Constant cruising

[Tom766]

Read a couple of pages re this topic.

 

Bit of animosity here because someone asked the question how long can he stay put and how far do they have to move while CC.

 

I think if the CRT made it clear how far is far enough then we'd all know where we stood!   

 

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, Tom766 said:

Read a couple of pages re this topic.

 

Bit of animosity here because someone asked the question how long can he stay put and how far do they have to move while CC.

 

I think if the CRT made it clear how far is far enough then we'd all know where we stood!   

 

The 'problem' is that the law does not define how far they must move, therefore C&RT cannot 'just make up the rules' to suit themselves.

 

Over the years BW and now C&RT have made recommendations / suggestions / guidance on what they consider is 'acceptable' to them (after all the law actually states "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board", however their guidance is normally challenged by the 'don't want to move very far brigade'  (aka NBTA)

 

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Tom766 said:

I think if the CRT made it clear how far is far enough then we'd all know where we stood! 

 

They tried that once and got universally criticised for making up rules with no basis in law.

 

 

[Murflynn]

if they defined it then we would be inundated with folk doing 'just enough' in the safe knowledge that they would avoid action by CRT.

 

better to leave it undefined and take action against the p*sstakers.

 

 

[Jerra]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The 'problem' is that the law does not define how far they must move, therefore C&RT cannot 'just make up the rules' to suit themselves.

 

Unless of course they make up a rule which says boaters don't need to display their licence or boat name merely the number, then of course it is fine with boaters.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Unless of course they make up a rule which says boaters don't need to display their licence or boat name merely the number, then of course it is fine with boaters.

The difference being, the law DOES specify what shall be displayed - C&RT just decide to ignore it.

 

There are other examples as well, that when they are of benefit to boaters they are (understandably) accepted without question.

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The difference being, the law DOES specify what shall be displayed - C&RT just decide to ignore it.

 

There are other examples as well, that when they are of benefit to boaters they are (understandably) accepted without question.

They are still making a situation outside the law and boaters don't insist they stick to the law, which to me is double standards.   IIRC CRT are required to maintain the canals and there is plenty of squeals about them not doing so but if they do something which boaters are happy with they don't say a word.

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Unless of course they make up a rule which says boaters don't need to display their licence or boat name merely the number, then of course it is fine with boaters.

 

Can you cite some boaters here who have said it is fine, please? I doubt you can because as far as I can tell, most boaters feel this is a mistake by CRT. 

 

 

[Jerra]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Can you cite some boaters here who have said it is fine, please? I doubt you can because as far as I can tell, most boaters feel this is a mistake by CRT. 

 

 

If you search the forum, (sorry I have never managed to get to grips with the forum search function) you will find a number of posters who have more or less praised CRT for not asking for display of licences, boat names and just wanting the number. 

 

Rarely has anyone complained or said it is a bad move, in fact I can't remember anyone other than myself saying so/raising it.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

if they defined it then we would be inundated with folk doing 'just enough' in the safe knowledge that they would avoid action by CRT.

 

better to leave it undefined and take action against the p*sstakers.

 

 

If you follow FB you will see posts every week saying what day does the spotter come so I can be recorded before moving and also asking where the 1Km areas end so they can move to the next patch and still not doing 20 miles in a year

[TheBiscuits]

19 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

If you follow FB you will see posts every week saying what day does the spotter come so I can be recorded before moving and also asking where the 1Km areas end so they can move to the next patch and still not doing 20 miles in a year

Yes, that's one of my hobbyhorses.

 

I have posted the link to the map that shows where the next "functional kilometre" is quite a few times so people can see where they need to move to.

 

CRT can't say what a place is legally, but they do publish what they actually measure.  

 

I also recommend to people that if they have a 25 mile range in mind that they don't just move the minimum every two weeks.  Doing 10 or 12 miles on a nice day and bypassing some of their usual mooring spots this time keeps them off the naughty step.

 

If you want to keep off the radar, then 6 mooring spots over a 30 mile range is enough.  That's visiting each of them once every 3 months, and you get known as a regular in the area, not a bridgehopper.  If you want to be clever about it, add a few short stays on visitor moorings on days you know the spotters are coming, so you get logged in 12 different spots and don't overstay.

 

It's not difficult if you pick your spots well, based on transport links or places you can park a car.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by TheBiscuits
Grammar

[Señor Chris]

14 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

If you want to be clever about it, add a few short stays on visitor moorings on days you know the spotters are coming, so you get logged in 12 different spots and don't overstay.

If you do know the spotter's exact schedule, you could be really clever and not bother with a license at all.

 

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

If you do know the spotter's exact schedule, you could be really clever and not bother with a license at all.

 

I know of people who have tried that, and they always get caught out.

 

My favourite was when a bunch of boats who tried it moved away on schedule and then moved back to their usual spot in the evening.  If only they had remembered it was a Bank Holiday ... the Monday spotter turned up on Tuesday!

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

If you follow FB you will see posts every week saying what day does the spotter come so I can be recorded before moving and also asking where the 1Km areas end so they can move to the next patch and still not doing 20 miles in a year

 

15 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

My favourite was when a bunch of boats who tried it moved away on schedule and then moved back to their usual spot in the evening.  If only they had remembered it was a Bank Holiday ... the Monday spotter turned up on Tuesday!

 

Try telling that to some and they'll tell you its a figment of your imagination.

[Arthur Marshall]

It does all seem to add a lot of stress to what is basically a low stress situation. I'd have thought not having to live in a constant state of worry that you might not have outwitted the authorities would be worth a couple of grand a year. 

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

It does all seem to add a lot of stress to what is basically a low stress situation. I'd have thought not having to live in a constant state of worry that you might not have outwitted the authorities would be worth a couple of grand a year. 

Many of them try to to do it to "stick it to the man" which always seems daft to me.

 

I have mentioned to a few that CRT are no longer a government department, but they still think they are beating the system in some way.

[Murflynn]

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

Yes, that's one of my hobbyhorses.

 

I have posted the link to the map that shows where the next "functional kilometre" is quite a few times so people can see where they need to move to.

 

CRT can't say what a place is legally, but they do publish what they actually measure.  

 

I also recommend to people that if they have a 25 mile range in mind that they don't just move the minimum every two weeks.  Doing 10 or 12 miles on a nice day and bypassing some of their usual mooring spots this time keeps them off the naughty step.

 

If you want to keep off the radar, then 6 mooring spots over a 30 mile range is enough.  That's visiting each of them once every 3 months, and you get known as a regular in the area, not a bridgehopper.  If you want to be clever about it, add a few short stays on visitor moorings on days you know the spotters are coming, so you get logged in 12 different spots and don't overstay.

 

It's not difficult if you pick your spots well, based on transport links or places you can park a car.

 

 

................ and you believe that, by doing so, you are genuinely continuously cruising, within the spirit of the regulations?    

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

................ and you believe that, by doing so, you are genuinely continuously cruising, within the spirit of the regulations?    

Far from it, which is why I don't do it.

 

It is however a pattern that would "satisfy the board" at the present time.  The pattern described is comfortably within the letter of the 1995 act, and means a boat will only be seen in one location for at most a fortnight every three months.

 

This is acceptable in the eyes of the law and the navigation authority for a "boat without a home mooring".

 

Why do you have a problem with that?  It's obviously not the movement pattern, so is it a disdain for those that are doing it or is it something else?

[Arthur Marshall]

A lot, I suspect, depends on where you are. A pattern like that on the Macc would take you from Stoke to Congleton, to Macclesfied, Bollington and up to Marple. You've not covered a huge mileage but it's certainly a cruise between several distinct places and you're not going to be annoying anyone by appearing to hog the best spots. 

The same sort of thing around London or Brum wouldn't even get you out of the city limits. Personally, I couldn't be bothered, but then I escaped from the South as soon as I could and loathe big towns. I never understood why anyone insists they can only live and work in London. Unadventurous, I call it. And they don't seem to be happy, them that hop round London (& elsewhere) avoiding CRT, judging by the amount of complaining about harassment that goes on and the whinging about the recording system "not being fit for the purpose". 

[Murflynn]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Far from it, which is why I don't do it.

