Playground for the Rich

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Bargebuilder said:

To describe many of the lock gates and paddles on the K&A as being in a poor state of repair can't really be argued with, as demonstrated by the amount of warning tape adorning the said equipment; at least it did last summer.

 

I feel sad for the volunteers who gave generously of their time and money to restore the canal to the high standard that we enjoyed when we first navigated it some 15 years ago, only for them to watch things slip in more recent years.

 

C&RT may have no option but to neglect the maintenance due to a lack of money, but that doesn't stop it being sad.

 

Perhaps they could afford to do more repairs if the many, many unlicensed boats paid their fair share.

How do you know there are that many unlicensed boats? 

[Bargebuilder]

29 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

How do you know there are that many unlicensed boats? 

I read from the C&RT website. They quote nearly a 6% non-compliance for 2022

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/national-boat-count-2022

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Is a decrease in licensed boats an increase in unlicensed boats?

or is a decrease in licensed boats just simply less boats?
 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Goliath

[Bargebuilder]

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Is a decrease in licensed boats an increase in unlicensed boats?

or is a decrease in licensed boats just simply less boats?
 

 

Have a read:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/national-boat-count-2022

[magnetman]

"slight drop in the percentage of licensed boats, down from 96.5% in 2019 to 94.1% this year,"

 

 

Dodgy situation here. This could snowball and become a significant problem. 

Why did they say a drop in licensed boats rather than an increase in unlicensed boats? 

 

There is something not right here. 

 

 

Read another way the figures are an increase from 3.5% unlicensed to 5.9% unlicensed which is in fact a huge increase proportionally. 

 

 

 

[Bargebuilder]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

"slight drop in the percentage of licensed boats, down from 96.5% in 2019 to 94.1% this year,"

 

 

Is that in excess of 2,000 unlicensed boats?

Or how much lost income?

[magnetman]

I suppose "a 69 percent increase in the number of unlicensed boats" would not sound as good. 

 

math edit 3.5*1.69=5.9. 

3 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Is that in excess of 2,000 unlicensed boats?

Or how much lost income?

 

Some unlicensed boats seems to always have been acceptable. I wonder what one has to do to get into this bracket and be allowed to remain on the water. 

 

They can't enforce 2000 boats. 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by magnetman
math edit

[Bargebuilder]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Dodgy situation here. This could snowball and become a significant problem. 

Why did they say a drop in licensed boats rather than an increase in unlicensed boats? 

I don't think they said a drop in licensed boats, I think they said a drop in the percentage of licenced boats.

There could be more licensed boats but a lot more unlicensed boats.

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

I don't think they said a drop in licensed boats, I think they said a drop in the percentage of licenced boats.

There could be more licensed boats but a lot more unlicensed boats.

I meant why did they say it like that rather than say it as a large increase in the proportion of unlicensed boats. 

 

 

 

It seems to potentially be a way of attempting to hide a problem using inappropriate figures even though they are accurate. 

 

It is in effect a seventy percent increase in the number (proportional) of unlicensed boats which regardless of the covids bollocks is bad news. 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by magnetman

[Bargebuilder]

11 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder what one has to do to get into this bracket and be allowed to remain on the water.

Perhaps lifting an boat out of the water complete with its liveaboard occupants has legal ramifications. 

 

[MtB]

54 minutes ago, magnetman said:

"slight drop in the percentage of licensed boats, down from 96.5% in 2019 to 94.1% this year,"

 

 

Dodgy situation here. This could snowball and become a significant problem. 

Why did they say a drop in licensed boats rather than an increase in unlicensed boats? 

 

There is something not right here. 

 

 

Read another way the figures are an increase from 3.5% unlicensed to 5.9% unlicensed which is in fact a huge increase proportionally. 

 

 

I think your "something not right here" is the increasing number of stealth boats. The arithmetic of stating the proportion of licenced boats instead of unlicenced, allows them to ignore the rise in number of apparently unregistered 'stealth' boats on the system.

[Bargebuilder]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think your "something not right here" is the increasing number of stealth boats. The arithmetic of stating the proportion of licenced boats instead of unlicenced, allows them to ignore the rise in number of apparently unregistered 'stealth' boats on the system.

Wouldn't the 'stealth' boats be included in the total number of boats figure from which the percentage of licenced boats is calculated?

 

The CRT can only be sure of two figures, the number of licenses they sell and the total number of boats on their waterway (assuming they bother to count them and quite how they could do that I'm not sure)

Assuming that the figure that the CRT uses for the total number of boats is an estimate - and I can't see how it can't be - the lower the estimated figure they use, the higher the percentage figure for licensed boats appears to be.

