Acle Overnight Moorings

[Vaughan]

8 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

So ladies and gentlemen,I put it to you that we should all consider the prospect, the implications and the practicalities of Forty two.

So you mean we now know the answer, but have forgotten the question. You may be right!

[Hylander]

16 hours ago, ZimbiIV said:

All cyclists, horse riders and the ilk should be forced to have public indemnity insurance above the age of 16 to use public areas.

 

i know this will cause a ruckus but I think nowadays that bikes being used by anyone over the age of 16 should also be taxed.     That will bring in a few bob.

 

 

 

 

[Vaughan]

I know I look a lot back to the old days, but what about all the factories and industry in Norwich in the 50s? Who remembers Laurence and Scott, Boulton and Paul, Stevensons Steel, Reids flour mills, the shoe factories of Norvic, Startrite, Kiltie and Van-Dal. Mclarens handbags. The breweries.Even Christmas crackers had a factory in Norwich, to say nothing of May and Bakers, the 3 railway goods yards, the coal fired power station, or the gas works.

They all employed thousands of people, and they all went to work on a bike! I don't remember any cycle lanes and I don't remember any problems, either. There may have been fewer cars on the road, but the rush-hour jams were just as bad.

So why now, when every adult member of every family has a car, do we suddenly need all these lanes, divisions, phased traffic lights and the rest, while they still happily charge at you along the pavement, or run red traffic lights with impunity? Why do they need all this special access? Are they handicapped or something? Or is this, as I suspect, just another example of left wing Town Hall politics?

I agree with others on here. The bicycle is not a need of working class economy any more, but in the Highway Code it is a road vehicle. So if they are to have all these special and very expensive facilities laid on, they should also expect to contribute financially.

[MauriceMynah]

What's so magical about 16? Given the discussion on another thread about Micro Scooters. anything with wheels who's primary function is to convey carbon based life forms should be taxed and insured... even bloody prams if you like!!!!!

[Bound2Please]

6 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

What's so magical about 16? Given the discussion on another thread about Micro Scooters. anything with wheels who's primary function is to convey carbon based life forms should be taxed and insured... even bloody prams if you like!!!!!

John you are so right there as is Vaughan, the only thing just maybe is prams, I also think that mobility scooters should be as well (sorry in advance scoot and Iain) but having had 2 run in's with them one involving the police and lack of public liability insurance, i feel strongly about this as well. 

Charlie

[Vaughan]

I was run down twice on the pavement of the Yarmouth Rd in Thorpe this spring by the same woman on her way to Sainsburys on a mobility scooter. They creep up behind you in total silence and then get you by the ankles.

The woman (with no apology) said it often happened to her as she couldn't handle it.

[BroadScot]

Can we return please to the original post, ta muchly! I started a thread on similar lines a few weeks ago, I am concerned at how the loss of moorings are going. There is no easy answer,but ideas are not exactly in profusion.

With regard to mobility scooters, I don't pay tax on my car so why should I on my scooter! Without it my quality of life would be less for sure.

Iain

[Vaughan]

Sorry Iain, that was a bit "off the path" wasn't it? Not all that far though as my original point was that I greatly fear the BA are giving more attention, and money, to the perceived needs of cyclists on the Broads than they are to the very real needs of navigation and its associated moorings. Let us hope that the future of the moorings at Acle doesn't turn out that way.

[Bound2Please]

4 minutes ago, BroadScot said:

Can we return please to the original post, ta muchly! I started a thread on similar lines a few weeks ago, I am concerned at how the loss of moorings are going. There is no easy answer,but ideas are not exactly in profusion.

With regard to mobility scooters, I don't pay tax on my car so why should I on my scooter! Without it my quality of life would be less for sure.

Iain

Iain this wandered off due to money that should be spent on moorings and navigation being spent on cycle paths etc.

For information purposes I have been issued with blue badge etc since 1995, but wont go into that. The non paying of road tax on a mobility car has no bearing on what i was talking about regards bike mobility scooters and the likes. But I feel very strongly that all mobility scooters should be taxed and insured. Also speed checks done on them as a great many speed at in excess of 8mph on the pavements. Also horses should carry public liability insurance as my second oldest grandson ended up in plaster after being kicked by one on the pavement while walking to the local shop...

