Continuous Cruising In London With Full Time Job. Can it be done?

[Dave123]

51 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It comes from inside your head. 

 

Or can you cite a post by someone else saying this?

 

 

Nobody specifically posted it here, I just have the impression it is a view held by many...I used to think the same way when we were holiday boaters.

[RLWP]

I notice the OP hasn't posted since Thursday

 

Richard

[jetzi]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

2 hours ago, Dave123 said:

Where does the concept that those boaters doing the most lock/miles a day are 'better' come from??

It comes from inside your head. 

 

Or can you cite a post by someone else saying this?

 

17 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Nobody specifically posted it here, I just have the impression it is a view held by many...I used to think the same way when we were holiday boaters.

It has been quite well implied by a number of people in this thread, including yourself:

 

12 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

a boat needs to be cruising along the cut for many more days than it remains stationary and moored, measured over the licence period [1 year]

Unpacking that, what ratio is "many more days" cruising than stationary? Two thirds of the days of the year - say 240 days?

 

People have also spoken with contempt about people who only cruise a mile at a time:

 

14 hours ago, Mike on the Wey said:

You were lucky to spot such convoys on the move ... since that fortnight's journey could have been just one mile. 

So what's the minimum distance that one "ought" cruise in a day to be "cruising"? Two miles? Three?

 

Going on those two figures we're already talking about 500 miles a year in this thread for a continuous cruiser.

 

In another recent thread the OP brought up CCing a minimum distance and someone here (sorry, I forget who) mentioned having done 400 miles and 400 locks this year so far. Why bring this up if it is not seen as "virtuous" to be cruising a lot? Personally I have often been asked to justify cruising only weekends on this forum (regardless of the distances I do).

 

Why would these kinds of things be common if CCers didn't feel (or weren't made to feel) defensive about the amount of cruising they are doing? I feel often that those with a CC license are being pressured to justify their license by pointing out how much cruising they are doing, Sometimes it is if they don't deserve to not have a home mooring unless they are cruising to a frankly excessive degree. The paradox is that the more cruising they are doing, the more wear on the system, so why are we glorifying this? Surely bona fide navigators doing say, 100 locks and 100 miles in a year in one direction are living up to the terms of their license, genuinely have no need of a home mooring and are taking less of a toll than those doing 10 times that?

 

I don't think @Dave123 is imagining the impression that it's seen as "better" for CCers to do many many locks & miles.

[Chewbacka]

8 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

 

It has been quite well implied by a number of people in this thread, including yourself:

 

Unpacking that, what ratio is "many more days" cruising than stationary? Two thirds of the days of the year - say 240 days?

 

People have also spoken with contempt about people who only cruise a mile at a time:

 

So what's the minimum distance that one "ought" cruise in a day to be "cruising"? Two miles? Three?

 

Going on those two figures we're already talking about 500 miles a year in this thread for a continuous cruiser.

 

In another recent thread the OP brought up CCing a minimum distance and someone here (sorry, I forget who) mentioned having done 400 miles and 400 locks this year so far. Why bring this up if it is not seen as "virtuous" to be cruising a lot? Personally I have often been asked to justify cruising only weekends on this forum (regardless of the distances I do).

 

Why would these kinds of things be common if CCers didn't feel (or weren't made to feel) defensive about the amount of cruising they are doing? I feel often that those with a CC license are being pressured to justify their license by pointing out how much cruising they are doing, Sometimes it is if they don't deserve to not have a home mooring unless they are cruising to a frankly excessive degree. The paradox is that the more cruising they are doing, the more wear on the system, so why are we glorifying this? Surely bona fide navigators doing say, 100 locks and 100 miles in a year in one direction are living up to the terms of their license, genuinely have no need of a home mooring and are taking less of a toll than those doing 10 times that?

 

I don't think @Dave123 is imagining the impression that it's seen as "better" for CCers to do many many locks & miles.

