One of the more baffling phenomena to me is when USians, after some sort of disaster or incident, go "well, of course that went wrong in that way, because <plausible sounding reason>"
And like, the reason really *does* sound plausible, but then I also can't help but notice that this same type of incident *does not meaningfully happen elsewhere* even though the same reasoning would apply there too, so... what extra context is missing there??
(This thought prompted by the I-95 fire incident, but it's far from the first time I've observed this)
@joepie91 if I had to guess, there are a few factors that may make that more common in the US.
We don't maintain our infrastructure
We move a lot by truck instead of better alternatives like rail
We are a large country so rare events are more likely to happen here than in smaller countries (though I suspect this is not the primary reason at play)
@joepie91 I'd say tax money spent on maintenance
@joepie91 bridge fires/oil tanker fires/even specifically bridge fires caused by oil tankers crashing into them do happen elsewhere though? The US does rely more on road freight, which surely has an effect, but I don't know that it serves as a good example of your point because I don't think it "doesn't meaningfully happen elsewhere".
Like, trucks catching on fire is plausible. Highway structures collapsing under intense heat is plausible.
But then why do I never hear about collapsing highways over here? We have trucks and highway structures too. What's the differing factor?