Josh Jacobs couldn't help but admire this bucket-truck storrowing on Soldiers Field Road at North Harvard Street shortly before 9:30 a.m.
H/t ThatGuy for the headline.
That's the most innovative storrowing yet!
Literally right there for the "professional" driver to ignore.
I don't know how much clearer it could be!
How about this clear?
If Storrowing was a rare event (like once a year) then sure, call the signage adequate.
The fact that so many professional drivers miss it suggests that the roadway/signage designers aren't doing enough. Sure, they may be doing the minimum required by DOT standards, but clearly on this hectic, curvy roadway with so many overheight collisions, better signage is warranted.
When a large group of people make the same mistake, it's arrogant and dumb to blame them all. At some point you have to start blaming the people giving the instructions.
You believe that being a "professional" means something.
Pretty obvious that it doesn't.
And try again.
When I drove a delivery truck, this was my biggest fear and I paid damn close attention to signage.
That argument has a flip side: if we are so certain that drivers are lazy/distracted/apathetic, then the roadway and signage need to be engineered to deal with that. Otherwise that makes the roadway designers themselves lazy/distracted/apathetic.
We need to remove bad drivers from the roadways. We need to require that they be tested on navigational skills. We need to hold them accountable.
What an incredible deflection of responsibility for shitty driving.
If the argument is that Storrow/Soldiers Field roads need to be re-engineered to deal with morons that can't drive right or read signage, then screw it, close the roads, drive on the Pike and return the riverside areas to the public.
But please, indulge me, what solutions do you have for this problem?
Answer: personal responsibility plays a role when assigning liability. It does not play a role when evaluating and designing signage.
Design stuff *for* your users, not to spite them.
Again, what design would you change? There is already signage with height restrictions, large signs leading up to the under pass with big letters and hanging signs that clip vehicles too large to fit.
You keep saying to design for users, not to spite them. What exactly do you mean by that in terms of tangible action?
I don't know what the improved sign should be. I do know that the existing signs are essentially unchanged since at least the 1980's. There have been (possibly) hundreds of Storrowings since then, with no meaningful attempt to improve the situation
And saying that drivers "don't care" - it's not like the same drivers are getting Storrowed repeatedly. But it is the same highway engineers observing the same accident happening over and over again. If anyone doesn't care, it's people at the MDC/DOT.
Unless you can invent a sign that the driver can see through this:
The only thing that could possibly work is active nagware that disables the vehicle if certain conditions are not met.
They are much larger, much brighter,etc.
Perhaps motor freight companies should be penalized if they don't provide professional GPS units and train their workers to use them?
This happens with low bridges all over the world (just look at the example of what Sydney does above.) Different devices have been employed over the years (as I assume people here remember the cow bells) but in the end the bridge is lower than the height of the bridge, so we are hoping that drivers are noticing the signs.
by standards, and installed in a manner that's more expensive than standard signing would be.
The goal of the clearance and restriction signing should be to inform drivers of the EXACT clearances and restrictions in a clear and concise manner. And the signing should be placed BEFORE the drivers have a chance to enter the roadway, not after they've committed to the ramp.
And, I've stated before in threads about this subject, stating "DANGER LOW CLEARANCE" without stating the actual clearance is NOT properly conveying the message. Nor are the dull orange on black "CARS ONLY" rubber baby buggy bumpers that look like they were made by a fourth grader. For those of you who doubt me, look up the current MUTCD and show us where it considers low clearance signs without a clearance, or the "Cars Only' flappers, acceptable.
But that's what you get when you have an agency (DCR) that still labors under the delusion that an arterial highway people use for commuting is still a recreational parkway, and when you have agencies (DCR and City of Boston) that are reluctant to install adequate and proper signs for aesthetic reasons.
is hard to comprehend? A box truck is not a car. A cherry picker is not a car. A tractor trailer is not a car. A bulldozer is not a car.
It's actually pretty friggin basic. Maybe these drivers cannot read?
"Cars only" can be interpreted as "No pedestrians, bicycles, horses". There are signs like that all over the interstates.
Why are we pretending that this anything close to a highway? Lets actually make this a recreational parkway and return the Charles River bank to the public instead of continuing this delusional 1950s planning.
Better question, if proper signage is the issue, explain why the signage in these examples is ignored? http://11foot8.com/
I'm as entertained by Storrowings as the next guy for the pure human failure element, but I see something like this and can't help but think what a massive loss for society, including but not limited to the needless destruction of the truck, the wrestling with insurance companies, lawsuits, all the people held up in their commutes.
Not to mention, these are dangerous! I would hate to be behind that truck when the bucket came down.
Would it really be that bad to take down the bridges?
The right question is: Would it really be that bad if they filled in Storrow Drive and turned it into a park.
Yes, it would be. All those cars aren't going to levitate themselves to where they're going.
Car don't go places, people do. And people make adjustments.
They try a different mode, a different route, a different time, or don't make the trip.
Ask the people who used to drive the Longfellow. Or what people who usually drive the BU Bridge or Commonwealth Ave did when they were closed to people driving. Or what the people who used to drive the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul did when it was torn down. Or what people did in Atlanta when I-85 collapsed.
Your examples in the US were all temporary in nature.
I don't see the relevance. People adjusted.
Anyway, here you go:
...I just... I just can't. Bravo, Adam.
Thumbs up Adam! Well played.
As noted, I was riffing off somebody else's idea (and kicking myself for not thinking of such an obvious thing at first).
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy