It is clear enough that some kind of enforceable regulation is needed, or tragedies will keep happening. I watched a History Channel documentary a while ago, I think it was called “Why Ships Sink” or somesuch. While it didn’t really answer the titular question, and great portions were trite to someone with a bit of insight, there was one section in particular where they interviewed a maritime historian about early 19th century shipping.
He managed to convincingly convey just how risky maritime transportation used to be when commercial forces were allowed to rule, taking the North Sea winter of 1854 (?) as an example. The losses during those few winter months were truly staggering, with hundreds of ships lost, taking countless lives with them. I’ve searched in vain for either the documentary or a good source for the numbers.
Another, perhaps even more striking example is the trade with the viking settlements on Greenland. There were several years where loss rates reached 20%, and still they kept on sailing. Clearly, the benefits (inestimable riches and untold reproductive success) were such that rolling a five sided die for success or death was worth it to the owner/operators, especially when the situation was viewed with a touch of cognitive bias.
What I don’t understand is why commercial forces don’t self regulate in this matter. According to my (admittedly simplistic) view of the world, the insurers’ interests should prevent coffin ships from ever existing, without the need for Mr. Plimsoll to intervene. Still, we see time and again that shipping in unregulated markets lead to all kinds of horror, both in the East and in the West (where life is relatively expensive).
How do the economics of risk taking in maritime transportation work, anyway? I get that cargo can be a really large fraction of the total ship value, sometimes far in excess of the vessel itself, and transportation cost can be a really large fraction of the value of the delivered cargo. Thus, the vessel and crew are a relatively small part of the transportation economy equation, rendering them expendable.
However, I’d also expect the relative cost of operating the vessel vs. cargo capital and risk costs to dictate that strong safety culture is good business. If the vessel and crew are relatively inexpensive, then increasing vessel and crew expenditure by a large factor should incur a relatively minor cost, at a large risk benefit. Am I just plain wrong, are the insurance companies blind(not bloody likely), or what the hell is going on?!