MauriceMynah

Hire fleets are customer driven just like (almost) any other business. If there is a demand for mod cons the yards will supply boats with them... at a price. If the boats are too scruffy, they won't get hired. If people want to tell hire yards how to run their businesses, I would respectfully suggest that those people buy a fleet of boats and do it themselves. Vaughan, you are not the only one who sticks up for the hire fleets, it is just some who sometimes forget the various joys of life and find themselves having a moan at things. We all do it from time to time ... don't believe me? just mention the Spirit of Breydon, refuse facilities or non comunicative sailies and see.

And your reply was...???

Indeed she is, John. When she behaves! Iain I'm reminded of the line, "When I'm good,I'm very very good, but when I'm bad I'm better! Bet that fits our Gracie down to a 't'

Spot on, but I'm not sure that was the OP's aim, more the general hire yards maintenance and cleaning schedule. At the summer meet Griff was having a right old go at me as my boat was looking far from it's best, green patches on the decks, dirty fenders and not all uniform etc. My priorities are not dissimilar from that of the hirers. I'm on holiday, I'm here to cruise the broads not clean boats. I do enough to keep the boat looking OK at a distance and that's good enough to suit my objectives. Yes, and that is exactly as it should be. If you want to swab the decks (unnecessary on a GRP boat) then swab away, if not, then don't! That is the job of the hire yard.

I remember making a sugestion on a different forum that would have caused the mods some work. It was not well received.

For as long as we live in this "Litigation crazy" society, people will refuse to let the general public on their land. The insurance is horrendous but to not have it would be financial suicide. Don't blame the BA. It's not their fault. Don't blame the insurance companies, they are businesses not charities. If you must blame anybody, blame the freeloading scum that try to make a living by claiming for everything they can.

I know when I'm out of my depth, and I sure am here, so a question. The only use I have for 240 volts will be the running of a vacuum cleaner, and a jet wash. I was thinking of buying one of those camping leads with the blue round end at one end and a line of four 13 amp sockets at the other. Basically my question is, Does that make a safe way of using the power posts available? My battery charging and hot water come from the engine, which provides sufficient for my usage.

Must be the latter as I can't spell "Connie Sewer" whoever she was.

Greene King IPA, when in good condition isn't a bad beer, but when not on top form, it is pretty rubbish. Abbot is a little more forgiving as stronger beers usually are, though like Fullers London Pride (one of my favourites) it can suffer when there's a substantial change in barometric pressure. Sadly whenb CAMRA clamped down on 'top pressure' the more vulnerable beers suffered. Here's hoping that Nelson has a good cellarman.

I think I'll stay 12 volt DC alone

Ahhh yes Charlie, but Ray (Regulo) and I each have a certificate and woollen mascot to prove our credentials. We are, so to speak, certified idiots, something nobody has ever argued against.

Indeed you WOULD know, if you were not also an idiot!

If I do hasve shore power put in Nyx, I'd like the 'boat socket' to be through the helm, so I cant turn the wheel with it plugged in. Does that make sense and is it a reasonable thing to do?

Thank you Vaughn, I had been starting to think that I would like shore power on Nyx, and had wondered if it was a DIY project. I am more than happy to take your word for it (that alone must come as a great surprise to you ) that this is one for the professionals, though that does put the job on the back burner for a while.

Personally I would advise that the very first thing your friends do Eric, is to join this forum.

Well as those there know, This is how I deal with the problem. To stranger I say, sorry my friend but you do need to introduce yourself if you're not wearing something that identifies you.

Timbo, I have to admit to being just a little worried when I saw you'd put up a video titled Thin strip jig. I was never keen on the 'Sailors Hornpipe' either.

Sorry Keith, I still fail to make myself clear. It is not whether or not a person thinks it a good idea to have a monitor, it is whether or not it is made compulsory (part of the BSS) You have made your choice and you are happy about it. Great! My choice may well be to get one if time proves it (to me) necessary. If there is a significant number of deaths, and mine is not one of them, I shall reappraise the situation, but until that time the choice for my boat should be mine. There are many aspects of your post I fully agree with though the World Health Organisation figures mean little to me without knowing the effects of exceeding those figures. Is not the World Health Organisation one of those bodies that are releasing figures which should be taken as "acheivable targets"? I honestly do not know. What would be the effect if those figures proved to be incorrect? Would the W.H.O. be in any way accountable? Again, I don't know. Do I trust the W.H.O. Well yet again, not knowing who they are, what their brief is and who calls their shots, I can make no judgement.

Right, I am well aware that the viewpoint I've been putting forward has been ... shall we say... Contentious, Please humour me for just one more post on this matter, perhaps allowing me to explain my fundemental standpoint. Over the last few decades there has been a shift within society. The case used to be that something was only legislated against if it was proven (or that there was overwhelming evidence) that it was harmful. The shift is that now things are legislated against unless it can be proven to be safe. Take "Vaping" as an example. It's yet to be proven as safe so it carries the same stigma as smoking, and trust me, it will, in the not too distant future, carry the same legislation. The second shift is that of "perceived risk", or "That looks dangerous, it shouldn't be allowed." How many of us remember the "Conker fiasco" where schools were said to be banning the game or only allowing it if eye protection was worn. So many of us screamed "Kids have been doing that for years, why stop them now?" I do not like these shifts, they remove some of our basic freedoms, often without provable gain. Not to fight or at least fiercely contest any ruling that comes in will inevitably lead us nearer and nearer state control. That's not a world I look forwards to living in. I'm with William Wallace here (or at least dear old Mel), I value freedom. So where does that lead me? It takes me to a Utopian land where the only people who understand the problems fully are put in a position to advise a democraticlly elected govening body. Where safety is involved I tend to favour Insurance companies as the experts, as they are the ones who have to cough up when things go tits up. In my opinion, the boat safety scheme (safety aspects) should have been written by the insurance companies with their risk assessors being the leading lights. The other parts of the scheme (conservation) to be written up by experts in that field. Where there is conflict between the two, human life to take priority. Before I'm ordered to equip my boat with CO alarms I want proof that they do not go off unless I'm actually in danger and that would mean PROVING that 3rd party CO IS a danger. It would also mean proving that the alarm doesn't have a hair trigger. Finally, If running engines on moored boats was an offence outside the hours of 09:00 to 18:00 that would acheive a better result than compulsory CO alarms, but would I vote for that? NO! sorry!!!!!

Vaughan, the evidence from your quote indicates that something was done that should not have been done. Your quote says " but I remember one or two myself and each one was one too many. In fairness to us, we didn’t really know any better at the time " So why hadn't the previous occupants suffered an identical fate? or the following ones? Perhaps the victims had done a "draught proofing" excersise? it certainly sounds like it. However, It would ber inappropriate to speculate on such matters but I stand by my argument that the danger is being massively over stated and that to legeslate on this would be nanny state at it's finest. It has been said that there is no evidence of any danger from third party activities. I agree with that statement.

Oh really, Again I must protest. My parents were owners of a Dawncraft 22 as described and with the small gap behind the outboard. We sometimes cruisewd with the hard top up and the canopy attached. Whilst I realise that this explains my own death in the mis 70s I have to say that the overall threat is being over exagerated to the Nth degree.. Earlier in this thread it was asked if anyone objected to having a CO alarm on board, I quote... " Let me ask this question, who, reading this forum would object to having CO alarms fitted to their boats, either private or hire, and made a compulsory item to be tested by BSS? " Let me answer that question. I DO. Why? Well lets take two statements made on this thread. First from the Boat Safety Scheme. " No fatalities are recorded whereby the source of CO came from a next-door boat. " and second, paraphrased from various people replying on this thread... "The alarm went off from fumes from a nearby craft" Put those two together and remembering how often we read complaints from members about hire craft running their engines at unsociable hours and you start to get the picture. Add to that my overwhelming dislike of occasions where the nanny state orders me to do something to protect me from my own choices and you have the basis of my objection. I have done my own risk assessment and concluded that there is no risk unless I do something stupid. CO is referred as the silent killer No taste and no smell (and ok yes it doesn't make any noise either) BUT exhaust gasses DO SMELL, and engines/heater units DO MAKE A NOISE.. There ARE warning signs. Of the millions of visitors to the Broads over many years only two (and one dog) have died from CO poisoning where as yet it seems it has not be their own fault. You stand more chance of winning the national lottery jackpot than you do of dying this way. I have done my risc assessment and find that no action is necessary, so I'll be bloody furious if the BA or the BSS, order me to do otherwise.

Which makes me wonder if there may be other reasons why someone might choose to go along with their conopy up. Still, I have to agree, exercising their right to choose how to cruise is no excuse for acting in a manner to which I disapprove.

Hmmm, I'm likely to make myself a bit unpoipular here but things have been said that I really must protest at. Or... hows about establishing the level of risk there actually is? Out of the total number of boating CO poisonings, how many have been as a result of "third party" sources of CO. The organisations who would best know, or rather would measure the probability of risk are the insurance companies. These people are professional in this very field, have a financial interest in the results and are experienced in risk assessment. The BA is not, and certainly not amateurs who's CO alarms go off because thew boat next door boiled a kettle. Sorry but no! we should wait for not one but a number of deaths before handing the whole shooting match over to the nanny state to regulate the hides off us. If people do not accept that people the world over have what is known as "The acceptable level of death" they haven't looked at speed limits on the roads, and what they actually mean. Excluding idiots who block ventalation points, bring lit barbies indoors or even place generators in cabins, we need to find out how many people have been killed by CO through absolutely no fault of their own, and balance that number against the number of people who have survived a boating holiday in the same period. Water is dangerous. Boating on it, more so. We each have to do our own risk assessments. If you don't like the risk levels then don't do it, fine, but don't ask the BA to ban something or create pen pushing legislation on a subject they understand little about. No, you need an expert diesel engineer to tell you what smoke/vapour is which!

I didn't know you ever could! Anyway, aren't they run by Essex Water?

What has happened to the 'Trinity Broads'? Personally I kind of think that we need farmers... something to do with food if I remember rightly, and the growing population. Still along with the BA, Insurance companies and Local planning authorities, Farmers make good bashing fodder.