Truck-eating bridge claims a new victim


Which needs to be about 6 or 7 yards in front of the bridge, right on the corner of the intersection. (Yes, the road dips a bit - make it the appropriate height for that point.) Cover it in highly reflective yellow/green hi-vis stripes with a big notice above: IF YOU CAN’T GET UNDER THIS YOU CAN"T GO UNDER THE BRIDGE
It might get more attention from drivers if set out on its own rather than ‘camouflaged’ against the bridge.



This sign also baffles me every time.

1 Like


Let’s be honest: the city has gone above and beyond what they can be reasonably expected to do to prevent people driving overheight trucks into the maw of the bridge.

Beyond a certain point, it really comes down to people being idiots, and needing to take responsibility for their actions. And this bridge is far beyond that point. Anyone ramming their (rented) truck there has only themselves to blame, and I’m 100% certain that no amount of extra warnings would help, since they already ignore everything there is.

So yeah, time to point and laugh at morons.



Look three posts up from your reply to see how well that would work.

1 Like


That website is maintained by a private citizen that points cameras at trucks crashing into a bridge. It says, “probably miles”.

Regardless this bridge has probably been a hazard since 12 foot tall trucks took to the roads… So like 80 years. So probably like something in the range of 500 or so trucks have crashed into it needing tens of thousands in repair… so I wold guess like a minimum or 5 million in damages so far and that seems pretty conservative. Not to mention injuries. Let’s see the annual budget of Durham NC is $510 Million. but somehow the answer to this problem is to let people crash over and over and spend probably tens of thousand on signs while some guy nearby runs a successful website so the world can laugh as people crash.



The city of Durham doesn’t own the bridge. The railroad owns the bridge. And the railroad isn’t going to shut down their line for however long it takes and spend a small fortune to address people ignoring flashing red lights telling them to stop.



When there is a deadly intersection somewhere they add a traffic light or a stop sign or a traffic circle. They don’t put up a sign that says, “deadly intersection ahead” and then set up a web cam so we can watch the stupid people that don’t read the sign. These Drivers should sue the city and the railroad.

1 Like


I think your town should take out all its stop signs and put up a sign at the edge of town saying people should be careful because the town has no stop signs.

The revenue from youtube featuring the hilarity as people crash into each other would be splendid.

1 Like


No one is being killed. It’s not a “deadly intersection.” It’s idiots peeling the top off their trucks because they’re not paying attention.



Cities put warning signs of all kinds on streets, from speed limits to blind curve notices. Drivers are expected to be alert, pay attention, and be cognizant of the extents of their vehicle while driving.



Did you peel the top off a Penske or a UHaul?



You’re being facetious, but it’s a proposal that actually works:



OMG, I love this sentence and I want to take it home and cherish it like a baby.



Seems like novel signs don’t work.

The cheapest “solution” I can think of is raising the roadway to the track and create a crossing.

Of course the slower speed limit might reduce railroad profits so… maybe just a sensor that plays they yackity sax music whenever a collision occurs and sign stating that drivers are required to exit their vehicle, throw their hat on the ground , and put their hands on their hips after the accident.



That was actually the case at this bridge (next to Ely station in England) until recently. They then built a new road which crossed over the railway line and bypassed the city centre. The idea was that most traffic (and all overheight traffic) would use the new road, and only a few cars heading into the centre would use the underpass- which now only allows motor traffic in one direction at a time in order to make more room for bicyclists and pedestrians. So, at least according to local government, the crossing was no longer needed and could be closed.

This local newspaper article explains the issue.. Also, the line here is busy enough that drivers using the crossing often have to wait.



I’m surprised that there aren’t GPS units with that feature. With all the data like speed limits, speed traps, etc, underpass/bridge clearance seems like an easy addition.



They appear to exist both as an app and as a self-contained device.



Signs can always be invisible to idiots, no matter how big or garish. But what you point to was not the entirety of what I was suggesting. The key point was to move the height restriction to some distance in front of the bridge - in this case to right on the crossroads, several yards in front of it.

  • (a) drivers are probably more likely to see a stand-alone thin(ish) steel structure covered in hi-vis stripes, with or without signage, and
  • (b) even if they don’t, the bridge itself does not run any risk of getting damaged - less cost and less disruption (to road AND rail)
    But yeah, inattentive idiots are going to be inattentive idiots.


They have done that. Right at the corner. It takes the damage instead of the bridge. Still doesn’t stop the idiots who don’t bother to read the sign though.

1 Like


Do not comprehend. How do the idiots get under the alleged thing at the corner without hitting it and realising they’ve hit something BEFORE they get anywhere near the bridge? Every video I have seen shows an idiot crashing into something AT the bridge, not something that is some good distance in front of it. I am undoubtedly being dense here… going back to look at more video.

ETA - Nope - still do not get it. All I see at the corner is a traffic light gantry that is WAY higher than the height of the bridge. Now, if that was at the bridge’s height you might get a lot of idiots paying for new traffic lights (and the city would need a ready supply of spares, but the idiots and/or their insurers will be paying for the whole thing one way or another) but vehicular damage might be less, trucks might be removed from the scene more quickly, and there would be no risk of the bridge being damaged or rail services having to be suspended. (Seems any time any idiot drives into any part of any railway bridge over here in UK, rail service are halted until engineers turn up to kick the bridge and say “yeah, ok”.)