Jump to content

Talk:List of bridge failures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bridge on River Douro, Portugal

[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1202214.stm

Back in '01, bridge collapsed, killed 70.

Quebec railway bridge

[edit]

quebec railway bridge is also not only a big disastour but it also killed many people 86 workers were working when the bridge collapsed and 75 people were killed and the rest got injured. Unsigned by 70.75.65.53

Opening date

[edit]

I think a column should be added to show the date that each bridge opened so that one can see how long each bridge stood before falling.

The columns here cover the "failure" issue. This isn't a table of over-all bridge data. If you want more information, feel free to click on the appropriate bridge's article, if any. If no such article exists, feel free to create one. - Denimadept (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think an "Age at Collapse" column would be a very useful column in this table. Perhaps the most useful. In the United States, "Roughly half of the structurally deficient bridges are 65 or older."[1] Tetsuo (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "One in 9 bridges still "structurally deficient" as average age nears 50 years". Transportation for America.

Ponte das Barcas -> Oporto 29th March 1809

[edit]

As you can see on these Wikipedia entries, where was a bridge in Oporto that collapsed when too many people fled from the advancing french troops. It was't a planned destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_das_Barcas

Which Jalon?

[edit]

Bridge failure at Jalon, but which Jalon? Tabletop (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Bridge

[edit]

Overload or destruction through mankind....?! The article about the battle at the bridge says it was destructed.... --93.220.217.84 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I can find says intentional destruction.AbsolutelyNOTaRobot (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yep 2001:4454:75D:7B00:F0BB:86D3:8E97:5B32 (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal failures without collapse?

[edit]

Numerous bridges have had failures of pedestrian containment (e.g., railing bending or breaking), sending people falling to their deaths. As far as I can tell, these have usually happened during crowd crushes or panics, but the bridge failures either initiated the panics or made them far deadlier. Examples include the following:

and possibly:

If part of a bridge's normal function is to carry pedestrian traffic, I think deadly loss of pedestrian containment constitutes a failure of that bridge, especially if it is a pedestrian bridge. I think it's a bit like a railroad bridge with a missing section of rail. Even if the bridge doesn't collapse, there will be a derailment. The bridge will have failed to carry the train across. Dcs002 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

m 2001:4454:75D:7B00:F0BB:86D3:8E97:5B32 (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Garcia Cifuentes

[edit]

I removed this entry:

Bridge Location Country Date Construction type, use of bridge Reason Casualties Damage Comments
Temporary footbridge Havana Cuba 25 February 1958 Temporary footbridge Bridge struck by an out-of-control Ferrari sports-racing car, driven by Armando Garcia Cifuentes, which then ploughed into trackside spectators during the 1958 Cuban Grand Prix 7 killed, 40+ injured Bridge destroyed Unknown how many deaths/injuries specifically due to bridge collapse

There does not seem to be any bridge involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whRzseltCBY

http://forums.autosport.com/topic/100110-what-happened-to-cifuentes-after-the-1958-cuban-grand-prix/

Please ping me if I missed something.

{{u|Gamall Wednesday Ida}}  17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamall Wednesday Ida: It seems to have been a temporary foot bridge, which collapsed. - Denimadept (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. That is what the entry said, but I don't see any bridge (temporary or otherwise) in the film, or mentioned in any other sources. The fan forum I linked to only mentions the car hits the curb. I don't parse the narrator's voice at the crucial moment in the video "another [car] hits the ????; six victims die, 31 including the driver are injured". By subtraction, that would put the casualties directly caused by the bridge's collapse at 1+9 if the stats in the entry are to be trusted. Why is this not mentioned in the video? There are footbridges in the video, but intact. {{u|Gamall Wednesday Ida}}  10:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bridge failures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Redirect

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lost information about bridge failures

[edit]

At 17:40, 16 January 2018‎, ChieftanTartarus deleted the 104,655 bytes article List of bridge failures 4 minutes after his own deletion proposal, ie. without any discussion. As I can see, amount of information from the deleted article were not incorporated here, ie. they are lost by the undiscussed deletion act.

Btw., sams and broadcast masts and towers have their own lists. Why just bridge collapses should be mixed with this disorganized jumble? --ŠJů (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ŠJů:Everyone is aware of this, it is quite clear in the edit logs, you have restored an article which constradicts another article and recreates an issue which has went unsolved since 2009, I suggest you undo your edits, considering all of this information is over in the other article and stop accusing me when I solved a problem, I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:BOLD which entitle me to take this action, the other article is more organised than the other one. No information was lost. I made the edit more than a week ago, people have accepted it. You're edits have made it a lot more difficult for me and many others. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChieftanTartarus: Such a massive lost of relevant information about bridge failures is surely not in compliance with purpose and aims of Wikipedia project. If you found some "contradiction", you should correct the specific "contradiction", not to destroy massively the content of Wikipedia. If you want to merge two articles, you should propose the merge, invite contributors to consider your intention, and finally, to realize a real merger, not only to remove the whole extensive article. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --ŠJů (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging people to back you up when harassing me on multiple pages is inappropriate, I've had enough of this. I suggest you stop or I have no choice but to go to the ARB. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against the deletion

[edit]

I'm strongly against the previous undiscussed deletion of this list. Amount of information from this article were lost. The mixed and unordered List of structural failures and collapses should be rather sorted and split to the existing and new specialized lists by type of structure. --ŠJů (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, the article was not deleted, it was redirected, and the reason why was explicitly explained in edit logs. This article was a Copy/Paste of the other article, you're claiming information has been lost but giving no evidence for this. You can't come in against a 'deletion' when the page was not deleted (hence why the discussion was not needed, it was a redirect per WP:BOLD in order to solve an issue dating back to 2009.) If you wish to do what you've said above, I invite you to make new pages for each of the types of failures, and then delete the main one, don't just restore pages which are duplicate information, it is most unhelpful. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of this article caused massive lost of relevant information. You didn't attempt to do real merger of the articles; just nothing from this article was transferred to the target list. Btw., an opposite procedure is desirable – to sort the mixed unordered list to special list and add information.
To remove such an extensive list only 4 minutes after the first deletion proposal and without any discussion or consensus is very inappropriate. I hope, you are able to admit this fact. --ŠJů (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ChieftanTartarus, on the face of it, ŠJů is correct: this article contains substantial detail that is not present in the redirect. A plain nuke & redirect doesn't do it justice. I suggest getting a few other editors' opinions (maybe open an RfC?) and, if merge is the result, perform a proper content merge. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want an apology from him for assuming bad faith over on the other talk page before I discuss anything with him, but either way do what you want with the article, I give up with the attempts to edit in good faith, I just get trashed every time. I don't want to be bothered by this. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, it is not so difficult to understand that such a massive lost of encyklopedical information, gathered by tens or even hundreds editors of the article over 13 years, is a serious damage of Wikipedia. Such a brutal intervention should be not made without consensual consideration. I made no speculation about your faith, such speculations are irrelevant. --ŠJů (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get an administrator to deal with you since you clearly don't know that it's against policy to assume bad faith, I didn't want to report you but you've left me no choice. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to discuss this issue with you if you willingly admit your error in judgement in the wording of your previous statement. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was not aware of the other article and have no interest in it. - Denimadept (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This isn't a deletion discussion, it's someone voicing opposition about a previous edit. There is a new discussion that hasn't been started yet however relating to splitting the other article into more suitable lists which I invite you to start if you so wish. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do not wish. That would assume that I was interested in some kind of change. I see the present situation as just fine. I haven't bothered to do more with the other article than quickly skim the first few pages. I had no interest in it. - Denimadept (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you want to change the other article, why are you removing content from this one? I think I'm missing something. I'd expect such a discussion would occur over there. - Denimadept (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not the one who made the split suggestion that's why, I don't see why two articles have more or less identical information. That's why I didn't start the discussion over on the other talk page. This entire section essentially serves no purpose to either talk page, but I cannot archive it as I'm technically involved in the discussion since I had to defend my Good Faith edit Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the split article discussion over on List of Structural Failures and Collapses, I'm archiving this section as it no longer serves any purpose to either article or the proposal. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2018 Florida bride type

[edit]

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/west-miami-dade/wwwt0d/picture204506074/alternates/FREE_1140/IMG_View-1-comp__1__7_1_P9C6OBGT_L337097734

Contrary to the article, the Bridge was a suspension bridge(not a "Concrete Pedestrian Bridge") which was under construction(as opposed to "Newly Constructed") The cable suspension system was not yet attached to the pylon which was not yet installed. 2001:8003:6E14:9D00:6829:333D:C7D0:87E3 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milvian Bridge

[edit]

AbsolutelyNOTaRobot, I have reverted you again. First of all, you are pointing at the main article, but what you say in your edit summary isn't in the main article but in Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Second, what's in the article doesn't bear out "failure":

As Maxentius had probably partially destroyed the bridge during his preparations for a siege, he had a wooden or pontoon bridge constructed to get his army across the river. The sources vary as to the nature of the bridge central to the events of the battle. Zosimus mentions it, vaguely, as being constructed in two parts connected by iron fastenings, while others indicate that it was a pontoon bridge; sources are also unclear as to whether the bridge was deliberately constructed as a collapsible trap for Constantine's forces or not

I don't know how you define failure, but "partially destroying" it kind of obviates any discussion of failure. And if the replacement bridge (the sentence in the main article is faulty) was "deliberately constructed as a collapsible trap", then there certainly is no "failure", even if "the temporary bridge set up alongside the Milvian Bridge, over which many of the Maxentian troops were escaping, collapsed": if it was a trap, it was supposed to fail. So it succeeded. And maybe it wasn't a bridge to begin with but a series of pontoons, which is only a kind of bridge.

