What’s the difference between a ship and a boat?

[BigGreg]

...WELL I'm on a BOAT....
:smiling6: :smiling6: :smiling6: :smiling6: :smiling6:

SORRY i could not resist...

[Tim Marlow]

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a ship as a large boat LOL..... :tongue-out3:

[Guest]

...they’re just two words...

Without spoiling the fun by being too obvious; that's the point. Two words that can be applied to the same thing that have a very nuanced specificity that nobody understands.

[Guest]

Oh, I agree about that — but what I mean is that there doesn’t seem to be a universal definition that will satisfy everyone, so it’s subjective and therefore frequently impossible to answer which of the words definitively describes a particular vessel.

[Graeme C.]

One definition that I have heard is the it's a ship if it has a crew, a boat if it doesn't.
Unless you're Captain Rum......

[Tim Marlow]

There you go then.....

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82971023.pdf

A definition from maritime law. I suggest you read this if you suffer from insomnia.....I tried twice and just drifted off.....not sure what it tells us LOL.....

[JR]

I give up .
TAXI

[Ian M]

I have found several sources, Britannica, a couple of maritime college's and a couple of other sites that seem to agree that a boat becomes a ship when it is greater in length than 180 foot in length (an average of the differing lengths quoted),... So it would appear that the modern concept of a boat or a ship is purely based on its length. Sods law it does not apple to yachts, they can be any size that they like but they too are often divided up into sub groups. Smaller craft often referred to as cabin cruisers or cabin boats.... right up to the Royal Yachts which are considerable sized ships but are still a yacht.

[JR]

Now it's even more confusing Ian.
Going to stick to floaty thing, this way I don't upset anybody

[Guest]

A definition from maritime law. I suggest you read this if you suffer from insomnia.....I tried twice and just drifted off.....not sure what it tells us LOL.....

Just skip to the last page:

Case-law relating to differently worded definitions has struggled and probably failed to come up with future-proof literal or other interpretations which can convince a layman as to the precise meaning of the terms ‘vessel’ and ‘ship.’ Undoubtedly new ‘contrivances’ will continue to be added to the list of items which are popularly called vessels or ships, and some legal definitions will be altered and new ones created; legislators, national and international, usually lag behind an industry focussed on innovation, thereby providing a playing field for litigation lawyers. If ever any proof were needed that, in the words of an eminent Roman jurist, every definition in law is dangerous, one need look no further than the travails of the legal profession and the judiciary in defining a ‘vessel’ and a ‘ship.’

Now it's even more confusing Ian.
Going to stick to floaty thing, this way I don't upset anybody

Look at the bottom page 488 of the document Tim linked to …

In Polpen Shipping v. Commercial Union, the issue related to whether a flying boat constituted a vessel

[spanner570]

:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: :sleeping::sleeping:

[Tim Marlow]

I never got that far into the document Jakko. I even struggled with the paragraph you quoted above. I’m just not cut out to be a lawyer.....

[JR]

I never got that far into the document Jakko. I even struggled with the paragraph you quoted above. I’m just not cut out to be a lawyer.....

The last page Tim.

"Case-law relating to differently worded definitions has struggled and probably failed to come up with future-proof literal or other interpretations which can convince a layman as to the precise meaning of the terms ‘vessel’ and ‘ship.’ Undoubtedly new ‘contrivances’ will continue to be added to the list of items which are popularly called vessels or ships, and some legal definitions will be altered and new ones created; legislators, national and international, usually lag behind an industry focussed on innovation, thereby providing a playing field for litigation lawyers. If ever any proof were needed that, in the words of an eminent Roman jurist, every definition in law is dangerous,95 one need look no further than the travails of the legal profession and the judiciary in defining a ‘vessel’ and a ‘ship.’ "

Had a brief read through before I starting to talk gibberish to Christine, resulting in a slap !