Right off soap box now, stop spending money on cycle tracks etc etc and spend it it on what its meant to be spent on.

Charlie

PS if this insults anyone please remove it

[BroadScot]

Lets just say we agree to disagree on scooters Charlie. Mine flat out, only does 4mph on a good day, even less uphill !!!  

Enough of my scooter and more please on the original post. 

Iain

[Timbo]

25 minutes ago, BroadScot said:

Can we return please to the original post, ta muchly! I started a thread on similar lines a few weeks ago, I am concerned at how the loss of moorings are going. There is no easy answer,but ideas are not exactly in profusion.

With regard to mobility scooters, I don't pay tax on my car so why should I on my scooter! Without it my quality of life would be less for sure.

Iain

Iain...oooh I'm gonna mod a mod....You do pay tax on both your car and scooter as you hand over your mobility component in exchange for the help you need 'in getting around'. Mobility aids are not free you actually pay for it my friend. As a person with disability I get quite annoyed by the general assumption that help with maintaining quality of life is a free hand out...which it is not. They always tax you one way or another! 

Pedestrians...tax them by introducing jaywalking as a crime. I'm sick to death of meanderthals who can't handle a pavement or crossing and feel the need to walk into the road.

Cyclists...tax them, compulsory cycling test and compulsory wearing of a helmet.

Motorists...limit number of cars owned to amount of space available to park them. Five houses up my street...12 cars and one gypo wagon (camper van)

As for the moorings...I'm very, very suspicious at the way the number of public moorings are contracting. I would even go so far as to start looking for 'motives' behind failure to secure moorings and the general contraction of the boating industry on the Broads?

 

[BroadScot]

Tim,

I bought my own scooter. Now just to clarify the two types of scooter....

The 4mph one is this one, mine !

And this it the one that does 8mph ishh!

Right then, where was I? Ah yes just about to have a roll n square sausage ! 

[Timbo]

3 minutes ago, BroadScot said:

Right then, where was I? Ah yes just about to have a roll n square sausage ! 

Is it moored at Acle Iain? 

[BroadScot]

1 minute ago, Timbo said:

Is it moored at Acle Iain? 

Not now, but has been many times in the distant passed when I started from Alan Johnson's yard there  Another length of mooring that has been lost over the period of time.

Iain

[smellyloo]

So in summary anything that lives & breathes and ventures beyond the boundaries of their dwelling should either be taxed, insured or banned?

Just think of the mouth watering jobs, computer systems and office empires that could be created to police/control all the new taxes etc.

Excuse me maam but you and your parambulator have been caught on camera exceeding the pedestrian speed limit, overtaking on a single file path  and not displaying a valid tax disc.

Maybe it's me but i'm not to sure I like the world some would have us head for.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I know I look a lot back to the old days, but what about all the factories and industry in Norwich in the 50s? Who remembers Laurence and Scott, Boulton and Paul, Stevensons Steel, Reids flour mills, the shoe factories of Norvic, Startrite, Kiltie and Van-Dal. Mclarens handbags. The breweries.Even Christmas crackers had a factory in Norwich, to say nothing of May and Bakers, the 3 railway goods yards, the coal fired power station, or the gas works.

They all employed thousands of people, and they all went to work on a bike! I don't remember any cycle lanes and I don't remember any problems, either. There may have been fewer cars on the road, but the rush-hour jams were just as bad.

So why now, when every adult member of every family has a car, do we suddenly need all these lanes, divisions, phased traffic lights and the rest, while they still happily charge at you along the pavement, or run red traffic lights with impunity? Why do they need all this special access? Are they handicapped or something? Or is this, as I suspect, just another example of left wing Town Hall politics?

I agree with others on here. The bicycle is not a need of working class economy any more, but in the Highway Code it is a road vehicle. So if they are to have all these special and very expensive facilities laid on, they should also expect to contribute financially.

