3 ms·
If 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 b
by vlehto 8y ago
If 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.