Bay Bridge Wrecks
David Kaye
majorly too fast, but a little too fast. There is no banking. You take the
turn too fast and suddenly you've slid into another lane, or in the case of
this morning, you go over the guardrail with your semi rig and you kill
yourself just to try to deliver a load of pears. It's very sad. Sure, he was
10mph over the limit. But the limit used to be 50 before the S curve was put
in.
You'd think that since Caltrans owns the bridge and since they're in the
business of building roads that they would have banked the S turn so that it
could take 50mph or faster traffic. Caltrans has a very good record of
designing really good banked roads. Why couldn't they have done this with the
temporary S curve?
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
David Nebenzahl
> You'd think that since Caltrans owns the bridge and since they're in
> the business of building roads that they would have banked the S turn
> so that it could take 50mph or faster traffic. Caltrans has a very
> good record of designing really good banked roads. Why couldn't they
> have done this with the temporary S curve?
You'd think that people could just *fucking slow down*. But no.
Think of it as a large-scale Darwinian demonstration.
--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?
- harvested from Usenet
David Nebenzahl
> You'd think that since Caltrans owns the bridge and since they're in the
> business of building roads that they would have banked the S turn so that it
> could take 50mph or faster traffic. Caltrans has a very good record of
> designing really good banked roads. Why couldn't they have done this with the
> temporary S curve?
Check out article (and a shitload of comments) on SFGate at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/09/BAAE1AHDO3.DTL
The best suggestion I read there was that the speed limit up to S-curve
in both directions should be 40 mph, instead of 50 with an abrupt
reduction to 40.
David Kaye
>
>Think of it as a large-scale Darwinian demonstration.
You're saying this now because nobody has run their car into yours. While
people do speed, driving 50mph on the Bay Bridge is not unreasonable.
Remember that the limit was reduced to 40 because the curve was dangerous and
had *already* caused accidents.
There have been what, 44 accidents on that one little stretch of the bridge
since September? That's faulty design, pure and simple.
David Kaye
>The best suggestion I read there was that the speed limit up to S-curve
>in both directions should be 40 mph, instead of 50 with an abrupt
>reduction to 40.
Regardless, it's a design flaw. The road should have been banked as all roads
with curves are. Even roads designed for 30mph are banked somewhat on the
turns. There is no banking whatsoever on the Bay Bridge.
I am an extremely careful driver and I do not exceed the speed limit. Even
so, I find that the perfectly level roadway tends to pull my car as I make the
turn. A banked turn wouldn't do that.
Jonz
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> The best suggestion I read there was that the speed limit up to S-curve
>> in both directions should be 40 mph, instead of 50 with an abrupt
>> reduction to 40.
>
> Regardless, it's a design flaw.
Bullshit
The road should have been banked as all roads
> with curves are. Even roads designed for 30mph are banked somewhat on the
> turns. There is no banking whatsoever on the Bay Bridge.
Umm... Can you cite a bridge in the Bay Area that has a banked turn on it?
>
> I am an extremely careful driver and I do not exceed the speed limit.
Bully for you.
Even
> so, I find that the perfectly level roadway tends to pull my car as I make the
> turn.
Ahh... Your vehicle obeys the laws of physics too. Hooray!
A banked turn wouldn't do that.
>
No shit, Sherlock.
Jonz
Keith Keller
>
> Regardless, it's a design flaw. The road should have been banked as all roads
> with curves are. Even roads designed for 30mph are banked somewhat on the
> turns. There is no banking whatsoever on the Bay Bridge.
On the old span, no, though IIRC there was a slight bank on the old
connector from the east span to the YBI tunnel. But I imagine building
such a beast so that it could be connected to the roadway that gets slid
in from the original roadway (which at those points are not banked)
would be difficult.
You could always ask Caltrans why they didn't bank the S curve. Nobody
here knows for sure.
One of the articles on sfgate mentioned the possibility of adding other
measures to reduce speeds on the S curve. Rumble strips seem the most
likely to work--even if people don't immediately slow down, at least
they'll be paying more attention instead of going on automatic pilot.
One thing that surprised me a bit was that, apparently, the number of
accidents eastbound and westbound on the S curve have been approximately
equal. I'd have thought, with the decline to the S westbound, that
there'd have been more accidents that direction; the tunnel is, IIRC, a
slight incline eastbound, and after the decline from the west span to
the tunnel, traffic is often slightly slower through the tunnel. But
perhaps that influences how bad the accidents are--it certainly seems
like the more serious incidents have all occurred in the westbound
direction.
> I am an extremely careful driver and I do not exceed the speed limit. Even
> so, I find that the perfectly level roadway tends to pull my car as I make the
> turn. A banked turn wouldn't do that.
