Horace42
Patron
-
Posts
1,375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Horace42
-
-
I am just interested in how these things are done.
-
Oh boy! ...here we go again.
-
Not being a regular user, what do the signs tell you, that you really need to know about?
How did you manage before the signs were installed?
-
16 hours ago, Jim Riley said:
If anyone else wants one I know where there's one going cheap.
I know one that is going cheep!
-
Personally, I think your fan belt might be slipping.
Tighten it and see what happens.
-
21 hours ago, AndrewIC said:
Who provides an equivalent service for CO (and smoke - mandatory in new builds) alarms in domestic premises, even those with fashionable solid fuel stoves? Who enforces such routine testing? No one. Why should boats be subject to more stringent and costly encumbrances?
Yes, you touch on the practical issue of confirming compliance.
It make sense to support having alarms, but no to testing regimes - for reason I gave earlier here.
-
23 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:
The tests are a bit more complex than you think for CO Alarms, some of which take some 24 hours to do. There are many fakes out there on sale. Which in most cases only work once before the sensors became damaged from the exposure and will no longer function correctly afterwards. You should be able to find online the Beeb program Fake Britain which covered these alarms (Only repeated last week)
Can You Rely On Your CO Alarm?
Personally I am not looking for more information for myself. I already know enough about the subject of CO detection, monitoring and control, to be confident they are a good idea and as such support the mandatory aspect for boats.
Yes to say they are a good idea - but no to the imposition of on-going testing. The complexity of which will be a nightmare to draft a testing protocol - especially to introduce a 24hr test regime.
A simple procedure such that the product must meet an approved standard of compliance - and then left to the boat owner to ensure they perform properly during use.
All we need is sound basic advice on the make and type best suited for the job.
-
1
-
-
On 18/08/2018 at 15:49, dmr said:
I did sort of say that in my humorous way by suggesting they should be fitted to protect the children and dogs ?.
Of course you could argue that some safety features are required to protect the emergency services from the unpleasant task of recovering bodies.
Whilst you are here...can I suggest that the BSS should specify a CO meter with a digital readout and these give a good indication of low level CO issues that could be a problem later and would be missed with a simple alarm type device. Our multi fuel stove makes zero CO, Doing toast in the grill is the main culprit but usually no more than about 12ppm.
..................Dave
That's interesting - you say 12ppm - how do you know - do you have a digital display alarm - or a gas detector meter.
On a point of clarification do you mean by "Our multi fuel stove makes zero CO" - that it emits zero CO into the cabin.
As far as I know, all stoves make CO.
-
I recall from my early days, when first introduced to the waterways at Hampton-on-Thames in a canoe, was that canoes had to 'give way' to just about everything on the water.
A fairly simple rule - and wise to observe - considering canoes in those days were fragile wood and canvas structures and easily punctured or squashed.
Locks had rollers that had to be use by small craft, and even if the lock-keeper let you enter the lock when open for larger craft, there was the added risk of being scaled by boiling hot water spluttering from the exhausts of motor boats when waiting alongside them.
I don't know about canoe rules today - but the 'tunnel' situation here was solved, after a heated argument it seems, by the canoe being 'carried' around the narrowboat - as would have been the case without a second thought according to the rules when I started out.
-
On balance it makes sense to have gas alarms. No complex rules are required. The simple addition of a 'box' to tick on the to the BSS cert to say there is one would suffice - just as a matter of record (where CRT can build up an historical data base of usage).
Albeit as a refinement the examiner could carry a test gas to double check that they work on the gas - as opposed to just being 'on'.
Which leads to another matter of routine checking during the 3 years between BSS tests.
DIY gas canisters of CO are available (better than nothing) - but there is a bit more to it than just spraying the alarm with CO - (it is all to do with accurate ppm levels necessary to trigger the alarm - and the time of response to react to exposure) - which suggests there is a potential market for enterprising canal-side services to set up a simple test facility for portable alarms - or maybe a portable tester for on-board fixed alarms.
But I doubt they will risk the investment unless there is a degree of compulsion for boats to have gas alarms.
Along the lines of car tyres. They are a mandatory part of the MOT - but also must be checked regularly - hence compressors at numerous garages.
-
9 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:
You already shouldn't be obstructing the towpath so no real change there..
.....except that it will change from advice of 'not to obstruct the towpath' - to one of 'not to use the towpath' - that will be conveniently interpreted by cyclists who 'know their rights'....
-
A good idea for a mandatory requirement as part of the BSS. How it will be 'policed' is another matter. If fairly simple along the lines of a fire-extinguisher check, then no problem.
I have already got both smoke and CO alarms. Apart from batteries that go flat and need changing quite often, there is a presumption that with new batteries they are working properly - it is an act of faith.
Arthur Marshall hints at the problem, to my mind there is officialdom lurking in the back-ground ready to unleash an expensive service on boaters.
But yes. A simple statement of intent to have them will do.
-
34 minutes ago, matty40s said:
most of the illegal immigrants have at least 6 people to a bike - according to the latest research - outsourced to a Bangalore Data filing agency
Would they be riding hexicles.....
-
3 hours ago, dmr said:
An interesting article here, I got the link from NABO
https://road.cc/content/news/72569-londons-cycle-commuter-boom-causes-problems-regents-canal-towpath
Some towpaths are now used by 500 high speed commuting cyclists every hour, thats a bike every 7 seconds.
Looks like CaRT have finally realised that this is not good, and even understand that towpaths do not make good cycleways:
"Narrow, busy urban canal towpaths do not lend themselves easily to catering for pedestrians and cyclists."
BUT they also say:
"In tackling this issue we hope pedestrian priority will be upheld". Well I would like to see some positive action rather than just hoping!!!!! This certainly suggests that cycle priority or removing pedestrians is an option under consideration.
And the CaRT solution is...to create new cycle routes not on the Towpath.....So, CaRT, who are charged with looking after our waterways are now creating new cycle routes that are not part of the canal system....but at the same time are still turning other parts of the canal system into cycleways which will sooner or later have the same problem.
....................Dave
",
Never mind. There's a captive audience of boaters being isolated and groomed for an increase in license fees to pay for all this - but first it will start by CRT banning use of the towpath for mooring pins, ropes, chairs, picnic table, BBQ's etc - in order to give bikers unobstructed access.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, KevMc said:
Next thing we'll expect people to pay to go jogging based on their CO2 emissions .... and it's a short step from that to paying for a walk
Exactly, or any other physical activity that increases the breathing rate - of which a couple come to mind - and if that could be taxed as well, where does it stop.
I have a feeling, cyclists need not worry too much.....
-
3 hours ago, jds_1981 said:
OMG the LOLs I get at this site. You lot are such a bizarre bunch. You're suggesting a tax on breathing?
Not breathing - only when exhaling
Although I'm sure HMRC would love to tax breathing - if only they could get away with.
-
28 minutes ago, Athy said:
According to the sales blurb she still needs overplating!
I see that she comes with a "Throneycroft", perhaps a toilet in the engine room?
Yes! Bog standard.....
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:
Sounds right. The arguments always play out the same way too.
1st person says "they should pay road tax!",
2nd person says "there's no such thing as road tax! It's called VED",
1st person says "they should be liable for VED then!",
2nd person points out that the VED charge for zero emmisions vehicles is £0!
1st person then starts ranting about lycra.
It's all quite amusing really.
Even so, whether called Road Tax or VED , the bike will at least be registered and have a number-plate (and traceable), with a charge based on how much CO2 cyclists exhale.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Neil2 said:
I am reluctantly persuaded that helmets are a good thing.
I am absolutely convinced helmets are a good thing.
I had a motor cycle accident back in 1957 when 'crash hats' were optional - except if you were doing National Service - where helmets were compulsory for motor cyclists when when on MoD property - RAF in my case.
I was on my way 'home' from the station for a weekend when I had a bump with a car at a road junction. Fortunately no serious physical injuries to others - but I was hospitalised for a week with bruising and suspected fracture in my foot. Meanwhile my bike and luggage had been cleaned off the road by the police and put in a nearby garage (luckily adjacent to the site).
When collected, my crash-hat was seemingly undamaged except for a superficial 3 inch long scratch in the fabric across the top - that caused it to be rejected by the SWO as unfit for service (forcing me to buy a new one unless I wanted to 'walk' my bike when on the station) - when the big issue for me at the time was the cost of a new helmet when I had no money.
Only with hindsight did I begin to realise the 'scratch' in the fabric could instead have been a serious 'gash' in my head - if not ripped open.
To my mind the safety logic of helmets ranks alongside seat-belts. I have always worn them - long before they became law.
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:
Because it contains an isolating transformer. So mains in, converts internal to 12v which then powers the aerial
...but by-passing it means 240v will be stuffed up the aerial - a somewhat dangerous situation if it is only meant for 12v,
-
My gut reaction is to ask
12 hours ago, Chop! said:......... our aerial was stuffed I decided to strip the transformer down to investigate. Nothing to lose and perhaps ......................
Except your life!
My gut reaction is to ask how a 12v rated device (that might be DC) works safely when connected to 230v supply (that is probably AC)
-
12 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:
No such thing as Road Tax. It is Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Which is based on CO2 EMISSIONS per kilometer. Rate of duty will be calculated based on the vehicle’s CO2 emissions not the driver. The bottom rate is zero.
Vehicle emissions are based on the engine, where for a bike, the cyclist is the 'engine', where CO2 emission is quite high - more so when pedaling hard.
-
1
-
-
On 07/08/2018 at 13:13, toms1 said:
The map is made possible by CRT's recording and release of Open Data plus the stoppage information published by CRT - true their maps are a bit shite - hence I made this. BW never had any map on their website - just looking at the positives rather than complaining about signs... sigh...
We are looking to move home soon, and apart from stoppages, I find the map now added to Google Earth very helpful to show the canals in the areas we are looking to move to.
Thanks.
-
2 hours ago, Phil. said:
Sums up my own thoughts precisely.
Sorry to say it, but CRT don't have to bother when people like Toms1 #1 do it for them.
Slow Down!! "I Can't!!"
in General Boating
Posted
....and where were the hands..??