Charges or fines ?

[MtB]

Actually I'm falling into the same trap BW fell into - being overly reasonable. 

 

Seven miles a day would also be reasonable for anyone genuinely using their vessel "bona fide for navigation", don't you think?

 

1 minute ago, Thomas C King said:

Who has a reason to navigate every day

 

Everyone complying with the law as it is written.

 

[Thomas C King]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

Everyone complying with the law as it is written.

 

No, everyone complying with the law as it is written includes the vast majority in this country.

 

What kind of person would actually cruise every single day? The canals will become mostly a geriotocracy, or a holiday destination.

[frangar]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

Actually I'm falling into the same trap BW fell into - being overly reasonable. 

 

Seven miles a day would also be reasonable for anyone genuinely using their vessel "bona fide for navigation", don't you think?

 

 

Everyone complying with the law as it is written.

 

7 miles a day is fine by me….20 miles a year is  just a joke..that’s just a decent days boating nevermind a year…if you are doing that to stay in an area then you need a home mooring….if you can’t afford one in the area then look elsewhere…it’s not up to crt to give you somewhere to live…all you are doing is making life harder for those that do cruise the system and travel….You have to live within your means…I am quite happy with a mooring and then being able to travel around for 3-6 months as work permits but it’s taken effort and planning to get here…along with not spending money on things that others seem to think is some kind of right. Likewise when travelling if work calls I find somewhere like a yard or marina to put the boat in rather than dump it on the nearest prime free mooring. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by frangar

[MtB]

13 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

No, everyone complying with the law as it is written includes the vast majority in this country.

 

What kind of person would actually cruise every single day? The canals will become mostly a geriotocracy, or a holiday destination.

 

 

So what is your definition of using a vessel "bona fide for navigation"? 

 

As I suggested earlier, a reasonable definition needs to be developed and agreed upon. The current default definition of a mile a fortnight is not reasonable in my opinion, nor in the opinion of lots of people.

 

Your personal wants and needs are not relevant.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by MtB

[Thomas C King]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

So what is your definition of using a vessel "bona fide for navigation"? 

 

As I suggested earlier, a definition needs to be developed and agreed upon. 

 

 

Somewhere in-between yours and the current one. I'm not interested in "navigation" as such, but whether it:

 

1) Creates a happy environment for most users

2) Most users are not continuous moorers.

 

In numbers. I'd say, range over a year over 70 miles, maybe 100 (not the current twenty). Miles + locks per week, at a minimum, 10.

 

Incidentally, I think your per-day requirement would be unfeasible to enforce.

[Thomas C King]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

Your personal wants and needs are not relevant.

 

No, but the wants and needs of most boaters who are not retired or just holidaying are. Unless you want a system where people are in marinas and occasionally cruise out of it when they are not working. That's a dead system in my mind.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Thomas C King said:

Somewhere in-between yours and the current one. I'm not interested in "navigation" as such

 

What you're "interested in" is of no consequence. Navigation is the term the law is built around.

 

We have to work with the law we have, CRT have been told there is no chance of parliamentary time being allocated for new regulations.

 

\

[frangar]

8 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Somewhere in-between yours and the current one. I'm not interested in "navigation" as such, but whether it:

 

1) Creates a happy environment for most users

2) Most users are not continuous moorers.

 

In numbers. I'd say, range over a year over 70 miles, maybe 100 (not the current twenty). Miles + locks per week, at a minimum, 10.

 

Incidentally, I think your per-day requirement would be unfeasible to enforce.

I think you will find that in some areas CM’ers are the norm…eg london/western end of K & A etc. and given a chance they aren’t wanting to move if they don’t have to….is that what you want to spread to say Brum/Manchester etc? Meaning those areas also become harder for others to either transit or visit….because it’s certainly not what I or many other boaters I talk to seem to want. 

[Thomas C King]

17 minutes ago, frangar said:

I think you will find that in some areas CM’ers are the norm…eg london/western end of K & A etc. and given a chance they aren’t wanting to move if they don’t have to….is that what you want to spread to say Brum/Manchester etc? Meaning those areas also become harder for others to either transit or visit….because it’s certainly not what I or many other boaters I talk to seem to want. 

