Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

11foot8.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 216 posts

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#121

Post by marcinzm »

cam_l wrote: post #114
Animats wrote: post #53

The Sidney Harbor Tunnel had a similar problem. They came up with an elaborate but successful solution.[1] There are detectors and huge flashing warning signs that light up. Then, there's the last-chance sign. At the entrance to the tunnel, pumps force a curtain of water straight down across the entire roadway. Then a powerful laser system projects a giant octagonal red STOP sign onto the water curtain, filling the e…

I never understood the high-tech approach to this problem. Where i am from they have large metal tubes dangling down a ways in front of the bridge. Makes it sound like you have already hit it. Another more insistent approach I have seen elsewhere is to mount a large steel bar across the road, which takes the top of the truck off before they hit the bridge. (edit:not very simple problem, obviously..)

Friendly bit of advice, you may want to work on your hubris. In general, when a group of experts implements a complex solution there is a reason for it. Rather than reveling in your ignorance and feeling of superiority you may want to instead research those reasons. Fyi, others in this thread have listed them.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#122

Post by pugworthy »

simias wrote: post #44
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.

There is a low bridge in Albany Oregon (near me) with hanging chains. The bridge is still beat to crap from all the collisions.

I mean if you think like a rational person, a big "LOW BRIDGE" sign with blinking lights should be blatantly obvious, but it's not.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#123

Post by rkagerer »

IMAYousaf wrote: post #36

What's beautiful about the 11 Foot 8 bridge is that quietly it's been a constant in my life. I distinctly remember watching the videos over a decade ago on this YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/yovo68 There's an element of schadenfreude that's so compelling in watching ordinary situations go terribly wrong.

Another good video that explains it and showcases some of the crashes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_9rWH0p43A

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#124

Post by sebastien_b »

chrisseaton wrote: post #95
sebastien_b wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THE POINT IS that the height difference isn’t that “massive” as you describe it - LOOK AT ALL THE VIDEOS (that’s right: plural ) - it’s clear that the lack of clearance is not so obvious.

But if there’s any bridge coming at you, don’t you stop and think ‘will I fit under this?’

It's clear you have an insatiable need to have the last word, so I'll let you have it.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#125

Post by CBLT »

SenHeng wrote: post #8

They ought to make it lower , so it’s most obvious that a truck won’t fit. Make it no more than 2metres, whatever that is in American, so that only cars can go through.

It appears to be just tall enough for the city buses that use that roadway. Lowering the clearance would impede the public transit.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#126

Post by sebastien_bois »

function_seven wrote: post #73
sebastien_bois wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-lo...

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?

> 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?

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#127

Post by function_seven »

sebastien_bois wrote: post #126
function_seven wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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 sti…

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.

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#128

Post by dhosek »

IMAYousaf wrote: post #36

What's beautiful about the 11 Foot 8 bridge is that quietly it's been a constant in my life. I distinctly remember watching the videos over a decade ago on this YT Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/yovo68 There's an element of schadenfreude that's so compelling in watching ordinary situations go terribly wrong.

I don't know if it's this bridge, but I remember there being a live webcam before YouTube for at least a similar overpass situation, with RealVideo™️ of the "greatest hits."

Re: 11 Foot 8 – The Can-opener Bridge

#129

Post by sebastien_bois »

function_seven wrote: post #127
sebastien_bois wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sti…

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.

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).

Post reply on HN