AuthorTopic: This is sooo wrong..  (Read 7360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline topless matt

  • Posts: 503
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This is sooo wrong..
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2009, 08:35:45 »
Surley if she waqs doing 10MPH and lost control on some mud that caused her to loose control and crash of a bridge then she was driving too fast for the conditions on the road and therefore HER fault.
I agree with steve, there is far too much of a blame culture out here and that sope people just cnat take it on the chin and admit it was their mistake and their fault!
300tdi, southdown snorkle, tubular bumper, tds winch with dyneema, tree sliders, 6 spotlights, creepy crawler tyres, 2" lift, dislocation cones, dropped mounts all round, wide angle propshafts, mud dash, bucket seats

Likes to eat badgers

Offline mike142sl

  • Posts: 750
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This is sooo wrong..
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2009, 10:53:05 »
I can understand cars loosing control on ice...

Oh... it's the cars that lose control...?   :doh:

Here was me thinking it was the drivers...!  8-[
You know what I mean you naughty naked person  :-. I was thinking mainly on a downhill scenario where the weight of the vehicle will result in a gain of speed as it slides. You of all people should know that ski jumpers start at 0mph but reach far in excess of that by the time they reach the scary scary scary bit  :shocked:

As for this scenario though it's hard to see any gradient from the pic where the car may have accelerated sufficiently but then again we can't see behind the pic.
Mike
Disco TD5 Landmark
SYM GTS250i Voyager
Swift Challenger 490

Offline Lucy1978

  • Posts: 516
  • Attack: 100
    Defense: 100
    Attack Member
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Referrals: 0
Re: This is sooo wrong..
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2009, 12:42:40 »
What ever speed she was doing, the parapet didn't fail the anchor did, and that's wrong.  We design parpaets so the post fail before the anchors and the anchors before the bridge deck edge.  You can see that the posts have come way afrom the deck taking coping stones with them, the problem with the detail that was on that bridge is that it's impossible to inspect the parapet anchorages because they're hidden by coping stones.  It was an old detail that doesn't meet current standards.  The thing is we don't do anything about it unless there's a sufficient risk for the parapet to score highly enough, and that's on trunk roads and motorways, county roads don't have to comply with anywhere near the standards that we have to deal with working on the trunk roads.

There are thousands of bridges with dodgy old details like that on all around the country, there simply aren't the funds to go and find them and fix them, and if we did, it'd be YOU LOT the public that'd be the first to complain because we've got road works on or bridges closed. We now have to jump through huge hoops to put traffic management on trunnk roads during the day, yes that means the bridge inspections that are carried out to pick up defects like this have to be done at night, in the dark, all because the public complain if they're delayed by 10 mins on their journey.

As well as the above it's quite possible to have defects with barriers that you aren't able to discover until they get hit or you come to do works to them.  A while ago I found a box beam safety fence protecting a bridge edge that had been anchored into empty ducts within the bridge deck, It looked fine, it was only when we dug some trial holes that we found discovered a problem, it had been like it for over a decade.

The biggest cause of accidents on the roads is the loose nut behind the steering wheel.

 






SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal