Wonder what changes will be made so something like this wont happen again
See my post there,
I'm guessing tug assistance until out of the harbor, Maybe out past the #1 buoy even?
That makes most sense. I cant believe they werent already requiring that
It's all about the money.
Ships don't often require that assistance once underway. Shipping companies don't want to pay for what's not normally needed. Actuarial tables likely figured the odds of it happening are so low, "we'll take our chances".
Just look at building in flood zones. Every time the Mississippi or some other big river overflows its banks, they just rebuild.
With the insurance companies refusing to write new policies for Cali due to their losses in wildfires and maybe quakes, when will see Allstate and Progressive stop writing in flood prone areas???
What type of companies do want to pay for what’s not needed, brother Geno?
As far as insurance actuary tables, I bet they all get updated now for municipal type projects (bridges, highways, etc). Nothing is the same price as just three years ago. They may have been using 5 year old construction costs when they were weighing the cost of a tug boat escort. And what were the ODDS a ship would take out the most important structural support?
The odds of it hitting one of those supports, on either side of the main shipping channel, were much higher than hitting one of the other supports as the ship HAS to go between them when staying in the shipping channel.
But, how many ships have gone through there safely since the bridge was built? And if it's rebuilt, how many could get through without another incident? Might be the first ship through..............might be the millionth one.
Honestly, most folks don't realize how much traffic goes under that bridge, or any other one crossing a major port. And I tend to agree, why would a shipping company (the companies that will likely be required to pay) want to pay for something that has a 1:1000 chance of occurring, or maybe less even.
Our house sits on the high side of our seasonal creek and therefor not in the flood zone for requiring flood insurance. Doesn't mean in a really big year we won't get flooded, just that the odds are less. So we're not spending more on flood insurance............but maybe we should.
My comment about companies not wanting to pay for tug assistance is just that...........it's all about the money, and they're nothing wrong with their thinking. If the pilot of the ship had thought conditions warranted tugs, he would have requested them and the company would have had to hire them. I'm guessing the pilot just figured it would be a routine trip until he climbed down the ladder to the boat to take him back to shore.
If those authorities determine tugs are needed all the way out in the future, it's just one more thing to add to the inflation LGB says isn't that bad.