The problem here is of course that you are trying to get all History Channel and try to solidify historical accounts into things that you can classify and categorize. And if something is so clearly an example of whatever, in this case a bridge failure, it should be easy to add a citation attesting to the fact. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, as you point out, it is described as a "collapse" in the article for the battle. The edit referred to the replacement pontoon bridge, not the partially destroyed bridge. Your quote states it is not known if it was intended as a trap. If the replacement bridge was intended as a trap, it would have to allow Maxentius to withdraw his army first, he certainly did not intend it as a trap for himself and his own soldiers. In either case, its collapse fits the definition of failure.

I'm not clear how a pontoon bridge, being a kind of bridge, is not a bridge. Perhaps I've misunderstood, can you please explain this point?

As I understand it, this page is an attempt to categorize events found in historical accounts. The majority of items on this list do not have citations, is there a reason this entry in particular requires one? AbsolutelyNOTaRobot (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you don't understand this: if the "replacement" bridge was designed to fail, its failure was in fact a success, though if indeed Maxentius' own forces were harmed by its premature failure, we're really talking about the unintended failure of a designed failure. Or something. Except, of course, that none of this is certain, not even the very existence of the pontoon "bridge". Since the entire "failure of a bridge" isn't even clear in the very article (again, not even the article on the bridge, but the article on the battle), or well-verified, it should be verified here. Bottom line: this is so vague, so fraught with doubt (opening line: "As Maxentius had probably partially destroyed the bridge"), we shouldn't list it. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple references in the article on the battle which discuss this. If it was a trap, Eusebius' Life of Constantine, i, 38 covers this moment:

he essayed to cross the river which lay in his way, over which, making a strong bridge of boats... the machine erected on the bridge, with the ambuscade concealed therein, giving way unexpectedly before the appointed time, the bridge began to sink, and the boats with the men in them went bodily to the bottom.

It failed when it was not intended to fail.

Again, plenty of sources agree on a bridge of boats; the only positive disagreement I have found is in some translations of Lactantius, whose description generally disagrees with that of everyone else. There are three other pontoon bridges on this page, seemingly without controversy. The Ponte Milvio article includes a link to the battle, which then includes this incident, I would not expect more.

You keep returning to the partially destroyed, permanent, bridge - would it help if I were to change the listed bridge to "Unnamed bridge near the Milvian Bridge"?AbsolutelyNOTaRobot (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

I suggest that the field labeled "casualties" be limited to integers for more appropriate (i.e., numeric) sorting. Alphabetics like "none" could be readily converted to 0 (zero). The bigger problem--which I am not qualified to address--would be to reposition the injuries, buses, and other comments that cannot properly fall under the heading of "casualties" to another (or new) field that would be more suitable for that purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.20.27.181 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK vs England

[edit]

Any reason that England is used in the table rather than United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.179.63 (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saale river bridge collapse

[edit]

Of 1825 obv needs to be on here. Needs its own wiki page too. Mostly significant because if was a cable stay bridge and lead to cable stay bridges not being considered again for a long time. Now the most popular type of bridge to build. Also 55 ppl died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonkeyPunchResin (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Construction

[edit]

Came across this list today in a discussion of the recent glass bridge collapse in China. Very informative and kudos to those who started and maintain this list. It seems like a column for Date of Construction would be helpful. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Has it been suggested before? The Dogfather (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Västra länken

[edit]

Partly collapse during the construction of the bridge in Umeå, Sweden. 2020-09-15


Forbes Avenue Bridge over 9 Mile Run and Fern Hollow Creek

[edit]

This should just read, "Forbes Avenue Bridge over Fern Hollow Creek".

The bridge in question did not cross over Nine Mile Run. It crossed only over Fern Hollow Creek, which is a tributary of Nine Mile Run. The confluence of Fern Hollow Creek and Nine Mile Run is around 0.85 miles south of the collapsed bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurisuto1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good (enough)?

