[xerxes]

Right. Though, it's mostly the inland highways past Hope. Especially the Coquihalla. You need chains for that highway almost year round. I remember driving through a snowstorm in late April a few years ago.

[Freakinoldguy]

Xort Xort:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Roads get covered by ice and snow in the winter. The people at fault are the drivers.

That's how the law of the road works. The contractor might have failed to meet an obligation of their contract, I don't have access to that document. But the people at fault for the crash are the drivers.

Then explain to me why this was the only bridge in the Metro Vancouver Area to experince this so called idiot driver sydrome?

Like I said I watched the news and they interviewed the guy who's responsible for deicing all the City of Vancouver Bridges and he said that they had no problems on any of their bridges which were deiced as per routine.

So, given the fact that this was the only bridge with this issue it must be that the only bad drivers in the Metro Area are the ones that use the Port Mann Bridge.

And yes we all know what the law says about driving to fast for road conditions but by the same token, the Dept Of Highways is contracted to keep the roads clear and passable which when you think about it didn't happen.

If all the other cities and municipalities in the greater Vancouver area could keep their bridges clear and passable why couldn't the dept of highways do that with the Port Mann? They have no fekin excuse for not doing it, do they?

The only reason the Minister has taken the stance she has and is using the to fast for road conditons law is because it would have cost ICBC a ton of money to pay for all the damage the Governmnent contractor's incompetence caused. I'm pretty sure if she could have figured out a way to blame the falling ice on the drivers she would have done that to.

[Brenda]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Brenda Brenda:

[

You are not obligated to have winter tires on or carry chains in the lower mainland, right?

No. but I always do. They won't let you up some roads (heading for the mountains) if you don't have winter tires, I believe.

No, I understand that, but we are talking about urban lower mainland now, not the mountains. I am in the mountains and I cannot get around without in winter. There is no flat stretch of road here either.

What I'm trying to say is, that the moment you pass Hope, you are in the mountains, they are necessary until you are in Pincher Creek, AB (or Canmore, if you go via Revelstoke), but before you are in Hope, highways are flat, wide, and winter tires are for commuting not really a necessity. So to claim that "people would not have crashed if they had sported winter tires", is imo not fair. The city should keep the roads clean and when they fail to do that, they are at fault. They too know, that it can freeze any moment, it is their job to know that.

I'm not saying people weren't going too fast, but when this (new) bridge is the ONLY bridge in the area that had that problem, on both sides, I'd say something is wrong with the pavement, not with the tires...

[Xort]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then explain to me why this was the only bridge in the Metro Vancouver Area to experince this so called idiot driver sydrome?

It's a steep bridge that rises from a steep down hill first on one side, it is also a huge traffic mover, and it has a very high speed due to better traffic flow.

Are you saying that no other bridges had any accidents?

$1:

Like I said I watched the news and they interviewed the guy who's responsible for deicing all the City of Vancouver Bridges and he said that they had no problems on any of their bridges which were deiced as per routine.

Vancouver's bridges are small, and almost none run at highway speed.

$1:

So, given the fact that this was the only bridge with this issue it must be that the only bad drivers in the Metro Area are the ones that use the Port Mann Bridge.

Or that day was a bad combination of enviromental factors. After all you don't get 40 car crashes every day. Rare conditions plus bad drivers and poor equipment = a big crash.

$1:

And yes we all know what the law says about driving to fast for road conditions but by the same token, the Dept Of Highways is contracted to keep the roads clear and passable which when you think about it didn't happen.

I don't think the government is obligated to clear a road to allow people following too close and at too high a speed to do so without an accident. In fact IIRC they are not at fault if they reduce spending and it causes deaths. (I'm thinking of a case where rock falls killed someone and the family said it was because of budget reductions to the maintance, but the court said no)

$1:

If all the other cities and municipalities in the greater Vancouver area could keep their bridges clear and passable why couldn't the dept of highways do that with the Port Mann? They have no fekin excuse for not doing it, do they?

No one ever crashes on other bridges due to enviromental factors? WOW.

$1:

The only reason the Minister has taken the stance she has and is using the to fast for road conditons law is because it would have cost ICBC a ton of money to pay for all the damage the Governmnent contractor's incompetence caused. I'm pretty sure if she could have figured out a way to blame the falling ice on the drivers she would have done that to.

All that money? LOL a tiny number of crashes, likely not even enough to make a statistical blip for the month.

The minister is saying what she said, because that's the law and being a minister doesn't make you above the law.

[Freakinoldguy]

Xort Xort:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Then explain to me why this was the only bridge in the Metro Vancouver Area to experince this so called idiot driver sydrome?

It's a steep bridge that rises from a steep down hill first on one side, it is also a huge traffic mover, and it has a very high speed due to better traffic flow.

Are you saying that no other bridges had any accidents?

$1:

Like I said I watched the news and they interviewed the guy who's responsible for deicing all the City of Vancouver Bridges and he said that they had no problems on any of their bridges which were deiced as per routine.

Vancouver's bridges are small, and almost none run at highway speed.

$1:

So, given the fact that this was the only bridge with this issue it must be that the only bad drivers in the Metro Area are the ones that use the Port Mann Bridge.

Or that day was a bad combination of enviromental factors. After all you don't get 40 car crashes every day. Rare conditions plus bad drivers and poor equipment = a big crash.

$1:

And yes we all know what the law says about driving to fast for road conditions but by the same token, the Dept Of Highways is contracted to keep the roads clear and passable which when you think about it didn't happen.

I don't think the government is obligated to clear a road to allow people following too close and at too high a speed to do so without an accident. In fact IIRC they are not at fault if they reduce spending and it causes deaths. (I'm thinking of a case where rock falls killed someone and the family said it was because of budget reductions to the maintance, but the court said no)

$1:

If all the other cities and municipalities in the greater Vancouver area could keep their bridges clear and passable why couldn't the dept of highways do that with the Port Mann? They have no fekin excuse for not doing it, do they?

No one ever crashes on other bridges due to enviromental factors? WOW.

$1:

The only reason the Minister has taken the stance she has and is using the to fast for road conditons law is because it would have cost ICBC a ton of money to pay for all the damage the Governmnent contractor's incompetence caused. I'm pretty sure if she could have figured out a way to blame the falling ice on the drivers she would have done that to.

All that money? LOL a tiny number of crashes, likely not even enough to make a statistical blip for the month.

The minister is saying what she said, because that's the law and being a minister doesn't make you above the law.

\


I never said that there were no accidents on any of the other bridges but there sure as hell weren`t any 40 car pileups.

$1:

It's a steep bridge that rises from a steep down hill first on one side, it is also a huge traffic mover, and it has a very high speed due to better traffic flow.

May I aks if you`ve ever driven over the Alex Fraser or the Golden Ears bridges, because if you had you`d have noticed that they have characteristics very similar to the new Port Mann Bridge and yet they didn`t have any 40 car pilesups, now why would that be.

You can spin it anyway you want but the fact remains that if they hadn`t fucked up and failed to put down deicer there probably wouldn`t have been a 40 car pileup and we wouldn`t have had to put up with the Minister of Transport yet again defending her employees actions or lack thereof by diverting the blame to someone else.

[Canadian_Mind]

For all those blaming the bridge on this one, give your head a shake. I drove over that bridge numerous times over the past 2 weeks. Even in the fog and with ice all over that bridge, people were doing 120kph. The posted limit is 80. The 40 car pileup was caused by someone going 40 over the limit, at the last minute saw someone doing under the limit (ie driving for conditions), locked their brakes on the ice, rear ended the guy, and caused a chain reaction from there across all four lanes.

I don't have a source because this was in the time before internet, but they had the same issue when the original bridge was built. The only reason it wasn't an issue in recent memory was because the old bridge was always too congested for people to maintain even the posted limit, nevermind exceed it. There was also only 2 or 3 lanes for a crash to spread between, not 4.

So no, don't blame bridge design on this one. Ignorant people who figure a wide-open stretch of freeway means ignoring the posted limits regardless of conditions caused this one.

