5 ms·

If a ship doesn't have insurance it should not be allowed to dock. It's not that complicated. When driving into Saudi Arabia in your own car, you are required

If a ship doesn't have insurance it should not be allowed to dock. It's not that complicated. When driving into Saudi Arabia in your own car, you are required to show proof of insurance (or can purchase travel insurance at the border).

Simon_ORourke 2y ago
That will only lead to areas close enough to land, but within international waters where these uninsured junks will just anchor and wait it out. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/12/abandoned-at-sea-the-crews-cast-adrift-without-food-fuel-or-pay https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/12/a...
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  This is still arguably better. These crew aren't going to be paid by these irresponsible owners anyway. Let them abandon ship in international waters after a couple of missed paychecks.
  - ghiculescu 2y ago
    Why is that better?
    - diebeforei485 2y ago
      It's better for the workers who can find a different job as soon as the paychecks stop coming, instead of being strung along indefinitely. It's not too hard to get a small boat to rescue them and be shepherded to the airport. The Saudis aren't doing it because they are owed port fees. Negligent boat owners should lose their property just like negligent land (real property) owners do.
    - Simon_ORourke 2y ago
      The only way that would be better would be from the port authority's perspective. I'm sure the guys stuck on a ship 100 miles off any shore would not find it too pleasant.
      - diebeforei485 2y ago
        Crew rescue isn't too difficult to arrange. The coast guard can do this, and auction off the ship to recoup the costs. But at least the crew aren't wasting their time.
- will5421 2y ago
  But would you even start a journey towards a port that requires insurance if you don't have it? You're not going to get the benefit of docking at that port (unloading the ship and getting paid for the cargo).
  - pas 2y ago
    they can contract only for the time near the port
    - will5421 2y ago
      Who would pay a ship to take their cargo near a port if they knew ships need insurance to dock with that port and the ship didn’t have it?
throwup238 2y ago
> If a ship doesn't have insurance it should not be allowed to dock. That's already the case in the vast majority of ports to pay for situations like the Baltimore bridge collapse, although most damage is a lot smaller and more pedestrian like scraping the dock on approach. Ports generally require protection and indemnity insurance to pay for damage to third parties and the port, hull and machinery insurance so the boat doesn't get stranded in the port, and wreck removal insurance to remove it if it does. Anyone going through the Panama or Suez canal has to have even more insurance to cover the extra risk of blocking a major global shipping channel.
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  MBS can change the rules in Saudi to require insurance if he wants to. UAE did something similar recently.

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

That will only lead to areas close enough to land, but within international waters where these uninsured junks will just anchor and wait it out. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/12/abandoned-at-sea-the-crews-cast-adrift-without-food-fuel-or-pay https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/12/a...

diebeforei485 2y ago
This is still arguably better. These crew aren't going to be paid by these irresponsible owners anyway. Let them abandon ship in international waters after a couple of missed paychecks.
- ghiculescu 2y ago
  Why is that better?
  - diebeforei485 2y ago
    It's better for the workers who can find a different job as soon as the paychecks stop coming, instead of being strung along indefinitely. It's not too hard to get a small boat to rescue them and be shepherded to the airport. The Saudis aren't doing it because they are owed port fees. Negligent boat owners should lose their property just like negligent land (real property) owners do.
  - Simon_ORourke 2y ago
    The only way that would be better would be from the port authority's perspective. I'm sure the guys stuck on a ship 100 miles off any shore would not find it too pleasant.
    - diebeforei485 2y ago
      Crew rescue isn't too difficult to arrange. The coast guard can do this, and auction off the ship to recoup the costs. But at least the crew aren't wasting their time.
will5421 2y ago
But would you even start a journey towards a port that requires insurance if you don't have it? You're not going to get the benefit of docking at that port (unloading the ship and getting paid for the cargo).
- pas 2y ago
  they can contract only for the time near the port
  - will5421 2y ago
    Who would pay a ship to take their cargo near a port if they knew ships need insurance to dock with that port and the ship didn’t have it?

throwup238 2y ago

> If a ship doesn't have insurance it should not be allowed to dock. That's already the case in the vast majority of ports to pay for situations like the Baltimore bridge collapse, although most damage is a lot smaller and more pedestrian like scraping the dock on approach. Ports generally require protection and indemnity insurance to pay for damage to third parties and the port, hull and machinery insurance so the boat doesn't get stranded in the port, and wreck removal insurance to remove it if it does. Anyone going through the Panama or Suez canal has to have even more insurance to cover the extra risk of blocking a major global shipping channel.

diebeforei485 2y ago
MBS can change the rules in Saudi to require insurance if he wants to. UAE did something similar recently.