How would you use electronics to solve the 11' 8" bridge problem - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 08:45:11 pm
content: There has been 126 crashes into this bridge:It has a height sensor with a warning light which I assume helped a little. What other ideas are there?No lifting the rail tracks nor lowering road (because they have not done so).The only thing I can think of is spike strips that automatically come up out of the road. Maybe a horn? I think a taser is out of the question (the windows might be closed). Engine killer? Paint balls? Everything I can think of would not stop the truck in time. Electro magnet (assuming $$$ does not matter)?

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 08:56:04 pm
content: QuoteBefore issuing a drivers license, apply electric shocks until the driver has a clear understanding of road signs and the concept of height.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:04:04 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on January 07, 2018, 08:45:11 pmNot only that, but occasionally overheight trucks turn into said trestle. (Though most do plow into it straight-on.)Apparently, they’re limited in how early they can warn a driver because just before that intersection, there are side streets or alleyways or something that are used for deliveries to the buildings on that street.What would be gained by spike strips or bollards that pop up? You’d just immobilize the truck a few feet earlier. The sudden stop would still cause injury to the driver/passengers. (As does indeed happen in the more severe crashes where it snags hard.) Remember, the thing they’re running into isn’t the bridge itself anymore, it’s the sacrificial steel beam they put up at bridge height a few years ago, to absorb the blow so the bridge itself isn’t damaged.I assume digging a pit for a giant electromagnet would cost as much as simply digging the road lower, which I assume has been dismissed as an option for some reason or other.Tasering the driver wouldn’t stop the truck, it’d just make it more dangerous. Same with paintballing it. The last thing you need is something distracting the driver away from the hazard ahead! Immobilizing an engine is equally unwise, insofar as you don’t want to disable power steering and brakes. (I assume the smaller trucks do not use air brakes like tractor-trailers do.)Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 07, 2018, 08:47:50 pmThis is probably a really good option.Quote from: daqq on January 07, 2018, 08:56:04 pmI think the truck rental agencies need to do a better job of informing their customers of the truck heights — the casual little waiver on the contract and the sticker in the cab just aren’t enough IMHO. I assume that truck rental agencies there in Durham, NC (where that bridge is) probably do tell their customers, but rentals from farther away wouldn’t know about this hazard!

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:15:32 pm
content: Low tech solution: a steel beam hung (by chains from poles so it's still free to move) an inch or two lower than the bridge a few tens of feet before the bridge. Colliding with it will make a loud noise, but with far less damage than colliding with the bridge itself.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:18:42 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 07, 2018, 08:47:50 pmThis is good idea. Somehow I think I need to let the officials know about it

author: Falcon69
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:19:42 pm
content: It doesn't matter what is done. There are always the less intelligent of us all, born from a mother and father who are also their aunt and uncle, that will always do idiotic things like what's going on with that bridge.You can't stop stupid from doing stupid things.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:25:42 pm
content: Laser or infrared sensors on each of the three sides (trip the sensor if the truck is within 1-2 cm of the maximum height of the tunnel )One fisheye lens or similar camera at the tunnel entry with some object recognition (or two cameras on each side of tunner, at 45 degree angle to detect if trucks turn or use their turn signal) ... when one of the three sensors trip, have the camera track the incoming vehicle and place that water STOP sign only when that truck takes the corner or gets within 5 meters or something like that.Optionally display the estimated height of the vehicle under the stop sign...The driver could go through very carefully if he thinks the 1-2 cm margin is good enough, or maybe he/she can lower the air pressure on suspentions or take out some air pressure from tires to go 1cm or so down, and continue at very slow speedIt would cost money, but then again just bill the insurance companies or the companies for which drivers drive and in a few months you'd have money to pay for this system

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 07, 2018, 09:04:04 pmThere are sewage pipes just below the road. Lowering the whole sewage system in the city or adding pumping stations to a localized lowering is way to expensive. The iron beam is cheaper. ...and more entertaining.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:35:51 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on January 07, 2018, 08:45:11 pm126 captured so far by the 11foot8 guy's cameras.There have been hundreds, if not thousands more, over the years before he started filming.QuoteThere are warning lights well before that intersection with appropriate signage... Then there is the second set of sensors which turn the lights red at the intersection if an overheight truck still approaches, so the driver must ignore the first warning signs and lights, then instead of turning at the intersection onto the marked truck route, must run a red light in order to smash into the bridge.Drivers really have to try pretty hard to run into that thing...Yet it still happens...Raising the bridge would cost the railroad a fortune since they would have to modify the grade of the track for a very long distance to compensate. Not cost effective, they're not going to do it.Lowering the road is difficult because there are sewer mains and such under it which would have to be re-routed through some other passageway, which the roads people aren't going to do just to stop a couple idiots per year from smashing into the bridge's protection bar. Not cost effective, they're not going to do it.Plus, fixing it would remove a great source of humour from the interwebs!

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:41:40 pm
content: The first things that comes to mind...- the actual bridge (the thing you are trying to avoid) is incredibly inconspicuous. Yes there are some badly scraped yellow stripes on the protection bar, but the side of the bridge itself is black - why not make the whole side of the thingreflectiveBright and conspicuous.- The signage is confusing. The driver is probably still trying to understand the grammar of "OVERHEIGHT MUST TURN" when he hits the bridge.- The actual height limit sign is small in comparison to the above one, the driver probably doesn't even notice it while trying to decode the other one. If you asked him, he probably wouldn't have even registered the figures.- It's adjacent to a lights controlled junction - lots of other lights, it just looks like some overhead hung lights (US style), the dark bridge fades into the background.The bar hung on chains is common here - entrances to car parks etc. The solution doesn't have to be active.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:42:56 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 07, 2018, 09:15:32 pmAllot of parking garages have these. They have a pipe hanging in front of the entrance with the height limit marked on it.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: Homer J Simpson on January 07, 2018, 09:24:03 pmObviously, some drivers are direct descendants of Big Foot. Switch to metric!

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:48:03 pm
content: OK, the driver blatantly drove through a red light into the intersection fully 5 seconds after the light turned red. If someone is going run a red light at full speed without even attempting to slow down, no kind of warning about a low bridge is going to have any effect.They have protected the bridge with an iron bar, so the bridge is safe. After that, drivers have to look after themselves.Probably the best cure is already in place: expensive costs for drivers who ignore the warnings and run red lights.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:48:13 pm
content: Quote from: mariush on January 07, 2018, 09:25:42 pmFrom 11foot8.com:QuoteHmm.. In some ways I suppose it's like chess for truck drivers.Consider their next move...BTW, the clearance to the crash bar is actually 11 feet, 10.8 inches.... At the outside edge of what they're allowed to have the sign show below the actual clearance. (The sign must be withing 3 inches of actual clearance.) This already gives drivers the maximum allowable leeway in what they think their height vs. the actual clearance is.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:49:50 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on January 07, 2018, 09:42:56 pmBars or chains won't work, you have to be able to turn onto the truck route road:Quote

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:53:11 pm
content: First of all, this clearly would have been avoided with the metric system. No doubt about that.They usually place overhanging chains before bridges like this, 10-15m which hang lower than the bridge.And if 126 documented crash happened here... Clearly it is bad design, not driver problem. Make it lower. Make it so, that it is clear that you cannot pass. Like every car can pass, and jerks with their empty Ford F430 get their roofs shredded.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 09:54:15 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 07, 2018, 09:41:40 pmThat is only the last set of warnings. There are signs for blocks before that to warn of the impending trouble. One set even has the detector on it and flashes warning lights on the signs (even well before that last intersection intersection) that basically say "YOU ARE OVERHEIGHT! YOU MUST TURN!"People still smash into the bridge going through the red light.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 10:06:25 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on January 07, 2018, 09:47:50 pmQuote from: NANDBlog on January 07, 2018, 09:53:11 pmYes, of course metric would solve the problem. Everyone knows metric solves everything.Quote(many LOLs...)QuoteIt was built over 100 years ago and it's not likely to be rebuilt anytime soon.It seems like it works just fine, with only the most inattentive having their "roofs shredded." Hilariously. On camera for all to see. Exquisite!

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 10:13:45 pm
content: They should add a large sign with an illustration of the truck box getting shredded by the bridge.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 10:46:01 pm
content: Simplest solution would be to close the road. It obviously closes at regular intervals already to clear the debris.Of course that would make many motorists drive a little further or even (gasp) walk.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 10:52:29 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 07, 2018, 10:46:01 pmIt is a main road leading to the port. That's not a practical solution.Trucks hit bridges all the time, this one just happens to be on a fairly busy road with cameras pointed at it 24/7 to display the outcomes of such trucking mishaps.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:20:22 pm
content: Quote from: glarsson on January 07, 2018, 09:27:04 pmThe pipes are a few feet below the road. Looking at the video, it seems the majority of trucks that hit the bridge are <1' from clearing it, so only a small lowering would help greatly.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:24:31 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on January 07, 2018, 08:56:04 pmPeople love to hate on other people in situations like these, but if behaviour is this consistent, blaming the people isn't going to work. It's like those perfect parent who would never leave their children in the car. The truth is they would. It's a flaw in human behaviour, not just shoddy parenting.That's maybe the most freighting thing. You live your life the way everyone expects you to and are a responsible adult, until you suddenly aren't any more and you haven't even consciously made the wrong choice. It could happen to pretty much anyone.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:32:49 pm
content: Sometimes the simplest solution is the best. Increase the height of the bridge, lower the height of the road or a combination of both. The rest are just engineering problems. They raise bridges many times larger than these all the time, so it's basically a solved problem.I'm not buying the sewer pipe story either. There's plenty of other places to put those pipes if you want to and it's actually not uncommon for sewage pipes to dip in a few places. If you somehow concluded there absolutely is no room for them underneath the overpass, there's remote controlled drilling. You can go right under the embankment, allowing the underpass to be as deep as you'd want.At this point it's just shifting the cost of fixing the problem upon the insurances of unlucky drivers. When there's over a 100 crashes, it's looking like the road authority neglecting its duties more and more.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:24:31 pmBad behavior can be fixed by training in the human animal, just like any animal.Only yesterday someone ran a red light and turned across in front of me a full 2-3 seconds after I had a green light to proceed. If they were guaranteed a ticket, a fine, and points on their license every time they did that, they certainly would stop doing it.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:36:05 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:32:49 pmThere, fixed that for you. Also, if you claim on insurance for an at-fault accident, your insurance premium will go up a lot next renewal. Insurance companies don't bear the cost, you do.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:39:13 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:24:31 pmI'd imagine a very large percentage of the accidents with that bridge were by drivers who have driven their car under it hundreds or even thousands of times before. If they only drive a truck occasionally, it's easy to forget about the height limitations and "take the route they have always taken". Something similar also happens with roof racks.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:39:29 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 07, 2018, 11:34:16 pmNot all bad behaviour can be "fixed". The impulse is to fine and punish, but in this case that's obviously not going to make a difference. Even at the cost of writing off a truck and possibly losing your job people still manage to do it in droves.Aerospace is a great example of how to prevent user error. Rather than projecting all sorts of moral viewpoints on the matter, they take a practical "if it works" approach. You can't afford much else when people die if you get it wrong.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:49:01 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 07, 2018, 11:36:05 pmI'm not sure why you ignore everything in my post just to say "nu-uh!". I've addressed this as just blaming the drivers for incompetence is ridiculously oversimplifying things. It's way too easy to just attribute it to incompetence. Many books have been written on how humans can fail at performing what seemingly are the simplest tasks. These people are convinced they would never get it wrong either, until they did. That's why I added the example of children being left in the car. You'd think responsible parents would get a very basic thing right if it meant the life of their child if they got it wrong. Yet reality shows us something different. These aren't neglectful parents either, the vast majority are proven to be loving, caring and otherwise responsible parents.Obviously, insurances paying the cost means the insured paying the cost, but I didn't think anyone needed that to be spelled out and it doesn't change the point being made. The road authority, city or whoever needs to pay to make things right is shifting the cost elsewhere. Obviously, that's paid by society too, but that too isn't the point.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2018, 11:52:51 pm
content: I would put a curtain or flap below the bridge which makes it look for too low for a regular truck. A height sensor could open the flap if the vehicle height is ok.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 12:00:08 am
content: 11 foot plus? There are worse examples around the world:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/montague-st-bridge-to-get-new-gantry-to-try-prevent-crashes/7430400Along with more excuses about not being able to lower the road which can be solved if the will is there.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 07, 2018, 11:52:51 pmThats been tried many times before, either its non-destructive and some of the drivers will ignore it and continue on or its destructive (solid beam) and the tall vehicles get caught there instead.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 12:31:32 am
content: I'd say their current solution is good enough. It'll keep 99.5% of drivers from damaging their trucks. The cost to stop the last 0.5% – eh, not worth it. We're not talking about loss of life here, it isn't that important to prevent every single crash. (The numbers are guesses: as per the website, there seem to be around 15 crashes per year. I'd conservatively guess that at least 3000 trucks run under it per year in total.)