Just to nip this in the bud before it is brought up again - only the Pitt River Bridge and Goldon Ears bridge are higher elevation than the Port Mann. Elevation is a key factor here in both the ice-bombs incident and the ice on the deck. The fog was thicker on the Port Mann than either the Alex Fraser or the Second Narrows (only comparable bridges) and due to elevation the bridge deck ices far easier.

Two big factors right there that can't be blamed on either the MoT nor the contractors. They shit the bed with the ice bomb incident, doesn't make everything their fault.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The only reason the Minister has taken the stance she has and is using the to fast for road conditons law is because it would have cost ICBC a ton of money to pay for all the damage the Governmnent contractor's incompetence caused. I'm pretty sure if she could have figured out a way to blame the falling ice on the drivers she would have done that to.

ICBC will be paying for it regardless. And so will we all in the end, since it's a crown corp.

[Foxer]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

J ust to nip this in the bud before it is brought up again - only the Pitt River Bridge and Goldon Ears bridge are higher elevation than the Port Mann. Elevation is a key factor here in both the ice-bombs incident and the ice on the deck. The fog was thicker on the Port Mann than either the Alex Fraser or the Second Narrows (only comparable bridges) and due to elevation the bridge deck ices far easier.

Hold on. That bridge is no higher than the bridge it replaced. And we never had car crushing ice bombs or 40 car pileups on that one.

And while poor driving may explain one crash - we've had people crash on that bridge all hours of the day for years and it's never triggered a chain reaction like that - and yeah they've been going over that bridge at 120 since I was born at least.

And those were regular commuters for the most part. They drove the old bridge every day - now suddenly they all forgot how to drive? At the same time?

I've lived here all my life so don't tell me the conditions were 'unusual' - we see weather like that every year.

It's pretty obvious that the design of this bridge is causing NEW problems that didn't exist before. Now - maybe that's inevitable with any new design to a degree and you can argue about whether it was a 'flaw' in the design or just that any new design needs a little 'shakedown' time to figure out how to maintain it properly, but don't tell me that there's no difference at all and suddenly drivers who take that route every day and probably have for years all magically forgot how to drive at the same moment.

And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that it's the height of the bridge that's the issue when it's the same height at the deck as it's been for the last 60 years or so.

[Gunnair]

Foxer Foxer:

I've lived here all my life so don't tell me the conditions were 'unusual' - we see weather like that every year.

A west coaster, are you? Andy must be thrilled to share the city with you. I'd keep your eyes open for a pool if I was you...

[Canadian_Mind]

Foxer Foxer:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

J ust to nip this in the bud before it is brought up again - only the Pitt River Bridge and Goldon Ears bridge are higher elevation than the Port Mann. Elevation is a key factor here in both the ice-bombs incident and the ice on the deck. The fog was thicker on the Port Mann than either the Alex Fraser or the Second Narrows (only comparable bridges) and due to elevation the bridge deck ices far easier.

Hold on. That bridge is no higher than the bridge it replaced. And we never had car crushing ice bombs or 40 car pileups on that one.

That was explained in the rest of my post where the previous bridge had actual operating speeds of 60-90 depending on congestion, this one is usually 100+.

$1:

And while poor driving may explain one crash - we've had people crash on that bridge all hours of the day for years and it's never triggered a chain reaction like that - and yeah they've been going over that bridge at 120 since I was born at least.

Poor driving explains 99% of collisions. why should this bridge be any different?

4 lanes of traffic vs 2/3. It's much easier, exponentially easier to involve a massive amount of vehicles in an accident with 4 lanes than it is 2 or 3 just by nature of the fact that the wreckage has more space to bounce around and more lanes of traffic to interfere with. That's why the final bridge, despite being 5 lanes per direction, will have barriers in place breaking it down into a 2 lane and a 3 lane segment in each direction.

120 since you were born? Depending on when you were born I might agree early childhood. But unless you were going over the bridge at night anything over 100 during the week was basically impossible due to congestion.

