OK, your name is your name. Berkeley? You win a prize for first mention this week. But thanks for caring. The hostile part, and I guess hostile is too strong a word, is this notion that I'm trying to evade responsibility, like it was me who did it. I have no dog in the fight, if anything I'd tend to be down on the truck driver. I'm looking at this with an unbiased eye as to what happened and why. I could just as easily say that you're shifting blame from the state.
The lead truck should have gone under the lowest possible point? Seems unlikely that he'll spot the lower part every time and move over to the far edge of that lane. One sees bridge heights posted often enough, IIRC the deal on this one is that it's above a certain normally safe height so it wasn't posted. I found this on the WA trans web site:
WSDOT - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ
Quote:
7.Loads exceed 14 ft. and 6 inches high, one escort vehicle is required in front equipped with a height pole. Manufactured housing requires front escort with height pole when exceeding 15 ft. in height. The Department does not guarantee height clearances; therefore, on any route where the height is in question, a front escort vehicle equipped with a height pole should be used.
8.In the opinion of the Department of Transportation, escort vehicles are necessary to protect the traveling public, for any over-dimensional and/or overweight move, either across, upon, or along a highway.
|
Given the expense that this collision will entail, and to many people, seems cost effective to me for the state to try to come up with a relatively close guarantee on clearances. Such dimensions don't vary that much through the seasons and with age. As they are charging a fee for the oversized load permit, it seems reasonable to me that the purchaser should get some value from it, such as info that would help prevent costly errors like this. Of course the fee is also justified in terms of compensation for extra wear and tear on roadways from giant loads.