Vaughan I quite agree especially here in London where they are creating mini Hollands at every ones expense, only thing I would question is whether its being funded by BA tolls or public money.

Fred

[BroadScot]

Right then, I have had my roll n sausage, now can we please return to the original thread. Losing that length of mooring to me is a possible loss to the north broads.

Iain

[Bound2Please]

6 minutes ago, BroadScot said:

Right then, I have had my roll n sausage, now can we please return to the original thread. Losing that length of mooring to me is a possible loss to the north broads.

Iain

Any mooring loss North is a loss to the North and any mooring Loss South is a Loss to the South, any mooring loss either north or south is a mooring loss full stop

Charlie

[BroadScot]

Ok Charlie, I take your point, but this thread is purely about the Acle one up from the Horizon yard. Losing it would surely hinder going to the Bridge Inn. Or as your stop over before a early departure for slack water at Great Yarmouth.

I grant you there is no magic wand regarding loss of moorings throughout broadland. Is there a solution? I fear not, but will gladly be proved wrong. 

Iain

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Timbo said:

As for the moorings...I'm very, very suspicious at the way the number of public moorings are contracting. I would even go so far as to start looking for 'motives' behind failure to secure moorings and the general contraction of the boating industry on the Broads?

Me Too!

 

[grendel]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

What's so magical about 16? Given the discussion on another thread about Micro Scooters. anything with wheels who's primary function is to convey carbon based life forms should be taxed and insured... even bloody prams if you like!!!!!

Careful, they will insist that your feet be taxed and insured, and have sufficient tread to pass an MOT.

On mobility scooters, there is one round our way, driven by a partially sighted (registered blind) woman, that careers down the pavement, if she doesnt swipe your legs with her white stick she flattens you with the scooter, how she expects to stop at the speed she travels in the length of the white stick I dont know, but her progress can be seen as she goes by the pedestrians leaping into the road to get out of the way.

If there is going to be building work at Acle I can understand that they may not be able to provide a safe access path to the road from the current moorings, but this should not stop people mooring at that location, as long as they dont expect to disembark and get to the road or the pub, maybe it will be only a short term closure, but could the pub not counter that with a river taxi from the moorings to the pub (or anyone else come to that) surely that would provide a solution to any access problems to the moorings if as I said above the only issue is access to the road from there.

[Wussername]

On 24/09/2016 at 8:54 AM, MauriceMynah said:

Andrew,

For as long as "no win no fee" lawers exist, waving £1000's under the noses of anyone who hurts thenselves, Land owners will be reluctant to let the general public have access to their land.

For as long as public libility insurance costs an arm and a leg, Land owners will be reluctant to let the general public have access to their land.

For as long as there are people out there who know how to "play the law game" Land owners will be reluctant to let the general public have access to their land.

These days we have people who will bump into your boat and sail off into the sunset without so much as an acknowledgement, let alone an apology. What level of respect do you think they will proffer to the land on which they moor? Do you imagine they will take their litter home? Who will pay for the damage done?

What a delightful thought! and what level of social responsibility are you expecting from the general public? What sort of behaviour can the land owner expect.

Until such time as society encourages... no, demands that people act in a socially acceptable way land owners will not welcome the general public onto their land.

It's a sorry state of affairs but that's how it is. Blame society as a whole, not the land owners.

John. It was good to read your comment and I feel sure that many people would agree with some of the points that you have made.

However, as far as I am aware I cannot ever remember a member of the public, or to be more specific a member of the crew of a hire boat or private boat ever suing a land owner over a duty of care where an injury has been caused on a river bank whilst mooring or walking along a river bank. Possible I suppose if the bank is an "official mooring" that is to say sign posted by the BA as a free mooring or by the land owner himself and a charge is made then a case might be able to be made. In both instances the public must surely be aware that hazards do exist in all walks of life. Rabbits dig holes, cattle create mud and uneven ground and could cause an incident, and I am sure that they do. But whether official or unofficial I have yet to hear of a claim being made or indeed succeeding. So, if the BA relinquishes its responsibility why cannot a mooring resort back to being a wild mooring.

