Printable View
The phobia of driving over bridges. It used to be considered an irrational fear, but since many US bridges and overpasses are close to collapsing, or have collapsed..... maybe it's not so irrational after all?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...e.html?hp&_r=0
It's not irrational to be afraid while driving, but not because of collapsing bridges.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
A phobia is a debilitating fear and aversion so I think it would still count GGT.
Wow, that was an interesting article! Having driven across that bridge and found it pretty fun, I would hate to live near it/need it because it's so damn long.
In a few weeks I'm chaperoning a Kid on a school trip to one of NY's bridges. I wonder if this will start a lifelong fear of the things. Though it wasn't a problem when we went to the top of the Empire State Building.
The bridge seemed to collapse because a truck hit an important structural member of the bridge. In which case I guess I fear human stupidity more than I fear old metal.
Agreed. This would definitely still be irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The fear of driving on bridges is surprisingly common and usually has little to do with fear of bridge-collapse or the like. Instead it's usually an expression of the general agoraphobia that often complicates panic disorder and occasionally also other disorders that feature unpredictable debilitating attacks and anxiety. In this context it's perfectly rational: these people really don't want to have an unpredictable panic attack--during which they feel as if they're going to die--in the middle of a long bridge, esp. not if they're driving.
"Debilitating" can have many contexts. I'd say adding unproductive travel time, to avoid 'certain bridges' <known to be dangerous or failing> can be a lesser-recognized form of that. That's a logical and rational aversion to risk...but may have insidious repercussions (?)Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm wondering if there is/might/could be a new connection between debilitated infrastructure, and developing debilitating phobias? I'm not discounting that social media and youtube could also be a factor, especially for those already prone to anxiety disorders (@ minx).
My best friend doesn't have an anxiety disorder, but "can't" drive on suspension bridges that cross bodies of water. She either finds another driver, or takes a different route. She also won't do amusement park rides with overhead tracks that create a free-floating flying experience. Yet, she has no problems driving over long water expansion bridges, or causeways 'rooted' under water, or being a passenger in an airplane. :bulb:
Surely if your fear is based on facts, then it's not an irrational fear, and therefore not a phobia...
Minx, wouldn't claustrophobia be at play as well? After all, someone driving a car on a bridge doesn't really have the opportunity to leave the car if the need arises, which is to say they're trapped in a sea of cars.
Plus a poor, obsolete design that makes it possible to hit a single important structural part (which was known). Which still falls under human stupidity, I suppose :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I don't suppose it's been tried (nor do I suppose it would work) to have her speak with an architecture student about why suspension bridges are so stable and beautiful?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Truth. The government was practically pooping bridges and roads back then, so clearly redundancy/quality was sacrificed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
***
On an unrelated note, when I see this thread title I think it says "Gentryphobia".
I just think who's Gephry and why are people afraid of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I think Griffon...how wouldn't be scared if one of those dropped in on your picnic?
FEAR FRANK GEHRY
:haha:
Dread, my ex is an architect and tried the engineering stability angle on her, to no avail. Her fear is being the driver on a suspension bridge. :weird:
Loki, maybe it's semantic, but something like gephryophobia might need a secondary category --- people who have a rational fear of bridges, based on the fact that so many are failing/dangerous (?)Quote:
Surely if your fear is based on facts, then it's not an irrational fear, and therefore not a phobia...
I wondered the same thing when bedbug infestations became common, and people were finding them in hotels, and bringing them home in their luggage. People who never had a phobia of bugs could easily become phobic -- with good reason. :think:
A phobia can be rooted in a rational fear. The key is the disproportionate, uncontrolled and debilitating fear response.
I've not seen any evidence that fear of bridges would now be rational as there's a real risk of them falling. I doubt it.
A bridge falling doesn't make a rational case.
Yep. Do you think those definitions might need some modern updates, or tweaks in psychiatric diagnostic categories? What's considered a disproportionate or debilitating response...that may be rooted in a rational fear...to turn it into a phobia? :think:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You're saying its rational but not providing any evidence.
GGT not providing evidence for increasingly inane assertions? :eek:
That's why it's a question and not a statement. ;) Anecdotal 'evidence' is more people being afraid to fly or be in sky-scrapers post-9/11, more people being afraid to take a cruise post-cruiseship catastrophes, more people being afraid of international travel in certain areas post-Arab Spring.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Rand, even you'd fall into some category there, with a rational concern (fear?) about honeymooning in Turkey. Would it become a debilitating 'phobia' if you changed itinerary and cancelled Turkey?
