West Mersea: Family plucked to safety after stranded on causeway (From Essex County Standard)

Will people never learn not to cross when the tide is in!

siteman wrote:
Will people never learn not to cross when the tide is in!

It seems not - maybe they think their cars can float lol !!!!

The people of Mersea Island are not renowned for their intelligence. They have to be plucked to safety when in 6 inches of water. Most people from this side would first curse their idiocy and then wade to higher ground and wait for the tide to go out again - or sit tight and look like the plonkers they are.

the notorious causeway strikes again.three intrepid mersea islanders saved from the raging surf well done to those sturdy brave fellows who risked all for their kinsfolk.

the_real_xxxdave wrote:
must post a comment in all these papers as I'm a sad abuser of.................. .................... ........common sense Harwich and Manningtree Standard, Echo News, Essex County Standard, Basildon Recorder, Colchester Gazette, Clacton, Frinton & Walton Gazette, Harwich & Manningtree Gazette, Braintree, Witham, Halsted and Maldon Gazette, East London and West Essex Guardian, This is Local London, Brent Wood Weekly News, Southend Standard, Maldon and Burnham Standard, Thurrock Gazette.

xxxdave your an idiot

We also need to consider the risks taken by the pluckers. 6 inches of water. Life threatening. Silly pluckers!

Sdapeze : the vast majority of people who get caught out by the tide are not residents of Mersea Island.We all have tide tables so know when not to cross. It is arrogant idiots who think they can drive through two foot of water to visit our lovely island who are the problem. It is OUR friends and family who get called out from the Coastguard and RNLI to rescue these idiots.

emmalv wrote:
Sdapeze : the vast majority of people who get caught out by the tide are not residents of Mersea Island.We all have tide tables so know when not to cross. It is arrogant idiots who think they can drive through two foot of water to visit our lovely island who are the problem. It is OUR friends and family who get called out from the Coastguard and RNLI to rescue these idiots.

Absolutely right. Sdapeze was talking through his rear end as is his wont. All Mersea people and regular visitors to the island know perfectly well to avoid high tide on the Strood, especially with spring tides as at this time of year.
These idiots should be charged the full cost of their rescue. Then the word would soon get round and they would take more care.
How irresponsible that this woman tried to cross with young children. Why didn't she use her mobile to tell her family, or whoever, that she was going to be a couple of hours late?

I note the absence of a university on the island. Nobody bright enough to go there?

The people who get stranded are almost always people from outside the island. Those who live there have seen enough situations like this one to know not to go steaming into the water.

The last time this happened, the guy was in the queue, then became agitated and started hooting. Finally, he took off and sailed around the queue, into the water and ended up stuck halfway.

emmalv is right, it is the Mersea people who end up having to go out and rescue these idiots.

This has happened too many times now, and we need to be looking at more visible and obvious warnings, and perhaps even a barrier. Yes, it would cost money, but every callout of the coastguard costs money too.

There is absolutely no need for a barrier, or signs - instead, motorists need to use their eyes and brains to assess that, even if that silly man in the big white van has got through, you, in your small car, won't. Use your eyes to look at a cheaply purchased tide time table. Use your eyes to search on Google for a tide time table. Use simple maths skills to work out how long it would take you to wait for the tide, or to get over before it crosses. Use your eyes to see the huge stretch of open water ahead of you. Use your eyes to see the expensively installed Coastguards, who are waiting at each end for stupid people just like you, who cannot use their eyes and common sense, people who honk their horns at open stretches of water. This is not rocket science. The first person to be fined £500 for the crossing the Strood resulting in rescue would be a Pioneer themselves - they'll be the only one to do it.

"Use your eyes to search on Google for a tide time table."

A Colchester solicitor has a very nice one on their site for download.

No barrier. As I've said before on this topic, a simple pole with an illuminated stop sign will do - the light to be activated via a float switch. When the tide is too high to cross safely, the light operates - and goes off again when the tide has receded.
Nobody is at risk of drowning here. They can't get washed away and the tide only covers the Strood for a few minutes. If they get stuck, tell them to stay in their cars (or paddle to dry land) and call the breakdown recovery service of their choice - not the RNLI.

BlondeJo, I fully get what you are saying, but it does seem to be that common sense is no longer enough.

I´m not sure if it´s just because more people are coming onto the island than used to. The people who live there are well aware of the tides, the bits of my family who live there have the tide tables as an integral part of planning their days.

Clearly, the existing signs are not having the impact that they should. We have to accept that there are people out there who are stupid enough to head into the water even when others are queueing up. Fining people will only deter others if they actually know about it. Otherwise, it has no impact. I am sure that nobody has repeated it twice anyway - the cost of sorting the car out the first time will be enough deterrent.

