• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wife of truck driver in bridge collapse says husband has 'impeccable' record

shrubnose said:
Maybe he can get a job teaching truck drivers what not to do.
Click to expand...

He can't even do that. Federal law says that only CDL holders can teach at truck driving schools.
 
apdst said:
He should have chosen a different route.
Click to expand...




The investigation will look at that.

My guess is that if there was a better route he would have went that way.
 
windowdressing said:
forgive me, but if a truck hits a bridge, should that bridge come down? I'd like to think that it takes more than that to bring down a bridge ...
Click to expand...

It could be a design flaw. Too bad the gubmint engineers are untouchable.
 
shrubnose said:
The investigation will look at that.

My guess is that if there was a better route he would have went that way.
Click to expand...

If he didn't have a better route, he should have refused to move the load, or had the load shrunk.
 
apdst said:
Yes, he did. He could have chosen another route, or refused to move the load, or had the load dismantled so that it wasn't as tall.
Click to expand...




They could have flown the truck with its load to Vancouver, B.C. on a huge cargo plane and came South with it.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I'm not giving you my DL#...lol
Click to expand...
Then stating that you're a truck driver isn't useful to you.

apdst said:
Yes, he did. He could have chosen another route...
Click to expand...
Did he have a permit which would allow this, or was his permit rout specific? What alternate rout could he have taken with an over-sized load?

apdst said:
or refused to move the load
Click to expand...
The load was going to be moved by someone. You and I don't terribly care who moved it. That doesn't matter. For all we know someone else did refuse and this was the guy who replaced the one that refused.

apdst said:
or had the load dismantled so that it wasn't as tall.
Click to expand...
Did you see the load? It's a pre-fabricated piece. I doubt dismantling it was an option. And even if it were an option, the bridge had proper clearance in the center. The driver would have made it across had he stayed in the center. Some reports state that the truck had to move to the right so as to avoid another vehicle.

And then there's the bridge collapsing after being struck. You claim to know many drivers who've struck bridges and I've seen information verifying that bridges get struck on a fairly reguler frequency....but how many of these bridges that you know of collapsed after being struck.
 
Jerry said:
The insurance companies will settle long before then. They'll strike a deal with the city in a way that let's Obama go in-front of the media and justify massive spending on infrastructure.
Click to expand...

And its all part of the plan to make you bonkers
 
Jerry said:
It's divided by a Jersey Barrier and each side has 2 lanes. Yes, they can yield. The center of the bridge is more than high enough for the truck to pass. Only when it was forced to move to the right was there a problem.
Click to expand...
Those things are 45" high...

Are you saying a trucks suppose to straddle them?

He wasn't even in the left lane to do so. He was in the right lane. Didn't even try to be in the high point of the bridge.
 
To re-touch on this question....

Lord of Planar said:
What gets me is this.

Why didn't he go around the bridge?

There was another crossing nearby, and I'll bet he was suppose to use it.

Click to expand...


The truck's load was 15'9" high (link)

Traffic lights in Washington State are 12' high (link); some traffic lights can be 13'6" to 14' high.

My calculator tells me the traffic lights are between 1'9" to 3'9" to low for the load to pass under. The load would have taken out every traffic signal along that rout.
 
Last edited:
windowdressing said:
forgive me, but if a truck hits a bridge, should that bridge come down? I'd like to think that it takes more than that to bring down a bridge ...
Click to expand...
They never drove with such loads when the bridge design was conceived before '1955. The opening of the bridge was a known factor in all this, unless the trucking company didn't check...
 
Muhammed said:
The video I saw doesn't seem to confirm that. Though admittedly it's grainy, it doesn't appear to show any oncoming truck forcing him over.
Click to expand...

A link would be nice.
 
Jerry said:
To re-touch on this question....




The truck's load was 15ft 9in high (link)

Traffic lights in Washington State are 12ft high (link, see page 1330-12).

My calculator tells me the traffic lights are 3ft 9in to low for the load to pass under. The load would have taken out every traffic signal along that rout.
Click to expand...
Well then.

A different route yet...

I've seen places needing oversize loads to pay the city/state money to temporarily move traffic light. If there still wasn't clearance, then they should have flown it or put it on rail.
 
ReformCollege said:
Is anyone blaming the truck driver?
Click to expand...