Bite me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Actually I've said I'm not concerned about my upcoming holiday but asked a reasonable question of is there any reason to worry: answer no.
Fear of flying is irrational - even in 2001 let alone subsequent years it was still measurably the safest means of travel.
Certain Arab areas its rational to avoid. The FCO advises against non-essential travel to Iraq and Syria I believe. To avoid them then is rational.
You've claimed that there's a serious risk of bridge failures but provided no evidence of such.
Travel advisories are comparable to bridge warnings by engineers and inspectors. One main difference is defining "non-essential" use.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If there's a proper engineers warning to avoid a particular bridge then it'd be comparable to an advisory warning uniquely for that unique bridge.
Is there an engineers warning out to avoid most or all bridges? I suspect the answers no so it's back to being irrational.
uhm, the US has more than 65,000 bridges deemed "unsafe" by qualified and certified structural engineers. Not just the Army Corps of Engineers, but professional engineers in the private sector. I started a thread a long time ago, focusing on Infrastructure failures and warnings proposed by engineers, after long-term studies and meta-data analysis, published in "Popular Mechanics".
We couldn't get beyond "Popular Mechanics" as the publisher. :rolleyes:
Bridges are inspected by engineers every now and then, and that's reported, so yes. The warning isn't to avoid a bridge, but to repair (or close) it, or not. Generally speaking, if a bridge isn't closed by the government, it will be safe enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Flixy, that's kind of backward in practice, at least in the US.
Edit: "bridges" include highway overpasses, not just structures spanning water.
Rand, am I correct in saying you put more faith in the agencies that define danger/risk avoidance as "rational", and certain individuals being "irrationally phobic"?
Seems reasonable to have more faith in agencies that base their opinions on facts, experience, and they are at least somewhat experts in the matter, than in people with irrational fears, yes. And when it concerns traveling, it's hard (if not impossible) to get a view of a situation from newspaper headlines, so the government's travel advice would be more useful, yes. If that mentions that as long as you stay away from protests, you'll be fine, that's probably true, for now. Where as when you watch the news, you only see the protests.
Difference with bridges is of course that those are inspected every now and then, while travel advice is updated whenever the situation changes.
Am I correct in saying you put more faith in random people who are scared, than in people who have analysed the situation and made a rational judgment on it? :bulb:
I'm fairly sure that even with your 'poor' infrastructure, you're not very much at risk when you cross a bridge that isn't closed. Hell, even if you cross a bridge that is closed because it's too dangerous, chances are very good you will survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Note that in addition to what I said above, there's also other steps other than closing or repairing, you can also decrease speed and weight of traffic, close lanes, etc.
No, I have more 'faith' in the experts who've routinely warned about sub-standard infrastructure, roadway/highway/bridge/overpass risks and failures, than any agency (public or private) trying to deny them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I.e. you trust experts who agree with your gut feeling? Because generally speaking said agencies, public or private, also have experts. And while independent experts are sometimes correct, they aren't always - but keep in mind that an 'expert' claiming you are in danger in some way, or to dispute what agencies say, works better on TV. It's not exactly uncommon for fringe 'experts' to get their voice in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Source on these experts and their independence please.
These experts are claiming that the bridges are more dangerous than is necessary, not that they're on the verge of collapse.
Clearly not the same thing then. Which makes sense as to be comparable there ought to be multiple collapses on a daily basis like there's multiple daily problems in Syria etc.
Other way around: engineering experts have led me to believe our public infrastructure isn't as safe as public officials portray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Didn't I already say the scientific meta-analysis came from independent structural engineers....with studies (initially) published in Popular Mechanics several years ago? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Saying that isn't a source. A link to an article in that magazine or elsewhere saying x bridges are being used while condemned is.
I remember seeing a similar article a few years ago, though it didn't make the same claim GGT is asserting here. It was closer to what Loki said, that they were more unsafe than was necessary and that infrastructure maintenance was inadequate so that in aggregate they would be growing even worse faster than they would be getting fixed/improved.
That's what I remember too - inadequate maintenance and outdated designs that resulted in them being not up to all the safety standards, and some more vulnerable in the case of things like a collision. Not that any bridge in particular was about to collapse.
