Isle of Wight Radio: Huge Drop In Q2 Listening Hours

The total number of hours that people listen to Isle of Wight Radio dropped nearly a hundred thousand hours in the last reported quarter.

Isle of Wight Radio: Huge Drop In Hours Listened Q2Figures from industry-body RAJAR report that the Total hours for the Island radio station fell from 546,000 to 454,000 between the first quarter of 2011 and the second. A drop of 92,000 total hours – a 17% reduction.

Steepest decline since 2005
The drop is the steepest decline that’s been recorded since 2005. When compared with second quarter of the previous year (2010), RAJAR report 66,000 less hours were listened to over the year.

The previous quarter had already dropped 47,000 hours. Prior to that there had been seven months of growth from the low point of 289,000 in Q1 2009.

The figures have been out for nearly a quarter, but reporting on them had slipped our minds until the reminder for the latest RAJAR figures came out this week – hopefully the yet unannounced figures will have improved for them.

Weekly listeners remain the same
The level of weekly listeners has remained the same as the previous quarter – 37,000 – only a thousand down on the comparable quarter the year before.

Quite why this huge drop in Total hours has occurred is unclear.

We contacted two of Isle of Wight Radio’s owners about it yesterday, but as yet they haven’t replied.

Recent history
Isle of Wight Radio was taken over back in August 2009 by a locally-based consortium including Paul Topping; Claire Willis, former Area Director for The Local Radio Company; Ian Walker and Hedley Finn.

They recently bought The Beacon too.

Isle of Wight Radio: 2011 Q2 Total Hours

Isle of Wight Radio: 2011 Q2 Weekly Listeners

Keep comments friendly please
For some reason, when we publish stories about IW Radio, there’s often a bit of nastiness in the reader’s comment – unusual for VB Reader’s comments. Please avoid doing it – that ‘Have a cup of tea’ idea really does work.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
19 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CB500
26, February 2015 9:46 am

Personally I’d keep it free and cover the cost by scrapping the £100,000.00 a year we pay to subsidise a few fishermen in Ventnor Haven. But I’m guessing the councillors like a bit of fish.

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  CB500
26, February 2015 11:12 am

Bring on Judicial Review!! It’s £160,000 actually….

CB500
Reply to  Sally Perry
26, February 2015 4:09 pm

Thanks Sally. The fact that they have been ignoring this for so long does tend to make you wonder if the Ventnor seafront cartel have some sort of special exemption.

East Cowes IOW
26, February 2015 9:52 am

Let the floating bridge boycott begin for unnecessary crossings! We only have to boycott for six months… Of course it doesn’t help that it’s during the summer months when it’s busier – that will skew the numbers.

Why the Council still cannot understand that charging pedestrians LOSES money for the Council is unbelievable. I feel badly for the East Cowes businesses that will suffer slow deaths….

tracy reardon
26, February 2015 10:32 am

Just goes to show that even after the protests that nobody at the Council listens to the people!!!!!
Let’s hope all these new visitors to the Marina etc won’t mind that the high streets have been killed off and maybe Cowes won’t be the place to be in the future??? Tourism was supposed to be a feature I mistakenly thought!!!!

Julia Baker-Smith
Reply to  tracy reardon
26, February 2015 8:10 pm

Tracy I have listened and have fought relentlessly for months to have this removed from the budget, voting again last night for it to be removed.

Old Knobby
26, February 2015 10:35 am

Any idea when this starts? I often travel over to East Cowes to purchase some items that I can’t get in Cowes, gives me somewhere different to walk and supports a local business. Once the charge comes in I’ll just pick them up when I’m in Newport getting other shopping – a win for the national chain that I’ll use instead, a loss for the local shop… Read more »

Old Knobby
26, February 2015 10:38 am

Pushed send too soon – how did the West Cowes councillors vote? In favour of the budget and charge or against and in the interests of their residents?

Hermit
26, February 2015 10:46 am

If you’re going over in your car, let foot passengers jump in and go over with you, no extra income that way

GarageElfinIOW
26, February 2015 11:01 am

so 40 p a return trip to raise £100k
thats around 685 a day for 365 days a year paying 40p each

do we have a number for the avergae number of users a day right now ?

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  GarageElfinIOW
26, February 2015 11:16 am

It’s £160K actually. The campaigners had already done the maths to show that it will LOSE the Council money….with slowed crossings, vehicles deciding to go around, pensioners STILL deciding to use the bus instead – which costs the Council a LOT of money. They don’t have accurate figures of how many pedestrians and cyclists use the bridge now, so they are just guessing. And as Sarah said… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
26, February 2015 11:14 am

Just to clarify that the Labour councillors did not vote for the Baker-Smith amendment. Once the charges are in place they will be there for good. There were 9 councillors who supported the original Labour amendment (including the two local councillors, but only Labour maintained a consistent position of opposition – together with the member for the new ward of Cowes Parkhurst, who had actually voted against… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
26, February 2015 11:34 am

One last thing on the floating bridge charges: the councillor for the opposite side of East Cowes, Lora Peacey-Wilcox, voted against the Labour amendment and then voted for the introduction of charges. Other Cowes members were more representative of local feeling

Geoff Lumley
26, February 2015 11:31 am

Some other interesting voting last night. UKIP voting with the Tories against an amendment to the Budget motion laying the blame for the cuts where it should lie – on the Coalition Government. Amendment carried by 22 votes to 14. And UKIP voting with the Tories against the longstanding funding of the local Unison Branch Secretary. Potentially leaving hard-pressed staff without dedicated representation in these dreadful times.… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
26, February 2015 12:07 pm

Why are you surprised Geoff? :-)) If New Labour is “centre” (according to Balls) and the Tories have moved to the right, then UKIP must be further along the right wing. UKIP is primarily an “anti” party having been spawned by the Anti-Federalist Party in 1993. Today its policies are anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-state interference, anti-unions, ant-benefits for the needy, anti-inheritance tax, anti-foreign aid, and so on. The… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Cynic
26, February 2015 1:16 pm

Cicero. Not at all surprised ! I just feel their views should be highlighted to anyone deluded by their shameless populism that hides a fundamentally anti-just-about-everything-worth-having-in-a-civilised society philosophy

Caconym
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
26, February 2015 1:06 pm

“And UKIP voting with the Tories against the longstanding funding of the local Unison Branch Secretary”

Indeed. The kippers portray themselves as the party for the ordinary “bloke down the pub”, but the only thing they are interested in the “bloke down the pub” for is as slave labour once all of the employment protection enacted by the EU has been removed in their perceived Farageotopia.

Don Smith
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
27, February 2015 11:33 pm

Do not worry Geoff, UKIP will not represent the IoW after the May election. The majority of voter realize that UKIP are nothing but a bastardised type of Tory. However, many, will support UKIP just to oust the Tory party out of office. £6000 Uni. fees will increase Labours vote in May, but this will only counteract the promises made to the OAP by Cameron. I note… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
5, March 2015 4:10 pm

All the Voting Records here:-

https://www.iwight.com/Meetings/committees/mod-council/25-2-15/minutes.pdf

Hold YOUR councillor to account…….

firthy
26, February 2015 11:31 am

How do they plan to cope with 50 pedestrians and 20 cars on a 2 minute crossing. There is no way they could collect the money without employing more staff?. I suggest a plan of civil disobidience so no one buys tickets and everyone carries the wrong cash amounts and needs change. Also keep moving around the bridge until it docks?

Jack
Reply to  firthy
26, February 2015 4:59 pm

Its pretty obvious that tickets machines will be installed either side and all the men on the bridge will do is collect the ticket .there used to be a weekly pass you could buy when they charged last time so regular users only paid once a week .and in those days children and pensioners paid as well .

motocrossvic
26, February 2015 11:46 am

Why should van and car drivers have to have continued to carry the whole burden of funding the floating bridge?

Why should the cost of running the service not be shared amongst everybody(certain exclusions noted, children etc.,) that uses it instead of constantly raising fares for vehicles?

