| General > General Technical Chat |
| How would you use electronics to solve the 11' 8" bridge problem |
| << < (10/50) > >> |
| SeanB:
By me there is also a low pair of bridges. Lower the road under them not easy, as they are on a decline at the bottom, and the approach would be steeper then. Raise the top section very expensive, as you would have to raise 6km of race course grass as well, along with all the side parts. So what the Metro did was put warning signs each end of the 2 bridges, and at the side by the hill put a large traffic circle, so that vehicles are forced to slow down. Did reduce the accident rate slightly, but stupid is still there, as evidenced by the numerous times speeders have gone airborne over the traffic island, despite the nice rockery there to arrest them, and the residents of the one sectional complex on the one side getting tired or rebuilding the wall, so they have permanent concrete Jersey barrier blocks on the pavement now on that corner. Had a municipal bus take a short cut under the one and get wedged, they had to remove it by deflating the tyres and dragging it back, and the other side a furniture truck tried to take a short cut, and got the van section torn off the chassis. One more from years ago my father was involved with as the manager of the truck, but that was grisly. |
| Mr. Scram:
--- Quote from: Brumby on January 08, 2018, 04:23:32 am ---I concur. I've driven a couple of larger vehicles - but these occasions have been few and far between. I have been driving smaller vehicles (up to the size of a Tarago) for years - but I have to consciously remind myself of the height of the truck - and more importantly the height above my eye line. It's not a foot any more - it can be four feet or even more and tree branches that were never a problem, suddenly present themselves as real obstacles. I've never had a problem or impact with the height - but I did have a near miss once when backing a truck with a high pantech body. I was looking along the vehicle through the rear view mirror and just missed a first storey cantilevered office by two inches. I should have looked up as well... :-[ --- End quote --- You criminal scum. You should be locked up and your pictures should be spread for everyone to ridicule! Absolute reckless driving. Or so some would say. |
| Jeroen3:
--- Quote from: timb on January 08, 2018, 02:19:59 am ---Even spike strips that pop up wouldn’t help, based on the speed some of the trucks were going when they hit the bridge. --- End quote --- Flat tires reduce the height. |
| W2NAP:
--- Quote from: Jeroen3 on January 08, 2018, 12:35:29 pm --- --- Quote from: timb on January 08, 2018, 02:19:59 am ---Even spike strips that pop up wouldn’t help, based on the speed some of the trucks were going when they hit the bridge. --- End quote --- Flat tires reduce the height. --- End quote --- trying to pop the tires of a CMV when in motion is not a good idea... they are not like car tires only holding 40lbs of air, they usually hold 90 to 110lbs of air. and sudden loss of air in the steer tires when in motion is bad juju. here is video of a steer tire blowout while in motion. |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:32:49 pm ---Sometimes the simplest solution is the best. Increase the height of the bridge, lower the height of the road or a combination of both. The rest are just engineering problems. They raise bridges many times larger than these all the time, so it's basically a solved problem. I'm not buying the sewer pipe story either. There's plenty of other places to put those pipes if you want to and it's actually not uncommon for sewage pipes to dip in a few places. If you somehow concluded there absolutely is no room for them underneath the overpass, there's remote controlled drilling. You can go right under the embankment, allowing the underpass to be as deep as you'd want. --- End quote --- If it were simple, they’d have done this. Raising a railroad track? Forget it. You can’t just bump it up two feet for a quarter-mile or something, because those big freight trains cannot handle steep inclines, especially not somewhere where trains stop (which they do around there). If it were a street bridge it’d be easy to raise, but this is freight rail. You’d probably have to raise the rail bed for miles on either side, which would be enormously expensive (and possibly cause other problems). I’d be more curious about the pipes, since I would assume something could be done. But if they haven’t done it after a century of accidents, there’s damned well a reason for it. --- Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 07, 2018, 11:32:49 pm ---At this point it's just shifting the cost of fixing the problem upon the insurances of unlucky drivers. When there's over a 100 crashes, it's looking like the road authority neglecting its duties more and more. --- End quote --- The city is under no obligation for every road to be passable by every vehicle. This hazard is marked for blocks in advance, overheight sensors, etc. They’ve done more than enough to warn drivers of the hazard. At some point, a driver has to take responsibility!! --- Quote from: drussell on January 07, 2018, 10:52:29 pm ---It is a main road leading to the port. That's not a practical solution. --- End quote --- Main road? Port? Whaaa? It’s actually a small surface road in an old downtown, in a city that’s about 150 miles inland. Map link below. --- Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 07, 2018, 09:15:32 pm ---Low tech solution: a steel beam hung (by chains from poles so it's still free to move) an inch or two lower than the bridge a few tens of feet before the bridge. Colliding with it will make a loud noise, but with far less damage than colliding with the bridge itself. --- End quote --- --- Quote from: Ian.M on January 08, 2018, 02:18:43 am ---Large hard rubber balls hung on chains 11' 6" above the road surface 100m before the bridge on the road under it (half the road width, with a traffic island so it doesn't affect trucks turning away from the bridge) + another set in line with the sidewalk right across the bridge side of the junction to catch those turning off the cross street. --- End quote --- Can’t do that, because it’s an intersection, and the cross street does not have height restrictions. Literally anywhere earlier than where it is would block trucks from places they have to go. There’s no room widen the road to make an island or a separate turning lane, it’s an old downtown, with the street flanked by buildings. Here’s the location: https://goo.gl/maps/RsFdX3dwLCF2 --- Quote from: Brumby on January 08, 2018, 02:15:49 am ---The "Overheight Must Turn" sign is too high - and not very clear. It may be obvious if you spend a few seconds thinking about it, but they are in a vehicle that is going to travel a long distance in those few seconds - and they will be doing other things like seeing if there are other cars coming while they run the red light. --- End quote --- The sensor for the sign is quite far back, and turns the light to red with ample time to stop when an overheight vehicle approaches. (In USA, it’s legal to turn right on red, so the red light doesn’t stop the truck from turning to safety.) The video in the OP shows clearly that the driver had a red light for at least 5 seconds before entering the intersection. It’s a downtown surface road with a commensurately low speed limit, so there’s plenty of stopping distance. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |