Vehicle falls from Skyway; 4 injured

**nugundam93** · October 18th, 2006 09:42 AM

hmmmm...article ended on a positve and constructive note.

pero teka, didn't it rain HARD that time? could it be possible na talaga lang naipon due to the sheer amount of water at that time?

**mazdamazda** · October 18th, 2006 09:45 AM

As always... a good article from Deakin. I think he hit it right on the spot.

Too many people are just blaming the driver but what about the PNCC's accountability also?

**tsupermario** · October 18th, 2006 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by mazdamazda

Too many people are just blaming the driver but what about the PNCC's accountability also?

probably because the "carelessness" of the driver was the proximate cause of the accident?

**mrpink** · October 18th, 2006 09:58 AM

he has his points .. he was harping about the international standards of the railings .. i'm no expert .. but how fast can you hit an international standard railing before it gives way ? .. but i'm pretty sure he would have been all over the drivers as well .. if his boss wasn't involved ..

**Horsepower** · October 18th, 2006 10:05 AM

Yes, PNCC should be blamed also. They should have built a massive 10 feet thick brick wall railing. That would certainly have stopped any SUV or truck from falling over.

The question is, would it be feasible? would people be willing to pay the toll?

Road Construction is a business. Businesses are ruled by feasibilities and probabilities guided by known standards. Heck, Trains around the Metro and all these Flyovers are brainchild projects of the Marcos Govt but it wasn't feasible back then. They are constructing it only now because of the increased probability of profits and low probability of bankruptcy.

Aquaplaning is a situation that can be avoided and can be controlled with proper maneuvers. I know because I've aquaplaned a lot of times. Never hit the brakes / turn the wheels or you'll spin.

At the end of the day, if Quintal didn't speed, no accident would have happened - that's the hard fact.

Sure nobody wants it to happen but blaming it other than the driver is simply x??>>!*&$*%*%. It's like blaming the Gun manufacturer when you accidentally shot yourself.

**cocoy** · October 18th, 2006 10:07 AM

so when the fortuner span around it was all because of the water? the driver didnt brake at all?

**Driv3er** · October 18th, 2006 10:31 AM

again, Quintal was going at 80 kph. He wasn't speeding.

**tsupermario** · October 18th, 2006 10:45 AM

but the problem is, road conditions were not right at the time..

**mbeige** · October 18th, 2006 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by mazdamazda

As always... a good article from Deakin. I think he hit it right on the spot.

Too many people are just blaming the driver but what about the PNCC's accountability also?

That is what I posted back, that the barriers should be high enough to prevent vehicles driving at the maximum intended speed (and with allowance for speeders) from flying over the barrier and onto the individuals/vehicles below. To reiterate, the barriers here in the US (if you want to have a comparison, dahil US spec daw yung Skyway) are 1.5 meters high. They are as tall as the Toyota Altis, in fact a bit taller.

I've always wondered why the freeways here have super high walls (2 meters tall, estimate) when the freeway crosses a road below. Now I know.

The maximum speed is 100kph right? If that's the case, then the barriers should be able to sustain a vehicle travelling at that speed (or even a bit more) that slams onto its barriers. If not, then it is substandard.