LogFAQs > #982659341

I also think it's a symptom of the times. Titanic sailed in 1912, was ordered in 1908, so even in those years would have probably been designed using concepts from the late 1800s.

In the grand scheme of things, I know 100 years isn't really a long time but technology has moved on a lot. Nowadays you'd probably find out about a ship sinking via social media before the BBC or Sky News has a chance to prepare an article on it. Back in the early 1900s, when you could only use morse code to transmit and were very much stuck to survivourship bias, it makes sense that lifeboats were used as ferries because the only people who survived were rescued via this method. Titanic was probably one of the earliest disasters where industries realised that lifeboats needed to improve.

I've read up about this a little bit and whilst I'm not an expert in the slightest, I'd like to point to the cultural shift. Back in the early 1900s, lifeboats were kept away from promenade decks/first class because they'd get in the way. If you get on a cruise ship now and there's a lifeboat tucked under your balcony, you'd be pretty happy because you can just dive out of the window and land in a boat that'll generally sort itself out.

IIRC Titanic was one of the first ships with sealable bulkheads. It was also pretty thin-skinned compared to the hulls that modern cruise ships have these days. Tech moves on and so does public expectations. Whilst Titanic was a flagship (pun not intended) during its time, I think it's not quite fair to say it didn't have enough lifeboats for its time. I agree, of course, but applying modern standards to a ship that was laid down 115 years ago is a little unfair.