drunk Detroit bascule bridge operator damages bridge

[Lyon Wonder]

A bridge operator working under the influence (which I presume is alcohol) prematurely lowered the span of the Jefferson Avenue bascule bridge onto a freighter, causing extensive damage to the bridge.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130512/METRO01/305120355/1409/metro/Bridge-operator-arrested-after-Jefferson-Ave-span-falls-freighter

May 12, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Bridge operator arrested after Jefferson Ave. span falls on freighter

By Kim Kozlowski
The Detroit News

A 45-year-old woman was arrested Sunday by Detroit police on suspicion of being intoxicated after lowering the Jefferson Avenue Bridge onto a freighter that had been cleared to proceed under the raised bridge around 2 a.m., U.S. Coast Guard officials said.

The incident caused major damage to the bridge, a heavily used motor vehicle crossing over Rouge River Avenue that connects Detroit and River Rouge.

With the span closed, motorists have to use Fort Street as Wayne County officials work to address the damage.

"It's not a huge detour, but it will impact traffic," said Lt. Justin Westmiller, public affairs officer with the Coast Guard's Detroit sector.

There was moderate damage to the Herbert C. Jackson, a 670-foot lake freighter hauling 23,000 tons of iron ore from Marquette and destined for the Severstal dock in the Rouge River.

No one aboard the vessel was injured during the incident.

The bridge is in an area that is often used for commercial marine traffic, Westmiller said.

"We are working very diligently to get that bridge able to at least open and close for marine traffic," he said.

[roadman]

Love this comment:

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down.
Of the big bridge they called Jefferson Avenue.
The bridge , it is said, never lifts up her bed.
When the boom is dropped by the operator.

With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more.
Than the Herbert C Jackson weighed empty,
That good ship and true was a bone to be chewed.
When the "Bridge of Jefferson Avenue" came down early...

--with apologies to Gordon Lightfoot.

[Stephane Dumas]

I agree with one of the commentors, Gordon Lightfoot would be proud.

[triplemultiplex]

She must've been pretty wasted in order to get that timing wrong.  Ships don't exactly speed through drawbridges.  Unless she passed out on the controls.

[roadman]

I agree with one of the commentors, Gordon Lightfoot would be proud.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  A few years back, I read a book about Great Lake shipwrecks, which included an entire chapter devoted to the saga of the Fitzgerald.  In the forward of the book, the author quoted one only short verse from Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.  He went on to note that he wanted to print the full lyrics of the song, but that Mr. Lightfoot refused him permission to do so.

Such things happen when copyright law conflicts with common sense.

[theline]

I attended a Gordon Lightfoot concert many years ago. His performance was underwhelming. He looked bored and his singing lacked any enthusiasm. He didn't say a word to the audience other than the lyrics. I had always hoped that he was a good guy who was just having a bad day. Perhaps not, considering his treatment of the author.

[roadman]

I agree with theline's comments.  Last time I saw Gordon Lightfoot in concert was the 2004 PBS Live In Reno special.  He was clearly a shadow of his former self - although much of that may have had to do with the serious medical issues he'd reportedly been fighting in his later years.

[theline]

I'll give a guy with health issues a break, but I doubt he had that excuse back when I saw him. I'm thinking it was before I had kids, so that would make it the early '80s. Though I still like some of his songs, I'm passing on the concert he's giving in South Bend this summer.

[digitalphiltv]

Two months later, but I wanted to add... I went to a venue Gordon booked at Panama City, Florida's Marina Civic Center, and was very proud to have walked away with those ticket stubs...Mr. Lightfoot had an awesome attitude...and the Marina had a multi-million dollar yacht on tour at the time. They wanted me to buy the yacht! (of course...) but I told them, I just wanted to tour it.

In response to the original lyrics posted... I believe the correct line would have had the word "crew" not "true," although I do realize it was a parody. And no, Mr. Lightfoot would probably not have been proud of it.

[silverback1065]

Wow that's terrible, I wonder if they can fix it, they just went bankrupt!

