6 ms·

Still not high enough. They raised it another 8 inches to make it an even 12ft not too long ago, but evidently that still not enough. One would think they woul

Still not high enough. They raised it another 8 inches to make it an even 12ft not too long ago, but evidently that still not enough. One would think they would've looked more closely at the traffic on that road and adjusted it accordingly. It's also really silly to have a sign indicating that too large vehicles must turn, which most drivers won't read/see in time, and practically force them to crash into the bridge, instead of having some sort of 'bumpers' ahead of the bridge for those vehicles to bump into first (I've seen those at entrances of parking lots that have both above ground and underground parking).

teraflop 6y ago
> a sign indicating that too large vehicles must turn, which most drivers won't read/see in time When the sign activates, it also causes the traffic light to turn red. In theory, that provides plenty of time to notice and respond to the sign; in practice, collisions still happen because people just run the red light. If someone's sufficiently determined to do something stupid and reckless, there's only so much you can do to discourage them. > instead of having some sort of 'bumpers' ahead of the bridge for those vehicles to bump into first That's what the big yellow beam is; it was installed to protect the bridge. If something was installed farther away (i.e. before the intersection) it would get in the way of large vehicles that were intending to turn before the bridge.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Running a red light should be an automatic re-exam for your license. Not two weeks ago: I stop for a red, the guy behind me stops, the guy behind him overtakes both of us and nearly kills a cyclist that had started to move in front of me. A fraction of a second quicker response by the cyclist off the mark and he'd be dead. I hate red light runners with a serious passion.
  - __s 6y ago
    Note people aren't running reds here necessarily. A system detects a tall vehicle moving towards the bridge & times a red light. They stop, & during that time they might notice that the bridge is low & there's a sign telling them the max height. Some don't notice, & when the light goes green they drive on under
- sebastien_bois 6y ago
  > That's what the big yellow beam is; it was installed to protect the bridge. Yes, that one protects the bridge - what I'm talking about is a 'warning' bumper, that you can run into, but won't damage the vehicle (as others' comments here have mentioned). It would be put up further up ahead of the bridge itself (not at the bridge). Something like this: https://www.cisco-eagle.com/catalog/product/157494/garage-low-clearance-warning-bar-apparatus-swinging https://www.cisco-eagle.com/catalog/product/157494/garage-lo...
  - function_seven 6y ago
    That's going to get destroyed by every 13' truck that smacks into it. The bridge is just on the other side of an intersection. The other three paths from that intersection are perfectly fine for 14' trucks to drive on. And those bumpers might not cause structural damage, but I'm sure you wouldn't want random plastic objects scraping across your roof when you drive, right?
    - sebastien_bois 6y ago
      > That's going to get destroyed by every 13' truck that smacks into it Why, yes, a 9 foot pole would get run over by a 13 foot truck. There's a reason I used the words "something like..." and not "exactly this..." > but I'm sure you wouldn't want random plastic objects scraping across your roof when you drive, right? Again - it's used as a WARNING SYSTEM - you prefer returning the truck with a torn off roof, or a still-fully functional one with just some extra minor scrapes?
      - function_seven 6y ago
        The placement would have to be on a street where tall trucks are currently allowed. So now they can’t traverse the other nearby streets, even if they had no intention of using the underpass.
        sebastien_bois 6y ago
        Ultimately I think the proper solution would be either far more clearance, or a dedicated lane for trucks/large vehicles (probably ALL trucks) forcing them to turn. The casualty of that solution might be buses (as others pointed out this road is also being used for), but the city can make exceptions for those (as is usual in most places due to stops being commonly in the right turn lane). It's clear from the massive number of videos, and of various types of drivers (truck rentals, furniture delivery trucks, campers, etc.) that the current "system" they have is inadequate to avoid these crashes. "It just doesn't work". Just blaming the driver only isn't a solution (I actually wonder if the city/railroad has ever been sued because of this).
chrisseaton 6y ago
You make it sound like it's normal that people would expect that they can drive into a bridge without checking the height first - as if it's the bridge's fault for being too low. Why don't the drivers check?
- sixothree 6y ago
  Because people are human. They are passing a 4-way intersection. Their wife is angry at them. Their boss is giving them a hard time. Who knows. People are human and they make mistakes all the time. That's why simple, clear signage helps. Why wayfaring is a science. Why packaging is difficult.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > That's why simple, clear signage helps. But the bridge is signed, isn't it?
    - sixothree 6y ago
      If it were done well, would there have been 100+ accidents?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I guess I don't understand why tall vehicles are approaching a bridge at such speed that they don't have time to react. It doesn't seem an abnormally low bridge in the first place.
        compiler-guy 6y ago
        It is about two feet or so below modern standard for bridge clearance. But it was within spec when it was built.
        necovek 6y ago
        I am pretty confident an abnormally low bridge would have fewer accidents — the fact that it looks like it's just high enough doesn't help matters. Perhaps the simplest solution is to introduce a light hanging (eg rubber) plate to make the underpass appear even shorter so people do stop and look at the signs.
stefan_ 6y ago
This is an absurd post, as if the rental trucks were there long before the railroad.
iggldiggl 6y ago
> One would think they would've looked more closely at the traffic on that road and adjusted it accordingly. They didn't raise it only eight inches because they simply felt like it and picked a number out of their hat - eight inches was the most they could do without also impacting a nearby level crossing. Ballasting plain track up to a higher level can be done relatively easily (up to a certain extent of course), whereas touching the level crossing requires more work and also creates problems with the road geometry there: If you raise the track across the level crossing too much, you create a nice little hump on which long vehicles can now get stuck, which isn't what you'd want, either. Fixing that in turn means rebuilding an even more considerable section of the crossing street, with all that that entails...

