Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

JennyMorgan

Country File On The Broads

Recommended Posts

Has someone missed part of my post? Is boating banned in any of the NP's let alone in any where "navigation" is enshrined in legislation?

I am just too lazy to check it out but it may be an interesting exercise - having said that i am absolutely certain that all NP's have pressure groups on many aspects of their work, including the funding that comes down to them, especially those that are not NP's , but pretend they are!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As priorities seem to go in three's these MAY be the reason to aim for full NP status:

1) Personal ambition of leadership

2) Possible more access to funding

3) To be able to restrict use of navigation by hiding behind the Sandford Principle.

MM I too do not know how boating is restricted in National Parks, but there are various restrictions on Windermere for example I believe. I am not sure who imposed them and which powers were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Johnb,

The restrictions were imposed by the quango that runs the Lake District National Park. Basically there was not a speed restriction on lake Windermere  other than the 6 mph in the three built up area's at the top, bottom of the lake and at Bowness. These area were policed by park officials in boats. When the blanket 6 mph speed limit across all of the lake this stopped almost all speedboats and skiing on the lake, it also interfered with the three larger tourist boats that operate on the lake, the ski center on the lake (now can only provide training at the lower speed).

This action first discussed well twenty years ago to curb dangerous speeders on the lake was pushed through even though the lake policed, procedures were  in place many years ago to educate people and restrict offences. Before the speed limit came into force petitions, demonstrations from all walks of life, hotels, pubs, shops everywhere were signs up stating stop the ban. The result of the ban is that most speedboats have opted to use Loch Lomond the only large lake/loch available in the UK to continue their sport, taking with them their well over 20% of the lake district tourist spend.

Many of the other lakes in the lake district do not allow any powered craft of any kind.

At Bowness there is a car park next to the car ferry that was used by people that used to launch there boats from the public slipway (of course there was a fee for launching and the car park, in the early 2000's to mid 2000's it was always full and buzzing the same could be said for the lake, by 2010 the last time we went to our time share cottage the car park was empty most of the time and you could walk from the ferry into on the lake shore path into Bowness without hardly seeing a boat, other than the trip boats operating out of Bowness. 

All very sad, businesses suffered, assets were lost and the wealth of the Lake District reduced, just to meet the ends of a none elected quango to prove a point.

Regards

Alan

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Alan. We lived in Kendal over 40 years ago and visited the towns around Windermere most Saturday nights. The whole place buzzed with visitors, boaters, climbers and tourists. It sounds as if some of those places may not have the same atmosphere now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowness and all the Lake District towns are still  buzzing but many of the visitors do not spend as much as the speedboat/skiing crews spent, they recon that these people 2% of all visitors spent over 20% of the tourist spend, a packed lunch and a bottled drink can not make up for that loss.

Regards

Alan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going off on a slight tangent but nothing new there! I have Googled Windermere and clearly there is an issue concerning water skiing but effectively no different to the control already in place on the Broads. Where things differ is that on the Lakes these new powers were inflicted on Lakes users long after skiing was first established. In answer to Marsh's question I can find no clear evidence of restrictions being put in place other than to protect breeding areas. I can find no evidence of blanket bans where existing navigation historically takes place.

However, on the Broads we mustn't forget that we already have bans in place, Hoveton Great Broad & The Trinity Broads being prize examples although both those bans precede the Broads Authority but then the Authority has made no effort to rectify those injustices. Cockshoot, despite promises to the contrary, has yet to be re-opened to boaters. There were also threats of massive fines to deter both boaters and anglers on Horsey. I have already reminded people of the threats to the right to navigate within the recent Broads Bill & Broads national park Bill. On top of that when I became a member of the Authority's navigation committee I was told, face to face by Dr Packman, that both anglers and boaters would have to accept exclusion as a matter of fact, that would have happened if such as myself had not opposed the Broads Bill in Parliament, once again, see the Broads Bill.  

As far as the good Doctor is concerned, leopards don't change their spots. There are many who still believe that Hickling is under threat but I am not qualified to substantiate that  but I well remember the debates and lack of weed cutting & dredging for example. I know that dredging is taking place right now but is that for conservation or navigation?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Off topic sorry!

Windermere. I am playing Devils Advocate here but the first time we used the ferry from Bowness in 1971 I was horrified at the evidently oil laden water. The water quality nowadays looks pretty good.

We were on the lake one day at the height of the protests. We had hired a 17ft keelboat from Bowness and were sailing when a large powerboat with a 'for sale' sign on it   came out from the shore, right at us and opened up both engines, he circled us a couple or three times to create a vortex with  us at the centre, and then peeled off. I believe one more circuit would have sunk us; we were sucked down quite a way as it was. The boat was rocking violently the boom was banging  about and the whole thing was very dangerous indeed. Novice sailors would have been at even greater risk.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Hi Johnb,

The restrictions were imposed by the quango that runs the Lake District National Park. Basically there was not a speed restriction on lake Windermere  other than the 6 mph in the three built up area's at the top, bottom of the lake and at Bowness. These area were policed by park officials in boats. When the blanket 6 mph speed limit across all of the lake this stopped almost all speedboats and skiing on the lake, it also interfered with the three larger tourist boats that operate on the lake, the ski center on the lake (now can only provide training at the lower speed).

This action first discussed well twenty years ago to curb dangerous speeders on the lake was pushed through even though the lake policed, procedures were  in place many years ago to educate people and restrict offences. Before the speed limit came into force petitions, demonstrations from all walks of life, hotels, pubs, shops everywhere were signs up stating stop the ban. The result of the ban is that most speedboats have opted to use Loch Lomond the only large lake/loch available in the UK to continue their sport, taking with them their well over 20% of the lake district tourist spend.

Many of the other lakes in the lake district do not allow any powered craft of any kind.

At Bowness there is a car park next to the car ferry that was used by people that used to launch there boats from the public slipway (of course there was a fee for launching and the car park, in the early 2000's to mid 2000's it was always full and buzzing the same could be said for the lake, by 2010 the last time we went to our time share cottage the car park was empty most of the time and you could walk from the ferry into on the lake shore path into Bowness without hardly seeing a boat, other than the trip boats operating out of Bowness. 

All very sad, businesses suffered, assets were lost and the wealth of the Lake District reduced, just to meet the ends of a none elected quango to prove a point.

Regards

Alan

Just to keep this thread going of on a tangent , your spot on with that summary Ranworthbreeze.

I grew up  in Windermere spend my youth waterskiing, sailing and just generally mucking about in boats . My ummer holiday job was hiring out self drive day boats and rowing boats at Bowness and then worked in a boatyard there when left school. Then along came the speed limit and  overnight the amount of boats that left windermere was unbelievable and along with that so the restuarants and shops all suffered as people with disposable incomes weren't there any more.   Jobs and skills in the boatyards were lost never to be replaced  and the the area is like a ghost town compared with before .

I would hate to see the broads go like that

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad someone brought up Windermere as if you research this thoroughly you will see that the speedboat ban came about ,I believe, as a result primarily of NOISE issues and nothing to do with Sandford as some might feel.

I remember , several years ago, walking around the hills above and surrounding Windermere, and the noise level was appalling, not helped in that it sits, obviously ,in a natural basin. And all the transfer of those boats to Loch Lomond has done, is increase the pressure on THAT NP to consider the same ban because of it attracting anti social idiots! Not sure Sandford is to blame there either!

I believe also, as many boats were trailed to the area, policing was difficult and as the Broads know to their cost, incidents of high powered craft belting around like projectiles, was something causing issues. My guess is that the Lake is rather the better for it and would suggest the economy, whilst different, is not as badly affected as some might suggest.

On a recent visit, I did not see much evidence of a ghost town, but I will bow to those who clearly know better!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good contribution MM. I have always thought along those lines as well. Yes, the Lakes are all about fun and leisure but not speedboat based disruption that would dominate most of the water area and intrude on fellside meanderings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely enough I was chatting with Dr P this morning and one of the topics was the noise & fumes from stationary/moored boats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Strangely enough I was chatting with Dr P this morning and one of the topics was the noise & fumes from stationary/moored boats. 

Well, don't keep us in suspenders JM. Wot did he say?

Old Wussername.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Well, don't keep us in suspenders JM. Wot did he say?

Old Wussername.

Errrr, we agreed that there is too much of both!

He clearly felt that the cost of maintaining and providing power points at moorings was more than compensated for by the reduction of both noise & fumes. Seen in that respect I have to agree with him. 

It appeared that like me he felt that some types of boats produce an inordinate and unacceptable level of exhaust pollution.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guessing it was something to do with carbon monoxide.

Edited by A.J.B.
oops to late, JM has already replied.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A.J.B. said:

Guessing it was something to do with carbon monoxide.

You might be right, Andy. A good day by the way and no spilled blood! Not that I changed my mind about the BNP issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richardsons newsletter encouraging people to vote for The Broads as Britains favourite National Park. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, johnb said:

Richardsons newsletter encouraging people to vote for The Broads as Britains favourite National Park. 

Tut tut!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

On top of that when I became a member of the Authority's navigation committee I was told, face to face by Dr Packman, that both anglers and boaters would have to accept exclusion as a matter of fact, that would have happened if such as myself had not opposed the Broads Bill in Parliament, once again, see the Broads Bill.  

This man is a danger to us all.  

His intentions seem to be bordering on malicious. 

The Broads Authority needs to start looking after the interests of boaters/fisherman/visitors/tourists and every other person who is reliant on the broads for an income and stop trying to price us out or exclude any of us through the back door. I

I utterly deplore with the things that go on in this country unchallenged. 

Has he considered just how many people could potentially have a grievance with him if he had actually achieved this (and yes I have worded that carefully). 

He needs to go before he ruins it for everyone. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNKS, unsurprisingly I  agree with much that you have just written, but not all of it. Dr Packman is not all bad and without doubt he does deserve some credit. However I do think that the balance is not in his favour. He has taken advantage of a flawed system, more than anything it is the system that has allowed him to operate as he does that needs challenging. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that we have recognised that false news is amongst us. But has it not been forever thus? Take facts, Alternative facts of other facts. A fact which causes us to question a fact

The ozone layer, a dreadful thing, can you remember that. Has it gone? If so where? Should we care, Prince Charles did, he stopped using spray deodorant because the propellant used destroyed the ozone layer and made it more sunny. I thought that it was good and would give an extra squirt out of the bathroom window to make up for the deficit. For better boating weather.

Mr Brown looked to the heavens for inspiration and not surprisingly saw aeroplanes. The canny old Scot thought I’ll have some of that, I will tax the bounders that’ll stop them . And so he did. To reach targets which he had committed us too. Did it work. No. Did it put revenue into preventing climate change. Did it heck, he trousered it. We all got depressed what with that and the weather and went off to the Costa Plenty.

Climate change would soon be upon us. Palm Trees would festoon Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft would turn into a mango swamp and flocks of parrots and Mynah birds would transform the broads into a kaleidoscope of colour. What happened, diddly-squat. Not even an arecaceae sapling, a leaf or a twig. As for parrots and Mynah birds……..nothing. Well one old Mynah bird perhaps.

 

For the UEA in Norwich this was an unmitigated disaster. A flurry of emails failed to convince anybody. False news folks! So it was decided to re-market the whole project. It was to be called Global Warming. There would be meetings in Brussels, monthly press releases with an objective to achieve weekly releases to start with a picture of a polar bear on an icecap. Which went global. Presumably he is still there. Following this success emissions were measured to monitor the results. Finally, the introduction of that 21st century phenomena, the bane of everybody’s life, TARGETS. 

Everybody loves a target, especially if it is a movable one.

Take wind farms and solar panels. Do they achieve targets, most definitely, in particular for those who invest in them. They are the cheapest form of reusable energy, well they would be wouldn’t they. There is no other type of reusable energy.