We have a multitude of signs and warnings on every road, and yet here we have a situation where people can get themselves stranded, covered by a single small sign.

My solution to this would be a sign each end showing the depth of the water and estimation of when the road will be safe again. It could also show something like "Rescue cost 500".

We are all scathing of these people because we know about the tides, but somebody visiting the island may not know. I agree it should be obvious, but clearly it is not.

moral of the story...if youre not wearing wellies...you dont walk in puddles !

romantic wrote:
BlondeJo, I fully get what you are saying, but it does seem to be that common sense is no longer enough.

I´m not sure if it´s just because more people are coming onto the island than used to. The people who live there are well aware of the tides, the bits of my family who live there have the tide tables as an integral part of planning their days.

Clearly, the existing signs are not having the impact that they should. We have to accept that there are people out there who are stupid enough to head into the water even when others are queueing up. Fining people will only deter others if they actually know about it. Otherwise, it has no impact. I am sure that nobody has repeated it twice anyway - the cost of sorting the car out the first time will be enough deterrent.

We have a multitude of signs and warnings on every road, and yet here we have a situation where people can get themselves stranded, covered by a single small sign.

My solution to this would be a sign each end showing the depth of the water and estimation of when the road will be safe again. It could also show something like "Rescue cost 500".

We are all scathing of these people because we know about the tides, but somebody visiting the island may not know. I agree it should be obvious, but clearly it is not.

To clarify, the system would operate pretty much as cleggeron suggests, with a sensor in the middle measuring the water depth and signs at each end showing that depth. I don´t believe such a system would be impossible to design and run, or cost a huge amount.

There are other tidal causeways around, but this one is probably the busiest in the country, and more people come and visit every time it´s in one of the Sunday papers.

We need big signs which make it clear that you can get stranded. If anybody still crosses, then they can pay to be towed off.

How many more times are we to read about idiots getting stuck in the Strood.
If they get stuck in the water then they should pay commercial rates to be rescued, this should be a minimum of £ 250 and the police should prosecute for driving without due care.

I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

I have said before, these people who call to be rescued should just be given the number of a commercial tow truck company which will pull them out as soon as the tide goes down. They can also be told that they are not going to drown, all they have to do is wait an hour or two.
Like other collectors for the RNLI, I resent our beloved organisation being obliged to "rescue" people whose lives are not in danger.

I've sat and watched people get stranded and was amazed at how many emergency vehicles turned up.

It does get deep especially at spring tides and in the dip at the Colchester end.

What does surprise me is that the fire brigade on the island doesn't have a snorkel landrover.

Still it's only a matter of time before the causeway is raised as its part of the redevelopment of Bradwell for emergency evacuation.

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

Exactley the negative responce I was talking about.

I'm still amazed that in the 21st Century we have a major road, access to which is determined by the tides ?!

Taking into account the cost of rescuing people, maintaining the road & pavements which are subject to the ravages of the tides - surely there's a better solution??

jag99 wrote:
I'm still amazed that in the 21st Century we have a major road, access to which is determined by the tides ?!

Taking into account the cost of rescuing people, maintaining the road & pavements which are subject to the ravages of the tides - surely there's a better solution??

I believe a raised level has been discussed before, but rejected by the people of Mersea, who feel it would somehow change their status as an island.

As far as I know, it is only recently that they have started sending out coastguards etc. In the past, you were left there until the tide had receded and then got towed. There´s always been a golden rule about never buying a used car from Mersea.

I may be wrong on this, but I don´t think so many people got stranded in the past as do now.

why anyone would want to go to Mersea is beyond me.

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

Exactley the negative responce I was talking about.

So who is going to pay, if it's not you? Do you think money grows on trees? Really important services are being axed all over the place, and you want millions to be spent on someting totally unnecessary.
That is not just negative, it makes no sense at all.

romantic wrote:

jag99 wrote:
I'm still amazed that in the 21st Century we have a major road, access to which is determined by the tides ?!

Taking into account the cost of rescuing people, maintaining the road & pavements which are subject to the ravages of the tides - surely there's a better solution??

I believe a raised level has been discussed before, but rejected by the people of Mersea, who feel it would somehow change their status as an island.

As far as I know, it is only recently that they have started sending out coastguards etc. In the past, you were left there until the tide had receded and then got towed. There´s always been a golden rule about never buying a used car from Mersea.

I may be wrong on this, but I don´t think so many people got stranded in the past as do now.

You are right, they never used to bother. Nobody ever drowned, and people took more care of their cars. Blame the spread of mobile phones for making it easy to call for help.

Build a bridge.

Surely the money saved on signage and rescue missions, as well as the monies saved from the printing of tide time tables would pay for it in the long run.

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

Exactley the negative responce I was talking about.