 

I think you might misunderstand my objective (which we probably agree on). It is to have a set of rules that makes it harder to be a continuous-moorer, but are not so strict that you only end up with marina-bound boaters that go out every now and then and a few retired continuous cruisers. Bear in mind that some fuel boats do not have a home base, so it's even in the interests of the genuine continuous cruisers to not have a very strict rule.

 

That's why I would suggest increasing the annual range a lot, and the per-week a moderate amount. A wider annual range makes shuffling back and forth insufficient to comply with the rule. A moderate increase to the per-week requirement (yes, I know it's 14-days at the moment), means that continuous cruisers do not have to be retired or unemployed to make it work, but you still get weekly movement that frees up spaces.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Thomas C King

[Rambling Boater]

15 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

I think you might misunderstand my objective (which we probably agree on). It is to have a set of rules that makes it harder to be a continuous-moorer, but are not so strict that you only end up with marina-bound boaters that go out every now and then and a few retired continuous cruisers. Bear in mind that some fuel boats do not have a home base, so it's even in the interests of the genuine continuous cruisers to not have a very strict rule.

 

That's why I would suggest increasing the annual range a lot, and the per-week a moderate amount. A wider annual range makes shuffling back and forth insufficient to comply with the rule. A moderate increase to the per-week requirement (yes, I know it's 14-days at the moment), means that continuous cruisers do not have to be retired or unemployed to make it work, but you still get weekly movement that frees up spaces.

If a boat moves from A to B, and another from B to A, how does that free up space?

[MtB]

12 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

If a boat moves from A to B, and another from B to A, how does that free up space?

 

It doesn't. 

 

Nor does it comply with the law which requires a boat with no home mooring to be used "bona fide for navigation", "throughout the period" of its license.

 

 

 

As opposed to only on one day out of fourteen. 

[Thomas C King]

14 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

If a boat moves from A to B, and another from B to A, how does that free up space?

 

Travel isn't instantaneous. Currently, if boats are moving very little and infrequently, those making a longer cruise get to the end of the day without spaces left.

 

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

Nor does it comply with the law which requires a boat with no home mooring to be used "bona fide for navigation", "throughout the period" of its license.

 

Do you have case law to support that?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Travel isn't instantaneous. Currently, if boats are moving very little and infrequently, those making a longer cruise get to the end of the day without spaces left.

 

 

Do you have case law to support that?

 

 

Nope. I'm just reading what the law says.

 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Complaining that it is unfair that the only people who can continually cruise are retired or leisuured is irrelevant, as well as so many people can now work remotely. The fact remains that if you are tied to attend a workplace or want your kids to attend a certain school, then you simply cannot be a continuous cruiser. The term was invented for those who actually could - who were mostly retired or itinerant. And who,  for the purpose of their cruise, lived on board.

Of course,  there weren't very many of them. Still aren't.

 

[Thomas C King]

Just now, MtB said:

 

 

Nope. I'm just reading what the law says.

 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted

 

 

You can't say with much certainty that it is or isn't non-compliant then. Particularly in this country, where we do not have the Napoleonic system built on lawmaker's intentions (rather, ours is based on interpretation).

[Thomas C King]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Complaining that it is unfair that the only people who can continually cruise are retired or leisuured is irrelevant, as well as so many people can now work remotely.

 

Who said it was unfair? I do, however, recall arguing that limiting continuous cruising to retirees and holidaymakers would make the system a bit dead. What do you want to achieve, a large system that is used, or a small system that isn't?

 

On remote work - I am a remote worker. It requires two things to continuously cruise at the same time - a good internet connection for conference calls, and time to hop between good connections. Hence, for the vast majority of remote workers you would have to accept that they would not be able to continuously cruise. Again, leaving a system used by retirees and holiday makers. I am sure that suits many on this forum, but it's not what I want the canal system to become.

[MtB]

Just now, Thomas C King said:

 

You can't say with much certainty that it is or isn't non-compliant then. Particularly in this country, where we do not have the Napoleonic system built on lawmaker's intentions (rather, ours is based on interpretation).

