[I]t is clear that the reason for the collapse was due to a collision with the super structure of the bridge—not a lack of structural integrity of the bridge. The bridge would indeed be standing today had the truck's load NOT rammed the super structure of the bridge. In fact, 11 of the 12 sections of the bridge are still standing.

The problem is, 92 percent of a bridge isn't a bridge. And as a result, an I-5 corridor missing just 8 percent of one span is no longer a corridor.

Republican Washington state Rep. Ed Orcutt does not think that last week's collapse of the I-5 bridge collapse is a sign that the government should be fixing bridges, at least not before they collapse:Call me crazy, but I feel like in a collision between a truck and a bridge, the truck should be damaged more than the bridge. Yet that was not the case here. Far from it: The truck kept going, while the bridge fell into the river. Also, as Goldy observes,Shockingly, this may not even be the stupidest thing Orcutt has said in recent months. His view that bicycling is bad for the environment because cyclists' "increased heart rate and respiration ... results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider" is stiff competition even with the view that 11 of 12 sections of a bridge are good enough.

(Via Charles Pierce)