General > General Technical Chat
How would you use electronics to solve the 11' 8" bridge problem
<< < (7/50) > >>
Mr. Scram:

--- Quote from: IanB on January 07, 2018, 11:36:05 pm ---There, fixed that for you. Also, if you claim on insurance for an at-fault accident, your insurance premium will go up a lot next renewal. Insurance companies don't bear the cost, you do.

--- End quote ---
I'm not sure why you ignore everything in my post just to say "nu-uh!". I've addressed this as just blaming the drivers for incompetence is ridiculously oversimplifying things. It's way too easy to just attribute it to incompetence. Many books have been written on how humans can fail at performing what seemingly are the simplest tasks. These people are convinced they would never get it wrong either, until they did. That's why I added the example of children being left in the car. You'd think responsible parents would get a very basic thing right if it meant the life of their child if they got it wrong. Yet reality shows us something different. These aren't neglectful parents either, the vast majority are proven to be loving, caring and otherwise responsible parents.

Obviously, insurances paying the cost means the insured paying the cost, but I didn't think anyone needed that to be spelled out and it doesn't change the point being made. The road authority, city or whoever needs to pay to make things right is shifting the cost elsewhere. Obviously, that's paid by society too, but that too isn't the point.
donotdespisethesnake:
I would put a curtain or flap below the bridge which makes it look for too low for a regular truck. A height sensor could open the flap if the vehicle height is ok.
Someone:
11 foot plus? There are worse examples around the world:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-19/montague-st-bridge-to-get-new-gantry-to-try-prevent-crashes/7430400
Along with more excuses about not being able to lower the road which can be solved if the will is there.


--- Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 07, 2018, 11:52:51 pm ---I would put a curtain or flap below the bridge which makes it look for too low for a regular truck. A height sensor could open the flap if the vehicle height is ok.

--- End quote ---
Thats been tried many times before, either its non-destructive and some of the drivers will ignore it and continue on or its destructive (solid beam) and the tall vehicles get caught there instead.
Maxlor:
I'd say their current solution is good enough. It'll keep 99.5% of drivers from damaging their trucks. The cost to stop the last 0.5% – eh, not worth it. We're not talking about loss of life here, it isn't that important to prevent every single crash. (The numbers are guesses: as per the website, there seem to be around 15 crashes per year. I'd conservatively guess that at least 3000 trucks run under it per year in total.)
T3sl4co1l:
This thread is a great example of human thought process (in two ways):

1. Regarding the drivers. People assume that these drivers are somehow paying attention, and [consciously] at fault.

You can't fix stupid.

People are stupid.  Seriously stupid.  Blind walking off a cliff stupid.

Not nearly all of them, no, not by any means.

Consider the evidence.  The authorities have done more than due diligence in marking this intersection.  The vast majority of drivers obey these signs.

We aren't dealing with normal people here.  We cannot apply normal psychology.  Or logic even.

Consider this when making your judgements. :)


2. Regarding the posters in this thread.

This is an excellent case study in the availability and use of information (evidence) and knowledge.

It's an interesting design problem, because most people have an intuitive grasp of mechanics.  Small space, truck cannot fit.  Simple as that!

Typical solutions mentioned:
- Raise the bridge
- Lower the road
- Add more barriers
- Add immediate punishments

Most of the above judgements have not been corrected when new information is provided; instead, they are met with incredulity, as if such a simple solution could ever be contradicted, no matter the weight of evidence against it!

The last option is the most disturbing.  One poster suggested adding booby traps to the intersection!  If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, more than human zombies driving trucks does -- I don't know what can!

The second-to-last option is the only feasible alternative, but at great expense.  For example, a hydraulic ramp could be added, to divert trucks at the last minute, preventing damage to the bridge and minimizing damage to the vehicle. 

Ultimately, it all comes down to two things:

1. The situation is always more complex than it looks at first glance. Knee-jerk reactions are just that: being a jerk!  Take a moment to consider why something might be the way it is, and reflect upon that.

Indeed, this applies recursively; the complexity is always more complex.  It's just that, most times, there's a convenient threshold beyond which we needn't consider further complexities.  This is what engineering is all about (and physics, except for the deepest unsolved problems that cannot be reduced this way: tightly interactive condensed matter and QCD, for two examples).

2. Money.  It's all about money, baby.

This intersection is apparently a modestly important transportation route, so adding barriers would be counterproductive, and that counterproductivity is directly measurable in the dollar value of that transportation (versus if there are any alternative routes, and whatever knock-on effects that might further have).

The cost to all involved in a collision is directly measurable.  One totaled truck, its cargo (which might not be totaled, but delayed to the destination at least), the emergency response, whatever cleanup and repair is needed, a few other inconvenienced (delayed or rerouted) vehicles backed up behind the accident; and not much more.  Likely traffic fines and insurance cover the immediate costs, and everything else (like the inconvenienced travelers) is a wash-out.

Moreover, the rate is directly measurable.  If this happens a few times a year, then there you go.

That cost is your baseline to judge alternatives on.  Nothing more.  If it costs the rail company more than so-and-so (amortized over some years) to change the bridge, it's simply not worth it -- it doesn't affect enough people, business and such to change.  Does this bother you?  Should it?  It might look like a suboptimal solution, but on closer inspection, it's very nearly the non-zero ground state it should be! :)

And this has been your lesson in holistic engineering for the day.

Cheers,
Tim
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod