• 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

I don't see how maintaining our infrastructure and developing high speed mass transit are mutually exclusive.

Good evening, KC. :2wave:

I've read that the "high speed mass transit" train system planned for California is not going to be high speed after all, because the contract had to be rewritten due to problems. Top speed won't be much faster than a car would travel. We tried to copy Japan's bullet train, and that could have been a good idea, but it isn't going to work out that way for us. In the meantime, roads, bridges, and water and sewer mains in the rest of the country are crumbling. I think that could be considered mutually exclusive, since California is only one State out of fifty. :shock:
 
SO is that the progressive blame the village no personal responsibility act again?

It is absurd to blame the bridge collapse on a truck driver for accidently hitting a bridge girder.
 
Anytime you're operating a truck and you ram into a stationary object it's 100% your fault.
I agree.

I have never seen a bridge or tunnel here in the northwest without a "height" marking. His truck was taller than the bridge frame he tried to sqeeze under.

Hate to be his insurance company...
 
Good evening, KC. :2wave:

I've read that the "high speed mass transit" train system planned for California is not going to be high speed after all, because the contract had to be rewritten due to problems. Top speed won't be much faster than a car would travel. We tried to copy Japan's bullet train, and that could have been a good idea, but it isn't going to work out that way for us. In the meantime, roads, bridges, and water and sewer mains in the rest of the country are crumbling. I think that could be considered mutually exclusive, since California is only one State out of fifty. :shock:
How does anyone think a high speed rail system can be built in California?

Double the speed and you have to make uneven parts of the track four times smoother. Simple physics. Want to go 240 MPH? That's a factor of about 4, or 16 times smoother.

A single small earthquake would shut down tracks until they were inspected for smoothness...
 
How does anyone think a high speed rail system can be built in California?

Double the speed and you have to make uneven parts of the track four times smoother. Simple physics. Want to go 240 MPH? That's a factor of about 4, or 16 times smoother.

A single small earthquake would shut down tracks until they were inspected for smoothness...

Greetings, Lord of Planar. :2wave:

:agree: But build it they fully intend to do! Go figure.... :shock:
 
Our Federal and State governments are so focused on war or cutting back public services that we are now seeing the results.

Are we prepared to have more bridges collapse in the coming decade in exchange for bloated Federal projects, corporate handouts, and endless wars?

While I agree 100% on handouts, wars etc., the I-5 Skagit bridge (which I have crossed at least 50 times) would not be on any high priorities list if a gadzillion dollars "for WA infrastructure" would drop from the sky yesterday. The bridge was not in bad shape, not deteriorating, not marked for renovation by anyone. It was simply designed and built in such way that it was always vulnerable to freak accidents like an oversized, fully loaded semi hitting the trusses.
 
I feel like adding a bit of local perspective (as I doubt the national news delved beyond the surface). The current story is that the truck would have been able to cross the bridge if it was in the middle of the of the two lanes (note that only the first span of the bridge collapsed the rest were intact). It has currently been alleged (by an eye witness) that another semi-truck failed to yield to the over-sized load, causing that truck to move to the right where a portion of the load contacted the frame. Also, the bridge was functionally obsolete because it was not capable of taking a direct hit to a load bearing girder. Modern bridges don't have that issue.
 
While I agree 100% on handouts, wars etc., the I-5 Skagit bridge (which I have crossed at least 50 times) would not be on any high priorities list if a gadzillion dollars "for WA infrastructure" would drop from the sky yesterday. The bridge was not in bad shape, not deteriorating, not marked for renovation by anyone. It was simply designed and built in such way that it was always vulnerable to freak accidents like an oversized, fully loaded semi hitting the trusses.

And vulnerable to seismic activity. It's a trestle bridge and each span is separate, sitting on it's own bearings. When the truck hit the end of the span it pushed it so the bearing slid or rolled or whatever the design was enough to make the span fall off the pier. Enough of a shake- and it wouldn't take much of the right kind of shake- would produce the same effect. I've worked on seismic upgrades of bridges of that design where holes were drilled through the pier cap and cables run through to tie the spans together so the bearings can still allow expansion and contraction but they can't fall off the piers.
I'm no engineer, just a dirty ole Ironworker, but I bet that's the situation.
And I'm not trying to excuse the truck driver, just saying it was an antiquated design if I'm guessing right.
 
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.



Or the reverse of my arrow.

Was he traveling north or south? I forget.
 
Because his direct rout was approved by the city when they issued his permit.
I didn't see that anywhere.

Earlier, someone said the truck had a permit for that load. That's as much as I've seen.
 
I didn't see that anywhere.

Earlier, someone said the truck had a permit for that load. That's as much as I've seen.
I don't expect the media would have gon out of their way to point that detail out. That's how the kind of permit you would need for that kind of load works: WSDOT - Permit Types and Applications

Once you have submitted your rout with your application and fees, and the State DOT office approved you and give you the permit, that's it. You cannot deviate from the rout you submitted without extenuating circumstances. You cannot just change your rout on the fly because you wana. The DOT has to approve it (not all roads are designed for heavy trucks, and your alternate rout goes through areas which would have had roads rated for light cars, not heavy hauls. Additionally, large trucks are banned from many commercial areas not only due to weight but risk of colliding with a passenger car while executing a turn ), which means more paperwork, fees and time.

In many cases the driver and company have no choice, the DOT office will tell you what rout you have to take, and that's the only rout you are allowed to travel on. This is especially true for hazardous materials.

I suspect no one thought there would be a problem if large loads crossed this bridge regularly. Only when another vehicle failed to yield the right of way and the load struck a load-bearing girder was there a problem.
 
Last edited:
Well Jerry, since you know so much, do you think you can find out what exactly happened?

Maybe someone miscalculated the load height?

Maybe the load shifted.

Maybe he veered too far to the right where the bridge gets shorter?

one more possibility...

Maybe the upper supports started to sag...
 
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.
There was plenty of room for him to make it through. It appears that he just drifted too far to the right. I wouldn't be surprised if the wind played a factor.

Was he traveling north or south? I forget.
He was northbound hauling a huge steel box.

130524_oversize_truck_405.jpg
 
Well Jerry, since you know so much, do you think you can find out what exactly happened?

Maybe someone miscalculated the load height?

Maybe the load shifted.

Maybe he veered too far to the right where the bridge gets shorter?

one more possibility...

Maybe the upper supports started to sag...
Non of he above.

The truck was supposed to drive down the center of the bridge. An oncoming truck failed to give the right-of-way and forced the heavy truck to move to the side. That's when the load collided with the structure.

Trucks of this nature with special permits don't look like other trucks. They have pilot cars with lights and signs out front, and the truck itself has "heavy load" across the front and back and yellow lights as well. Trucks so marked have the right-of-way wherever they go. Even you in your passenger car have to yield to them on the freeway.

IMO the driver of the truck who failed to give the right-of-way should be found and sued for damages.
 
Non of he above.

The truck was supposed to drive down the center of the bridge. An oncoming truck failed to give the right-of-way and forced the heavy truck to move to the side. That's when the load collided with the structure.

Trucks of this nature with special permits don't look like other trucks. They have pilot cars with lights and signs out front, and the truck itself has "heavy load" across the front and back and yellow lights as well. Trucks so marked have the right-of-way wherever they go. Even you in your passenger car have to yield to them on the freeway.

IMO the driver of the truck who failed to give the right-of-way should be found and sued for damages.




I just read a new story on this.

The Washington State Department of Transportation has posted a copy of the trucks permit on its website. The permit states that the proposed route for an oversize load "does not guarantee height clearances." A state regulation also posted on the website makes clear the operator is responsible for ensuring the route "is free of overhead obstructions."

Read more here: UPDATE 2-Investigators looking at height clearance in U.S. bridge collapse | Reuters

Looks like the driver of the truck that hit the bridge and the company that he works for will be paying for the repairs.

His formerly 'impeccable' record looks peccable now.



"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll
 
Last edited:
Non of he above.

The truck was supposed to drive down the center of the bridge. An oncoming truck failed to give the right-of-way and forced the heavy truck to move to the side. That's when the load collided with the structure.
Jery...

Interstate 5 is a divided freeway... There is no way oncoming traffic can be expected to yield of part of his load way hanging over the divider.
I just read a new story on this.

The Washington State Department of Transportation has posted a copy of the trucks permit on its website. The permit states that the proposed route for an oversize load "does not guarantee height clearances." A state regulation also posted on the website makes clear the operator is responsible for ensuring the route "is free of overhead obstructions."

Read more here: UPDATE 2-Investigators looking at height clearance in U.S. bridge collapse | Reuters

Looks like the driver of the truck that hit the bridge and the company that he works for will be paying for the repairs.

His formerly 'impeccable' record looks peccable now.



"If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." ~ Lewis Carroll

This story sound more correct.
 
If we don't tighten up our oversize movement regulations nationwide, things like this will happen again.

This was not an 'accident'.

This didn't have to happen.
You can idiot proof things as much as you want. They keep coming up with better idiots...

The regulations are sufficient. No way to account for all fools.
 
Jery...

Interstate 5 is a divided freeway... There is no way oncoming traffic can be expected to yield of part of his load way hanging over the divider.
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.
 
You can idiot proof things as much as you want. They keep coming up with better idiots...

The regulations are sufficient. No way to account for all fools.




I hear what you are saying and to some extent I agree with you.

Sometimes we have to just think and/or hope that people will do the right thing.

For sure we will never make the entire world idiot proof.
 
The wife of an Edmonton-area truck driver who police say struck part of a bridge in Washington State Thursday evening and caused it to collapse said her husband has an “impeccable” safety record in 20 years on the job.


Ma'am, with all due respect, the word you're looking for is HAD. Past tense.
 
Back
Top Bottom