Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Hmmmm.....as a charity I am not very happy that rescue launches now have to pay 35.

    We'll just pass it on to the organisers but it is another barrier to these events having decent levels of safety cover and marshalling.

    CJL

  2. #12
    boatone's Avatar
    boatone is offline Registered User
    Location : On the one way system by the Traffic Lights...
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    11,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJL View Post
    Hmmmm.....as a charity I am not very happy that rescue launches now have to pay 35.

    We'll just pass it on to the organisers but it is another barrier to these events having decent levels of safety cover and marshalling.

    CJL
    May be a misunderstanding here. The coaching and rescue craft referred to are the regular river based ones belonging to the rowing clubs themselves.
    Thames powered craft owner ? Join the www.tmba.org.uk/about-tmba

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Well I hope so but I can see the argument that we aren't different.

    We do try to make things safer but it can be very challenging at times!

    CJL

  4. #14
    bradtarga34's Avatar
    bradtarga34 is offline Registered User
    Location : Walton-on-Thames, Surrey
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    703

    Default

    I don't quite understand why you think that a rescue boat should be exempt? If its being used on the river then some sort of license charge should be expected, and at 35.00 it is a very nominal charge. Considering how many people would benefit from the service, recouping this charge would surely amount to pence per person...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bradtarga34 View Post
    I don't quite understand why you think that a rescue boat should be exempt? If its being used on the river then some sort of license charge should be expected, and at 35.00 it is a very nominal charge. Considering how many people would benefit from the service, recouping this charge would surely amount to pence per person...
    Agreed... and in our reach these are the boats that cause the most wash and disturbance!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Unfortunately some events are not run very well and the 270 - 335/hr some commercial organisations charge means that event organisers either put costs up or reduce the level of safety cover.

    I can assure you now that 100 scullers won't fit on one 6m rib!

    Instead we don't charge - we just ask for our expenses to be covered and this would include the 35 registration cost. Which then brings us back to the start of the vicious circle!!

    Makes no difference to me- it just does to the rowers and other river users that we support.

    Gavi - I can assure 110% it wasn't any of our boats causing you any wash but I can certainly point you in some directions!!!

    One of my biggest concerns is the number of safety boats being used by events. We've been asked to provide 2 ribs for events on the R Nene over a 4km course. You just can't do that as if we had to travel to an incident -sure we'd get there but we'd leave a trail of destruction in our wake of other rowers and river users which isn't on! Using more safety boats which in turn creates less wash is the only answer I can see.

    Plus I only use my "free licence" for safety cover and on the odd occasion I go on the Thames just as a regular boat owner - down to the pub for lunch for example, I buy I visitor licence. Not many people would do that!! I suppose with my 35 licence I would be less inclined to continue doing that! Oh and our boats are NOT kept afloat.

    CJL

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bradtarga34 View Post
    I don't quite understand why you think that a rescue boat should be exempt? If its being used on the river then some sort of license charge should be expected, and at 35.00 it is a very nominal charge. Considering how many people would benefit from the service, recouping this charge would surely amount to pence per person...
    Totally agree.

    But it does discourage adequate safety cover and increases the barriers to participation in the water sports we enjoy for younger and less well off individuals.

    Shouldn't we encouraging participation, not making it harder and more expensive?

    CJL

  8. #18
    jecuk's Avatar
    jecuk is offline Registered User
    Location : Boat: Temple
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CJL View Post
    I can assure you now that 100 scullers won't fit on one 6m rib!
    Not sure 100 scullers typically fall in at once.

    As said, likely this doesn't apply to you. At 35 silly to argue against to be honest even if it does.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    392

    Default

    As I've said, makes not one bit of difference to us, but why the change all of a sudden?

    In the past they have been encouraged, now they are effectively being discouraged and it risks being seen as an excuse.

    CJL

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    6,749

    Default

    Do you seriously think 35 p.a. is going to make a blind bit of difference to a club whose boat is used, say three days a week and shared between ten to twenty boats?

    0.60p per week...

    Get a grip man!!
    Fifty Shades of Bray: Don't laugh, your Wife is probably on board...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •