Lessons from Cipunagara bridge

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.