Jump to content

Paul C

Member
  • Posts

    12,388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Paul C

  1. You keep saying that but a boat can be multi-purpose, and a cruise can be multi-purpose too. For example, you can nip to the shops while also testing out the engine and stopping for water along the way. What's the purpose here? If the cruise is a single purpose only, then you would not be allowed (under your logic) to stop for water. Or, go shopping if its just to test the engine. There's an argument to be made, that a continuous cruiser can't NOT be a liveaboard (but I won't make it because they can...)
  2. Good point - it can and does happen to others. For example, https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/contact-and-sinking-of-narrow-boat-drum-major-while-descending-in-steg-neck-lock-on-the-leeds-and-liverpool-canal-near-gargrave-england-with-loss-of-4-lives Having read that report, I adopted the rule of "everybody outside when locking" when I go boating (but then there's only 2 of us, so its pretty easy to adopt).
  3. Its not considered because it doesn't happen. How do you "send it back" to the bow to tie it on, once you've (for example) looped it through a mooring ring? Throw it, then walk to the middle of the boat, pull the centre line, then get on the back of the boat, then climb onto the roof or walk along the gunnels (stepping over the centre line, of course)?
  4. Its a "no" from me, purely from the extra effort required to stretch over and grab the bowline EVERY TIME you need to moor up. Its much easier to do the various tasks needed with the bowline from within a well deck. It wouldn't take too much extra distance from bank to boat (you know, at those shallow canal edges, curved sections, missing armco, irregular bank, etc) to put that bowline tantalisingly out of reach (where on a normal boat, it would be a stretch but possible to get into the well deck) and then you're walking along the gunnel or walking along the roof, as IanD has explained the access route is. Turns a 5 minute mooring task into a PITA. I agree that the "no escape access" isn't really the big issue, because the likelihood of needing to do it are so small an inconvenience there can be tolerated.
  5. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  6. The problem with crying wolf all the time, is that if/when it does actually happen, nobody will support them. "Keep your powder dry", I think, is the appropriate saying here.
  7. A boatbuilder who makes their living from building boats would hold more sway than the average forum poster, though. So, broadly, you'd have to take the fact that they've put their name to it and says it complies, at face value.
  8. Effectively it already has - it used to be the case that sailaways got an Annex III (part complete) declaration, then the subsequent owner/DIY fitter out either completed the boat and did all the RCR admin too; or didn't sell it for 5 years. That interpretation of the rules was later deemed wrong, and RYA(?) gave up their role in administering the issuing of numbers for DIYers, someone else (BMA?) took over and clarified the situation to say all those boats aren't built right and in theory need a PCA. That's why there's so many >1997 boats without RCR. In theory another, tighter, interpretation could occur officially too, but I don't think its likely. I'd not worry too much, because you haven't bought a boat yet, you're aware of the situation.
  9. There's 2 aspects: 1) The loss in market value due to not having RCD documentation etc. This is obviously an opinion and a perception but that's what determines market value anyway. 2) The fact that a similar boat WITH RCD is likely to be better quality due to its builder being more diligent etc. This is moot too; but could be determined to be so with a detailed physical examination of the boat. Possibly even an entire PCA process done on the boat. If the non-documented one "passed" the PCA without any work or mods needing doing, it could have had an RCD anyway...... So long as you are aware and you can negotiate an appropriate reduction in price (or have an accurate valuation done etc) then there's nothing to be concerned about.
  10. I know you like historical C&Ping of Nigel's thoughts on the existing rules, but they're potentially irrelevant since this is a discussion on how the rules might look in the future, when CRT Commission (well, the process that follows) changes them. And on that topic, indeed planning permission may be relaxed to the extent of allowing liveaboards to stay in one place much longer (possibly with a charge on them). I think its more likely they will alter canal-specific rules to make it worse for CCers, than alter planning permission to their benefit. Just a guess. Regarding trackers, there is an easy way around the privacy concerns. Simply offer the licence at the "max rate, highest priced-area" basis. To earn a discounted licence, you have to have a tracker (with a bunch of necessary rules regarding not interfering with it, etc, much like tacho regulations on HGVs) and the discount is earned against (for example) a monthly payment option of the licence.
  11. If they're not moving, or not moving enough, then they're living there illegally. Something happening which is illegal, isn't a reason in itself to relax it or change the rules in their favour (otherwise, why not set the speed limit on the M5 south of Bristol, at 85mph?) The underlying reason(s) behind the requirement for planning permission, and the likelihood of PP being denied, is the reason not to do this.
  12. This is often suggested but it would mean the change of use of the land (planning permission). Also, why just the canal? I think it was this thread I mentioned it on before, but if one were taking a holistic approach on looking at "more housing", one would choose the green bits not the blue bits.
  13. Would be interesting to know how it is eventually recovered, given the location and that winching off the bridge is a no-no. Can vehicles access anywhere even vaguely near the site?
  14. At least the dog isn't broken
  15. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  16. There will be "boilerplate" forum risk assessment documents available, no doubt. It would be a C&P of that (and maybe even actually publish it, even though there's no need). I took a look at the link, and here is a snippet: What activity is the Online Safety Act trying to prevent? offences related to information likely to be of use to a terrorist and offences relating to training for terrorism hate offences such as stirring up of racial hatred offence and stirring up of hatred on the basis of religion or sexual orientation sexual exploitation of adults such as causing or inciting prostitution for gain offence human trafficking assisting or encouraging suicide offence the unlawful supply, offer to supply, of controlled drugs, and the unlawful supply, or offer to supply, of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs weapons offences such as offences relating to firearms, their parts, ammunition, including air guns and shotguns Since the forum is more/less in the "family friendly" end of the spectrum on the internet, its pretty easy to align the forum's rules to comply with the above without altering the utility of the forum as-is. Put simply, there will be an end to unmoderated forums (for example, Thunderboat wouldn't have survived were it still going) but this one, no real issue.
  17. Its an ideal opportunity/learning experience for the mods to "wake up and smell the coffee" and possibly ditch the "no moderation" policy currently in place. Its attractive to some and its off-putting to others. There is a balance somewhere but this isn't it.
  18. They have their place, they have a seat on the table. They will need to persuade the Commission of their point of view, let's hope they have more success than kris88 has demonstrated here.
  19. (Random map screenshot for illustration) If I were "bluesky thinking" and looking to expand on housing opportunities, I'd choose the green bit, not the thin blue bit. Its got to be, I don't know, 40-50x the available area??
  20. Seems strange, why not just do a password reset? Anyway, reported for the attention of mods, they should help out and merge with the old etc.
  21. Did BoatingLifeUpNorth get banned?
  22. Moderation seems all but absent in recent times - I've pointed out a few gross breaches, and not even had the courtesy of a reply. Yeah yeah, its a volunteer job etc, but that's an excuse and it ought to still be done right. Or maybe the current forum regulars prefer bickering and drivel?
  23. No need to announce it though - you can just FRO if you want to. Its like Hotel California on a forum, unless you contact admin and they physically delete your login off the system so you're unable to log in again (and they're not obligated to do this anyway).
×
×
  • 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.