teraflop 6y ago

> a sign indicating that too large vehicles must turn, which most drivers won't read/see in time When the sign activates, it also causes the traffic light to turn red. In theory, that provides plenty of time to notice and respond to the sign; in practice, collisions still happen because people just run the red light. If someone's sufficiently determined to do something stupid and reckless, there's only so much you can do to discourage them. > instead of having some sort of 'bumpers' ahead of the bridge for those vehicles to bump into first That's what the big yellow beam is; it was installed to protect the bridge. If something was installed farther away (i.e. before the intersection) it would get in the way of large vehicles that were intending to turn before the bridge.

jacquesm 6y ago
Running a red light should be an automatic re-exam for your license. Not two weeks ago: I stop for a red, the guy behind me stops, the guy behind him overtakes both of us and nearly kills a cyclist that had started to move in front of me. A fraction of a second quicker response by the cyclist off the mark and he'd be dead. I hate red light runners with a serious passion.
- __s 6y ago
  Note people aren't running reds here necessarily. A system detects a tall vehicle moving towards the bridge & times a red light. They stop, & during that time they might notice that the bridge is low & there's a sign telling them the max height. Some don't notice, & when the light goes green they drive on under
sebastien_bois 6y ago
> That's what the big yellow beam is; it was installed to protect the bridge. Yes, that one protects the bridge - what I'm talking about is a 'warning' bumper, that you can run into, but won't damage the vehicle (as others' comments here have mentioned). It would be put up further up ahead of the bridge itself (not at the bridge). Something like this: https://www.cisco-eagle.com/catalog/product/157494/garage-low-clearance-warning-bar-apparatus-swinging https://www.cisco-eagle.com/catalog/product/157494/garage-lo...
- function_seven 6y ago
  That's going to get destroyed by every 13' truck that smacks into it. The bridge is just on the other side of an intersection. The other three paths from that intersection are perfectly fine for 14' trucks to drive on. And those bumpers might not cause structural damage, but I'm sure you wouldn't want random plastic objects scraping across your roof when you drive, right?
  - sebastien_bois 6y ago
    > That's going to get destroyed by every 13' truck that smacks into it Why, yes, a 9 foot pole would get run over by a 13 foot truck. There's a reason I used the words "something like..." and not "exactly this..." > but I'm sure you wouldn't want random plastic objects scraping across your roof when you drive, right? Again - it's used as a WARNING SYSTEM - you prefer returning the truck with a torn off roof, or a still-fully functional one with just some extra minor scrapes?
    - function_seven 6y ago
      The placement would have to be on a street where tall trucks are currently allowed. So now they can’t traverse the other nearby streets, even if they had no intention of using the underpass.
      - sebastien_bois 6y ago
        Ultimately I think the proper solution would be either far more clearance, or a dedicated lane for trucks/large vehicles (probably ALL trucks) forcing them to turn. The casualty of that solution might be buses (as others pointed out this road is also being used for), but the city can make exceptions for those (as is usual in most places due to stops being commonly in the right turn lane). It's clear from the massive number of videos, and of various types of drivers (truck rentals, furniture delivery trucks, campers, etc.) that the current "system" they have is inadequate to avoid these crashes. "It just doesn't work". Just blaming the driver only isn't a solution (I actually wonder if the city/railroad has ever been sued because of this).

chrisseaton 6y ago

You make it sound like it's normal that people would expect that they can drive into a bridge without checking the height first - as if it's the bridge's fault for being too low. Why don't the drivers check?

sixothree 6y ago
Because people are human. They are passing a 4-way intersection. Their wife is angry at them. Their boss is giving them a hard time. Who knows. People are human and they make mistakes all the time. That's why simple, clear signage helps. Why wayfaring is a science. Why packaging is difficult.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > That's why simple, clear signage helps. But the bridge is signed, isn't it?
  - sixothree 6y ago
    If it were done well, would there have been 100+ accidents?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      I guess I don't understand why tall vehicles are approaching a bridge at such speed that they don't have time to react. It doesn't seem an abnormally low bridge in the first place.
      - compiler-guy 6y ago
        It is about two feet or so below modern standard for bridge clearance. But it was within spec when it was built.
      - necovek 6y ago
        I am pretty confident an abnormally low bridge would have fewer accidents — the fact that it looks like it's just high enough doesn't help matters. Perhaps the simplest solution is to introduce a light hanging (eg rubber) plate to make the underpass appear even shorter so people do stop and look at the signs.

stefan_ 6y ago

This is an absurd post, as if the rental trucks were there long before the railroad.

iggldiggl 6y ago

> One would think they would've looked more closely at the traffic on that road and adjusted it accordingly. They didn't raise it only eight inches because they simply felt like it and picked a number out of their hat - eight inches was the most they could do without also impacting a nearby level crossing. Ballasting plain track up to a higher level can be done relatively easily (up to a certain extent of course), whereas touching the level crossing requires more work and also creates problems with the road geometry there: If you raise the track across the level crossing too much, you create a nice little hump on which long vehicles can now get stuck, which isn't what you'd want, either. Fixing that in turn means rebuilding an even more considerable section of the crossing street, with all that that entails...