[Larry]

Looks like the engineers used the correct fudge factor John.

[John]

When one applies the formula for risk versus reward to scenarios like that, it is unlikely to ever reveal crossing the bridge is ever the correct choice.

Let me express this another way. As a long time pilot after I did my one really dumb stunt and no metal was bent and nobody got hurt, I started to think about how the outcome of my idiotic choice would have read in the next morning’s newspaper. So from that time on, every time I was presented with a decision relative to whether I should do something that bordered on just a little bit stupid, I thought how folks would react after reading about my decision in the newspaper. That was all it took for me to make good decisions (most of the time).

I now apply the exact same decision making process when driving the bus. It always keeps me out of trouble.

[Archived]

Wow! Never in a million years for me… Not even on a Double Dog Dare!

DKO

[Michael]

I totally agree with Jon, probably not a good choice.
However, my formula for risk
versus reward includes a factor for entertainment value that sometimes gets me
in trouble.

At this point I’m on the camping side of the bridge and
need to cross it again to go home. I don’t think there will be a problem since
as Tom pointed out, there is a safety factor built into the design of the bridge,
wish me luck!

[AL]

Just don’t forget to say your prayers !!

Good Luck !!

[Archived]

Not to take the wind out of your sails, John but most states require you to observe the following rule regarding their bridges:

“You break it, you bought it.”

Check your insurance limits before the return trip.

[Rodger]

If the state, county, town or whoever is responsbile for the bridge only puts a weight limit sign on one side, how could they inforce any libility on the poor uninformed public?

Besides, John will be much lighter when he returns… LOL

[Tom]

While I have to agree with Truk regarding the first crossing, which revealed the weight limit only after crossing the bridge, re-entering the bridge from the side with posted limits might void that arguement.

However, John mentions the fun factor as part of the risk versus reward equation and I believe in this case the risk is near zero, but there could be substantial rewards just in amusement value in asking the local authorities how they intend to get John’s bus back across. I believe John can demand large planking to distribute the load, compensation for the stress he has endured, an agreement to purchase his coach at full retail value should the bridge fail and a waiver releasing John from all responsibility for damages to the bridge. He could invite the media, he could set up a wagering concession, and generally play it to the hilt.

Knowing John I believe he could derive a fair amount of satisfaction just asking for an engineering review prior to starting across subject to his approval.