__ __ _ _____ _ _ _
| \/ | ___| |_ __ _| ___(_) | |_ ___ _ __
| |\/| |/ _ \ __/ _` | |_ | | | __/ _ \ '__|
| | | | __/ || (_| | _| | | | || __/ |
|_| |_|\___|\__\__,_|_| |_|_|\__\___|_|
community weblog
The Unlearned Lesson of the Titanic
Yesterday was the 114th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. From the April 1913 issue of the Atlantic (archive): "Little more than a year has elapsed since the greatest disaster in maritime history upset all our accepted theories of the unsinkability of modern liners... Since that fateful night of April, 1912, what have we done in the way of reform that will go toward averting another such disaster?" By Atlanticus (An officer on an Atlantic passenger steamer)
posted by ShooBoo on Apr 16, 2026 at 10:03 AM
---------------------------
we really need an annual awards gala and ShooBoo is clinching a title
I'm not sure what that title is, but they've clinched it
there's something ShooBoo-ish about your posts, it's like I do a little mental two-step "who posted this? ah yes, ShooBoo" which doesn't really describe the dynamic but I know what I mean
posted by runsrealgood at 10:06 AM
---------------------------
Was the shipowner, or the traveling public, or were the legal authorities, to blame for the shortage of boats aboard the Titanic? Without hesitation I exonerate the shipowner, and place the responsibility on the legal authorities and the traveling public.
If a steward, or sailor, or fireman cannot handle an oar, whose fault is it? Can six executive officers pretend to teach a crew of five or six hundred men the art of pulling and sculling, in a three weeks' voyage, when they have to navigate their ship across the ocean and attend to the duties incidental to a voyage? Is it officers' work to teach men how to pull and handle a boat? Strictly speaking, it is not.
If this had been posted to Metafilter in 1913, I'd definitely be flagging it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:31 AM
---------------------------
If this had been posted to Metafilter in 1913, I'd definitely be flagging it.
What about this passage: Saving women and children first is not a virtue monopolized by seamen. Wherever white men are found, this rule of life holds good...
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM
---------------------------
It STILL boggles my mind that men could look at the ocean, and then at ANY ship, and think, "well, that's unsinkable."
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:46 AM
---------------------------
Yeah, that's way more against the guidelines.
I bet 1913 Metafilter was also accusing this of plaguarizing 1913 The Onion: Captain Smith stands condemned for the speed of his vessel at the time it met disaster in crossing the ice field in a clear night. As a practical sailor I say that the speed he maintained was the right speed. Furthermore, were I placed under similar circumstances, I should give my vessel the last revolution she could turn even if she could go fifty knots an hour. In the face of what has happened this may seem a rash statement, yet I make it knowing that by practicing what I preach I should be looking after the interests of my owners, the lives under my care, and my own interest.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:50 AM
---------------------------
I was trying to figure out if this was originally written as satire and I found this more recent piece "Solving a Century-Old Byline Mystery" about one contributor to The Atlantic unmasking Atlanticus, the author of this article.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:05 AM
---------------------------
So wait, was The Atlantic originally supposed to be a monthly journal of the happenings and goings-on in the Atlantic Ocean?
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:09 AM
---------------------------
Metafilter: Doesn't really describe the dynamic but I know what I mean
posted by ewok_academy at 12:44 PM
---------------------------
Was the shipowner, or the traveling public, or were the legal authorities, to blame for the shortage of boats aboard the Titanic? Without hesitation I exonerate the shipowner, and place the responsibility on the legal authorities and the traveling public.
Who wrote this? Cal Hockley?
posted by fortitude25 at 12:55 PM
---------------------------
Gillian Welch: April the 14th: Part 1 and Ruination Day: Part 2
posted by hydropsyche at 2:42 PM
---------------------------
What about this passage
The author fought in the Boer War and wrote about it in the same periodical. I won't even attempt to find, much less link to that content. Epitome of the times, etcetera, but extraordinarily repellant to 21st century mores.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:05 PM
---------------------------
This is absolutely fascinating reading, thank you ShooBoo.
In response to some previous comments: yes, there are parts that will rightly elicit yikes from a 21st century audience, but to think this piece might somehow be satire is to profoundly misunderstand it.
The recent discovery of the author's identity makes it clear that he had exactly the role and experience he claimed to, and was quite genuine both in his views, and in his intent to act as a whistleblower in the interest of public safety.
On the realities of safety, within the world and the industry as it stood then, I think he was absolutely correct.
To address a couple of passages noted above:
Was the shipowner, or the traveling public, or were the legal authorities, to blame for the shortage of boats aboard the Titanic? Without hesitation I exonerate the shipowner, and place the responsibility on the legal authorities and the traveling public.
Passenger steamships in the early 20th century were the equivalent of modern airliners - not some luxury taken by choice, but rather the only way to travel across an ocean at all. It was a fiercely competitive industry, in which companies competed for passengers based simultaneously on style and grandeur (in 1st class), good facilities and value (in 2nd class) and the absolute lowest price (in 3rd class - which represented the majority of passengers).