By the way, what about the NHS, they are very target orientated. They love a target. If they fail to achieve a target they are fined by the government. But who pays the fine. Does human resources ring up a member of staff: “Good morning Human Resource Number 4569, sorry to inform you but your area has failed to reach its target, so we are going to nick fifty quid from your wages this week to help pay the fine.” Well, of course it does not work like that. The NHS pays the fine. And as you and I fund the NHS we ultimately foot the bill. So stop moaning if your bed is on the car park.

 

Where is all this going with regard to diesel emissions?

There will be targets which will be identified and certain criteria will have to be met, and, in my opinion in the fullness of time this will apply to the diesel cruiser on the broads.

Not necessarily on the rivers and exposed places but in particular stern on moorings and  where it is practice for some to run their engines in order to charge batteries or to support the modern facilities which seemingly are essential for that which is supposed to be a unique experience.

If this practice is not stopped I believe that pressure from the public will force the authorities to take action. As I have said before the current legislation is a dead letter. The BA lack the resolve or indeed ability to enforce the legislation. Who do you ring at 8pm to report an offending boat. Leave a message? The BA to speak to the helm in the morning?

“ Not me Guv, it was the boat next door”

Why should we be bothered?

I will tell you why.

Doctors are amongst the loudest voices calling for action on diesel pollution. According to a report from the Royal College of Physicians last year it was estimated that 40,000 premature deaths were caused last year.

Emissions from diesel engines, nitrogen dioxide in particular pose a significant risk to children and is linked to impaired lung growth and function.

People, including children with asthma are at significant risk.

People with other respiratory issues are also at risk from NO 2.

COPD prevalent amongst the older generation can prove to be a most debilitating disease exacerbated by diesel fumes.

I am not suggesting in any shape or form that boats be converted to petrol, that is not possible. Perhaps new technology could be introduced to limit the amount of toxicity in diesel fumes.

In late October of last year a school trip took place, as it does every year as long as I can remember. One of the larger boat yards supply the craft and a support team of engineers. It is not always the same boat yard.

It was last year that fourteen 40ft plus cruisers arrived at Ranworth with at least 5 children on each boat plus adult crew.

Now, one can expect say three or four boats, to run their engines for whatever reason, during the season, at any particular time.

On this occasion an engineer from the yard concerned was in attendance. The journey time from the boat yard was I suspect about 2 hours at most, hardly sufficient time to charge batteries which may have not been fully charged from the outset.

During the time that I arrived and left one hour had elapsed. During that period of time 14 diesel engines were allowed to run in a confined area. Presumably to make sure hot water was available and sufficient lighting.

During that time young people played on the grass, lounged about on the outside of the boats and generally did what teenagers do.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that some of these young people could possibly be affected by asthma.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that all of the young people present at Ranworth on that day had a reasonable expectation of being able to breathe fresh air, uncontaminated air.

Is that also not an expectation for older people who have respiratory conditions or are susceptible to such conditions?

With regard to the present concerns, nationwide, in our cities and recreational areas with regard to diesel fumes do you not think that we as private owners, hire craft customers and of course boat Yard Company’s together with the Broads Authority have a duty of care?

From a personal point of view I appreciate that this is a very emotive subject for many. I do feel however that we must all identify this matter as an important issue and to take action accordingly for the benefit of everyone. Not only to take action but to be seen to take action, or others will who may not have our understanding or interest impose conditions which are not relevant.   

Just as important is an individual’s contribution of consideration before deciding to run a diesel at a mooring, for hours at a time to the detriment of others.

I would prefer that these matters were discussed as being more important as to the National Park issue which to all intents and purposes is hollow and of little consequence at this moment in time. Until of course we have to vigorously defend the position as confirmed that we are not a National Park.

