4 ms·

The video explicitly mentions -- "you can't put things in front of vehicles doing 60 or 80kph" (~40-50mph), I assume with the implicated "without causing damage

The video explicitly mentions -- "you can't put things in front of vehicles doing 60 or 80kph" (~40-50mph), I assume with the implicated "without causing damage to them or making road conditions unsafe".

Dalewyn 3y ago
Another reason mentioned is that police and emergency response vehicles need to get through.
adrian_b 3y ago
Other countries do not use this excuse, which actually is irrational. If a resistant barrier is put before the tunnel at the height limit, it will damage any too high vehicle that attempts to pass, but removing the barrier guarantees that the vehicle will be damaged later, in worse conditions, inside the tunnel. If the vehicle stops later inside the tunnel, instead of being blocked before it in some place with good visibility, then the road conditions will certainly be even unsafer.
- regularfry 3y ago
  It's a question of liability at that point, not damage to the vehicle. If I put a barrier across the road, and you hit it, you can make the argument that while you hit the barrier you wouldn't have hit the tunnel roof. That's going to play out differently in different jurisdictions, I'm sure.
- gambiting 3y ago
  I imagine like many things in the US - it's about liability. Putting in a barrier specifically designed to damage your vehicle could be seen as accepting liability for it(even though it prevents larger damage if you continue). A bridge damaging your vehicle isn't there on purpose - it's your own fault for ignoring it. Other countries aren't as litigious as the US so I suspect it's just easier to do things like that.
  - cowsandmilk 3y ago
    Considering this was installed at a tunnel in Australia, I don’t think how liability works in the US is relevant. Plus, these steel bars are pretty standard in the US, albeit they are installed in locations where large vehicles are not going at high speeds.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    The litigiousness of the US is a myth.

Dalewyn 3y ago

Another reason mentioned is that police and emergency response vehicles need to get through.

adrian_b 3y ago

Other countries do not use this excuse, which actually is irrational. If a resistant barrier is put before the tunnel at the height limit, it will damage any too high vehicle that attempts to pass, but removing the barrier guarantees that the vehicle will be damaged later, in worse conditions, inside the tunnel. If the vehicle stops later inside the tunnel, instead of being blocked before it in some place with good visibility, then the road conditions will certainly be even unsafer.

regularfry 3y ago
It's a question of liability at that point, not damage to the vehicle. If I put a barrier across the road, and you hit it, you can make the argument that while you hit the barrier you wouldn't have hit the tunnel roof. That's going to play out differently in different jurisdictions, I'm sure.
gambiting 3y ago
I imagine like many things in the US - it's about liability. Putting in a barrier specifically designed to damage your vehicle could be seen as accepting liability for it(even though it prevents larger damage if you continue). A bridge damaging your vehicle isn't there on purpose - it's your own fault for ignoring it. Other countries aren't as litigious as the US so I suspect it's just easier to do things like that.
- cowsandmilk 3y ago
  Considering this was installed at a tunnel in Australia, I don’t think how liability works in the US is relevant. Plus, these steel bars are pretty standard in the US, albeit they are installed in locations where large vehicles are not going at high speeds.
- flangola7 3y ago
  The litigiousness of the US is a myth.