The Truckers’ Report flatbed Hall of Shame.

Structure steel loads like that are the scariest stuff to haul in my opinion. I have a place right up the street I could haul directly with but there is no way I’m hauling that stuff every week. Especially the way it loaded at that place.

shiver!!!

 

There are plenty of guys floating around who will tell you to avoid hard stops to avoid cargo shift. I've always felt that if I have to worry about a hard stop making the load give me a Gibbs Slap, that load isn't secure.

 

I trust the cage the lion is in will hold him, but you won't see me taunting him either. There's trusting your skills and there's tempting fate. Give the cargo a nice, gentle ride and avoid/minimize the opportunities is preferable to fooling around and finding out the hard way.

 

Oh I absolutely agree, I'm very easy on any load. But the last thing I want to have to worry about if I've got to make an emergency stop is having an unwelcome visitor.

 

Looks like someone tried to save some money instead of putting it on an extendable RGN they went with a stepdeck....

 

It was definitely sitting up on the nose when i went by, even after they chopped the end of the structure off (it was an open end.)

 

There is no way of knowing that without knowing how long the load is. If it's more than about 50ft long it wouldn't fit in most stretch RGNs. I have a stretch RGN that can do a max of 52' in the well and it's a 53ft tandem with 34' well closed. Out west being a bit taller is fine if you measure the load right and are on route with a highpole.

Believe me the stretch stepdeck is not going to be the cheaper way.

The stretch step is going to cost more in permits and escorts than dropping it on a stretch RGN and keeping the height 18" lower. Not to mention the extra fuel cost and time the taller route will require

 

You have to wonder if he even measured the load. That was a 15-7 bridge he hit and I'm pretty sure that's the measurement on the shoulder. He wasn't even close to making that

 

Luckily Colorado is one of the states that actually has a very nice online bridge clearance map. Looking up that bridge it is listed as a minimum clearance of 15'4" and a maximum clearance of 16'1". That is likely along one of the shoulders like you said. I was able to find an older bridge map from May of 2000 that lists that same bridge at a minimum of 15'7" and the same maximum of 16'1". I wasn't able to find any actual drawings of the bridge quickly online but I'm sure the DOT as them available.

It looks like it has a sloped roof on it that was higher on the passenger side. Even if he was right at 15'7" loaded height a little rocking side to side can easily add 6" to the load. Especially if the highpoint is at the outside edge. I don't know how closely Colorado marks their bridges but if they are correct then he wouldn't make it.

Most states require minimum of 6" vertical clearance on all overheight permits. They usually won't approve them if you are any closer than that.

Here's the current bridge info:



Looking at the bridge on Streetview it looks pretty flat but a few inches over a 50' wide highway would be hard to tell from a picture. Also that overhead sign would hide the clearance sign until you were right under it. I checked the streetview on the highway back to before the previous exit and there's no warning signs about the height between the bridge and that off ramp that I was able to find.



I see a few possible scenarios with that happened.

1. Guy didn't measure the load. Got what he had coming to him in this case.
2. He did measure the load but thought he was good until it rocked up at a bad time and caught the bridge. Probably should've picked a route with more clearance to be safe. A bit of bad decision and bad luck if this happened.
3. State messed up. They dropped a new layer of asphalt on that stretch of I-70 some time in the last 23 years and forgot to change that sign. If he had a Colorado annual permit he might have driven under that bridge plenty of times and thought he was good based on the marking.

The damage to the load honestly looks pretty bad until you consider that the roof looks like it's made of sheet metal and insulation. Looking at the third picture above there doesn't appear to be any marks on the actual wall section below the roofline. It's bent back but the bridge beam would've destroyed it if that part hit. Looks like the roof just barely caught and got pealed back until enough bunched up. Once it hit something solid enough inside to catch and break the chains and pushed off the deck the whole thing twisted.

I'd bet he only hit by a few inches and the roof folded up making it worse as he went under. Even at 80,000lbs gross it would take a few second to come to a complete stop and it clearly slid under the bridge off the deck.

At the end of the day it will end up with a bunch of overpaid lawyers from both sides arguing it out. If they can prove the state didn't mark the bridge correctly he might have a chance and not being held 100% responsible. He is absolutely still screwed at the end of the day though.

 

It does have a definite slope down to the north. Not a lot, but enough that I don't think EB is even marked