Gary Jones
26, February 2015 11:51 am

Seriously? You are saying that businesses are going to suffer because of a return trip costing 40p? Even if you used it every day of the week, that’s only £2:80! The Gosport Ferry costs far more than that per trip. You people really need some perspective – I can hardly see droves of the users turning away because of £2:80 a week and if the kind of… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  Gary Jones
26, February 2015 1:12 pm

It’s not the cost; it’s the slowed crossings that will be a disincentive for both pedestrians and vehicles to use it.

watchdog
26, February 2015 11:56 am

While I’m not in favour of this farce, it can be done without much more inconvenience or more staff: just install a coin-operated turnstile at each side of the river, and dispense with tickets. And do away with the complication of return tickets – just 20p per crossing.

RJC
26, February 2015 11:59 am

Some still seemed convince that pensioners will use the bus. It’s free for them anyway why would they spent an extra hour or so to go around via Newport. If in the unlikely event I had to go to Red Funnelton for anything other than the car ferry. I would just nip on the bridge.

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  RJC
26, February 2015 1:11 pm

Because the crossings will slow down with the collection of pedestrian tickets, especially with implementation of related health and safety standards associated with the ticket collection. That will mean that many pensioners will not want to wait in a queue for an extra slow crossing each way when they can go to Newport instead for their cuppa from the free bus stop outside of their house. Slowed… Read more »

tiki
26, February 2015 12:43 pm

Oh for goodness sake get a grip it’s 40p.FREE, yes FREE for under 16 and concessionary bus pass holders. If you don’t want to pay catch the bus and spend £9.50. It won’t be the death of the High Street, what a load of alarmist tosh. None of you moaned when motorists were hit with increases. As for the comments that the ”people voted against it”. Says… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  tiki
26, February 2015 1:02 pm

It won’t make a profit charging pedestrians. It will lose the Council money and in the meantime destroy the businesses. THAT is the problem. No one is moaning. The IW Council does not appear to know how to do realistic business projection or maths.

Caconym
26, February 2015 12:59 pm

40p return? What a mountain the protesters are making out of this molehill. That is, by comparison that will buy you less than a 10th gallon of petrol. Assuming your car does 40mpg, that will get you 4 miles, or, if you like, 4/5ths of the way from Cowes to Newport. From someone who has to pay over £2500 a year to ferry and rail companies to… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  Caconym
26, February 2015 1:04 pm

Again, it won’t make money for the Council so why do it? They got their maths so wrong, and the campaigners have told them and SHOWN them the maths so many times. One starts to believe that they are so desperate to make things look balanced on paper that they will make up fake profits??

Caconym
Reply to  East Cowes IOW
26, February 2015 1:13 pm

So What? It won’t lose them much either, and the protester’s maths looks pretty iffy to me, being based on a lot of supposition. The bottom line is that 40p is peanuts (literally, a bag of Aldi peanuts is 48p). Is it really worth all of that placard waving and ranting? With all of the things that are wrong in the world, getting hot under the collar… Read more »

tiki
Reply to  Caconym
26, February 2015 1:21 pm

The end of the world is nigh Suruk lol :p

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  Caconym
26, February 2015 1:22 pm

So….exactly what part of the campaigners’ maths and behavioural assumptions are wrong? Please elaborate with a spreadsheet here with your business plan. Sally, Simon – would you please embed other people’s well-thought-out projections on the floating bridge from other people? Maybe even do a story about it?? We would love to see other people’s maths with accurate projections and accounts. Particularly the IW Council’s, which STILL will… Read more »

Caconym
Reply to  East Cowes IOW
26, February 2015 2:57 pm

You post your figures, an’ I’ll tell you what’s wrong with ’em. Lets start with the number of users of the floating bridge, currently, and your projected reduction after the charges are introduced, shall we? In reality, almost all users of the floating bridge will pay the charge because the alternatives are stupid (going without whatever you want across the river for the sake of 40p) or… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  East Cowes IOW
26, February 2015 3:49 pm

Actually the campaigners already posted their spreadsheets in an On The Wight story a year ago and months ago plus gave updates to the IW Council as well. So look there. All of the predictions etc are there. The IWC doesn’t even know how many adult pedestrians they have or pensioners, children, etc. That makes dangerous their numbers as well….

So where are your numbers??

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  East Cowes IOW
26, February 2015 3:52 pm

AND it’s not the money that is the disincentive to cross for many people..it’s that the crossings would slow down. It then becomes faster to go to Newport instead of waiting….

Don Smith
Reply to  Caconym
27, February 2015 11:44 pm

Suruk the Slayer’s.

Get your self on the Council and sort this farcical problem out.

Your comments above make very sensible reading. Take note you Councillors; and please, you pedestrians stop whinging.

block8
26, February 2015 3:57 pm

Step moaning, stop whinging and most of all stop freeloading on the backs of others.

Pay up or stay in East Cowes. I don’t care which.

BRIAN
Reply to  block8
27, February 2015 8:00 am

Spot on, block8. Let the tight-fisted freeloaders swim or stay where they are. Picture the scene. A freeloader, dragging on a fag from a £6 packet of 20 while sipping a £2 coffee and whingeing on about the iniquity of paying 40p to use a ferry. We’ve even had one cheeky sod suggest car drivers (the payers) take some passengers across for free. Not even a mention… Read more »

Karen Layer
26, February 2015 5:58 pm

It used to be charged for foot passengers because I used to pay two and six a week!

cant wait
26, February 2015 6:11 pm

Goody, let the fun begin!!!! This is gonna cost the council more than me :-)

sandancer
26, February 2015 10:58 pm

Well,well,well. The residents of East Cowes are under no illusion whatsoever as to the political ambitions of the 2 IOW Councillors, Ms Hillard & Baker-Smith. They turned their backs on the wishes of the electorate in the town and voted FOR the budget which contained the introduction of Floating Bridge Charges. They played a half-hearted game by supporting the Labour amendment to withdraw that item from the… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 9:24 am

sandancer: Cllr Baker Smith proposed an amendment…it was voted on and suppported (passed) to be included in the overall budget. That amendment seeks to NOT charge for foot passengers if advertising revenue can be sought and paid for (£150,000 income was suggested) within six months. Therefore, in voting FOR the budget they were voting for a budget that included an amendment that offers a different financial model… Read more »

sandancer
Reply to  Sally Perry
27, February 2015 9:52 am

Thank you Sally. No Cllr Jordan, I didn’t miss that…….. but I also read that there would be an initial £60,000+ spend (in the budget forecast) to set it up. That would seal the fate of that amendment ever seeing the light of day again.

phil jordan
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 12:57 pm

sandancer: There’s no set up costs to selling the bridge as an advertising space….. Cllr Baker Smith has some figures that indicate a possible income of around £150,000 a year from doing this. She is in the process of developing a plan to attract that income thus, as her amendment proposes, obviating the need to charge pedestrians. The qualification period of 6 months would still remain however,… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 1:15 pm

Phil, if the money can be raised through advertising revenue, then you do it that way…you don’t risk killing the local economy with an expensive experiment. Where are your maths, Phil? You still haven’t answered our questions. Politicians all over the world take a stand on budgets and vote against them for the people that they represent. This has been a proven problem issue where you all… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 1:18 pm

And sandancer is referring to the £60K set up costs (minimum! It will be more in capital and operating if it is to be a remotely functional operation) for pedestrian tickets, not about the advertising….

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 1:49 pm

I agree with Phil that a Councillor cannot realistically vote against an overall Budget because of one local item. I voted for my own ‘no pedestrian charges’ Floating Bridge amendment and against Julia Baker-Smith’s last minute one, but then voted for the overall Budget. It is now up to the local Councillors to deliver on their advertising scheme.