I think you realise that the motivation that some people have to increase the total distance travelled and range covered is to make being a cc less and less possible and thereby greatly reduce the numbers.  How many London or Bath cc boaters would be able to work in their city of choice if the yearly distance was 500 miles and the range was 150 miles?  By reducing the numbers of cc boats the overall wear and tear and cost of rubbish disposal etc will go down and not up.  How many cc boaters that are fortunate enough to currently be able to roam the system would not be able to meet the (example) 500/150 requirement?  I suspect most could do so without too much trouble. 

Let's be honest, the desire to increase the distance & range is really social cleansing to remove those that wish to work and live in a restricted area without having a home mooring.

 

 

 

[jetzi]

20 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

I think you realise that the motivation that some people have to increase the total distance travelled and range covered is to make being a cc less and less possible and thereby greatly reduce the numbers.  How many London or Bath cc boaters would be able to work in their city of choice if the yearly distance was 500 miles and the range was 150 miles?  By reducing the numbers of cc boats the overall wear and tear and cost of rubbish disposal etc will go down and not up.  How many cc boaters that are fortunate enough to currently be able to roam the system would not be able to meet the (example) 500/150 requirement?  I suspect most could do so without too much trouble. 

Let's be honest, the desire to increase the distance & range is really social cleansing to remove those that wish to work and live in a restricted area without having a home mooring.

I think you are right. Fortunately people's opinions of how much ought CCers roam is kind of irrelevant in the face of the requirements laid down by CaRT. There is clearly a value placed on high mileage.

 

But what's the reason for the social cleansing? Is it just that high-mileage CCers are struggling to find a place to park on the off chance they visit London? Or do they dislike having scruffy boats on the canals in general (even if they themselves are not anywhere near London)? Or is it just a "This is my community" thing and they don't want people who have different aims on the waterways?

[Mike Adams]

 I think the debate to my suggestion that 'continuous cruisers' is a misnomer and has been well illustrated by the various responses. I have no objective to anyone boating on the waterways, being on any type of craft, new or old, fat or thin, tatty or shiny or to anyone living on the waterways if they like to do that. Cruising has always meant navigating for pleasure as long as I can remember which is now in excess of 50 years. Didn't it used to be called a pleasure boat licence? Normally I would navigate 6 days out of 7 and with an object of a particular route or destination and I would consider myself as 'cruising'. I am absolutely happy with genuine continuous cruisers however far they travel in a particular period. I do object to the term being used by the OP (probably unaware of the issues that it brings) as a method of avoiding having a mooring and people playing cat and mouse with CaRT rules and the resulting work they have to do in monitoring the system. On a recent trip I met at least 6 boat recorders around the system all of which cost money that could be better spent on maintaining the system.

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

 

Let's be honest, the desire to increase the distance & range is really social cleansing to remove those that wish to work and live in a restricted area without having a home mooring.

 

If the term "continuous cruising" actually means someone going on a continuous cruise, then wanting to get rid of boaters who want to stay in a restricted area without having a home mooring has nothing to do with "social cleansing", it's getting rid of continuous cruisers who don't want to be on a continuous cruise.  That comes down to how you define each term, which is how lawyers get rich and CRT, and therefore us who at least partly fund it, all get a bit poorer.

[Dave123]

Fortunately the term is boat without a home mooring rather than continuous cruiser. All boats spend more time moored than cruising if you think about it...

[Dave123]

Anyway...in response to the OPs original question? Go for it. The London waterways are a fantastic vibrant place with one of the best senses of community. Join the facebook groups for more up to date advice, especially the new london boaters one. The advice there is for the most part honest and sensible. Most London boaters are respectful of the rules and want to make the canals work for everyone. It is perfectly possible to commute from quite far out of London too as it has great train links from as far as Cookham, Leighton Buzzard, Bishops Stortford etc. Whether you can make it work depends on the hours you work and how much spare time you are able to give to boating. I was lucky in already being very familiar with the boat and having a flexible job but I know others make it work under different circumstances. Definitely helps to love canals and boating rather than to be doing it as the only option for housing in the city where you work...

