jds_1981

I'm not impressed by continuous moorers(although is go further and say I'm not happy with the number of boats on the river lea overall.) Wasn't that many years when you could go along the tow path and see nice stretches of river. Now it is has lots of long stretches of boats and tarpaulin covered boats. View is rather worse for the matter.

Seems like overkill. Lots of larger or active families find the space advantageous. New ved sort of takes 'luxury' into account. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vehicle-excise-duty/vehicle-excise-duty

Probably too much effort. It does seem a major oversight though. I don't think living on a boat significantly reduces the costs to councils of providing services.

Rumble strips are an odd one - the faster you hit them the more comfortable they are. Probably a nightmare for wheelchair and pram users.

There will always be some people who think you're doing something wrong. At that level of aggression I'd just take the boat number (not a given in London) and report to cart.

Wow, that's a really bad idea for a whole litany of reasons.

Indeed, fine broken glass is much safer to deal with and fairly effective at causing punctures.

Indeed. Potentially, only if they travel farther doing the canal then a walker None hence the wink, but I could have asked the same about your statement that cyclists must use more. Anyway, back to original point, while one could reasonably argue that cyclists and walkers should pay to use the canals, it isn't going to happen & the fees involved would be minimal. Considering for instance that an angling license is £10 or £15 Indeed, for me I'd be quids in as I'd stop my donations so ?

But they spend less time on the canal, so less use

I suspect that for cyclists, like pedestrians, damagecaused to tarmacked surfaces is essentially unmeasurable, and orders of magnitude below that of natural weathering. However please see picture of knackered edging stones due to mooring spikes. I'd estimate tens of thousands to fix that. Also see picture of mooring spike driven directly into path. Not sure what 'extra use' cyclists get over pedestrians? Ultimately, I was agreeing with you that it might be reasonable to argue that cyclists, like all other users should pay a fee to use canals, but that the sum was likely to be very low, indeed, low enough that it would be pointless to collect. Certainly no more than the £50 that allows one to keep an unpowered craft for a while year on the canal, probably nearer the amount of ved a no-emissions vehicle pays to use the road...

Sounds reasonable, but... Unpowered crafts as I'm sure you know are £50/year. Think allowance would need to be made for the fact a bike isn't going to be using the canal much of the time (5 hours a week - 260 hrs /year?) While a boat would be 8760 hrs/year. So bike 3% of the time. £1.50/year. Maybe want to make further allowance that no need to provide and maintain expensive services. So, what, 50p/year? Same fee for pedestrians too I guess.

Indeed, one of those things where the cost of running it would more than consume all revenues gained.

Lots of cyclists, perhaps cart should start looking at ways to assist them?

The new moorings near stone bridge on the lea have all been diagonal on purpose built jetty's.

They are apparently aiming to dredge various places to increase the amount of available mooring. Try and encourage more boats in zone 3 etc. TBH I think this would be a shame as it would mean more boats in places that are currently clear and less chance of seeing the fish one can often see sunbathing there.

Read the synopsis. I don't see how it will improve anything.

If someone is significantly obstructing the towpath I like to helpfully point out they're breaking the bylaws. Had people get really irritated when I suggest I take photographs to let cart sort out (although in reality I doubt cart care much)

I think it's at least a mile, but I have certainly seen boats take months to cover an 8 mile stretch. I think they have to follow some long and arduous process. Not uncommon to get a response from them that they are "are aware of the boat but unable to provide any more details"

Considered reading your license terms? You'll see that advertising is mentioned. I'm unable to work out whether it would be applicable. It may well be. Billposting etc. 47. No person shall, without the Board’s consent, affix or exhibit any notice, sign or advertisement on or in any canal. In reality though, I see loads of adverts. I doubt anyone cares unless you start leaving advertising boards along the verges.

Yes, those photos are worn down gravel. Tarmac pavements last a long time though, decades unless they are exposed to severe weather cycles or trees. Motorways are a different matter though as their wear mainly comes from heavy axled trucks.

Well, this is on the lea just up from the lea rowing club. It is heavily trafficked. Much of this stretch is tarmacked and has been for a long time. It has no pothole or cracking issues. I guess that initial outlay to tarmac is fairly expensive, more so than doing no maintenance at all along this stretch.

I find the addition of plants quite nice, and means that I have a little more opportunity to see the river rather than just the sides of boats. Also, tarmac is good in lots of places, else you end up with path like the attached picture which isn't good for anyone.

Didn't notice it along the lea this morning and I kept half an eye out for it.

So had a rough count on Google maps and I think about 500 boats between North circular and limehouse cut. Assuming the 5% figure that's 25 boats which imho is a lot. 5% itself also seems really high, people regularly perform license checks. Even cars are only at 1.8% evasion (1.4 2015) and they are really mobile.

I'm quite happy to go on hearsay from a towpath ranger for now as they're someone actually on the ground doing things like checking boats. Have you got a link? I've just looked for these figures but could only see an average of 3.7% https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-regions/london-waterways/related-articles/london-boating-bulletin/london-boating-bulletin-may-2017 Presuming the figures for the lea are no worse or better, with hundreds of boats, I'd be happy with the term 'lots'. I rarely use the checker. The few times I have (normally when checking 'abandoned' continuous cruisers') they've come back as licensed.