Charges or fines ?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

35 minutes ago, Loddon said:

At least three of the people on this forum me and @mrsmelly and @frangar have lived aboard for 25 and 30 years respectively so I think we are all qualified to pass comment even though two of us now live on land.

Towpath squatters are one of the reasons I moved my boat off cart waters along with carts mismanagement.

I watched the video for a few minutes and all I saw was a bunch of freeloaders complaining 

I knew from your statements before you’d moved off CRT waters but thought you meant you were floating about somewhere else. 
Or am I miss reading and you are floating about somewhere else?

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Agreed

I wish more live aboard members would speak up.
Whatever their view. 
Not just the vociferous few who do not live aboard. 
 

There were some interesting comments earlier in the thread from the less vocal. 
 

This particular discussion about over crowding has been cropping up time and time again for years. Would be great to hear some new angles from a wider source of contributor. 
 

I don’t know what the answers are for the long term. I can’t see heavier enforcement and penalties being the solution. 

I can’t see pricing people off the water with additional charges or a higher license fee will solve the problem. The boats will just be replaced by the more  affluent owner and the problem will remain. 

 

License fee cost and CART income is a separate issue from enforcing mooring/CCing rules.

 

If CART needs to raise more income to pay for the upkeep of the canals -- which I assume everyone agrees is needed, given the current state of them? -- the money has to come from somewhere, one place is the license fee, and today this is pretty cheap for what you get. If it's put up too much it may drive some people off the canals, but to where? -- unless the increase is massive (more than 100%) it'll still be cheaper than living on land. But this isn't anything to do with the mooring problem, it's a CART income problem.

 

Saying "enforcement isn't the solution" to the mooring problem is just like saying "there's no point fining people for [parking on double yellow lines -- fill in offence of your choice] because lots of people do it". In all other areas of life there are laws with varying degrees of enforcement, and some punishment (often a fine) for breaking them, and this generally seems to keep rulebreaking under control -- so why do you think this wouldn't work for mooring on the canals?

 

It's not as if there are hundreds of thousands of miles of them where enforcement is needed (like roads), one bloke on an e-bike can do a big stretch of canal in a day -- and it's only really the controlled moorings (48h, visitors, 7-day) and "honeypot" areas that really need patrolling to fix the worst of the problem, boats mooring out in the sticks for more than 14 days don't cause anyone a real problem (except less income for CART compared to having a mooring).

 

This isn't "pricing people off the water" -- if you follow the rules, you don't get fined. It's trying to make boaters follow the rules, and stop being selfish "towpath squatters" (not my term!).

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[GUMPY]

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I knew from your statements before you’d moved off CRT waters but thought you meant you were floating about somewhere else. 
Or am I miss reading and you are floating about somewhere else?

 

 

I live in a house and keep the boat in a marina, I use the boat for recreation, is that a difficult concept to understand?

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Loddon

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, frangar said:

Ummm liveaboard boater of 30 years here…..should that make a difference?? 

So what were the BW days like?

 

I was under the impression there were a lot more non movers across the whole system, and was it Sally Ash(?) who moved them all on (or off completely) when CRT took over?

 

I remember visiting Great Heywood to look at boats and it was chocka all the way through with permanent moorers. A year later and they were all

gone. 
 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Loddon said:

I live in a house and keep the boat in a marina, I use the boat for recreation, is that a difficult concept to understand?

 

No 🥱

My mistake, 

[Arthur Marshall]

What do you do with the ones who simply can't move without losing job, kid's school etc?  Or the half batty or stone broke ones living in a knackered cruiser that can't go anywhere without sinking? Technically, yes, it's not CRTs problem but you can see why they have a bit of an ethical problem doing it. Fining people with no money is pointless. Making people homeless just shifts the problem.

When a culture collapses, you see it first at the extremes, top and bottom. When it reaches the centre, there ceases to be any practical solution, you just have to live with it as best you can. Rules are irrelevant because nobody really cares about them any more if they're inconvenient. There's nothing CRT,  the NBTA or anyone else can do about it.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, Goliath said:

So what were the BW days like?

 

I was under the impression there were a lot more non movers across the whole system, and was it Sally Ash(?) who moved them all on (or off completely) when CRT took over?

 

I remember visiting Great Heywood to look at boats and it was chocka all the way through with permanent moorers. A year later and they were all

gone. 
 

 

 

No 🥱

My mistake, 

Great Heywood is now chocka with boats on moorings - not much different. The Llangollen been cleared out a bit since then though , thats for sure.

I lived on board in BW days, though on a farm mooring. There were some nonmoorers who didn't move much, most kept their heads down, kept out of the busy spots and no-one seemed to mind very much. There just weren't enough to be a bother.

I think it was the financial aspect that kicked CRT into action, suddenly money became important. Especially to the blokes at the top who suddenly were in line for bonuses they could vote themselves for whatever "targets met" they could dream up.

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What do you do with the ones who simply can't move without losing job, kid's school etc?  Or the half batty or stone broke ones living in a knackered cruiser that can't go anywhere without sinking? Technically, yes, it's not CRTs problem but you can see why they have a bit of an ethical problem doing it. Fining people with no money is pointless. Making people homeless just shifts the problem.

When a culture collapses, you see it first at the extremes, top and bottom. When it reaches the centre, there ceases to be any practical solution, you just have to live with it as best you can. Rules are irrelevant because nobody really cares about them any more if they're inconvenient. There's nothing CRT,  the NBTA or anyone else can do about it.

 

That's the crux of the problem; people have been allowed to ignore the rules, and now claim "think of the children!" if CART try and enforce them.

 

So do you just let them continue to ignore the rules, or find a way of enforcing them -- even though this will cause problems for some of the rule-breakers? (which of course it wouldn't do if they hadn't ignored the rules in the first place)

 

It's a basic problem for society when a lot of people ignore the rules and this starts to affect everyone else, the canals aren't the only case. Making people homeless does just shift the problem -- but the real problem is a society which allows this to happen in the first place, using the canals as a dumping ground for people you mentioned (and NBTA members) is still not the right solution.

 

By admitting nothing can be done, you're pretty much saying that the law (or rules) can't be enforced, so please ignore them and do what you want.

 

Where does this stop?

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Great Heywood is now chocka with boats on moorings - not much different. The Llangollen been cleared out a bit since then though , thats for sure.

I lived on board in BW days, though on a farm mooring. There were some nonmoorers who didn't move much, most kept their heads down, kept out of the busy spots and no-one seemed to mind very much. There just weren't enough to be a bother.

I think it was the financial aspect that kicked CRT into action, suddenly money became important. Especially to the blokes at the top who suddenly were in line for bonuses they could vote themselves for whatever "targets met" they could dream up.

 

When only a few people ignore the rules and keep their heads down, it's not a problem -- like in the old days.

 

However nowadays there are far more people doing this than there used to be -- encouraged by vlogs and blogs and the press and the NBTA and the housing crisis -- and it is a big problem in some places (not everywhere), and they're the visible high-profile ones not out in the middle of nowhere.

 

I don't think it's anything to do with CART targets, it's a problem that's rapidly got worse in the last ten years or so -- especially the last five, going by what I can see round here -- and nothing has been done to fix it.

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

License fee cost and CART income is a separate issue from enforcing mooring/CCing rules.

 

If CART needs to raise more income to pay for the upkeep of the canals -- which I assume everyone agrees is needed, given the current state of them? -- the money has to come from somewhere, one place is the license fee, and today this is pretty cheap for what you get. If it's put up too much it may drive some people off the canals, but to where? -- unless the increase is massive (more than 100%) it'll still be cheaper than living on land. But this isn't anything to do with the mooring problem, it's a CART income problem.

 

Saying "enforcement isn't the solution" to the mooring problem is just like saying "there's no point fining people for [parking on double yellow lines -- fill in offence of your choice] because lots of people do it". In all other areas of life there are laws with varying degrees of enforcement, and some punishment (often a fine) for breaking them, and this generally seems to keep rulebreaking under control -- so why do you think this wouldn't work for mooring on the canals?

 

It's not as if there are hundreds of thousands of miles of them where enforcement is needed (like roads), one bloke on an e-bike can do a big stretch of canal in a day -- and it's only really the controlled moorings (48h, visitors, 7-day) and "honeypot" areas that really need patrolling to fix the worst of the problem, boats mooring out in the sticks for more than 14 days don't cause anyone a real problem (except less income for CART compared to having a mooring).

