I would describe that article as more of a call-to-action than drumming up fear. The article is quite clear that the problem in this particular case was due to

I would describe that article as more of a call-to-action than drumming up fear. The article is quite clear that the problem in this particular case was due to design. On top of that, there was no suggestion that it was a faulty design. Rather, it's design does not reflect the realities of today. I am not suggesting the article is perfect. There are lingering questions about which types of bridges fit in that 7.5%. Not all bridges have to deal with shipping traffic, heavier vehicles, or even more traffic. There are also questions as to why such large ships were permitted to pass under the bridge if it did not fit the design parameters of the bridge. But that is more indicative of an incomplete analysis rather than of fear mongering.