In a message dated 12/16/2005 7:10:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Dec 16, 2005, at 2:35 AM, David Mann wrote: > > > Well, not after it breaks anyway. Glass is very heavy and there > > doesn't seem to be much support for that bridge structure. > > > I doubt they'd use glass. Lexan or some similar transparent acrylic > is more likely. >
In either case, you would be unlikely to walk on the transparent material. For it would rapidly (at varying rates, depending on the material) become opaque..... ======= Good pt. In addition to never wanting to walk on the thing (too high), I do wonder about the safety. But I presume they have figured that out -- a safe way to do it. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to risk a major disaster at a national park (bridge falls with 100-200 people on it). Very, very bad PR. Although maybe I am being naive. A local waterworld had a water slide collapse about ten years ago, with seven students on it. One killed, one or two others seriously injured, I think one was going to be in a wheelchair for life. They said the kids exceeded the posted safety limit (number of people) for the slide. (They had, they'd piled on each other.) And they are still in business today. Brisk business in hot weather. I felt their claim was rather besides the point, they should have had someone monitoring the slides. Marnie aka Doe