 

This isn't "pricing people off the water" -- if you follow the rules, you don't get fined. It's trying to make boaters follow the rules, and stop being selfish "towpath squatters" (not my term!).

I think you pick and select only the words you want to hear. 
I am not against enforcement of a 14 day rule. 
What I can’t see is the point of ‘heavier’ enforcement, I think is what I said. Other solutions ought to be available if enforcement doesn’t work. 

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I think you pick and select only the words you want to hear. 
I am not against enforcement of a 14 day rule. 
What I can’t see is the point of ‘heavier’ enforcement, I think is what I said. Other solutions ought to be available if enforcement doesn’t work. 

 

Your exact words were "I can’t see heavier enforcement and penalties being the solution."

 

I was just asking why you think that, when actually enforcing the rules (with penalties of necessary) instead of allowing people to ignore them seems to work in most other areas of life -- what's so different about the canals?

 

Given that enforcement of the mooring rules (and penalties for breaking them) is evidently pretty much non-existent today, surely tightening this up (where needed) can only improve things?

 

(at least, for everybody except the rule-breakers...)

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Your exact words were "I can’t see heavier enforcement and penalties being the solution."

 

I was just asking why you think that, when actually enforcing the rules (with penalties of necessary) instead of allowing people to ignore them seems to work in most other areas of life -- what's so different about the canals?

 

Given that enforcement of the mooring rules (and penalties for breaking them) is evidently pretty much non-existent today, surely tightening this up can only improve things?

 

(at least, for everybody except the rule-breakers...)

How is removing the ability to moor going to help?

 how is removing rings helping?

forbidding breasting up going to help?

and limiting time on a mooring?

 

Wouldn’t additional moorings be a simple short term answer?

 

Why not try and solve a problem?

 

Do you ever talk to boaters on your cycle ride? Ask them why they’re not moving. I would. 
Maybe some don’t know how to untie or steer. You could teach them. 

[cuthound]

Given CRT's propensity for contracting out chunks of their operation, I'm surprised they haven't contracted out enforcement.

 

Although it upset a lot of people it worked for the EA on the Thames.

 

I'm sure there would be a queue of companies wanting to do it especially if CRT allowed them to keep the fines.

 

However once successful the contractors would no longer be interested because their income from fines will have dropped, so perhaps best to contract out occasionally when overstaying becomes an issue in a particular area.

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, Goliath said:

How is removing the ability to moor going to help?

 how is removing rings helping?

forbidding breasting up going to help?

and limiting time on a mooring?

 

Wouldn’t additional moorings be a simple short term answer?

 

Why not try and solve a problem?

 

Do you ever talk to boaters on your cycle ride? Ask them why they’re not moving. I would. 
Maybe some don’t know how to untie or steer. You could teach them. 

Did I say that any of those things was a solution? No.

 

Additional moorings would seem to help in the short term -- except that demand will expand to fill them and the visitor and short-term moorings will *still* be filled by "towpath squatters".

 

Yes I talk to the boaters quite often; they're not moving because staying where they are suits them just fine, there are plentiful loopholes (well-publicised on boaters groups) to use as excuses (one of them even told me about the "coot nest in fender" trick), and nobody makes them move on so why should they -- nobody else does, after all, why should they be the only one who does "the right thing"? They're often perfectly nice people, but just doing what everyone else does because they can -- and there's no enforcement and no penalty for gross overstaying.

 

There are loads of stretches with no boats even along this stretch of the GU (35 boats per mile on average which is 1 every 50 yards) but they don't want to moor there, they want to moor in the popular areas -- and here the VMs are full with boats that never move, as are the 48 hour moorings, as are the 7 day moorings -- in fact even the stretch which says "no mooring" near Paddington is completely full of boats... 😞

 

What is needed is a way to provide enough moorings on the canal system which don't block it up, and bring in some revenue to CART to pay for maintenance, and keeps visitor and short-term moorings un-squatted for visitors and short-term moorers. The second won't happen without better enforcement of mooring rules, and unfortunately CART don't seem to be in favour of the first (more paid-for online moorings) which would reduce the pressure on the short-term moorings.

