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

[Señor Chris]

57 minutes ago, Mike on the Wey said:

Broadly speaking, there are three types.

 

1. Those who cruise extensively for pleasure - typically but not exclusively the comfortably well-off retired.

 

2. Liveaboards who do the minimum required to be close to a school or place of work.

 

3. Towpath dumpers who are essentially leisure and holiday boaters. They don't use marinas, instead moving their boat at least every 14 days to a new bit of towpath.

Only 2 is evading the law and/or CRT enforcement. 1 and 3 are perfectly legitimate. The implication that the only reason people don't have a home mooring is to avoid costs is complete nonsense.

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Señor Chris
..

[MtB]

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is a lot of sense in what you say, but as the law stands it would be difficult for C&RT to apply.

Although the law does not say for what 'period' the licence is issued - maybe 'boats without a home mooring'  and 'fat-boats' only get monthly licences ?

 

 

 

I totally agree with Mike too, but I think you overstate the difficulty facing CRT. The law as I understand it allows a boat to be left moored for up to two weeks whilst out cruising, or words to that effect. The unnecessarily slack CRT interpretation of the law goes way beyond this. 

 

Keeping a boat in one place for two weeks, cruising for one day (or small part thereof) then stopping for another two weeks, moving for another day then stopping for another two weeks ad infinitum does not really constitute being out cruising, it constitutes being being mostly moored up with only one day a fortnight interrupting being moored on the public towpath. It certainly doesn't fit the original intention of the MPs drafting of the law. Their intention as I understand it was concession allowing boats genuinely out cruising the system to not take a home mooring as ther had no use for it, and for such boats to be left occasionally for up to two weeks as an adjunct to being genuinely continuously cruised the rest of the time.

 

I think there is a strong argument that a long term ratio of 14 days moored to 1 day moving does not constitute 'cruising'. To meet the original intention of the law, a boat needs to be cruising along the cut for many more days than it remains stationary and moored, measured over the licence period. 

[Mike Adams]

15 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

3. Towpath dumpers who are essentially leisure and holiday boaters. They don't use marinas, instead moving their boat at least every 14 days to a new bit of towpath.

I found this recently on the T and M.  14 day moorings with rings all full except for one small space we could just squeeze into but only one of the ten boats had anyone on board and many were visibly locked from the outside. Whilst this may technically within the current rules I don't consider this acceptable. I have always interpreted the 14 day rule as a concession if you have to go home unexpectedly, have a breakdown or have to weekend a boat home.

 Each annual licence holder should be given say 6  '14 day permits ' allowing you to stay a while on a journey otherwise make it 48 hours anywhere. Could be easily enforced using a scratch off and display system. The permits could be handed out with the licence. Nobody likes all this bureaucracy but if nothing is done the system will be ruined for everybody

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I totally agree with Mike too, but I think you overstate the difficulty facing CRT. The law as I understand it allows a boat to be left moored for up to two weeks whilst out cruising, or words to that effect. The unnecessarily slack CRT interpretation of the law goes way beyond this. 

 

Keeping a boat in one place for two weeks, cruising for one day (or small part thereof) then stopping for another two weeks, moving for another day then stopping for another two weeks ad infinitum does not really constitute being out cruising, it constitutes being being mostly moored up with only one day a fortnight interrupting being moored on the public towpath. It certainly doesn't fit the original intention of the MPs drafting of the law. Their intention as I understand it was concession allowing boats genuinely out cruising the system to not take a home mooring as ther had no use for it, and for such boats to be left occasionally for up to two weeks as an adjunct to being genuinely continuously cruised the rest of the time.

 

I think there is a strong argument that a long term ratio of 14 days moored to 1 day moving does not constitute 'cruising'. To meet the original intention of the law, a boat needs to be cruising along the cut for many more days than it remains stationary and moored, measured over the licence period. 

Agreed - but -  the problem is the definition of 'bona fide navigation'. As we all know the actual act simply states :

 

(c)either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Every time BW / C&RT have tried to put an interpretation on it they are 'shouted down' or threatened with legal action.

 

Legal opinion does not really help either :

 

The judgement in the case of CaRT v Mayers states that repeated journeys between the same two places would be 'bona fide navigation' if the boater had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal. HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'.

 

7.22.3
I consider the requirement imposed by CRT that a substantial part of the network is used cannot be justified by relying solely on section 17(3). That section requires “bona fide navigation throughout the period of the licence” not “bona fide navigation throughout the canal network”. The requirement is temporal not geographical. In my view it does NOT follow from:

“Such journey or cruise must take place “throughout the period of the licence”

that it

“therefore requires progression round the network or at least a significant part of it”

7.22.4
If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence “bona fide navigation”. In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat but was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load.

7.22.5
To take an extreme example, in its heyday, the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used  for navigation throughout the period of their operations.

[Señor Chris]

22 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

I have always interpreted the 14 day rule as a concession if you have to go home unexpectedly, have a breakdown or have to weekend a boat home.

There is nothing in law to support that interpretation. I see it as an acknowledgement that 'continuously' cruising around the system cannot be taken literally.

 

57 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

To meet the original intention of the law, a boat needs to be cruising along the cut for many more days than it remains stationary and moored, measured over the licence period. 

No it doesn't. It only needs to be moved around the system in a way that would make a home mooring redundant.

 

[reg]

3 hours ago, Mike on the Wey said:

Broadly speaking, there are three types.

 

1. Those who cruise extensively for pleasure - typically but not exclusively the comfortably well-off retired.

 

2. Liveaboards who do the minimum required to be close to a school or place of work.

 

3. Towpath dumpers who are essentially leisure and holiday boaters. They don't use marinas, instead moving their boat at least every 14 days to a new bit of towpath.

Plus Those that comply but are not, as you say, comfortably off and cruise the maximum they can within a restricted and tight budget. 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, reg said:

Plus Those that comply but are not, as you say, comfortably off and cruise the maximum they can within a restricted and tight budget. 

Just throwing this in for discussion :

 

Are you suggesting that if you cannot afford to comply with the law as long as you do 'what they can' its OK ?

[zenataomm]

On ‎20‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 21:15, RLWP said:

If you are in London, pop down to your local canal at the weekend and have a chat with people living on boats there.

 

Richard

Not only is this the most sensible advice, as you can't beat "from the horses" mouth when it comes to learning about life experiences …..

You might also end up meeting a load of people eager to sell you their alternative lifestyle (wooden shed on the back of a fibreglass cruiser from the 60s) and perhaps at never to be repeated prices.

Take a big stick with you to beat them off with.

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

I found this recently on the T and M.  14 day moorings with rings all full except for one small space we could just squeeze into but only one of the ten boats had anyone on board and many were visibly locked from the outside. Whilst this may technically within the current rules I don't consider this acceptable.

How do you know they hadn't just gone out for the day?

3 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

 

 Each annual licence holder should be given say 6  '14 day permits ' allowing you to stay a while on a journey otherwise make it 48 hours anywhere. Could be easily enforced using a scratch off and display system.

Perhaps there should also be a system to eliminate scruffy boaters or those who have stuff on the roof. Another card with Scratch and Sniff system  if it smells like numbers 5 to 7 you have to move to the Middle Levels immediately.

[reg]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just throwing this in for discussion :

 

Are you suggesting that if you cannot afford to comply with the law as long as you do 'what they can' its OK ?