A good driver would realize and plan for this scenario. Sadly many bad
drivers are able to obtain California driver's licenses.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Keith Keller
>
> Umm... Can you cite a bridge in the Bay Area that has a banked turn on it?
The new east span appears to have a bank at the curve, and IIRC the San
Mateo has a bit of a bank on the curved part of the incline (at the
middle of the span, not at the west end).
Kevin McMurtrie
sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> >
> >Think of it as a large-scale Darwinian demonstration.
>
> You're saying this now because nobody has run their car into yours. While
> people do speed, driving 50mph on the Bay Bridge is not unreasonable.
> Remember that the limit was reduced to 40 because the curve was dangerous and
> had *already* caused accidents.
>
> There have been what, 44 accidents on that one little stretch of the bridge
> since September? That's faulty design, pure and simple.
That doesn't sound high at all. Hwy 101 is littered with smashed cars
daily. The section between the Hwy 84 ramps seems to be a favorite spot
for rollovers and high-speed barrier impacts. It's all bad drivers -
going slow in the fast lane, going fast in the slow lane, and drifting
about like nobody else is around.
I'd be all for the gene pool thinning if the morons didn't take good
people with them.
--
I won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
David Kaye
>That doesn't sound high at all. Hwy 101 is littered with smashed cars
>daily.
44 cars along a stretch that is barely 1000 feet is a hell of a lot of wrecks.
Compare that to any simliar length stretch of 101 and it's no contect. That
curve is deadly and shouldn't have been constructed the way it was.
>I'd be all for the gene pool thinning if the morons didn't take good
>people with them.
But that's the thing; there can be lots of innocent victims. Remember, we're
not talking about speeding on the bridge; we're talking about people driving
the normal speed of 50mph. Only after the accidents began to happen did they
lower it to 40. I have never seen an Interstate freeway posted for 40mph.
David Kaye
>On the old span, no, though IIRC there was a slight bank on the old
>connector from the east span to the YBI tunnel. But I imagine building
>such a beast so that it could be connected to the roadway that gets slid
>in from the original roadway (which at those points are not banked)
>would be difficult.
Even so, there are 1/4 million trips across that bridge every day. That's a
lot. In the 4 years before the new span is opened there will have been -- get
this: 365 MILLION trips across the badly designed S-curve.
>One of the articles on sfgate mentioned the possibility of adding other
>measures to reduce speeds on the S curve. Rumble strips seem the most
>likely to work--even if people don't immediately slow down, at least
>they'll be paying more attention instead of going on automatic pilot.
Autopilot is the big problem with driving these days. Used to be people had
to drive stick shifts and watch their temperature gauge for overheating and
whatnot. And cars were so badly insulated from noise that drivers were kept
at attention from all the road noise.
Now it's way too easy to put the pedal to the floor and before you know it
you're doing 70 or 80 or 90 on I-5. Likewise, I cross the Bay Bridge daily at
the speed limit and I'm one of the few who do. Most people are passing me and
some are so annoyed that they make dirty faces at me or honk their horns, or
worse yet, tailgate me. But at least I'm keeping them awake.
Rumble strips are a good idea. Also the radar speed displays are good, too.
I'd also be in favor of coloring the pavement yellow or something, maybe
diagonal bands of yellow or something. If there are 44 accidents in 2 months,
that'll be over 1,000 accidents on that small stretch by the time the new
bridge opens.
>A good driver would realize and plan for this scenario. Sadly many bad
>drivers are able to obtain California driver's licenses.
I've always been in favor of driving tests at each license renewal. The DMV
has got to stop rubber-stamping everything. Heck, they don't even know what I
look like anymore. The photo on my last 3 licenses is the photo that was
taken 15 years ago! They just renew by mail and don't bother getting me in
for a new photo. People change over time. Their looks can change and most
certainly their driving habits and abilities can change.
David Nebenzahl
> But that's the thing; there can be lots of innocent victims. Remember, we're
> not talking about speeding on the bridge; we're talking about people driving
> the normal speed of 50mph. Only after the accidents began to happen did they
> lower it to 40. I have never seen an Interstate freeway posted for 40mph.
Think of it as a construction zone, not a stretch of interstate highway.
David Kaye
>
>Umm... Can you cite a bridge in the Bay Area that has a banked turn on it?
There is only one Bay Area bridge with a turn on it and it's a slight turn.
That's the San Mateo Bridge, and yes it is slightly banked. You can see it if
you look through the Google Maps photos. It's slight but it's definitely
there, and I'm speaking as someone who drove it twice during the recent Bay
Bridge shutdown.