 

But why would these boaters pay CART for an online mooring (even if available) if they can stay where they are (e.g. on convenient short-term moorings, or just the towpath) for free?

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[magnetman]

16 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Given CRT's propensity for contracting out chunks of their operation, I'm surprised they haven't contracted out enforcement.

 

Although it upset a lot of people it worked for the EA on the Thames.

 

 

Actually no it didn't. 

 

The EA have disposed of District Enforcement because they were challenged by the NBTA and there was a technical problem where they claimed they had consulted a certain organisation when they hadn't. 

 

So there is no external body now enforcing moorings on EA water (Thames). 

 

It's going to happen at some point but not very nice when private car park companies start doing the towpaths. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by magnetman

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Actually no it didn't. 

 

The EA have disposed of District Enforcement because they were challenged by the NBTA and there was a technical problem where they claimed they had consulted a certain organisation when they hadn't. 

 

So there is no external body now enforcing moorings on EA water (Thames). 

 

It's going to happen at some point but not very nice when private car park companies start doing the towpaths. 

 

 

And that's the likely solution if CART don't enforce the rules themselves, giving the excuses of no people/too dangerous for staff/too difficult/too expensive. Hand it over to the private sector and allow them to impose swingeing fines -- probably much bigger than CART would have charged because they need to make a profit, with penalties escalating if you don't pay up pronto.

 

All CART need to do is find a legal basis on which to make this work, and job's a good 'un -- except for the poor bloody boaters... 😞

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

Did I say that any of those things was a solution? No.

I understand that is what’s happening. 
 

[waterworks]

On 10/04/2022 at 22:04, MartynG said:

You give the impression of being a very selfish and inconsiderate person  who thinks they can overstay  and not care  at all to share a popular location with others .

You give the impression of a gullible person that will do anything CRT says without question.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I understand that is what’s happening. 
 

Maybe so, but please don't accuse me of being in favour of it -- I think it's a stupid policy by CART, but I can understand why they're doing it given the over-mooring problem.

 

More longer-term moorings won't help clear out the overstayers on VMs and short-term moorings unless they have an incentive (enforcement?) to move to them and away from the honeypots -- because they could already moor in the open stretches away from these moorings, but don't...

 

Your position of "more free moorings, don't make people move or enforce the rules, it's all CARTs fault, think of the children!" sounds very like the NBTA one. Are you by any chance a member or supporter?

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[waterworks]

On 11/04/2022 at 16:50, IanD said:

 

I still don't believe that primary legislation is *necessary* to fix this, though it would certainly help.

 

Given that CART can charge for providing anything -- including moorings, or facilities -- it seems unlikely that they can't find a way within existing legislation to sort this out. But this will undoubtedly mean taking on the NBTA and their lawyers head-on, and right now they make much more noise than the "silent majority" of law-abiding boaters who are fed up with their antics and the resulting congestion in "honeypot" areas.

 

But there's nothing that says that such a scheme has to be applied equally across the entire system. CART can define honeypot areas where it applies, and areas outside this where there is no problem can be exempted.

This is their own interpretation of the 1962 Transport act , an interpretation they never stated at the time or even up to when the 1995 act was put through parliament. An interpretation that no one in the entire long process of the 1995 bill ever stated, which would have made the bill unnessarry. You really think BW lawyers, parliament and user groups forgot to mention this supposed power ?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Maybe so, but please don't accuse me of being in favour of it -- I think it's a stupid policy by CART.

But that is the source of the argument?

 

 

 

 

[waterworks]

On 11/04/2022 at 16:09, IanD said:

The point is that 48h moorings are a good solution in the right places -- where there is a high demand for moorings and limited space -- but only if they are enforced. Outside these areas 7 or 14 day time limits are fine. In fact on stretches of canal with few boats and plenty of space it's debatable whether boats should really have to move at all, from the point of view of keeping the canal accessible to visiting boaters -- but then we get back into the CC/CM debate all over again...

 

Maybe what's really needed is a way to allow boats to moor for as long as they want on uncrowded parts of the system, but without needing a home mooring, and finding a way to get some revenue to CART to make up for the fact that they're not paying CART for an online/offline/EoG mooring or a marina mooring which I believe CART get a slice of?