$1:

And those were regular commuters for the most part. They drove the old bridge every day - now suddenly they all forgot how to drive? At the same time?

I'd like to say yes. Back to the operating speed difference of 60-90kph to 100+. Not to mention routine builds complacency. So as soon as something new happens, ie a new bridge, people have to establish a new norm to get back into that routine. Until then, as is apparent with the 40 car pileup, things can be chaotic.

$1:

I've lived here all my life so don't tell me the conditions were 'unusual' - we see weather like that every year.

It's pretty obvious that the design of this bridge is causing NEW problems that didn't exist before. Now - maybe that's inevitable with any new design to a degree and you can argue about whether it was a 'flaw' in the design or just that any new design needs a little 'shakedown' time to figure out how to maintain it properly, but don't tell me that there's no difference at all and suddenly drivers who take that route every day and probably have for years all magically forgot how to drive at the same moment.

The weather is the same. Driving habits changed. And there is a design difference. The new bridge is smoother and wider. People want to go faster because it actually feels like a highway going across now, instead of a bottleneck.

$1:

And please don't embarrass yourself by suggesting that it's the height of the bridge that's the issue when it's the same height at the deck as it's been for the last 60 years or so.

Old bridge had icing all the time. But accidents were generally rarer and less catastrophic just because everyone was driving so slow. If you've lived in the valley I'm sure you've watched the news and noted the multitude of fender benders that happened on the old bridge, especially during rush hour.

[herbie]

Just observations from someone who spent his first 35 years there:
If the road gets wider YOU DO try to go faster, cuz every one of you fuckers can't do the limit on a 1 lane road and speeds up to 120 in the right lane EVERY SINGLE TIME there's a passing lane. And has this idiot idea the guy on the right has the right-of-way.
If I visit there with a supercab 4x4 towing a 24ft trailer and leave so much as 1 car length + 1mm between me and the car ahead on the freeway, you'll squeeze a Toyota in there.
Driving on snow in the real Canada is almost like driving on styrofoam, it even sounds like that. The so called snow around there is a mix of water and road oil almost like a salad-dressing slurpee. Blizzaks aren't gonna help.
I remember them salting the freeway every time they thought it might snow. Always so damn early all that salt was dispersed long before it ever did snow.

[Xort]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

May I aks if you`ve ever driven over the Alex Fraser or the Golden Ears bridges, because if you had you`d have noticed that they have characteristics very similar to the new Port Mann Bridge and yet they didn`t have any 40 car pilesups, now why would that be.

I haven't been over the new Golden Ears bridge, but I have been over every other bridge in the lower mainland at some time. At least all the large ones.

The Alex Fraser doesn't have the same down then up, as it's much farther from the hill and has no hill on the other side. Also it's an old bridge people know how to drive over it safely. A new bridge with new conditions, and people ignoring the posted speed limits, I can see how a small crash can get out of hand very quickly.

$1:

You can spin it anyway you want but the fact remains that if they hadn`t fucked up and failed to put down deicer there probably wouldn`t have been a 40 car pileup and we wouldn`t have had to put up with the Minister of Transport yet again defending her employees actions or lack thereof by diverting the blame to someone else.

Maybe, maybe not. Even in slush you can get a very sharp reduction in traction. If people are wildly over the limit with sort visibility due to fog and poor road conditions you are basicly asking for massive pile ups.

I think an investigation should be done, see if any of the vehicles had a black box crash recorder. I suspect strongly that people would have been well over the posted limit, to say little of a safe speed given the reported visibility reduction. Not even counting the road condition factor.

Depending on your vehicle and your reaction time you may need upto 3s following distance to stop compleatly on dry pavement. Which doesn't save you from getting nailed by the idiot following too close behind you.

~

Does that section of highway have a double set speed cam system? Basicly putting one camera set just after the 152 street merging lane, and another on the far side of the bridge. They then time all the vehilces as they pass over the bridge, if you are going faster thant he posted limit on average over the bridge you get a speeding ticket. It makes it almost impossible to speed over that section of road.