What a load of bollards!

[magnetman]

45 minutes ago, IanD said:

 ...in fact they have absolutely zero knowledge of the circumstances of the boaters involved in this project -- who presumably think it's a good idea.

 

 

 

 

You know what they say about assumption.

 

One could argue that irritating people from all walks of life should be 'seen and not heard'

 It is a curious coincidence that something which is intended to be yellow and blue in the final version was resented as white and blue which just happen to be the CRT corporate colours. It didn't come out two colours someone added the colours.

 

Are we going to see blue and white balance beams?

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

The point of the original post was about a concern that C&RT are thinking of replacing lock bollards at a huge expense while the system - the locks themselves - fall to bits with alarming regularity. A bit like those unneeded three square wooden bollards Evans & Co installed then gave themselves a bonus for achieving the target. I remember talking to one of the contractors installing them on the Stratford. When I pointed out they were surplus to requirements and probably a trip or snagging hazard he told me he was being paid £200 a lock and would probably get another £200 for removing them when someone tripped over one and fell in.

Like some have said, the disabled boaters I know cope very well with what there already is. Most boaters wrap their ropes around the bollards and tie them back on the boat. Maybe what's needed is to fix these things to the bows and stern of the boat instead of the land? 😆

 

Well since it *was* your original post, here's a comment from @David Mack only a few posts later which addresses your point:

 

"Victor has it wrong from the start. His article begins "THE latest idea from our masters is to have a new design of lock bollard."

Whereas the Boaters Update from CRT makes clear it is only being considered for use at specifically designated accessible moorings.

By all means question whether the new bollard is needed, but at least get your facts right Victor!

Also interesting to note that this is not something developed by CRT, it has come out of discussions by disabled boaters."

 

Did "the disabled boaters you know" have any part in the Facebook discussions, which apparently went on for several months before contacting CART about it?

 

If not, they presumably know as little as you seem to about the justification/request for the new bollard design from other disabled boaters -- at specific accessible moorings only, remember... 😉

 

P.S. Nice try at diversion onto a completely different set of wooden bollards, which may well have been a total waste of money but have zero relevance to the bollards under discussion here 🙂

[magnetman]

 

It could be a slippery slope. Will they ever get the yellow bits

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

 

P.S. Nice try at diversion onto a completely different set of wooden bollards, which may well have been a total waste of money but have zero relevance to the bollards under discussion here 🙂

It is very relevant in fact rather more relevant than most of the other posts

 

who is paying for these

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

You know what they say about assumption.

 

One could argue that irritating people from all walks of life should be 'seen and not heard'

 It is a curious coincidence that something which is intended to be yellow and blue in the final version was resented as white and blue which just happen to be the CRT corporate colours. It didn't come out two colours someone added the colours.

 

Are we going to see blue and white balance beams?

 

I think it's a safe assumption that the disabled boaters involved in this projects think it's a good idea, seeing as how they spent months discussing it before contacting CART.

 

If you disagree -- based on not having read anything about this apart from postings on CWDF, since you self-admittedly don't believe in reading what other people write -- then remember the old saw about opinions... 😉

 

(which I assume is what you're self-referring to in your second line...)

 

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

It could be a slippery slope. Will they ever get the yellow bits

It is very relevant in fact rather more relevant than most of the other posts

 

who is paying for these

 

Money wasted on something useless is not the same as money spent on something useful. It's like saying that because the NHS shouldn't spend money on homeopathy it shouldn't spend it on vaccines... 😉

Edited January 30 by IanD

[Machpoint005]

It strikes me rather there will always be some things which some people with disabilities will be unable to do.

 

That's no excuse to stop trying to cater for them, but the fact remains that some activities will remain impracticable or impossible.

 

That's why disabled provision has to be discussed dispassionately without points-scoring. 

[IanD]

23 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

It strikes me rather there will always be some things which some people with disabilities will be unable to do.

 

That's no excuse to stop trying to cater for them, but the fact remains that some activities will remain impracticable or impossible.

 

That's why disabled provision has to be discussed dispassionately without points-scoring. 

 

Indeed, and as I said earlier that applies to a lot of the bits of the canal system -- it's impractical or impossible to make a lot of it (some locks, for example) accessible, depending of course on the level of disability of the boater -- somebody in a wheelchair or who can barely walk will never be able to climb a lock ladder or a steep stone stairway with no ramp alternative.

