Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

NEW: Following member feedback, we now have a Mooring & Marina Review forum. Post your review here.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Boat Name
  • Boat Location
    Diglis Basin

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the case of the lock, I guess the equivalent is that when you're there at the controls with your boat in the lock going up, someone with the app way downstream makes the lock empty so it's ready for them - for good measure the app will then open the top paddles once the bottom gates are open to flush out the interloper without a smartphone ๐Ÿ˜‚ In reality you'd just set the interlock so that once someone has taken local control of the lock (do you need a key?) then app use is disabled. The obvious thing to do is to allow local control to override use of the app even if someone is currently using it, though that's a little more tricky. Not BT - it's not designed for use in that way and I don't think most smartphones would connect via BT in a way which would allow this to work. However the solution to that is simple as I already suggested above - there would be a local WiFi hotspot and you'd have to be connected to that to use the app (it's tried and tested tech - fairly standard to only allow connection over a local network - no need to even isolate it from the internet you can also provide internet access as standard networking stuff still separates the local network)
  2. Well I went diving on Tuesday and got it back - it's a "waterproof" phone so hadn't leaked much, have been drying it out since (being "waterproof" it's also hard for water to get out). Powered it up today now there's no condensation on the camera lens any more - it seems to work though still lots of dampness in the screen, so more drying required, but surprisingly hopeful given it was a couple of metres under for about 16 hours!
  3. Oh - like I did on Monday!
  4. ๐Ÿ˜‚ the most amusing thing for me of imagining such a system is playing poacher and imagining ways to abuse it. Dead easy to spoof identity and location if so desired (you mentioned cameras, so presumably I could also watch as I operated the lock from hundreds of miles away). That's assuming an internet connected system which would be normal, but to put my gamekeepers hat on I'd make it a bit less user friendly by requiring you to connect to the local WiFi to operate it. Don't worry I'm not! Hmm, I was wondering that, but that just makes it all so much more complex...
  5. As a software developer who's done some work with apps it doesn't seem the most horrendous thing ever to develop. However I can't see how it could anything other than safety critical which adds a whole additional layer of pain. The security aspect is also tricky - not because it's a difficult thing technically, but from a human perspective. However I really can't see what's wrong with the current system which would make it worth it - the biggest problem being that not everyone would want to use it and I don't see why they should be forced to. Ultimately the market is so small (I'm assuming few people use the locks out of hours) - is the OP thinking CRT should divert money from maintenance for this?
  6. I'd rather have the wood
  7. OK, cool, so you're not prepared to admit you're wrong despite me providing evidence and you're still refusing to answer the question. I think we know where we stand regarding your contributions to this forum.
  8. So despite 1 million uninsured vehicles and only 100,000 caught a year it's impossible for a car to be uninsured for long. OK, you're entitled to your opinion. However it covers legal liability as standard, including for cycling. Unsurprisingly the wording is almost exactly the same as standard. Page 26 of https://www.lv.com/-/insurance/media/gi/home-insurance/pdfs/policy-documents/2019/lv-home-doi-p1.pdf?la=en&u=20190528091550 (section 27, somewhat confusingly) "Whatโ€™s covered 27. Liability to the public If following an accident someone dies, is injured, falls ill or has their property damaged anywhere in the world, during the period of insurance, weโ€™ll cover the legal liability of you or your family as: n occupiers of your home; n private individuals." "Whatโ€™s not covered Liability arising from: n pollution or contamination unless caused by oil leaking from any fixed heating installation in your home; n the ownership of your home or the ownership or occupation of any other premises; n the death, bodily injury or illness of you or a member of your family or domestic employees; n the ownership or use of any aircraft, motor vehicle (including motor cycles, quad bikes and motorised scooters), horse drawn vehicle, ship, vessel or craft;..." motor vehicles specifically excluded, no mention of pedal cycles in the exclusions, hence right there is your 3rd party insurance for cycling. Because otherwise the inevitable conclusion is that you've not bothered to read my post and you don't know what I think. It would be so, so easy for you to quote me that the inescapable conclusion is that you don't want to (hint, it's in the post I made immediately before the original question) - I can only assume that it's not something you want to discuss because it would challenge your views.