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 1:59 pm

Geoff, politicians DO vote against budgets to represent their people. That happens in every country. Someone has to stand up for their people and to central government. The more budgets like this that you all pass, the worse the island economy will be. But the main point is that charging pedestrians will LOSE the Council money if they accurately account the loss in vehicle revenue and pensioners… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 2:53 pm

East Cowes IOW: They do and I would probably have voted against if there was a huge issue in my Newport ward where I had no credible alternative. I believe Julia genuinely thinks she has an alternative funding stream, though I am massively sceptical. I entirely agree that the charges won’t make the money predicated and the Scrutiny Committee last autumn made that very point in recommending… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 3:02 pm

Geoff, I agree with you re first points. Regarding standing up: I’m definitely familiar with the risks of not balancing a budget. But, in the end, if there were a time to say “enough is enough”, a budget set in a year of the general election is a better one to have a (new) government come in and give the IW Council the scrutiny it deserves. They… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Sally Perry
27, February 2015 11:30 am

Sally. That is certainly my understanding and what the Baker-Smith amendment said. A pity she could not have floated this idea earlier than a couple of hours before the most important Council meeting of the year.

sandancer
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
27, February 2015 1:30 pm

The £60,000+ costs as mentioned in the report in support of charging (and to be paid for over a 5 year period) was for the Ticketing Process, nothing to do with the advertising amendment.

sandancer
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
27, February 2015 2:13 pm

Cllrs Jordan and Lumley:

Are you going to run the 6 month period whilst advertisers are sought (to meet the criteria set by Cllr Baker-Smith’s amendment) without incurring the £60,000 costs to set up the new charging system for foot passengers and cyclists? How is that going to work? Please advise.

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  phil jordan
27, February 2015 10:01 am

Phil, the IW Council’s maths and projections are wrong on the floating bridge. You all wouldn’t show your maths when we all challenged your assumptions. WHY??? Why won’t you show us your maths??? For years the IWC has not answered the East Cowes Town Council, Waitrose or the businesses. Why do you not show us your maths like we have been asking for for years??? We can… Read more »

Allan
27, February 2015 1:06 am

can;t wait to see them collecting the fare in Cowes week fireworh night or when the randonee is on

one way
Reply to  Allan
27, February 2015 11:02 am

Why would anybody riding the Randonee want to buy a “return” ticket? Bet they won’t sell singles!

Peter Lloyd
27, February 2015 9:20 am

I am disappointed for the: 1. Mum’s using the bridge to take their children to school. 2.Those who cannot afford it (part of EC is classed as a deprived area). 3.The extra cost involved with the commuters traveling cost. 4. The possible loss to the Cowes/ East Cowes economy. 5. The fact that the six months trial period will be carried out during the summer months. 6.… Read more »

Tom Spragg
Reply to  Peter Lloyd
27, February 2015 11:33 am

Indeed Peter. Especially as Councillor Baker-Smith was so outspoken against pedestrian charges before she became a Councillor. And changed her name.

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/its-too-dear-to-live-here-36939.aspx

Anon Again
Reply to  Tom Spragg
27, February 2015 8:09 pm

@Tom Spragg – both Cllr Hilliard and Cllr Baker Smith were elected on the back of the no charging for the floating bridge campaign. Before her election Cllr Hilliard said this on OTW (this is cut and pasted from the OTW story of 2011 on students undertaking a study on the issue) She commented:- “I attended the town meetings where this free study was proposed and I… Read more »

Tom Spragg
Reply to  Anon Again
27, February 2015 9:46 pm

Quite. Unless, of course, another “cause celebre” like, say, a proposed asphalt plant crops up prior to the next election which said Councillors can use to further their political ambitions.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Peter Lloyd
27, February 2015 11:38 am

If I were you Peter I’d be ashamed of the way you were directly responsible for voting against (blocking) consultation with the public and even financial viability assessments into whether Down House was a good location for a Library, youth centre, preschool, charity hub, business centre etc. You have conveniently forgotten that the ‘majority’ of residents are pretty angry with you and others for your part in… Read more »

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
27, February 2015 11:43 am

Julia’s amendment – though her heart was definitely in the right place – causes more problems than solves them, because of how it is worded and that the Council will not necessarily have to agree to those provisions in six months’ time regardless. Businesses can’t survive a six-month minimum experiment, Luisa. Could your household budget deal with a significant decrease in your income for six months? The… Read more »

sandancer
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
27, February 2015 1:56 pm

