Hit a bridge, go to jail

Hit a bridge in the Canadian province of British Columbia and you could go to jail – at least if the transportation authorities there have their way.

In a news release headlined, “Commercial truck drivers to face higher penalties for hitting overpasses,” the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure announced that “proposed changes to the Commercial Transport Act (CTA) will enable the courts to impose fines for as much as $100,000, as well as imprisonment up to 18 months upon conviction for violations.”

Holy Toledo. A year and a half in jail? A fine of $100,000? For hitting a bridge?

Sure, not many U.S. drivers find themselves in British Columbia, but this kind of get-tough policy has a way of spreading, and we have plenty of localities in the States with lots of bridge hits.

Last November, for example, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced a police crackdown on the problem there and proposed increased penalties for drivers who hit bridges. Hochul’s idea of tough is points on a guilty driver’s license.

It isn’t the first time New York has ordered such a crackdown, and New York isn’t the only place with low bridges. I’m sure other states are just as upset with bridge hits. They might be inspired to copy British Columbia. And you had better believe that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has totally had it with truckers hitting bridges.

“The legislative changes are in response to 35 crashes that have occurred since late 2021 by over-height commercial vehicles,” the ministry’s press release explained.

The proposed maximum penalties are far higher than those in other provinces, the ministry said, adding that “The BC Trucking Association has been consulted and supports the proposed increase in maximum penalties.”

Also according to the ministry, “The overwhelming majority of responsible truck drivers and the trucking industry have urged tougher action on the small number of irresponsible operators that have caused these crashes.”

Uh, OK. But why would the truckers of British Columbia want to enable such medieval measures? If the ministry is concerned with a small number of irresponsible operators, why not a more targeted approach? Why hand officials with even a well-intentioned government agency a blunderbuss they could use against, well, anyone who ever pisses them off?

And I wonder if the blunderbuss will actually work.

Did you ever wake up one morning and say, “Hmm. Scattered clouds, light breeze, temperatures in the 60s. What a perfect spring day to hit a bridge!”

Of course not. No responsible driver wants to hit a bridge. For one thing, depending on your speed, it could hurt. But even if you do no more than crumple the front of a trailer, it’s going to cost you.

Company drivers would face legal penalties and probably lose their job. Owner-operators would face the legal consequences plus the cost of equipment repairs and increased insurance premiums. And if the damage were on, say, a customer’s trailer, they could probably say goodbye to that customer’s business.

Simply put, professional drivers have every reason not to run into bridges. But for all kinds of reasons, they still do. I expect you could impose capital punishment, and some drivers under some circumstances would still hit bridges.

I remember being lost one night in New York’s Westchester County in a torrential downpour with very low visibility. Unfamiliar with the area, I was on a winding county road with no shoulders – typical in New York state – and nowhere to pull over. I had no CB, no map and no one to ask for directions.

Suddenly, there was a sign with an arrow and the words “New York City.” The sign said something else that I couldn’t read as I passed it in the rain. It probably said “Saw Mill River Parkway” or “Taconic State Parkway” or the name of another of Westchester’s cars-only roads. Or maybe it simply said “no trucks.”

But there was that beautiful arrow and a ramp that would take me off this cursed county road and south toward Interstate 95, where I needed to go. I should have been more cautious – which was easy to see after the fact – but at that moment I only saw salvation. I took the ramp.

During the 1920s and 1930s, they built lots of handsome, stone-arch overpasses in Westchester, especially along the parkways. In the rain that night, I didn’t realize I was on one of them until all at once, there was an arched bridge in front of me. Luckily, I was able to move to the left lane, where the arch was highest. My 12-foot-8-inch trailer just cleared the bridge.

Finally realizing my mistake, I took the next exit. I was lucky. I did not hit the bridge, but I easily could have, and I would have lost that job.

Sorry, British Columbia, but that sounds like punishment enough to me.

If the maximum penalties now proposed in British Columbia had applied then in New York, I could have gone to jail. But even that heavy penalty would have had no bearing in the instant I turned off that county road in the dark, in a downpour.

These days, many bridge hits happen when inexperienced drivers rely on navigation devices meant for cars. But they can be acting in good faith, unaware of their ignorance. Sure, they should see the warning signs, but we all miss posted signs from time to time. The threat of fines, jail or exile to Devil’s Island won’t keep it from happening.

Of course, we’re talking about maximum penalties here. The British Columbian authorities probably have no intention of asking they be applied in cases like these. But governments change more frequently than laws, and another, more vindictive administration could abuse these penalties in ways we can’t foresee.

In any case, such grievous penalties are a bad idea – especially when they might not even work. I hope they do not spread to the rest of Canada or to the United States. LL