There should be a national law that states:

[shraby]

All bridges and overpasses will have signs that state the rating that was given at the last inspection so people can make an informed decision as to whether they want to use that highway/bridge.
I include overpasses because in the last few years sections of overpasses have failed and fell on the roadway below it.
This would at the very least give the travelers a fighting chance to protect themselves!!!

[eagler]

1. I can remember John Kerry talking about the need to

address this problem of the nation's infrastructure during his campaign.

[izzie]

7. I do not know why people do not see this. This is what we should be

doing not fighting wars half way around the world. Paying for things that blow up is silly.

[MindPilot]

2. If you are going to go that far, how about a law that simply says

"if it ain't right, fix it." No sign needed; it is either safe to use or it isn't.

On edit; I think that might lead into an even better process for dealing with these issues--perhaps there should be a congressional standards committee set up to require proper & timely periodic maintenance.

[NeedleCast]

3. Or we could do something smart instead

Like taking all that money you want to spend planting signs all over the country and use it to, say, fix bridges in need of repair?

[shraby]

4. Would that mean they WILL be fixed?

How would we know that a bridge needs repair? I'm sure the public will be alerted..just like it is today.

[NeedleCast]

9. Impossible to answer

I have no idea if they WOULD be fixed or not.

I just don't think spending a shitload of money to post signs at every bridge and over pass in the country is a very good one, especially when one weights the number of bridges that are currently not collapsed against the number that are.

I'm sympathetic to those that lost their lives and to their loved ones yesterday, but I'm afraid you're buying into some media hype here. Sometimes things break. Sometimes it's through bad luck, sometimes it's through neglect (as the case yesterday). However, the chance of dying in a bridge collapse incident is so damn low that if it's something you're truly worried about, I'd suggest not leaving your house ever again, and padding everything you own.

Its sort of like the reaction to flying after 9/11. All of a sudden no one wanted to get on a plane (which was great for me, as I travel a lot for work) even though the chance of dying in a terrorist related plane crash is less than the chance of being eaten by a shark and struck by lightning at the same time. You hear about the one plane that crashes. You don't hear about the other 15,000 flights that day that didn't crash. Collectivly, tens of millions of people a day in the US drive over bridges and overpasses and in 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of those drive overs, the bridge does not collapse.

If the chance of me being killed in a bridge collapse related incident is now 0.00000000002% higher, statistically, than it was yesterday, I'll roll the bones and keep on driving without feeling worried that there's no sign indicating the reliability of a bridge.

[NYVet]

5. and instead of having people to fix the bridges

we will have crews running around to put up these signs...

Great idea, why didn't I think if it?
:sarcasm:

[shraby]

6. Like they fix the bridges now???

Get real!

[LanternWaste]

8. You're resting on the assumption that we already have...

You're resting on the assumption that we already have crews running around to maintain deteriorating infrastructure.

:sarcasm:

[shraby]

10. That's my point..we need to know if they

ARE fixing the bridges that need fixed. The best way to insure that they get fixed is to post the latest rating at the bridge/overpass so people will know what is or is not being done. Otherwise, the public is left in the dark and have to assume that timely repairs are being made..instead of finding out at the bottom of the river.

[NYVet]

12. What I am saying is that instead of having people

to fix the bridges, we would have them putting up the signs.

Having crews putting up signs would take away from available crews to work on bridges.

Unless you are suggestign that we hire more people to work on the roads, this is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.

[LanternWaste]

14. I don''t think it would be an inordinate waste of either time or effort

I don''t think it would be an inordinate waste of either time or effort to have signs posted-- seems like it could be done in about two minutes when the work crews are done repairing/maintaining the structure. The fire extinguishers where I work have them; my car has them (inspection stickers), heck-- even my apartment complex have them posted at various places on various days for various reasons.



"...this is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy."

I'm not saying it's THE idea. I'm agreeing that it's not A bad idea (there's a pretty big difference between the two). But to dismiss it out of hand? That, I think *would* be a knee-jerk reaction.

[ComerPerro]

11. ha, a sign at the bridge so you can decide not to use it, at 65mph?

[shraby]

13. I'd note the rating

then cross the bridge/overpass. When I get home, you can be sure I'd get in touch with the transportation department and find out why there are no repairs being conducted.
As for crews running around putting up the signs, in most instances, the repairs are made by construction companies contracted to do the work. The signs are put up by county road crews who normally maintain signs.
It isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a problem..it's a suggested direction to take. People should have a way to determine if things are being done properly BEFORE it's too late. Even ONE of these accidents is not tolerable if preventable.

[NeedleCast]

16. Life is Dangerous. Don't Panic!

Even ONE of these accidents is not tolerable if preventable.

Technically, just about every accident is preventable. The problem is that the the cure is often worse than the risk.

Life is Dangerous.

Every time you get in a car, you assume risk. You assume the risk of being hit by another driver. You assume the risk that someone may be driving recklessly or that someone might be driving drunk or that some trucker is in a hurry to get from Omaha to San Diego and has been driving for 20 hours straight mixing a cocktail of coffee, amphetamines and twinkies. You assume the risk that, however unlikely, while driving across a bridge that it may collapse. You assume the guy at Ford or Toyota or Chevy wasn't hung over when he put the door on your car and that it won't pop off when you go around a left curve on the freeway while doing 70 MPH and fling you out of the vehicle. Do you need a warning label or sign in your car that spells out the inherent risks of operating it and every conceivable accident that may occur?

What about the beach? Every time you go to the beach, you assume risk. Should there be a federal agent at every public and private beach in the country handing out fliers informing you of the danger of skin cancer or getting sun-tan lotion in your eye? Should we snatch up all the life-forms in the ocean and tag them with labels? Just what we need, an ocean full of sharks with tags that read: "Caution, I am an apex predator and may devour you despite the fact that you are a kind, generous person. When you are in the water, you are no longer the top of the food chain."

if you go camping in an area that has bears, you assume the risk of being eaten by a bear. To prevent such an accident you have a few choices

1. Don't go camping near bears.
2. Kill all the bears.

So yeah, eliminating the chance of being eaten by a bear is possible, but the if you want to go camping, the solution is pretty cold.

I could go on for a really long time about this but it's time to get in my car and assume some risk!

[Trillo]

15. Hey, that's what I said! Put up a sign

In this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2938786&mesg_id=2939195

I think there's a presumption, that lacking a sign warning of dangers, that a well-traveled bridge is safe to use.

I've also got to wonder why we have people wasting time entering a notation of "structurally deficient" in federal databases, when their time, and the money used to pay them, could be better spent fixing the bridge. (this is my facetious answer to those in this thread claiming that putting signs up on bridges warning of their deficiencies would be a waste of time and money)

Now that there's public knowledge that the bridge was "structurally deficient", and further that some government entities appear to have attempted to conceal its poor condition, then it's certain there will be a number of lawsuits and investigations over the deaths resulting from the bridge's collapse.

BTW, in California, there are a number a bridges that are "closed" to traffic, I seem to recall they often state "unsafe" or something similar. I'm always amazed at the need for a law to be proposed for what should be common sense.

Perhaps legislators should also make a law that tells people they must breath, with a warning that stopping breathing is hazardous to their health.