 

However putting more disabled-friendly bollards in instead of standard ones at moorings which are being reworked anyway to try and make them more accessible doesn't seem to be impractical or ridiculously expensive to me, unless they're made out of gold-plated unobtanium and cost more than a small car each -- which given CARTs funding restrictions (and at least a sprinkling of common sense, as well as input from the disabled boaters who won't want to be abused) seems unlikely... 😉

Edited January 30 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

For those of you that are IWA members there is a double page spread on this subject in the latest copy of Waterways and details of the Accessible Boating Association are at Welcome to the Accessible Waterways Association (awa-uk.org.uk) and a big bit about the bollards

Edited January 30 by ditchcrawler

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

I read your post, and I'm not being "self-righteous", I have no skin in this game, except being willing to put myself into other people's shoes and realise that what works for them might look strange to me. People saying "I know people who manage" are doing the usual anecdote thing -- I suspect if all the boaters concerned could "manage" this would never have come up.

And this is nothing to due with "virtue-signalling" -- since you seem determined to pop out the usual "anti-woke" catchphrases -- but people telling another (disadvantaged) group that "we know better than you do", when in fact they have absolutely zero knowledge of the circumstances of the boaters involved in this project -- who presumably think it's a good idea.... 😞

 

I expect accusations of being a paid-up member of the Guardian-reading tofu-eating virtue-signalling wokerati will follow shortly, from people who think insults are a substitute for actually debating the issues... 😉

Except that putting oneself into other people's shoes is what you're complaining about. Some of us are able to imagine being disabled and look at this from their point of view, especially those of us with mobility problems, which you seem to think is a different matter entirely.

It's not patronising to look at something from an all round point of view. Of course disabled people will have their own ideas, but as every disabled person is different, with entirely different abilities, their viewpoint isn't a lot more valid, if at all, than that of those of us with other, occasionally similar, experiences. And we might see an improvement for some of them as being a hazard for others, or, indeed, ourselves, while you happily make a presumption of the views of all the contributors to the original discussion - which was, gods help us, apparently on Facebook, which we all know is one of the most reliable sources of information, and sensible areas of debate, available to humanity.

Personally, as a "paid-up member of the Guardian-reading wokerati" myself, I do tend to regard being accused of being patronising as an insult, especially when you carefully avoided discussing any of the topics I raised. I think an apology is called for, if not expected.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

However putting more disabled-friendly bollards in instead of standard ones at moorings which are being reworked anyway to try and make them more accessible doesn't seem to be impractical or ridiculously expensive to me, unless they're made out of gold-plated unobtanium and cost more than a small car each -- which given CARTs funding restrictions (and at least a sprinkling of common sense, as well as input from the disabled boaters who won't want to be abused) seems unlikely...

now, if you’d read CRT’s article, you’ll have read CRT will not be paying for these bollards but will be looking for funding to pay for them

 

[Rob-M]

17 hours ago, Jerra said:

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.

I watched a chap mooring his boat up who clearly did not have the use of his legs as he shuffled along the towpath on his bottom.  He was very proficient at getting his boat tied up and what appeared to be his able bodied wife stood and held a rope whilst he got the boat tied up.

[Jon57]

15 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

now, if you’d read CRT’s article, you’ll have read CRT will not be paying for these bollards but will be looking for funding to pay for them

 

They need to put a slot in the top of the post for donations to crt for the use of the mooring bollards maybe?. Possibly rent advertisement space from mobility companies to show their products. Bit of brainstorm gone mad. Well back to the medication for me now 🥴

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Except that putting oneself into other people's shoes is what you're complaining about. Some of us are able to imagine being disabled and look at this from their point of view, especially those of us with mobility problems, which you seem to think is a different matter entirely.

It's not patronising to look at something from an all round point of view. Of course disabled people will have their own ideas, but as every disabled person is different, with entirely different abilities, their viewpoint isn't a lot more valid, if at all, than that of those of us with other, occasionally similar, experiences. And we might see an improvement for some of them as being a hazard for others, or, indeed, ourselves, while you happily make a presumption of the views of all the contributors to the original discussion - which was, gods help us, apparently on Facebook, which we all know is one of the most reliable sources of information, and sensible areas of debate, available to humanity.

