Prevent Overheight Strikes With AI Route Planning

Six bridge hits in one afternoon shouldn’t be possible in a modern freight network—yet that’s what happened this week in northeastern Oklahoma. A flatbed hauling an over-height load struck six county overpass bridges above the I-44/Will Rogers Turnpike corridor, triggering closures, an emergency declaration, and repairs expected to take up to two weeks.

Most teams treat “bridge strike prevention” as a permitting problem or a driver compliance problem. It’s both—but it’s also a data problem. When a load is even a foot too tall, the margin for error disappears. The fix isn’t more paperwork; it’s building a routing and load-planning stack that makes “too tall for this route” impossible to ignore.

This post is part of our AI in Trucking & Freight: Fleet Intelligence series. The theme is simple: fleet operators don’t need more dashboards—they need systems that make safer, cheaper decisions by default. Over-height incidents are a perfect case study.

What the Oklahoma bridge strikes really cost (beyond repairs)

The direct story is clear: an oversized load measured at more than 15 feet traveled on roads where Oklahoma’s legal height limit is 14 feet, and the load was reportedly not properly permitted for the route. Several bridges were closed, while the turnpike stayed open with expected nightly lane closures once repairs begin.

The operational cost is where this gets ugly.

The visible costs: closures, repairs, enforcement

Bridge beam damage triggers specialized work (flame straightening, steel section replacement). Even when the highway stays open, lane closures reduce throughput and increase crash risk in work zones.

And enforcement matters. The driver was stopped shortly after the first strike and placed out of service. When a truck is taken off the road unexpectedly:

• Shippers miss appointments
• Receivers reschedule labor
• Carriers pay for recovery, rework, detention, and reputational fallout
• Brokers spend hours doing damage control

The hidden costs: network disruption and compounding delays

A bridge strike is a localized event that quickly becomes a network problem.

A detour isn’t just “extra miles.” It changes:

• Driver hours-of-service feasibility
• Fuel and toll plan n- Trailer and escort scheduling
• Delivery sequencing for multi-stop routes

In late December, those downstream costs tend to spike. Year-end shipping is still active, weather volatility increases, and many terminals operate with leaner staffing around the holidays. When infrastructure gets constrained, your contingency options shrink.

A bridge strike is rarely a single incident. It’s a cascading failure across planning, dispatch, and execution.

Why over-height incidents keep happening

Over-height strikes are a recurring issue in Oklahoma; similar incidents damaged nine turnpike bridges in 2023, with reported repairs totaling more than $1.6 million. That’s not a one-off. It’s a pattern.

Here’s what I’ve seen across fleets: these events usually aren’t caused by one “bad decision.” They’re caused by small gaps lining up.

Gap 1: Height data isn’t treated like safety-critical data

Weight is handled like a first-class constraint. Height often isn’t.

Common failure modes:

• Height recorded in a comment field or free-text note
• Load height measured inconsistently (ground-to-top vs trailer deck-to-top)
• Height updated after a rework, but the route stays the same
• “It fit last time” assumptions when trailer, tire, or suspension changes

Gap 2: Permits and routes are disconnected from execution

Even when permits exist, route compliance can break at the last mile:

• A driver follows car GPS for a “shortcut”
• Dispatch re-routes to avoid traffic
• Construction creates an unplanned detour

If the system doesn’t continuously enforce constraints, you’re relying on memory and luck.

Gap 3: Road/bridge clearance data is fragmented

Clearance data lives across state DOT datasets, turnpike authorities, construction bulletins, and sometimes private providers. It changes with:

• Temporary construction steel
• Repaving (which can reduce clearance)
• Detours that shift traffic under different structures

Static route guides age fast.

How AI route optimization prevents over-height truck bridge strikes

AI won’t prevent bridge strikes by “being smarter” in a vague way. It prevents them by treating vehicle + load dimensions as hard constraints and continuously matching them against a living map of restrictions.

1) Constraint-based routing that starts with the load, not the address

The right approach is load-aware route planning:

• Total height: tractor + trailer + cargo + securement
• Total length and overhang
• Total weight and axle distribution
• Escort requirements and curfews

A practical rule: if your routing tool can’t store a certified “maximum height” as a structured field (not a note), you’ll keep gambling.