I'm not sure there is a freeway bridge in existence with a short S-curve like
the one they built on the Bay Bridge. Remember, the Bridge is a 5-lane
Interstate freeway, not a sleepy neigoborhood bridge over a creek.
David Kaye
>
>Think of it as a construction zone, not a stretch of interstate highway.
A construction zone has barriers, flashing lights, cones, sometimes a flagger.
Put those on the scene and the traffic will slow down, but leave it as it is,
or even put in more signs and nothing is going to change. People won't think
of it as a construction zone unless they see the telltale construction
elements.
Patrick Scheible
> Kevin McMurtrie <kevi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >That doesn't sound high at all. Hwy 101 is littered with smashed cars
> >daily.
>
> 44 cars along a stretch that is barely 1000 feet is a hell of a lot of wrecks.
> Compare that to any simliar length stretch of 101 and it's no contect. That
> curve is deadly and shouldn't have been constructed the way it was.
>
> >I'd be all for the gene pool thinning if the morons didn't take good
> >people with them.
>
> But that's the thing; there can be lots of innocent victims. Remember, we're
> not talking about speeding on the bridge; we're talking about people driving
> the normal speed of 50mph. Only after the accidents began to happen did they
> lower it to 40. I have never seen an Interstate freeway posted for 40mph.
A little over a year ago when the S.F. approach to the Bay Bridge was
under construction, I think the merge was posted at 40 mph. I drove
it during the evening, but I have been living out of the Bay Area and
the construction zone was unfamiliar and scary. The 40 mph sign seems
to have slowed traffic down from 70 mph to 60, but that was still far
too fast to merge with about a ten foot merging lane.
-- Patrick
Keith Keller
> has got to stop rubber-stamping everything. Heck, they don't even know what I
> look like anymore. The photo on my last 3 licenses is the photo that was
> taken 15 years ago! They just renew by mail and don't bother getting me in
> for a new photo.
You must be grandfathered in, or they've made a mistake; I've had two
DMV photos taken since I moved here in 1995, less than 15 years ago. It's
still bad that they didn't retest me in any way; all they did was update
the photo.
I don't know if a road test for every renewal is feasible, but certainly
a written test for every one should be doable, and a road test for every
second or third should also be reasonable. Correction: it would be
reasonable if the state weren't on the brink of bankruptcy.
David Kaye
>I don't know if a road test for every renewal is feasible, [....]
The DMV could do as they do for smog tests: license private companies to do it
for them. While a driving test is a more subjective test than a smog test
that is linked electronically to the DMV, even a driving test system full of
fraud is better than no driving testing at all.
There are just far too many people out there who shouldn't be driving.
David Nebenzahl
> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> Think of it as a construction zone, not a stretch of interstate highway.
>
> A construction zone has barriers, flashing lights, cones, sometimes a
> flagger. Put those on the scene and the traffic will slow down, but
> leave it as it is, or even put in more signs and nothing is going to
> change. People won't think of it as a construction zone unless they
> see the telltale construction elements.
OK, then think of it as a very long, very badly marked construction
zone. (Which I'm confident is bound to change as Caltrans slowly
responds and puts up more flashing lights, chevron markers, etc.)
spamtrap1888
> Keith Keller <kkeller-use...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> >I don't know if a road test for every renewal is feasible, [....]
>
> The DMV could do as they do for smog tests: license private companies to do it
> for them. While a driving test is a more subjective test than a smog test
> that is linked electronically to the DMV, even a driving test system full of
> fraud is better than no driving testing at all.
No. Where I grew up, "commercial vehicles" had to get a safety
inspection every year -- lights, tires, brakes, etc. The state
authorized various garages to perform the test. Experience showed
that some shops would pass any vehicle, while others would flunk every
vehicle. Handing over a bill of the proper denomination would make
passing a breeze.
Having driving tests performed by state employees under state control
promotes uniformity. Fear of losing one's retirement and benefits
discourages fraud, although it doesn't eliminate it as the Illinois
truck driver license scandal showed. (This took down Governor George
Ryan, who, as a cynical way of burnishing his legacy, released all
capital prisoners from Death Row, citing systematic problems with
their prosecution and conviction.)
Ian Scott
> But that's the thing; there can be lots of innocent victims. Remember, we're
> not talking about speeding on the bridge; we're talking about people driving
> the normal speed of 50mph. Only after the accidents began to happen did they
> lower it to 40. I have never seen an Interstate freeway posted for 40mph.
Actually, the posted speed limit has been 40 MPH on the s-curve since it
opened after Labor day.
Also, there are plenty of places on Interstates with 40 MPH limits or
even lower. Dead man's curve in Cleveland is signed at 35 MPH.
Ian