Grade crossing was marked for low ground clearance
Ah. But was it adequately and properly marked for low ground clearance?
It might seem not, since there were many scrapes in the pavement. Scrapes that are clearly evident to persons who are responsible for safety at the crossing and do an inspection89. And yet they did nothing to correct the problem.
Ed
Check www.11foot8.com - is the bridge adquately marked.
No matter how you mark something, you can’t fix stupid. A road I take to one of the tracks I race at, has a location that has numerous scrape marks - no it is not a railroad crossing, however, along the route there is a railroad crossing THAT IS MARKED for low ground clearance vehicles to detour around it.
Kinda comes under the heading “hold my beer and watch this…”
Between drivers not looking at the available signage, and drivers who don’t believe it applies to them/their vehicle, you’re going to get vehicles stuck/dragging.
Kinda comparable to the trucks that hit low-clearance structures. The signs are there.
If I am driving a truck 13 feet 6 inches tall and I see a prominent orange sign across a low bridge in my path, “Warning, low clearance, 12 feet 8 inches”, I accept responsibility when the top of my truck gets sheared off and the bridge gets wrecked.
If I see some wee bitty sign off at some angle with “low ground clearance”, what is that supposed to mean? How low? Am I required as a commercial driver to know my ground clearance number? Are there legal requirements for ground clearance just as there are for height and I should know if I am overlow in addition to overheight? Is a common type of motorcoach bus “overlow”? Low for me but not for thee?
Are they trying to blame this on the driver like the cruise-ship captain who wrecked his ship on rocks because he was offering his passengers a “scenic detour” off the charted ship channel for vessels of his draft? Is a motorcoach driver supposed to plot his course on a chart and use depth-sounding gear to not “run aground”?
Is this one of these “airplane crashes” blamed on “pilot error” when every single human factor and roadway condition broke against the “pilot” in this instance?
The driver really shouldn’t need a sign to see that there is a substantial hump and know that his low-slung, long-wheelbase vehicle isn’t going to clear.
OTOH - and we don’t know this - he might have driven a bus over that crossing before. But not THAT bus.
What I am suggesting is that, based on the scrapes and scratches, the road-folks knew that the sign did not keep low clearance vehicles from using the crossing. Which kind of puts said road-folks in a sticky legal position.
Unless, of course, the sign was a recent addition, and the scrapes predate it. That would indicate an attempt to fix the problem.
Ed
The standard has been in place for over 50 years. The city posted the sign ahead of it and stuck its head in the sand. Telling was the crossing reduction program forced by the state immediately afterwards.
Absolutely no sympathy here for the driver or the road agency. Lord help the state highway design staff (and their consulting engineers) if it develops that the last design construction of that road happened after the publishing of the AREMA/AASHTO joint specification and they paid no heed.
The bus driver had better become a pedestrian for the rest of his life and not even be allowed to operate a bicycle.
Wasn’t this crossing mistakenly marked as ‘closed’ in a Federal database over 10 years ago, but that decision was not communicated to the ‘right’ state agency or agencies?
The state was the one who “closed” the crossing in the record. (as in MDOT)…
I wish NTSB would ask MDOT to show how many qualified/experienced/pedigreed people they have on staff. Probably zero. (and a person fresh out of school with a transportation degree doesn’t count either - those are wannabes)
Yes, but what agencies were in “charge” of leaving it open right up to the point a bus high-centered on it recently?
Same one - MDOT.
(they really ought to change their name back to Highway Dept.)
Error.
Seeing the scrapes and scratches, shouldn’t the driver have been aware there could be a problem with his low slung vehicle in the same way that a drive familiar with his vehicle should be aware of pathes that are too narrow or turns that are too sharp?
Ed
[/quote]
[quote user=“7j43k”]
Yes, the sign message is simple enough: Every driver approaching that crossing should stop and perform an engineering analysis to see if the geometries of their vehicle and the crossing are compatible.
So the elevation of the track is raised higher than the general surrounding roadways. Does that really require that the crossing has to come off like a giant speed bump? A few cubic yards of fill on either side of the crossing would be sufficient to eliminate the hang up hazard.
After the first few scrapes were made (not to mention the sign), EVERYONE who drove across should have been aware there could be a problem. And yet, more scrapes were made. Thus revealing that “should have” doesn’t always translate to “did”.
So, when the lawsuit against the “agency” goes to court (ignoring the potential for claims of soverign immunity), the jurors will have to decide to what extent that agency was complicit in the accident and deaths. Considering that if the crossing had been flat, the event wouldn’t have happened, the jury will likely find the agency partially at fault.
And, don’t forget, the bus driver doesn’t have any money.
Ed
Paul Milenkovic wrote:
If I am driving a truck 13 feet 6 inches tall and I see a prominent orange sign across a low bridge in my path, “Warning, low clearance, 12 feet 8 inches”, I accept responsibility when the top of my truck gets sheared off and the bridge gets wrecked.
That is not as simple as it seems, near where I grew up, there was a RR trestle that had a 12’8" clearance posted, that I have seen several trucks with 12’3"-12’6" heights get stuck. The 12’8" clearance is DIRECTLY UNDER the bridge, and did not account for the fact that IMMEADIATLEY after the bridge on the South side of the bridge the road climbed a fairly steep hill. Take a 20-28’ box truck through there, and the front axle will start rising before the rear axle clears the bridge, and you get pinched in the middle of the box. I have seen several trucks stuck under the bridge letting air out of their tires to get out from under the bridge without causing more damage than they already had. on level ground, they would have cleared without trouble.
Who do you blame in this case? the driver had clearance according to the sign, at what point does the driver have to get out the survey transit? Of course after almost 30 years driving trucks, I KNOW that it is ALWAYS the Truck Divers Fault.
This bridge has since been rebuilt with greater clearance and is no longer the issue it used to be.
On 122nd Ave, it is a 5 lane road a lot of commercial businesses, and several road, highway and RR overpasses that are 13’7"- 13’10" posted clearances, with the intersecting roads distant enough that lowering 122nd 12-18" should not have been a major effort, with 14’ being the maximum legal, unpermitted height for commercial vehicles, not lowering the road was VERY POOR planning, and causes a lot of commercial traffic long detours to get to areas very close together.
Doug
a few yards? - Your grasp of reality is slipping again Bucky. I’m sure that the highway bubbas want more than a 15 MPH rollercoaster on the main drag.
Any driver operating a low slung vehicle should have the training and expericence to know where and how he or she might get in trouble with that vehicle. Additionaly, that driver should have been aware there could be a problem just from seeing marks where other low slung vehicles gouged the pavement.
Your attitude suggests that anyone driving anything should be able to wiz right on down the road without a clue and not have to pay attention. That’s far from the truth, especially driving a vehicle with passengers in it.