[agentsteel53]

Two months later, but I wanted to add... I went to a venue Gordon booked at Panama City, Florida's Marina Civic Center, and was very proud to have walked away with those ticket stubs...Mr. Lightfoot had an awesome attitude...and the Marina had a multi-million dollar yacht on tour at the time. They wanted me to buy the yacht! (of course...) but I told them, I just wanted to tour it.

of course he had an awesome attitude; he wanted to sell you something!

[roadman]

FWIW, the official NTSB brief on the collision (why does the NTSB insist on calling marine accidents "allisions"?)

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/MAB1419.pdf

[US81]

FWIW, the official NTSB brief on the collision (why does the NTSB insist on calling marine accidents "allisions"?)

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/MAB1419.pdf

To distinguish between the impact of two vehicles in motion (collision) and the impact of a vehicle with a stationary object (allision).

Oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question? 

[roadman]

FWIW, the official NTSB brief on the collision (why does the NTSB insist on calling marine accidents "allisions"?)

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/MAB1419.pdf

To distinguish between the impact of two vehicles in motion (collision) and the impact of a vehicle with a stationary object (allision).

Oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question? 

Not a rhetorical question.  And if your answer is accurate, then how do you a) explain why a car or truck hitting a tree (stationary object) is commonly referred to as a collision.  And do we really need to make the distinction based on type of accident or type of vehicle involved.  You say 'collision', nearly everyone understands what you mean.  You say 'allision', and nearly everyone will say 'huh?'.

[jeffandnicole]

Probably the same reason why many people will call crashes "accidents", regardless if the person did it with or without the intention of doing so.  (Although at least they would have heard of the word 'Crash', unlike 'Allision')

[Pete from Boston]

Probably the same reason why many people will call crashes "accidents", regardless if the person did it with or without the intention of doing so.

Um, really?  There doesn't seem to be a big demand for describing intentional motor vehicle crashes, and I don't know that I would call one an accident.   

[Roadrunner75]

Still more of a 'collision' since both the bridge and the boat were moving, if "allision" assumes one item was stationary.

[jeffandnicole]

Probably the same reason why many people will call crashes "accidents", regardless if the person did it with or without the intention of doing so.

Um, really?  There doesn't seem to be a big demand for describing intentional motor vehicle crashes, and I don't know that I would call one an accident.   

It probably depends on the state, but the correct lingo is a Crash, not an accident.

I'm not sure what it has to do with demand anyway.  It's terminology. 

[jakeroot]

Probably the same reason why many people will call crashes "accidents", regardless if the person did it with or without the intention of doing so.

Um, really?  There doesn't seem to be a big demand for describing intentional motor vehicle crashes, and I don't know that I would call one an accident.   

It probably depends on the state, but the correct lingo is a Crash, not an accident.

I'm not sure what it has to do with demand anyway.  It's terminology.

I believe the PC version is "collision" ("accident" implies there's no one to blame).

Just "crash" to me sounds weird, since "crash" is a verb, not a noun like "collision" (the whole of the mess implied is a "thing" and is therefore a noun).

EDIT: how the hell did I end up in the bridges thread.

[NE2]

But the bridge was not a stationary object. Durr.

[jakeroot]

But the bridge was not a stationary object. Durr.

The bridge "crash[ed]", which resulted in a "collision".

[US81]

FWIW, the official NTSB brief on the collision (why does the NTSB insist on calling marine accidents "allisions"?)

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2014/MAB1419.pdf

To distinguish between the impact of two vehicles in motion (collision) and the impact of a vehicle with a stationary object (allision).

Oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question? 

Not a rhetorical question.  And if your answer is accurate, then how do you a) explain why a car or truck hitting a tree (stationary object) is commonly referred to as a collision.  And do we really need to make the distinction based on type of accident or type of vehicle involved.  You say 'collision', nearly everyone understands what you mean.  You say 'allision', and nearly everyone will say 'huh?'.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. "Allision" refers to the impact of a moving boat/ship/sea vehicle with a stationary object; in this context, I have heard "collision" used to describe the impact of two watercraft that were both in motion at the time of impact.  I have never heard the term "allision" applied except in reference to marine incidents.

I was only trying to clarify the NTSB terminology.