Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

mdd.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 202 posts

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#151

Post by wiredfool »

rwmj wrote: post #27
buster3000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the use of "flimsy contraption" and "first nudge" indicates your level of ignorance of the subject. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Dali#Description "Description Dali is a Neopanamax container ship[7] with an overall length of 299.92 metres (984 ft), beam of 48.2 metres (158 ft 2 in), moulded depth of 24.8 metres (81 ft 4 in), and summer draft of 15.03 metres (49…

This does raise the question of whether the new bridge will need to be larger and stronger. Will it need to be designed to withstand the hit from these new larger vessels?

Ideally they'll put dolphins protecting the piers, but they may be constrained with channel width and location. The key would be to keep the piers from being hit, not to withstand a hit.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#152

Post by lightedman »

jryb wrote: post #47
nashashmi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).

The engine failing isn't some random, unlucky event. Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this. Whenever this happens to an airplane it's considered negligence - there's no reason why we shouldn't have the same standards for ships.

"Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this."

Not always. We have regular maintenance done on our SMT lines by the company that manufactured the machines. Those things still fuck up once or twice a month, very unexpectedly, and almost always in the middle of a high-value operation (IC or LED placement.)

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#153

Post by alistairSH »

sergius wrote: post #140

Why rebuild a bridge? Watch this and wee at the cost for a tunnel these folks managed to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EruSZNI4th4

A tunnel would be ideal here (and the other crossings are already buried). But I doubt it's in the budget.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#154

Post by c0wb0yc0d3r »

ethagknight wrote: post #128

Is there not some responsibility on the US govt to reasonably protect its infrastructure in a common maritime path? The harbor long preceded the bridge, and when the bridge was constructed, the harbor had massive container ships moving in and out. No dolphins or starlings around a single point of failure for an entire bridge span? Whole a bridge collapse like this is rare, bridge strikes are not uncommon. It seems li…

Maps I've seen of the water in the affected area (I'm not sure what the technical term is, nautical chart?) indicate that the channel depth near the bridge is alittle over 15m deep. According to Wikipedia, at its heaviest the dali sits on the shallow side of 15m below the water. I'm not sure what you could reasonably do to impede a ship with such little room.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#155

Post by 0x0203 »

anonu wrote: post #142
edgineer wrote: post #13

Rebuild cost: $600m [0] I do hope We the People have zealous advocates. [0] https://news.sky.com/story/baltimore-trade-implications-from...

Given that there is sufficient capacity to route vehicle traffic to different paths, there is time to measure and plan: I would think people would look to a tunnel instead of a bridge in any rebuild of that route. There is a tunnel further south in the Chesapeake Bay where there are navy/military facilities that cannot risk being blocked by falling bridges.

As I understand it, hazardous material loads cannot be transported through tunnels. So having a bridge that allows that (and prevents the need for hazmat loads being routed through the city center) does make some sense. I suspect the cost of a bridge replacement might also be cheaper than both a tunnel and redoing all the roadways and infrastructure leading up to it, but don't know for certain. If anyone has a more informed estimate, please share.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#156

Post by c0wb0yc0d3r »

alistairSH wrote: post #147
ethagknight wrote: post #128

Is there not some responsibility on the US govt to reasonably protect its infrastructure in a common maritime path? The harbor long preceded the bridge, and when the bridge was constructed, the harbor had massive container ships moving in and out. No dolphins or starlings around a single point of failure for an entire bridge span? Whole a bridge collapse like this is rare, bridge strikes are not uncommon. It seems li…

The bridge opened in March 1977. A cargo ship at that time would have maxed around 3000 TEU (pre-Panamax). Dali is close to 3x that size at just shy of 10,000 TEU. And Dali basically center-punched that bridge support. And swerved very close to the bridge. A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow, but I doubt it would have stopped a direct hit such as this. I'm sure the replacement bridge will have more protect…

> A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow

Are you referring to the animal, or is this slang for some sort of nautical device?

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#157

Post by nradov »

rightbyte wrote: post #84
cientifico wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you how is going to play out. The people with less money for lawyers will be held liable. Normally the captain.

There was a pilot onboard, right? If I remember correctly they made the ship steer of course quite sharply. If the pilot dropped anchor and made the ship do that they might be in error.

Legally speaking, the pilot is only present in an advisory capacity. The master is ultimately responsible for safe navigation.

As for the anchor, you seem to misunderstand the basics of ship handling.

https://youtu.be/qZbUXewlQDk?si=GBPMFyHPZGAF1v5z

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#158

Post by willyt »

wombat-man wrote: post #130
ethagknight wrote: post #128

Is there not some responsibility on the US govt to reasonably protect its infrastructure in a common maritime path? The harbor long preceded the bridge, and when the bridge was constructed, the harbor had massive container ships moving in and out. No dolphins or starlings around a single point of failure for an entire bridge span? Whole a bridge collapse like this is rare, bridge strikes are not uncommon. It seems li…

It's a pretty huge ship. How do you stop it?

It's pretty shallow[0], looks like about 10m deep around the abutment that was hit; I would think that a big pile of rocks around the abutments that supported the piers on each side of the channel would do it. I just found out you call this RipRap[1] in the US which is cool, in Britain it's called Rock Armour. Total guess but a hundred meters in either direction parallel to the channel by 50 wide? That's about 100,000 tonnes of rock. Something like that? Something close to $50-$200 / tonne delivered? So range of $10m-$40m for both piers, so call it less than $100m. These are guesses which I am making from another continent! so probably the right order of magnitude but not much more accurate than that. I imagine it would have cost a lot less than $8bn dollars, 6 peoples lives and the indirect disruption to the US economy. With hindsight a suspension bridge or a cable stayed bridge with piers well away from the channel might have been more suitable. That style of structure is pretty old-school even for the 1970's, I wonder if it was designed like that because of ground conditions or something, or that was just the cheapest way of doing it in the US at that time and place?

[0] https://webapp.navionics.com/?lang=en#boating@15&key=gqjnFz%... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abutment

Edit: Changed distribution to disruption.

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#159

Post by woofcat »

c0wb0yc0d3r wrote: post #156
alistairSH wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bridge opened in March 1977. A cargo ship at that time would have maxed around 3000 TEU (pre-Panamax). Dali is close to 3x that size at just shy of 10,000 TEU. And Dali basically center-punched that bridge support. And swerved very close to the bridge. A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow, but I doubt it would have stopped a direct hit such as this. I'm sure the replacement bridge will have more protect…

> A dolphin might have mitigated a glancing blow Are you referring to the animal, or is this slang for some sort of nautical device?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(structure)

Re: Dali owner file petition to cap liability in Baltimore bridge collapse at $43.7M

#160

Post by tekla »

jryb wrote: post #47
nashashmi wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no fault neglect or want of care. The engine failed. The ship was out of control. It was not bad maneuvering. It was not sleeping on the wheel. It was not want of care (it was piloted by a harbor pilot).

The engine failing isn't some random, unlucky event. Regular maintenance and inspection should prevent this. Whenever this happens to an airplane it's considered negligence - there's no reason why we shouldn't have the same standards for ships.

You have no damn clue what you're talking about.
Post reply on HN