under it on foot!

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/9u6zfu/bishton_level_crossing_in_newport_wales_at_56_17m/

 

 

Network rail has a league table of low brides

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54871244

[ruggedpeak]

45 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Would an HGV satnav actually show the width of that bridge? My initial thought that it wouldn't as it'd be set for narrow gaps rather than wider ones where a normal HGV wouldn't have any issues. On the same tack(!) is there a width sign before that bridge?

 

I tend to think of this as a genuine "sh*t happens" sort of bash!

Unlike a traditional height related bridge strike this one raises various questions we won't get the answers too. I am still wondering why it was taken through the town centre at all as there is effectively a ring road around Chelmsford that covers what ever route they were presumably taking (unless they were lost and were going round in circles!) that avoids the town centre traffic and the viaduct, as well as several complex junctions and traffic lights.

 

Just to add to the excitement(!), the haulier may be Scandinavian not German. "Bred load" is used on Scandinavian abloads, where as the traditional "Convoi exceptionnel" is used in Germany, and the trailer numberplate appears to lack the circular seals on German plates, various Scandinavian ones being white background and characters only.

[Wickham Green too]

14 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

... Ultimately the proof is in the pudding, ...

A perfectly acceptable phrase in any English variant  -  so long as the 'proof' in question is of an acceptable percentage and a good vintage ! ..... flambé-ing  is optional.

[Hesperus]

On the subject of sat navs it doesn't help that the nav units fitted to vans at the factory are car units with car speed limits and presumably no limits to stop them sending you under low bridges.

 

I've had the sense to stop before a low bridge on the Shrewsbury - Wolverhampton line but if it had been a wet night and I was 11 hours into a shift would I have noticed?

 

Someone at our competitor in the next town didn't judging by the luton van with no roof thats parked in their yard.