http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Step 2: No Problems... go about your day.

But realisticly, these people are idiots... is it me or is it only brits that make the news for stupid stuff like this? You never see an american drive into a lake because the GPS said so... is that because we are smarter? no, it's because we use accurate maps... sometimes...

But yeah... it dosn't matter... i don't really care too much...]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 12:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801030409]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/


And you wonder why people think Americans are idiots.]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
besides, the problem is with the software used, they need to develope gps specifically for trucks and commercial drivers. ie - you can't effectively use a gps made for a passenger car in an 18-wheeler... just like you can't effectively use a gps made for hikiing in the city...]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/ Step 1: Don't make Bridges too small

Many of these bridges were built over 150 years ago. They were large enough for the road traffic at the time. Try: "Step 1. Don't make trucks too big."
]]>Feb 13th 2008 5:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Oct 5th 2009 5:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
I forsee a menu in the beggining asking:

Is this vehicle a Truck, Car or Bus...

Is this Vehicle under 6ft tall, 10 ft tall, 15 feet tall,etc

Is this vehicle 3000 lbs or under, 8000 lbs or under, etc



And based on your choices, the Nav unit routes you to a route you should be on and will not re-route you through an innapropriate route.

I guess that type of system would require up-to-date NAV TRAFFIC through XM radio. ]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/"Some roads and highways have vehicle type restriction, such as forbidding large trucks or commercial traffic. The nuvi 660 allows you to specify what type of vehicle you're driving (car/motorcycle, pedestrian, bicycle, truck, bus), and have it route you appropriately. "

http://gpsmagazine.com/2006/10/garmin_nuvi_660_indepth_review.php?page=12

you don't need updates over xm, the map maker companies need to have that info in the maps, which it does.]]>Feb 13th 2008 2:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
I mean seriously, if there was not documented proof of this happening I would think this was a complete joke.

Who is stupid enough to go, "Well that bridge looks to low for me to drive under, but my Sat Nav says I need to go under it so here we go!"

/ just lost a little more faith in humanity.]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
Matt]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
But I think they should change that sign to say 'don't be a dumbass' and that should fix all the problems.]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 12:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
1. These are big rigs. You can't just show up at a bridge and go 'oh no it's too small' and do a simple 180! Have you ever tried driving a truck?

2. Many bridges in the UK are ancient! Many major roads in the UK still have old bridges that are not signposted miles ahead. We can't afford to replace bridges here, so quit picking on old Blighty.

3. Most truck deliveries don't repeat the exact same route everyday, so often have to rely upon a GPS to get them to their destination quickly.

Before you go assuming Brits are idiots or that the bridges there should be capable of handling large trucks that can easily turn around, start remembering the 35W Bridge in Minnesota that was less than 50 years old that collapsed because of stresses from too much traffic.]]>Feb 13th 2008 3:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
State Department of Transportations can also provide truck drivers acceptable route to travel to void bridges that are too low or can't take the load.

The next level would be for this data to be available for Sat Navs and for the user to imput information about their vehicle. Trucks really would be only ones to enter weight since most consumer vehicles don't exceed weight limits.

Consumer vehicles wouldn't only have to consider height.

]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
Maybe every now and again the sat nav should make comments like "You are reading the road signs aren't you" or "You do know I'm just a dumb machine looking at lines and have no clue as to what some these lines mean"]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 12:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
In Iowa, they don't build bridges high enough for commercial trucks.

They expect you to waste gas, drive miles out of the way, because frankly the bridges are too low.

And they blame the victim... priceless.

learn2build bridges! haha jk build them 3 feet high, all those idiots with vehicles over 3 feet high should get a clue, right? haha]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/ - the satnav for not taking into account vehicle types with regards to certain roads, bridges and tunnels
- the driver for failing to understand the limitations
Because of this the solution is twofold:
- make satnav devices that take into account vehicle type
- educate drivers about this]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Bridge height is something that needs to be considered on its own, regardless of where you get your base route information from. Anybody that is hauling an oversize load should be aware of these precautions from the beginning.
It all really boils down to the fact that people are just stupid.]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
The commercial systems are able to account for this sort of thing.

But even then there is the old "brain in gear" problem]]>Feb 13th 2008 12:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
Some say he's a figment of my slightly senile imagination, others - that he has single handedly stolen all of the 'low bridge' signs as to scupper the snail-paced travelling habits of those left lane leviathans, but one thing we know for sure is his name: The Stig...'

*Turns away from camera*]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
That's actually helpful! Kudos for using your head!]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
Maybe you guys should travel outside of the US for once and experience the wider world. You do know that there are other countries out there don't you?
]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Well knock me out and steal muh' teeth! Other countries, that aren't
in America! Well how bout that...hold on, there could be terr'ists
hidin' up in them places! >:(
(/Stereotype)
]]>Feb 13th 2008 2:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
Mind you, I guess it is just as likely you will hit a bridge / lake / forest with an analogue map sprawled across the steering wheel and windshield.]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7238711.stm]]>Feb 13th 2008 1:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 1:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
If you look at a map of a part of London, you will see what I mean.

Attached for your viewing pleasure :D

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=tottenham+court+road&sll=51.509036,-0.218525&sspn=0.012661,0.040169&ie=UTF8&ll=51.497763,-0.188656&spn=0.012664,0.040169&z=15

Basically just scroll around a bit and you'll see what I mean.

]]>Feb 13th 2008 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/Feb 13th 2008 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
Anyway, I always thought it'd be a good idea to have software packages available based upon what type of car you drive for the GPS. It'd allow for the GPS to avoid this problem.]]>Feb 13th 2008 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/And that must be it because I'll go ahead and assume that any civilised country has signs about the capabilities of tunnels and bridges in front of them, and the only reason you'd miss that is because you either fell asleep or don't know the meaning of local signs (or imperial measurements on them?).]]>Feb 13th 2008 3:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
You can drive from one side of Canada to the other without a map. There's pretty much one option for doing so. In America, it's nearly the same, you still don't need a map if you've got a general sense of geography. In Europe, a lot of driving involves instinct, since you can't be sure to follow "Street A" to your destination. Unfortunately, Europe hasn't updated its infrastructure in many places, and SatNav wasn't exactly designed with Lorries in mind.]]>Feb 13th 2008 4:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.openstreetmaps.org) and add a tag into the bridge, like "maxton=3" or "maxheight=5" or whatever, and you incorporate that info into your sat nav. That's the beauty of having this open database, only if more people would start using it (manufacturers also)...]]>Feb 13th 2008 8:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/13/uk-blames-sat-navs-for-damaging-2-000-bridges-per-year/
the other thing i think is funny about this story--how hard could it be to map england? the country is tiny.
]]>Feb 13th 2008 11:20PM