11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge • Hacker News Board

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#41

Post by dwighttk » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

teraflop wrote: post #38

sixothree wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are at least five signs at eye level on the road leading up to the bridge, four of which are the standard yellow warning signs: https://imgur.com/a/owITLZC 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…

Every time I drive through that intersection I’m amazed when I remember how fast most of the trucks are going by the time they get to the bridge.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#42

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #40

chrisseaton wrote: post #11

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 they're not used to driving trucks. Modern light weight cargo vehicles accelerate and brake as though they are personal cars. Spend an hour or two behind the wheel of one and you're liable to forget that you have this huge box behind you that extends well over the height of the cab, the part that is in your immediate field of view. It takes some serious situational awareness to keep that at the front of your…

Isn't the first and last thing anyone driving a tall vehicle is told that they should check the height of bridges before going under them?

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#43

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

You have to wonder how much it would cost to dig that out two feet and solve the problem. Likely a lot less than the annual capital destruction.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#44

Post by simias » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

weeksie wrote: post #32

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...

I've often seen large gates with hanging chains at the maximal height just before low bridges and tunnels. Wouldn't that also be pretty efficient, reliable and not requiring any maintenance? I suppose having an obstacle spring in front of you would be even more likely to make you stop, but if you're still going when some chains hit the top of your vehicle you deserve to have your license suspended anyway.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#45

Post by teraflop » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #43

You have to wonder how much it would cost to dig that out two feet and solve the problem. Likely a lot less than the annual capital destruction.

That's answered by the FAQ: http://11foot8.com/11foot8-faq/

> Can’t the road be lowered?

> That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#46

Post by GiorgioG » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #43

You have to wonder how much it would cost to dig that out two feet and solve the problem. Likely a lot less than the annual capital destruction.

There's a sewer main near the bridge so, very expensive.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#47

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #42

jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're not used to driving trucks. Modern light weight cargo vehicles accelerate and brake as though they are personal cars. Spend an hour or two behind the wheel of one and you're liable to forget that you have this huge box behind you that extends well over the height of the cab, the part that is in your immediate field of view. It takes some serious situational awareness to keep that at the front of your…

Isn't the first and last thing anyone driving a tall vehicle is told that they should check the height of bridges before going under them?

Absolutely. And then you do it for a couple of hours concentrating on the road and driving the car between the lines nicely widthwise and you'll forget it when you need it most.

I've done a lot of driving, some of it boxtrucks and larger and when you switch vehicles it is a thing that you need to remind yourself of constantly. The easiest solution would be to dig that road out to standard depth, the next best would be to drop it from all navigation systems so that at least people that do not know about it won't try to use it.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#48

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

teraflop wrote: post #45

jacquesm wrote: post #43

You have to wonder how much it would cost to dig that out two feet and solve the problem. Likely a lot less than the annual capital destruction.

That's answered by the FAQ: http://11foot8.com/11foot8-faq/ > Can’t the road be lowered? > That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.

Ah ok, thank you for clarifying that. So that leaves the next best option: remove it from all navigation systems, that way at least the route will be only used by locals familiar with the situation and all other traffic would automatically detour around it.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#49

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #47

chrisseaton wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the first and last thing anyone driving a tall vehicle is told that they should check the height of bridges before going under them?

Absolutely. And then you do it for a couple of hours concentrating on the road and driving the car between the lines nicely widthwise and you'll forget it when you need it most. I've done a lot of driving, some of it boxtrucks and larger and when you switch vehicles it is a thing that you need to remind yourself of constantly . The easiest solution would be to dig that road out to standard depth, the next best would…

> And then you do it for a couple of hours concentrating on the road and driving the car between the lines nicely widthwise and you'll forget it when you need it most.

Must be different locations being different.

But where I'm from you couldn't remotely just drive regardless of your vehicle height. You'd smash into something within minutes.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#50

Post by mumblemumble » Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #26

dwighttk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an arch... or a metal thing you hit instead of the bridge.

It should be WAY out, almost at the intersection.

That would, I'm guessing, make things worse by both increasing the risk of t-bone collisions, and giving drivers turning from the cross street even less chance to do anything avert a collision.

It's possible that, short of removing and replacing the bridge (which would have its own consequences, since it serves an active rail line in a major city), the only thing that would actually help much is getting stricter about what size of vehicle people are allowed to operate without special training and a special class of license.