No

Eta to add some meat

I'm saying that they are complying with CRT rules and CRT have no issues with them.  I do find though that other, but not all, boaters seem to like to judge them though. My view is that if CRT are happy and they are not causing anyone any problems then good luck to them it's not my place to judge how they choose to comply. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by reg

[jetzi]

9 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

When I took our last trip through London on two successive Saturdays mornings (One on way out and the other on the return) I witnessed convoys of three or more boats moving at high speed. They gave me the very strong impression they were making a weekly or fortnightly change of place

I'm not sure how you can possibly get the impression of how often or how far they were going from seeing them once. This is a clear example of the bias against anyone boating in London, whether CCing or not. For all @Tony Brooks knows, these boaters in these "convoys" may have never met each other, and may be heading back to their home mooring.

 

Besides, so what? As long as they weren't overstaying their 14 day mooring (again, whether this is the case you have absolutely no idea) and as long as they were ranging far enough over the course of the year, why do you have a problem with their changing places?
 

9 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

They should get rid of this much misused term continuous cruisers. I accept that some people have the time/money to 'cruise' that is to boat around the system most of the time for pleasure which is fine. It seems to me that the vast majority of CC licence holders are not in this camp. Rather they are avoiding the costs of owning a boat by abusing CaRT’s liberal attitude to towpath mooring causing a nuisance to everyone else on the system. ... Having paid mooring fees for some 30 years I am beginning to reset the attitude that it now seems acceptable to work the system to avoid paying under the guise of doing something they are not.

Can you please explain what nuisance continuous cruisers are causing you? You have paid mooring fees (of your own free will, I presume) and had the benefit of a shore hookup, etc. You also had the option to CC available to you, but I imagine you wanted the comfort of a marina or to not have to cruise throughout every month of the year or wanted to be close to a place of residence, work or home, apart from cruising holidays. Why you are resenting people for making the choice you did not?

 

Personally I have absolutely no interest in a home mooring. I bought a boat precisely because I don't want to live in the same place all the time. As much as I love the waterways, a large part of the joy of continous cruising is being able to stop in a new area and explore it for a week or two. I'd not want to cruise every day even if I had all the time and money in the world (which I certainly don't). I'd also not want a home mooring regardless of how cheap it was, because I have no use for one. However, if CaRT were to take away CC licenses, I'd rent the cheapest mooring in the country and never, ever go there. I'd still cruise weekly(ish) for a couple of hours at a time, staying in visitors moorings for less than the 7 or 14 day maximum that is specified.

 

Would this still cause you the nuisance? Which is the more disingenuous option for my cruising pattern - a CC license or a mooring I never visit?

 

Or am I not welcome on the cut at all with my cruising pattern, no matter what or how I pay for it?

 

9 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

No doubt that in years to come as many of these old boats become abandoned 'normal' boaters will end up picking up the cost of the removal of all these old boats.

Is there a problem with abandoned old boats? I have seen one or two sunken (and some floating) wrecks but it isn't my impression that removal of these boats is a significant cost to CaRT. The CC license has been around for many, many years, and if boats ended up abandoned we'd surely see a lot of this around already. Do CaRT publicise what they end up spending our license/mooring fees on?

My impression is that the primary problem with Continuous Moorers is that they occupy visitor mooring spots that then cannot be used by those genuinely visiting an area. What other issues are there? I am not aware of other issues like abandoned boats.

 

9 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

CaRT should alter their licencing system to one where you have to show you have a proper mooring before you get an annual licence or demonstrate that you have been genuinely cruising for at least a year or only be offered a one month licence.

I'm confused by this - showing that you have a "proper mooring" (presumably, a rented permanent mooring) is already a license option, so you are actually just suggesting doing away with the CC license entirely, or am I misunderstanding you? Or, are you suggesting a month-to-month license until you have built up a years' worth of acceptable continuous cruising before you're allowed an annual CC license? If so, I'm not sure how much this will help unless the requirements are also changed, as most CCers have no problem getting their annual licenses renewed.

