3 ms·

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/16/miami-bridge-collapse-suspension-cables-support-tower/431418002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/16/m

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/16/miami-bridge-collapse-suspension-cables-support-tower/431418002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/16/miami-bridge-... http://www.ejinsight.com/20180406-hk-engineers-raise-concerns-over-safety-of-mega-bridge/ http://www.ejinsight.com/20180406-hk-engineers-raise-concern... There are many more, but the fact that engineer's safety concerns were side stepped rarely sees light of the day after disaster strikes. Also it doesn't have to be a catastrophic failure. Sometimes the reduction of life span of a structure is cause of not taking care of all the concerns. Also this does not stops with construction. Have you not heard about problems in cars or other engineering projects where safety concerns were ignored. If not, I have to ask you how old you are.

repolfx 8y ago
The first story doesn't seem to support your point. It's talking about engineers saying a bridge was unsafe after it collapsed. Whilst a FIGG engineer seems to have reported that the bridge was collapsing two days before it did, what I'm talking about is where a senior engineer i.e. chief engineer on a project says "this design is not safe" and is then told to build it anyway, or where a bridge isn't finished on the day that was expected and then traffic is put on it anyway whilst the builders are still working. People realising they screwed up after disaster strikes is normal but unrelated to project management discipline. The second link has the same issue - the engineers cited as saying something is unsafe are saying that after problems are spotted and they are not the same people who built the bridge. Sure, anyone can say "that was clearly unsafe" after the fact. To repeat, what I asked for is cases where the engineering management of a project said "this is not safe" at the time they were being told to build it and non-technical management then overruled them and put traffic on it anyway, that is, the engineers were not allowed to complete the job to their own level of safety satisfaction.

repolfx 8y ago

The first story doesn't seem to support your point. It's talking about engineers saying a bridge was unsafe after it collapsed. Whilst a FIGG engineer seems to have reported that the bridge was collapsing two days before it did, what I'm talking about is where a senior engineer i.e. chief engineer on a project says "this design is not safe" and is then told to build it anyway, or where a bridge isn't finished on the day that was expected and then traffic is put on it anyway whilst the builders are still working. People realising they screwed up after disaster strikes is normal but unrelated to project management discipline. The second link has the same issue - the engineers cited as saying something is unsafe are saying that after problems are spotted and they are not the same people who built the bridge. Sure, anyone can say "that was clearly unsafe" after the fact. To repeat, what I asked for is cases where the engineering management of a project said "this is not safe" at the time they were being told to build it and non-technical management then overruled them and put traffic on it anyway, that is, the engineers were not allowed to complete the job to their own level of safety satisfaction.