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 01:00:19 am
content: This thread is a great example of human thought process (in two ways):1. Regarding the drivers. People assume that these drivers are somehow paying attention, and  at fault.You can't fix stupid.People are stupid. Seriously stupid. Blind walking off a cliff stupid.Not nearly all of them, no, not by any means.Consider the evidence. The authorities have done more than due diligence in marking this intersection.The vast majority of drivers obey these signs.We aren't dealing with normal people here. We cannot apply normal psychology. Or logic even.Consider this when making your judgements.2. Regarding the posters in this thread.This is an excellent case study in the availability and use of information (evidence) and knowledge.It's an interesting design problem, because most people have an intuitive grasp of mechanics. Small space, truck cannot fit. Simple as that!Typical solutions mentioned:- Raise the bridge- Lower the road- Add more barriers- Add immediate punishmentsMost of the above judgements have not been corrected when new information is provided; instead, they are met with incredulity, as if such a simple solution could ever be contradicted, no matter the weight of evidence against it!The last option is the most disturbing. One poster suggested addingbooby trapsto the intersection! If that doesn't scare theshitout of you, more than human zombies driving trucks does -- I don't know what can!The second-to-last option is the only feasible alternative, but at great expense. For example, a hydraulic ramp could be added, to divert trucks at the last minute, preventing damage to the bridge and minimizing damage to the vehicle.Ultimately, it all comes down to two things:1. The situation is always more complex than it looks at first glance. Knee-jerk reactions are just that: being a jerk! Take a moment to consider why something might be the way it is, and reflect upon that.Indeed, this applies recursively; the complexity is always more complex. It's just that, most times, there's a convenient threshold beyond which we needn't consider further complexities. This is what engineering is all about (and physics, except for the deepest unsolved problems that cannot be reduced this way: tightly interactive condensed matter and QCD, for two examples).2. Money. It's all about money, baby.This intersection is apparently a modestly important transportation route, so adding barriers would be counterproductive, and that counterproductivity is directly measurable in the dollar value of that transportation (versus if there are any alternative routes, and whatever knock-on effects that might further have).The cost to all involved in a collision is directly measurable. One totaled truck, its cargo (which might not be totaled, but delayed to the destination at least), the emergency response, whatever cleanup and repair is needed, a few other inconvenienced (delayed or rerouted) vehicles backed up behind the accident; and not much more. Likely traffic fines and insurance cover the immediate costs, and everything else (like the inconvenienced travelers) is a wash-out.Moreover, the rate is directly measurable. If this happens a few times a year, then there you go.That cost is your baseline to judge alternatives on. Nothing more. If it costs the rail company more than so-and-so (amortized over some years) to change the bridge, it's simply not worth it -- it doesn't affect enough people, business and such to change. Does this bother you? Should it? It might look like a suboptimal solution, but on closer inspection, it's very nearly the non-zero ground state it should be!And this has been your lesson in holistic engineering for the day.Cheers,Tim

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 01:03:00 am
content: Quote from: Maxlor on January 08, 2018, 12:31:32 amI would think it is more like 3000 trucks per week.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 02:15:49 am
content: The "Overheight Must Turn" sign is too high - and not very clear. It may be obvious if you spend a few seconds thinking about it, but they are in a vehicle that is going to travel a long distance in those few seconds - and they will be doing other things like seeing if there are other cars coming while they run the red light.I would make that sign larger and put it lower down - with a message like "Vehicle too high. Turn or CRASH!"Put billboards either side with a panel across the bridge joining them and get a graphic artist to put together a design showing big teeth (or something more creative) with a message saying: "Welcome to our truck eating bridge". Make it good enough to be a tourist attraction and find its way onto social media. Make it bright and unique, to attract attention and leave a lasting impression - so when any truck driver approaches the intersection and sees the display, it might just twig before they go crunch.But I do like the water curtain.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 02:18:43 am
content: Large hard rubber balls hung on chains 11' 6" above the road surface 100m before the bridge on the road under it (half the road width, with a traffic island so it doesn't affect trucks turning away from the bridge) + another set in line with the sidewalk right across the bridge side of the junction to catch those turning off the cross street.It wont stop *ALL* the idiots, but if it wakes up 2/3 of them before they hit the hard barrier, it would be worth it for the reduced disruption and vehicle damage.

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 02:19:59 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 07, 2018, 11:39:13 pmI think you hit the nail (or truck) on the head. If you watch the compilation video of all 126 crashes, you’ll notice a pattern to the crashes. The vast majority of them are rental trucks (Penske, Enterprise, etc.) and RVs. You’ll notice only one or two tractor trailers (18-wheelers).These are all large vehicles, however the difference is in the driver. Tractor trailers require a commercial drivers license. The large rental box trucks don’t. Part of training for a CDL is being intimately aware of how high your trailer is. Though that still doesn’t mean CDL drivers don’t screw up!I’m from Hampton Roads VA, which has numerous bridge tunnels due to all the shipyards and ports. Some of these tunnels would lower about 12” in height over the first 200ft, so you’d occasionally run into situations where tractor trailer drivers would get lodged inside the tunnel! They’d have to deflate the tires and back them out. This despite automated warnings that would flash lights and direct loud warning sirens toward the truck, telling them to pull off into a manned inspection station. Most of these drivers would be fined thousands of dollars and potentially lose their CDL. (And that’s what keeps most CDL drivers from screwing up like this; losing their license means losing their livelihood.)Anyway, I used to drive a flatbed about the size of the truck in the OP’s video. I delivered wooden shipping pallets and the truck would be loaded with stacks of them 40 high. However, because the overall height could vary depending on the type of pallet loaded, I kept a tape measurer on me and I would always check my height before pulling out of the plant.As for this 11’8” bridge, I think the solution they’re currently using (height sensors to turn the light red and a sacrificial beam) is the best they can do. Even spike strips that pop up wouldn’t help, based on the speed some of the trucks were going when they hit the bridge. Though, perhaps a large speed bump before the intersection might help to force the drivers to slow down.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 03:06:28 am
content: As others have said, you cannot fix stupid.There's an even more extreme low bridge example near where I live. There is no straight-through street, ie every vehicle trying to go under the rail bridge has to turn to enter the underpass, so there are never any high-speed approaches. Also the clearance is only 2.4m, so it looks very low. The huge protective steel beams are brightly painted in stripey yellow and black, with sacrificial replaceable impact buffers, and clearly marked with the 2.4m height.People still drive trucks into it. Plenty of dings and marks on the beam, and it's frequent enough that I've seen a wrecked truck there, when I just happened to drive by.https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/South+Terrace,+Bankstown+NSW+2200/@-33.9181519,151.0414493,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x6b12bc0703611445:0xc11f4499e161649a!8m2!3d-33.9181564!4d151.0436433?hl=enThere's actually a large stormwater canal passing under the rail line directly under the road surface there, so there's nothing that can be done about the clearance.The only way I can think of to 'electronically improve' the situation, would be to add large speakers to play a laughter and applause sound track, starting just before an overheight vehicle impacts, and running for maybe a minute afterwards. Strictly for the amusement of bystanders.

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 03:14:10 am
content: Add some more cameras to get good video of the driver reactions, arrest them all for reckless driving, and put their mug shots and the video clips on the local TV news.

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:10:29 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 07, 2018, 09:15:32 pmOr a sign...I'm not sure where this is, I first saw it years ago. It's simple, and (I'd think, at least) clear. I'm sure morons would still scalp themselves on the bridge, but perhaps a few would be warned off...-Pat

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:16:07 am
content: It's funny, yet unsurprising how people insist on the reason being "stupid", while the statistics and psychology tell another story. Obviously, claiming moral superiority feels good, and people love pointing fingers and shake fists, but that doesn't mean it's right. It's a lesson aviation learnt a long time ago, but surprisingly hasn't quite trickled down to driving or the general public. You could put the death penalty on hitting that bridge and it's unlikely the numbers would be much different.https://www.parents.com/baby/safety/car/youd-never-forget-your-child-in-the-car-right/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factorshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:17:14 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 08, 2018, 03:06:28 amI driven through there. It is imposing, even driving a regular car under it.QuoteI like the idea - but I'd change it slightly....As the overheight truck approaches, start a drum roll. If they turn off, then finish with a cheer and appreciative applause. If they don't, then have some excited anticipation shouts of "Look! Look! Here's another one!", a cymbal crash timed to match their impact - and then have the raucous laughter and over the top applause.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:23:32 am
content: Quote from: timb on January 08, 2018, 02:19:59 amI concur. I've driven a couple of larger vehicles - but these occasions have been few and far between. I have been driving smaller vehicles (up to the size of a Tarago) for years - but I have to consciously remind myself of the height of the truck - and more importantly the heightabovemy eye line. It's not a foot any more - it can be four feet or even more and tree branches that were never a problem, suddenly present themselves as real obstacles.I've never had a problem or impact with the height - but I did have a near miss once when backing a truck with a high pantech body. I was looking along the vehicle through the rear view mirror and just missed a first storey cantilevered office by two inches. I should have looked up as well...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 09:11:45 am
content: By me there is also a low pair of bridges. Lower the road under them not easy, as they are on a decline at the bottom, and the approach would be steeper then. Raise the top section very expensive, as you would have to raise 6km of race course grass as well, along with all the side parts. So what the Metro did was put warning signs each end of the 2 bridges, and at the side by the hill put a large traffic circle, so that vehicles are forced to slow down.Did reduce the accident rate slightly, but stupid is still there, as evidenced by the numerous times speeders have gone airborne over the traffic island, despite the nice rockery there to arrest them, and the residents of the one sectional complex on the one side getting tired or rebuilding the wall, so they have permanent concrete Jersey barrier blocks on the pavement now on that corner. Had a municipal bus take a short cut under the one and get wedged, they had to remove it by deflating the tyres and dragging it back, and the other side a furniture truck tried to take a short cut, and got the van section torn off the chassis. One more from years ago my father was involved with as the manager of the truck, but that was grisly.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 09:19:23 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 08, 2018, 04:23:32 amYou criminal scum. You should be locked up and your pictures should be spread for everyone to ridicule! Absolute reckless driving.Or so some would say.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 12:35:29 pm
content: Quote from: timb on January 08, 2018, 02:19:59 amFlat tires reduce the height.

author: W2NAP
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 01:09:52 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 08, 2018, 12:35:29 pmtrying to pop the tires of a CMV when in motion is not a good idea... they are not like car tires only holding 40lbs of air, they usually hold 90 to 110lbs of air. and sudden loss of air in the steer tires when in motion is bad juju.here is video of a steer tire blowout while in motion.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 03:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:32:49 pmIf it were simple, they’d have done this. Raising a railroad track? Forget it. You can’t just bump it up two feet for a quarter-mile or something, because those big freight trains cannot handle steep inclines, especially not somewhere where trains stop (which they do around there). If it were a street bridge it’d be easy to raise, but this is freight rail. You’d probably have to raise the rail bed for miles on either side, which would be enormously expensive (and possibly cause other problems).I’d be more curious about the pipes, since I would assume something could be done. But if they haven’t done it after acenturyof accidents, there’s damned well a reason for it.Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:32:49 pmThe city is under no obligation for every road to be passable by every vehicle. This hazard is marked for blocks in advance, overheight sensors, etc. They’ve done more than enough to warn drivers of the hazard. At some point, a driver has to take responsibility!!Quote from: drussell on January 07, 2018, 10:52:29 pmMain road? Port? Whaaa? It’s actually a small surface road in an old downtown, in a city that’s about 150 miles inland. Map link below.Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 07, 2018, 09:15:32 pmQuote from: Ian.M on January 08, 2018, 02:18:43 amCan’t do that, because it’s an intersection, and the cross street does not have height restrictions. Literally anywhere earlier than where it is would block trucks from places they have to go. There’s no room widen the road to make an island or a separate turning lane, it’s an old downtown, with the street flanked by buildings.Here’s the location:https://goo.gl/maps/RsFdX3dwLCF2Quote from: Brumby on January 08, 2018, 02:15:49 amThe sensor for the sign is quite far back, and turns the light to red with ample time to stop when an overheight vehicle approaches. (In USA, it’s legal to turn right on red, so the red light doesn’t stop the truck from turning to safety.) The video in the OP shows clearly that the driver had a red light for at least 5 seconds before entering the intersection. It’s a downtown surface road with a commensurately low speed limit, so there’s plenty of stopping distance.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 03:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 08, 2018, 04:23:32 amReminds me of when I was in Guatemala 2 years ago and went up the Pacaya volcano. I was sick with bronchitis and too short of breath to scale it on foot, so I rode on a pony. His name was Muñeco. On the way back down, we took a shortcut down a steep path through the forest, and Muñeco happily ducked under branches without slowing down, oblivious to the extra 3 feet of height above his back!Despite me needing to hold on due to the steep angle, I had to use one arm to swat away branches before they took out an eye (and then the other), LOL! Fun times!

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 08, 2018, 04:16:07 amI think whoever is responsible for the bridge has sufficiently accounted for that. People drive on (mental) autopilot or while being distracted by stress all the time, but they still recognize traffic lights; they have have the notion of red->stop down unconsciously. So the traffic lights should suffice.Maybe some people are somewhere else entirely with their thoughts, and don't even notice the red lights, i.e. their mental autopilot actually isn't aware of them. But in that case, this particular red light probably isn't the only one they missed, they're unsafe drivers. Having a crash like this to hopefully serve as a trigger for updating their training doesn't seem so bad; maybe next time, they won't run the lights on an intersection where they can hit other cars.I wonder whether some people maybe consciously run the red lights ("they only turned red a second ago, I'll just slip through!") in which case, I don't mind them having their antisocial behaviour pointed out to them by an unrelenting steel bar.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:17:38 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 08, 2018, 04:16:07 amIt’s simply not feasible to eliminate every hazard from everything everywhere. Regardless of whether you call it stupidity, obliviousness, distractedness, inattentiveness, or any of a gazillion psychological effects, at some point you have to draw the line of practicality and trust that most people will behave correctly.Heck, even aviation, which has indeed eliminated tons of sources of mechanical and human failure, is now at the point where crashes are rare, but when they happen, they’re almost always human error now, despite checklists and procedures and simulator training.Quote from: Maxlor on January 08, 2018, 04:06:02 pmI seriously doubt any such consideration was given, because that bridge wasbuilt in 1940. I don’t think tall trucks were even an issue then.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:22:59 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 04:17:38 pmI meant the add-on bits, not the original bridge. Height sensor, traffic lights, interactive sign.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:26:20 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 03:49:24 pmIt being a freight rail bridge doesn't really matter. I know this, because they raised a bridge a whole lot bigger not too long ago not far from here. You'll inevitably need to raise to of the embankment too. It'll take an investment, but it shouldn't be an unreasonable. However, that's where we get to the second bit.The city might not be under an obligation to make the road passable for every vehicle, but they have an obligation to make things safe. I understand the underpass hasn't been built to modern standards, or any standards at all, as these didn't exist when the thing was constructed. Despite the signage, accidents continue to happen at a significant rate, so we can only conclude things aren't safe. Apparently, the surrounding related infrastructure is dangerous as well, actually occasionally claiming lives. It's not about eliminating every hazard from everywhere, but eliminiting a hazard that trips people up consistently. If droves of people keep falling from your stairs each year, there's a point where the story it's all on those people falls apart.Where the boundary of it being the responsibility of the city is exactly is up for debate, but I think the bridge being famous for its accident prone nature the world over tells us something. It's not known for being a perfectly mundane underpass. However, it's probably a classic case of not caring too much because they're not footing the bill. As long as other people get stuck with the bill, why would you spend your money on it, even though the total cost is probably bigger this way? It's ugly, but it's how the world often works. If it's not your problem, it's not a problem. Though it surprises me no one has sued the city into the ground yet.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:48:13 pm
content: I guess we won’t agree on this. As I see it, with the signaling that the city has put in (which has significantly reduced the number of accidents, by the way), it’s done more than enough. Numerous studies have been done and continue to be done, it’s not as though they’ve been negligent.I’m pretty sure that most people would agree that people have to take responsibility for their actions at some point. (Yes, I know, you’re one of the exceptions.) But look at this video: the guy blasted right through a red light — one that had been red for some time. That would have been a major moving violation even if the truck hadn’t been overheight!There are plenty of intersections, road segments, etc. that for whatever reason are accident magnets. Some can be mitigated, but some danger is simply inherent to the activity.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 04:58:28 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 04:48:13 pmFrom what I've read, they are actually contemplating finally changing the underpass, though they want to try flaps first. That sounds a lot like they know what the proper solution is, but just don't want to spend the money.I'm sure there are jerks causing accidents, but it can't all be jerks or it would be some jerk fly trap. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the proof says there are a lot of accidens happening here, many more than elsewhere. It's the same people as elsewhere, so that can't be it. It must be an issue with the spot itself. Rather than fruitlessly trying to change the people, the obvious solution is to change the spot. Bringing it up to standards would be a good start.

author: xygor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:02:19 pm
content: It appears to be a non-standard road sign. Are the signs preceding it standard?Could it be a language issue?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:08:17 pm
content: Quote from: xygor on January 08, 2018, 05:02:19 pmWhat part of it is nonstandard?!? Looks absolutely normal to me. You can use google street view (link to the spot is in a prior comment of mine) to see the signage on the surrounding roads.Language issue? Running a red light isn't a language issue.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:13:05 pm
content: The issue is driver training. Most of the vehicles that hit are straight trucks, moving vans and RVs. Straight truck drivers receive minimal training and do not need the same license and certifications as a combination vehicle driver and depending on weight, may not need a CDL at all. We semi drivers consider them a menace and avoid them at all costs. People driving moving vans and RVs most likely have a standard license and have never driven anything bigger than a pickup truck. Overheight is a term that just doesn't register with these drivers due to lack of training, and/or experience.The semi drivers that hit this have no excuse.

author: xygor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:26:16 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 05:08:17 pmYou're right! It is a standard sign. I was talking about the lit one. I guess I fail. No truck for me.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:43:09 pm
content: Round here we have an issue with councils putting 'goalposts' over car park entrances to stop our local version of the Edema Ruh from camping in them. (Ours are neither very musical, not do they clean up after them, that is the issue.)Thing is, these things also deny the use of the car park to people with larger vehicles who have no intention of camping.This could be an argument against the goalposts, that experience shows height limits to be a hazard in themselves.Electronic solution? Well, the 1500VA UPS will power the large angle grinder, no problem.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: drussell on January 07, 2018, 09:54:15 pmIt is a typical case of providing too much information so the message gets completely lost.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 05:57:14 pm
content: Only see an opportunity, open a shop right after the bridge, that sells only rolls of extra-large sheet plastic to cover the unfortunate "openings", with a hefty price tag of course.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 06:00:41 pm
content: Even though we might disagree on whether this road is dangerous enough to shift the blame from the driver onto the road authority, I think we all agree that this road section is more dangerous than most others, right? I think we also agree that there is a point where a road becomes so dangerous this shift of blame does happen, right?Maybe it'd be interesting to find out how many accidents have to happen before this is the case in our respective books? One every month? Every week? Every day? Are deaths maybe required and if so, how many? Or is there some monetary threshold?

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 07:04:34 pm
content: There is ZERO cause for any of those crashes besides drivers being idiots. Notice most of them are small box trucks - those are almost ALL rentals, and I'd be willing to bed more than half of them are just everyday idiots trying to move themselves to a new house and they think they are still just tooling around in their car. And there are the other part time large vehicle drivers, those motor homes and travel trailers that wipe out rooftop accessories.Three blocks worth of warnings plus an automatic red light - seriously, ANYONE driving through a red light like this one did, there is NOTHING you can do to not make that person a hazard on the road. If they don't hit this bridge, then they'll hit someone else, if they just blindly drive through a red light.There's one near me, not only is the clearance low, the bridge is only 1 lane wide (and the road is two way). There aren't anywhere near this number of accidents there, and there are no electronic measures like they've put up here. A few hundred feet from one end of the bridge is another intersection - nothing special there except signs saying no left (or right) turn for vehicles over a certain height.Then there are the "pro" drivers who aren't really pros yet - as in not far out of truck driving school. In the US you can tell them, as they most often drive for one of about 3 different carriers (the only places that will hire these inexperienced drivers) plus they ALWAYS follow the GPS. We have some roads that trucks over a certain size are supposed to be banned from. Mainly because the road is hilly and has sharp turns. However, you frequently find a truck there, they ignore all the signs saying they are not to turn left off the main road and do it anyway - because it's a short cut and the GPS wills how it as such. There are no clearance problems, they just block traffic up horribly, plus it was part of adding the additional warehouse space in the neighborhood that they would block trucks from this road and make them access the warehouses via a different route off the main highway. Still - there goes a truck that shouldn't be on this road. And another... the MAJORITY go around the way they are supposed to, you have to wonder about the one guy in line who sees 5 other trucks keep going while he's turning onto the road he isn't supposed to be on.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 07:44:18 pm
content: By the way, a lot of the suggestions here are actually covered on the 11foot8 FAQ:http://11foot8.com/faq/Quote from: nctnico on January 08, 2018, 05:55:34 pmThough that phenomenon can be real, it’s not the case here: it significantly reduced the number of crashes. So clearly many of the affected driversareseeing the warning and taking appropriate action.Besides, this guy ran a red light. You don’t need a message to know that means “stop”, regardless of why!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 07:47:56 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 08, 2018, 06:00:41 pmGive it a rest, dude. Nobody’s biting.FYI, it seems to be about one such crash per month. Very few injuries, no deaths AFAIK. It’s not this hellish deathtrap you seem to have twisted it into in your mind! (Heck, I think the real worry was about damage to the railroad bridge, since any damage to the tracks could cause a derailment, which could wreak havoc and cause true death and mayhem.)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 08:03:39 pm
content: Just 15 crashes a year could very easily come down to just the people driving trucks who are absorbed in their mobile phone and not looking where they're going. Given the number of people I see on the roads every day who are engaged in just about anything you could imagine besides watching where they're going, I have no problem believing these accidents are almost all negligence and/or incompetence. So many accidents could be prevented if people would simply pay attention and be aware of their surroundings. In the US at least it's too easy to get a driver's license and too easy to keep it even after demonstrating negligent behavior.I would not even bother with electronic solutions, just paint the side of the bridge with very obvious red and white reflective stripes and keep the traffic signal that turns red for over-height vehicles. Beyond that you can't fix stupid, and given nobody seems to be dying I'm not overly concerned about it. Anyone who does hit it will be stuck with a hefty bill to repair or replace the truck and any damage to the bridge should be their responsibility as well.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 08:09:50 pm
content: Quote from: Falcon69 on January 07, 2018, 09:19:42 pmI can't help but think of this guy. I'd like to see him drive his scissor lift under that bridge.

author: Avacee
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 09:47:40 pm
content: With regard to the insurance aspect I noticed this in the recently linked FAQ.QuoteI wonder if paying for the truck damage out of their own pocket results in an ever so slightly less unfocused mind in futureNah, probably not. Stupid people seem to stay stupid.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 11:03:34 pm
content: Quote from: Tomorokoshi on January 07, 2018, 10:13:45 pmPainting giant teeth on one bridge didn't stop it eating trucks.East Maine Bridge 11 foot 4http://kfor.com/2016/01/07/just-about-every-kind-of-truck-in-town-has-hit-it-enid-bridge-infamous-for-semi-crashes-has-own-facebook-page/https://www.facebook.com/TheEastMaineBridge/Including this 'happy' customerQuote

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2018, 11:45:01 pm
content: Here's my idea,To get a driver to stop, have a pop-up lol. Actually a pop-down.It could be a roll down strip-curtain, or airbag-like deployed poster that blocks the driver's way, but soft so they can drive through it if they are extra stupid. It would be strips so that you can see past it.Or maybe like targets they use at firing ranges, but coming down from the top.The truck's speed and distance to the bridge, driver reaction time and braking distance probably mean there simply isn't enough time to do much.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 12:11:28 am
content: The water barrier and projected stop sign is about the best actual suggestion I've seen; again, it's not going to help drivers that aren't paying attention (or texting, or completely fallen asleep), but maybe it would catch just that next little part of the bell curve.Tim

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 12:26:06 am
content: Quote from: station240 on January 08, 2018, 11:03:34 pmMaybe not, but it sure did increase the entertainment factor for us spectators.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 12:29:52 am
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 04:17:38 pmThere were some, but not as many. Plus the streets on either side are overpasses and passable to trucks. It probably wasn't much of an issue at all until whenever the city decided to make streets one-way for traffic flow, which moved traffic off the larger parallel street and eliminated it's overpass as an option because it became one-way in the other direction.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 01:20:48 am
content: Freaking laser beams man. Pew pew! Before the bridge have two towers on both sides of the road with a laser that goes across set to a bit below the bridge clearance (to account for vehicle shocks/bounce and snow on the road), if the beam is crossed it then activates a huge warning to stop. I like the waterfall idea. But that requires water/pipes, which will freeze in winter. So could maybe use smoke instead? It does not need to be a screen just something that grabs your attention like some kind of high pressure smoke jets from the top of the bridge or even shooting from the sides. Not sure what is the best way to create this smoke though, and also keep it safe. Needs to be a chemical you can just store and that it can activate at a moment's notice.Best bet might just be a huge flashing warning, if you're still ignoring it then you deserve to ruin your car.Idealy there should be some solid metal beams right before the bridge that are slightly lower, so you hit that and not the bridge, if you still end up going through. All these vehicles hitting that bridge are probably damaging it over time.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 01:27:23 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on January 09, 2018, 01:20:48 amUmmmmmm... they already use optical sensors (maybe lasers?) to check the height for 3 blocks in advance and light up a huge sign, and for years it’s had the solid steel beam to protect the bridge, which has been damaged in the past. I guess you didn’t read any of the thread, nor the FAQ I linked??

