Ludham Bridge Moorings-new Restrictions?

[YnysMon]

I’ve been watching one of Dave Whitworth’s July vlogs, going upstream from Ludham Bridge where he spotted a sign stipulating there was a section reserved for boats under 20’. Is this true? Has anyone else spotted it? 

[Meantime]

That sign has been there for some time and is often ignored in my experience. It is there because it is a convex part of the bank along that mooring. If a long boat moors there they can not settle against the bank properly and end up sticking out at one or both ends into the already tight navigation channel.

It is there as a safety feature, not to reserve space for day boats etc.

[Meantime]

I believe it is roughly where I have highlighted in Red.

[Bluebell]

Yep, been there for a while, but mostly ignored as is the demasting section…😎

[vanessan]

Those signs have been there for some time now and they’re frequently ignored or not noticed. It is a pinch point and wide boats moored there can be a problem at busy times. I guess people just see the 24 hour mooring bit on the sign and don’t bother reading any further. So many times I’ve felt like pointing it out to someone moored there but so far I’ve managed to bite my tongue! 

[Meantime]

32 minutes ago, Bluebell said:

but mostly ignored as is the demasting section…😎

I have a picture on my phone of a BA ranger moored on the demasting section at Ludham  but the forum T+Cs and naming and shaming policy prohibits me from posting it! 

[Malanka]

It’s not naming and shaming if there’s incontrovertible evidence. It’s when they’re ( you know THEM) seen to be above reproach that stuff happens. 
 

i.e. No you may not debate that “ cos I say so” lol 

 

M 

[Paladin]

51 minutes ago, Meantime said:

I have a picture on my phone of a BA ranger moored on the demasting section at Ludham  but the forum T+Cs and naming and shaming policy prohibits me from posting it! 

 

32 minutes ago, Malanka said:

It’s not naming and shaming if there’s incontrovertible evidence. It’s when they’re ( you know THEM) seen to be above reproach that stuff happens. 
 

i.e. No you may not debate that “ cos I say so” lol 

 

M 

Where is the incontrovertible proof?

Navigation Bye Law 87 says: "An act necessary for the proper execution of his duty by an Officer of the Authority (or by any person acting on the instructions of an Officer of the Authority) shall not be deemed an offence against these Byelaws."

The photo doesn't explain WHY the ranger was moored in such a position. Nor does the innuendo.

[Malanka]

Oh dear you appear to have assumed I was referring to BA rangers. I think you’ll find that’s an error.. oh well more meds for me 
 

Please read the second part of the sentence. I refer to THEM, you know the ubiquitous excuse of them.. 

 

M 

[ChrisB]

They have been there since 2011, when the Horning Marshes Moorings opened.

I took this photograph on 10.04.2011. Of a BA silt barge moored between the 20ft max L.O.A. posts. 

You will also note that said barge is not displaying it's registration number on it's bow.

I took it because I thought it a bit of a laugh! Not many about at that time of year.

 

[Malanka]

I remember the hoo haa a few years back when everyone deemed to be in breach of the then “new but not new” registration display rule update received little red paper notices in the wet shed.  Everything eventually calmed down. It’s too much hard work to be angry and pedantic about everything all the time, great fun watching it though …….