The author is - quite rightly in my opinion - saying that it should have been the job of the legal authorities to mandate sufficient safety standards, because without that being a legal requirement, any operator that tried to exceed the legal minimum, or to compromise on the demands of passengers to improve on safety, would be placed at a commercial disadvantage, and thus pushed out of business, leaving safety worse overall.
This is exactly the same dynamic we see with air travel today - it's essential that regulators mandate and enforce high safety standards, because if they didn't, budget airlines would be under constant market pressure to cut corners on safety to stay competitive in a cutthroat market.
On the matter of speed:
As a practical sailor I say that the speed he maintained was the right speed. Furthermore, were I placed under similar circumstances, I should give my vessel the last revolution she could turn even if she could go fifty knots an hour. In the face of what has happened this may seem a rash statement, yet I make it knowing that by practicing what I preach I should be looking after the interests of my owners, the lives under my care, and my own interest.
The author explains his reasons for this view quite clearly in subsequent paragraphs, and I don't think he's wrong.
The key thing to understand is that the North Atlantic in winter is a routinely foggy place - anyone who's experienced it can tell you that.
And when facing the prospect of both icebergs and fog, captains were forced to slow down - but not because that made it easier to avoid icebergs. Slowing down actually makes it harder to avoid icebergs: because, as he goes on to explain, "such monster ships are sluggish in their responses to helm when under reduced speed". This is an important consideration for ship handling that I've discussed here before, in the context of the Ever Given grounding in the Suez Canal.
Yet in the days before radar and other modern gadgets, ships were forced to slow down in fog, reducing their maneuverability - just to have any chance of seeing an iceberg in time to attempt to avoid it at all.
On the night of 14th April 1912, the captain of the Titanic was presented with a rare, clear night - and hence the opportunity to make it across the iceberg danger zone quickly, with full manouverability, whilst that good visibility lasted. Overall, the author asserts, that represented the safer choice - and experienced officers of the time consistently agreed.
The question of the Titanic's speed I have heard discussed over and over again in the wardrooms of many liners, and I have still to meet the officer who condemned the speed maintained by her.
The unfortunate reality is that no ship could cross the Atlantic in total safety in 1912. To attempt it was, to some extent, to be faced with a choice between a rock and a hard place. Her captain, Edward Smith, made what his peers clearly considered to be the safest choice about how to proceed in the face of that dilemma, and when his choice ended in disaster, he went down with his ship.
The fact of the disaster doesn't mean that Smith was wrong in that choice - though it was certainly in the interests of the industry and the authorities for him to be blamed. The author of this piece was speaking out against that, at some considerable risk to his own career. I wouldn't dismiss his views so easily.
posted by automatronic at 4:41 PM
---------------------------
It STILL boggles my mind that men could look at the ocean, and then at ANY ship, and think, "well, that's unsinkable."
as the Bible clearly stares, "Don't Believe The Hype"
posted by philip-random at 6:17 PM
---------------------------
Having spent a few months as (supernumerary) crew on ships this article is fascinating. It would be interesting to take each of the points he mentions and work out how many years (and how many more disasters) it would take before some of the suggestions were implemented.
To pick just one: lifeboats. A UK-flagged ship launched in the 1970s as an antarctic research vessel was still allowed to have open lifeboats. Now having to take to the boats in the Southern Ocean would have been very unpleasant in any case but if your only shelter was a kind of tent over the top of an open wooden boat it would be significantly worse.
posted by RRS Ernest Shoogleton at 12:44 AM
---------------------------
"Do they ever consult the boat-sheets and boat-plans hanging in their quarters, to find out the number and locality of their boats? Why the aimless wandering round of men looking for their boats when the boat-plans show exactly where they are stowed?"
Not much has changed, methinks, with respect to travel in car, train, plane, or ferry. Lately I have been taking more notice of exactly how airplane emergency doors are supposed to be opened, and when they are NOT supposed to be opened (if you see fire outside, for example). But I just rode a ferry last month, and did I pay much attention to how to leave the boat in safety (if possible)? Nope. Then again, no helpful instruction cards were provided. Normalcy bias is quite the strong riptide.
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 3:30 AM
---------------------------
philip-random: "as the Bible clearly stares, "Don't Believe The Hype""
You lost me, I don't get the joke, sorry!
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:55 AM
---------------------------
Saving women and children first is not a virtue monopolized by seamen.
In 1928, my great uncle, Capt. J. Mueller of North Geman Lloyd, was travelling on the SS Berlin when the SS Vestris went down. The Berlin took part in the search and rescue efforts. Arriving stateside, said uncle noted that a lifeboat without an experienced sailor on board was not optimal. And so it proved.
That sinking was a bad business all around, but the hero of the hour was this guy.
posted by BWA at 4:54 AM
---------------------------
philip-random: "as the Bible clearly stares, "Don't Believe The Hype""
You lost me, I don't get the joke, sorry!
well, there's a typo on stares -- should say states. Otherwise, I'm guilty of being a little random as it was Chuck D who said DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE. Though I suspect Jesus and/or his Dad would have concurred. Man should never think anything he could build is impervious to catastrophe.
posted by philip-random at 11:33 AM
---------------------------