  9. There is a big difference between not being able to guarantee not being caught and ANPR making it "impossible for a car to be uninsured for long" as you claimed. Do you still stand by that claim despite 1 million uninsured vehicles and 100,000 being caught a year? Given the whole point of your arguments appears to be to divert, let me remind you that you were suggesting enforcement would ensure that even the bad cyclists had insurance - yet here we have plenty of bad drivers without insurance despite law and enforcement. Only when people are making contradictory statements. I don't believe you, I've never found a cycling exclusion on a 3rd party liability section of any insurer and I've checked quite a lot of popular ones (they all have almost identical wording). What insurer? All that article is saying in this regard is that 3rd party liability cover on home insurance might not cover you for racing or organised events (it's a bit of a moot point - anybody racing on a bike will be a member of an organisation which provides 3rd party cover). You still haven't answered my question - what is the principle reason that I think licensing, registration plates, compulsory insurance is a bad idea? A continued refusal to engage with this will lead to the inevitable conclusion that you don't like the answer and so are avoiding it.
  10. and yet "This is being addressed by ANPR, so unless you only drive locally, and can guarantee not to meet a Police vehicle csrrying ANPR, it is impossible for a car to be uninsured for long." so is it impossible for drivers to be non compliant or do you acknowledge the non compliance - choose one. I doubt very much your house insurance covers loss and damage of any vehicles you own - under what section do you think that cover is provided? Your household insurance very definitely does provide public liability cover though, it's standard on all contents policies.
  11. and what do you imagine is going to change which will make a difference to that? Though given an increase in funding do you suggest that should be spent on improving compliance with the law for those who kill 1700 a year or cyclists? ๐Ÿ™„๐Ÿ™„๐Ÿ™„ oh, the good old throw the argument back in the hope of some mud sticking. I've read and comprehended all that you and Tony have written - if you think I haven't feel free to ask a similar question of me. Let's try this again - what is the principle reason that I think licensing, registration plates, compulsory insurance is a bad idea? Please answer the question directly rather than referring to a post number of somebody else which I can't find. It's really, really not a difficult question, I'm pretty much just asking you to quote me. TBH your reply there where I've asked you to provide a direct quote and you reply with "I agree with Tony" illustrates the precise problem here which I'm trying to solve. Exactly what that Tony has written do you agree with? I further note that if you're "refusing to engage" on this it's nothing to do with me not comprehending you and all to do with you avoiding difficult arguments.
  12. Try reading posts by people other than those who agree with you (hint, you might manage just by reading my posts - or try comprehending the post where I ask the question, there are further hints there, it's really not a difficult question). When you've shown you're actually doing that it might be worth engaging with you. Given the inconsistent post numbering it might also be useful if you quote rather than refer to a post - the last post I can see on here is #207
  13. So 1 million uninsured drivers, they catch 100,000 a year, it seems 5 years is the average answer to that (using really basic calculations) You're now happy to admit there is non compliance amongst drivers - that rather destroys the argument that there won't be uninsured cyclists if they make it law. Oh and the answer to the last bit is about the same % as drivers, given it comes for free with household insurance. BTW you still haven't answered my question (hint - look for a question mark in my previous posts) But it doesn't get rid of them as you claimed - nowhere near. Yes, but we don't live in an ideal world - do we concentrate resources on cyclists or those who kill 1700 a year?
  14. Brakes are nothing to do with me https://www.wigglestatic.com/product-media/100634089/Blank-Icon-BMX-Bike-2019-Freestyle-BMX-Bikes-Rose-Gold-2019-BICON1920PNK.jpg
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.