Bridgetenders fired for raising Chelsea Street Bridge with car still on it

these bridge tenders need to be better vetted

Maybe it’s the bridge tenders. Or maybe it’s the designers.

https://humanisticsystems.com/2018/02/25/human-fac...

What are they supposed to do if some person drives onto the bridge and refuses to get off?

Don't raise the bridge when there's a vehicle on it? I admit to complete ignorance of how this works, but wouldn't you think they'd visually verify that the bridge is clear before pushing the bridge-go-up button?

ETA: assuming there IS a bridge-go-up button...I sure hope so, and not that there's one button you push that activates the barriers and waits a set time and then just raises the section regardless of what's going on.

What? Are you suggesting that even if they saw the car there they should raise it anyway?

This ranks right up there with driving into a crowd blocking the highway because "hey you shouldn't be protesting on the highway."

Even if the driver has any fault in ending up on the bridge , raising it would be reckless. If they saw the car and it wouldn't move, the proper response is to call the police and a tow truck. While the operators clearly were negligent here, I know they wouldnt lift it if they thought someone was on it though.

Shouldn't the driver lose their license and the bridge tenders be fired?

What are they supposed to do if some person drives onto the bridge and refuses to get off?

Call the cops? Or literally anything else except raise the bridge?

Unless there's a boat with a wounded orphan aboard who's trying to get to a hospital, I can't image it would ever be that urgent.

that a signal maintainer was to blame, there are still some unanswered questions.

Witnesses indicated that the gates didn’t come down before the crash. Yet, news footage of the scene taken after the crash shows that the gates were fully down. I don't doubt that the witnesses accounts are accurate, as it would explain how the woman ended up on the tracks. However, the question remains: How were the gates activated after the crash?

Railroad grade crossing systems operate on the principle that electricity is required to keep them deactivated (lights off, gates up). When a train approaches, it "shunts" the circuit, cutting off the current, and causing the signals to activate. It's designed to be "fail safe" - if there's no power for any reason, it activates.

Normally during maintenance or repairs, which could be anything from adjusting the resistance of a track circuit (this is often required in cold or snowy/rainy weather) to replacing components, signal technicians will intentionally energize the master control relay (usually with jumper wires) to prevent the lights and gates from activating while doing their work. This is done to minimize disruption to road traffic, but prevents the detection system from working as designed. However, overriding the ‘fail safe” in this manner disables the entire system, not just a portion of the system.

In rare occasions, including an especially tragic collision in McClean, Illinois in the late 1980s, signal technicians have been known to inadvertently leave the jumper wires connected, thus disabling the “fail safe” protection and rendering the crossing detection inoperative. While the signal technicians were eventually found in fault in these cases, this was only after weeks, if not months, of investigation by the NTSB or other agencies. Yet the MBTA assigns and announces fault in less than two days, and over a weekend to boot.

Not rushing to the signal maintainer's defense, but something doesn’t quite seem to add up here.

The person is on leave pending investigation.

Because it may not have been their fault.

An uplifting experience?
A letdown?
A mood swing?