Once again, is there a market for 2 used ticket machines (having cost £60,000 so set up)at the end of the 6 month period? It will never happen so the amendment is worthless.

wiglet
27, February 2015 10:43 am

Well none of us like being charged for something that we have come to accept as being free. However sooner or later everything has to be paid for and anyway we have all been paying for the Floating Bridge in the past, through our yearly payments to the Council!! I just wonder, should all the non users be complaining even more than the users?!!!!!!!!!!!1

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  wiglet
27, February 2015 10:53 am

You and I don’t pay for the floating bridge if we are non-users. The vehicle fees pay for the floating bridge. It makes a large profit for the Council. Your Council tax is not paying for the floating bridge. As soon as you start charging pedestrians, the bridge slows down with ticket collection. The vehicles don’t want to wait and drive around (they already do). So it… Read more »

sandancer
Reply to  East Cowes IOW
27, February 2015 2:14 pm

Cllrs Jordan and Lumley:

Are you going to run the 6 month period whilst advertisers are sought (to meet the criteria set by Cllr Baker-Smith’s amendment) without incurring the £60,000 costs to set up the new charging system for foot passengers and cyclists? How is that going to work? Please advise

sandancer
27, February 2015 5:25 pm

SILENCE

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  sandancer
27, February 2015 6:48 pm

You mean “silence” from Phil Jordan because he still won’t show us the Council’s maths and projections that we have been asking for for years, including on these comments on On The Wight here and in many previous floating bridge stories, sandancer? Yes, frustrating that the Council won’t show realistic maths…

sam salt
Reply to  East Cowes IOW
27, February 2015 7:48 pm

And equally frustrating East Cowes IOW you won’t accept that nothing comes for free these days.

East Cowes IOW
Reply to  sam salt
27, February 2015 7:59 pm

Exactly. Nothing comes for free. But charging pedestrians will LOSE money. And it ruins the local economy. It’s not that we aren’t willing to pay (though many of us have issue that we are walking, and that the reason that it is not a fixed link bridge is so the rest of the island can get its petrol from barges going upriver). The crossings will slow down,… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  sandancer
28, February 2015 9:13 am

sandancer – Its for Phil to reply. I don’t run the Council. I am an Opposition member who has very clearly opposed these charges throughout.

sandancer
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
28, February 2015 10:47 am

Apologies Geoff. I know you have always made an informed judgement against the re-introduction of the Floating Bridge Charges. They were dropped in 1992 because it was not cost effective to collect them. The FB has always made a profit from the revenue but it was never ring fenced for future replacement. By the way, we believe that the ‘missing £3,000,000’, that was earmarked by the previous… Read more »

Tony Shepard
27, February 2015 10:10 pm

Oh come on now. It’s all about the money and how a bunch of cheap skates and freeloaders are horrified at the fact that now, they’ll have to pay for something that they just expect to be free. And time wise, get real. When was the last time getting anyone ever got the floating bridge and it took two minutes other than very early in the morning… Read more »

Tony Shepard
Reply to  Tony Shepard
27, February 2015 10:14 pm

Oh and I forgot quicker. It’ll be far quicker, especially for those on the buses, to go all the way around rather than just waiting, patiently for the floating bridge.

bazaldog
28, February 2015 2:52 am

In my humble opinion, it is not the cost of the crossing that will stop people from using the bridge, but the inconvenience of having the correct change etc. It is the same principle of putting a pay and display machine in a car park, even if the charge is only 20 pence people will do everything in their power to avoid parking there. As a frequent… Read more »

Matthew Smith
28, February 2015 4:39 pm

Now that pedestrians are to be charged for the service ,could you explain how they attend to operate the service in line with health and safety legislation I.e Provision of Safe Means of Access on Vessels 4.2.9 Ramps used by vehicles should not be used for pedestrian access unless there is suitable separation of vehicles and pedestrians Safety in Docks Vehicles access to ships 61 Ramps used… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined