They couldn't resist "signing" the new off-ramp

[route56]

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/06/2502231/johnson-county-highway-ramp-could.html

According to the Kansas City Star, several drivers ran the barricades and drove on the new ramp from Northbound 69 to 87th Street. The problem was, the pavement was still a little wet.

Now, KDOT will have to figure out how to fix it, delaying the opening of the ramp.

[Convert HTML code to BBCode (the latter uses square brackets instead of angle brackets). -S.]

[J N Winkler]

If the concrete has to be removed and re-laid, those drivers are going to be really sorry because Kansas law allows KDOT to recover the full cost from them or from their insurance companies, as the case may be.  This is a lot more expensive than a driveway replacement because (1) the length and width involved is much greater and (2) the depth of concrete involved is 8" minimum (more likely 10" or 12" based on recent KDOT practice--I haven't cross-checked against the construction plans).  What an unbelievably stupid thing to do.

[rarnold]

Some people should not be allowed to drive. Luckily, these people won't be able to afford to drive after KDOT charges them for the labor and materials to fix this mess. They should also be charged for the inconvenience to other drivers since the ramp will be closed even longer.

[ShawnP]

I just thought it was some road geeks off for a look at a new project. We would never go over barricades or anything like that for a closer look ehhhhhh.

[The Premier]

According to the Kansas City Star, several drivers ran the barricades and drove on the new ramp from Northbound 69 to 87th Street. The problem was, the pavement was still a little wet.

My question is this: IF the ramp was blocked off, then why would these drivers go through the ramp? I mean WTF? Furthermore, what type of barricade did KDOT used, because if they didn't use any concrete barriers to block the ramp, they should be just is at fault as those stupid drivers.

[situveux1]

This is curious to me since I would think KDOT would have installed temp jersey barriers in front of the exit until the pour was finished. I've never come across new construction like that before where they weren't in place, especially for a long term project like 69. But then again some drivers never cease to amaze me.

[Alps]

Unbuilt I-78 in NJ was used for many years by taxi and limo drivers getting to Newark Airport from the west.  Fed up with delays on US 22 in the 1970's and early 1980's, they took a back road and hopped straight on the dirt grading (presumably overpasses already in place) and rolled on through to the pavement at NJ 24/Exit 48.  I've never met someone in one of those cars to ask how the ride was or if they cared that they weren't on a road.

[route56]

http://www.kctv5.com/traffic/26199584/detail.html

The affected portion of the off-ramp was 1200 feet. 800 feet of the damaged ramp will have to be re-poured. The remaining section will be ground and re-textured. The article also indicated that the concrete was to be 12" deep.

Also, it looks like the ramp will not be re-opened until spring.

[route56]

UPDATE:

http://bit.ly/hJGREk

KDOT has announced that the ramp will be opened next week, weather permitting.

[Scott5114]

My question is this: IF the ramp was blocked off, then why would these drivers go through the ramp? I mean WTF? Furthermore, what type of barricade did KDOT used, because if they didn't use any concrete barriers to block the ramp, they should be just is at fault as those stupid drivers.

Wait, KDOT should be at fault if they used a bunch of the typical three-panel orange-and-white-striped ROAD CLOSED barricades? Where do you get that? It's still an official traffic control device that anyone with a brain would know they probably shouldn't try to drive around. You can't really argue with ROAD CLOSED (or RAMP CLOSED, as they probably read).

KDOT doesn't really use a whole lot of temporary Jersey barriers in my experience, preferring instead to use pylon-type cones for most channelization and barricades for the rest.

[route56]

UPDATE:

http://bit.ly/ifmKSU

By the time you read this, the 87th Street ramp should be open. As of yesterday (January 13), no decisions have been regarding potential charges for those who drove on the ramp.

[vdeane]

No decision?  You can be practically arrested on the spot for rapping your order at the drive through but it takes ages to decide if to prosecute people who disobey signs, cost the state tons of money and hurt the public at large by delaying the re-opening of the ramp?

[The Premier]

Wait, KDOT should be at fault if they used a bunch of the typical three-panel orange-and-white-striped ROAD CLOSED barricades?

Yes, and then some. KDOT should have used concrete barriers like Ohio DOT does on certain ramps. Those drivers, in the meantime, also should have known better than to drive on wet concrete. I won't be surprised if charges are filed against the drivers because it could have been much worst (such as being stuck on wet cement).

