3 ms·

I mean, yes, everybody is pointing out about the mass of the container ship, but that's actually to the point of the above question and my question. Because the

by bmitc 3y ago

I mean, yes, everybody is pointing out about the mass of the container ship, but that's actually to the point of the above question and my question. Because the ship's size and weight are obvious. Were ships this size regularly passing by or under this bridge such that this scenario was effectively bound to happen given a ship failure and/or pilot error? That's my question. I'm not familiar with port activities, so it seems weird to have basically no secondary protection for that bridge with container ships of that size operating so close that they can hit it mere minutes after some failure. Watching this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJNRRdha1Xk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJNRRdha1Xk) shows that the ship was incredibly close to the bridge in the first place, even prior to the supposed failure. It's a bit bewildering to me, with my current knowledge, that this scenario wasn't envisioned prior.

shaboinkin 3y ago
That was my thought. The supports look like toothpicks relative to the ships that routinely pass through. I don't know enough about the forces involved here, but I'd like to think when they rebuild, they will add some sort of deflection capabilities around the supports that ships must past in between. But again, I don't know what that would take to deflect a massive ship like this. In hindsight, the bridge looks terribly exposed given the persistent risk of ships passing through.