 

8 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Keeping a boat in one place for two weeks, cruising for one day (or small part thereof) then stopping for another two weeks, moving for another day then stopping for another two weeks ad infinitum does not really constitute being out cruising, it constitutes being being mostly moored up with only one day a fortnight interrupting being moored on the public towpath. It certainly doesn't fit the original intention of the MPs drafting of the law. Their intention as I understand it was concession allowing boats genuinely out cruising the system to not take a home mooring as ther had no use for it, and for such boats to be left occasionally for up to two weeks as an adjunct to being genuinely continuously cruised the rest of the time.

 

I think there is a strong argument that a long term ratio of 14 days moored to 1 day moving does not constitute 'cruising'. To meet the original intention of the law, a boat needs to be cruising along the cut for many more days than it remains stationary and moored, measured over the licence period. 

 

I'm also confused by this. Let's say I am exploring the country, going from Bristol to York (around 400 miles). I do 15 miles every two weeks over the course of 12 months, but for 13 days of the fortnight I'm moored up and seeing the local sights. This doesn't constitute "cruising" in your view? Someone on a voyage like this would have clearly no use for a home mooring. Would renting a home mooring in Bristol, say, make this journey more acceptable to you?

 

Or is this cruising pattern unacceptable no matter how much the person pays nor what they pay it for?

 

People who rent a mooring still go cruising and still have to abide by the 14/7/2 day (or whatever) mooring limitations. People who are continuously cruising are exactly the same, except they do this year round and don't ever return to a "home mooring". Those that pay for a home mooring resent those who don't, based on the fact that a small proportion of continuous cruisers don't abide by the requirements OR because they feel that the requirements are not strict enough. It seems to me to really come down to the haves looking down on the have nots.

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

People who rent a mooring still go cruising and still have to abide by the 14/7/2 day (or whatever) mooring limitations

Yes they do, but the difference is that a CCer must move to a different location (the next county / parish or whatever this years definition is. and cannot return (ie 'shuffle')

A boat with a home mooring can move 50 yards after his 2/7/14 days and spend the next 2/7/14 days there and then 'shuffle' back to the original location

 

Read up on the C&RT vs Mayers case.

 

One short extract  of the Judge's comments :

 

A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places

Edited June 22, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[roland elsdon]

Recently got accused of boat dumping by a residential boat owner. Completely illogical. Boated 2 days, left boat on 14 day mooring , as plans changed for 5 days. Cycled home. Went boating 4 days returned to same place pointing other way. Jumped on bike to ride home as i had appointments. At this point he popped out of his cruiser, and had a moan about me cycling on the towpath. Then he saw the boat and said’ i suppose you are dumping it, you are supposed to be on it if its on a 14 day mooring....

I mentioned my mooring was 3 days away and the other side of where I was heading on my trip  but the concept  of what I was doing seemed beyond him.

[jetzi]

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes they do, but the difference is that a CCer must move to a different location (the next county / parish or whatever this years definition is. and cannot return (ie 'shuffle')

A boat with a home mooring can move 50 yards after his 2/7/14 days and spend the next 2/7/14 days there and then 'shuffle' back to the original location

 

Read up on the C&RT vs Mayers case.

 

One short extract  of the Judge's comments :

 

A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places

That makes my case even stronger, then.

 

From the sounds of it then, someone could rent a mooring at the end of a farmers' field, then go park in London shuffling between two spots nearby their work and there'd be not a damn thing CaRT could do about it. There you go OP, @Alan de Enfield has found the answer for you.

 

Quite why anyone would want to live this way, other than the obvious reason of avoiding London rent, is beyond me.

28 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

Recently got accused of boat dumping by a residential boat owner. Completely illogical. Boated 2 days, left boat on 14 day mooring , as plans changed for 5 days. Cycled home. Went boating 4 days returned to same place pointing other way. Jumped on bike to ride home as i had appointments. At this point he popped out of his cruiser, and had a moan about me cycling on the towpath. Then he saw the boat and said’ i suppose you are dumping it, you are supposed to be on it if its on a 14 day mooring....

I mentioned my mooring was 3 days away and the other side of where I was heading on my trip  but the concept  of what I was doing seemed beyond him.

