5 ms·

I’m no expert but looking at the pictures it is clear that most of the collision took place in the air well above the water, where the prow of the ship hit the

I’m no expert but looking at the pictures it is clear that most of the collision took place in the air well above the water, where the prow of the ship hit the top part of pier 17 causing it to collapse onto the bow of the ship. To me, the protective barrier around the pier at the water level should have stood off much farther laterally from the pier to prevent that kind of prow contact - but then it would have blocked much of the navigation channel. Therefore the bridge should have been torn down and redesigned to modern ship dimensions long ago.

londons_explore 2y ago
I think these barriers are designed to protect against much smaller ships. For big ships, the ship is expected to have sufficient redundant systems and assisting tugs to not crash.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  That may be the case, but such assumptions have not been justified for some time (the report says the tugs were let go on entering the channel, which it calls standard procedure.) As I noted elsewhere, more recent structures in the vicinity have been given what looks like much more substantial protection.
  - bagels 2y ago
    What is the point of the tugs if they don't take it through the part where it's most critical to have a tug?
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      That is a fair question, and I would guess that there are at least two different issues in play. The first is that the ship probably has little or no ability to steer until it is moving at a few knots (depending on whether it has thrusters; I suspect not.) Once it was moving down the channel, it could steer (assuming the steering gear worked, of course.) The second is probably that no-one with the relevant authority realized how vulnerable the bridge was to the much larger ships that have come into service since it was built (yet someone apparently realized that the adjacent power transmission towers needed better protection; sometimes people are not good at connecting the dots.)
      - someguydave 2y ago
        Oh I am sure someone connected the dots, just that no politician wants to spend $bil on infrastructure if they won’t take the blame personally for an immense failure like this

londons_explore 2y ago

I think these barriers are designed to protect against much smaller ships. For big ships, the ship is expected to have sufficient redundant systems and assisting tugs to not crash.

mannykannot 2y ago
That may be the case, but such assumptions have not been justified for some time (the report says the tugs were let go on entering the channel, which it calls standard procedure.) As I noted elsewhere, more recent structures in the vicinity have been given what looks like much more substantial protection.
- bagels 2y ago
  What is the point of the tugs if they don't take it through the part where it's most critical to have a tug?
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    That is a fair question, and I would guess that there are at least two different issues in play. The first is that the ship probably has little or no ability to steer until it is moving at a few knots (depending on whether it has thrusters; I suspect not.) Once it was moving down the channel, it could steer (assuming the steering gear worked, of course.) The second is probably that no-one with the relevant authority realized how vulnerable the bridge was to the much larger ships that have come into service since it was built (yet someone apparently realized that the adjacent power transmission towers needed better protection; sometimes people are not good at connecting the dots.)
    - someguydave 2y ago
      Oh I am sure someone connected the dots, just that no politician wants to spend $bil on infrastructure if they won’t take the blame personally for an immense failure like this