So who is going to pay, if it's not you? Do you think money grows on trees? Really important services are being axed all over the place, and you want millions to be spent on someting totally unnecessary.
That is not just negative, it makes no sense at all.

Boris, you raise a fair point.

JBoswick wrote:
Build a bridge.

Surely the money saved on signage and rescue missions, as well as the monies saved from the printing of tide time tables would pay for it in the long run.

If it's £2m for a few bus stops and almost that for tarting up the fire station I think it would take rather a long time to recoup the cost of a bridge.

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

Exactley the negative responce I was talking about.

So who is going to pay, if it's not you? Do you think money grows on trees? Really important services are being axed all over the place, and you want millions to be spent on someting totally unnecessary.
That is not just negative, it makes no sense at all.

Boris, you raise a fair point.

Thanks, CB, that's kind of you. Long live Belgium.

hughie-s wrote:

JBoswick wrote:
Build a bridge.

Surely the money saved on signage and rescue missions, as well as the monies saved from the printing of tide time tables would pay for it in the long run.

If it's £2m for a few bus stops and almost that for tarting up the fire station I think it would take rather a long time to recoup the cost of a bridge.

Not to mention that rescue missions would cease if people were just told to wait for the tide to go down. And tide tables are used by sailors as well as motorists, as well as being available by googling "tide tables west mersea". So that leaves only the signage which could perhaps be made more explicit but that should come to a few hundred pounds.

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

Exactley the negative responce I was talking about.

So who is going to pay, if it's not you? Do you think money grows on trees? Really important services are being axed all over the place, and you want millions to be spent on someting totally unnecessary.
That is not just negative, it makes no sense at all.

Boris, you raise a fair point.

Thanks, CB, that's kind of you. Long live Belgium.

I am afraid Colchester is stuck with me for a little longer!

I thought chickens got plucked?

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:

Boris wrote:

ColchesterBelgian wrote:
I've said before but always meets negative responce, just build a bridge then you have no worry of this happening again.

You pay for it, then.

Exactley the negative responce I was talking about.

So who is going to pay, if it's not you? Do you think money grows on trees? Really important services are being axed all over the place, and you want millions to be spent on someting totally unnecessary.
That is not just negative, it makes no sense at all.

Boris, you raise a fair point.

Thanks, CB, that's kind of you. Long live Belgium.

I am afraid Colchester is stuck with me for a little longer!

Leve België/Vive la Belgique. You just stay here as long as you like.

Yes, people used to sit it out. Never heard of anyone coming to real harm because of that.
.
If a car was driven through the water as it began to rise, or was getting low again, drivers just tested their brakes at the far side - common sense.
.
Part of the problem is that property and possessions are not valued and cared for now, in this throw-away society. Long ago those fortunate to own a car took great care of it, now the majority of vehicles have yet to see the inside of a garage!

rhetoric wrote:
Yes, people used to sit it out. Never heard of anyone coming to real harm because of that.
.
If a car was driven through the water as it began to rise, or was getting low again, drivers just tested their brakes at the far side - common sense.
.
Part of the problem is that property and possessions are not valued and cared for now, in this throw-away society. Long ago those fortunate to own a car took great care of it, now the majority of vehicles have yet to see the inside of a garage!

rhetoric, you are right on this. We see it with all sorts of technology. When I was a kid, if a car broke down, most drivers would have some knowledge of how to fix it, or at least to know what was wrong. As a consequence, you wouldn´t go steaming into the Strood because you´d realise the effect this would probably have.

I hesitate to put a figure on it, but I´m sure there are drivers out there who scarcely know how to check the oil and water or tyre pressures. When I started driving, you had to check these regularly or your car would die horribly and quickly.

Now, with a new car, you can probably get away with it for months or years. The point being that many drivers don´t really get that their nice shiny machine is a delicate thing in many ways, and can be broken. Drivers in the past certainly had more respect and understanding of the technology, although it was far less reliable then than now.

I guess it´s a trade-off: a car now if far less likely to grind to a halt in a haze of steam and leaking oil, but if it does break, it´s probably going to be a big problem, not just a case of tapping the engine a bit.

In an age of 20 quid DVD players, the idea of understanding how something works and being able to fix it is being lost. If you´ve got kids growing up, if they can learn how to fix stuff, they´ll be able to make money for life. Plenty of people out there can hardly wire a plug.

I should clarify one part of my post; when I said that most cars did not see the inside of a garage, I meant the car- sheltering building at home, which is now more commonly used for the purpose of storing excess of consumer goods unlikely to be needed again.
.
With the costs of repairs, it is probable that some cars will not see the inside of a commercial, repair workshop garage either! Romantic is quite correct in saying that there used to be a much wider knowledge of the car's insides amongst car owners. Classes were available to teach the subject at the local Technical College if there was nobody in the family who could advise and mentor.