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 01:28:33 am
content: Is there a good reason not to have a railroad crossing style gate that lowers across the road when an over-height truck approaches? It sounds like they already have the height sensors in place.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 01:41:00 am
content: Quote from: tooki on January 09, 2018, 01:27:23 amI just skimmed the thread so messed that part. Looks like they did everything they could then, you can't stop stupidity. Well you can, with a metal bar.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 02:16:34 am
content: Self-driving cars would probably screw up here as well.The Tesla autonomous crash in 2016, where the semi trailer cut off the car and I think it drove underneath the trailer, not seeing it due to bright sky and white trailer or algorithm failure for above-vehicle obstacles.Why don't we have driver assist technology? Some camera and stuff to alert drivers, before we go all out for autonomous cars?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 02:37:50 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 09, 2018, 02:16:34 amIf we need to look at this to stop people running a red light, then we should abandon motor vehicles altogether. Alternatively, replace all traffic lights with roundabouts.Seriously though, driver assist technology just encourages drivers to not be as aware of their environment as they should. IMHO.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 03:16:20 am
content: The augmented Darwinian model?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 03:20:35 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on January 09, 2018, 02:37:50 amWhat happens then is that people fail to notice the roundabout and drive right over it.On one memorable occasion two people drove over the top of a local roundabout from different directions at the same time and collided in the middle of it. The newspaper photo of the two wrecked cars perched on top of the roundabout was a truly WTF moment.

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 03:31:22 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on January 09, 2018, 01:20:48 amThe water stop sign looks cool, but the down side is that when a driver sees this, the instinct is to slam on brakes.. on wet road...Then the truck will slip and slide into the intersection anyways and crash into any number of things in the slippery water, maybe fishtailing around and hitting other cars. True, it would be a camera moment, but doesn't fix the problem.Hmm, probably wouldn't work, but maybe a laser that paints a monster on the windshield with big teeth, like in the movie 'Alien'. I guess it would work if there was smoke in the area in front of the windshield. And then the message "In case you missed all of the other warning signs, your vehicle will crash into the bridge if you proceed."

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 03:53:44 am
content: Kudos to the brave and sturdy steel beam that is doing an AWESOME job protecting that bridge from insane truck driving skills all day and night!

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 04:43:12 am
content: Quote from: frozenfrogz on January 09, 2018, 03:53:44 amThat beam should have been shaped and sharpened like a blade. This way, the trucks could go through smoothly without noticing a thing...

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 04:46:52 am
content: Quote from: tpowell1830 on January 09, 2018, 03:31:22 amFurthermore, the water curtain stop sign only works well at night. Disneyland uses similar devices on some rides and entertainment systems. It's basically a slide projector that projects an image onto a sheet of water. Notice the videos they showed of them were all done at night. Good luck projecting a nice clear contrasty image during the day.And pity the convertible owner, bicyclist, or motorcyclist who happens to be in front of the truck that triggers the waterfall.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 05:31:39 am
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 03:49:24 pmYes. On, that point, I was mistakenly recalling one of the other roads with similar bridge problems. Many similar problems exist in many, many areas, varying from very, very low to "how could you run into that," very, very tall.This particular one is nowhere near a port. You are correct.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 06:30:11 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 09, 2018, 02:16:34 amNo they won't. If the map says they won't fit. They won't drive there.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 04:51:48 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 09, 2018, 06:30:11 amHow many times have we seen someone drive the wrong way down a one way street, drive down an alley too narrow for a car, drive over a pedestrian bridge, etc because their GPS navigator told them to? A self driving vehicle is only as good as the programming it contains, we are a long way off from being able to put in a random address and have the car take you there reliably.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 05:11:52 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 07:47:56 pmNobody's biting because the question forces people to think of the problem in more nuanced term than just black and white. People don't like that and I completely understand. Of course it's more satisfying to feel superior and shake a fist at others. Nuance is tiresome and requires taking a look at your own mistakes too. If you look at the avalanche of self-righteous replies here, we must have a crowd that's surprisingly adept at driving cars safely. That coincides with up to 93% of drivers thinking they are above average in regards to safety, but is obviously unlikely to coincide with the actual numbers.You indicate correctly why it might actually be a rather dangerous problem. There's plenty of examples around where bridges got damaged to the point that crossing wasn't safe any more, or even serious accidents happening. A truck veering into the wrong lane and into another car isn't unimaginable either. History is full waiting for deaths to finally act.To me it's a clear cut UX problem, which is why your stance on the matter honestly surprises me a bit. There is an obvious mismatch between the desired behaviour of people and the actual behaviour. The behaviour is consistent too. If you design a product and people electrocute themselves with it every month, I don't think the authorities would take very long to act. It might not even make it to market, as preventing people from hurting themselves is getting ever more attention.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 06:23:05 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 09, 2018, 03:23:32 amNot so stupid when you realize how rare roundabouts are in the US. So there's always someone coming along who's never seen one before. Redundant signage is essential!

author: 97hilfel
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 06:35:03 pm
content: I think some here mentioned options are more expensive than just digging the road a little deeper like the water curtains, those are probably very expensive and do only get used when the tunnel is built and not 10m long but 100m.My idea would be to completely limit passthrough for trucks altogether even for smaller once so that wouldn't be any more a problem. Another solution might be the steel pipe option like mentioned earlier its a very cheap and effective option gets used in Europe (Italy) a lot for tunnels and bridges.As soon as you start aiming for electronic solutions you may start digging because most electronic solutions will be more expensive than just a sign limiting passthrough or lowering the road.

author: metrologist
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 06:42:31 pm
content: Arduino connected to a Lazer sensor to detect truck height. The Arduino gets the lazer signal broken and activates a conveyor on the road to stop the truck collision. It's new Smart Bridge technology.Or the waterfall stop sign was good too...

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 07:20:28 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 09, 2018, 03:23:32 amIt sounds stupid until you realize that some cities in USA have traffic “circles” that are multi-lane with intersections and traffic lights in them, sometimes even with bidirectional traffic! (It’s that crap that gave actual roundabouts a bad name in USA, which is why they’ve been reintroduced as “roundabouts” instead of “traffic circles”.)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 07:28:41 pm
content: Quote from: 97hilfel on January 09, 2018, 06:35:03 pmYou think the water curtain is more expensive than digging up the road for blocks to lower the sewer lines?!?

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 07:39:05 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 09, 2018, 06:30:11 amWhere is this map you speak of that knows all bridge/overpass heights? I only know of GPS maps containing altitude data.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 08:09:05 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on January 09, 2018, 04:43:12 amI agree. If you watch the video, most of the trucks lifted significantly at the front end as the beam dug into the rear. That could cause a damaging impact with the underside of the bridge.They should be aiming for anice clean cutto reduce truck lifting, protect the driver from too sudden deceleration, and probably minimize the damage from distortion too.It would probably minimize road closures too, as the truck would probably make it out of the other side. There might need to be some sort of guide to safely roll up the 'shavings' though!

author: xygor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 08:11:17 pm
content: Forgive me if any of theses have already been mentioned.1. Lower the crash bar. Make it break-away, but make it *look* substantial. And/or narrow the width of the entrance. Make it evident that the driver is entering a confined space.2. A very high ramp that drops off just before the bridge.3. Rumble strips. And/or rumble strips with audio encoded.4. An outdoor advertising sign showing an animation of the actual vehicle crashing and displaying the license plate.

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 08:20:23 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 09, 2018, 07:39:05 pmProfessional GPS assistance systems have this. You will setup your truck specifications (or better the dispatcher will do so), when uploading the tour/route information. However, these systems are expensive and a lot of smartypants are using home entertainment style GPS devices to save money. Professional systems also give tracking data back to the dispatcher and have two way communication over mobile network. That way, the route can be updated remotely in case of time schedule changes or because of traffic.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 08:28:14 pm
content: QuoteYes, we have problems with that in the UK too, Heavy lorries getting jammed between houses scenic little villages because the drivers are using cheap 'car' GPSs. Occasionally they have to be craned out. There are lots of 'Unsuitable for... GPS divert' type of signs these days. It's not just bridges that suffer.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 08:37:55 pm
content: You can't simply lower the road, because that is part of the rail bridge's support. It would result in redesigning the rail bridge, its concrete foundations at least would have to be replaced. And, how long a trailer do you design for? You'd have to lower the road quite far out on either side.I'd be curious what the damaged vehicle and bridge repair costs are over the years, the insurance payouts.I think this bridge problem is just nobody wanting to spend the money and fix it.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 08:51:09 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 09, 2018, 07:39:05 pmSuch maps exist in the heavy vehicle industry but they are expensive, we can assume that with the high volumes expected of autonomous cars they can afford to include such detailed data for their own use.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 09:39:39 pm
content: Personally I expect fully autonomous cars are about 20 years behind where most of the enthusiastic backers think they are. It's true that Google has driven thousands and thousands of miles, but this is mostly over the same few miles of extremely well documented routes. The days of computers doing a sensible job of interacting with human drivers and the unexpected is still a long way off. Look at how difficult it is for a computer to positively identify spam email, something an average human can do at a glance with probably better than 99% success rate. Google in particular has gotten pretty good at this but still gets false positives or lets spam through to my inbox occasionally and that task is orders of magnitude simpler than driving a car. I'm not saying it won't happen, but there will be kinks to work out, both expected and likely some completely unforeseen. I suspect that enthusiasm and hubris will lead to a rushed deployment and there will be several highly publicized incidents in which a number of people are killed and that will be a setback. Time will tell.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 09:45:42 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on January 09, 2018, 09:39:39 pmYou're basically describing the hype cycle. I suspect legislation will dampen that, though other interests like achieving environmental goals might reduce caution in governmental agencies.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 11:18:54 pm
content: Quote from: xygor on January 09, 2018, 08:11:17 pmYes, this has a lot of potential! How about making it a pinata! Make it out of thin-wall PVC drain pipe, and fill it with sand and gravel, and anchor it well enough so it will break when hit. Then, the truck is showered with a big deluge of sand and gravel when hit. That ought to make the driver notice "something" is wrong.If done right, it might be really easy to reset for the next case.Jon

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 11:22:23 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 09, 2018, 08:37:55 pmI suspect most commercial vehicle insurance policies only cover liability in cases like this. If you drive your truck into a bridge, the losses to the vehicle are likely NOT COVERED!Not only that, if you do it more than a couple times per company, you won't be able to get insurance.Oh yeah, there was the famous case where a guy with a flatbed truck loaded with a HUGE excavator went under a too-low overpass in Hays, Kansas. The arm on the excavator punched up through the overpass and twisted the excavator around 180 degrees. It twisted the beams in the overpass to the buckling point. The highway patrol didn't stop traffic in both directions until a structural engineer looked at it and had a FIT! The driver apparently went to jail for a few months, lost his CDL and the company was fined some two million dollars for the damage.Plus, the truck and excavator were totalled. I'll bet their insurance company was not thrilled.Jon

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 11:27:07 pm
content: Quote from: jmelson on January 09, 2018, 11:22:23 pmI suspect most commercial vehicle insurance policies only cover liability. If you drive your truck into a bridge, the losses to the vehicle are likely NOT COVERED!Not only that, if you do it more than a couple times per company, you won't be able to get insurance.JonApparently, this kind of damage is usually specifically excluded. That makes for some very sour grapes.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2018, 11:28:43 pm
content: The commercial truck that rear ended me last year was self-insured by the trucking company. I don't know how common that is but I suspect it's fairly typical for major trucking companies.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 11:01:13 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 09, 2018, 09:45:42 pmI agree about the hype and before self-driving cars are widespread, the technology will have to be more widely applied to simpler applications, such as trains and trams.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 11:44:32 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 10, 2018, 11:01:13 amTrains have been automated for decades.Go figure that a graph of one-dimensional paths is an easier solved problem.Tim

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 02:01:31 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on January 10, 2018, 11:44:32 amWhere? There are a few driverless trains in the UK but most still have drivers. I can't speak for everywhere else. Perhaps the UK is more conservative with safety critical technology than elsewhere.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 02:03:59 pm
content: AFAIK, the primary duty of an "engineer" is tapping the watchdog button every minute or so.I don't know to what extent the actual driving is automated (at the throttle and brake), but route planning, certainly.Tim

