4 ms·

> It's a false claim to structural integrity. That's a weird claim to make. False claim to who? Joe on the street?

by 21 8y ago

jessaustin 8y ago
Joe may be as dumb as you assume, but if he sees a truss bridge with one set of struts he might well wonder how safe that is compared to all the other truss bridges he has seen. If he sees another truss bridge with only one set of struts, but with cable stays as well, he might well think that is a safer bridge than the first. He believed the bridge's implicit claim about cable stays, which was false.
- 21 8y ago
  Well, it was only yesterday that I learned that having a single set of struts is less stable. I always assumed they were two because they wanted to keep the middle of the bridge clear for the road. This was my exact point: as a Joe on the street you just have to assume that the engineers got it right. A two set strutted bridge can still fail if the struts are two thin, or not of the right kind of steel/concrete. Do you really evaluate all buildings when you enter them, especially the modern weird and unstable looking ones? Have you ever avoided entering a building just because it has a crazy unstable looking design?
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Maybe my image of this "Joe" upon whom you would look down was a little more knowledgeable than it should have been... Did you never play with an erector set as a kid?
    - 21 8y ago
      My point is that if I know a bit about a subject, I don't fall into the trap of believing that I can point to "an obvious mistake" which was signed off by multiple professional people working in that area, especially in an area like civil engineering where you have criminal liability for "an obvious mistake". Sure, I would never cross that bridge if I saw those fake stayed cables damaged after a storm, because again, I am in no position to judge the design of the bridge, but it is obviously damaged and I must assume that it is unsafe. Maybe a structural engineer would immediately spot that those stayed cables are fake and wouldn't worry about cross it. But if the bridge looks intact, I would just assume that the engineers knew what they were doing.

> It's a false claim to structural integrity. That's a weird claim to make. False claim to who? Joe on the street?

by 21 8y ago

> It's a false claim to structural integrity. That's a weird claim to make. False claim to who? Joe on the street?

Joe may be as dumb as you assume, but if he sees a truss bridge with one set of struts he might well wonder how safe that is compared to all the other truss bridges he has seen. If he sees another truss bridge with only one set of struts, but with cable stays as well, he might well think that is a safer bridge than the first. He believed the bridge's implicit claim about cable stays, which was false.

21 8y ago
Well, it was only yesterday that I learned that having a single set of struts is less stable. I always assumed they were two because they wanted to keep the middle of the bridge clear for the road. This was my exact point: as a Joe on the street you just have to assume that the engineers got it right. A two set strutted bridge can still fail if the struts are two thin, or not of the right kind of steel/concrete. Do you really evaluate all buildings when you enter them, especially the modern weird and unstable looking ones? Have you ever avoided entering a building just because it has a crazy unstable looking design?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Maybe my image of this "Joe" upon whom you would look down was a little more knowledgeable than it should have been... Did you never play with an erector set as a kid?
  - 21 8y ago
    My point is that if I know a bit about a subject, I don't fall into the trap of believing that I can point to "an obvious mistake" which was signed off by multiple professional people working in that area, especially in an area like civil engineering where you have criminal liability for "an obvious mistake". Sure, I would never cross that bridge if I saw those fake stayed cables damaged after a storm, because again, I am in no position to judge the design of the bridge, but it is obviously damaged and I must assume that it is unsafe. Maybe a structural engineer would immediately spot that those stayed cables are fake and wouldn't worry about cross it. But if the bridge looks intact, I would just assume that the engineers knew what they were doing.