BLOODY HELL!!!

noseall said:
I'm just a baffled as everyone else, why such a vulnerable structure was left unprotected. Part of me thinks it's because it's either pointless or that large ship protection causes other issues.
Click to expand...

The USA is willing to accept a level of risk that most other developed countries are not. It's a cultural thing. The same reason they accept lower food standards and probably also why they accept levels of poverty that other developed countries don't.
 
gant said:
You been living under a rock or too much time digging holes? Think it might be a good idea to come up for air now and again.


www.standard.co.uk

Why are Roald Dahl’s books being rewritten?

Publisher Puffin hired sensitivity readers to rewrite passages to edit out words such as ‘fat’ and ‘ugly’
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
Click to expand...
Its only the same as me being restricted for saying such things as you are a lying c**t on a public forum.

Banned my arse.
 
JonathanM said:
The USA is willing to accept a level of risk that most other developed countries are not. It's a cultural thing. The same reason they accept lower food standards and probably also why they accept levels of poverty that other developed countries don't.
Click to expand...
As posted earlier...

noseall said:
I don't think there was ANY regards the bridge. Maybe there is a futility to protecting against massive ship collisions? Maybe it costs too much money v's the probability/risk etc? There seems to be a reliance on the ship doing its bit, rather than the bridge having to protect itself.
Click to expand...
 
Brigadier said:
Perhaps the cable towers - and their protection - post-dated the bridge?

And no-one bothered to retrofit better protection to the bridge?
Click to expand...
Correct.

I wasn't criticising the cable towers protection. Its more that fact that MBK gave them a big-up, when in fact they would not have made a difference to a ship like the Dali.
 
Last edited:
Brigadier said:
You've not heard of their appetite for litigation, I take it?
Click to expand...

It's just how they do things. Let accidents happen and then sue, rather than preventing them in the first place. They think it makes the economy more dynamic. It's a cultural thing.

Despite a gradual decrease over the past 13 years, the workplace fatality rate per 100,000 people in the U.S. is still significantly higher than in most E.U. countries. At 3.6 fatalities per 100,000 people for the year 2016, the U.S. workplace is nine times more deadly than the British workplace - with a workplace fatality rate of 0.4 for the 2016-2017 period.
Click to expand...
 
JonathanM said:
It's just how they do things. Let accidents happen and then sue, rather than preventing them in the first place. They think it makes the economy more dynamic. It's a cultural thing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this, but also grasping idiots encouraged by grasping ambulance chasers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top