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 02:16:52 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 10, 2018, 02:01:31 pmWhere? There are a few driverless trains in the UK but most still have drivers.As you may know the DLR has been fully driverless from the start.On the London Underground several lines are now running with Automatic Train Operation (meaning the trains automatically regulate their speed and obey signals without manual intervention). The driver's duties mainly involve controlling the doors and monitoring passengers at stations.I can see something similar happening with automatically driven cars. In the USA today there are isolated HOV lanes (express lanes for vehicles with more than one passenger) on many freeways. One could imagine in future that these lanes might be reserved only for automatic vehicles. Upon entering the lane the manual controls are disconnected and the car drives itself automatically maintaining a fixed distance from the cars in front and behind. All of the cars in the express lane could end up moving like a virtual train with no bunching, no sharp braking, and no waves of stationary vehicles.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 02:51:52 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on January 10, 2018, 02:03:59 pmIt didn't stop the most recent huge accident on the west coast, which I believe was due to human error, which wouldn't have happened, if it were fully automated.QuoteThat's a relatively small proportion of the rail network.We also have guided busways which aren't fully automated. If they were, then it's possible some of the recent accidents, due to driver error (excess speed) could have been avoided. Once the bus is on the guided bussway, the only controls the driver should have access to are the clutch and break, in case something goes wrong.QuotePerhaps one day, but is unlikely to happen in the near future.My point is, there are already plenty of jobs which technology is already mature enough to do, yet they've not been filled by it, even though it would be safer and cheaper, in the long term. No doubt one day there will be driverless cars, but the technology isn't quite there yet and even when it is, it will take a while before it's implemented.

author: W2NAP
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 03:14:14 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 09, 2018, 07:39:05 pmits called the truckers atlashttps://www.amazon.com/McNally-Deluxe-Motor-Carriers-Mcnally/dp/0528017578lists overpasses that are less then 13' 8" that are on state roads/us highways (ie truck routes)

author: W2NAP
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 03:15:33 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on January 09, 2018, 11:28:43 pmtypical of mega carriers like swift,werner who hires right from trucking school newbs

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 04:48:38 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on January 10, 2018, 02:16:52 pmImagine the pileup when a wheel comes off a truck in the adjacent lane or some other debris ends up in the automated lane and the cars slam on their brakes. I'm sure there will be some spectacular failures, especially early on.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 04:52:59 pm
content: Quote from: W2NAP on January 10, 2018, 03:15:33 pmThis was a Kenan Advantage gasoline tanker. I don't know what the driver was doing but he wasn't paying attention. He slammed into the car behind me at ~50 MPH while we were stopped in a backup at the exit. Long straight section of freeway, I saw him coming a long way away in my rearview mirror, assumed he would slow down and stop.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 06:14:57 pm
content: Years ago in the 1980's my father did a study ( he was a fleet manager for a region) and convinced the top to change the insurance they used. Insure the main hauler, insure the trailer, insure the driver, have full third party insurance, riot and political unrest and full public liability insurance, but not to insure the load. His reasoning was that, as the insurance rate for the freight alone was around 5% of total value, yet the claims amount was 3%, that self insurance was the cheaper option, and actually was a much cheaper option as well, because the amount that the breakages was could then be claimed back from the Receiver, as most of the value of the breakages cost was Excise Duty, seeing as the trucks were delivering beer alone.Seeing as the major part of making a unit of beer is actually various taxes, duties and such Ad Valorum and the actual cost of making, bottling and distribution are smaller, then the claim back actually was cheaper. As well the losses were controlled better, simply by changing the packaging to a shrink wrapped pallet that could be handled in bulk with a fork lift, and putting extra trolleys on the trailers in a dedicated bay for delivery, saving carrying cases one by one, instead taking 11 at a time. Spec all trailers to have air suspension as well, and the losses dropped down to only in major accidents.

author: technix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 06:40:13 pm
content: Lo-tech solution: disguise. Make the clearance look like 7ft or 8ft instead of 11ft 8in which is likely just a little bit too short for a truck, so passengers and cars can pass but trucks will see it as obviously way too low. A lot of those truck drivers feel that the bridge have enough clearance but in reality they are just a bit too tall for it.I wonder if 12ft is kind of a standard height for trucks, If so, maybe digging the road surface a bit lower to get a clean 12.5in clearance instead?

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 06:46:47 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on January 10, 2018, 02:03:59 pmif only that was the case -- there have been numerous train accidents which would have been prevented had the automatic braking systems been implemented per the law. I suppose it's cheaper to pay out for damages in lawsuits than to actually implement something to prevent the damages in the first place.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 07:23:40 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on January 10, 2018, 02:51:52 pmThat wasn't human error, that was institutional incompetence.I read that the train that crashed was running over that route for the first time, and doing it as a scheduled service with passengers on board. Nobody who knows how to run a railway would do that. With all the new rail services being opened up in London (e.g. Crossrail), they run empty trains over the route for three months before letting passengers on board, both for driver training and for infrastructure shakedown.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 07:38:14 pm
content: Quote from: ez24 on January 07, 2018, 08:45:11 pmSUE THE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY UNTIL THEY DIG THE ROAD DEEPER !it is simple : there are rules how tall a truck can be. so every bridge must be at least taller than that rule. this one clearly does not meet the rules....either close this underpass for all traffic and reroute it , or dig the road deeper. any other solution is unacceptable.not with a counter at 126 ...

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 08:28:04 pm
content: The automated train control system is an interesting engineering/financial problem. I have a electrical engineer acquaintance who installs these here in the US. It is apparently a long involved process. He spends about a year doing a segment of track. I haven't talked with him about the details (what is involved in installation, length of a segment, number of hardware pieces, amount of customization required etc.).The interesting question comes from taking this testimony at face value. There are two choices parallel and serial. Creating a large industry (workforce, infrastructure and so on) that will be largely shut down when installation is complete as maintenance can be expected to be a much smaller job, or spreading the installation over time. The first choice minimizes wrecks and the second minimizes investment and economic dislocation of those in the industry. While you can also bring in things like invention to speed the installation, the same fundamental problem will exist. And obviously the train system in the US has opted for the second choice. Good for this friend as it seems likely the job will last the rest of his life.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 09:09:22 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on January 10, 2018, 07:38:14 pmThis is the only thing that makes sense to me. The solution to the problem obviously isn't working at 126 accidents and counting. The changes just shifted the blame, which obviously isn't a solution at all.I'm honestly surprised no one got sued into submission over this. It might be a case of the authorities involved having some sort of legal immunity, I don't know.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 09:26:45 pm
content: 126 accidents is not all that many, especially with no fatalities. There are highways not far from me that have on average a couple of fatal accidents every year and many more minor ones, they are much more dangerous than a low bridge. I'm not aware of any laws regarding bridge height, there are numerous height restrictions out there. As has already been discussed, raising the bridge or lowering the road both have been deemed not economically feasible. Unless people are dying I expect that to remain the case.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 09:48:02 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on January 10, 2018, 09:26:45 pmApparently the overpass isn't up to standards, as those weren't around when the thing was built. Waiting for people to die is a common strategy and unfortunately one we can't really seem to shake. We inevitably lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. The aircraft industry is a good example, with there regularly being near disasters with little improvements being made, only making proper improvements after many died.What's affordable to change or not obviously depends on the local situation regarding funding. I think it's safe to say that this situation wouldn't be acceptable in some countries, as is evidenced by similar situations not being present there, while it's probably more common in other, less funded countries. Unfortunately, it does seem to fit the narrative of the ageing US infrastructure.Though it's probably a mistake to view it purely as an economical matter, as that ignores public sector and business ethics.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2018, 10:37:13 pm
content: But if you have 100 projects that need doing, resources exist to complete 10 of them, and 20 of them are resulting in occasional deaths are you going to tackle the one that is causing inattentive drivers to wreck trucks without any serious injuries so far?In reality I think assuming we have the resources to complete 10% of the infrastructure projects that really need doing is being very optimistic.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 12:12:46 am
content: Quote from: james_s on January 10, 2018, 10:37:13 pmParticularly true when you look into the cost of actually doing these things. Starting with the economic analysis, the neighborhood impact report, the environmental impact report .... They could easily spend a million dollars before the actual design of a modified crossing could start. And then recognizing that because there are so many parties involved that scheduling will be a nightmare and this project could actually take two or more years to complete once ground is broken. You will never have so much "fun" as you try to coordinate permissions and work between a railroad and a few utilities. The marching army costs are enormous.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 12:53:48 am
content: "...the bridge cannot be raisedbecause doing so would require the tracks to be raised for several miles to adjust the incline. North Carolina Railroad doesn’t want to pay for the enormous expense it would entail.The bridge cannot be loweredeither because there is a major sewer line running only four feet under the street."Prices for bridge work and Civil engineering projects are just insane. My municipality paid $250M for an overpass over a 6-lane road.Take 126 incidents with an average repair cost/insurance claim of $10,000 and that's $1.26M of damages.It's still nothing compared to costs to bring this 1940 mess up to modern standards.pic fromMark Clifton

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 01:15:01 am
content: Quote from: james_s on January 10, 2018, 10:37:13 pmYes, fair enough. The US doesn't seem to have or want to spend the funds to get all the infrastructure done up. That's where the governmental or business ethics come in. Is shifting that problem upon a group of people who got caught out really the way to approach that? Many people seem to think it is, while I have my doubts that's how society should do things.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 01:25:53 am
content: I'm all for improving infrastructure and given unlimited resources this is something I would tackle. I'm just saying it's pretty far down on the list so there's no sense in focusing on it now. There are thousands of projects that have much better cost to benefit ratios, many of which already cause somewhat regular fatalities.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 02:40:15 am
content: All electronics can do with this problem is sound an alarm to alert the driver.Lights, horns, water, laser beams, cannon blast, drop a barricade etc.Or something in-cab as driver assist.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 02:46:32 am
content: "OVERHEIGHT WHEN FLASHING" is definitely too vague to make any sort of meaningful alert. In reference to a previously posted sign in this thread, how about:IF THESE LIGHTS ARE FLASHINGYOU WILL HIT THAT BRIDGE

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 02:47:45 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2018, 02:41:47 amCorrect, and since the bridge is actually just shy of 11'11", they're very deliberately at the outer edge of what they can get away with. But technix wasn't talking about changing thepostedheight, but rather camouflaging the actual height to make itlooklower. Not sure how one would do this, though!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 02:58:26 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on January 07, 2018, 09:53:11 pmhttp://www.2m40.com/begs to differ.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 03:00:13 am
content: Quote from: amyk on January 11, 2018, 02:46:32 amThere is no "OVERHEIGHT WHEN FLASHING" sign. There is a sign that says:Trucks over 11'8"=======>The sensors a) change the traffic lights to red (allowing for a safe right turn before the bridge) and b) light up a sign that says:OVERHEIGHTMUST TURNDidn't you see that in the video?!?If you still plow through that and an unambiguous red light into the bridge, I'm sorry, you're either an idiot or unconscious.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 03:04:58 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2018, 02:41:47 amI rather doubt that. If the actual height is 11'11" they are not allowed to post a clearance height of 12'2". What they post must be lower than the actual height by some safety margin. So it might be -3 inches to -6 inches for example.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 03:40:50 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2018, 02:41:47 amA max of 3 in difference between signage and actual clearance, obviously only in the safe direction. In this case the actual height of the crash bar and bridge is 11 ft 10.8 in, so anyone who thought they were going to make 11 ft 8 in really has no excuse.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 04:03:56 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2018, 03:43:01 amUh huh, right. Cuz people who plow throughred lightsare gonna take the time to read a novel-length road sign. That's no distraction at all, nosiree...P.S. Don't you live in NC at the moment? You should drive down there and check it out, be our eyes and ears on the ground! Also, Morgan Imports, the shop at the corner there, is awesome!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 07:42:03 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2018, 03:43:01 amI think something like that is everyone's first impulse. Rub their noses in it! That should teach them. However, considering the history of the place, it's unlikely it's going to make any difference. You could probably put the death penalty on hitting the overpass and shoot their entire families to boot, and it's probably not going to make much of a difference. People aren't hitting the thing intentionally and have to suffer significant consequences as it is, as rental insurancas generally don't cover overhead damage. The average bill is probably into the many tens of thousands of dollars. The drivers all have the incentive in the world to not hit the overpass. It's also not a matter of people not being able to see the warning signs that were put up. The problem is that they're not properly perceiving them and that's not going to change. You could add all sort of bells and whistles, but it's probably only going to distract drivers from what they need to pay attention to even more.I must say that I'm honestly fairly surprised by the responses on this forum. I thought the engineering type would be much more practically inclined, rather than moralistically. I learned something.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 08:17:55 am
content: Simplest would be to close the bridge underpass, though that would likely result in a large number of complaints by the people who have to detour around it then. Other than that there is pretty much nothing you can do economically.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 08:20:58 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 11, 2018, 07:42:03 am90/10 rule applies to all groups.All groups.Tim

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 08:38:04 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 11, 2018, 12:53:48 amIt costs money, but isn't undoable. They've raised entire bridges many times larger then this one a few feet not too far from here not too long ago. Obviously, just viewing it as an economical matter isn't quite right either. That's where the governmental ethics come in. Though I can understand that the money might simply not be there. The ageing US infrastructure is a topic that has people worried and it seems to be a matter of fighting a large array of problems with limited resources.Apparently there's another underpass with a similar story. This one doesn't seem to have a beam in front of it. The video shows some pretty violent crashes, including trucks that veer into the oncoming traffic, a firetruck getting stuck and a fire that engulfs the rails above. It seems that this one has racked up nearly 100 crashes in roughly 7 years.https://youtu.be/V3-UugI0JoAhttps://youtu.be/Fc0avTFZrvA

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 09:06:35 am
content: The results of this bridge are more satisfying. Rips the roof clean off, and it even takes down cars!

author: Kalvin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 09:35:25 am
content: Develop a mobile phone application which will get as input the height (and weight) of the vehicle and the estimated route. The application will then show whether the route is safe for the vehicle. The application may also calculate the route from current navigation data and warn the driver when the route ahead will contain unsafe bridges and obstacles. Just send 5% for me for this idea from your gross income what you will get from this application idea

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 10:24:35 am
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 11, 2018, 09:06:35 am? What do you mean. What are you talking about? The other 11' 8'' bridge had many tops of trucks, at least 4, so perfectly cut off, it was like peeling an apple all the way through and including the rear door. Even at the end, the truck which turns safely away, then backs up and makes a u-turn in traffic, then turns the other way into the bridge. How can you beat that?Examples:https://youtu.be/USu8vT_tfdw?t=22https://youtu.be/USu8vT_tfdw?t=33https://youtu.be/USu8vT_tfdw?t=69https://youtu.be/USu8vT_tfdw?t=280https://youtu.be/USu8vT_tfdw?t=531How many more do I need to post?

