4 ms·

Why? It's cost them 100M (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-reaches-settlement-over-100m-civil-lawsuit-against-owner-and-operator-vessel-destroyed http

Why? It's cost them 100M (https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-reaches-settlement-over-100m-civil-lawsuit-against-owner-and-operator-vessel-destroyed https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/us-reaches-settlemen...) but rebuilding the bridge is going to be 5.2Billion so if gundecking all this maintenance for 20+ years has saved more then 100M, they will do it again.

lazide 11mo ago
Actually, to be even more cynical…. If everyone saved $100M by doing this and it only cost one shipper $100M, then of course everyone else would do it and just hope they aren’t the one who has bad enough luck to hit the bridge. And statistically, almost all of them will be okay!
- sitkack 11mo ago
  This is the calculus that shows why our current civilization is unlikely to pass the filter.
  - lazide 11mo ago
    Making the calculus apparent is why we might have a chance. Because then anyone who owns a bridge/needs to pay for said bridge damage goes, ‘well clearly the costs of running into a bridge on the runs-into-bridges-due-to-negligence-group isn’t high enough, so we need to either create more rules and inspections, or increase the penalties, or find a way to stop these folks from breaking our bridges, or the like - and actually enforce them’. It’s why airplanes are so safe to fly on, despite all the same financial incentives. If you don’t comply with regulators, you’ll be fined all to hell or flat out forbidden from doing business. And that is enforced. And the regulators take it all very seriously. Ships are mostly given a free pass (except passenger liners, ferries, and hazmat carrying ships) because the typical situation if the owner screws up is ‘loses their asset and the assets of anyone who trusted them’, which is a more socially acceptable self correcting problem than ‘kills hundreds of innocent people who were voters and will have families crying, gnashing their teeth, and pointing fingers on live TV about all this’.
toast0 11mo ago
The vessel owner may possibly be able to recover some of that from the manufacturer, as the wiring was almost certainly a manufacturing error, and maybe some of the configurations that continued the blackout were manufacturer choices as well.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  At the end of the day we all just pay for it in terms of insurance costs priced into our goods.
  - genter 11mo ago
    But it's important to "punish" (via punitive fines) the right people, so that they will put some effort into not making that mistake again.
  - usefulcat 11mo ago
    What would be a better solution?
    - mjevans 11mo ago
      Regulations to require work is done correctly the first time. Also inspections. I like a government that pays workers to look out for my safety.
    - cco 11mo ago
      A punishment that was felt by decision makers but was unable to be offloaded as a cost to the public, except maybe in the form of rent. Prison :)
    - DANmode 11mo ago
      Informed consumers who actually walk, ever.
    - potato3732842 11mo ago
      Well the current way involves paying for a bunch of non-value producing busy work by insurers, lawyers and a ton of expert parties relevant to the litigation process. There's probably some combination of "everyone just posts up a bond into a fund to cover this stuff" plus a really high deductible on payout that basically deletes all those expensive man hours without causing any increased incentive for carnage. Events like these are a VERY rare exception compared to all the shipping activities that go on in an uneventful manner. Doesn't take a genius to do the napkin math here. Whatever the solution is probably ought to try to avoid expending resources in the base case where everything is fine.
xp84 11mo ago
From your article - this answered a question I had: > The settlement does not include any damages for the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The State of Maryland built, owned, maintained, and operated the bridge, and attorneys on the state’s behalf filed their own claim for those damages. Pursuant to the governing regulation, funds recovered by the State of Maryland for reconstruction of the bridge will be used to reduce the project costs paid for in the first instance by federal tax dollars.
- Barbing 11mo ago
  So was the bridge self-insured?
stevenjgarner 11mo ago
Isn't there a big liability insurance payout on this towards the 5.2 Billion, and if so won't the insurer be more motivated to mandate compliance?
- nothercastle 11mo ago
  Yes the insurer will likely be able to charge more.

lazide 11mo ago

Actually, to be even more cynical…. If everyone saved $100M by doing this and it only cost one shipper $100M, then of course everyone else would do it and just hope they aren’t the one who has bad enough luck to hit the bridge. And statistically, almost all of them will be okay!

sitkack 11mo ago
This is the calculus that shows why our current civilization is unlikely to pass the filter.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Making the calculus apparent is why we might have a chance. Because then anyone who owns a bridge/needs to pay for said bridge damage goes, ‘well clearly the costs of running into a bridge on the runs-into-bridges-due-to-negligence-group isn’t high enough, so we need to either create more rules and inspections, or increase the penalties, or find a way to stop these folks from breaking our bridges, or the like - and actually enforce them’. It’s why airplanes are so safe to fly on, despite all the same financial incentives. If you don’t comply with regulators, you’ll be fined all to hell or flat out forbidden from doing business. And that is enforced. And the regulators take it all very seriously. Ships are mostly given a free pass (except passenger liners, ferries, and hazmat carrying ships) because the typical situation if the owner screws up is ‘loses their asset and the assets of anyone who trusted them’, which is a more socially acceptable self correcting problem than ‘kills hundreds of innocent people who were voters and will have families crying, gnashing their teeth, and pointing fingers on live TV about all this’.

toast0 11mo ago

The vessel owner may possibly be able to recover some of that from the manufacturer, as the wiring was almost certainly a manufacturing error, and maybe some of the configurations that continued the blackout were manufacturer choices as well.

potato3732842 11mo ago
At the end of the day we all just pay for it in terms of insurance costs priced into our goods.
- genter 11mo ago
  But it's important to "punish" (via punitive fines) the right people, so that they will put some effort into not making that mistake again.
- usefulcat 11mo ago
  What would be a better solution?
  - mjevans 11mo ago
    Regulations to require work is done correctly the first time. Also inspections. I like a government that pays workers to look out for my safety.
  - cco 11mo ago
    A punishment that was felt by decision makers but was unable to be offloaded as a cost to the public, except maybe in the form of rent. Prison :)
  - DANmode 11mo ago
    Informed consumers who actually walk, ever.
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    Well the current way involves paying for a bunch of non-value producing busy work by insurers, lawyers and a ton of expert parties relevant to the litigation process. There's probably some combination of "everyone just posts up a bond into a fund to cover this stuff" plus a really high deductible on payout that basically deletes all those expensive man hours without causing any increased incentive for carnage. Events like these are a VERY rare exception compared to all the shipping activities that go on in an uneventful manner. Doesn't take a genius to do the napkin math here. Whatever the solution is probably ought to try to avoid expending resources in the base case where everything is fine.

xp84 11mo ago

From your article - this answered a question I had: > The settlement does not include any damages for the reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. The State of Maryland built, owned, maintained, and operated the bridge, and attorneys on the state’s behalf filed their own claim for those damages. Pursuant to the governing regulation, funds recovered by the State of Maryland for reconstruction of the bridge will be used to reduce the project costs paid for in the first instance by federal tax dollars.

Barbing 11mo ago
So was the bridge self-insured?

stevenjgarner 11mo ago

Isn't there a big liability insurance payout on this towards the 5.2 Billion, and if so won't the insurer be more motivated to mandate compliance?

nothercastle 11mo ago
Yes the insurer will likely be able to charge more.