Hopefully the lesson from this will be received by operators: it's way cheaper to invest in personnel, training, and maintenance than to let the shit hit the fan.

▲

stackskipton 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why? It's cost them 100M (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.

▲

xp84 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So was the bridge self-insured?

▲

stevenjgarner 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes the insurer will likely be able to charge more.

▲

toast0 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

At the end of the day we all just pay for it in terms of insurance costs priced into our goods.

▲

usefulcat 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What would be a better solution?

	▲	mjevans 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

genter 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

lazide 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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!

▲

nothercastle 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s not thought. These situations are extremely rare. When they happen it just close the company and shed liability.