.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Meantime
-
Posts
4,056 -
Joined
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Meantime
-
-
2 minutes ago, grendel said:
from memory that was about where the fence was shown on the video posted on facebook, the boat was in line with the dyke shown inland and stated he was downstream of the pump outfall.
I didn't see the post on Facebook and the wonder that is Facebook makes it virtually impossible to find anything that happened more than 24 hrs ago. One reason I don't post on it.
The recent history of that mooring may go some way to explaining why the boundaries could have become a little blurred.
A few years ago it was obvious which bit was BA and which bit was the farmers. The BA only leased their bit and gave up the lease when they deemed the mooring to be unsafe. The Fishermans Inn landlord then rented the mooring and made it a free mooring for pub patrons.
It is the EA's responsibility to defend that section of land and have now completed the repiling along the whole section including the farmers bit. It now all looks like the same mooring, but with different owners.
The BA have obviously taken on the mooring again, however it is also entirely possible that they have taken on a shorter stretch than they had previously on the basis they consider it an under used mooring.
-
2 minutes ago, grendel said:
a point i believe raised by myself over on the facebook discussion.
Does anyone know that the farmer hasn't been extensively in talks with the EA to try and get his fences and signage re-instated. I would imagine trying to get action from the EA could be every bit as frustrating as getting action from the BA at times.
-
1
-
-
The BA mooring used to end roughly where my Red line is and there is a pump outfall that breaks up the BA mooring from the farmers mooring. As you follow the Angles Way just past the outfall it turns inland and there used to be a fence stopping you from accessing the farmers land.
-
2 minutes ago, Mouldy said:
It’s interesting that the farmer allowed all the work to be completed before raising the issue with a member of the public in such an aggressive, threatening manner. If he had concerns, surely the correct course of action would have been to discuss it with the BA whilst the works were underway?
The work was actually carried out by the EA, not the BA. So no charge to the toll payer, other than re-instating the usual BA paraphernalia that you find at 24hr moorings.
Before the work was carried out the original EA piling continued on beyond the BA stretch of mooring. I assume the EA have replaced all the piling, which is why part of the farmers land has been repiled and defended.
Their used to be a fence and signage that made it plain where the BA mooring ended and private land began. I would assume it is a simple enough task to replace the missing fence and signage. I would add however that even when the signage and fence where there, you often used to see boats mooring where they shouldn't, even the farmers signs warning of adders didn't deter people. I'm glad the adders could read though as otherwise there would have been nothing to stop them invading the BA section of the mooring
The farmers bit of the mooring starts roughly where the Angles Way footpath turns back inland again. If you knew where the old electric post was, then not far upstream of that was the farmers bit. I believe the BA are planning on re-instating the post again.
-
I place this link here for information only. The investigation has been carried out by experts and I would suggest we can add nothing here.
-
1
-
3
-
-
9 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
I think you have made your point, by now! From your point of view, of course.
Most of the holidaymakers I have ever met would regard something like that as the high point of their adventure holiday (which is what it is) and dine out on the story for years afterwards.
Not just my point of view I think. How about an eye witness account
Quote "All of a sudden everyone started arriving and we began to realise that our mooring, although quite normal, was restricting the width of the river when boats were tacking. By then the raters suddenly arrived and we were stuck there!
As soon as we could see a gap in the traffic we cast off and scuttled back under the bridge again!"
-
2
-
-
Somewhere in the very centre of that picture is someone out for a relaxing cruise.
-
Don't get me wrong, it is fun to watch, just no fun finding yourself in the middle of it if your not a competitor!!!
-
Just remember stay close to the bank and they'll go around you!!!!
-
You'll have a calm peaceful relaxing holiday
they said!!!!!
-
I wonder if the people on board the Orange Gem ever came back!!!!
With moored boats as well, it is just too tight.
-
1 hour ago, TheQ said:
Many holiday makers do take their hire boats through during the race, as you can see with the above photo, and this video. Outside of the rush couple of hours normally 12:00-14:00, there are few sailing boats so it's very quiet for 22 of the 24 hours of the race.
Whilst that maybe true, surely this is enough to put any one of for life!!!
-
1 hour ago, Vaughan said:
Personally I doubt that either HSC or the competitors would wish to see that happen, to such a traditional river event. They would probably see it as the thin end of the wedge. Next, we would see the Thurne closed for Thurne mouth open regatta, or the Yare closed for the YNR.