I haven't heard the term "towpath dumping" or "boat dumping" before, could someone explain it to me?

 

It doesn't sound like what you did there was against the guidelines?

Edited June 22, 2019 by ivan&alice

[Señor Chris]

30 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

I haven't heard the term "towpath dumping" or "boat dumping" before, could someone explain it to me?

It's when you leave your boat on the towpath but do not spend the night aboard. Just like parking a car on a public road for a few days.

 

56 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

he saw the boat and said’ i suppose you are dumping it, you are supposed to be on it if its on a 14 day mooring

Where do people get this rubbish from?

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Señor Chris
..

[jetzi]

1 minute ago, Señor Chris said:

It's when you leave your boat on the towpath but do not spend the night aboard. Just like parking a car on a public road.

So as CCers if we ever go away for the evening we're towpath dumping? Surely this is not against any rules?

[Señor Chris]

2 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

So as CCers if we ever go away for the evening we're towpath dumping? Surely this is not against any rules?

Only the rules some people make up as they go along.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

So as CCers if we ever go away for the evening we're towpath dumping? Surely this is not against any rules?

That's reducing the argument to the absurd.  Obviously if you park for a bit and go off it's fine and no-one has any cause to complain.  But on my last cruise (six weeks) there were certainly boats moored up on my outward trip which were still there on my return, all padlocked securely, no sign of any recent life and with weed growing round them.

Most of the time it really doesn't matter very much, though if I was the CRT towpath walker I might be a bit suspicious, but where it is irritating is when they've got the only bit of piling for ten miles, or the most scenic spot (for those of us who care about such things).

I've never understood how anyone can do this  - park 13 days, nip out at the weekend and move it round the system a bit, leave it another fortnight - without being a bit anxious.  You invest all this money and just leave it for the vandals?  It never surprises me when I see them either sunk or with broken windows or busted doors. I can understand why the few people who genuinely do this as part of a long cruise do it, but I think more often than not it's people who have bitten off more than they can chew, like those who buy a sailaway and expect to fit it out at weekends over a couple of months, and whose boats you see every time you go past a mooring, looking sadder and sadder.

[jetzi]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's reducing the argument to the absurd.  Obviously if you park for a bit and go off it's fine and no-one has any cause to complain.  But on my last cruise (six weeks) there were certainly boats moored up on my outward trip which were still there on my return, all padlocked securely, no sign of any recent life and with weed growing round them.

Most of the time it really doesn't matter very much, though if I was the CRT towpath walker I might be a bit suspicious, but where it is irritating is when they've got the only bit of piling for ten miles, or the most scenic spot (for those of us who care about such things).

I've never understood how anyone can do this  - park 13 days, nip out at the weekend and move it round the system a bit, leave it another fortnight - without being a bit anxious.  You invest all this money and just leave it for the vandals?  It never surprises me when I see them either sunk or with broken windows or busted doors. I can understand why the few people who genuinely do this as part of a long cruise do it, but I think more often than not it's people who have bitten off more than they can chew, like those who buy a sailaway and expect to fit it out at weekends over a couple of months, and whose boats you see every time you go past a mooring, looking sadder and sadder.

Ah ok, I think I understand. Basically towpath dumpers are boaters who neither live on their boat nor want to pay for storage, so they buy a CC license and move it every fortnight until they want to go on a cruise.

 

I can understand why this is annoying. What might be a nice idea is for CaRT to set aside cheap "storage moorings" where you aren't allowed to stay on your boat, but you can park it and it is somewhat secure. Sort of like what they do for winter moorings, but perhaps in even less hospitable locations - I'm thinking industrial areas and the like - but perhaps on the off-side with gates? That could reduce the incidence of towpath dumping.

 

But even so, is the incidence of this really that high? I also can't understand why someone would abandon their boat for multiple days and only check on it fortnightly. But then again, I can't understand why anyone would live in a house when they own a boat they could live on.

[Dave123]

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

I'm not sure how you can possibly get the impression of how often or how far they were going from seeing them once. This is a clear example of the bias against anyone boating in London, whether CCing or not. For all @Tony Brooks knows, these boaters in these "convoys" may have never met each other, and may be heading back to their home mooring.

 

Besides, so what? As long as they weren't overstaying their 14 day mooring (again, whether this is the case you have absolutely no idea) and as long as they were ranging far enough over the course of the year, why do you have a problem with their changing places?
 

Can you please explain what nuisance continuous cruisers are causing you? You have paid mooring fees (of your own free will, I presume) and had the benefit of a shore hookup, etc. You also had the option to CC available to you, but I imagine you wanted the comfort of a marina or to not have to cruise throughout every month of the year or wanted to be close to a place of residence, work or home, apart from cruising holidays. Why you are resenting people for making the choice you did not?

 

Personally I have absolutely no interest in a home mooring. I bought a boat precisely because I don't want to live in the same place all the time. As much as I love the waterways, a large part of the joy of continous cruising is being able to stop in a new area and explore it for a week or two. I'd not want to cruise every day even if I had all the time and money in the world (which I certainly don't). I'd also not want a home mooring regardless of how cheap it was, because I have no use for one. However, if CaRT were to take away CC licenses, I'd rent the cheapest mooring in the country and never, ever go there. I'd still cruise weekly(ish) for a couple of hours at a time, staying in visitors moorings for less than the 7 or 14 day maximum that is specified.

 

Would this still cause you the nuisance? Which is the more disingenuous option for my cruising pattern - a CC license or a mooring I never visit?

 

Or am I not welcome on the cut at all with my cruising pattern, no matter what or how I pay for it?

 

Is there a problem with abandoned old boats? I have seen one or two sunken (and some floating) wrecks but it isn't my impression that removal of these boats is a significant cost to CaRT. The CC license has been around for many, many years, and if boats ended up abandoned we'd surely see a lot of this around already. Do CaRT publicise what they end up spending our license/mooring fees on?

My impression is that the primary problem with Continuous Moorers is that they occupy visitor mooring spots that then cannot be used by those genuinely visiting an area. What other issues are there? I am not aware of other issues like abandoned boats.

 

I'm confused by this - showing that you have a "proper mooring" (presumably, a rented permanent mooring) is already a license option, so you are actually just suggesting doing away with the CC license entirely, or am I misunderstanding you? Or, are you suggesting a month-to-month license until you have built up a years' worth of acceptable continuous cruising before you're allowed an annual CC license? If so, I'm not sure how much this will help unless the requirements are also changed, as most CCers have no problem getting their annual licenses renewed.

 

 

I'm also confused by this. Let's say I am exploring the country, going from Bristol to York (around 400 miles). I do 15 miles every two weeks over the course of 12 months, but for 13 days of the fortnight I'm moored up and seeing the local sights. This doesn't constitute "cruising" in your view? Someone on a voyage like this would have clearly no use for a home mooring. Would renting a home mooring in Bristol, say, make this journey more acceptable to you?

 

Or is this cruising pattern unacceptable no matter how much the person pays nor what they pay it for?

 

People who rent a mooring still go cruising and still have to abide by the 14/7/2 day (or whatever) mooring limitations. People who are continuously cruising are exactly the same, except they do this year round and don't ever return to a "home mooring". Those that pay for a home mooring resent those who don't, based on the fact that a small proportion of continuous cruisers don't abide by the requirements OR because they feel that the requirements are not strict enough. It seems to me to really come down to the haves looking down on the have nots.

Couldnt agree more with this. Best response here so far...from the predictable mix of anti-london/anti-liveaboard/continuous cruising posts.

 

Where does the concept that those boaters doing the most lock/miles a day are 'better' come from?? Shouldnt they pay more for causing more wear and tear?? Mooring in a village for 2 weeks I contribute far more to the local economy using shops etc and it's simply a better way to see the country and canals system.

