• CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Given how “easily” the bridge fell… Why aren’t ships that size required to 100% be escorted by tugs???

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      At the risk of sounding too Clarke and Dawe, it is very rare that a ship loses power and control, and somewhere it could hit something important, and hits that thing, and the thing is apparently so fragile that it just falls to pieces. It’s been there for 46 years, and the Port of Baltimore currently sees an average of 53 ships in and out per month, so about 3.5 big ships under the bridge per day. That’s a lot of passages over the years without incident.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        7 months ago

        and the thing is apparently so fragile that it just falls to pieces.

        I mean, it just got hit with a hundred thousand ton hammer. That’ll do a pretty good number on most structures, I imagine.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          For a structure that normally has these ships pass under it every day, it sure as hell should have had bollards to protect the piers against such an impact.

      • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        no, this is you speaking my language. we do ‘risk assessments’ and yeah I guess it’s a case of severity*likelihood, where risk is never zero.

        but, no matter what, when the risks ‘line up’ into a failure mode, holy shit is that failure catastrophic. crazy terrible regardless.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t know what the likelihood of this would be, but it’s definitely miniscule. I suspect you’d still need safeguards to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, but I’m not sure what exactly you can do once a boat has failed and is going to make imminent impact.

          At that point all you can do is mitigate the fatalities and evacuate.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Cause then we would have to hire more people to tug all those ships in and it would be less efficient.

      Not very profit margin of you to suggest that.

        • asret@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          This’ll be the real reason.

          My comment was just unhelpful and inappropriate - a bad joke aimed at puritanical Americans.

          • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I actually don’t disagree with anything you said. I don’t think you should feel bad (unless the comment is edited and I’m misunderstanding)

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Why aren’t ships that size required to 100% be escorted by tugs???

      They likely were, but there are limits on how fast even a group of tugs can influence a ship many times their size/weight/mass.

      The laws of physics still apply.