[Señor Chris]

1 hour ago, Dave123 said:

Fortunately the term is boat without a home mooring rather than continuous cruiser

The problem is though that by adopting a misleading term, possibly deliberately, CRT give the impression to the general boating public that boats must cruise continually when in fact there is no legal requirement to do so. This results is understandable frustration from some who are not aware of the distinction. Claims that boats must spend more time cruising than stationary might make sense literally speaking but in the context of actual legality, are complete nonsense.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Señor Chris said:

The problem is though that by adopting a misleading term, possibly deliberately, CRT give the impression to the general boating public that boats must cruise continually when in fact there is no legal requirement to do so. This results is understandable frustration from some who are not aware of the distinction. Claims that boats must spend more time cruising than stationary might make sense literally speaking but in the context of actual legality, are complete nonsense.

 

I think it's the difference between "continuous" and "continual".  If you had to be continually cruising you wouldn't be able to stop, and only the Flying Dutchman has managed that, though Tom Holt maintains he calls into port every now and then anyway.

 

Probably the main disadvantage to being a CCer without a home mooring who needs to pivot round a point is just the strain on the nerves of wondering whether you've done enough to satisfy CRT or whether the dread letter is going to drop into your mailbox.  The way the rest of the system's going, anyway, it's all going to be moot in a few years -  you won't be able to get out of London even if you wanted to what with lock collapses, embankments crumbling, bridges falling down, global warming flooding the rivers and a new breach every couple of miles...

[Dave123]

1 hour ago, Señor Chris said:

The problem is though that by adopting a misleading term, possibly deliberately, CRT give the impression to the general boating public that boats must cruise continually when in fact there is no legal requirement to do so. This results is understandable frustration from some who are not aware of the distinction. Claims that boats must spend more time cruising than stationary might make sense literally speaking but in the context of actual legality, are complete nonsense.

 

A boat would have to be moving 12 hours a day 365 days a year to even claim to spend half the time cruising. ?

[mrsmelly]

On 22/06/2019 at 22:23, TheBiscuits said:

Because some of us are the "wrong sort" of people, according to those that spout tripe.

 

I'm stuffed, because I am a CCer who,  having just left Cambrian Wharf after dumping my boat there for 14 days, had the gall to do 21 miles and 34 locks today.

 

Obviously dumping the boat for a couple of weeks and then using doing what CRT consider a minimum annual range in one day means I get it from both sides.  How this stresses the system any more than doing the same trip in shorter stages over the last 15 days is something I don't understand.

 

I did notice that all the good visitor moorings are currently stuffed full of shiny boats, mostly with one specific manufacturer's engine ...  so the hire boats that pay a year's boating fees a fortnight have had to moor on lock landings!

Painted grey? 

[Jerra]

On 23/06/2019 at 08:20, Chewbacka said:

 

Let's be honest, the desire to increase the distance & range is really social cleansing to remove those that wish to work and live in a restricted area without having a home mooring.

Lots of people live and work in a restricted area.   The difference is that the vast majority don't choose to do so in something designed to move about.

[MtB]

On 23/06/2019 at 13:19, Señor Chris said:

The problem is though that by adopting a misleading term, possibly deliberately, CRT give the impression to the general boating public that boats must cruise continually when in fact there is no legal requirement to do so.

 

What term is that then?

 

[Señor Chris]

46 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

What term is that then?

 

Continuous cruising

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Continuous cruising

 

 

I was under the impression that CRT rarely if ever use that term. 

 

 

[Señor Chris]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I was under the impression that CRT rarely if ever use that term. 

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/buy-your-boat-licence/continuous-cruising

 

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/buy-your-boat-licence/continuous-cruising

 

 

Blimey! I agree with you then, that's highly misleading and they should be held to account.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I was under the impression that CRT rarely if ever use that term. 

 

 

They do, but far less frequently than they used to :

 

2018

New ‘continuous cruisers’

In November, we reached the first anniversary of our programme to actively advise new licence holders of the requirements of their licence. We have now begun to send out letters to those new continuous cruisers coming to the end of the first year who have failed to meet the requirements over the past year (despite regular reminders of their obligations as boaters without a home mooring), informing them that we’ll not be renewing their licence.

Since January, 792 new continuous cruisers have received welcome letters, and we have been providing them with regular feedback if we have been concerned about their movement patterns. 63 are now in the enforcement process with a further 83 contacted to say we are concerned. Of these, we’ve contacted 23 with regard to refusing to renew their licences.

So it looks like a goodly percentage of new CCers are 'satisfying' C&RT and those that don't are not getting their licences renewed.

 

 

CONTINUOUS CRUISER MONITORING
Questions & Answers
October 2016

What we mean by bona fide navigation
We’re often asked about how we keep track of what all the boats on our waterways are doing. You
may have seen our friendly team out and about on the towpath noting down boat numbers. This
helps us to plot a boat’s movement over the course of a year and when a continuous cruising
licence comes up for renewal it’s this pattern we’re looking at. Our sightings records are not
intended to be a complete cruising log of a boat but should provide sufficient information to allow
us to undertake a review.

 

Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences have always been intended for bona fide (genuine)
navigation around our waterways, not for staying in a small area. They were originally added
to the British Waterways Act 1995 as a group of very passionate boaters argued that, because
they continuously cruised around such a large extent of our network, it wouldn’t be fair or
necessary to require them to have a home mooring as a condition of their boat licence. As well
as establishing an acceptable range we’re also looking for boats to be generally on the move
within that overall range: for example if a boat stayed in a five mile area for most of their licence
and then went on one 60-mile trip over the course of two weeks, they’d be unlikely to meet our
requirements for bona fide navigation.

 

 

2018 C&RT Enforcement manager

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.

 

[Señor Chris]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

2018 C&RT Enforcement manager

· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area. 

Exactly. Movement should be genuine navigation around the system. No requirement whatsoever for it to be continuous.

 

[TheBiscuits]

On 23/06/2019 at 13:19, Señor Chris said:

The problem is though that by adopting a misleading term, possibly deliberately, CRT give the impression to the general boating public that boats must cruise continually when in fact there is no legal requirement to do so. This results is understandable frustration from some who are not aware of the distinction. Claims that boats must spend more time cruising than stationary might make sense literally speaking but in the context of actual legality, are complete nonsense.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Exactly. Movement should be genuine navigation around the system. No requirement whatsoever for it to be continuous.

 

 

??!!

 

One of us seems to be confused!

 

 

[Señor Chris]

12 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

One of us seems to be confused!

 

It's perfectly clear to me. You have to navigate around the system but the law allows for repeated breaks which, by definition, is therefore not continuous.

 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

It's perfectly clear to me. You have to navigate around the system but the law allows for repeated breaks which, by definition, is therefore not continuous.

 

 

The law IIRC allows for breaks in a cruise of up to 14 days.

 

A number of boaters have flipped this around and interpret this as meaning they can remain stationary provided they have one hour cruises, once every 14 days.

 

Complies with the letter of the law but not the intention behind it, which is why some peeps have a problem with that and call them CMers. 

 

 

[Señor Chris]

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The law IIRC allows for breaks in a cruise of up to 14 days.

 

A number of boaters have flipped this around and interpret this as meaning they can remain stationary provided they have one hour cruises, once every 14 days.

 

Complies with the letter of the law but not the intention behind it, which is why some peeps have a problem with that and call them CMers. 

 

 

Which doesn't justify CRT flipping the law around with their interpretation.