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 10:42:41 am
content: Hmm, not to be one for policy in other parts of the world, but could it be changed by 3 inches? the structure under the bridge looks like it could be replaced to be at least 3 inches thinner, as it appears most of the impacts on these sites miss by about 2 inches, so grazing the roof rather than slicing it.e.g. making an economic decision to reduce rather than solve?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 11:07:57 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on January 11, 2018, 10:42:41 amAdd some teflon sheets while you're at it. Slide on through!

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 11:16:16 am
content: Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 05:08:17 pmNot necessarily in this case, but running red lights isn't always the driver's fault. Quite often it's the way the traffic lights are programmed which is to blame. If there are multiple instances where the signal is red for a long time, yet the road is clear and it's safe to pass, drivers will start to pay less attention to red lights. There are plenty of instances where I live of traffic signals remaining red for so long, I could walk there and back several times, which is very frustrating. The worst lights are the ones near where I work, which need an additional left turn signal, as it's often safe to turn left, but not go straight ahead, so the light remains red. It becomes very tempting to just run the red, especially when one is in a hurry (OK, that's a bad excuse I know). The solution is to keep the time on red, when the road is clear, to an absolute minimum.In this case, a gate before the bridge could be installed, which stops every vehicle and only opens, when it's safe to pass and the vehicle has been scanned to ensure it's not too high. This will not stop some drivers from smashing through it, but it will cut the number of accidents further.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 12:29:26 pm
content: Please explore the google maps and street view of this intersection to see why that can’t work. (Though I’ve explained it in prior replies.)(Edit: fix typo)

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 01:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on January 11, 2018, 12:29:26 pmLooking around the neighbourhood I'm a bit confused why this overpass is such an issue. There's some imitations on space to take into account, but there's also a lot of room to play with.What might work is having railway gates instead of the LED sign that's currently there. If the system detects a vehicle that's too high, the gates close and traffic gets diverted to the crossings further down the tracks until the vehicle is gone. Though I don't think getting fancy is the best solution. If you insist on not spending a lot of money, you might consider closing the underpass for motor traffic completely. There are two crossings nearby and the town layout doesn't seem to dictate the use of that road too much.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 04:24:01 pm
content: It's as if they know. Posted today, an article about the failing infrastructure of the US.https://hackaday.com/2018/01/11/local-infrastructure-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 06:00:48 pm
content: There can be many factors in these crashes. Many years ago while working my way.through university I drove a truck. During training a story was related about a driver of a regular route who was retiring, and took a trainee along on his route for few trips before his last day. The trainees first solo day came and he nervously started the route. At a low underpass he cautiously proceeded and got the roof peel. It turned out the retiring veteran consistently took the route at speed and the dip compressed the springs enough to get through. For many of the drivers at this bridge it may have been the first unloaded or lightly loaded trip. Others may have rented the same model truck multiple times before and got surprised by new springs or a different tire profile on the most recent truck.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 06:12:04 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 11, 2018, 06:00:48 pmI agree. People will take risks and if they get away with it 99.99% of the time, they'll keep doing it. If the light was red, but the road was clear and driver got through, without any near misses, hundreds of times, then they will keep doing it. One day, the authority may realise the timing of the traffic light is incorrect and unduly holding up the traffic, so they reprogram it, to give less red time. Now the same driver runs the red and boom, there's a nasty accident.Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 11, 2018, 01:06:02 pmYes, I see no reason why there can't be a gate before the bridge. It would certainly stand out more than the side and red light. In this case, it might not have made any difference, but it will certainly have prevented other accidents.Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 11, 2018, 04:24:01 pmI can see your point: if accidents keep happening, then the poorly designed road and bridge are to blame.I can also see the other side: it's the driver's fault for ignoring the warnings.I think in this instance, no one has been killed or seriously injured, just damage to property, which the insurance companies paid for. As you say funds are tight, so it makes sense to spend the money in other areas, where there's a far greater risk of serious injury or death.

author: Nerull
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 06:14:27 pm
content: Every person who hits this bridge is running a red light. They should be taken off the road before they kill someone.Mr Scram provides an excellent example as to why people hate engineers - because he, personally, is ignorant of any problems, it must mean those problems can't exist.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 07:26:53 pm
content: Quote from: Nerull on January 11, 2018, 06:14:27 pmNerull, having a bad day?It's hard to brake rapidly with a truckload of stuff. We could put everyone who runs this red light and hits the bridge into an electric chair.A bit harsh perhaps, but still not a solution.

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 07:49:09 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 11, 2018, 07:26:53 pmIf you run a red light, FIVE seconds after it turned red, because you could not break then you are driving way to fast.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 08:14:21 pm
content: Quote from: Kalvin on January 11, 2018, 09:35:25 amI think this is a good idea. The rental companies could require the customer use the app or pay extra if they decline.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 08:30:25 pm
content: Quote from: glarsson on January 11, 2018, 07:49:09 pmDrive it like you stole it ! That driver left the truck there and fled the sceneThe traffic light doesn't immediately turn red if the overheight warning is activated.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 10:29:23 pm
content: All this discussion has triggered an actual idea relative to OPs question. A current max height display unit for the cab of the truck. Might help a little in situations like this. The main market would be the rental companies who would use it to establish liability for the damages.Would use sonar or other similar sensor to measure chassis to ground distance, which would be added to a programmable chassis to top of truck distance. Probably would need a sensor at each primary axle. The rental company or other vehicle owner would be the one with the password to program the chassis to top distance, which would have appropriate margin added.A shock sensor would permanently record the current displayed height when an event occurred. This information would aid in recovering damages from the renter.The whole thing could be tied into the cell phone app mentioned previously which accesses a database of overhead restrictions. This could trigger an additional audio alarm when something bad is predicted by the combination of route, restriction and actual height.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2018, 11:29:00 pm
content: Might make more sense to just put a sign on the bridge that says NO TRUCKS because even if it does fit, the margin is so tight that it's not worth the risk.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 07:34:03 am
content: Simpler would be for the rental companies to put a sign prominently in the rental vehicles indicating the height of the unloaded vehicle, so the driver is aware of this being a large vehicle with restrictions on routes. Then again, most time the renters probably did not take the full insurance option, as it is a big part of a single day rental price, and often is not shown in the advertising for the prices, and thus they are liable for all accident costs.From discussion on the comments on the page there is a strong likelihood the rental companies come out ahead, older vehicles hitting the bridge get written off, and the driver has to pay for a replacement vehicle as compensation, unless they took the insurance, which the rental company then use as payment on a new, higher value, rental unit. Newer vehicles will be repaired though, still coming out with a new body on it. As most are generally out of state that hit, or day rentals going through, the locals obviously are well aware of the limitations of the bridge, even though there is a municipal bus route that goes under it the bus is definitely low enough to clear it.By me there is a double deck tour bus that runs regular, the metro has trimmed the trees to allow clearance, though when they ran the route the other way they did do quit a lot of large branch removal.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 07:44:20 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 11, 2018, 07:26:53 pmHe's just trying to pick a fight. Don't feed the troll.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 05:27:50 pm
content: 9 new ones, take a look at the last one...

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 05:36:42 pm
content: There must be something up with those lights. There's plenty of green lights in there, but a couple of red lights too. Idiots who ignore the red light? In some cases, many cars are driving through it as if it's not there. I'm not buying that four drivers run a red light in tandem intentionally. There's one or two that obviously do, mind you.In some cases the overheight sign isn't even on.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 07:31:37 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on January 11, 2018, 07:26:53 pmThe speed limit there is just 25mph.Quote from: glarsson on January 11, 2018, 07:49:09 pmExactly!!Quote from: floobydust on January 11, 2018, 08:30:25 pmObviously not, since it has to give time for traffic to clear the intersection. But the sensors are apparently blocks ahead. It's not as though the sensor is a few feet ahead of the intersection.Quote from: SeanB on January 12, 2018, 07:34:03 amWhen I've rented panel trucks, they've had the height printed in a few spots. Pretty sure it was on a sticker right on the dashboard somewhere. (It's been a loooong time, so I don't remember exactly.)

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 08:37:46 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2018, 04:23:46 amBe sure to visit in a Ryder truck. Document the warnings etc. Install a dash cam and go for it. As far as I know there are no dash cam videos on the crashes. Even get a camera on you as the driver. To avoid criticism go the speed limit. For video effects put a heavy load in the back of the truck so the front will flip up higher. There are so many potential things you could do for the benefit of mankind.Plus aren't you going to be an electrical railroad designer? If so maybe you could work this in somehow towards your PHd? I do not know if the tracks are electrical. Ah ha - time it so a train is going over the bridge. I have not seen a train. Oh so many things only you could do. Do you have to do a thesis, if so what is it on? Electrical train safety? How about a sensor that stops the train when a truck hits the bridge and you can test it by hitting the bridge in a truck.You could become a world famous expert on trucks hitting train bridges.One warning that no one has come up with - audible warning like a train horn ?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 09:32:48 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on January 12, 2018, 07:34:03 amI have rented a number of these. They all have prominent height indications posted in a few places around the vehicle. Of course they do tend to get lost in the warnings about what fuel type, speed limits, weight limits, backing restrictions, cancer causing chemicals and the like.The additional problem with this warning is since it is painted on, it obviously relates to the nominal height of the vehicle design. Nominal height plus some margin whatever they choose it to be. I have no idea how that relates to the actual height of the individual vehicles.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 10:01:35 pm
content: Thinking about this again. In the UK, an HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) licence would needed to drive a vehicle that size (I don't believe this is the only country), so accidents like that happen less frequently. I'm not suggesting the US should take that path of course: the roads are much smaller over here.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 10:12:04 pm
content: In the US we have CDLs for driving commercial vehicles, but as far as I know that's more about the usage of the vehicle than the size. If you want to drive a bus hauling passengers or a truck hauling freight you need a CDL. As far as I know there is no special requirement if you want to drive yourself around in an old bus or rent a big truck for personal use.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2018, 10:45:44 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on January 12, 2018, 10:12:04 pmIt depends on the loaded weight or number of passengers. I believe that a CDL is required for vehicles with a gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more and passenger vehicles when hauling 15 or more passengers.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2018, 12:14:12 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on January 12, 2018, 10:45:44 pmGenerally correct. The administration of licenses is handled at the state level, so there are 50 different sets of rules. In the case of commercial licenses they're pretty much the same, with appropriate knowledge tests based on the vehicles driven, since there are overriding federal standards for commercial vehicles and drivers. So most of those rental box trucks in the videos are light enough to not require commercial licenses to drive when those drivers are not engaged in commerce.The big loophole is when you have NON-commercial vehicles, particularly recreational vehicles. Most states will allow you to drive that 40 foot, 40000 pound, air brake vehicle, while towing a car, with absolutely no extra training whatsoever. Note that this category can include former commercial vehicles like Greyhound buses and Semis!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2018, 12:21:22 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on January 13, 2018, 12:14:12 amThat is a bit scary, although there seem to be surprisingly few incidents. Perhaps it's down to the relative scarcity of such vehicles. I did know a friend of a friend who had an old transit bus and another who had a school bus but relatively few people can afford a gigantic heavy RV. In all those cases it was not exactly a daily driver.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2018, 01:03:06 am
content: Quote from: MarkS on January 12, 2018, 10:45:44 pmFor the metric (majority) thats 11.7 tonne, 11,700 kg. For comparison in Australia the vehicle weight limit before requiring a higher (commercial type) licence is 4,500kg, EU is harmonised at 3,500kg but with some exemptions on a country by country basis:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_goods_vehicle

