It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
Would a single one of those trucks hit the bridge?
Because it looks like they're all hitting the sign.
yes.
They are hitting the sign because the sign is the same height as the bridge and the sign is easier to replace than the bridge
It looks like the sign hangs a good 6 inches below the bottom of the bridge. I admit it could be entirely the camera angle, but I know I've seen bridges where the warning signs have a lower clearance than the overhangs.
0
Options
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
The clearance is required by law to be at least three inches below the actual clearance of the the overpass to account for bumps etc
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
In that trick GIF you can see that the sewage truck still hits the bridge. you can see the guard rails jiggle. If you're in a truck you should know the height of it, and if the bridge is well noted for how tall it is, well tough luck.
That dude's probably got buns of steel to keep that upright.
Right? Am I bad at physics?
Look at hte frames he has attached to the bike for the cables to hook on to. The vast majority of the weight of the bike and rider is below the attachment point.
And scorpions! However, I've never had an arachnid the size of a large dog lunge out of the darkness and devour the animal I was observing, so I think I'm still in good shape here.
Wolf spiders are still terrifying even if they're only tarantula sized, especially if they're carrying their babies.
Doubly so if you kill them on a tile floor.
It is kind of surprising just how many people have had this experience.
THEY GO EVERYWHERE
I learned to always have a can of Raid handy. I hate that I experience that enough to actually make preparations and have them pay off.
That dude's probably got buns of steel to keep that upright.
Right? Am I bad at physics?
Look at hte frames he has attached to the bike for the cables to hook on to. The vast majority of the weight of the bike and rider is below the attachment point.
Still gotta have good core strength or else you're gonna lean a bit
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Would a single one of those trucks hit the bridge?
Because it looks like they're all hitting the sign.
yes.
They are hitting the sign because the sign is the same height as the bridge and the sign is easier to replace than the bridge
It looks like the sign hangs a good 6 inches below the bottom of the bridge. I admit it could be entirely the camera angle, but I know I've seen bridges where the warning signs have a lower clearance than the overhangs.
Why don’t they fix it?
Depends on who “they” are and on what “fix” means. The North Carolina Railroad Company owns the train trestle, and their concern is primarily with keeping the trains running and keeping them running safely. So their concern is mainly with reducing the impact of the truck crashes on the actual structure of the train trestle. As far as they are concerned, they solved that problem by installing the crash beam.
Would a single one of those trucks hit the bridge?
Because it looks like they're all hitting the sign.
yes.
They are hitting the sign because the sign is the same height as the bridge and the sign is easier to replace than the bridge
It looks like the sign hangs a good 6 inches below the bottom of the bridge. I admit it could be entirely the camera angle, but I know I've seen bridges where the warning signs have a lower clearance than the overhangs.
Why don’t they fix it?
Depends on who “they” are and on what “fix” means. The North Carolina Railroad Company owns the train trestle, and their concern is primarily with keeping the trains running and keeping them running safely. So their concern is mainly with reducing the impact of the truck crashes on the actual structure of the train trestle. As far as they are concerned, they solved that problem by installing the crash beam.
They should put up a sign warning that there's a warning sign coming up.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
#pipeCocky Stride, Musky odoursPope of Chili TownRegistered Userregular
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
You also have to shut down the length of track you're working on
rail isn't like road, you can't just detour a block over. Closing a section of rail costs a ridiculous amount of money.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
Abdhyius on
+1
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
Actually, rerouting makes a little bit of sense to me. Divert the road (highway?) so that it skirts that low point, lessening the opportunities for flooding/snow closures, and when you're doing that, go up and over the railroad instead of under.
It would cost a hell of a lot, but with some actual benefits, and if we are going to invest in infrastructure (hah!), that may be a way to go.
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It has caused so many accidents, but the rail company won't pay to raise it up because "it'd cost too much money, the state/county/city should pay for it"
There's no reason they couldn't raise it up either, they just don't want to. It'd cost them money. Cheaper to kill people and damage property.
Raising a rail bridge isn't an easy job. It's do-able, but it's not like making a road a few inches higher.
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
Can’t the road be lowered?
That would be prohibitively expensive because a sewer main runs just a few feet below the road bed. That sewer main also dates back about a hundred years and, again, at the time there were no real standards for minimum clearance for railroad underpasses.
Can’t the bridge be raised?
Here, too, the question is who would want to pay the millions of dollars to raise the tracks a couple of feet? To accomplish this, the grade of the tracks would have to changed on both sides of the trestle, probably for several miles. That would require rebuilding all trestles in Durham. And NS would have to shut down this busy track for months. I don’t think they are interested in that idea.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.
Posts
Frankly it'd be easier, faster and cheaper to make the road lower.
It's generally held as a stupidity tax, since they have multiple signs, hanging bars, and more signs saying 'if you heard something hit the top of your vehicle, this next one is going to rip it off, don't say we didn't warn you'.
If they actually fined every person who did it (driving without care and attention is the least they could hit them with, and they'd have a hard time fighting it), they could put it towards a 'lower the road fund'.
they can't lower the road (the area lightly floods in the winter and spring), it'd be far easier/cheaper to raise the bridge
Yea, this is the bridge.
https://goo.gl/maps/byEmfEJF59P2
Note the water just over to the left. Also that funny youtube linked earlier had a bride that was 11' 8". This one is almost a full foot shorter.
It looks like the sign hangs a good 6 inches below the bottom of the bridge. I admit it could be entirely the camera angle, but I know I've seen bridges where the warning signs have a lower clearance than the overhangs.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
A likely story.
lets see if they believe it down at the station.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
Right? Am I bad at physics?
Look at hte frames he has attached to the bike for the cables to hook on to. The vast majority of the weight of the bike and rider is below the attachment point.
I learned to always have a can of Raid handy. I hate that I experience that enough to actually make preparations and have them pay off.
Still gotta have good core strength or else you're gonna lean a bit
Yeah, and the point to himself and the nod. The batter is probably just happy his fuckup didn't result in smashing someone's skull.
Doing a trick shot like that actually causes a guy on a wheel board to spawn, no matter where you are. It's just one of those unexplained phenomena.
@Dubh
they're like mini puppers mixed with a dash of cat
had one that used to sleep on me when I took a nap
11/10 they're good doges
Puppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppypuppy!
They should put up a sign warning that there's a warning sign coming up.
It's a railroad bridge, isn't it?
if it's a freight train railway, that means the maximum incline it can have is about 1,5%
raising the bridge would be very expensive because you have to also raise a very long section of track.
It's raised an earlier point, they could just extend that further.
You also have to shut down the length of track you're working on
rail isn't like road, you can't just detour a block over. Closing a section of rail costs a ridiculous amount of money.
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.
It won't help, I just wanna see the reactions.
It would cost a hell of a lot, but with some actual benefits, and if we are going to invest in infrastructure (hah!), that may be a way to go.
That's the other bridge, not mine.
Our bridge could be raised, but, the train company wants the state and county to pay for it.
Edit: also the track where I live isn't super busy, maybe a few trains a month at the most
that specific branch is for local deliveries for like the 2 companies that still have their own track lines that pull off it
what do you mean by "raised in an earlier point"? Traintracks have such super gradual inclines that they're basically impossible to see
and, well, yeah why wouldn't the train company want the state or county to pay for it? They are after all the ones responsible for the road.