Both those rivers are far wider than the Ant and in the case of the Yare way less busy. For those who value their boat the Ant is effectively closed during the 3RR anyway.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Ray said:
I love crossing Breydon, especially if there's some actual waves 😂
A hundred tacking yachts on The Ant.... not so much 😁
I would rather cross Breydon Water a thousand times than go up the Ant once when the 3RR is on!!!! In fact you might even have more chance of persuading me to go into the Lion's den than go up the Ant during the 3RR.
Now this might be a tad controversial, but since it is only once a year, I would even support the BA closing the Ant below Ludham Bridge, to motor boats, for a period of 6 hrs from say 1pm to 7pm. They can and do close other parts of the navigation from time to time on the grounds of safety during maintenance etc.
I do and will be again spectating at the 3RR and one of my favourite places is Ludham Bridge and for many half the spectator sport is watching the motor boats panic and struggle to navigate past the sail boats, but I have also seen too many scrapes and people possibly put of boating for life. Only last year a moored up boat lost a window and sustained damage to its window frame as the mercy of a bow sprit.
I know it is a public navigation and there is a right to navigate and perhaps the counter argument would be to place the Ant mark just in the mouth of the Ant to make things easier, but there is a lot of history to the 3RR and it's only once a year, so I think serious consideration should be given to restricting access to motor boats for one 6 hour period per year.
-
2 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:
Just for balance, private boats are not exempt from the maladies of boating in Norfolk
I don't think anyone has suggested they are. However I'm sure statistics would show you were more likely to see a hire boat aground on Breydon than a private boat. It says something that you had to search the archives for a picture from 21st June 2015 to illustrate your point.
Off course we all know that private boats go aground as well, and they are not perfect helmsmen either, so what focusses their mind?
I'm not going to go into any detail, but only last weekend we witnessed an incident down Thurne Dyke where my friend on board helped out a crew. As we walked into the pub one of their party offered to buy him a drink to say thanks for his help. A conversation ensued including a discussion about the three foot of rubbing strake hanging of their boat. It ended with, "well that's what the CDW's for" Thankfully in this instance the only other injured party was a piece of quay heading, not someone else's pride and joy.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Vaughan said:
Well, here we all are, looking back on a thread that has run to 8 pages over almost a week, all based on an incident which, for all we know after a couple of very sparse press articles, is that a boat drifted onto the mud after an engine failure. Even that may not be strictly accurate.
Not one but two boats, one possibly with engine failure. Hey but carry on rewriting history.
-
8 minutes ago, Cheesey69 said:
how about inconsistency?
A lot of the Broads you can venture outside of the markers with no trouble at all. EG, Barton Broad. Or even roam all over most Broads, Wroxham.
Suppose some may see breydon as the same and try to cut corners?
Wouldn't that come under tuition though at handover. The bit where they say, whilst on some Broads it may be deep enough to go outside the markers but we suggest that you don't and that you NEVER go outside the markers on Breydon else you WILL go aground. I have seen boats aground on Barton near the wildlife sanctuary island, but I suggest there is a world of difference in running aground there and on Breydon.
-
7 minutes ago, grendel said:
still 1978 was about the time these new fangled ideas were being introduced, i was talking about 100 years.
100 years ago, well almost, 1924 a helicopter flew 1 kilometer for the first time. I guess without the safety net of helicopters and mobile phones the mind was a little more focused on being responsible for your own safety rather than relying on others. Now that we have those rather expensive resources it makes sense to put systems in place that mean they are used as infrequently as possible.
-
1 minute ago, Vaughan said:
I really get rather tired of these armchair forum suggestions that we just cast people off and wish them a happy holiday.
To be fair I get rather tired of people putting words in my mouth. At no time did I say that, but I will point out that we are all entitled to our point of view and to take part in a reasoned debate.
My main issue is with the current lack of posts in an area known to be confusing, which have been replaced with rather confusing buoys, but that doesn't mean that other things couldn't be looked at.
-
12 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
Good grief.
How have we ever managed, without all this "risk based management", for the last 100 years in Broads boat hiring?
I asked this question on page one of this thread and I ask it again here : How many people have been killed or injured as a result of grounding on Breydon?
In living memory?
Let me ask you a question Vaughan. Wind the clock back say 20 years and how many people were rescued by the RNLI or helicopter each year? I wonder how the costs of rescues for say 1990-2000 would compare to 2010-2020.
