Bay Bridge accident...

[Larry Gude]

...the state says opposing traffic was not a contributing factor. That's horse####.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051100358.html

Authorities said yesterday that two-way traffic on the bridge's westbound span was not a contributing factor to the collision. But that did not stop some commuters and advocates for drivers from questioning the safety of two-way traffic.

That's like saying two football players colliding wasn't a 'contributing factor' to getting a concussion.

I understand people have jobs and they have bosses and whomever was quoted can't just say "Look, we all knew it was a matter of time until something horrific happened, but hey, there's maintenance issues and it, two way traffic on a span, is a one way to address how we take care of the bridge and. besides, it will be easier to get money to do something about this now that we have dead bodies."

Given; Accidents happen. Stupid ones like this. Random ones like a tire blow out or someone has a heart attack. Accidents happen.

Given; two way traffic, opposing traffic will contribute to more violent collisions WHEN an accident happens. 50 mph each way is like hitting a wall at 100 mph. 50 mpg going the same way means all of the pieces that are messing up, having and accident, are at least going the same way when it starts, so, a 50 mph truck hitting a trailer that just came unhitched from a truck going 50 mph or so is something like hitting a wall at 10 mph or less.

Chaos theory tales over from there as people slam on brakes and react at different speeds, but, at worst, it's a 50 mph collision, not 100.

It's just annoying to have my government reflexively tell me I'm stupid and now that some people are dead, magically money will appear to address the 'contributing danger' that wasn't contributing of opposing traffic on a bridge and reporters will, hopefully find memo's from some poor soul in the bureaucracy that has been trying to get this addressed for years.

Small comfort.

 

[EmilyP.Deigh]

...the state says opposing traffic was not a contributing factor. That's horse####.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051100358.html



That's like saying two football players colliding wasn't a 'contributing factor' to getting a concussion.

I understand people have jobs and they have bosses and whomever was quoted can't just say "Look, we all knew it was a matter of time until something horrific happened, but hey, there's maintenance issues and it, two way traffic on a span, is a one way to address how we take care of the bridge and. besides, it will be easier to get money to do something about this now that we have dead bodies."

Given; Accidents happen. Stupid ones like this. Random ones like a tire blow out or someone has a heart attack. Accidents happen.

Given; two way traffic, opposing traffic will contribute to more violent collisions WHEN an accident happens. 50 mph each way is like hitting a wall at 100 mph. 50 mpg going the same way means all of the pieces that are messing up, having and accident, are at least going the same way when it starts, so, a 50 mph truck hitting a trailer that just came unhitched from a truck going 50 mph or so is something like hitting a wall at 10 mph or less.

Chaos theory tales over from there as people slam on brakes and react at different speeds, but, at worst, it's a 50 mph collision, not 100.

It's just annoying to have my government reflexively tell me I'm stupid and now that some people are dead, magically money will appear to address the 'contributing danger' that wasn't contributing of opposing traffic on a bridge and reporters will, hopefully find memo's from some poor soul in the bureaucracy that has been trying to get this addressed for years.

Small comfort.

So maybe we should close all roads that have opposing traffic. It's a bridge. If people get in accidents, it's because they weren't being careful...unless of course it was *actual* mechanical error, and not human stupidity.

People should drive cautiously over bridges. They don't. :shrug:

 

[mAlice]

People should drive cautiously over bridges. They don't. :shrug:

People should drive cautiously everywhere, but they don't. The problem with bridges is there's no where to go to avoid an accident. Same with tunnels.

 

[johnycarcinogen]

...the state says opposing traffic was not a contributing factor. That's horse####.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051100358.html



That's like saying two football players colliding wasn't a 'contributing factor' to getting a concussion.

Channel 4 this morning would agree with you, they made mention of two previous accidents, I believe 1992, and 1996, both had 3 fatalities, like the recent one and it was when there WAS opposing traffic on the westbound span of the bridge.

 

[MMDad]

...the state says opposing traffic was not a contributing factor. That's horse####.

Do you know that vehicles travelling opposite directions actually collided? Or are you making an assumption? I have not seen a story that claims any east bound traffic crashed. It's not in the link you posted.

 

[kwillia]

But AAA Mid-Atlantic said a barrier between lanes may have prevented multiple crashes.

"While it's too early to say, it is quite likely that had the counterflows of traffic been barrier separated, the multiple collisions that made this crash so horrific may not have occurred," said Ragina Averella, a spokeswoman for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

Police said Randall R. Orff, 47, and his son, Jonathan R. Orff, 19, of Millington, Md., died as a result of the crash. James H. Ingle, 44, of Crofton, Md., also died.

The Orffs were riding eastbound in a pickup, and Ingle was driving westbound in a car. The SUV that was pulling the trailer that came unhitched also was heading westbound, as were the other four vehicles involved in the crash.

Averella urged the state to "examine viable ways to barrier separate the traffic flows when mixing directions on one bridge."

 

[MMDad]

Channel 4 this morning would agree with you, they made mention of two previous accidents, I believe 1992, and 1996, both had 3 fatalities, like the recent one and it was when there WAS opposing traffic on the westbound span of the bridge.

The 1996 crash was a tractor trailer rear ending a stopped car. One way traffic would not have stopped that.

 

[kwillia]

The 1996 crash was a tractor trailer rear ending a stopped car. One way traffic would not have stopped that.

Seems to me that it's common sense to know that there would be less hazard if all traffic is flowing in the same direction especially in a vehicular accident situation.

 

[MMDad]

Seems to me that it's common sense to know that there would be less hazard if all traffic is flowing in the same direction especially in a vehicular accident situation.

It's common sense that we'd all be safer if we all lived in bubbles too. Does the risk justify the expense? More people have been killed on the roads leading to and from the bridge in one way traffic in the last ten years than on the bridge itself.

I realize that this crash is tragic, and the fact this happened on the bridge is dramatic, but crashes like this happen every day. Why the major about this one? Because people are scared of the bridge.

 

[Larry Gude]

As I understand it...

Do you know that vehicles travelling opposite directions actually collided? Or are you making an assumption? I have not seen a story that claims any east bound traffic crashed. It's not in the link you posted.

...the trailer came loose from a east bound vehicle and ploughed into west bound traffic.

Maybe that's not the case? I'll see if I can find out.

What I got from it;

When he drives on the westbound span with two-way traffic, he thinks of the worst.

On Thursday, as Storm drove home on the one eastbound lane that was open on the westbound span, the worst came true.

In any event, does the point still hold, that head on is worse than rear end and we tend to wait for blood and death before we address obvious dangers?

 

[Larry Gude]

See...

It's common sense that we'd all be safer if we all lived in bubbles too. Does the risk justify the expense? More people have been killed on the roads leading to and from the bridge in one way traffic in the last ten years than on the bridge itself.

I realize that this crash is tragic, and the fact this happened on the bridge is dramatic, but crashes like this happen every day. Why the major about this one? Because people are scared of the bridge.

....this always fascinates me; It seems self evident to me that having opposing traffic is more dangerous than need be, but, not to every one.

Why would you default to the bubble argument? Is anyone arguing that we should live in bubbles? Is that reasonable? Have you ever gone accross the bridge with opposing traffic? There's no where to go.

Part of my argument is that accidents DO happen, so, I'm not interested in perfect safety. I'm interested in reasonable solutions. If you feel that a barrier is unreasonable, OK. If you that there is no reasonable solution to this and it simply should be accepted as is, OK. That's your thought.

I disagree. I would think that someone with your concern for rare and freakish death would want people in jail for life over this.

 

[Larry Gude]

Another vote...

So maybe we should close all roads that have opposing traffic. It's a bridge. If people get in accidents, it's because they weren't being careful...unless of course it was *actual* mechanical error, and not human stupidity.

People should drive cautiously over bridges. They don't. :shrug:

...for bubbles for us all?

 

[MMDad]

...the trailer came loose from a east bound vehicle and ploughed into west bound traffic.

Maybe that's not the case? I'll see if I can find out.

What I got from it;





In any event, does the point still hold, that head on is worse than rear end and we tend to wait for blood and death before we address obvious dangers?

Opposing traffic is an obvious danger on any road. Why the major about this one?

There was a major accident on Rousby Hall road a few years ago involving opposing traffic. Four people died. Where's the over opposing traffic? On Wednesday, a biker was killed in a head on crash in PF. Where's the over opposing traffic?

In those crashes we blame the speeding teen driver and the intoxicated driver, not the road. Why? Because the bridge is big and scary, and we want something done about those things that scare us without thought about what is rational.

Where do you draw the line? If we separate opposing traffic on that bridge, do we do that on all bridges? All tunnels? All roads?

 

[Larry Gude]

Is there simply...

Opposing traffic is an obvious danger on any road. Why the major about this one?

There was a major accident on Rousby Hall road a few years ago involving opposing traffic. Four people died. Where's the over opposing traffic? On Wednesday, a biker was killed in a head on crash in PF. Where's the over opposing traffic?

In those crashes we blame the speeding teen driver and the intoxicated driver, not the road. Why? Because the bridge is big and scary, and we want something done about those things that scare us without thought about what is rational.

Where do you draw the line? If we separate opposing traffic on that bridge, do we do that on all bridges? All tunnels? All roads?

...no difference to you in an accident on a road somewhere where traffic is tied up for a little while and everything gets back to normal pretty soon and an accident where people SIT ON A BRIDGE FOR hours? I think I read some where it was 8 or so?

NYC has dedicated tunnels, east and west bound. As far as I remember, the Baltimore tunnels are dedicated though I have been in them with opposing traffic.

I understand your point; Nothing to see here, move along. I think this was an obvious safety issue and it could have been addressed with a barrier.

Should we remove all shoulders from two lane roads and just tell everyone to quit being such sissies? Imagine, shoulders on pretty much every single mile of road in the country and all for what, because people are scared or might have an accident? Golly wiz, where's the cost benfit analysis?

