3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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).

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).