The best part was the case about weather a dredger that lifted itself up was actually a vessel

A case in point is the judgment delivered by the Irish Supreme Court in The Von Rocks. 67 The craft in question -------------------- 61Ibid. 62IOPC Fund Documentation: 92Fund/EXC.22/14 24, 24th October 2003, at §3.8.13. 63IOPC Fund Documentation: 92Fund/EXC.8/8, 6th July 2000, at §4.2.5. 64Current available text effective as of April 1 2016. 65OPOL text effective as of April 1 2016, Clause 1(8). 66Similarly there is no definition of a ship in the 1999 International Convention on the Arrest of Ships. 67(1998) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 198. 494 Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce Vol. 47, No.4 was a ‘backhoe dredger, which is primarily used in harbours, channels or estuaries to deepen the waters at such locations.’68 It had no means of self-propulsion or self-direction. It lacked the vessel-associated characteristics of a bow, stern, or possession of an anchor.69 Dredging was carried out whilst it was jacked-up in position on the seabed through the use of hydraulically operated spud legs, which could later be raised to enable towing; an alternative method of movement would involve dismantling and transportation.70 The implementation of the Arrest Convention 1952 into Irish legislation involved the application of a definition section with words defining ship and vessel in wording identical to that contained in the amended British 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. The Court of first instance presided by Judge Barr accepted the defendant’s argument that the Von Rocks was not a vessel. The Judge applied the ‘primary/incidental purpose reasoning in marine insurance flying boat case Polpen v. Commercial Union, 71 referred to above, and came to the conclusion that the primary purpose of the backhoe dredger was that of being a rigid dredging platform.72 The judgment was however reversed on Appeal to the Irish Supreme Court; Judge Keane specifically rejected this argument and came to the conclusion that the statutory definition was not exhaustive and that a vessel which was not used in navigation ‘in the conventional sense’ could still fall within the category of ‘ship.’73 However, one can envisage the difficulty which may well arise if this type of dredger whilst not being -------------------- 68Per Barr J., in court of first instance [(1998) (2 Lloyd’s Rep. 198 at 199)]. 69Per Barr, J., in court of first instance [(1998) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 198 at 199)]. 702 Lloyd’s Rep. 198 at 202. 71See text above at fn. 46. 72[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 198. 73[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 198, at 208. See also Global Marine Drilling & Co. v. Triton Holdings Ltd (The Sovereign Explorer) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 60, where at page 61 Lord MacFadyen (Scotland Outer Court, Court of Session) refers to earlier litigation in that case (involving a mobile offshore drilling unit): “A motion for recall of that arrestment on the basis that Sovereign Explorer is not a ship, and on the basis that the arrestment was nimious and oppressive, was refused by Lord Marnoch on Nov. 12, 1999”. This point was not addressed at the appellate stage. October 2016 What is a Ship? 495 495 navigated is used negligently and damage is caused to third parties, e.g. through the negligent triggering of dredged explosive. At that point in time, it would be extremely difficult to treat the craft as a vessel for the purpose of section 313 of the British Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as the vessel is not in the act of being navigated. However, English Courts may well tend towards the view th

Following this delightful read I will now call all VESSELS.

[Tim Marlow]

Gibber gibber....my old man’s a mushroom..... :tongue-out3: :tongue-out3: :tongue-out3: :tongue-out3:

[stillp]

I had to study the regulations relating to the equipment on board vessels, SOLAS (The Safety Of Life At Sea) Regs, and the associated ISO standards, in order to propose an amendment to address a serious shortcoming of the standard that had resulted in a fatality, on the instruction of a coroner. It turns out there's no definition of a 'safety device' either.
Incidentally, my proposed amendment was rejected unread by the Chairman of the relevant ISO committee, who, with several expletives which I won't include here, declared that there would be no alteration of these regulations as long as he was alive to stop it! He's a retired US Navy officer who had commanded an aircraft carrier, which he referred to in some correspondence as 'his boat'.
I'm glad I'm retired.
Pete