3 ms·
There should have been no delay - it is designed as a critical part of highway safety infrastructure, as the death in this situation highlights; it should have
by loceng 8y ago
There should have been no delay - it is designed as a critical part of highway safety infrastructure, as the death in this situation highlights; it should have been immediately reconstructed - and hopefully this lawsuit will lead to that protocol being implemented/adhered to.
- danso 8y agoIs there a law or regulation that mandates this? The article says Caltrans claims a storm caused the delay: > "Once our Maintenance team has been notified, the Department's goal is to repair or replace damaged guardrail or crash attenuators within seven days or five business days, depending on weather. These are guidelines that our Maintenance staff follow. However, as in this case, storms can delay the fix." The delay may or may not have been justified (I guess we'll find out if the family decides to sue the state). But an actual regulation is important, because not only would it provide explicit criteria to show Caltrans is in the wrong, it would've (or at least should've) meant funding and procedures are in place. There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety. If the state of California doesn't provide the funding and staffing it would require to replace this barrier with "no delay", then it seems difficult to fault Caltrans for negligence.
- loceng 8y agoI'm not sure of the specifics - I would argue it should be mandated; at minimum they could have put barrels full of sand or water - whatever they use - as a stopgap.