Wait, you mean the modification that was relatively inexpensive didn’t really fix much? And to actually fix the problem, you’d have to spend a bunch more money? You don’t say!
Seriously, we need the equivalent of the Onion article that gets posted on the BBS every time there’s a mass shooting, for incidents involving this bridge. No, it can’t be (easily) raised. No, the road can’t be lowered. Yes, there’s a fairly elaborate warning system. Yes, it could be more effective. Yes, we’ve all seen the waterfall projection thing. Yes, people can go around, but it’s longer. Yes, it’s mostly rental trucks driven by people who don’t know how tall they are. No, this will never end, it’s under-height bridges all the way down.
Again, the truck did not hit the bridge, this time. It touched the warning bar in front of the bridge and sailed under the bridge without crashing. The bridge was raised and this wasn’t a serious accident.
That FAQ underplayed how the bridge could have been (and was) fixed.
How did this thread get to eighty comments over a paint scrap on the warning bar?
People are so thirsty for the bridge to fuck somebody up that they’re seeing crashes where they didn’t happen.
I never said it hit the bridge. I am capable of understanding the difference. Most trucks didn’t hit the bridge, even before they added less than a foot of clearance underneath. They all hit the warning bar, as was designed. The bridge is still much lower than would be required to avoid all collisions, as evidenced by the continued need to have a warning bar at all. Again, the bridge is not fixed. It is marginally improved.
If the bridge wasn’t raised he would have really damaged his truck. He didn’t. If the new warning bar was the same hight as the actual new bridge clearance, this thread wouldn’t even exist.
Other trucks that would have made videos before the raising, probably are going about their business today, unfamously.
With respect, the clearance is now higher than 11’8" so it couldn’t have been dramatic like at 11’8".
The top left hand corner got snagged, lightly, nearest the high point of the middle of the road’s hump. The once-upon-a-time lower bridge would have crunched it, but that’s the point.
Raising the bridge saved this truck serious damage as well as any truck shorter. I can see why the website owner wants to make a big deal about this scratch; but I honestly don’t know why people are obliging him.
I can’t say I care too much about the truck driver saving money. This scrape was far less likely to murder a nearby pedestrian or nearby car, and that’s the better outcome.
Likewise, with respect, that’s not remotely what I said. The raised bridge is a big improvement! But the trucks haven’t hit the bridge since the installation of the protective I-beam, regardless of height. They hit the beam, not the bridge, in order to avoid damage to the bridge and train derailment. Assuming that the truck would have cleared the bridge without the beam shearing off overheight bits misses the whole point of the beam. It’s job isn’t to warn drivers, it is there to either tear off parts that would hit the bridge or stop trucks that are way overheight.
And as a reminder, there have been no injuries at this bridge in its 50+ year history.
I’m only going to respond on this subject for the sake of friendly discussion; I don’t care that much.
I agree with you that it’s an improvement.
Looking at the actual video, the I-beam is a bit lower than the bridge proper. In this one instance, it only bites off a bit of metal off one corner. The truck keeps going. It goes under the bridge and toodles off on its way.
For this one incident, I think it shows that the raising worked, not that it didn’t (which is what I feel a lot of other people (not you) were arguing). That’s my main point. This truck got off easier, and other trucks probably went under without incident, which is a better outcome than a pointless crash, all things being equal.
I never said there were, only that
If they never fixed the bridge there would have been, because some videos have pedestrians dodging violently propelled debris. Eventually something probably would have connected.
Rental drivers who negligently caused their own (neck/nerve/whatever) injuries are unlikely to declare them where there is zero chance they’ll get covered for them. Just because some people might cheer the fact they got them, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily better for the world, in a broadly philosophical and generous sense. YMMV here.
I was going to suggest removing the bridge completely, driving the train up to the edge of the resulting gap, forklifting everything into (now unlimited!) rental trucks, then ferrying the goods to another train waiting on the other side of the gap.
It’s always amusing when self-appointed internet arbiters bang on about what people should be interested in. Lots of energy to point out how much nothing there is to see here.