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2018, 02:21:54 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 13, 2018, 01:03:06 amAnybody who passed a class B (manual car) test in the UK before, I think, 1997 gets a 'grandfathered-in' right to drive class C1 (7.5 tonnes) and C1+E vehicles (C1 with trailer - total 8.25 tonnes).The odd thing about this exception is that it goes with the individual person's license (which is a harmonised European one, a least for a few months more) and so an older UK driver can take advantage of the UK exception in other European countries that don't permit this for their own drivers - a peculiar arrangement, but that's how it was done.

author: MarkS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2018, 07:31:46 am
content: Quote from: Nusa on January 13, 2018, 12:14:12 amCorrect, and that is where it gets tricky. While the states issue the licences, they do so under federal law. I could buy a 45 foot Prevost bus and turn it into an RV and drive it with a class D license, but God help me if I bypass a weigh station or get a state trooper that only sees a bus and pops me for not having a CDL! Federal guidelines are a little unclear on this matter. It's complicated as the requirements for needing a CDL are based on weight and/or number of passengers. A 40,000# RV that can only seat six people runs afoul of the weight requirements, even though it is well below the minimum passenger requirement.I have the 2018 FMSA rule book, but it's a dense and boring read. When I get the time, I'll try to see if there is any clarification on this matter.Personally it doesn't matter to me. I'm a semi driver with a class A CDL and can drive pretty much anything that doesn't run on rails or have wings.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2018, 07:31:32 am
content: Video showing the approach to the bridge. (2015)

author: Moshly
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2018, 10:45:56 am
content: In South Melbourne, we have a slightly different problem ->

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 17, 2018, 02:12:17 pm
content: He didn't seem to be going insanely fast based on the bow wave (tough to tell from a near head on camera angle), but why on earth would he not have stood on the brake pedal the instant the nose of the car began to submarine? It looked like he tried to just keep going.Some people's kids...-Pat

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2018, 10:03:07 pm
content: I like how he keeps turning the steering wheel, to do a U-turn with his U-boat

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 03:59:06 am
content: Quote from: Cubdriver on January 17, 2018, 02:12:17 pmIt looks to me like he almost did, what we call in the US a rolling stop (or California Stop), before speeding up a bit and hitting the water. I can’t imagine he was going more than 10mph or so.As for why he kept going? In for a penny, in for a pound! Once the back popped up, he was screwed anyway, so he might as well keep going. (Though, the car may have come out from that alright; it looks like the firewall is just above the waterline, so the interior of the car would have stayed relatively dry. The air intake would be at the bottom of the windshield, which is also above the water. As long as the engine doesn’t suck in water, it can run submerged for short periods.)

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 07:08:06 am
content: Quote from: timb on January 18, 2018, 03:59:06 amPerhaps on your side of the world with its peculiar cars but most vehicles of that era have the air intake low down in front of the wheel arch. You can actually pick out the specific year model of that car and verify if you like....

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 08:09:30 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 18, 2018, 07:08:06 amYeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if it inhaled a nice slug of water. Hydro lock is a bitch, too. How're your bent con rods?-Pat

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 08:26:46 am
content: Quote from: Cubdriver on January 17, 2018, 02:12:17 pmMost people don't realize that a car can start floating in as little as 1 foot or 30 centimeters of water. You lose traction and quickly get yourself in more trouble as you lose control. A diesel can keep running in water for a bit, unless you literally flood it, but the electronics of a petrol car are very vulnerable to water. As soon as the engine cuts out it's game over as the water enters the exhaust. Cars aren't exactly watertight either, so the interior fills.It's generally bad news for a car to become waterlogged, it's typically a complete write-off. A lot of insurance companies won't even take a close look at a car that's been sitting in water. Even if you manage to rescue the car, it can be hard to prevent mould from destroying the interior. Obviously, it can easily cost you your life too. You certainly wouldn't be the first to drown that way.

author: Moshly
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 09:13:29 am
content: This happens nearly every time it floods.Notice (in the yt video) the local in the background with the fishing rodSome hit it at speedOthersStreetView ->https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.8320703,144.9550929,3a,75y,265.4h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTCwyDsyDRYT9r5oX0k-Hiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 06:53:14 pm
content: The air intake below the windshield is for the HVAC system. The engine air intake is separate, near the air filter box which is normally in one of the front corners of the car under the hood.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 07:59:29 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 07, 2018, 09:41:40 pmAll of this is often ignored. It boils down to making the signs visible and understandable. If you notice, the One Way signs are always placed so that you find them when you’re looking to turn the wrong way.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: timb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2018, 11:52:23 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on January 18, 2018, 07:08:06 amI should have been more clear, I was talking about two separate things.A lot of cars have the HVAC input at the base of the windshield. Obviously it’s designed to drain water (rain, splashes, etc.) but if you submerge it, it will end up in the cabin.The engine’s air intake can be in numerous places, including the wheel well (more common on smaller front wheel drive cars), just sitting under the hood (with a conical filter, also a common aftermarket mod with ricers), slots in the top of the hood itself (you see this mainly with supercharged cars) and directly behind the grill (rear wheel drive sedans and trucks).

author: Avacee
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 12:48:06 am
content: Apologies to reviving a dormant thread but those familiar with it may like to know the 11'8" bridge problem has been "solved" by raising it 8 inches to 12' 4".The stretch of track over the bridge was inclined so it raised to be level with another bridge a short distance away to one side and inclined slightly steeper the other side.The good news is that larger lorries (US standard 13'6" / 4.11m) can still have their roofs ripped off along with RV's, large air con units, several common makes of hire/rental trucks, etc - all is not lostBBC News article (1:03)https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-50340631/north-carolina-can-opener-bridge-raisedThe chap making the next 2 videos is Jurgen Henn who setup the original webcam and the11foot8 websiteand provided us with much amusement andmomentsPreparing the raise (8:56)... and the raise (8.42)

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2019, 04:26:01 am
content: as outlawing driver stupidity is impossible with out replacement with AIso that leaves changing the level of either the road going under, or the height level of the railway bridgeone solution is to have the AI on the bridge with something more attention grabbing thin just regular traffic lights.including monitoring all traffic intersections entering the bridge zone for vehicle height. with laser beams atop of streetstobie poles. lasers act as vehicle height level detectors . two beams or sets of twin laser beams on the sametwo poles ether side of the roadway would in theory prevent false trigging by say birds or a single laser failure.once the height of all vehicles entering the zone is known, then any AI with the use of cameras andimbedded in the road ground loops. to track an individual over height vehicle with the goal of stopping it.by traffic lights and or traffic boom gates. the use of a type of AI would give the system flexibility in how to dealwith driver stupidity and other odd driver actions. an example vehicles reversing up or blocking the road.also any AI would communicate to the drivers by big electronic street side signs. the cost of all this electronic infrastructureneeds to compared to the cost of fixing railway bridge level its self .

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2019, 02:35:53 pm
content: Raising the bridge always was the only real solution.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2019, 03:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on November 10, 2019, 02:35:53 pmYep. Electronics was used in the most effective way - to put so many embarrassing videos of crashes on the internet, that the authorities eventually had to fix the height of the bridge.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2019, 12:15:00 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on November 10, 2019, 02:35:53 pmThe extra 8" will help, and will preventsomecrashes, but it isn't enough to stop them all.There will still be ripped-open trucks and toppled equipment, but itwillbe less frequent now...

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 02:41:08 am
content: Id bet, if you pulled each driver after a crash, and asked them “ how many inches in a foot “, half of them would go blank.It’s a basic question of driver confidence and competence.

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 06:57:25 am
content: Quote from: SL4P on November 12, 2019, 02:41:08 amDon't forget context. People have different size feet, you know, and most of them are shorter than ‎0.3048 meters.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 08:02:01 am
content: I'm actually kinda curious, do big trucks, especially rentals, give you any info on their height? Like is it listed on the dash somewhere? I feel that could actually solve a lot of these issues. Most people see the "clearance" sign and assume they'll fit but don't actually know their vehicle height.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 08:35:55 am
content: I've rented a truck in Sydney a couple of times - and they DO advise you of the height... VERY CLEARLY. They also make the point that the insurance cover option they provide does NOT include damage caused by over-height impact.What they don't do - and CAN'T do - is get the driver (used to their highest point being a foot above their head) to appreciate that the highest point of the vehicle they're driving is nowfourfeet (or more) above their head.I'm not just talking about standing outside and looking up - I'm talking about when they are driving along, paying attention on navigation, lane changing and generally avoiding collision with non truck friendly traffic when their thoughts on the structure towering above their head is not featuring in their thinking. This is not to mention their lack of interest in height warning signs - because they've never needed to worry about them before.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 09:03:59 am
content: A number of the rental trucks I have seen in the past 3 years tend to have stickers somewhere near the rego sticker saying the height and gross? weight of the vehicle,

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 09:34:16 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on November 12, 2019, 09:03:59 amHaven't all large trucks been marked with their height and gross weight for decades, by mandate?

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 10:37:01 am
content: on the outside, yes, but rarely do they put it in an at a glance location you would find when you suddenly see "Low bridge ahead" or a road weight limit.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 11:54:48 am
content: Whenever I have rented a box truck in USA, the vehicle height has always been printed on the dash, and usually on or near the driver door on the outside, and sometimes on the back of the truck, too. And as others have said, they make sure they tell you, too, and it’s a big bold point on the contract that height damage isn’t covered by the insurance. You have to be a real idiot to not know the height. Whether you do anything with that information is an altogether different matter.

author: Cubdriver
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2019, 12:04:06 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on November 12, 2019, 11:54:48 amIn my experience, they also have it printed, mirrored, on the front corners of the box where it is clearly visible and readable when seen in the rear view mirrors. There is also a sticker or printing on the dash REMINDING the driver that the vehicle is very tall, and that they must be aware of clearances when driving under things.-Pat

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 05:16:04 am
content: Good to know, sounds like most of these cases are definitely user error then. I was ready to give benefit of doubt as someone who drives a normal size vehicle never even bats an eye at height signs as they only apply to large vehicles, then suddenly you're renting a large vehicle and I could see it slip the mind. But if it's clearly printed, and told at the point of rental then yeah, no excuse really.Of course you not only need to know your height, but the height of your cargo. If you are loading a vehicle with cargo that is higher than the vehicle then you should be aware of that.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 04:48:39 pm
content: Definitely user error. If you have ever rented a box truck or RV (caravan) you know there is no way you can forget you are not driving a normal passenger vehicle. Sight lines, turning radius, acceleration, braking, noise and comfort are all dramatically different. In addition to all of those written warnings.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 05:16:42 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on November 13, 2019, 04:48:39 pmYou certainly wouldn't forget, but all the cognitive load of coping with all those differences might reduce the amount of brainpower available to think "I wonder if I'll fit under there?".

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2019, 05:32:35 pm
content: Let's rehash the whole discussion once more!

author: jesuscf
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2019, 09:06:55 pm
content: Lasers. Powerful lasers. That will solve the problem.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2019, 09:22:54 pm
content: Quote from: jesuscf on November 15, 2019, 09:06:55 pmWould these be used to slice off any excessive vertical areas of the approaching vehicles?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2019, 10:06:13 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 15, 2019, 09:22:54 pm

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2019, 10:07:24 pm
content: One obvious solution would be to remove the bridge altogether.Or the road that passes under it.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2019, 10:25:07 pm
content: Maybe if the signs had said it only had 3.5m clearance people wouldn't have run into it so much!Anyway, raising it by 200mm seems to have solved the problem.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2019, 10:40:50 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on November 15, 2019, 10:25:07 pmYes maybe. Could have it helped to also give a clearance figure in feet?(Sorry that was just because of the other thread...)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 05:02:26 am
content: Quote from: Gyro on November 15, 2019, 10:25:07 pmIt solved the problem of the 11' 8" bridge - but now we have the new problem of the 12' 4" bridge.

author: EEEnthusiast
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 07:52:17 am
content: Add a very slow speed limit like 20mph at least 1000 ft away from the bridge. This will give the truckers enough time to slow down and read the sign.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 08:32:35 am
content: Easier idea: paint the whole area yellow and black stripe. The bridge, supports, earth banks, road - everything.No - scratch that. Just paint it all a bright shade of pink.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 09:27:02 am
content: Interesting bridge. Sometimes you have to save people from not paying attention, even if you try to make it as obvious possible, some will not notice or visualize. If you want to completely avoid the issue, put up a bunch of barriers on all roads approaching the bridge (several intersections before on every road leading in) of the type with hanging chains. Any truck even trying to approach the bridge will get their roof banged up a few times before they even come close.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Southern–Gregson_Street_Overpass