I'm blaming the truck driver. The bridge clearance was 14 feet and 6 inches. The trucker is responsible to make sure his load does not exceed height limits. Not rocket science. Why do you think they put up signs declaring low clearance bridges. Any load in excess of 14 feet 6 inches is an oversize load. Trucker's responsibility. 14' - 6" is also the ataandard clearance in the USA.
 
ReformCollege said:
Is anyone blaming the truck driver?
Click to expand...


I'm blaming the truck driver. The bridge clearance was 14 feet and 6 inches. The trucker is responsible to make sure his load does not exceed height limits. Not rocket science. Whysdo you think they put up signs declaring low clearance bridges. Any load in excess of 14 feet 6 inches is an oversize load. Trucker's responsibility. 14' - 6" is also the standard clearance in the USA. If a bridge is unmarked, it is usually 14' - 6".
 
Jerry said:
Traffic lights in Washington State are 12' high (link); some traffic lights can be 13'6" to 14' high.
Click to expand...
I read that is turning lane separation. I didn't see a height anywhere for the lights on that page, and if you go to google maps/street view, they appear to be over well over 12 tall.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I've seen places needing oversize loads to pay the city/state money to temporarily move traffic light. If there still wasn't clearance, then they should have flown it or put it on rail.
Click to expand...
Dimensional limitations for rail are even stricter than for trucks. If you think a bridge from the 50s is bad, consider that train using a tunnel bored out over 100 years ago.
 
Fenton said:
IF the truck , which sounds like it was loaded to exceed 80,000 pounds, which is the wieght limit or use to be the limit on a over the road haul, HIT the girder, IT IS THE TRUCK DRIVERS FAULT.

No one elses.

The claims of crumbling infrastructure are a bit premature, unless any of you have degrees in structural engineering and have access to the data on this specific bridge.
Click to expand...

The sufficiency rating was low (and there is a margin of error involved meaning that the actual value could have been lower) and the bridge was old. Infrastructure is probably the more likely reason the bridge collapsed upon just a single girder's being struck than not. That does not mean that infrastructure is wholly to blame. Some combination of the accident and infrastructure very likely led to the outcome.

Furthermore, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the permitting may need to be changed to cap loads and lower weights to incorporate the new data from the accident.

I will also note that the permit was granted and at least as of now there was nothing said about the height of the load. Moroever, the news reports following the acciedent indicated that there were no posted maximum height figures for the bridge. That omission of important data is a third contributing factor.
 
DaveFagan said:
I'm blaming the truck driver. The bridge clearance was 14 feet and 6 inches. The trucker is responsible to make sure his load does not exceed height limits. Not rocket science. Whysdo you think they put up signs declaring low clearance bridges. Any load in excess of 14 feet 6 inches is an oversize load. Trucker's responsibility. 14' - 6" is also the standard clearance in the USA. If a bridge is unmarked, it is usually 14' - 6".
Click to expand...
The next question, then, is why didn't the pilot car radio back?
 
I also wonder if there's a different tailor that could have been used.
 
Jerry said:
What rout, exactly?
Click to expand...
I don't know.

Maybe the supplier too the lowest bid, and the lowest bid was so low because they didn't consider all factors...

Again, maybe rail was the way to go, or even sea or air...
 
DaveFagan said:
I'm blaming the truck driver. The bridge clearance was 14 feet and 6 inches. The trucker is responsible to make sure his load does not exceed height limits. Not rocket science. Whysdo you think they put up signs declaring low clearance bridges. Any load in excess of 14 feet 6 inches is an oversize load. Trucker's responsibility. 14' - 6" is also the standard clearance in the USA. If a bridge is unmarked, it is usually 14' - 6".
Click to expand...



The truck drivers wife said that her husband had an 'impeccable' record.

What do you have to say to her?
 
Lord of Planar said:
He wasn't even in the left lane to do so. He was in the right lane. Didn't even try to be in the high point of the bridge.
Click to expand...
There was another commercial truck in that lane. But still, why didn't the pilot car radio back that there wasn't sufficient clearance?
 
Jerry said:
The next question, then, is why didn't the pilot car radio back?
Click to expand...




Good question.

Maybe the guy driving the lead pilot car was busy on his cell phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom