2 ms·
You forget that there are houses below the bridge, that could have been crushed. Not exactly a place for destructive testing.
by Ndymium 8y ago
You forget that there are houses below the bridge, that could have been crushed. Not exactly a place for destructive testing.
- vlehto 8y agoIf the bridge is fine, there is no problem. If the bridge is rotten, you have lot fewer victims. You want to do pre-emptive repairs? OK, the bridge ought to be fine. We can then proceed with the destructive testing. You could do the testing with something like 110% of the typical max traffic load. A rotten bridge would then collapse within 6 months of it's "natural collapse". Only things you do is to make the collapse more predictable and you save lives.
- Ndymium 8y agoI don't think a testing method where there is a risk of a lot of innocent people dying is going to be accepted anywhere. I guess that is the dilemma with these situations.
- vlehto 8y agoWould not be the first time saving lives ends up being less important than avoiding responsibility. So I agree on your prediction.
- djmips 8y agoBesides houses below, the bridge could potentially fail after the test when in use. Better to drive these trucks in simulation before you even make your bridge.