[vdeane]

Why should they be at fault for not using concrete barriers?  If someone can't tell what "road closed" means, they should lose their license, forever.

[J N Winkler]

I don't think it's very helpful to discuss it in terms of fault.  I think it makes more sense to look at it in terms of efficient use of resources.  KDOT could adopt a practice of requiring that every patch of freshly laid concrete be protected by a Jersey barrier, but this would result in a fairly expensive line item across many contracts.  Would the money saved by not having to repour or otherwise repair concrete be sufficient to pay for provision of Jersey barrier in every comparable situation in every other KDOT construction contract calling for laying of concrete?  It's not an easy question to answer and I don't have the data at my fingertips that I would need to attempt an estimate, but I bet KDOT is now giving it some thought.

[Scott5114]

Wait, KDOT should be at fault if they used a bunch of the typical three-panel orange-and-white-striped ROAD CLOSED barricades?

Yes, and then some. KDOT should have used concrete barriers like Ohio DOT does on certain ramps. Those drivers, in the meantime, also should have known better than to drive on wet concrete. I won't be surprised if charges are filed against the drivers because it could have been much worst (such as being stuck on wet cement).

I think you are seriously off-base to say that KDOT is negligent for not using concrete barriers. Drivers have brains, they should know ROAD CLOSED means "don't drive past this." Otherwise you could say that a DOT is negligent for not using concrete barriers at railroad crossings, because people could go around the gate arms. If a business posts clear signs and barricades reading "AREA CLOSED FOR REMODELING" and a customer jumps them and gets hurt, would you say the company is liable? As long as a clear message on what not to do, either through signs or barricades, is being posted, that should be good enough–if you are actively defeating the efforts that someone is putting up to discourage you from doing an action for your safety, they can't be responsible for you hurting yourself!

[The Premier]

I think you are seriously off-base to say that KDOT is negligent for not using concrete barriers. Drivers have brains, they should know ROAD CLOSED means "don't drive past this." Otherwise you could say that a DOT is negligent for not using concrete barriers at railroad crossings, because people could go around the gate arms. If a business posts clear signs and barricades reading "AREA CLOSED FOR REMODELING" and a customer jumps them and gets hurt, would you say the company is liable? As long as a clear message on what not to do, either through signs or barricades, is being posted, that should be good enough–if you are actively defeating the efforts that someone is putting up to discourage you from doing an action for your safety, they can't be responsible for you hurting yourself!

That's not what I meant.

The issue at hand is that there are some people that will go through shortcuts to get to their destinations. And going through closed sections of road is one of them. That is why I said that both (you heard me right, BOTH) parties are at fault. I didn't point the blame at just the DOT, but the motorists in general if THEY go through wet concrete.

Furthermore, the issue with the railroads and people going around the gates when they are already closed are the railway's responsibility, not the DOT. Yet in any case, the drivers should have known better.

[Alps]

The issue at hand is that there are some people that will go through shortcuts to get to their destinations. And going through closed sections of road is one of them. That is why I said that both (you heard me right, BOTH) parties are at fault. I didn't point the blame at just the DOT, but the motorists in general if THEY go through wet concrete.

Furthermore, the issue with the railroads and people going around the gates when they are already closed are the railway's responsibility, not the DOT. Yet in any case, the drivers should have known better.

In order for the DOT or railway to have any responsibility, it must be demonstrated that there is something they reasonably could have done that they neglected to do to prevent the action in question.  If they left a good 10 feet between barriers, that's negligent.  If cars were weaving between cones and barricades just to try to get up that ramp any way they could, even going across grass, the DOT is not liable, because requiring concrete barriers in every situation is not reasonable.

[agentsteel53]

The issue at hand is that there are some people that will go through shortcuts to get to their destinations. And going through closed sections of road is one of them.

there are also some people who will commit burglaries to achieve their goals.  should the owner of a property be held at fault because the burglar severed an artery breaking in through a glass window and proceeded to bleed out?

[The Premier]

there are also some people who will commit burglaries to achieve their goals.  should the owner of a property be held at fault because the burglar severed an artery breaking in through a glass window and proceeded to bleed out?

No, they shouldn't. Yet a burglar alarm would be nice.

[J N Winkler]

should the owner of a property be held at fault because the burglar severed an artery breaking in through a glass window and proceeded to bleed out?

No, because that is generally held not to be reasonably foreseeable.  On the other hand, mantraps have attracted court judgments adverse to the propertyholder.  Don't have anything to do with spring guns, folks.