Personally, as a "paid-up member of the Guardian-reading wokerati" myself, I do tend to regard being accused of being patronising as an insult, especially when you carefully avoided discussing any of the topics I raised. I think an apology is called for, if not expected.

 

 

I don't think being disabled and having mobility issues are two different things, they're two different labels for people who aren't fully able-bodied -- and I'm neither (well, not yet...) and therefore don't claim to know what it's like from their point of view. What I'm saying that non-able-bodied people have more knowledge about what works for them than able-bodied ones, who shouldn't claim to speak for them.

 

So if the disabled (or whatever label you want to use) boaters under discussion think that the bollard being discussed is a good idea for them -- which I'm pretty sure is the case, given that they came up with it, and there seems to have been some thought about the potential problems with it -- then unlike some I'm not going to argue that it isn't, or that it's a waste of money. At least, not until there's good reason (like evidence, not suspicion...) to show that this is actually the case... 😉

 

You're certainly one of the more reasonable posters on CWDF and I wasn't trying to accuse you specifically of being patronising, this was aimed at the people who seem to think they know better than the disabled boaters, especially if they happen to know a couple -- who of course might or might not be representative of all the others involved in the project, given that there's no such thing as a "typical" disability.

 

Unlike some on here I don't hold Facebook in utter contempt -- yes there's a great deal of drivel and dross on it, but there's also sometimes a good helping of useful information. Like many other sources of information on the internet, assuming that because something emerged from Facebook is *automatically* rubbish is basically ignorant and biased, and often comes from people who have never used it, possibly because they object to it on principle.

 

I'm not trying to avoid anything under discussion which has actually got any basis in fact rather than wild speculation, especially from those unwilling to actually read the article in question -- and no, that's not aimed at you... 😉

42 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

now, if you’d read CRT’s article, you’ll have read CRT will not be paying for these bollards but will be looking for funding to pay for them

 

Sarcasm alert -- you do know that unobtainium isn't a real metal, don't you? 😉

 

36 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I watched a chap mooring his boat up who clearly did not have the use of his legs as he shuffled along the towpath on his bottom.  He was very proficient at getting his boat tied up and what appeared to be his able bodied wife stood and held a rope whilst he got the boat tied up.

 

He definitely wouldn't need a tall bollard them. Other differently disabled boaters may well do, of course... 😉

[magnetman]

cor

[Arthur Marshall]

“The intention is to take the prototype accessible mooring bollard design ‘on tour’ to different events around the country during the spring and summer to gather more feedback before the design is finalised.   The prototype model of the bollard will be on display at both Boatlife Exhibition at Birmingham’s NEC in mid-February, and at Crick Boat Show over the late May bank holiday weekend. If you are visiting either of these events then please pop along to the Trust stand to view it, and to the AWA stand to chat about it."

 

I suspect the point of the arms is that you can sling a rope over it from the boat and pull the boat in without getting off the boat and without the rope slipping off. Makes sense to me, as does having distinctive bollards marking places prioritising disabled boaters. I still don't see how the prioritising can work. Like blue badge spaces, they should either be reserved full time, which will annoy the majority, or they won't work.

If I remember rightly, the only possible place to moor at Waverton is marked as such, which means if you stop to shop, or overnight, you block the space, but there's no alternative. And who counts as disabled? Me, because I can't walk far but look fine? Or blue badge holders only? Will CRT hold a register? I can see canal rage coming...

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

 

I suspect the point of the arms is that you can sling a rope over it from the boat and pull the boat in without getting off the boat and without the rope slipping off. 

 

rage coming...

 

Someone will sling a  line over the top with Boat still moving and the bollard will pull out.

The thing has to be designed to handle abuse. It is mooring hardware not a toy .

I wonder if these will be used where there are differently disabled widebeam owners. This could cause some issues given the weight of them.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Someone will sling a  line over the top with Boat still moving and the bollard will pull out.

The thing has to be designed to handle abuse. It is mooring hardware not a toy .

I wonder if these will be used where there are differently disabled widebeam owners. This could cause some issues given the weight of them.

