Jerra
-
Posts
7,636 -
Joined
-
Days Won
96
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Jerra
-
-
What about us poor old delivery skippers!
Surely you are working, certainly more so than a boat load of holiday makers. For me if I was going to make a split in the way I treated different boats those "working" as opposed to those generating income by taking holiday makers/visitors enjoying a leisurely cruise would be given priority. After all holiday makers (whether on a hire boat or hotel boat) aren't in a rush and are generally there to enjoy the peace and leisurely pace of life.
-
I suspect common sense would prevail ;-)
Providing it could be guaranteed that would be fine. I would personally prefer to see it in the small print somewhere. It could apply to only those living as a couple before the time limit for being eligible for an RP.
-
Unable to bottom post again!
Sorry but I can't see the logic in this. They are doing no work, yes they are commercial in that the hire company is deriving income from them but that happens even if the hirers decide to go round the corner and tie up for the duration of the holiday (OK I know that is unlikely).
So yes the boats are generating income and could at a stretch be called commercial but certainly not working.
Hire boats ARE working boats! It's just that the crew onboard are on holiday
-
I would just like to mention one other point the RP's are issued to a person not a boat and are therefor not transferable
One thought that enters my mind is what happens to a couple if they split up (or one dies) and the named person leaves the boat or is the one who has died?
-
For me, if I've posted in a thread, even 6 months ago and I've forgotten about it, I see a star.
For threads I have not contributed to, I see a dot.
It occurs to me this thread, and others like it, might be more useful if contributors always said what style of device we are using when we experience a particular 'feature', or not experience it IYSWIM. This will mean that readers can relate, or not, to that experience.
So, I always access the Forum on a laptop running Windows XP.
I never have to log out and log in again, when I visit I'm known, and I always browse by 'View New Content' or refreshing the page, then I dip into the thread by clicking the dot / star on the left, which takes me to the last post I HAVE READ, not the last in the thread, agreeing with what Jerra wrote.
If I recognise the thread as one that I evaluated as pretty boring some time ago, and I've ignored it for a while, but see someone I respect is the last poster and I want to see their take in particular, then I click the time stamp under their name, as John 6767 wrote, and go straight to their post, the de-facto 'last in the thread'.
HTH
I use the forum in the same way and with the same technology as yourself.
I have two recurring problems.
Both date back to my days of using usenet. It was the practice to delete all of a post other than the part you were referring to (certainly in the groups I used). Now when I am doing this sometimes but by no means always two problems occur.
1. As I am deleting part of the post suddenly everything in the quote disappears. Before anyone suggests I am highlighting the wrong parts this isn't the case. An example might be I have deleted a couple of lines by using back space then move to another part of the post and press either back space or del and everything goes.
2. Sometimes after deleting part of a post it forces me to top post rather than underneath. This is annoying as it isn't logical to write about something before readers are able to have read what you are referring to.
Any solutions anybody.
-
Nope, it ain't necessarily so.
Looking at the list of threads, I notice that for no apparent reason some have a star by their side, others a blob. Is there any deep significance in this?
I should have made it clear that I meant when I click on the star/spot that is where it takes me.
-
It does indeed take me to the correct page, though not to the last post.
For me it takes me to just after the last post I read. So if say 3 new posts have come in I can read them in order. I assumed it did the same for everybody.
-
It's a bit like aviation (airliners getting priority treatment) - I really don't see why the fact that someone is extracting money from working the canal system should give them priority over someone who is spending money to do the same thing. If anything it should be the opposite.
Fair enough, but it should apply to all commercial traffic otherwise it is exactly as you suggest "airliners getting priority treatment".
-
I understand they are peculiar to the Leeds and Liverpool, rather than the Northern Waterways as such, somebody may have seen them elsewhere but I haven't..
Interesting! They certainly aren't on all the Leeds Liverpool, haven't done a lot of it but we certainly didn't come across any of those.
-
Coal and fuel boats do supply a service but are not dependant on getting from A to B in order to be defined as a true working boat.
I don't understand the logic of that post. Getting from A to B to be defined as a working boat is purely an arbitrary definition. It surely is important to them to cover as many miles as possible as quickly as possible so that they can make as many deliveries as possible. Just because B is not a fixed point doesn't (to my logic) make any difference.
Where do you get the definition that A and B need to be fixed points from?
-
I'd argue that there's a difference between a boat taking a cargo between A and B, to a fixed timetable or to fit in as many trips as possible, is working in a very different way to a boat carrying a cargo to retail along the way.
However both are working and providing somebody a living. If we take the case of say a coal boat they will make fewer deliveries if held up at locks and as a result earn less possibly becoming commercially unviable. They are more or less in the same boat (pun intended) as the "fit in as many trips as possible" commercial boat in that they need to fit in as many deliveries as possible..
I thought there was a pecking order along the lines of something like
1. Funeral boat for a deceased working boater
2. Fly boats (those carrying perishable goods, day and night)
3. All other working boats
4. Other boats
I can readily accept this pecking order but I would point out number one needn't be in a rush.
-
Hi, I would give way at all times to a working boat, the definition of a working boat is one that carries a full cargo that runs from a loading point to a discharge point or is running empty back to a loading point,this does not include hire boats or any that sell their wares in various places on the towpath. This narrows it down a bit!!.
I can understand not counting hire boats as working boats, they are after all on holiday and so are leisure boaters. I am puzzled as to why you don't count boats that sell their wares at various places as working. Don't coal boats work?
-
I take it that the self levitating device on the hire boat is defective
I was wondering if the angler was going to volunteer to lift the boat out of and into the canal.
-
Hi welcome to the forum.
I know nothing at all about what would be best for your windows but I seriously doubt a stainless steel screw would/could rust. Be eaten away by the reaction between different metals but not rust as in iron oxide.
No doubt somebody will be along soon to say I have got it all wrong.
-
Would it be useful for AdRem to provide us contact details for the council so that they can be left in no doubt as to the effect this will have on the number of visiting boaters.
The dear lady from CRT seems to think there are coach loads of visitors who have stayed away from Upton because of a short walk to the mooring. At least that is what she implies to me when she says:
"Coach parties bring many visitors to the town – usually around 53 of them at a time. Many coach operators build their offer around a combined boat trip with time to have lunch and shop in the town. We feel that encouraging additional coach parties in this way will benefit the local businesses."
-
Welcome to the forum AdRem.
You make a point which I made the the lady at CRT in my email. She mentions discussions with the Council and the Tourist Information Centre but no mention of the town traders.
Out of interest do you have a Chamber of Trade and Commerce or similar? If you do they should be lobbying the council and CRT strongly. If you don't perhaps traders sohould be forming some sort of coalition (sorry about using a naughty word like coalition).
-
I suspect a press release of a competition for students will ultimately generate more publicity and as a result positive reaction than either a press release saying we are employing Mr/Mrs/Ms x to design a box or saying it is being announced on the forum.
-
1
-
-
A friend of my mothers was drowned fishing in thigh waders. It seems he fell the air in the waders kept his feet at the surface and his head down.
-
A semi trad stern doesn't take up (in my experience) as much space as a cruiser stern and has worked well for us when we have had a dog on board.
-
I don't think Conway Castle will/could use the VM's - it's huge!
If you look on Google maps at the satellite pics and do a bit of measuring it appears to be a bit over half the length of the mooring.
EDIT to say if you use street view you will see the Conway Castle tied up further along the river.
-
http://metro.co.uk/2006/09/01/drunk-in-charge-of-a-horse-235757/
When that law was drafted there was no breathalysed
But if you ride the horse cross country the
at law does not applie
True if it is private land if it is a "public" space I think you will find it still applies.
-
Only if the horse is pulling a mechanical device ie. a carriage
Or on a public highway but you can not be breathalysers.
The first line isn't correct the drunk in charge of a horse still stands from the 1872 act.
Why do you feel a breathalyser can't be used? After all it is merely being used to measure alcohol in the blood, as I understand it even a pedestrian can be breathalysed to check the level of alcohol.
-
Just as one can get charged with being drunk in charge of a push bike, or drunk in charge of oneself for that matter, I don't see why someone couldn't one couldn't be charged with being drunk in charge of a boat.
You can also be arrested for being drunk in charge of a cow. I assume it's a law that can be applied generally so a police officer can remove a drunk person from a possibly dangerous situation, if piloting a boat in a dangerous manner then that's a law the police could use, drunk and disorderly might be difficult if the person is on their own boat. There's also reckless endangerment though.
Drunk in Charge though has been used widely, even DIC of children. I can't find an actual account though admittedly.
I totally agree with the sentiments and the logic I am just curious as to which law covers it. Basically I have always understood there was a cover all "drunk in charge of ........." until I tried to look it up then couldn't find it.
-
Similar maybe but not so strict as you cannot have a drink on a boat that is moored eh?
Good point, I have often wondered about the motor homes I see overnighting in laybys they can't all be tea totalers, yet road law would make drinking in the vehicle illegal for somebody surely.
Working Boats?
in General Boating
Posted
I can see what you are getting at. However I would still feel that, just as a fly boat carrying a perishable cargo should have right of passage over a boat carrying say coal, a boat carrying passengers (which are in no rush) should not have right of passage over boats where their income is dependent on deliveries. It doesn't matter whether the deliveries are to one stop or to many as in a fuel boat.