31–40 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're a new driver, following Google Maps, and the fact that you hadn't cared about the height of your vehicle WRT your route just got expensive.
But that could happen anywhere in the country. What's so special about this bridge that means it gets so much coverage. It doesn't even seem extremely low.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1008464/Amazing...
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,…
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,…
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?
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.
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,…
> 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 ca…
I hate red light runners with a serious passion.
There's an element of schadenfreude that's so compelling in watching ordinary situations go terribly wrong.
So far the best solution I've seen to this sort of thing (other than building a taller bridge) is the waterfall approach. Probably a bit spensie for some rando railroad bridge but it's clever nonetheless. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1008464/Amazing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lights that come on and the stoplight changes to red when an overheight vehicle approaches.
White is usually used to indicate information. And in the video in the link the signal turned red after the cab of the truck passed the signal. I mean I get it. It's funny. But if it were designed well, there wouldn't have been 100+ accidents.
In addition, the illuminated "OVERHEIGHT MUST TURN" sign flashes to attract attention.
I get what you're trying to say, but this bridge is better-marked than the vast majority of road hazards one might encounter. There's a certain point beyond which it doesn't make sense to keep spending time and money protecting people from themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
But the bridge is signed, isn't it?
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,…
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?
The basic assumption people make is that the roads they know or that are indicated by their navigator are the roads that they can drive on. I don't recall even if my navigator has a way of setting the vehicle height, I should check that.