I think that's the idea. I stop the boat fairly often with the rope round a bollard after I've jumped off, you can't stop it dead with the engine single handing. I've only yanked two bollards out so far, and both those were badly installed (dry mix concrete, unwatered). I suspect any disabled boater will let the rope drop to the bottom of the bollard before putting load on it. Most of them would have been able bodied when they started this lark.

It's only really much use as a bollard for a disabled singlehander, but the rest of the accompanying gubbins, like access and towpath surface, is a benefit for all and I've seen an increasing number of wheelchairs on boats the last few years.

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think that's the idea. I stop the boat fairly often with the rope round a bollard after I've jumped off, you can't stop it dead with the engine single handing. I've only yanked two bollards out so far, and both those were badly installed (dry mix concrete, unwatered). I suspect any disabled boater will let the rope drop to the bottom of the bollard before putting load on it. Most of them would have been able bodied when they started this lark.

It's only really much use as a bollard for a disabled singlehander, but the rest of the accompanying gubbins, like access and towpath surface, is a benefit for all and I've seen an increasing number of wheelchairs on boats the last few years.

 

CART seem well aware of the risk of this, going by what the article said:

 

“Of course, the bollards will have to be installed very firmly on a deep foundation into the ground to counter the extra leverage force that will be applied at a higher level. This needs to be factored into the final design, which has been developed by Marcus Chaloner, the Trust’s head of placemaking and design.

 

Don't know how good Chaloner's engineering chops are, but being aware of the problem is a good step towards solving it -- we're not stopping a supertanker here... 😉

 

As you say the intention is to improve the towpath for anyone using it, whether they happen to be disabled/limited mobility or not, which surely has to be A Good Thing -- if you're fortunate enough not to need the new super-bollard, just use it like a normal one.

Edited January 30 by IanD

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

Well since it *was* your original post, here's a comment from @David Mack only a few posts later which addresses your point:

 

"Victor has it wrong from the start. His article begins "THE latest idea from our masters is to have a new design of lock bollard."

Whereas the Boaters Update from CRT makes clear it is only being considered for use at specifically designated accessible moorings.

By all means question whether the new bollard is needed, but at least get your facts right Victor!

Also interesting to note that this is not something developed by CRT, it has come out of discussions by disabled boaters."

 

Did "the disabled boaters you know" have any part in the Facebook discussions, which apparently went on for several months before contacting CART about it?

 

If not, they presumably know as little as you seem to about the justification/request for the new bollard design from other disabled boaters -- at specific accessible moorings only, remember... 😉

 

P.S. Nice try at diversion onto a completely different set of wooden bollards, which may well have been a total waste of money but have zero relevance to the bollards under discussion here 🙂

Brilliant example of you sniping or as someone said previously you do love to turn every post into an argument. 

Yes I read the @David Mack post and accepted it was Victor overplaying the Fleet Street journalist.
"Thank you for the responses I had visions of large bollards and big signs saying "Beware of large bollards" while the lock was shut because the top paddles were both broken."

I have no idea if my disabled friend was involved, that's not the point. The point was from the headline it looked like potential for another C&RT expensive waste of money - so relevant I think - and I asked forumites to tell me it wasn't true and they did without having a subtle dig like you always do.
 

Reading the article it doesn't exactly make it clear that C&RT wheren't involved from the beginning or if they even asked for the group to look at it. 
 

"Dick Vincent, a boater and the Trust’s national towpath advisor, introduced a prototype of a new accessible mooring bollard. It was created in response to discussions on the Disabled Boaters’ Forum (on Facebook) over many months."
Nothing there to confirm C&RT were not involved from the start. Still NOT the point!

Evans and Co's three wooden bollards escapade is an example of a total waste of money. C&RT have demonstrated they can waste a lot of money, so very relevant to my opening post. 

To paraphrase:  Presumably you know as little as anyone seems to about the justification/request for the new bollard design

 

 

Edited January 30 by Midnight

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

For those of you that are IWA members there is a double page spread on this subject in the latest copy of Waterways and details of the Accessible Boating Association are at Welcome to the Accessible Waterways Association (awa-uk.org.uk) and a big bit about the bollards

Finally found it, had to click below recent posts,

I think it’s word for word what’s on the CRT press release,

 

George’s comment in response is quite funny, 
reckons the bollards are only good for hanging dog poo bags on,

 

there’s also an interesting post on there about the surcharges on licenses,

especially regarding fixed costs for keeping the system running,

 

 

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Brilliant example of you sniping or as someone said previously you do love to turn every post into an argument. 

