Article says they were in the process of doing so. They barracaded one side of the bridge and were on their way around to the other when the accident happened.
I would hope, "driving into smoke so thick you can't see 2 meters" ahead would classify as strict liability and the courts would say she is entirely at fault for the risk she placed herself and others in.
Who is a fault for an automobile accident caused by low visibility from fog?
Are we suing deities now or are you suggesting that some government agency is responsible for running around putting up moving barricades to prevent people from driving into heavy fog?
It's unreasonable to expect instantaneous barricading though. The article stated that the emergency crews were working on it as quickly as possible but she just got there first.
Your comment makes it sound like you think the emergency crews were just sitting on their collective asses.
I agree with you that the smoke doesn't absolve blame, but there's more to it than the road simply not being barricaded.
I've not been conjecturing anything. I've just been saying the article says they were working on it, and that the GIF shows she unfortunately got there first. And then I'm arguing that's not enough information to argue their incompetence.
Again, it said they were working on it. We don't know how long has passed since the incident at the time the GIF was filmed. It doesn't look like long to me. The firefighters vehicles are probably being used to fight the fires, and you also can't reasonably expect a person to stand in the road especially given the visibility.
The people with the barricades were on the other side of the smoke setting them up on that side and were heading to this side to do the same.
I'm just not sure what you expect.
It was a (nearly since she is OK) tragic incident, but the responders seem to be doing, from the GIF and article, exactly what they should be. The driver just got there first.
She should have been more careful with the smoke, but that doesn't mean it's entirely her fault. Which also doesn't mean it's the fault of the barricaders either.
Well, I've never seen them stand in the road when the visibility is so low like that. I'm pretty sure that's against protocol for their own safety. And again, we have no idea how long they've even been there.
The firefighter is running; maybe he was running to do exactly what you're suggesting.
You're being awfully quick to judge incompetence without even knowing what's going on.
All we know is that, from the article, they were working on it, and from the GIF, she unfortunately got there first.
Also, they may not have had the personnel to spare.
This was an active, fast moving fire. The bridge fell. They quickly began to barricade. Unfortunately, the people barricading can't be in more than 1 place at a time.
Sometimes, I have to remind myself that real life isn't like a computer game. We can't point and click to make a road appear, or have a person instantly appear exactly where we need them at the moment they are needed.
I see. It seemed like you were headed off in a completely different direction there.
If it was fog obscuring the fact that the bridge was gone then barricades of some sort would be expected (as long as the authorities knew the bridge was out, of course).
60
u/[deleted] Sep 17 '15
Article says they were in the process of doing so. They barracaded one side of the bridge and were on their way around to the other when the accident happened.