My Views On The Recent Bridge Tragedy Of Minneapolis

To those people, and their loved ones involved in the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, my heart is with each and every single one of you.  It's such a sickening misfortune this had to happen to you and your loved ones.

I am sure the onslaught of lawsuits will come forth shortly, and with good reason.  There's no excuse for this.  I find it interesting that the City of Minneapolis has the "cause of collapse" listed as "under investigation" via their web site.  Yeah, "under investigation" my ass.  It doesn't take a god damn investigation to figure out how the bridge collapsed.  It's called "neglect."

Please, allow me: 

neglect
–verb (used with object)
1.    to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight: The public neglected his genius for many years.
2.    to be remiss in the care or treatment of: to neglect one's family; to neglect one's appearance.
3.    to omit, through indifference or carelessness: to neglect to reply to an invitation.
4.    to fail to carry out or perform (orders, duties, etc.): to neglect the household chores.
5.    to fail to take or use: to neglect no precaution.
–noun
6.    an act or instance of neglecting; disregard; negligence: The neglect of the property was shameful.
7.    the fact or state of being neglected: a beauty marred by neglect.

Or how about this:

willful neglect
noun
a tendency to be negligent and uncaring; "he inherited his delinquency from his father"; "his derelictions were not really intended as crimes"; "his adolescent protest consisted of willful neglect of all his responsibilities"

Get it? Good!  Let's move on, shall we?

The integrity of the aforementioned bridge was supposed to be under the responsibility of the state of Minnesota, no?  That being said, where have the tax dollars of Minnesota gone to?  It is now more than obvious the tax dollars haven't been going into the proper maintenance of that bridge. 

If the bridge was deemed unsafe, then why was traffic allowed to use it in the first place?  I mean, WTF people?

Man, do I smell a big giant lawsuit.  The Minnesota Department Of Transportation has a lot of splainin' to do; especially when it comes to splainin' where the tax dollars have gone to since they obviously didn't go toward the bridge (and don't give me this "they didn't get to it on time" crap, either).

And now, given this recent tragedy, we have state Governors ordering new bridge inspections.  Yeah, okay.  So, aren't bridge inspections occurring on a regular basis anyway?  Why does it take a tragedy like what happened in Minneapolis to prompt new bridge inspections?  Are not inspections regularly scheduled and more importantly, being performed?  And where are the results of said inspections, if any?  And if not, why haven't the inspections taken place?  And don't give me the "lack of funding" excuse, either. Lack of funding my ass.  If you greedy, corrupt sonzabitches in charge knew how to manage the money, none of this would of happened in the first place.  What the hell is going on here?  I smell the heavy stench of corruption everywhere here, folks.

Now, it seems the Brooklyn Bridge fails the most recent inspection.  Okay, so why isn't it being maintained?  Where are the inspections and the inspection results?  And again, where are the tax dollars going?  Once again, I smell the stench of corruption.

Today I read over 70,000 bridges are rated deficient. That's 70,000. Over Seventy-Fuckin'-Thousand!  Why is this information now all of the sudden being released?  And again, where are the tax dollars going?  And yet again, where are the previous inspections and/or results?  Where exists the responsibility of the State run governments in all of this?  *sniff sniff* There's that stench of corruption again.

The bottom line is this: Where in the bloody fuckin' hell are all of the tax dollars going?  No good, sonzabitchin' state government bureaucrat bastards. 

This is all precisely why I hate having government in control of things.

Print | posted @ Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:02 PM

Comments on this entry:

Gravatar # re: My Views On The Recent Bridge Tragedy Of Minneapolis
by Rob at 8/8/2007 10:42 PM

Also Wednesday, NTSB investigators said they found a potential design problem with gusset plates, steel plates that tie together angled steel beams of the bridge’s frame.

This does not mean that neglect was not a contributory reason for the collapse. It doesn't mean one can safely neglect bridges.

Alternatively, perhaps the material used to construct the bridge was not that specified in the design. Then it's not a design flaw, but rather criminal conduct on one or more person's part.

The distribution of construction vehicles may have been such that the engineers simply didn't have the computer power to discover the failure mode.

Many reasons may have combined in a "perfect storm."

Politicians of both parties have always traditionally infrastructure maintenance. But to cite it as the sole cause begs the question: What's the failure rate for bridges? How many major bridges failed this year in the USA? How many bridges are there in the USA? Statistically, this sets a bound on just how likely this is to happen -- and it's amazingly low.

The people in charge of advising the government on the state of bridges might well know that politicians neglect repairs until forced, and so they "up the ante" by emphasizing problems that aren't that dangerous. The politicians may recognize the upped ante and put off maintenance. It's a typical escalation scenario, similar to "grade inflation" in colleges.

Judging before the final report comes out is problematic at best. Bridges are complex objects. That's why the cause is listed as "under investigation."

When this post first appeared, I thought of replying with a similar line of argument as I've given here, but I've been a bit busy and let it go. Shame. I'd look like a genius right now.

Oh well.
  
