What factors contributed to The Dali hitting the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore?
101
669
4.3K
Jun 3
2%
Sabotage
98%
Failure in ship machinery
72%
Error on the part of ship's crew
38%
Error on the part of local pilots
80%
Negligence on the part of Synergy Marine Group
37%
Loss of steering due to machinery fire
1%
Terrorism
84%
Backup steering system failure
4%
"DEI" - a concrete link between diversity hiring or similar practice and the collision
1%
Cyber attack
3%
Error on the part of the original bridge constructors
14%
Failure to drop anchor
3%
Wes Moore
55%
Dirty/contaminated fuel
47%
Fuel pressure drop
46%
Computer system failure
19%
Ship was going too fast at the time of power loss

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/key-bridge-collapse-baltimore-what-to-know.html

This question will resolve to all the answers that are contributing factors of why the boat hit the bridge. As long as there's a reasonable causal connection, it counts - eg "failure to properly follow up on inspections" would count, so long as the followup could have plausibly averted the collision.

According to the NYTimes, what we know so far:

Why did the ship hit the bridge?

It is not known, and the National Transportation Safety Board said it is investigating. The 985-foot-long cargo vessel, called The Dali, was leaving the Port of Baltimore when it lost power and issued a mayday call just before hitting a critical component of the bridge, known as a pylon or pier. Radio traffic from emergency workers suggested that the crew was struggling to steer the ship, according to audio published by Broadcastify. Most of the lights of the ship went dark abruptly, just over two minutes before the ship hit the bridge. Baltimore harbor pilots were directing the ship at the time of the crash, as is customary when vessels enter ports or canals, according to a joint statement from the ship’s owner and manager. Governor Moore said the bridge was fully up to code, and that the collapse did not appear to be the result of a structural issue.

Feel free to add your own answers. I will moderate and N/A any that are obviously false/true and don't add value.

I'll only bet to set some initial values.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:

Can't wait for someone to add "it existed" and feel really proud of themselves lol

@TheAllMemeingEye How about "The ship had large inertia" / "The ship was loaded" 🤔?

@MartinModrak "the stupid engineers built a bridge right in the path of the ship smh 🙄"

@TheAllMemeingEye None of this would have happened if they just built an underwater tunnel like civilized people...

Dirty/contaminated fuel

This is a duplicate of contaminated fuel

@RichardK Dirty fuel was added 12 days before contaminated fuel, so I can N/A contaminated fuel?

I'm going to resolve a few answers based on what we know for sure right now. Investigations are still ongoing (including the FBI boarding the ship today), and it seems like it could be a while before there is an accepted story for what actually went wrong.

The options I resolve now will be based on this article, and hopefully won't be controversial. There seems to be a consensus that a power outage on the shipped knocked out steering and navigation, at least (but potentially not for sure?) until the emergency generator kicked in, which was either too late or otherwise insufficient to avoid the collision.

"Civilizational incompetence"

Backup steering system failure
bought Ṁ10 Backup steering syst... NO

If the backup system engaged, but too late, would this resolve Yes? Most backup systems take a bit to kick in

@Marnix If the backup system worked as it should, then it would resolve NO. That being said, if it “failed” because of an upstream reason, that still counts. Kicking in too late doesn’t necessarily mean resolving to YES as long as the delayed start is expected from the system.

@Dan How broad will "failure of ship machinery" be interpreted? Do external factors that caused the machinery to stop working make it resolve to yes? For example if an operator used a hammer to break a part of the machine, is that a machine failure?

@DavidS I'll interpret it fairly broadly, so yes the hammer example would count, but "someone turned it off" wouldn't. Generally something mechanical/electrical on the ship has to have stopped functioning properly somehow, regardless of why.

Error on the part of local pilots

Some quick details on a couple of the answers. Please ask on others!

Error on the part of local pilots: “local pilots” refers to the specialist crew that brings the ships out of port, not part of the regular crew.

Negligence on the part of Synergy Marine Group: “negligence” here refers to a layperson understanding, not any legal case.

More polls here (and an add-your-own option)

@Jwags People are free to add their own answers here as well

@DanMan314 Oh, sorry about that, I didn't see an option to add answers earlier.

Error on the part of ship's crew
filled a Ṁ20 Error on the part of... YES at 75% order

I am trying to envision the no outcome here and the accompanying news headline: "Flawless Catastrophe: No errors from ship's crew"

bought Ṁ20 Cyber attack NO

@DanMan314 two reliable voices of reason in a single embed what a treat!