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