[dylan604]

> leads to more efficient use of materials and hence lower cost.

I know that isn't always a bad thing, but this is the kind of sentence that always gives me pause. In the case were over-engineering something to 10x minimum tolerance can be re-configured to be only be 8x minimum, then sure, that sounds like there's some room to safely redesign for efficiency/cost sake.

My pessimism for the world today tends to make my first impression the "lower cost" phrase being used is always the "cheap bastards looking to cut corners at the expense of safety".

[brudgers]

Most choices are not cake or bread.

Most choices are bread or going hungry.

Or a new bridge instead of an old failing bridge or no bridge at all.

The fact that the bridge failed catastrophicly rather than ductally suggests the fundamental problem was systemic in the design and the mode of failure was from unanticipated forces.

What I mean that if the force was 8x the design load 2x vs 4x safety factors would be irrelevant.