Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Recurring Nightmare


I can guarantee you I've had nightmares about this. Two fiberglass tanks were loaded way too high and hit the overpass - you can see tank number one on the left. I'm not sure how these were loaded, but I'd assume they were loaded vertically just like they'd sit on the ground. Normally, we send out all of our tanks loaded on their sides. Ten foot tall tanks - maybe load them like this - that usually puts us at under 13' tall. Fifteen foot tall tanks, which these appear to be, loaded vertically would be seventeen to eighteen feet tall.

Supposedly there was a pole car in front - and their stick didn't hit. That means the pole car operator screwed the pooch - you are supposed to set the stick slightly higher than the load, so if it hits, you may or may not fit the load under, but you'd damn well better stop and check carefully.

Most overpasses seem to handle sixteen feet of clearance okay, and lots aren't posted if they are over sixteen feet. These things were just too damn tall to be on the interstate system, period.

This happened just west of Sterling, ND on I94 east of Bismarck, and I got it from a page on Facebook I follow: Bakken Oilfield Fail of the Day. They have a lot of photographic proof of recto-cranial inversions.

7 comments:

jed said...

So, is the driver having a better or worse day than that squirrel?

Jeffro said...

Depends on which one you ask!

drjim said...

That's definitely a Bad Day!

creakypavillion said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/state-patrol-i-5-bridge-over-skagit-river-collapses-in-nw-wash-vehicles-people-in-water/2013/05/23/ef618aaa-c41c-11e2-9642-a56177f1cdf7_story.html

Jeffro said...

Saw that last night - 14'6" isn't real low, but when the standard is now 16', it certainly is.

And that bridge was is pretty poor shape if a tall load could strike a girder and bring down the whole section. They're lucky a bunch of people didn't get killed.

I'd hate to be the truck owner - his insurance company probably won't stand behind him because it's the driver's responsibility to make sure they can clear structures in their route and that the measurements of the load are correct. This brings up the question of whether the truck was permitted, and if so, did the state route him through there even if it was too tall? The bad thing about that is all the permits I've ever been issued tell me the state is not responsible for routing errors - if you hit an overpass or other structure, you own it even if that's the way they told you to go.

creakypavillion said...

Nice job if you can get it, state routing/permits clerk (if that's how it's called) - no matter what they say, they are not responsible...then why they are necessary, at all?

Racket and extortion: government occupation.

Jeffro said...

Most states do a pretty decent job of routing to avoid that sort of thing, plus they have the information on width limits at road construction sites - something that is not always readily available online or on their phone system. We do have "annual" permits for certain states, which means we don't apply for the trip permit - we just route ourselves.

But with the same caveat - we take the fall for any damage. We can also get into hot water for trying to go through width restricted areas too wide as well. The normal punishment is to have our annual revoked and any trips thereafter are trip permits for a certain period of time. Oh, and a fine as well.

So, I like to know where I'm going if I've never been before with an annual - Kansas is one state that has annuals, and their online system is pretty good. Plus, we get to pretty well know where we can go at certain dimensions after time.