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 09:06:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEEnthusiast on November 17, 2019, 07:52:17 amThey do. Every conceivable low-hanging fruit was done long ago.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 09:58:08 pm
content: Painting the steel barrier a brighter color? How much would that cost?I'm sure someone else has also noted this. The Pensky truck in the original video runs a red on his way to the crash. Perhaps those flashing red lights are distracting the driver from the traffic light and/or barrier more than they are helping?No flashing lights. Just a brightly painted barrier with the height painted right on it. No signs, no other clutter. Have spot lights pointed at the barrier to light it like day, vs flashing lights pointed at the driver.A standard sheet metal road sign with letters on it doesn't hurt you. Blinky lights don't hurt you. The giant steel barrier is what is going to ruin your day. This should draw the attention.+ of course the greatest idea of hanging a sign of the same height, AT LEAST at the intersection facing the bridge, so even when the light is green and traffic is moving fast, the sign is not going to damage someone's truck who is NOT going under the bridge.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 10:08:35 pm
content: Well since we're going over this yet again...I repeat:No amount of visual communication matters, to a driver that is not looking.Colors don't matter.Lights don't matter.Sirens or chains or waterfalls might matter, but don't leave much time to react, and may confuse the driver. Or they might not be paying attention to that sense, either.How do you intend to visually communicate with a driver that isn't looking?How do you intend to audibly communicate with a driver that isn't listening?Tim

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 10:10:49 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on November 17, 2019, 09:58:08 pmThe barrier was originally bright yellow (like the new one that was just installed), but the paint was worn off by the crashes. 😂As a reminder to all the smartasses who think a simple solution would fix it, please read the FAQ first:https://11foot8.com/faq/Cuz as I said, all the low hanging fruit was tried LONG ago.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 10:19:27 pm
content: QuoteI agree on this. IMO, it is very common for drivers on a long drive to NOT READ SIGNS.For this person, the actual barrier will be the first time they notice anything. Do you want to put one more sign here in case they start reading them?If there's a blinking red lights and signs, and the barrier is black, and it is night, they maybe see... blinking red lights. Lights which are high enough for their truck to clear, btw, which is pretty weird in itself. Why not put the lights lower.Shine the spotlights at the barrier (at not from) and put the height on the barrier. Does this stop all crashes? No. does it reduce them? Maybe? But it doesn't cost much and no, it does not seem like they have done this before.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 10:26:12 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on November 17, 2019, 10:08:35 pmPeople love bringing up all the things discussed again and again.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 10:36:36 pm
content: I think in the least to try to get him to see the one thing that might draw the attention of this guy that is not paying attention.You put up signs of "giant man eating bear" and it's just a sign. At least try to make him notice the giant man eating bear when he gets there.This why you shine the light AT the barrier, not FROM the barrier. The idea is to show him the bear, not another (soft glowy) concept of a bear.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2019, 11:21:24 pm
content: Another idea is a change to the height detector warning.Instead of blinking lights, something like a railroad crossing barrier, but one that will fire very quickly and also not cause damage to a car that does not stop (in case of erroneous firing)?Maybe even better to make it so high that normal consumer cars will just go under, anyway. And only trucks will get the message right quick when it drops 3 feet down from the barrier all glowing with "STOP! Do not enter."It seems the blinking red lights don't work, because to everyone who drives it means stop and look for traffic... then go. Not stop and stay stopped and then turn around.To say there's no way to get the attention of a driver that isn't paying attention is not thinking it through. If he is not paying attention to visual cues, he would have ran off the road and crashed a long time ago. He can't get here if he is not looking at something... something more important to him than reading a sign. If he see's a truck coming at him, he will react. He is looking and processing visual information. Maybe there's a way to reach this driver, visually, then.I have a personal anecdote from an 8 hour drive. There was some road work and lots of traffic, going on miles and miles and miles. To me? W/e. I was 4 hours of driving at this point, and I'm just following the car ahead of me. This traffic and signs went on for like an hour, and I read... none of them. Well, I'm in the left lane. Finally, the car ahead of me merges right, and I see.... road block coming up FAST. I have plenty of time to stop, still. But signs, lights, warnings, nothing do I care.. esp if you have warning that you must merge an hour before you get there. This is crying wolf. you get desensitized. Traffic going this way, I'm going this way. Ok, done thinking. Actual physical road block?.. ok, I see this and I know it is important. No more warnings. This is what the last hour of signs was all about, and it is obvious. It's time now to give a shit. But if I stop, I will be stuck for hours until traffic dies off. So I look, I have a spot, I merge...in front of a unmarked off duty cop, who apparently had a bad enough day to take his personal time to play traffic cop to me. Ticket for passing in a no pass zone. (And he didn't believe my honest explanation; to him, I was weaving in and out of traffic and cutting people off to "beat" others when I was actually following same car, same lane for an hour.)

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 12:23:50 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on November 17, 2019, 10:08:35 pmHow? Play with their innate biological wiring for threat perception. I've noticed that if I'm driving along and someone looks like they are going to inattentively pull out of a side road into my path, if I adjust my course temporarily so that I'm aiming directly for them they are much more likely to notice me approaching. Nature has wired us to notice something heading straight towards because it might be a potential threat. How you'd apply this to the bridge I can't offhand imagine, but there must be some way to play with this.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 12:56:39 am
content: Sure, if they're looking.Shall I repeat again?For a concrete example, say someone's staring at their phone while blaring loud music. Or for a slightly dated example, staring at a map that they've unfolded in front of them. Or for a stupider example, trying to eat, or apply makeup, or brush teeth, or change clothes. All things that have been observed in motor vehicles, in motion, on roads.See, the fundamental problem is trying to approach the problem from your own perspective.You don't DO these things, so you can't imagine someone having a problem with them.These are not typical accidents. All the regular people have been sorted out by the signs, red lights and markings. Peoplereally arethis stupid, and to solve the problem, you must understand this far-flung tail of the bell curve.The problem is, the bell curve is very wide at this distance, which is to say, there are many more ways to be stupid, than there are ways to be smart. Nature always finds a better fool!Tim

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 01:02:27 am
content: ^This is funny. How 127 crashes per year are from guy that can drive all across country while staring at phone, somehow stay and follow the road, somehow not rear-end anyone, but these 127 people cannot see a barrier.The rental guys you can't stop them all. They just forgot they are driving a tall truck, because they have entered "automatic" mode. These crashes, they see the barrier, they see the signs, they register 11ft 8", but they don't think this will matter to them.For the guys that were just lala along and not reading the signs, but are aware they are driving a 12 foot truck, at least let them see the actual physical thing they are about to wreck into. I don't think you need to put signs and lights to cover it. The bridge/barrier, as a member who drives there puts it, is imposing in and of itself, and I imagine your eyes should be drawn to the top of the actual barrier where the height is printed in large letters right on it. Not lights hanging over it and blinding you at night from seeing it. Not little sheet metal sign next to it.When you are not paying attention, you still will see it. You can ignore the 50 thousand signs you pass, zoned out, you can easily miss another sign. But if there is a naked lady walking on the of the road, I think you will notice.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 01:45:51 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on November 18, 2019, 12:56:39 amNo, no , no. If I'm cleaning my teeth and some sod lobs something at my head from the side I react*. I don't have to be actively looking, or even passively looking in the direction of the threat. There's some fundamental way that my brain is wired (inherited from my great5000father Ug whowasn'teaten by a tiger) that makes me process and bring my attention to possible immediate threats to my well being. What I'm suggesting is that if we can find a way to co-opt that instinct, then perhaps we can devise a mechanism for getting the attention of the inattentive.* Yes, Ididhave those kind of flatmates at University.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 02:13:09 am
content: Sorta like creating a realistic painting of a giant sinkhole in the road might get one's attention?QuoteNo, Tim. This is your fundamental problem, and you have to speak for yourself. I and many others here have done most of these things. Eating (and shifting a manual) while steering with a knee. Shaving and brushing teeth. I have attempted watching videos while driving, holding the cell phone over the steering wheel; I can't do that. I can't text, either. I know I can't do these things, because I have attempted it, and I know I can't do it safely.Anything you can do while keeping your eyes on the road and control over the wheel and brakes is pretty much possible, so long as you can keep attention to what is immediately needed. Sometimes it helps, on a long boring drive, vs not doing stupid stuff and just being so bored until you stop paying attention.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 02:22:20 am
content: Quote from: KL27x on November 18, 2019, 02:13:09 amYes, but I suspect that to fire the little cluster of neurons that say "It's gonna hit you!" or "Pouncing tiger! Bloody great pouncing tiger!" it would have to be dynamic in nature.QuoteErm, any chance you could warn us next time you're tempted to try, so that we know where to steer clear of?

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2019, 02:53:01 am
content: Do you know what bugs me out? When my brother shows off his Tesla autodrive and locks eyes to ME for 5 seconds. That is scary to me.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 06:16:20 am
content: Well, that didn’t take long:

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 06:29:21 am
content: Well there you have it, just a pat on the head instead of a sardine can! It's improving alreadyTim

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 06:50:51 am
content: Do the signs on either side state the height as 12' - 4" in order to convey 11' 8"? Or is this a different bridge that is 12' 4"?Comparing the videos, it looks the same. The signs used to state 11'-8" and they changed them to 12'-4". So what gives?Did they increase the height or does the hyphen act as a minus sign, now? And does anyone else think that this would not be an improvement?edit: looked up the comments on YT. Apparently they added 8" somehow.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 07:00:58 am
content: Check the proceeding pages.Tim

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 08:58:11 am
content: So close. That truck would have cleared if he'd been a foot to the right. There was room. But the sign is slightly conservative, so he was definitely overheight.

author: drussell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 12:10:30 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on November 28, 2019, 06:50:51 amAs posted earlier in the thread, they recently raised the bridge deck 8":https://youtu.be/YPt4ijPFzc8

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 08:25:59 pm
content: I sometimes tow a small trailer. I caught myself once forgetting that the trailer was behind the car... with no serious consequences, but realizing something had to be done.Nowadays, I have a wide red elastic band that goes on the rear view mirror whenever there is something unusual about the car (roof rack, small trailer, stuff hanging out the back, etc.) and - knock on wood - it seems to work well...Seems to me, the warning device needs to be in the vehicle. Is it any harder than a GPS with a loud horn, that knows the location of all the low bridges? Set the device for the height of the truck once, and bob's yer uncle...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 10:05:42 pm
content: If a tanker truck hits that wrong it will be a bigger problem than some traffic disruption ... they are rolling the dice, it should have been fundamentally redesigned long ago.It seems unsolvable as is to a reasonable safety standard to me. Here in the Netherlands we have trucks driving into low tunnels regularly even though we have detection, electronic sign warning systems and passive rattle chains which hit high trucks ... which they still quite regularly manage to all ignore, not as often as here but often enough. That would be mostly solvable electronically, ultrasonic sound projectors. Should be able to stop all but deaf truck drivers.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 10:43:06 pm
content: The sign needs to be simpler. Siren, flashing blue, red, white lights, and a big red blinking "STOP NOW - POLICE" sign.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 10:47:50 pm
content: I figured 8" was not enough. The road is bowl-shaped. It cannot be lowered due to sewer pipes."The standard clearance, since 1973, has a minimum height of 14 feet (4.3 m), which is 2 feet 4 inches (0.71 m) higher than the bridge as built.""In October 2019, the North Carolina Railroad Company, which owns the bridge and tracks, raised the bridge by 8 inches (0.20 m) to 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) to reduce collisions."The blinking sign is proven useless, some crashes it's not even on. The driver's attention is elsewhere.In my locale, we use a plastic pipe bar with hanging metal chains, at the same height as the bridge clearance. This hits the roof of the truck well before he's in the bridge. The loud noise makes the driver stop.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 10:54:15 pm
content: Nah, go for heavy steel rollers to 'pre-form' marginal vehicles for an easier fit!

author: Nusa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 28, 2019, 11:39:55 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on November 28, 2019, 10:47:50 pmSaid standards were established 35 years after the bridge was built. It's grandfathered, like thousands of other constructions that nobody is willing to pay to upgrade (there's still an 11'4" bridge in the same city!). In any case, so far as the railroad is concerned, it works perfectly now that they've put up a crash beam to protect the bridge itself from damage. They even leveled the grade, gaining another 8 inches. Anything more is on the city at this point.And the city has several solutions:a) close the road to non-pedestrian traffic.b) move the sewer pipes to be under the existing sidewalks on both sides and lower the road under the bridge.c) ban tall trucks at least a block from the bridge on 3 streets, rather than trying to make them turn at the last moment.d) live with itIt all comes down to money. Railroad isn't going to pay for it. City isn't going to pay for it, at least not until the sewer pipes (also grandfathered) require replacement.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 29, 2019, 03:04:59 am
content: Well that didn't take long lol. ALMOST made it. it seems they are really trying everything they can though, the warning signs, raising it a bit etc. It would probably be too involved to put it way higher as it means bigger changes to the railway too which means the train can't go through during the construction. And we all know what a couple days of no train can do with the recent CN strike. It's actually scary when you think about it how everything in society seems to always running at full capacity so any little disruptions throws everything off.