.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Meantime
-
Posts
4,118 -
Joined
-
Days Won
50
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Meantime
-
-
7 minutes ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:
Even Sky news quoted the report in full and did an accurate report on the incident so I tend to agree with Vaughans first paragraph above.
It's hard to disagree with it, but any constructive dialogue on this thread is going to be like constantly walking on egg shells, and any criticism of the hire boat industry is only going to provoke outrage, and its hard to talk about boat safety without involving the hire boat industry.
To make long well thought out constructive contributions to a thread which lets face it, it will only be a case of when, not if, it gets locked seems to be a waste of time, so in the words of Dragons Den!!!!
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mouldy said:
My initial thought regarding this report is that, once again, it has to find someone to blame. This is probably due to the compensation culture that we now live with and the ultimate need to find someone to point a finger at.
In which case I suggest you read the report again and more specifically it's aims, and the purposes it cannot be used for. In fact I copy the very last line of the report for you.
Safety recommendations shall in no case create a presumption of blame or liability
-
2
-
-
Glad your back in the wetshed if you think that throne is now operational!!!
-
I always think there might be two sides to every story, so why assume the farmer is in the wrong?
I have taken the liberty of copying part of the original post with a couple of highlights made by me.
"Shortly after mooring a very annoyed farmer came over the fence and told me I was moored on private property and had to move, I pointed out the big sign that said free 24 hour mooring. He told me the mooring had encroached onto his land and unless I moved he would cut the mooring lines. Being me i declined to move and called the Broads Control. I have to say the Ranger was there in no time at all and did his best to sort things. I does appear however that the moorings have been extended onto the farmers lane."
Now if someone has taken over part of my land for their moorings I might be annoyed as well. The "being me I declined" suggests the confrontation wasn't all one sided. The poster then goes on to concede that the farmer might be in the right as far as who's land it is. He probably has a very strong case for feeling aggrieved, but we still only have one side of just how aggressive he really was.
At the end of the day the mooring is long enough so just move along a bit. Looking at some of the other replies it is shameful that people feel they would like to go and moor there now just to be confrontational.
It always amazes me that people are so prepared to believe the words of a stranger they haven't met and condemn the actions of another they haven't met, who hasn't even had their chance to put their side of the story.
How much of the story has been embellished to stir up sympathy we'll never know.
Based upon my previous experiences of that site and mooring there I will give the farmer the benefit of the doubt and not attempt to moor in that section until the BA have sorted it properly once and for all.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Having now found the video on Facebook, I have captured the following picture. The Green box is the electrical supply to the pump and the BA electric post used to be just to the left downstream. The stairs are roughly in the same position and used to be the end of the mooring. That being the case, I would say the BA have stuck their sign in the wrong position, assuming they have leased exactly the same stretch of mooring as they used to have.
Wouldn't be the first time the BA has put up incorrect signs, or in the wrong place, or with misspellings on them!
I'm sure given time it will be moved, that stretch of mooring is long enough even if the sign is moved 40 foot further downstream.
The interesting thing is that the original poster on Facebook even conceded that it does appear the mooring have been extended onto the farmers land.
Back in the realms of supposition, this is probably no more than a clerical error and the BA workman going out and sticking their signs where they have been told to, or using their best judgement to space them out along the mooring without studying the drawing too closely.
As I said previously the change of quay heading used to make it plain where the BA bit stopped and the fence also helped. The fence has probably to be re-instated by the EA or farmer and now the quay heading all looks the same along there. If you were sent to install signs it might be reasonable to assume that the BA stretch extended all the way to the pump inlet.
-
3 minutes ago, grendel said:
no, I have no idea whether the farmer was involved in any discussions, but descending into the realms of supposition here, surely if he had been, the EA would have at least halted work on the disputed section.
but the facebook post did mention that the moorings ended downstream of the pumping outfall, so any disputed land would surely not amount to a whole boat length.
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.
-
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.
How much of the story has been embellished to stir up sympathy we'll never know.
Boat Safety
in Speakers' Corner:
Posted
Then I suggest they read the note on the second page of the report.
"NOTE
This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 14(14) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012, shall be inadmissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or blame."