::SCREAMS::

[trinityvixen]

Holy Jesus, this is not okay.

Being trapped in a car that's gone off a bridge (or, in this case, had the bridge collapse out from under it) is my not-so-secret terror, one of the few I have about driving. Because to be trapped in my car such that I drown to death is more terrifying than falling to my death, which is otherwise the thing I fear the most (at least with falling, you get to see stuff and the end is quick).

feiran mentioned this last night, but I had no idea it was such a major collapse. My God, I'm going to be a wreck driving over bridges for forever. And, as people who saw me do it last weekend can attest, I wasn't that good about driving on the Tappan Zee to begin with.

::clutches at chest:: Oh GodOhGodOhGod

Comments

[teneda.livejournal.com]

They...

For some reason, I doubt "they" will be getting fired. I'll bet it was an overworked/underpaid-omg-how-am-I-supposed-to-get-all-this-done-with-the-budget-they-gave-me-let-me-rubber-stamp-this-one-just-to-get-it-done guy who looked it over and now he's going to be strung up for it.

Nevermind the possibility that the thing was built by the lowest bidder in an effort to make money off the building of it.

Nevermind that the materials to build it (not to mention the planning, schema, and everything else) prolly didn't take into account erosion from the river or an earthquake or that damned mole digging in just the wrong place.

I'm not saying they shouldn't blame anyone, I'm saying that it's not the inspector alone that's at fault, but the way we approach these things.

In certain countries, the builder of municipal structures like roads and bridges gives a guarantee for 10 or 15 years. ANYTHING goes wrong, they fix it for free.

Responsibility, durability, pride in your own workmanship. In today's world of "built in obsolesence," I wonder that the bridge didn't come down sooner.

[shell524.livejournal.com]

I can agree that it probably was inspected by someone with too much to do and not enough money to do it. At least, on the state level. The federal inspector was probably on the right track. I can also agree that it was BUILT, not designed, mind you, BUILT, by the lowest bidder, and that state infrastructure contracts often give incentives to rush work.

But to speculate that it was not designed or built to take into account erosion from the river or other likely environmental factors is absurd. The ONE thing that ANY engineer designing a structure to SPAN THE MISSISSIPPI would take into account would be erosion from said... small.. river.