"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:31:47 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>Here in Portland, a woman yakking it up on her cell phone while crossing a
>>bridge tried changing lanes on wet grating. This despite huge signs
>>telling drivers specifically not to do that because the grating is
>>slippery
>>when wet. Her SUV started sliding, hit the guardrail at maybe 35-40 pm,
>>smashed through, and plunged 60 straight down into 55 feet of muddy water.
>>She escaped the car after it hit bottom and was able to swim to the top,
>>with only cuts and bruises.
>>
>>Her insurance is billing her $5k for repairing costs to the grating, plus
>>whatever the cost of dredging her car off the bottom. She swears she was
>>not speeding and wasn't distracted. Maybe the guardrail jumped up and bit
>>her car, then parted so she could drive through. Here's the story--you
>>decide:
>>
>>http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...oregonian?fpfp
>>
>>
>>
> Your narrative and the story you link to do not agree.
> Where did you get your information?

Sorry Bill--I posted the follow-up article instead of the initial article.
My source is the Oregonian, Oregon's largest daily newspaper. Here's the
original story:

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...oregonian?lcps

And here is another follow-up in today's paper:

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...gonian?EXCLUDE

While the guardrail on this bridge has done it's job for the past 30 years
(the last time someone drove through it), I doubt the design allowed for a
2.5 ton vehicle traveling at 35-40 mph (speed limit on this bridge is 35
mph; few drivers stick to that limit).

I've also been following the story on the TV news.