 

It is however a pattern that would "satisfy the board" at the present time.  The pattern described is comfortably within the letter of the 1995 act, and means a boat will only be seen in one location for at most a fortnight every three months.

 

This is acceptable in the eyes of the law and the navigation authority for a "boat without a home mooring".

 

Why do you have a problem with that?  It's obviously not the movement pattern, so is it a disdain for those that are doing it or is it something else?

well, do you think that those of us who have a genuine love of boating, and of the canals and rivers, should provide for others a 'failsafe' formula of dodging around a short part of the system that neatly avoids the attention of CRT?

 

sorry, I find any discussion or encouragement of continuous cruising that doesn't include a relatively extensive journey in the same direction to be immediately suspect, particularly as it usually means remaining as close to the workplace (or whatever) as possible, without paying for a mooring. 

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Murflynn said:

well, do you think that those of us who have a genuine love of boating, and of the canals and rivers, should provide for others a 'failsafe' formula of dodging around a short part of the system that neatly avoids the attention of CRT?

 

sorry, I find any discussion or encouragement of continuous cruising that doesn't include a relatively extensive journey in the same direction to be immediately suspect, particularly as it usually means remaining as close to the workplace (or whatever) as possible, without paying for a mooring. 

It doesn't avoid the attention of CRT - you will get logged everywhere you stop if you do what I suggest.  It just happens to "satisfy the board" which is the legal requirement. 

 

There is no legal definition of "continuous cruising", so anyone who trots that out is imagining a set of rules that do not exist.  BW tried to set such rules, and were challenged in court on them and had to withdraw them.  If paying for a mooring is your definition of acceptable, please remember that CRT only get 9% of the take in a NAA marina, so you are getting upset about just over a hundred quid a year.

 

I'm pleased you find my encouragement of people to move their boats suspect - I was being slated on another thread this week for cruising too far and wearing out the network by using it, so it's nice to have someone on my side for a change.

 

Please bear in mind that the alternative to my minimalist suggestions for movement tend to be bridgehopping or simply staying permanently in the same place.  I have found that if you can encourage people living on boats to move even that far, many of them decide they actually like it and then explore further as time and funds allow, or get sick of moving and either take a mooring or sell the boat.  All of which are good outcomes as far as I am concerned.

 

@Arthur Marshall makes a very good point - the location you choose makes quite a difference to the viability of such a plan.  In some areas you might need to do 50 or 60 miles range a year to get back towards transport links.  If those of us who consider ourselves reasonable can agree on a new definition that works for everybody it could be campaigned for in the future, rather than the usual demonising of "those sort of people" from all sides.

 

Would you like to suggest what you consider a reasonable minimum range to satisfy your concept of the spirit of the rules?  Do you think there is such a thing as too much cruising, and if so what should the maximum range be?

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

you are getting upset about just over a hundred quid a year.

Out of interest £100 multiplied by how many boats do you suppose?   Over the whole system that is.

[TheBiscuits]

Just now, Jerra said:

Out of interest £100 multiplied by how many boats do you suppose?   Over the whole system that is.

5,000 out of 35,000 total boats was the last figure I saw for boats without a home mooring.  I can't find a number from the 2019 boat count, but would be pleased if someone could point me to the current figures.

 

It's 1% of the DEFRA grant ...

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

5,000 out of 35,000 total boats was the last figure I saw for boats without a home mooring.  I can't find a number from the 2019 boat count, but would be pleased if someone could point me to the current figures.

 

It's 1% of the DEFRA grant ...

The DEFRA grant won't run for ever and £500,000 surely isn't to be sneezed at even with the DEFRA grant, there are always things that need doing on the system.

 

A bit of devil's advocate but it helps to are a bit anti.

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

If paying for a mooring is your definition of acceptable, please remember that CRT only get 9% of the take in a NAA marina, so you are getting upset about just over a hundred quid a year.

So if you are paying £3000 per annum in a marina you suggest that 9% of that is £100 ?

 

It wasn't when I went to school.

 

 

£270 per boat in a 100 boat Marina gives C&RT a 'contribution' of £27,000 pa (in addition to their licence fees)