You keep sidestepping the obvious. I don't care if you were taught not to read past the 1st paragraph. If you were to lazy to read the second paragraph then that is your fault. It clearly states CA, there is only one bay bridge in CA, it clearly states what highway numbers were involved. It may not be the epitomy of reporting but it gives enough information to tell you where it is, exactly what state and roughly the area.
You just can't admit you are the one who is nitpicking and just didn't read the article. Give it a rest.
Arrogance? "smacks of arrogance"? To assume that all but the dumbest people in the US don't know that CA and bay area means SF, Oakland or the small towns surrounding is arrogance?
I would say that assuming a reporter is going to immediately splash the location of an event in the first paragraph and that you are just too busy to read further because that is what you have been taught is true arrogance.
Besides the location WAS mentioned in the first paragraph, the person who posted it broke it up for easier reading.
I would have dropped this on the first post but you just kept claiming the info wasn't there, when it was, not only showing your ignorance and inability to read past the first two words, but showing your distain and arrogance of reporters who don't quite write the way you think they should. Have a nice day.
Take a breath! Why are you taking this so personally?
It clearly states CA, there is only one bay bridge in CA, it clearly states what highway numbers were involved. It may not be the epitomy of reporting but it gives enough information to tell you where it is, exactly what state and roughly the area.
You are wrong again. I did not know where the Bay Bridge was. And, as other have pointed out there are other Bridges called the "Bay Bridge".
Get a grip.