Really? Just spending more money on it would fix the problem? I disagree. This bridge was inspected and passed inspection (at least to the extent that it was not closed down as it obviously needed to be.) There has been no indication of any skipped inspections or allegations that inspectors missed something that I am aware of. So obviously there is a problem with either the frequency or the quality of the inspection program. Yet still the default reaction is to pour more money into the flawed inspection system, rather than trying to fix it. Also, it appears the bridge was made with inadequate materials, so there’s another problem that would not be helped by pouring more money into a flawed system. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t spend more on bridges, or that more money wouldn’t help, what I’m saying is that just throwing money at a problem without addressing underlying causes is unfortunately something our government does way too often.
Bolding mine.
Heh. Even in your little sarcastic hissy fit you admit that your bullshit oversimplified “remedies” wouldn’t work.
You said that spending more on the inspection process would solve the problem. I disagreed, saying that the mere throwing of money at a problem won’t help unless you address the underlying causes of a problem, and suggested that perhaps the inspection process be overhauled.
Now you are stating that we agree. Do we agree because you are agreeing with my argument, or are you saying we agree because you quoted half of one of my sentences, ignored the second part of my sentence (which contained my actual argument,) and declared victory? You are aware that people will be able to go back and read the second half of my sentence, which you left out of the quote, aren’t you?
Meh. It’s the pit. This doesn’t seem caustic to me. If it seems caustic to you, I’m sorry. Read some of the other Pit threads if you think this is caustic.
So when you said that most problems can be solved with more money, you were speaking figuratively?
The FHWA was urged by the NTSB to re-evaluate bridges of this particular design. That covers all Federally funded bridges; state DOT’s were not specifically tasked to do the same, but most DOT’s follow the FHWA’s policies closely.
From the NTSB letter of 1-15-08, it does not look like bridges designed by Sverdrup were singled out. Another excerpt from the NTSB letter:
I think that the NTSB is operating under the assumption that this was a single error which could have been made by anyone.
Yes. By “problems” I meant “pedantic posters who are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees” and by “money” I meant “ignoring them since they aren’t interested in discussion but instead shoring up their fragile egos.” I know that is was a pretty complex metaphor, but sometimes I like to go big, you know?
As I said in my last post. If you want a real debate on this subject which is almost entirely unrelated to this thread, feel free to open one in GD. I’m not interested in whatever other reason you might be posting for.
What? Wrong? I stated that the inspection program was flawed. You say I’m wrong, and as proof, you provide a cite that the inspection process was not designed to detect what turned out to be a fatal flaw. Now, in my book, if an inspection process is not designed to detect a fatal flaw, the inspection process is flawed and should be overhauled. Apparently, in your book, if an inspection process is not designed to detect fatal flaws, it is wrong to call the inspection process flawed, and anyone who says it is “making false statements.”
Are you insane? I said that the bridge was built with inadequate materials. You say I’m wrong, and as proof you provide a cite that says that bridge was made with “gusset plates that were undersized.” Undersized gusset plates are “inadequate materials.” So how am I wrong? Your cites prove the points I am trying to make.
Fighting ignorance. The idea that problems can be solved by simply throwing money at them is one that leads to an incredible waste of money by the government. And as NinetyWt was so kind to provide evidence for, throwing money at a broken inspection process would not have prevented this bridge collapse.
No. An inspection process should not entail checking design calculations. This mistake should have been caught during the design process. That is my point. I apologize if it wasn’t clear. Expanding the inspection process to check original design calculations would make them (inspections) cost-prohibitive.
Perhaps we are disagreeing on definitions. “Inadequate material” = material which is not suitable for use. “Wrong size” != “Inadequate material”. Wrong size is wrong size. Does that help?
I thought it was - didn’t old whats-his-name come and demonstrate at some of those people’s funerals?
Absolutely it should be caught in the design phase. But there is no reason the inspection couldn’t check it as well. I assume there is an initial inspection before the bridge is open for traffic. There is no reason the gussets couldn’t be checked at that point. In fact, since similar bridges are now being inspected to check for the same design flaw, inspectors are doing exactly that. Measuring gussets. Why couldn’t they also do that at the first inspection?
Perhaps. But disagreeing on definitions != making a false statement.
It helps me see your point of view. I don’t think most people would say that “Too small = inadequate” is a false statement though.
Perhaps they should, and sounds like a good idea - check that before opening it to traffic. I just don’t see it as being feasible to do it at every routine inspection. That’s what got me started off here - the idea that routine inspections could have caught this error.
Agreed, I was a bit harsh.
You are talking to someone who thinks about such things as the tensile strength of baloney, but I do understand that a lot of people don’t automatically think the way I do. Usually I try to educate instead of harangue. Guess you caught me on a bad day.
The mistake was made at the design level. The mistake was carried over to the drawings. The bridge was constructed according to the drawings.
What is our inspector going to measure for? The dimensions on the drawings? Without checking the calculations, he still won’t have reason to doubt the gusset plates.
Right. There wouldn’t be any reason to do it after the initial inspection, unless someone is going around switching gussets. Although, didn’t I read that modifications had been made to the bridge which actually made it heavier? Obviously things like gusset size should be reevaluated after a modification like that.
In this case, after reading all the ASCE stuff on it, it’s my understanding that it was a unique design. I can link you to some of that if you’d like to read it.
Oh and Weirddave, I forgot my manners: Thanks for the heads-up.