 

Quite. Which loops you back to what I keep saying, a definition of "bona fide for navigation" is needed. That could be done with case law in the high court AIUI, (none exists as CRT swerve it AIUI), or by negotiation and general agreement - unlikely as illustrated by the way even just this thread is unfolding.

[Rambling Boater]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

It doesn't.

Thanks.

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The fact remains that if you are tied to attend a workplace or want your kids to attend a certain school, then you simply cannot be a continuous cruiser.

 

 

Unless you write to your MP and complain that C&RT are refusing to allow you have your children properly educated, the MP then meets with C&RT and C&RT change the rules allowing CCers with children to virtually stay stationary during term time.  The 3-mile radius of the schools is now 'the norm'.

 

Talk about inequitable, even age prejudice, young with Kids, you can stay within 3 miles of school, old and retired - keep on movin buddy ! ..............

 

Part of C&RTs presentation on what they will accept :

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Thomas C King]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

Quite. Which loops you back to what I keep saying, a definition of "bona fide for navigation" is needed. That could be done with case law in the high court AIUI, (none exists as CRT swerve it AIUI), or by negotiation and general agreement - unlikely as illustrated by the way even just this thread is unfolding.

 

Yes I agree with the first bit. But the courts' job though is non-political. They will not interpret it in a useful way for the canals, but will instead focus on semantics. Not even necessarily UK semantics, either. So, although it can't come from CaRT, I think a political solution is required.

 

On compromise I don't think you and I, for example, are far off on the objective. It's just that you favor longer daily-movement, I favor longer annual with slightly longer weekly movement. The point of contention is likely to be with NABO and similar.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Thomas C King

[Rambling Boater]

13 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Travel isn't instantaneous. Currently, if boats are moving very little and infrequently, those making a longer cruise get to the end of the day without spaces left.

 

 

 

At the end of the day (literally) there are still the same number of boats and moorings. It's just that some boats may come out  (reduce space) or go back (create space) to a marina somewhere.

 

 

 

[Thomas C King]

2 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

At the end of the day (literally) there are still the same number of boats and moorings. It's just that some boats may come out  (reduce space) or go back (create space) to a marina somewhere.

 

I should have said "free up space in a more equitable way". Shufflers, particularly the ones that coordinate their shuffling, take space in a non-equitable way. The same people get to the moor in the same spots, those traveling further (genuine cruisers and holidaymakers) consistently struggle to find space.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

The point of contention is likely to be with NABO and similar.

 

 

I don't think you would have a problem with NABO, but the 'Baton Twirlers' are anothjer matter entirely. For them 1km is too far.

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

I should have said "free up space in a more equitable way". Shufflers, particularly the ones that coordinate their shuffling, take space in a non-equitable way. The same people get to the moor in the same spots, those traveling further (genuine cruisers and holidaymakers) consistently struggle to find space.

And that is the problem; if I had a boat down here I don't think I'd be willing to risk going into London and being unable to find anywhere to moor overnight, which seems very likely to be the case going by what I see whenever I go there by bike.

 

Which means it's pretty much a no-go zone for visitors and real CCers, which is surely wrong?

 

(I'm sure somebody will say they wouldn't go to Lunnon if they were paid, but that's not the point -- it's a focal point of the canal system with many things that visitors on boats might wish to do)

[Rambling Boater]

7 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

I should have said "free up space in a more equitable way". Shufflers, particularly the ones that coordinate their shuffling, take space in a non-equitable way. The same people get to the moor in the same spots, those traveling further (genuine cruisers and holidaymakers) consistently struggle to find space.

 

Ah, sharing moorings nicely with each other, now you're talking!

 

As a CC'er liveaboard  (if there is such a label) I think the idea of 48h moorings in prime honeypot sites is reasonable to encourage fair sharing.

 

However, I have noticed over the years where 48h notices have been placed outside honeypot sites (or extended too far from the honeypot site) that they rarely get filled by boats. A good example is Stoke Bruerne where I understand local pubs have suffered. Maybe the fear of a £25 fine/charge is enough to scare off a hire boater.