With AI-assisted route optimization, the routing engine can:

• Exclude segments with clearance below threshold
• Score routes by risk (tight margins, construction zones, older structures)
• Recommend departure windows that reduce complexity (night work zones, holiday traffic patterns)

2) Better clearance decisions with probabilistic risk scoring

Clearance isn’t always a clean number. Some structures are posted, others are estimated, and construction introduces uncertainty.

AI models can assign a risk score when data quality is low or margin is thin, then push the decision up the chain:

• If margin < 6 inches → require supervisor approval
• If margin < 3 inches → force alternate route or reconfiguration
• If clearance data is stale → require confirmation before release

This matters because the most dangerous loads aren’t the obvious 16-foot monsters. They’re the “just barely over” moves where teams get complacent.

3) Real-time route compliance during execution (not after)

Pre-trip planning isn’t enough. You need in-trip guardrails.

A fleet intelligence stack can combine:

• ELD/GPS location
• Planned route corridor geofencing
• Turn-by-turn instructions designed for trucks
• Alerts when a driver deviates toward restricted segments

When deviation happens (and it will), the system should respond in seconds:

1. Detect route deviation
2. Check nearby road segments for clearance and restrictions
3. Recommend a safe correction
4. Notify dispatch if risk exceeds policy threshold

This is how you stop “six strikes in a row” after the first wrong turn.

4) AI-assisted load planning to avoid “too tall” in the first place

The cheapest bridge strike is the one you prevent before the trailer door closes.

AI can support load planning decisions that reduce height risk:

• Suggest alternate trailer types (step deck vs flatbed)
• Recommend tire/suspension configurations for clearance margin
• Propose re-orientation of cargo (where feasible)
• Flag securement methods that increase height unnecessarily

Even a 12-inch reduction can turn a special move into a standard route—lower cost, fewer approvals, less stress.

A practical prevention playbook fleet teams can implement in 30 days

Most fleets don’t need a moonshot. They need a disciplined workflow that turns height into a non-negotiable constraint.

Step 1: Standardize measurement and certification

Create one method and make it mandatory:

• Measure ground-to-highest-point after securement
• Record height in feet/inches as a structured field
• Require a second verification for any load ≥ 13’6” (common legal max in many states)

Policy suggestion: no dispatch release until height is certified.

Step 2: Put height into your TMS routing logic

If your TMS can’t enforce height constraints, add a routing layer that can.

Minimum features to require:

• Height/weight/length constraint inputs
• Truck-legal navigation (not consumer maps)
• Restriction-aware route generation
• Clear exception workflow when constraints can’t be met

Step 3: Add “route lock” for permitted or high-risk moves

For over-dimensional shipments, allow deviations only through an approval process.

• Geofence the route corridor
• Alert driver and dispatch on deviation
• Provide a pre-approved set of safe pull-off locations

Step 4: Monitor near-misses, not just incidents

If you only investigate after a strike, you’re too late.

Track:

• Deviations on over-height loads
• Unplanned detours requested
• Low-clearance alerts
• Driver-reported signage mismatches

Near-miss analytics is where AI shines because patterns show up long before the headline event.

Fleet intelligence questions people ask (and the real answers)

“Isn’t this just a permitting issue?”

Permits matter, but permits don’t drive the truck. You need a system that keeps the route safe when plans change in the real world.

“Will drivers actually follow a locked route?”

They will if the workflow helps them succeed. The goal isn’t punishment—it’s reducing cognitive load. Give drivers truck-safe navigation, clear pull-off options, and fast dispatch support.

“What about bad clearance data?”

Assume some data is wrong. That’s exactly why you add risk scoring, tighter safety margins, and exception approvals when the margin is thin or the data is stale.

What this incident should change for your fleet

The Oklahoma strikes are a harsh reminder that route planning is infrastructure protection. When an over-height load hits a bridge, it’s not just the carrier’s problem. Counties lose access, motorists get rerouted, and everyone pays in time.

If you’re building an AI in trucking roadmap for 2026, I’d put over-dimensional safety near the top. It’s one of the few areas where a modest investment in AI route optimization and load planning can prevent a high-severity event, protect your CSA profile, and reduce day-to-day operational chaos.

The real question isn’t whether AI can prevent the next over-height truck bridge strike. The question is whether your operation is willing to treat height data with the same seriousness it treats weight, hours, and fuel—and build the guardrails to prove it.