[edit]

" illegal, but permitted sand extraction and the central span collapsed." 89.8.95.167 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanibel Causeway/Pine Island Bridge

[edit]

Since these two bridges partially/fully collapsed, should I put them in? (Caused by Hurricane Ian) Bayshoreformula (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have no confirmation about the Pine Island Bridge collapse, only Sanibel Bridge. Bayshoreformula (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strasburg, Virginia January 1996

[edit]

January 1996 — After being pummeled by snowstorms and then rain, Strasburg saw the worst flooding in recent memory. The footbridge at nearby Deer Rapids was destroyed and helicopters delivered cellular phones to residents.https://www.nvdaily.com/life/lifestyle/250-years-in-the-making/article_eeec05f9-a545-56ff-951e-f59207f14e25.html 2601:140:8302:9510:D04B:869E:B08E:AC02 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More on the 1996 bridge destruction in Strasburg, VA. Unprecedented flooding after a sudden snowmelt washed the pedestrian bridge away and also destroyed several houses in the area. The road bridge was impassable. Rescuers crossed the Shenandoah River in ice cold temperatures to reach residents whose homes had been destroyed in freezing temperatures.
[1]https://tedkalvitis.substack.com/p/remembering-the-1st-flood-there-were 2601:140:8302:9510:D04B:869E:B08E:AC02 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferns Hollow Cause Determined

[edit]

The NTCB released the final report on the ferns hollow bridge and determined the cause of the failure to be corrosion of connections near the bridge abutments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP7eJQ59onE 2620:A2:6000:13:A0E1:4E76:57A8:4246 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Suez Canal obstruction

[edit]

This accident involving the Ever Given on 2021-03-24, did not involve a bridge, but it blocked international trade for 6 days. Should it be included in this list of bridge failures?

Culverts are, strictly speaking, not bridges yet one such accident near Gosford is included. Should the Suez canal incident be included as well?

Two tankers also collided on 2021-07-17 also blocking the canal briefly.

See 2021 Suez Canal obstruction ----MountVic127 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mamatlakala highway accident of 28 March 2024 where a bus crashed through the barriers of a bridge, it seems to be the fault of the bus driver and/or the bus stearing. The great height of the bridge over its ravine (about 50 metres) would have contributed to the severity of the accident, but like the Ever Given accident is this really a bridge accident? ----MountVic127 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ravine and other failures

[edit]

As there are now at least 10 ewxamples of ravine failures, it has been hived off to Draft:List of Ravine and Other Failures.

Bridge Location Country Date Construction type, use of bridge Reason Casualties Damage Comments
Mamatlakala highway accident Mamatlakala South Africa 28 March 2024 Bus crashed through bridge barriers onto ravine 50 metres below 45 killed; 1 injured Bridge has minor damage to railings Bus catches fire.
Malaysia 12 February 2024 1 killed; 4 injured [1]
Bansko Bulgaria 17 March 2024 While skiing; 3m drop to ravine 1 injured

[2]

Penang Malaysia 24 September 2023 1 killed; 10 injured [3]
Mabinay, Negros Oriental Philippines 21 February 2024 off cliff into 40m deep ravine Brake failure? 14 killed; 3 injured [4]
Iloil Philippines 5 December 2023 Brake failure? 26 killed; ? injured [5]
Huanta Peru 18 September 2023 200m deep ravine 24 killed; 21 injured [6]
Muar Malaysia 25 December 2016 5m deep culvert 14 killed; 16 injured [7]
Qila Saifullah Pakistan 8 June 2022 Speeding? 22 killed; 0 injured [8]
Penang Malaysia 25 September 2023 Downhill road 1 killed; 5 injured [9]
Ayuterra Malaysia 6 September 2023 Elevator cable broke 5 killed; 0 injured [10]
Cavite Phillipines 6 January 1967 80+ killed; 60 injured CV; ME; NG [11] Almost world record
Tam Duong bus crash. Vietnam 15 May 2005 19 killed Bus fell 150 m (490 ft) down ravine after colliding with motorcycle

Reasons and other abbreviations

[edit]
Code Problem Remarks
NB No barrier
WB Weak Barrier
SP Speeding
SR Slippery Road
UR Unsealed Road more likely to slip
BF Break Failure
ST Stearing failure
OV Overtaking
SI Single lane road
PH Pothole Causes vehicle to veer
KI Killed
IJ Injured
RV Ravine Height
NS No signs such as "No Overtaking"
PP Police Present
SH Steep Hill
SC Sharp Curve
CF Cable Failure Elevator
DH Down Hill
CV Convoy
NG Neglience
MF Mechanical Failure
BU Bus
TK Truck
VN Van
CR Car
CO Collision

If you search for "Ravine accidents" there are quite a lot of examples, enough to have a Draft:List of ravine and other failures. ----MountVic127 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some merit in skipping past accidents with fewer than, say, 4 or 10 killed and injured.

References

  1. ^ Ravine failure
  2. ^ While skiing
  3. ^ Bus crash
  4. ^ Negros-oriental
  5. ^ Bus crash
  6. ^ Peru
  7. ^ Muar, MY
  8. ^ Pakistan
  9. ^ Downhill
  10. ^ [ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/bali-resort-elevator-crash-deaths Cable Failure]
  11. ^ Cavite
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_bridge_failures&oldid=1242128643"