Back then a lot less people had mobile phones on them. Now days everyone has a mobile phone and the authorities are far more likely to be alerted to a grounding than 20 or 30 years ago. Once they have been alerted a duty of care starts which is more and more often resulting in very expensive rescue operations. Lets not forget whilst the helicopter was airlifting people of Breydon, it wasn't available for other duties.
So it is good news that none, if any people have been injured or killed as a result of grounding on Breydon, but times move on, rescues become more expensive and that costs time and money.
If simple measures can be taken to help reduce the number of groundings, then quite simply why wouldn't you?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:
Bit radical that K
Applying modern Risk based management practices to The Broads Industry
We can but dream!!
-
37 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:
Maybe the way to go would be to replace all the missing posts and then fit some form of reinforced netting down each side of the corridor to stop any boats getting pass the posts onto the mud flats.
Apart from the sheer cost, I can imagine the RSPB having something to say about it, never mind the way it would change the aesthetic of the area.
Lets please remember that Breydon Water is enjoyed by the many people who walk or jog along either side, who enjoy the open scenery, who go there to bird watch or paint or take pictures. Breydon is much more than just boating.
It was John Cressey who placed signs on the posts near the bottom end of Breydon to direct boats into the channel. These proved to dramatically reduce the number of grounding on Breydon. They were deemed such a good idea that eventually the BA put some more permanent ones on the posts. It is in that same area that the missing posts are now causing issues I believe. The answer therefore has to be to replace those posts as soon as possible and increase the signage. Perhaps use a VERY temporary set of buoys strung together to close the gap.
Lets remember that the BA wanted to take over control of Breydon Water. IF a proper annual check was carried out of all the posts and their condition and any that were deemed to be near end of life replaced there should be no missing posts apart from the odd one or two that maybe get knocked over. Although if properly installed and in good condition it should be difficult to knock one over. A missing post should be a rare occurrence. Currently there is two or three missing all next to each other in an area that is notorious for boats going the wrong way.
Surely it is not beyond the capabilities of the BA and rescue authorities to plot where each grounding takes place and then to increase the number of posts and signs in those such areas.
Another common area used to be coming down the Yare past the Berney Arms, boats carrying straight on towards where there used to be a pub, which never had water access, but many tried. New signage there has improved the situation there over the last year or two.
Finally the last bit has to be about education, especially of hirers. Lets face it, whilst it is not unknown for private boats to stray outside the channel, it is far more common for hire boaters. Perhaps it needs to be a standard part of the handover that the hirer is asked whether they want to cross Breydon or not. If the answer is yes they get an extra bit of tuition and a copy of the tide tables and a temporary permit that acknowledges they have had the extra tuition and understand the albeit minimal, but extra risk of crossing Breydon. Anyone crossing Breydon without the permit pays the cost of any recovery. In fact why not put a 2 or 3 page crossing Breydon Water leaflet and a copy of the current tide tables on the BA tolls website and ask toll payers to tick a declaration that they have downloaded and read it as a part of the tolls renewal process in the same way as the insurance declaration, that would then cover all the privateers as well.
-
On 27/04/2022 at 10:42, FairTmiddlin said:On 27/04/2022 at 09:49, MauriceMynah said:
I must point out at this stage that my car is just about the only thing that gets washed on fewer occasions than my boat. 🙂
Your so glad you bought a green car.
OH! you didn't.
He didn't want it to blend in with the boat.
-
20 minutes ago, Bikertov said:
if even the 'pro's' can get stuck then we can't criticise a party of hirer's for running aground.
I think that's a bit of a harsh statement. The pro's EMS know where the channel is and were only outside the channel to rescue a stranded boat. Every rescue carries a risk. That's why everything should be done to minimise the number of rescues needed.
-
1
-
May Broads Briefing Inc Good News On Commissioners Cut
in Broads Chat
Posted
Continuing the supposition, I would imagine the EA would have been in discussion with the farmer and were unlikely to stop flood defence work when they have a remit to protect that bank.
I don't think the argument is about whether the bank should have been re-piled and protected, including the farmers bit. The farmers beef is more likely that it has not been made clear again which bit is his and which bit isn't. If you look at the Berney Arms mooring the BA signs make it very clear by the use of arrows which bit is theirs. The same occurs at Bramerton Common where arrows indicate where the BA mooring ends and the private moorings start.
I'm sure it is no more than the mooring being opened with unclear signage and a rather frustrated farmer trying to reinstate his rights over his bit of mooring and being frustrated that either the EA haven't re-instated his fence and signs, or the BA signage being a little ambiguous in that area.