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

--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Reminds me of when I was in Guatemala 2 years ago and went up the Pacaya volcano. I was sick with bronchitis and too short of breath to scale it on foot, so I rode on a pony. His name was Muñeco. On the way back down, we took a shortcut down a steep path through the forest, and Muñeco happily ducked under branches without slowing down, oblivious to the extra 3 feet of height above his back! :P Despite me needing to hold on due to the steep angle, I had to use one arm to swat away branches before they took out an eye (and then the other), LOL! Fun times!
Maxlor:

--- Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 08, 2018, 04:16:07 am ---It's funny, yet unsurprising how people insist on the reason being "stupid", while the statistics and psychology tell another story. Obviously, claiming moral superiority feels good, and people love pointing fingers and shake fists, but that doesn't mean it's right. It's a lesson aviation learnt a long time ago, but surprisingly hasn't quite trickled down to driving or the general public. You could put the death penalty on hitting that bridge and it's unlikely the numbers would be much different.

--- End quote ---
I think whoever is responsible for the bridge has sufficiently accounted for that. People drive on (mental) autopilot or while being distracted by stress all the time, but they still recognize traffic lights; they have have the notion of red->stop down unconsciously. So the traffic lights should suffice.

Maybe some people are somewhere else entirely with their thoughts, and don't even notice the red lights, i.e. their mental autopilot actually isn't aware of them. But in that case, this particular red light probably isn't the only one they missed, they're unsafe drivers. Having a crash like this to hopefully serve as a trigger for updating their training doesn't seem so bad; maybe next time, they won't run the lights on an intersection where they can hit other cars.

I wonder whether some people maybe consciously run the red lights ("they only turned red a second ago, I'll just slip through!") in which case, I don't mind them having their antisocial behaviour pointed out to them by an unrelenting steel bar.
tooki:

--- Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 08, 2018, 04:16:07 am ---It's funny, yet unsurprising how people insist on the reason being "stupid", while the statistics and psychology tell another story. Obviously, claiming moral superiority feels good, and people love pointing fingers and shake fists, but that doesn't mean it's right. It's a lesson aviation learnt a long time ago, but surprisingly hasn't quite trickled down to driving or the general public. You could put the death penalty on hitting that bridge and it's unlikely the numbers would be much different.

--- End quote ---
It’s simply not feasible to eliminate every hazard from everything everywhere. Regardless of whether you call it stupidity, obliviousness, distractedness, inattentiveness, or any of a gazillion psychological effects, at some point you have to draw the line of practicality and trust that most people will behave correctly.

Heck, even aviation, which has indeed eliminated tons of sources of mechanical and human failure, is now at the point where crashes are rare, but when they happen, they’re almost always human error now, despite checklists and procedures and simulator training.


--- Quote from: Maxlor on January 08, 2018, 04:06:02 pm ---I think whoever is responsible for the bridge has sufficiently accounted for that. People drive on (mental) autopilot or while being distracted by stress all the time, but they still recognize traffic lights; they have have the notion of red->stop down unconsciously. So the traffic lights should suffice.

--- End quote ---
I seriously doubt any such consideration was given, because that bridge was built in 1940. I don’t think tall trucks were even an issue then.
Maxlor:

--- Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 04:17:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: Maxlor on January 08, 2018, 04:06:02 pm ---I think whoever is responsible for the bridge has sufficiently accounted for that.
--- End quote ---
I seriously doubt any such consideration was given, because that bridge was built in 1940. I don’t think tall trucks were even an issue then.

--- End quote ---
I meant the add-on bits, not the original bridge. Height sensor, traffic lights, interactive sign.
Mr. Scram:

--- Quote from: tooki on January 08, 2018, 03:49:24 pm ---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.

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!!


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.

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.

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

--- End quote ---
It being a freight rail bridge doesn't really matter. I know this, because they raised a bridge a whole lot bigger not too long ago not far from here. You'll inevitably need to raise to of the embankment too. It'll take an investment, but it shouldn't be an unreasonable. However, that's where we get to the second bit.

The city might not be under an obligation to make the road passable for every vehicle, but they have an obligation to make things safe. I understand the underpass hasn't been built to modern standards, or any standards at all, as these didn't exist when the thing was constructed. Despite the signage, accidents continue to happen at a significant rate, so we can only conclude things aren't safe. Apparently, the surrounding related infrastructure is dangerous as well, actually occasionally claiming lives. It's not about eliminating every hazard from everywhere, but eliminiting a hazard that trips people up consistently. If droves of people keep falling from your stairs each year, there's a point where the story it's all on those people falls apart.

Where the boundary of it being the responsibility of the city is exactly is up for debate, but I think the bridge being famous for its accident prone nature the world over tells us something. It's not known for being a perfectly mundane underpass. However, it's probably a classic case of not caring too much because they're not footing the bill. As long as other people get stuck with the bill, why would you spend your money on it, even though the total cost is probably bigger this way? It's ugly, but it's how the world often works. If it's not your problem, it's not a problem. Though it surprises me no one has sued the city into the ground yet.
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