Yes I read the @David Mack post and accepted it was Victor overplaying the Fleet Street journalist.
"Thank you for the responses I had visions of large bollards and big signs saying "Beware of large bollards" while the lock was shut because the top paddles were both broken."

I have no idea if my disabled friend was involved, that's not the point. The point was from the headline it looked like potential for another C&RT expensive waste of money - so relevant I think - and I asked forumites to tell me it wasn't true and they did without having a subtle dig like you always do.
 

Reading the article it doesn't exactly make it clear that C&RT wheren't involved from the beginning or if they even asked for the group to look at it. 
 

"Dick Vincent, a boater and the Trust’s national towpath advisor, introduced a prototype of a new accessible mooring bollard. It was created in response to discussions on the Disabled Boaters’ Forum (on Facebook) over many months."
Nothing there to confirm C&RT were not involved from the start. Still NOT the point!

Evans and Co's three wooden bollards escapade is an example of a total waste of money. C&RT have demonstrated they can waste a lot of money, so very relevant to my opening post. 

To paraphrase:  Presumably you know as little as anyone seems to about the justification/request for the new bollard design

 

 

 

Argument, pot, kettle... 😉

 

Every time a discussion about anything CART do comes up -- worthwhile or not, wasteful or not -- certain people pull out an example of where they wasted money on something in the past, and then use this to imply that this means they're going to waste it on whatever is being discussed -- oh yes, I forget, they're all stupid and ignorant and Richard Parry should be sacked, silly me...

 

All organisations get things wrong, the problem is if they don't learn anything from it and repeat the same mistakes -- which CART might well do, but I fail to see the link between the Evans bollards and the disabled ones under discussion here. If they fail to install them then at least they looked at it, and if they spend an absolute fortune *then* they can be castigated for it -- though if it's not their money so they couldn't have spent it fixing locks, CART and boaters aren't the losers here... 😉

 

Indeed I know as little as anyone (though I do read stuff, unlike some) -- but at least like Donald Rumsfeld I'm aware that I don't know, and am not trying to claim otherwise or second-guess the people who might know more because they were actually involved, and are hopefully neither stupid nor ignorant of the issues... 😉

Edited January 30 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

Nobody has as yet come up with an answer to my point that the whole concept of semi-reserved moorings for disabled boaters is fundamentally flawed and so a great waste of time and money - CRT will spend a bomb installing and maintaining them, if not buying them. The bollards are a bit of an irrelevancy.

Decent visitor moorings are always in short supply, especially ones with good access, mooring bollards and close to facilities, which is where these will be. So, if they are usable by able bodied boaters, they will be the first ones taken up. Quite rightly. What's the disabled one to do? They can't just stop in the middle of the cut, cut the resident boat adrift and moor up. I suppose they could moor elsewhere and then, hoping the other boater is in rather than walking the dog, shopping, or in France for the week, go and ask them to move if wheelchair access was needed (but then you wouldn't need the bollards!). They can then practise reversing past a stack of other boats to reach the prime spot, while the original boat does the opposite.

Having had a few mouthfuls of abuse for asking fit young chaps to shift from disabled parking bays when taking my gran to the shops, none of whom saw any reason to move, I doubt that anyone would bother to ask, though admittedly we are generally a nicer lot - but look at the number of complaints about "git gaps" and boats refusing to move up to make space.

They should be permanently reserved for disabled boaters or they're pointless, just gesture politics. And you'd still get complaints about users not being disabled enough...

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Nobody has as yet come up with an answer to my point that the whole concept of semi-reserved moorings for disabled boaters is fundamentally flawed and so a great waste of time and money - CRT will spend a bomb installing and maintaining them, if not buying them. The bollards are a bit of an irrelevancy.

Decent visitor moorings are always in short supply, especially ones with good access, mooring bollards and close to facilities, which is where these will be. So, if they are usable by able bodied boaters, they will be the first ones taken up. Quite rightly. What's the disabled one to do? They can't just stop in the middle of the cut, cut the resident boat adrift and moor up. I suppose they could moor elsewhere and then, hoping the other boater is in rather than walking the dog, shopping, or in France for the week, go and ask them to move if wheelchair access was needed (but then you wouldn't need the bollards!). They can then practise reversing past a stack of other boats to reach the prime spot, while the original boat does the opposite.

Having had a few mouthfuls of abuse for asking fit young chaps to shift from disabled parking bays when taking my gran to the shops, none of whom saw any reason to move, I doubt that anyone would bother to ask, though admittedly we are generally a nicer lot - but look at the number of complaints about "git gaps" and boats refusing to move up to make space.

They should be permanently reserved for disabled boaters or they're pointless, just gesture politics. And you'd still get complaints about users not being disabled enough...

 

Agreed, but that's also not what all the objections were about, is it?

 

Nowadays you could pretty much say the same for many short-term and visitor moorings, they're often occupied by overstayers and CMers -- at least, in popular areas -- because CART can't/don't enforce the rules. Does this mean short-term/visitor moorings are a bad idea because they're often not available for visitors due to bad boater behaviour?

 

How access to these accessible moorings for disabled boaters is dealt with is a similar problem, but that doesn't mean they're inherently a bad idea. And if CART don't try them out they won't know if they work or not, or if they're either unused or abused.

 

But you're right, without an effective way of controlling them they'll probably either end up full of non-disabled boaters (abused) or sit empty in areas where moorings are in short supply (unused)... 😞

Edited January 30 by IanD

[Guest]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

Agreed, but that's also not what all the objections were about, is it?

 

Nowadays you could pretty much say the same for many short-term and visitor moorings, they're often occupied by overstayers and CMers -- at least, in popular areas -- because CART can't/don't enforce the rules. Does this mean short-term/visitor moorings are a bad idea because they're often not available for visitors due to bad boater behaviour?

 

How access to these accessible moorings for disabled boaters is dealt with is a similar problem, but that doesn't mean they're inherently a bad idea. And if CART don't try them out they won't know if they work or not, or if they're either unused or abused.

 

But you're right, without an effective way of controlling them they'll probably either end up full of non-disabled boaters (abused) or sit empty in areas where moorings are in short supply (unused)... 😞

 

Haven't you got a boat you could be on? Preferably on it somewhere with poor or no internet?

[Rob-M]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Nobody has as yet come up with an answer to my point that the whole concept of semi-reserved moorings for disabled boaters is fundamentally flawed and so a great waste of time and money - CRT will spend a bomb installing and maintaining them, if not buying them. The bollards are a bit of an irrelevancy.

Decent visitor moorings are always in short supply, especially ones with good access, mooring bollards and close to facilities, which is where these will be. So, if they are usable by able bodied boaters, they will be the first ones taken up. Quite rightly. What's the disabled one to do? They can't just stop in the middle of the cut, cut the resident boat adrift and moor up. I suppose they could moor elsewhere and then, hoping the other boater is in rather than walking the dog, shopping, or in France for the week, go and ask them to move if wheelchair access was needed (but then you wouldn't need the bollards!). They can then practise reversing past a stack of other boats to reach the prime spot, while the original boat does the opposite.

Having had a few mouthfuls of abuse for asking fit young chaps to shift from disabled parking bays when taking my gran to the shops, none of whom saw any reason to move, I doubt that anyone would bother to ask, though admittedly we are generally a nicer lot - but look at the number of complaints about "git gaps" and boats refusing to move up to make space.

They should be permanently reserved for disabled boaters or they're pointless, just gesture politics. And you'd still get complaints about users not being disabled enough...

There are already moorings in various locations designated as disabled moorings, the ones I've seen have normal mooring bollards but they have a disabled symbol embossed on the top and some have been painted red or yellow.  I guess it is down to individuals whether they choose to moor there or not if they don't have a disability.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

Reading the article it doesn't exactly make it clear that C&RT wheren't involved from the beginning or if they even asked for the group to look at it. 

 

 

I reads to me as if the disabled boater group may have given C&RT a 'design brief' of what they thought is needed and then the C&RT 'head of design' came up with the product as shown.

 

Quote :

 

"..................This needs to be factored into the final design, which has been developed by Marcus Chaloner, the Trust’s head of placemaking and design".

 

(A Camel is a horse designed by a commitee)

Edited January 30 by Alan de Enfield