In covering the recent Cosco Busan incident (now the Overseas Reymar allision HERE) I have noticed most of the news articles have made a small error in terminology, not to mention the emails and comments to us saying that we chronically spell collision wrong.
In describing the incident where the Cosco Busan hit the Bay Bridge many prominent news organizations referred to event as a collision when in fact it was an allision.
For clarification: A vessel collides with another moving vessel…. A vessel allides with a fixed object (unless it is submerged) and is presumed at fault.
From the Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
al·li·sion noun \əˈlizhən, aˈ-\
Definition of ALLISION
1 obs : the action of dashing against or striking upon
2 : the running of one ship upon another ship that is stationary —distinguished from collisionOrigin of ALLISION
LL allision-, allisio, fr. L allisus (past part. of allidere to strike against, fr. ad- + -lidere, fr. laedere to hurt) + -ion-, -io -ion — more at lesion
We received an excellent email on the subject from fellow SUNY Maritime alumni John A. [Last name removed];
Allision is a violent striking (such as in a collision) with a fixed object. This is in contrast with “vessel contact” with a fixed object such as would be made with bridge fenders in the ordinary course of say a tug and barge passing under a bridge.
Bridge owners would prefer to classify all vessel/bridge interactions as “allisions” when fender systems have not been maintained and simply fall apart upon incidental contact, or were never properly designed.
The right of navigation generally supercedes the right of the bridge to obstruct the waterway. Bridge fenders are intended to protect the vessel, not the bridge. Congress allowed the bridge to be constructed with the provision that navigation would not be interfered with.
Under the “Oregon Rule” the burden of proof is on the moving vessel to prove that the allision was the stationary object’s fault. This might be shown, for example, if the fender was encroaching upon the navigation channel either from damage, or in some cases because it was not built or repaired according to the permit.
Thanks John for the clear explanation.
Good word. I noticed it yesterday in your report on the incident and looked it up.
Good word. I noticed it yesterday in your report on the incident and looked it up.
Thanks Mr. Rogers:
Allision – that’s a big word. Can you say that?
Thanks Mr. Rogers:
Allision – that’s a big word. Can you say that?
[...] 900 foot container ship M/V Cosco Busan Allides With San Francisco Bay [...]
[...] boats, gCaptain, jobs, maritime, maritime employment, maritime jobs, shipping industry, ships Nautical Word of the Day - Allision – 2 days ago In covering the recent San Francisco Bay Bridge incident I have noticed most (but not [...]
Allision is a good word, not used in it’s correct context very often! Not to be confused with Allusion!
Allision is a good word, not used in it’s correct context very often! Not to be confused with Allusion!
[...] Nautical Word of the Day – Allision [gcaptain.com] [...]
[...] in both media reports and political commentary related to the the container ship Cosco Busan that allided with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge. We first reported on the confusion between the words [...]
[...] (FYI: Not the world-famous Golden Gate Bridge.)gCaptain also covers the COSCO BUSAN incident in “Nautical Word of the Day – Allision” and even has animation of the vessel’s movement in “Follow the path of the Cosco Busan”Maritime [...]
[...] here’s the summary: Konrad pointed out that the accident was, formally speaking, an allision, NOT a collision. He then posed a series of questions intended to clarify the circumstances that prompted the Cosco [...]
[...] we have been preoccupied with the Bay Bridge Allision readers of our Maritime News Discoverer know of this troubling news from the pacific; When the U.S. [...]
Here is a thought to ponder on if you like :
With regard to fuel, when refering to volumes – whether bunkering, daily consumption, heating, transfering or tank capacity of same – ship’s officers normally and consistently speak in tonnes … not gallons. Consider the spillage figure of 140 as provided to the USCG by one of the vessel’s complement : had this been (correctly) interpreted as tonnes the approximate corresponding gallons would be the product of gallons per barrel times barrels per ton i.e. 56 x 7.2 x 140 resulting in a rough estimate of 56,000 gals.
Here is a thought to ponder on if you like :
With regard to fuel, when refering to volumes – whether bunkering, daily consumption, heating, transfering or tank capacity of same – ship’s officers normally and consistently speak in tonnes … not gallons. Consider the spillage figure of 140 as provided to the USCG by one of the vessel’s complement : had this been (correctly) interpreted as tonnes the approximate corresponding gallons would be the product of gallons per barrel times barrels per ton i.e. 56 x 7.2 x 140 resulting in a rough estimate of 56,000 gals.
Fergus, good catch but don’t forget the temperature!
Fergus, good catch but don’t forget the temperature!
[...] little history…. Shortly after the ship allided with San Francisco’s Bay Bridge we pointed you to the amazing website BoatingSF.com. Run by [...]
I’m not a mariner, nor am I familiar with “rules of the road” for ships, boats, and other seagoing craft. Nor am I familiar with the responsibility of the ship’s Master or the authorities who build bridge piers in the midst of navigable waters.
I am but a simple, but well-informed, citizen of the San Francisco Bay Area.
While Mr. Tylawski may well be correct in stating Maritime Law as it relates to a ship hitting a bridge pier (or it’s fendering system) — his words strike me as classroom theory, not reality in the present instance of a 900 foot ship hitting the fendering system of the Bay Bridge.
The bridge and it’s piers have been in their present locations since 1936 (actually earlier, during the construction) and local Maritime rules-of-the-road have long since been established to guide mariners safely between the piers without hitting any fixed objects. And, the fendering system was recently upgraded and completely rebuilt by the State of California Department of Transportation and it’s contractor. There’s been no mention of the fendering system having been previously damaged and being in the well-defined shipping channel — because it wasn’t previously damaged, and wasn’t in the channel.
So, while Mr. Tylawski’s words may be a correct statement of maritime law and common practice, it’s misleading to me and members of the public to hear (read) his dissertation, without reference to the actual event of the Cosco Busan hitting the fixed object.
It might have been more helpful to those of us in the public — who could easily find this site through a search — if he had said that he was describing a theoretical circumstance, and his words actually had no real relevance to the Cosco Busan incident. He leaves me with the impression that it is his opinion that there is some doubt about whether the bridge owner or the ship’s owner is legally responsible for the allision.
I’m sure he had no intention of leaving that impression. But I’m curious why he would describe this aspect of maritime law in a thread relating to the Cosco Busan, without being entirely clear that his statement wasn’t meant to describe his views of what happened in this accident.
Jerry Mendes
San Francisco, California
I’m not a mariner, nor am I familiar with “rules of the road” for ships, boats, and other seagoing craft. Nor am I familiar with the responsibility of the ship’s Master or the authorities who build bridge piers in the midst of navigable waters.
I am but a simple, but well-informed, citizen of the San Francisco Bay Area.
While Mr. Tylawski may well be correct in stating Maritime Law as it relates to a ship hitting a bridge pier (or it’s fendering system) — his words strike me as classroom theory, not reality in the present instance of a 900 foot ship hitting the fendering system of the Bay Bridge.
The bridge and it’s piers have been in their present locations since 1936 (actually earlier, during the construction) and local Maritime rules-of-the-road have long since been established to guide mariners safely between the piers without hitting any fixed objects. And, the fendering system was recently upgraded and completely rebuilt by the State of California Department of Transportation and it’s contractor. There’s been no mention of the fendering system having been previously damaged and being in the well-defined shipping channel — because it wasn’t previously damaged, and wasn’t in the channel.
So, while Mr. Tylawski’s words may be a correct statement of maritime law and common practice, it’s misleading to me and members of the public to hear (read) his dissertation, without reference to the actual event of the Cosco Busan hitting the fixed object.
It might have been more helpful to those of us in the public — who could easily find this site through a search — if he had said that he was describing a theoretical circumstance, and his words actually had no real relevance to the Cosco Busan incident. He leaves me with the impression that it is his opinion that there is some doubt about whether the bridge owner or the ship’s owner is legally responsible for the allision.
I’m sure he had no intention of leaving that impression. But I’m curious why he would describe this aspect of maritime law in a thread relating to the Cosco Busan, without being entirely clear that his statement wasn’t meant to describe his views of what happened in this accident.
Jerry Mendes
San Francisco, California
[...] (Technically an Allision) April, 1979 | the CAHABA, Capt. Jimmy Wilkerson, was dropping 2 of his 4 barges thru the east span [...]
As the copy editor for a maritime magazine, I agree that allision should be used. Even through our trade publication, we don't use that word because it is not commonly spoken, so not everyone knows what it means. Some people need to learn how to look up words they don't know.
As the copy editor for a maritime magazine, I agree that allision should be used. Even through our trade publication, we don't use that word because it is not commonly spoken, so not everyone knows what it means. Some people need to learn how to look up words they don't know.