"From the photos I can see what appears to be a solitary dolphin-type structure on each side of the two main piers. If so these look to be inadequate to deflect anything other than small vessels. I do not know what measures were planned or installed when the bridge was opened in 1977, but the sizes and weights of cargo vessels have increased enormously to the present with the globalisation of container sea transport.”

I see what you mean. Very cool site. Thanks for sharing. I hope the fediverse is used to marshal actual expert, similar to how this site does it, but more crowd sourced, like Wikipedia. Anyhow, seems like the bridge should have been replaced in addition to deflection devices.

The very article you linked, from the first of the experts, states, “There was no way to protect the bridge, even if there was a warning system in place. If a ship like this collides on with any bridge it may take it down.”

Each expert after basically says the same thing. Even with extra protections using modern technologies, a head-on collision from a boat of this size and weight would destroy almost any bridge, and there is no practical fender system to effectively deflect a ship of this size. Most suggestions are that a more modern bridge would simply have a wider channel, but a modern bridge with modern fenders and plant of dolphins would not have stopped a head-on collision like this. And a wider channel wouldn't matter if a boat if this size still ran directly into one of the (wider spaced) direct supports.

Other experts here note radar and sonar protections and lighting, none of which would have mattered here because the problem is the Dali lost power and navigation, which is what caused them to run directly into the bridge pylon. The pylon could have been made out of neon lights: they couldn't turn. I don't think you're taking into account just how massively heavy this ship is.