GPSGuided wrote:Even the video suggested the water was more than knee deep.
There's a contradiction because
earlier reports stated they'd fallen into 2 metres of water. This sounds more likely to me, even though I'm sure the presence of knee-deep water probably means they were also extremely lucky they weren't on a different part of the bridge when it broke. They were lucky there was enough water. They were lucky they weren't over land at the time. They were lucky the river wasn't in flood. They were lucky they didn't sustain serious injuries from the bridge as they fell from it before being submerged. They were lucky the bridge didn't fall on top of them after they fell. The list goes on, and all of these scenarios could have resulted in serious injuries or deaths.
Note however that the camera was detached during the fall, so seeing it submerged doesn't necessarily mean the person wearing it was submerged. This one that's gone viral has been edited, but apparently the full version, also held as evidence by DOC, with complete coverage shows the guy going to collect his camera and then filming himself with a certain amount of shock. I haven't verified this personally, but if others want to judge or follow up then
here's the reference to that assertion from a comment on the Federated Mountain Clubs' facebook page.
Part of the problem here, though, is also that New Zealand's media has shown virtually no interest in following any of this up and validating what it's told by DOC and Tuhoe. There was a flurry of interest when it first happened -- mostly adapting press releases and interviewing DOC and Tuhoe officials. But ultimately nobody died, there were no immediate shocking pictures, and sources dried up, especially when the tourists themselves didn't seem to be available whether through their own choice or because the way DOC and Tuhoe released the info made it hard to track them down. Even then, however, no media has even visited the location, let alone commissioned any independent engineering opinion for advice on DOC's assertions to challenge them where it might be appropriate. The bridge isn't located in suburban Auckland but it's also not exactly remote in the scheme of things (there's a road nearby), and aside from the facility itself being closed off with a sign, there's full legal public access.
This video popping up, and the accompayning French blog post, seems to have been the first independently sourced information about the incident
at all, and even now the NZ media's interest remains at the sewer level of merely trying to be first in line to get its own rendition of a shocking video to be the one to go more viral than everyone else's.
That's a real shame because there's some potentially important stuff here, and from looking at the reaction to the video there's clearly a local interest in understanding how it was actually allowed to happen.