MauriceMynah

"The main addition in that respect I guess is the touch-screen climate control in each cabin." Oh that's so "yesterdays technology" On Nyx I have the more energy friendly "Manually operated sliding glass climate control system with infinite settings" When it gets too hot I slide open a window. When it gets too cold I slide it closed again.

"I am so fearful that one day we will read of a tragic incident on the broads which could have been so easily avoided due to complacency. " We already do Wussername. Every year brings a drowning (not necessarily on the broads) incident that's boating related. Playing with water is like playing with fire! Wetter, yes... Colder, most certainly but still a fatal accident waiting to happen if you fail to respect your surroundings. Too much cotton wool wrapping only goes to make it worse, but we don't want to frighten people away either. The very best we can do is to recommend the use of some common sense, and the worst mistake we can make is to fall into that trap where "familiarity breeds contempt". Do I helm a boat when I've had a few drinks?... Yes, of course I do! Do I do so when drunk? ... No, that would be reckless! Do I leave the helm when the boat is under way?... Yes, sometimes I have to! Do I do so when there is any chance of an impact with anything? ... No. That would be both reckless and stupid! There comes a time in ones life when one has to take risks, answer? work out how high the risk and act accordingly! I am normally on my own on the boat so my MOB routine is simple. Avoid prop, swim ashore. If possible, run after boat!

It strikes me as just the sort of thing Jon at Wayford Bridge would have.

Kids are fine, I just love it when they chirp up "No, it's my shout uncle John, What would you like?" Not that fussed about the little B*****S until they reach that age! Still, I wave to everybody. Some it annoys, others like it. I'm happy either way! Edited to add... Dnks34, You should try waving to people in Asda or Tesco, It really worries them, they think they must know you. A friendly smile and a wink tops up the deal

That must be one hell of a selfie stick you've got there Griff!

That's really impressive. I bet he can draw water from a tap too!

May just be a "High viz, high presence" exercise

I always remember a friend telling me.. "You should try everything once...except incest and morris dancing"

Two rules for the likes of us Peter, Wear lifejacket and swim to bank. If there is a crew onboard, make sure they have basic boat handling abilities and that they know not to motor towards a casualty... Ok that's four rules. So to summarize, the four essential rules are... Wear lifejacket Swim to bank. If there is a crew onboard, make sure they have basic boat handling abilities. and that they know not to motor towards a casualty in the water. and that they know the whereabouts of liferings etc. Hmmm that's five!

Ok Alan, I have two rhond anchors (reed anchors) with your name on. Now all we need to do is meet up to get them to you!

Well well well! I go away for a few days and what happens?... the forum finds another idiot. Great to see you here Ray This place has more doughnuts that a doughnut factory in Doughnut world.

The Date. It means I'm heading for Nyx.

"As long as there is beer on board it may be best to tie up and wait for the tide to change.." If there's enough beer on board, best tie him up and wait for the boat to change.

I did notice that when Robin left the wheel whilst the boat was still motoring in gear, he looked out to assess the situation several times every few seconds or so. I wouldn't have classified that as particularly dangerous at all. In most of the other respects though I agree wholeheartedly with Speedtriple, especially the Life jacket. I've as yet only watched the clip once but shall do so again and I'm sure there's a lot we all could learn from it. I'm going to make one or two changes to Nyx as a direct result from the video and later comments. First on the list will be to move my battery isolator switch out from the engine bay to a position where it can be operated without opening the engine bay. Odd that this isn't a BSS issue. Anyway, bloody well done Robin (am I allowed to say "bloody"?) a situation well handled.

Pink saily hat eh! Well then, all is not lost. When you tell me he has matching bobble hats for everyone onboard, then I'll know it's a lost cause. For now I'll just put it down to a phase he'll grow out of.

Only in your ohm port

Thanks David (Swift (Expilot)) Very interesting but it does lead me out of curiosity to ask another question. First I must point out that I'm not being contentious here, I am genuinely curious. If one has a plot of land and a public footpath runs through the middle of it, Is it still classified as just one plot of land or does it become two. Further, if it remains counted as one plot, what is the maximum size "split" that one can have before it becomes two. My sisters land which is pretty much a square, has a footpath across the back and another along one side. There is waste land across the side and common land along the back. My thought would be that if she purchased the waste land (which is unsuitable for building) could she then include it in her existing land and call it one plot. I realise you cannot give me a definitive answer to this, but mention it to illustrate my question.

Quick question, Does the decking WHEN INCLUDED with the total buildings take the coverage to over 50%? In our area that would cause it to require PP to be refused

"It's worth reading the 'planners offer' to the right of the article. Seems reasonable to me." Yes, I've just read that part. I hadn't noticed that it was part of the same article (What a prat eh?). It now seems to me that the authority is bending over backwards to accommodate them. I can see the owners point about reducing the value of the property, but it does indicate his building the decking without any (or sufficient) consultation. What I would be doing now if I were in his shoes, would be to find out what amount of decking needed to be removed to satisfy the requirements of the building regs. If he started working WITH the BA rather than fighting them, a speedier resolution might be found. It might also be possible that I'm talking out of my backside again!

Too little information in the article to base an opinion for me. On the face of it the BA might be being heavy handed, but, if others have applied for planning permission and been refused, they have little choice but to enforce the regulations irrespective of the couples situation. It might also be possible that the couple had applied and been refused but went ahead anyway. As Patrick Moore would have said... "We just don't know."

Paul, I cited the "dash to an air ambulance" as the only emergency I could think of at the time. I have however thought of another possibillity. If the skipper was a fine and experienced fellow, but was suffering the issue of a runaway diesel engine, it could explain his perhaps being obliged by circumstances to overtake on the wrong side, forcing him to go too close to the moored vessel. His speed would be something he would have no control over, but he would have to be congratulated for his helmsmanship in that situation Now, to be honest I think this to be an unlikely scenario. I think the man "guilty as charged" BUT, should there be a good reason, though not necessarily the example I've suggested, then, as I say I shall be profuse with my apologies. ( I shall not however be offering to "eat my hat" at the forum meet )

Very very sad but if its any consolation, try to think of it like this... When my time comes I pray for it to be quick, painless and to happen in a place I love, doing the thing I love. So, a heart attack whilst boating on the broads. I could ask no more. The tragedy is for those left behind, but I hope they can see it this way. I'm sure they will in time.

Shame, you could have called your boat "Heel Catcher"

As I said in my last post, there may be good reason, and if there is I'll be first in line with an apology... However, Look at the bow wave! That boat appears to be going close to flat out. He is overtaking so the probability that he is speeding is therefore greater. Which side he has chosen to overtake is indicative of not understanding the rules of the river, but that's not what has annoyed people it is the speed he's going passed a moored vessel. Now I know that Speedtriple will always try to find the good side of a person, but on this occasion I'm afraid the evidence is rather stacked against the skipper of that boat. There are speed limits on the rivers and indications on the rev counter.

No, sorry smellyloo, I can't quite agree with you there. This is as good a place to show such footage and air our views on it as this achieves several positive results, or at least has the potential to do so. First, on the face of it we have a speeding boat passing a moored vessel or several moored vessels. If that is the situation then there is justifiable outrage. Should we subsequently find out that the boat in question was rushing to a place where an air ambulance was waiting to pick up a casualty on board that boat, then I have no doubt all here will say "We didn't know, but that explains it and all is forgiven." One has to be careful with "trial by forum" but it isn't to be thrown out, any more than any other form of "public display of what is acceptable". In this case it was almost certainly a group of people disregarding the rules. and for that there should be consequences.