People like to wild moor, they slip, they fall, bang into trees and branches. The wild mooring is owned by someone and that someone surely does not have a responsibility with regarding to the well being of that person unless he deliberately sets out to disrupt that persons ability to moor with malicious intent.

With regard to litter, an age old problem, exacerbated recently by the current situation of which we are all aware. If a bank has been brush cut and accommodates in excess of say three boats then fly tipping is less likely to exist due to the fact that other visitors would be quick to castigate the offender. Where fly tipping will be evident, and one hopes that this will not be the case, is when the summer foliage dies back during the winter months at some areas on the river side.

Social behaviour plays a large part where large numbers of people congregate, sadly this behaviour can only be addressed by education and a vigorous persecution of those who transgress acceptable standards. No easy task with regard to a matter which effects us all, wherever we might be.

Finally the attitude of some land owners, thankfully a minority, seem to place little regard for others and one can only look not only to the loss of moorings, be it the Thurne, Acle, Woodbastwick, and Beccles to some extent but also the loss of access to Cockshoot broad and the controversy surrounding Great Hoveton Broad.

With the year on the river rapidly coming to a close it could possibly be remembered as a year of moans and concerns.

Inappropriate behaviour on the rivers, loss of toilet facilities, both public and those brought about by the demise of some boatyards their pump out facilities, running engines at moorings with the resultant noise and fumes polluting all and sundry, the lack of rubbish disposal facilities, loss of moorings, loss of access and the funding of private concerns.

In isolation none of the aforementioned seriously effects the enjoyment and benefits of The Broads. An inconvenience undoubtedly. But together, the accumulation of these matters do cause concern for the future of Broadland

What we need is an authority, any authority,that is proactive, able to identify the priority issues, and act on them. We don’t need plans that are not plans, we don’t need visions, just a more defined objective achievable within a realistic and identified time scale .

Andrew

Edited September 26, 2016 by Wussername
double paste

[BroadScot]

11 minutes ago, Wussername said:

What we need is an authority, any authority,that is proactive, able to identify the priority issues, and act on them. We don’t need plans that are not plans, we don’t need visions, just a more defined objective achievable within a realistic and identified time scale .

Andrew

Well said Andrew. A great deal of thought has went into that posting I think! 

[Timbo]

2 hours ago, Wussername said:

What we need is an authority, any authority,that is proactive, able to identify the priority issues, and act on them. We don’t need plans that are not plans, we don’t need visions, just a more defined objective achievable within a realistic and identified time scale .

Well said indeed Andrew! However the Broads authority do have a defined objective...its the Broads Act. The problem being the CEO choosing to 'reinterpret' that Act to suit his own personal agenda and not carry out statutory duties.

Just my opinion but...

We need a democratically elected executive, accountable to residents, resident business and toll payers who will carry out their 'precise' duties to the letter according to the Broads Act, which is subject to independent oversight.

The ridiculous 'feudal' system the Broads endures at the moment and the cockeyed vision of the executive will be the death of the Broads, its communities, heritage, businesses and all the damned wildlife and unique ecosystems.

How many signatures was it we needed to get a matter debated in parliament? I'm quite surprised Andrea Leadsom hasn't jumped at the chance to divest us of one of the last 'Blairite' appointees!

[tjg1677]

Just to play devils advocate and I am sure that many may disagree with me here, I had a long long absence from the broads between about 1994 and 2012 due to owning a narrowboat on the canal system. When I came back to the broads again ( Pacific cruisers Pacific Princess ) in the late summer of 2012, one thing that struck me was how many more public 24 hour moorings there were. I could be wrong here and my memory playing tricks but as I recall the last time in 1994, we had to search high and low for " proper moorings " the alternatives being wild moored on rond anchors, mudweighted or moored outside various pubs that seemed to charge anywhere between a fiver to a tenner per night if you didnt eat there. Please do correct me if I am wrong, and there is a chance that I may be coz the memory aint wot it used to be,,,to quote a song title.

trev.