Jerra

January 29

14 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I think the CRT should bring back the requirement to display the licence.

I thought that despite what CRT say it was a requirement in law.

14 minutes ago, LadyG said:

There is huge thing near me, that obviously has not moved recently, there is no notice evident, it has a number, no other signs of recent activity.

January 29

Assuming we take Ian's point about disabled boaters knowing more about it than we do.

Does anybody know/have seen/heard of a narrowboat with no able bodied crew?

I am just pondering why disabled boaters felt the need to request special bollards unless they are in the habit of having no able bodied crew. I am trying to visualise a situation where able bodied crew sit back and leave mooring to somebody not fully able.

The people I have boated with who have a disability (two women and one man) would aim to swap tasks requiring agility or strength or good vision etc for jobs they felt more suitable. Hence my question about able bodied crew.

January 29

That mention of the same distance in half the time implies you would have to be tearing along. At least that is how it reads to me.

A 20 mile range in six months, so say 40 miles in total. That's what, about 25 to 30 football pitches per week. Not too onerous I wouldn't have thought.

January 29

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Similarly I somehow doubt they'd have put the cross-pieces there without a good reason,

I am waiting for a definitive answer as to the good reason.

1 minute ago, IanD said:

I'd have thought this would be to keep the rope at the top and stop it slipping down out of reach if it can't be tied firmly round the bollard

A good suggestion but why two lots.

1 minute ago, IanD said:

-- which is presumably possible if a boater has either mobility or hand problems to tie/pull tight knots, for example arthritis.

I have arthritis and I would find them a nuisance when tying a lighterman's.

Do people with arthritis need accessible moorings? Both crew members I have had who needed accessible moorings had walking problems and used wheelchairs for distances over a few yards.

Come to think of it how many people who need accessible mooring don't have able bodied crew doing the mooring

1 minute ago, IanD said:

But then I didn't design it, so that's just *my* assumption... 😉

There seems to be an assumption by some CWDF posters that anyone proposing anything new or different from "the good old way of doing things" -- especially CART -- is an idiot who hasn't thought for a moment about the potential disadvantages of what they're proposing, and they then gleefully point out the blindingly obvious -- in this case, so obvious that it was even in the article, had they bothered to read it.

If that's not CART-bashing, it looks remarkably like it... 😉

See above which I feel covers the points. Now you mention it I don't think it has been thought through. I think it has been a case of what can we do to make accessible moorings better. Then desperation to find a project hasn't consulted those who need (N.B. I say need as I have seen boats moored on accessible moorings that have been seen elsewhere using ordinary moorings with no problems) them as to what is actually needed.

I wasn't thinking of CRT bashing before merely querying what i thought was bad design but your mention makes me think perhaps CRT deserve in this case a bit of a bashing.

January 29

1 hour ago, IanD said:

The article did say they were for accessible moorings, not strapping a boat to a halt... 😉

Plenty of the usual CART-bashing from people seemingly unable to read or try and understand why these might actually be useful for people less able than themselves, not exactly unsurprising... 😞

I hadn't noticed anybody bashing CRT. I do notice a number querying the design of the bollard which isn't CRT bashing.

I have said (and I have and will in the future need to use accessible moorings for crew members) why are there the cross pieces they seem totally useless to me. I note nobody has suggested why they are necessary.

I certainly don't need them neither would my disabled crew, so can somebody explain why people with difficulties need anything other than a taller bollard (with its attendant problems)

January 29

17 minutes ago, Sailbadthesinner said:

If you read the CRT article you will notice that it is intended for boaters with restricted mobility at accessible moorings.

If you are concerned about the design there is nothing to stop you using a lighterman's hitch round the base.

True, however, I suspect the arms sticking out will make it a bit more difficult. Why are they there? surely a tall conventional bollard would do the job just as well.

January 29

My opinion.

If it aint broke don't fix it.

Bollards of the conventional design have worked successfully for years why change.

January 27

12 hours ago, BEngo said:

There should ot be any untreated output, but the treated sewage still needs somewhere to go.

N

Treated sewage is/should be clean water. My grandfather was in charge of deciding on and overseeing a new filterbed for the town. He visited an already installed one with a rep of the company. The rep was so confident in the water coming out he drank some. That was getting on for 100 years ago surely a newly installed treatment plant is as good.

January 26

On 26/10/2023 at 21:57, ditchcrawler said:

If they want less raw sewage discharges they are going to have to accept more sewage works, unless we all move over to composting loos

Surely it isn't beyond the abilities of a designer to not reduce the river. With a new treatment plant, they will have no reason to pump sewage into the river as they will have built for extreme conditions. Won't they?

January 25

6 hours ago, IanD said:

It does (it's still an old green paper one), but I also did training/testing years ago so I could drive a bigger (17-seater?) minibus for a local community organisation -- I think this was their requirement, not a legal one.

Probably I had to do the same but it was a County Council test/requirement not a legal one.

January 13

23 minutes ago, pearley said:

Sure they're not faded orange? A caravanning neighbour tells me that many sites don't allow blue cables as they don't show up in grass and so are a trip hazard.

I can't imagine how long they would take to fade, we have had ours for almost 40 years and it is still bright orange.

For comparison.

I would suggest one is clearly yellow.

This is even brighter yellow.

January 12

41 minutes ago, BEngo said:

Ah but it was a yellow cable so 110 V. Much safer.

N

Interestingly Amazon are selling a yellow mains extension cable 30, 40 or 50 metres long. So all yellow cables can't be 110 V.

EDIT to add many caravan leads to join to the bollard are yellow and come to think of it so is the one on the boat.

January 10

1 hour ago, booke23 said:

PM sent.

I have a Browning wildlife camera that while a bit pricey, is very reliable and produces good images. I use it for wildlife rather than security. Whatever wildlife camera you use, I'd advise looking for a model with a 12v input socket to allow you to power it from an external source. AA batteries don't last long at all. I power mine with a 12ah sealed lead acid battery, and it lasts for months.

Does that setup still lend itself to being hidden? If a trail cam is used for security I think it will only have any value if it is unseen otherwise it will probably walk away with the scrotes.

EDit to add I use rechargeables on our browning they last a couple of weeks or so.

January 10

Just now, David Mack said:

If the CCTV is to be of any use in any future burglary incident, the images need to be of 'evidential quality' otherwise the police are unlikely to use them. I'm not sure if there is a list available of equipment meeting such a requirement, but I doubt that cheap trail cameras are good enough. Have you tried asking your local police crime prevention people?

An interesting point. We had CCtv in the shops and we had an incident. I felt the images were distinctly ropey but the cop said "oh you have good images, that's so and so (naming the culprits and telling us their nationality).

That left me wondering what evidential quality looks like, however, that was 20 years ago so standards have improved in image quality so what is acceptable probably has as well.

January 10

I wouldn't like to recommend a particular model. My daughter bought a cheap victure and the results are OK.

Trail cameras in general start at around £ 50

January 9

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

Apologies, I wasnt aware the Lake District was a World Heritage Site, I thought it was only man-made structures.

I didn't realise either until the LD became one. I have since seen that the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon are World Heritage Sites.

January 8

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

I live near a NP, when I'm drive past the signs marking the border of the NP I don't suddenly change my behavior and start throwing litter out of the car.

Probably you don't, in fact, I suspect you don't drop litter fly tip etc anywhere.

From my point of view, I can't come up with any reason for the two counties (Cumbria is now two unitary authorities) to not have a problem outside the park other than the loonies think it is OK as somebody will be paid to clear up.

Yes we do get some fly tipping outside the park but it is locals not somebody collapsing their cheap tent rolling it into a ball and leaving it along with food remains, burst lilos etc.

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

If I do go out for a walk in the countryside I'll choose somewhere scenic, which is more likely to be in the NP (thats why it is a NP). I'm not going there because it's an NP, I'm going because of the surroundings, if the NT status was removed I'd still go.

Most of the two counties are scenic and I don't suppose when you go for a walk you take a cheap "festival" type tent or sleeping bag, folding chairs, stove, many tins etc (all I have listed have been left behind after campers.

It isn't the locals it is people visiting because it is a NP. Is your ref to NT a typo as NT are a smallish part of the NP?

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

And I think that's how most people think, more people choose to spend there leisure time in places that happen to be NP's because NP's are nicer places to be.

So can you explain why the majority of the two counties which are all very pretty and rural don't have a problem apart from inside the NP. As I said earlier I live a fraction of a mile outside the NP. No problems until you get 5 to 10 miles in to the park. The scenery doesn't magically change as I cross the border of the park.

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

More people equals more litter, abandoned bbq's, mess etc. There is less litter and mess etc, outside of the NP because the less attractive scenery mean less people spend time there.

As I said the scenery one mile up the road is the same as that where I live. We get lots of tourists in the village.

January 8

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

So are you saying that people behave the same (camping, BBQ, picnic) inside and outside the NP but they only do the littering/crapping inside the NP?

Did you miss the post where I said it was a NP problem? I was pointing out we get the sort of thing which in the NP causes mess all over the two counties. The problem is in the NP.

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

Sounds unlikely to me, I doubt they're going to check where the NP boundary is on Google Maps before deciding whether to have a crap or not... 😉

January 8

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

And the money to pay for them comes from... ?

In "the good old days" such jobs were very badly paid but as compensation they often included accommodation. Neither is an option today.

So do people also camp and crap outside, or only in the pretty bits which are inside the NP?

Blaming the fact that it's an NP which causes the littering/crapping is not the same as being able to show that this is generally the case -- even if it is in your particular example... 😉

You will find wild camping, wild BBQs, and picnicking all over Cumbria (sorry that should now read Cumberland and Westmorland & Furness) all these cause mess in the NP.

January 8

46 minutes ago, IanD said:

But is that anything to do with it being a NP or just some people being inconsiderate a*seholes wherever they go?

If it wasn't a NP but they still camped and crapped there, my suspicion is they'd behave exactly the same... 😞

Strangely we live just a fraction of a mile outside the official border and haven't heard of or seen a case outside. So yes I blame the fact it is a NP.

January 8

11 hours ago, Barneyp said:

NP status would highlight the fact the canals are a national asset for everyone to enjoy, which may cause problems for CMers who pile there stuff all over the towpath.

Playing devil's advocate. It may cause problems as well.

Making people think they have a right to do things as it "belongs to the nation". The Lakes NP is owned by individuals, the NT etc. They have, particularly since Covid, had great problems with rubbish. Cheap tents used and then walked away from, cooking equipment abandoned, food waste, food packaging, excrement etc.

The culprits seem to think because of its national status there will be somebody paid to clear up after them.

January 7

1 minute ago, MtB said:

And is there much boating on the lakes? I've never been to look.

Under what terms if there is? Do they allow CCing for example?

Most lakes (well the ones that aren't reservoirs) have boating. There are speed limits to prevent waterskiing 10mph on all lakes.

What happens varies from Lake to lake. Some you need to register boats with an engine some you need a permit.

The longest lake is 10.5 miles so CCing isn't really a possibility.

As far as I am aware nobody lives aboard, yes people do sleep in cruisers for a short while (remember the CO poisoning) but not for any length of time.

January 7

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Parks have fences around them.

I hadn't noticed the fence round the Lake District National Park.

January 6

5 minutes ago, PeterScott said:

fortunately abandoned wasp nest from roof rafters during building work. Lots of wasp-years to build ?

Possibly only one year. In the main, the colony dies off apart from Queens who seek somewhere to hibernate like a snug narrowboat.

After a bit of a Google Pestuk.com say:

Firstly, wasps nests cannot be reused. Each year the queen wasp will build her own nest. Queens will not reuse other nests and it is unlikely that another colony would move into an already built nest.

January 6

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Its the change in tone specially if there are flies around which is particularly pleasing.

I like insects but flies and wasps are surplus I feel. We want bees and creepy crawlies for the birds and flowers but what use are wasps?

do wasps actually have a valid place in the egosystems supporting human life?

It seems to me they are in it for themselves

Wasps are carnivores so reduce the number of insect pests. While there are grubs in the nest they excrete a sweet substance that the adults eat. Wasps become a problem when the number of grubs decreases and they start to chase sweet things e.g. jam

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Gallery

Blogs

Store

Posts posted by Jerra

Important Information