It's an odd paradox that we are running out of water and the canals falling apart from poor maintenance and age yet those boaters using as little of this water and causing as little wear and tear are amongst the most criticised?

 

With regard to the complaints about continuous moorers....Every boat is moored somewhere each night. So what if some were there 1 night or 14? Each boat is still occupying a spot on the canal each night, preventing a 'proper' boater from mooring there is just as likely if the cc'ing boat moves each night or not surely? And most '14 day' moorings arent the desirable ones holiday boats want anyway. These tend to be 48h spots by pubs etc.

 

I also dispute the idea the canals are over crowded anyway. London waterways would be dead and empty without young liveaboards. Holiday boaters will never use London waterways in large numbers as most want the countryside anyway. Spent 2 years cc'ing London/home counties and never had a problem finding a spot to moor. It's the friendliest part of the system (bar the really quiet spots like the Basingstoke and East Anglian waterways).

[reg]

2 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

Recently got accused of boat dumping by a residential boat owner. Completely illogical. Boated 2 days, left boat on 14 day mooring , as plans changed for 5 days. Cycled home. Went boating 4 days returned to same place pointing other way. Jumped on bike to ride home as i had appointments. At this point he popped out of his cruiser, and had a moan about me cycling on the towpath. Then he saw the boat and said’ i suppose you are dumping it, you are supposed to be on it if its on a 14 day mooring....

I mentioned my mooring was 3 days away and the other side of where I was heading on my trip  but the concept  of what I was doing seemed beyond him.

Perfect example of the type of thing I was referring to earlier. 

The one thing that does get me annoyed is complete strangers popping out of cruisers with the express intention of gripeing about everything and anything and laying down their, often completely distorted, interpretation of the 'rules'. 

[jetzi]

9 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

Where does the concept that those boaters doing the most lock/miles a day are 'better' come from?? Shouldnt they pay more for causing more wear and tear?? Mooring in a village for 2 weeks I contribute far more to the local economy using shops etc and it's simply a better way to see the country and canals system.

It's an odd paradox that we are running out of water and the canals falling apart from poor maintenance and age yet those boaters using as little of this water and causing as little wear and tear are amongst the most criticised?

I was going to make a similar argument about glorifying maximum lock/miles, using the most water and causing the most wear on the locks. It is indeed an odd paradox.

 

I think the minimum requirements (moving fortnightly) are useful to ensure that the best spots get rotated. So as long as people meet these requirements and make an effort to be considerate to each other, so what? Why can't everyone accept that boaters have different cruising preferences?

[MtB]

59 minutes 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?

 

 

[TheBiscuits]

36 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Why can't everyone accept that boaters have different cruising preferences?

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!

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

Ah ok, I think I understand. Basically towpath dumpers are boaters who neither live on their boat nor want to pay for storage, so they buy a CC license and move it every fortnight until they want to go on a cruise.

 

I can understand why this is annoying. <snip>

 

But even so, is the incidence of this really that high? I also can't understand why someone would abandon their boat for multiple days and only check on it fortnightly. But then again, I can't understand why anyone would live in a house when they own a boat they could live on.

Not all of them - some are doing a cruise, they just can't get away much.  But I suspect they're in a minority.

It's only annoying, as I said, if they pick the best or only spots to leave the boat.  Otherwise, no, it isn't that prevalent and, like most of the stuff that people get hot under the collar about, it really isn't very important.  I don't understand how anyone could abandon the tub and only check it fortnightly either.  I'd at last leave a number in the window where I could be contacted if someone spotted a problem - unless of course one wouldn't want to be contacted by someone, such as CRT.

And the only reason I now live in a house rather than the boat still is because I play (and have earned money for most of my life from) thirteen different instruments and own twenty thousand books, and I can't fit them all on a forty foot tub. And my wife won;t live on it because she can't work out how to play the double bass on it either.