 

There would then have to be a distinction between "uncrowded" and "crowded" parts of the system, with different rules applying. This could help to free up space for visitors in popular spots while not penalising people who want to moor for longer periods in out-of-the-way places where they cause no inconvenience to anybody else.

 

And before Alan chips in to say why this isn't legally possible -- wouldn't it be better to try and find solutions to the problem instead of complaining about how terrible the canals are while simultaneously explaining why CART can't do anything about it? 😉

If it isn't legally possible that's the end of the matter until the law is changed. 

 

Do you really want to operate under an unlawful system ?

[waterworks]

21 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

It's only a 14 day mooring unless otherwise indicated. The mooring in question is otherwise indicated.

 

CRT don't have to provide additional services. What you don't seem to understand are the basic economic laws of supply and demand. When there's an increased demand for a scarce resource, that resource becomes more expensive or access becomes more restricted. This case is no different. 

 

I don't know this particularly mooring but I assume it's a popular spot, so if CRT wants to ensure access for as many licence fee payers as possible which is part of it's remit, rather than it being hogged by a few selfish boaters, then it has to restrict access and impose penalties for overstayers. That's simply the fairest way.

 

It always amazes me when people don't understand these fundamental principles. If we're looking for people to blame for this deteriorating situation let's start by looking at ourselves, not CRT. They're just trying to manage the high demand. And it doesn't matter how long you've been boating, were all part of the problem - newbies & old farts alike.

 

It's analogous to that traffic jam quote "You're not in a traffic jam, you are the traffic jam." 

 

 

 

 

 

Where does it state in legislation " 14 days unless otherwise stated " ?

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, waterworks said:

This is their own interpretation of the 1962 Transport act , an interpretation they never stated at the time or even up to when the 1995 act was put through parliament. An interpretation that no one in the entire long process of the 1995 bill ever stated, which would have made the bill unnessarry. You really think BW lawyers, parliament and user groups forgot to mention this supposed power ?

It's what has been stated many times on this very forum, that there's nothing stopping CART charging for water or Elsan or rubbish disposal or many other things (moorings? -- see Llangollen) because they're not legally obliged to provide them by the Act and so can make a supplementary charge -- or stop providing them...

14 minutes ago, waterworks said:

If it isn't legally possible that's the end of the matter until the law is changed. 

 

Do you really want to operate under an unlawful system ?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I believe in following the rules, but it seems that many boaters don't and currently get away scot-free, and if nothing is changed this will continue and perhaps get worse.

 

I don't think this is a good way to run the canals, and am asking if anything can be done to improve it -- and that doesn't mean the NBTA answer ("no enforcement of unfair mooring rules, think of the children!")...

Edited April 12, 2022 by IanD

[cuthound]

44 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Actually no it didn't. 

 

The EA have disposed of District Enforcement because they were challenged by the NBTA and there was a technical problem where they claimed they had consulted a certain organisation when they hadn't. 

 

So there is no external body now enforcing moorings on EA water (Thames). 

 

It's going to happen at some point but not very nice when private car park companies start doing the towpaths. 

 

 

 

True, but when DE were enforcing the moorings, the number of overstayers dwindled didn't it.

 

Same had happened at Richmond when the Local Authority began serious enforcement.

 

[waterworks]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's what has been stated many times on this very forum, that there's nothing stopping CART charging for water or Elsan or rubbish disposal or many other things because they're not legally obliged to provide them and so can make a supplementary charge -- or stop providing them...

They already do charge for these things, it's all in the licence fee, they are not free. 

 

If they stopped any these three services boating would become unattractive and they would lose customers.

 

If they made them extra charges anyone could decline them and still meet the legal requirements to be issued a licence. 

 

Taking away rubbish bins would lead to massive flipping costing CRT millions to clean up.

[Momac]

21 minutes ago, waterworks said:

You give the impression of a gullible person that will do anything CRT says without question.

I thought my comment might hit a nerve. Others agreed with me.

The charge is obviously intended to encourage people to stay no longer than 24hrs. I do not think c&rt expect to collect much money if any. I dont understand why you don't think that is reasonable at a location that is presumably popular.

2 minutes ago, waterworks said:

 

 

Taking away rubbish bins would lead to massive flipping costing CRT millions to clean up.

Perhaps you would just fly tip but please dont count the rest of us in on that.