Old Wussername

Andrew 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, an opinion that needs a far wider audience than is available on this or any other Broads orientated forum. I personally think that the BA has been negligent on this one despite having a relevant byelaw with which it can act. I have made this point to the the Authority. The point was also made by one of the rangers who was drawn into the conversation that some boats, when on tick over, spew out near neat diesel. It was clear that the Authority is well aware of the problem. I don't intend to let it drop. Diesel fumes lay on the water and can be contained by the reed banks, most unpleasant for those of us in low boats such as dories, kayaks or rowing skiffs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wussername said:

It would seem that we have recognised that false news is amongst us. But has it not been forever thus? Take facts, Alternative facts of other facts. A fact which causes us to question a fact

The ozone layer, a dreadful thing, can you remember that. Has it gone? If so where? Should we care, Prince Charles did, he stopped using spray deodorant because the propellant used destroyed the ozone layer and made it more sunny. I thought that it was good and would give an extra squirt out of the bathroom window to make up for the deficit. For better boating weather.

Mr Brown looked to the heavens for inspiration and not surprisingly saw aeroplanes. The canny old Scot thought I’ll have some of that, I will tax the bounders that’ll stop them . And so he did. To reach targets which he had committed us too. Did it work. No. Did it put revenue into preventing climate change. Did it heck, he trousered it. We all got depressed what with that and the weather and went off to the Costa Plenty.

Climate change would soon be upon us. Palm Trees would festoon Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft would turn into a mango swamp and flocks of parrots and Mynah birds would transform the broads into a kaleidoscope of colour. What happened, diddly-squat. Not even an arecaceae sapling, a leaf or a twig. As for parrots and Mynah birds……..nothing. Well one old Mynah bird perhaps.

 

For the UEA in Norwich this was an unmitigated disaster. A flurry of emails failed to convince anybody. False news folks! So it was decided to re-market the whole project. It was to be called Global Warming. There would be meetings in Brussels, monthly press releases with an objective to achieve weekly releases to start with a picture of a polar bear on an icecap. Which went global. Presumably he is still there. Following this success emissions were measured to monitor the results. Finally, the introduction of that 21st century phenomena, the bane of everybody’s life, TARGETS. 

Everybody loves a target, especially if it is a movable one.

Take wind farms and solar panels. Do they achieve targets, most definitely, in particular for those who invest in them. They are the cheapest form of reusable energy, well they would be wouldn’t they. There is no other type of reusable energy.

By the way, what about the NHS, they are very target orientated. They love a target. If they fail to achieve a target they are fined by the government. But who pays the fine. Does human resources ring up a member of staff: “Good morning Human Resource Number 4569, sorry to inform you but your area has failed to reach its target, so we are going to nick fifty quid from your wages this week to help pay the fine.” Well, of course it does not work like that. The NHS pays the fine. And as you and I fund the NHS we ultimately foot the bill. So stop moaning if your bed is on the car park.

 

Where is all this going with regard to diesel emissions?

There will be targets which will be identified and certain criteria will have to be met, and, in my opinion in the fullness of time this will apply to the diesel cruiser on the broads.

Not necessarily on the rivers and exposed places but in particular stern on moorings and  where it is practice for some to run their engines in order to charge batteries or to support the modern facilities which seemingly are essential for that which is supposed to be a unique experience.

If this practice is not stopped I believe that pressure from the public will force the authorities to take action. As I have said before the current legislation is a dead letter. The BA lack the resolve or indeed ability to enforce the legislation. Who do you ring at 8pm to report an offending boat. Leave a message? The BA to speak to the helm in the morning?

“ Not me Guv, it was the boat next door”

Why should we be bothered?

I will tell you why.

Doctors are amongst the loudest voices calling for action on diesel pollution. According to a report from the Royal College of Physicians last year it was estimated that 40,000 premature deaths were caused last year.

Emissions from diesel engines, nitrogen dioxide in particular pose a significant risk to children and is linked to impaired lung growth and function.

People, including children with asthma are at significant risk.

People with other respiratory issues are also at risk from NO 2.

COPD prevalent amongst the older generation can prove to be a most debilitating disease exacerbated by diesel fumes.

I am not suggesting in any shape or form that boats be converted to petrol, that is not possible. Perhaps new technology could be introduced to limit the amount of toxicity in diesel fumes.

In late October of last year a school trip took place, as it does every year as long as I can remember. One of the larger boat yards supply the craft and a support team of engineers. It is not always the same boat yard.

It was last year that fourteen 40ft plus cruisers arrived at Ranworth with at least 5 children on each boat plus adult crew.

Now, one can expect say three or four boats, to run their engines for whatever reason, during the season, at any particular time.

On this occasion an engineer from the yard concerned was in attendance. The journey time from the boat yard was I suspect about 2 hours at most, hardly sufficient time to charge batteries which may have not been fully charged from the outset.

During the time that I arrived and left one hour had elapsed. During that period of time 14 diesel engines were allowed to run in a confined area. Presumably to make sure hot water was available and sufficient lighting.

During that time young people played on the grass, lounged about on the outside of the boats and generally did what teenagers do.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that some of these young people could possibly be affected by asthma.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that all of the young people present at Ranworth on that day had a reasonable expectation of being able to breathe fresh air, uncontaminated air.

Is that also not an expectation for older people who have respiratory conditions or are susceptible to such conditions?

With regard to the present concerns, nationwide, in our cities and recreational areas with regard to diesel fumes do you not think that we as private owners, hire craft customers and of course boat Yard Company’s together with the Broads Authority have a duty of care?

From a personal point of view I appreciate that this is a very emotive subject for many. I do feel however that we must all identify this matter as an important issue and to take action accordingly for the benefit of everyone. Not only to take action but to be seen to take action, or others will who may not have our understanding or interest impose conditions which are not relevant.   

Just as important is an individual’s contribution of consideration before deciding to run a diesel at a mooring, for hours at a time to the detriment of others.

I would prefer that these matters were discussed as being more important as to the National Park issue which to all intents and purposes is hollow and of little consequence at this moment in time. Until of course we have to vigorously defend the position as confirmed that we are not a National Park.

Old Wussername

Andrew 

You forgot to mention that the Earth is flat.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an attempt to stop sailing on at least one of the lakes, which I believe ended up in court. The basis of the case was that being able to see sails and boats on the water. Stopped a person's enjoyment of the natural beauty of the lakes. The case came down in favour of continuing sailing but you cannot guarantee that in the future.

A quote from the National Parks web site.

The Sandford Principle

Managing a national park is challenging. It needs the right balance between conservation and recreation. National park authorities need to conserve wildlife and habitats, but also encourage people to enjoy and learn from the countryside. This can cause conflicts.

To help national park authorities make decisions between conservation and recreation, the National Parks Policy Review Committee made a recommendation in 1974, which is now known as the 'Sandford Principle', named after Lord Sandford who was chair of the committee.

Sandford Principle
"Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority"

This principle was updated in the 1995 Environment Act, to say;

"If it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, [the National Park Authority] shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area"

In other words: If there is a conflict between protecting the environment and people enjoying the environment, that can't be resolved by management, then protecting the environment is more important.

End quote"

Noticeably the"  in other words" paragraph contradicts the text of the law, by ignoring the last 5 words " Cultural heritage of the area" 

So it appears the National Parks as a group have their own Packman principle.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of two people who on a fairground ride experienced diesel poisoning - The exhaust stack exited from the engine to the centre of one of those rides that spins you around, flat to the wall, then spins up to vertical, the exhaust fumes were now being sucked into the vortex, and as you were fighting the force throwing you to the wall, you were breathing much deeper to get breath. 2 of us reported the ride as we were sick all night following this (my other companion in sickness had to go to the doctors two days later as she was still affected).

Diesel poisoning is not nice, in mild cases you get a headache and queasy for a few hours, but it can be a lot worse.

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Strangely enough I was chatting with Dr P this morning and one of the topics was the noise & fumes from stationary/moored boats. 

You say he agreed with you.

 

11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Errrr, we agreed that there is too much of both!

 

 

were you both referring to the same 'both' might he not have been referring to 'stationary / moored boats' - ie that there were too many of them. :evil: 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.