For whatever reason we don't really care about normal civilians dying en masse during peacetime accidents. So many people died in the General Slocum disaster that it wiped out the Little Germany neighborhood of New York:
For whatever reason we don't really care about normal civilians dying en masse during peacetime accidents. So many people died in the General Slocum disaster that it wiped out the Little Germany neighborhood of New York:
> Furthermore, there was a large consignment of fur, sent from Dupont de Nemours, an explosives manufacturer, and 90 tons of butter and lard destined for the Royal Navy Weapons Testing Establishment in Essex. Although it was May, this lard and butter was not refrigerated; it was insured by the special government rate but the insurance was never claimed.[111]
That may not excuse Germany for sinking it, but even so I think operating in that capacity is a far cry from being a hospital ship.
From Wikipedia:
> The [German] embassy decided to warn passengers before her next crossing not to sail aboard Lusitania, and on 22 April placed a warning advertisement in 50 American newspapers, including those in New York:
NOTICE! TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY Washington, D.C. 22 April 1915
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania
My favorite party question is what the most deadly power plant accident in history was. And the predictable answer "Chernobyl" is wrong by a whole order of magnitude, which seems to surprise many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
For even more extreme examples for drama & negativity bias, feel free to have a look at actual death causes vs. news exposure: Terrorism is overrepresented by more than three orders of magnitude, while almost nobody gets killed by a bad guy but rather by heart disease: https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...
All in all, humans are pretty pathetic at objectiveness.
The past is a pretty different place. These hundreds of passengers died when they couldn't swim the twenty feet to the shore. It makes you question why they wanted to have their party on a boat.
Many of them were young children. Most of them were trapped below decks because the ship rolled over so quickly.
> It makes you question why they wanted to have their party on a boat.
Victim blaming here is not just disrespectful and mean but also factually wrong.
I’m not following this. Seems like a lot of people were trapped below decks, and a lot more were stuck in what amounts to a mosh pit in water while trying to look after vulnerable loved ones, which is a great way for even strong swimmers to drown in a hurry.
In fresh water, which is far less buoyant than salty ocean water.
I mean, should I be required to be able to flap my arms and fly to hop on an airliner?
The strange part is that they wanted to be there. If you can't swim, this is a self-evidently bad idea. People are still afraid of boats, just as people are afraid of airplanes. Those people are correct -- occupying a vehicle whose failure will instantly kill you is something you should be frightened of.
But since you mention requirements, I'll note that my parents would not allow me on a boat -- any boat -- before I could swim. Unlike the ability to fly, the ability to swim is not all that difficult to learn. And while it won't save you if you get dumped into the middle of the sea, it will save you if you get dumped twenty feet from shore.
But it's not obvious to me that large boats should particularly be avoided if you have otherwise never learned to swim for whatever reasons. And it's not clear that being able to swim would necessarily save many of the people who have died in major ferry, etc. accidents.
The ability to get off the ship and into the water seems like the trickiest bit to me, particularly if you're below deck sleeping when the accident occurs. Once you're in the water, I think the temperature of the water is likely the biggest factor. If the water is cold then you likely have minutes to survive no matter how strong a swimmer you are. If the water is warm, people could float for days before succumbing to the elements. The USS Indianapolis survivors were in the water for four days and were in pretty bad shape, but I think in the modern era a more timely rescue is likely.
[edit] more to the point, do you believe crowd-crush deaths occur because those crushed foolishly never learned to walk?
Except it's not really. You'd generally trust these things to be safe and in reality they kind of are. Now much more than then, but even back then the risk was low enough for most people to take, I assume.
The same thing (albeit with a lower risk) is true of planes today.