 

[MMDad]

...no difference to you in an accident on a road somewhere where traffic is tied up for a little while and everything gets back to normal pretty soon and an accident where people SIT ON A BRIDGE FOR hours? I think I read some where it was 8 or so?

NYC has dedicated tunnels, east and west bound. As far as I remember, the Baltimore tunnels are dedicated though I have been in them with opposing traffic.

I understand your point; Nothing to see here, move along. I think this was an obvious safety issue and it could have been addressed with a barrier.

Should we remove all shoulders from two lane roads and just tell everyone to quit being such sissies? Imagine, shoulders on pretty much every single mile of road in the country and all for what, because people are scared or might have an accident? Golly wiz, where's the cost benfit analysis?

Now it's about the traffic tie up? And you're using NYC and Baltimore as examples of the "right" way to handle a traffic problem that has happened a whole one time in the last ten years?

I agree that a barrier would make the bridge safer. I just want the decision made because of a careful analysis of all factors, not just because we are terribly askeered of the big bad bridge and a major freak out over an anomaly. I don't believe in just throwing tax dollars at a perceived problem just because it is scary.

 

[Larry Gude]

Goodie!

Now it's about the traffic tie up? And you're using NYC and Baltimore as examples of the "right" way to handle a traffic problem that has happened a whole one time in the last ten years?

I agree that a barrier would make the bridge safer. I just want the decision made because of a careful analysis of all factors, not just because we are terribly askeered of the big bad bridge and a major freak out over an anomaly. I don't believe in just throwing tax dollars at a perceived problem just because it is scary.

...I'm enjoying going at it with you this AM. No hard feelings.

How much analysis to you think went into shoulders on all roads? I mean, hell, we've made a two lane road, in effect, 4, for stuff like, oh, I don't know, accidents that happen once in awhile on any given 4 mile stretch of road.

You say 'one time in the last ten years'. Ask people how often they sit and sit and sit because there was an accident on the bridge. Minus the death, it happens a lot and you are STUCK. So, like duh, maybe we ought to have built some shoulders for, I dunno, like if there is every an accident or something and then, gee, people could get around it and emergency people could get there and, well, maybe analysis would show that MAYBE an accident or two might even be averted over the years if there is a bit of extra room?


NO! Vee must build zee Pinto and ven zee bodies start to burn vee vill say zat analysis showed zat burning cars only happen once in zee vile. Vee save $15 per car to use gas tank blow up model. Write zee victims a check. Err...their family.

Analysis? The second span cost $150 mil and opened in 1973. Let's just say it cost $50 mil a lane though I'd guess that adding 2 more lanes would be less than $50 mil for each of them. So, $250 mil = 5 lanes = the ability to close the other structure for maintenace and have two lanes one way and one the other depending on time of day and the way rush hour is going PLUS two shoulders.

25 million cars a year go over the bridge at $2.5 each or more. I'll bet they pull in close to $75 mil a year for tolls. There's huge M & R costs and right now about $100 mil is being spent on both of them, but that is not per year.

Obviously, 1973 dollars are different than the value of a dollar today, but the bridge was built for time, not just the year 1973. So, cutting costs then by not adding more lanes has to be looked at over time.

So, today, how much is an individuals time worth? How many people sit for how long every time there is an accident?

4.3 miles is over 20,000 feet times 3 lanes is 60,000 divided by, what, 20' per car? That's 3,000 cars sitting, just on the bridge alone. Is it fair to say double that many were stuck on the approaches? So, 6,000 people if it is one person per car are sitting and/or diverted on a longer trip for probably 5 hours each. Figure 1.5 people per car? That's 6k times 5 times 1.5 or 45,000 man hours wasted.

What is one hour of your time worth? Gas? Inconvenience? $20? $30?How much would you pay to get out of that mess? Is it fair to say, disregarding the deaths, that it cost at least $500,000?

How many hours are wasted a year on the bridge? Call each one hour delay a 10,000 hour incident. How many one hour incidents per year? 10? 100? I'll bet it's 100, easy if you count simple delays from the crush of traffic in the summer.

So, 100 '10,000' hour incidents costing ONLY $10 an hour is $10 million a year in lost time. $10 million a year could privide debt service for over a billion dollars on a 15 year bond.

It's stupid to build a structure that WILL trap people. And, why, if we can save a few lives while we're at it...

 

[Richard Cranium]

I got stuck on the Eastern Shore and spent Thursday night there because of this.

 

[Cowgirl]

I saw a re-enactment on the news last night...if I remember correctly, the SUV with the trailer was in the middle lane (westbound). The trailer became unhitched, and then 2 large trucks crashed (they were also in the westbound lanes). Those big trucks then crashed into the eastbound lane...and I'm pretty sure that's where the Orfs were. I can't exactly remember the order in which the trucks collided, but I do remember for sure that the trailer was in the middle lane heading west.

Either way, the far left lane would have been involved. :shrug: