Lessons from Cipunagara bridge

Last Friday's collapse of the Cipunagara bridge near Subang, West Java, will no doubt be a puzzle to many people. How could the 24-year-old, 50 meter-long bridge collapse under the weight of seven trucks, a van and a motorcycle?

Fortunately, there no one was killed in the accident, but at least 15 cattle died when the truck transporting them plunged into the river.

Soon after the incident, officials tried to explain why the relatively new bridge collapsed. Most said they had been informed about the decrease in the bridge's weight limit due to aging, from between 200 and 250 tons to only 150 tons.

"How could a bridge of that capacity withstand a total of 326 tons," an official said, referring to the total weight of the fully loaded trucks, the minivan and motorcycle that were on the bridge when it fell.

One of the trucks had a 50 ton load of 1,000 sacks of cement; another had a 60 ton load of liquid cement and still another had a 40 ton load of steel pipes. The cattle truck added to the weight stress passing over the bridge.

Officials at a nearby weighing station claimed that the trucks had not stopped by on the road to Subang.

In short, the officials were convinced that an overload had caused the two-lane bridge to collapse. Another official even said that he had been informed about the structural weakness of the bridge in 2001, and that at least 25 bridges in Java needed immediate repairs. He also said Cipunagara bridge was scheduled to be renovated in 2006.

The officials' strategy in responding to the accident varied from citing repair plans for the collapsed bridge to stepping up inspection and supervision at the local weighing station to prevent the passage of overloaded trucks on the province's roads.

A few questions, however, need prompt answers:

First, how could a 24-year-old bridge be considered so old that its collapse due to an overload would be considered reasonable? Many bridges built under the Dutch colonial government are still standing strong.

For example, Padangan bridge over the Brantas River in Mojokerto, East Java, collapsed in 1991 -- 134 years after it was erected in 1857.

Detailed technical arguments or rhetoric on the Cipunagara bridge's unexpectedly short life span would only raise more questions, such as: shouldn't the 24-year-old bridge have lasted longer, like the centenarian Dutch bridges?

Second, why were signs warning motorists of the bridge's condition not installed by the relevant institutions? If warnings had been provided, truck drivers might have been more heedful of their weight load -- and the government would have fulfilled its legal and moral duties properly.

Third, if the preventable accident was caused by institutional negligence, could victims file lawsuits through administrative courts? If, however, the accident is being considered a force majeure, like a natural disaster, then who is most responsible for the accident? The central government or the West Java provincial government?

Fourth, how could officials promise to step up monitoring and supervision at weighing stations?

Drivers might laugh upon hearing of such a plan, as weighing stations are known to have been operating on bribes for decades. Although traffic regulations stipulate the compulsory weighing of all trucks for both road maintenance and safety purposes, most truck drivers stop at weighing stations only to give money to the officers in charge and continue their journey without having had their loaded trucks weighed.

Accidents always leave behind pain -- and lessons to be learned. The Cipunagara accident has left people in pain, especially the family and friends of those injured, the cattle farmer who lost his livestock, trucking companies, distributors and their clients -- that is, the general public, who deserve better services as taxpayers.

The lesson from the accident is clear: Rampant bribery is rendering public services either lax or nonexistent, to the detriment of people's safety and well being.

Road safety is still far from becoming a reality, and it appears responsibility, integrity and dignity does not constitute attributes of self-worth among many of our officials.