Wroxham Bridge Clearance

[CeePee1952]

I bet that caused a bit of a traffic jam!

Chris

[MargeandParge]

With quite a few damaged and boats sunk this year we saw a boat with a hole in the side of it being pumped out by a Ranger about 4 weeks ago.

Is it nearly time the damage waiver was reviewed? When we started hiring we had to pay a deposit and if the boat was a boat when you returned it you had your deposit back. Certainly made us as careful and keen to return an undamaged boat. It seems to check a Cavalier attitude . Only my opinion. 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

 

 

 

[BrundallNavy]

There is a boat moored at Ludham bridge with a broken window and lots of scuff marks.  

[Mouldy]

3 hours ago, MargeandParge said:

Is it nearly time the damage waiver was reviewed? When we started hiring we had to pay a deposit and if the boat was a boat when you returned it you had your deposit back. Certainly made us as careful and keen to return an undamaged boat. It seems to check a Cavalier attitude . Only my opinion. 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

I was talking to Paul at the marina about this a couple of years ago and suggested that a return to the old security deposit may have a positive impact on the amount of damage being done to hire fleets.

He told me that from his point of view, the damage waiver was easier to implement and saved disputes when boats were returned damaged.  People often claimed that damage was there when they took the boat out and had been missed before taking the vessel over.

I can see that carefully examining a fleet on turnaround days would be difficult, especially now with the vast majority of yards having fleets of a significant size.  Perhaps creating a video in the presence of the hirer would be possible at the end of their trial run and at the start of their hire, with the advances in technology that would now make it possible, but even that would be time consuming on turnaround days when there may be a high number of boats going out.

Remember that 50 boats going out with a waiver of £50 each returns 2.5k to the yard to cover any damage incurred during the week.

[SwanR]

As a hirer I want as much certainty as possible about the amount that my holiday will cost me. It's one of the reasons that we like the all inclusive prices, even knowing that probably means that we pay a little more than we might need to. If we had to pay an insurance premium that we might or might not get back, then that would be one more thing to put us off. What happens if the damage has been done through no fault of your own but you can't prove that and are therefore penalised?  We did look at hiring a premium boat last year but finding an extra security deposit needed once we got almost to the end of the booking, we backed out. Probably we would have got it back, but we would have had to afford to pay it up front and that tipped the price up too much.

[Mouldy]

16 minutes ago, SwanR said:

As a hirer I want as much certainty as possible about the amount that my holiday will cost me. It's one of the reasons that we like the all inclusive prices, even knowing that probably means that we pay a little more than we might need to. If we had to pay an insurance premium that we might or might not get back, then that would be one more thing to put us off. What happens if the damage has been done through no fault of your own but you can't prove that and are therefore penalised?  We did look at hiring a premium boat last year but finding an extra security deposit needed once we got almost to the end of the booking, we backed out. Probably we would have got it back, but we would have had to afford to pay it up front and that tipped the price up too much.

The damage waiver is applied to the hire charge and is non returnable.  There will inevitably be an element of that charge built into all inclusive pricing.  

[KevinB]

I happened to have a quick look on the Barnes webcam while having my lunch today   and saw the boat stuck under the bridge, took a while to get it out with quite a few spectators looking on 

 

[MargeandParge]

Many Hotels now and car hire companies take a credit card number which covers any damage incurred through negligence. It may contribute to safety on the Broads if people are more careful knowing that they are hiring or buying an expensive asset. 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

[Roy]

I guess the boat didn’t use the bridge pilot service if that is the case does that affect the  yards insurance ? 

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, SwanR said:

What happens if the damage has been done through no fault of your own but you can't prove that and are therefore penalised?

This is exactly the situation that every owner faces every time they moor their boat somewhere and wander away from it. They risk loosing their compulsory excess and increased premiums on renewal, whilst some take the view that they have nothing to lose as they have already paid a CDW.

When you drive your car on the road or park it in a car park somewhere, you probably have a 1 in 50,000 chance of being near a hire car where the driver has paid a CDW. I wonder how you would feel about your car and insurance situation if you had a 1 in 2 chance of being near a hire car where the driver had paid a CDW?

[rightsaidfred]

40 minutes ago, Roy said:

I guess the boat didn’t use the bridge pilot service if that is the case does that affect the  yards insurance ? 

I don't know but  would think if the helm didn't use the pilot that would leave them open to a claim for damages regardless of the waver,  I can see both sides of the argument regarding wavers but think responsible people would act accordingly and the irresponsible carry on regardless whichever system is in place.

Fred

[BroadAmbition]

I'm now pondering if the boat in question was skippered by the same ignorant selfish idiot that double moored on the pilot mooring?

Griff

[Roy]

7 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

I'm now pondering if the boat in question was skippered by the same ignorant selfish idiot that double moored on the pilot mooring?

Griff

No I saw the picture that was posted in here before it was taken down it was not that boat. 
 

[PAULG]

As a hirer the CDW gives me a complete peace of mind that if anything should happen my fault or not then I am covered.

I am a responsible person as I am sure 95% of other hirers are also, so please don't tar us all with the same brush.

There are enough warnings on the boat and in the boat log regarding the boat height, and ALL the boats I have been on have a very large and strongly worded plaque right  in front of you on the control panel.

You cannot educate pork and if they have ignored the warnings and not used the pilot then they should have to pay for the damage in FULL despite the CDW. I'm sure that would focus their minds.

The boat we hire has a 6ft 5in air draught and I have never been under that bridge without using the bridge pilot.

Paul.

 

[SwanR]

This is also why we shouldn't be encouraging people to ignore the bridge height markers. 

[Mouldy]

9 minutes ago, SwanR said:

This is also why we shouldn't be encouraging people to ignore the bridge height markers. 

Ordinarily I wouldn’t, however the gauges at Ludham are wrong and have been for some time.  River levels this year have made passage through the bridge even more dependent on having the bridge accurately marked.  We pay a significant amount to the BA in tolls to maintain navigation and should surely expect them to maintain the signage at there to be fit for purpose.

There is a marked difference between Ludham Bridge and Wroxham which should also be remembered - Wroxham being an arch has more than just the clearance to consider, passage through the bridge is also dependent on the shape of the superstructure.

[grendel]

talking of maintainng the signeage you should look at the deplorable stare of road markings, recently i started a count as I was returning home from the broads, where each good visible clean sign was scored as +1 point and each barely visible, or excessively dirty sign was scored at -1, when I got to -31 before I got to ipswich, I gave up, some signs had faded beyond readability, some were just plain so dirty you couldnt read them, the worst ones, where the council had cleared 10 feet in front of the sign, so you could see it when you were 10 feet from it as you got to the cut out section of hedge. at least I have seen the rangers mopping down the bridge height markers.

[kpnut]

Can anyone please clear up a puzzle I’ve just read. 
 

I’ve just seen a photo of the bridge height gauge by Bridge Broad marina, opposite the St Johns stern-on electric moorings. 
One person says it’s the height gauge for Wroxham Bridge, and another says it’s the height gauge for the clickety clackety bridge going into the marina. 
 

Which is it please? 

[garryn]

It's Wroxham bridge as it always reads the same as the one next to Wroxham bridge.

[Karizma]

1 hour ago, kpnut said:

Can anyone please clear up a puzzle I’ve just read. 

I’ve just seen a photo of the bridge height gauge by Bridge Broad marina, opposite the St Johns stern-on electric moorings. 
One person says it’s the height gauge for Wroxham Bridge, and another says it’s the height gauge for the clickety clackety bridge going into the marina. 

Which is it please? 

good question - I've always wondered which one it was.

24 minutes ago, garryn said:

It's Wroxham bridge as it always reads the same as the one next to Wroxham bridge.

thanks Garry

[kpnut]

Thanks for the reply Garry.
 

That’s what I’ve always thought  and never given it a second thought, but then it got me pondering as to how people know the clearance under the Marina bridge unless they have a gauge too.
Maybe it was built the same height as the road bridge?

It was people who moor at that marina that said it was ‘their’ height gauge, not for the main bridge. 

[PCL023]

The quay heading around the entrance to B/broad marina has recently been replaced. Previously there were two signs, one white smaller sign, that was for the marina road bridge, the other was the standard black background BA bridge height sign for Wroxham Bridge. When I was there the other week, only the BA sign was present. 👍

I can assure you there is more height on the marina bridge, approximately 8’6” + at most times, enough room not to need to drop the canopy and windscreen. 
 

Cheers Paul 

 

Edited September 4 by PCL023
Typo

[kpnut]

7 hours ago, PCL023 said:

The quay heading around the entrance to B/broad marina has recently been replaced. Previously there were two signs, one white smaller sign, that was for the marina road bridge, the other was the standard black background BA bridge height sign for Wroxham Bridge. When I was there the other week, only the BA sign was present. 👍

That clears up that little mystery then. Thanks. 

[Meantime]

I always assumed that as the marina is private waters, that it wouldn't be the Broads Authority's responsibility to mark the height, but the owner of the marina, therefore the black normal height gauge was for Wroxham bridge.

[PaulN]

On 21/08/2024 at 00:04, BroadAmbition said:

I'm now pondering if the boat in question was skippered by the same ignorant selfish idiot that double moored on the pilot mooring?

Griff

From what I have heard, the boat (hirer) in question did use the bridge pilot.