Gravatar # re: My Views On The Recent Bridge Tragedy Of Minneapolis
by Braden at 8/8/2007 11:18 PM

And yet the bridge in question has been deemed structurally deficient since 1990, and yet the Minnesota Dept. Of Transportation relied on "patch fixes," and step up-type inspections. And that's not neglect how?

C'mon man, they knew about this bridge since 1990, and they did nothing. A 2005 federal inspection also rated the bridge structurally deficient, giving it a 50 on a scale of 100 for structural stability.

Again, sure sounds like neglect to me.

Genius? If you say so, Rob. But simply stringing together a bunch of multisyllabic words incoherently does not a genius make.

"Politicians of both parties have always traditionally infrastructure maintenance"

Would you mind finishing your thought before you start congratulating yourself on your self-appointed genius status?

Personally, from what you said, I'd say you're making excuses for the bridge collapse, but that's my opinion. I still say it all boils down to corruption and neglect on the behalf of the Minnesota Dept. Of Transportation. Sort of like the way PennDot has neglected all of the bridges around here for years. In fact, we had an overpass come down on Interstate 70 due to its neglect. Is that the fault of the Federal Government, too? If that's the case, why in the heck am I paying taxes to the state of PA in the first place?
  
Gravatar # re: My Views On The Recent Bridge Tragedy Of Minneapolis
by Rob at 8/9/2007 7:07 AM

"And yet the bridge in question has been deemed structurally deficient since 1990, and yet the Minnesota Dept. Of Transportation relied on 'patch fixes,' and step up-type inspections. And that's not neglect how?"

"Structurally deficient" bridges are acceptable for use. The items that made the bridge "structurally deficient" may have had nothing to do with the collapse. In other words, if there was a design and/or materials flaw in the bridge, the bridge would have collapsed whether those repairs were made or not.

It's also possible that the items making the bridge "structurally deficient" were involved in the collapse, but would not have caused the collapse -- and could not have been expected to cause the collapse -- had there not been a design and/or material flaw in the bridge. A reasonable person would not have expected the bridge to collapse under those circumstances.

Two examples that might make this clear: First, imagine your car would pass a state inspection because of a rusted part in the right rear fender. State inspection isn't due for another month and you continue driving with the rusty patch, electing to take care of the hole when the car goes in for state inspection -- or possibly even just selling the car. If, while driving along, the brake pump fails because of a design flaw and you run over someone -- was failing to get the rusty patch patched the cause of the accident? Would the accident have still happened if you patched the rust spot?

Or, let's say the brakes fail while you're going down a hill. Trying to slow down by hitting the curb, the rusty patch catches a tree branch which pokes through the rusty patch and lodges in the fender. The branch then hits a bystander, killing the bystander. In that case, the rusty patch did contribute to the death of the bystander, but there is no way a reasonable person could have expected the rusty patch to cause death in that manner. Had the brakes not failed, the patch never would have caused the death.

What is "structurally deficient"?

"In 2005, Bridge 9340 was rated 'structurally deficient' by the Department of Transportation and given a score of 50%, the number at which states are to consider replacing a bridge"

"The number at which states are to consider replacing a bridge." Note the wording: "consider." Not "must." The bridge is not expected to collapse at all. If it were expected to collapse at all, they'd close the bridge. Collapse isn't even on the horizon. Standard engineering practice would be to close the bridge while it's still quite drivable. "Structurally deficient" is a warning that the bridge is approaching the end of its life cycle and the state needs to start thinking about replacing the bridge or overhauling it -- which, in fact, the state did, albeit the plans were for 13 years from now.

"Structurally deficient" bridges are safe to use. If they aren't, then the definition in use is not a reasonable one and once again, the fault is not of the politicians.

Could it be negligence on the part of the state? Technically, the bridge inspector is acting as an agent of the state. If the bridge inspector is simply or willfully negligent, then the state is at fault, but it's not the politician's fault.

On the other hand, if the politicians put pressure on the bridge inspector to not find things...I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet in that circumstance, the politicians and bridge inspector are guilty of something far, far worse than negligence.

I stand by my analysis.

  
Gravatar # re: My Views On The Recent Bridge Tragedy Of Minneapolis
by Braden at 8/9/2007 9:53 AM

You're still missing the point, Rob.

Take this for example: Why is it that the powers-at-be in the State of Minnesota and within the city of Minneapolis think it's a high priority to build new stadiums all the while the roadway infrastructure is collapsing in front of their very eyes? Where are the priorities, Rob?

Sound familiar? It damn well should considering you live within the City Of Pittsburgh area and we have bridges like the Greenfield Bridge in dire straights where the City of Pittsburgh will put up "catch net" and construct a "catch basin" which spans across the length of the Parkway East in order to catch the falling chunks coming off the Greenfield Bridge itself. But, nooooo....we'll build two new stadiums and now we'll push for casinos and a new arena. Nice example of priorities, right Rob?

It's all neglect and corruption. You can call it what you want, but I think you pretty much just want to turn a blind eye and deaf ear. After all, the bridge hasn't collapsed, so what's the problem? Right?

All of that being said, your analysis is seriously flawed.
  
Comments have been closed on this topic.