Bridge rips 200 foot gash in ship

[SparkyMac]

"Bridge rips 200 foot gash in ship"

That's what the headline on CNN said this morning. Pelosi was quoted as wanting to know why the Coast Guard took so long to warn the local authorities.

It appears to me that the politicans have gotten their marching orders from their corporate masters. It seems that the accepted lie will be that the Bridge attacked the ship. And just in case that doesn't float too well -- "it was the fault of the Coast Guard" --- and not the scoundrel in command of that boat.

So much for a criminal investigation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. There is already a grand jury investigation underway.

The crew could be charged with causing the oil spill. And the coast guard themselves have already admitted that they fucked up in taking so long to warn the local authorities and have said they need to take steps to correct it.

[Eurobabe]

2. Yeah, that bridge just jumped outta NOWHERE

and attacked the freighter. :eyes:

[Skidmore]

3. First question in order is

exactly how fast was that bridge travelling when it hit that ship.

[Maine-ah]

8. and was it taking any drugs or alcohol at the time?

[ixion]

4. damn bridges... you have to watch them every moment... why do bridges hate 'Murika?

:eyes:

[SidDithers]

5. Original GD thread from Nov 7 here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2229519&mesg_id=2229519

including a pic of the ship. Not much comment about the incident when it happened, but we didn't know the extent of the fuel spill at that time. Coast Guard seemed to be more worried about the bridge than the ship.

Sid

[A HERETIC I AM]

6. Is it at all possible that this was an accident?

Because it was. It is an environmental tragedy, no doubt but because it was an accident, it does not make the person in command a "scoundrel". It makes him someone involved in an accident. This isnt a case like the Exxon Valdez, where the captain was drunk. It also happened to have been (according to a story i read last week) very foggy as well making navigation difficult.

There is no evidence of criminal intent so why would there be a criminal investigation? The guy didnt ram his ship into the bridge pier with malicious intent.

I guess i'll be accused of defending some corporation but i'm not. I am merely pointing out that on a rare occasion, shipping accidents occur.

[SparkyMac]

10. My apologies

Are you sure it was port authority personnel ? I have not heard the details of the crash -- but only of the widespread damage to wildlife.

I naturally assumed that it was some drugged-up drunkard employed by Exxon. A repeat of Exxon Valdez, if you will. If I erred, I apologize. Not to Exxon but to the non-drugged non-drunkard.

There is no evidence of criminal intent so why would there be a criminal investigation? The guy didn't ram his ship into the bridge pier with malicious intent.

Malicious or not, he did some terrible damage. If you are struck by a car whose operator is busy with his cell phone, will his lack of malice make your hospital stay more enjoyable ?

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. Some terrible damage was the result of an accident.

If you are struck by a car whose operator is busy with his cell phone, will his lack of malice make your hospital stay more enjoyable ?

No. Of course not. But i don't think the comparison is valid.

It is not clear to me whether or not the Captain of the vessel was even in charge. It might have been a harbor pilot, in which case it is the fault of someone who is presumed to have intimate knowledge of the waterway.

I did hear this AM that the Coast Guard has detained the entire crew for questioning.

I am not in the shipping business, i just have a fascination with large machines and how they work. Having said that, i can safely say that this sort of incident is not something the ship owners or operators take lightly by any means. Accidents like this are extremely expensive, both from a clean-up perspective as well as the repair of the ship and the delay of the cargo.

Jumping to conclusions seems to be a favorite activity on this board and i am merely attempting to inject a rational perspective.

[DCKit]

7. Everyone knows those bridges are pranksters....

They wait until it's foggy and start moving all over the place.

[soothsayer]

9. They'd better tase that bridge, bro!

[Bill219]

12. Reminds me of this one

LYNX TRAIN KILLS MAN
VICTIM WAS SITTING ON LIGHT-RAIL TRACKS

OPERATOR TRIED TO STOP
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11CE5654197960A8&p_docnum=1


Down here in the last election one of the biggest votes was between ending the funding on the light rail project or continuing to fund it.

The funding won the vote and it wasn't even close but there had been alot of editorials as to why it should have been ended

On the local radio station WBT the next day, there were callers that were calling in to say that this is why they should have ended the funding. They were trying to make the train out to be an evil sentient being.

Gotta love the right wingers for their simplistic thinking and all out ignorance sometimes