Tranona
Well-Known Member
That is not what the report in post#16 suggests. While the three in quick succession is unusual, not sure it i anything to do with better reporting. Unlikely that any loss in the English Channel would go unreported.
More containers lost off Isle of Wight
- Thread starter wrr
- Start date
ylop
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure that even if they do nothing that they are liable if you sail into their flotsam. Their liability arises only if their insured was negligent. Probably there is case law on something like this?
However once they have warned other mariners by all reasonable means they must at least massively reduce their liability if not absolve it completely. Their costs for environmental cleanup will vary depending on (a) what was actually in the container, (b) if it stays in the container, (c) the direction the wind/tide carry it.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
You’re probably right, which suggests the industry needs some reform. In 1850 that seems a reasonable outlook but in 2026 not so much.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you could tell us what "reforms" would look like and how legislation would work and how it would be enforced.
ylop
Well-Known Member
It wouldn’t be technically difficult to have automatic bouys/markers on containers so if lost they could easily be recovered or at least avoided. But I guess if I was representing shipping companies faced with that cost I’d be saying “not having AIS to get virtual warnings was ok in the 1850s but it’s 2026!”
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Of course shipping companies that have margins in very low percentages will put locators and their power sources on what is estimated to be at least 17 million containers in use.....
Just because the technology may...or may not re power source .....be there, no one would use it.
A bit like a container insurer saying 'of course it must of been our container you hit, have some money'.
Never happen. I know some people who tried to claim for damage and cleaning caused by an oil spill in Gibraltar. One of these 'Insurance Clubs' that shipping companies use. Years later, nothing.
Just because the technology may...or may not re power source .....be there, no one would use it.
A bit like a container insurer saying 'of course it must of been our container you hit, have some money'.
Never happen. I know some people who tried to claim for damage and cleaning caused by an oil spill in Gibraltar. One of these 'Insurance Clubs' that shipping companies use. Years later, nothing.
ylop
Well-Known Member
My point was if insurers were concerned that they had significant liability they would already be doing this (mob equipment could clearly be adapted to provide both visible markers and if required AIS alerts). Clearly though insurers aren’t stressed about this, so it could only arise through IMO regulation - which seems unlikely given that loss of life from hitting containers is very low.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Well for a start, given that it’s entirely possible to recover items that are lost close to land in 2026 weeks could make them liable for cleanup. Just because things have always been a certain way doesn’t mean we have to carry on that way. The environment is important to younger generations, so why allow such large scale littering just so people can buy the latest throwaway crap from China?
The only reason liability was traditionally not enforced was the difficulty in recovery. Since the diesel engine came along that’s not such a good excuse.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
I agree. They won't spend a single cent if they don't have to.
I've always wondered why containers aren't fitted with a simple valve on top to release the air inside so they will sink quickly. Answer...it costs.
Also who is gonna mess about with salvage when there is no profit?
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Shipping companies do just fine, all large scale companies have low margins when framed as a percentage, they’d be idiots not to set up that way. Doesn’t mean they don’t make massive profits one way or another and doesn’t mean there’s no room to pass costs to their customers.
If plastic tat was £1.99 instead of £99p the world might even be a better place. Even better, if single use crap wasn’t financially viable!
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Legislation can create the profit, no problem there at all. The issue is that Parliament is full of millionaires who don’t want to clean their mess up and reduce income.
The only argument I’m seeing against liability is profit maximisation.
ylop
Well-Known Member
No point blaming the shipping companies because consumers want cheap tat.
ylop
Well-Known Member
The world of international shipping is complex and based on international treaties rather than each country having its own legislation. Most UK consumer goods arrive by sea - so adding cost, even marginal cost, would increase inflation. All to solve a “non problem”: currently containers either sink or get washed up ashore where they are cleared up! Certainly the 99% of non-sailors in my street don’t want increased inflation so that some yachts don’t have to worry quite as much about partially submerged containers.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
No point destroying the environment to keep tat cheap.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Ah the old “it’s complex” argument. It’s not at all. We’re specifically discussing territorial waters here so we can 100% legislate within our sovereign borders.
Add to that, Lloyds have a book (a set) detailing every shipping loss for hundreds of years. It’s not complex at all.
You call it a non problem, I consider it environmental damage. 50 years ago “not my problem” was fine, but we’ve moved on as a society. If damaging seagrass is an ecological disaster, dumping shipping containers in the sea surely must be.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Insurers do cover the cost of recovery if the containers come ashore as well as the loss of the container and contents. As suggested recovery at sea is probably a non starter - easy for you to say "entirely possible" with zero evidence that it is. The majority of losses are away from land and most containers sink. If the figures in post#16 are correct the number of containers lost is low and declining. The incidence of loss of vessels and lives as a result of collisions with containers is tiny to non existent - a survey a few years ago by one of the mags failed to find more than one or two confirmed losses. The best approach is to stop them falling off in the first place, and again the data suggests that is improving based on the falling number in a period of rising activity.
As to changes over time in relation to losses at sea and the debris left behind suggest you actually look at the past and you might discover that a lot has changed and today's losses are tiny compared with the past. I can just imagine some armchair warrior in the early 17th century banging on about how high the cost in terms of losses of ships and men was to provide rich people with spices for their food, silks for their clothes and tea for their afternoon soirees.
Not sure what you mean in your last 2 sentences. How is liability "not enforced". Liability for what? What have diesel engines got to do with any of this?
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Just as easy for you to say impossible with no evidence. The Solent in particular is full of vessels capable of recovering a container. As are most of our major ports.
When sail and manpower were the only means of recovery, and we didn’t understand environmental impact, and it was a few sacks of coal, it was entirely reasonable to assume it didn’t matter. None of those things have been true for decades. We have the infrastructure and means of recovery, we do understand (some of us, at least…) the environmental impact, and it’s no longer a few sacks of coal but a few tens of tons of stuff.
ylop
Well-Known Member
But what proportion of containers fall off near major ports?
You should stand for parliament rather than bobbing round the coast. All that happens if we make the UK rules tougher than everywhere else is some shipping lines will avoid the UK.
But where this is environmental damage on uk shores, shippers (and thus insurers) usually are on the hook. Either your concern is for yachties hitting them (which I called a non problem because it’s very rare, and consequences usually non fatal when it happens in domestic waters) or it’s about them or their contents washing up ashore. Which insurers currently cover.
I’m not sure why the two are linked unless the containers were lost in a sea grass area? I don’t think anyone is saying “it’s fine”. We are just questioning if spending tens of thousands or more on specialist vessels with lifting equipment and probably putting divers in the water is better than allowing them to wash ashore. Possibly the contents of the containers is part of that assessment.
Marsali_1
Well-Known Member
The country has enough issues without introducing another
lustyd
Well-Known Member
I never said I wanted divers and ships actually. I said we have the means to recover them so it’s no longer unreasonable to hold them liable.
It’s about creating an environment for change. Raise costs by adding liability and suddenly solutions will be found. Free market economics. Obviously nobody in the industry sees a problem, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.
These containers are either dangerously overloaded or the securing methods are inadequate for the conditions. As Capn said, any additional cost that’s not enforced is rejected so nothing changes. If they become liable even through fines then the desire to improve goes up. We absolutely can make better containers and we can put fewer containers on each ship. What we need is to make that cheaper than losing them over the side.
And yes, in the short term we should endeavour to clean up the mess and charge back to shipping for doing so. It’s just the responsible thing to do.