3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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).
  - function_seven 6y ago
    Hey, I take back my rejection of your idea. I just saw someone else post this image [0] of a similar situation in Australia, and seems like that would work just fine, even for tall trucks that are gonna turn anyway. Make those dangly bits out of a weighted pool noodle. [0] https://imgur.com/kYwsgEZ https://imgur.com/kYwsgEZ
  - dwighttk 6y ago
    It is a one-way street, two lanes, so you'd have one lane dedicated to all trucks going left and one lane dedicated to all trucks going right. And all cars could go straight under the bridge from either lane. That is already what is set up. All trucks must turn before going under the bridge. Except people ignore that and go straight anyway.

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).
- function_seven 6y ago
  Hey, I take back my rejection of your idea. I just saw someone else post this image [0] of a similar situation in Australia, and seems like that would work just fine, even for tall trucks that are gonna turn anyway. Make those dangly bits out of a weighted pool noodle. [0] https://imgur.com/kYwsgEZ https://imgur.com/kYwsgEZ
- dwighttk 6y ago
  It is a one-way street, two lanes, so you'd have one lane dedicated to all trucks going left and one lane dedicated to all trucks going right. And all cars could go straight under the bridge from either lane. That is already what is set up. All trucks must turn before going under the bridge. Except people ignore that and go straight anyway.