[MtB]

32 minutes ago, Bargebuilder said:

Wouldn't the 'stealth' boats be included in the total number of boats figure from which the percentage of licenced boats is calculated?

 

Highly unlikely given CRT do not acknowledge they even exist. Let alone publish statistics on them. 

 

Or do they? 

 

[Bargebuilder]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Highly unlikely given CRT do not acknowledge they even exist. Let alone publish statistics on them. 

 

Or do they? 

 

Your implication being that what the CRT describe as a "national boat count" doesn't include boats without names or other identification.

 

Without every mile of waterway being physically walked on the same day, the figure they use for boats that aren't registered with them must be little more than an educated guess. It's in their interest to underestimate this figure if their aim is to make it look as if nearly all boats pay the licence fee. Of course, that may not be their aim.

[DandV]

Whilst they obviously did not cover the whole system in one day,  there used to be  a week in March or April that the boat checkers, plus some ring ins did cover by far the bulk of the system including marinas just doing "the annual count"

I can remember seeing this operation most years we were on the cut.

So why there would be some inaccuracy, it would be minimal, and results year to year would be comparable.

Cell phone photography and AI purchased sorting should now reduce the manual inputting required.

Has this changed?

 

[Mike Todd]

How many of the unlicensed boars are ones that have been abandoned in the canal and not yet been removed?  Unless causing an obstruction, they generally seem to be left. Even then it takes some time to go through the necessary procedures.

[Bargebuilder]

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

How many of the unlicensed boars are ones that have been abandoned in the canal and not yet been removed?  Unless causing an obstruction, they generally seem to be left. Even then it takes some time to go through the necessary procedures.

The CRT website says: "In 2021-22, 100 boats were removed from our navigations as they were unlicensed, despite the Boat Licence Customer Support team’s best efforts to resolve matters; many were abandoned boats."  That's less than 5% of the non-payers according to the CRT's own estimation. This figure possibly includes sunken wrecks.

 

 

[Steilsteven]

On 14/07/2023 at 18:02, IanD said:

 

One of the CART proposals was to vary the license fee by boat area (width*length), in the same way that many marinas and other boating authorities around the world do. This isn't being "anti-widebeam", its paying by area which is the norm both on land and at sea almost everywhere except on the UK canals... 😉

 

At the moment a 14' widebeam pays 20% more than a narrowboat of the same length, this would go up to 100% more which is a 67% increase (1.67x what they pay now).

 

If they also applied a "CC surcharge" (yes it's an HM discount really...) of +100% -- which is less than the +150% proposed many years ago -- then a 14' CC boat would see a +233% increase (x3.33 what they pay now).

 

Of course a London surcharge can be policed, license checkers currently record which boats are seen where don't they, supposedly every 2 weeks? If your boat is recorded in London 26/26 times per year you'd pay the full surcharge, whatever that is -- lets say +50% for the sake of argument -- but if it was recorded 13/26 times you'd pay half the surcharge -- let's say +25%. That's fair isn't it, the more time you spend in "honeypot" areas the more you pay?

 

Then a 14' CCer who never moves from London would pay 5x what they pay now. They're not going to be happy, but all these surcharges (or discounts, thank you Alan...) are perfectly justifiable... 😉

France introduced charging by area some years ago but more recently reverted to charging by length and you don't pay if you don't go anywhere!

 

Keith

[Bargebuilder]

Is charging widebeams extra, designed to reflect an extra cost to the CRT or just to discourage their ownership?

 

 

[Tonka]

32 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

France introduced charging by area some years ago but more recently reverted to charging by length and you don't pay if you don't go anywhere!

 

Keith

Don't you pay more on a French commercial canal but it is free on a leisure canal

 

[David Mack]

8 hours ago, Bargebuilder said:

Without every mile of waterway being physically walked on the same day, the figure they use for boats that aren't registered with them must be little more than an educated guess.

But since many of these unlicensed boats hardly ever move, counting over a number of days will be pretty accurate.

[kris88]

8 pages later and your getting to the crux of the matter. Any large licence increase will result in more avoidance. Increasing the cost of enforcement, negating any benefit from increased fees. There’s already an increase in boats showing no name or number. Crt don’t count these boats in their figures. So rather than becoming a playground for the rich. It will only be wealthy people, poor people (benefit funded.) and the lawless. 

[Tonka]

6 minutes ago, kris88 said:

8 pages later and your getting to the crux of the matter. Any large licence increase will result in more avoidance. Increasing the cost of enforcement, negating any benefit from increased fees. There’s already an increase in boats showing no name or number. Crt don’t count these boats in their figures. So rather than becoming a playground for the rich. It will only be wealthy people, poor people (benefit funded.) and the lawless. 

So we should all remove our names and index number and stop paying. 

[kris88]

Just now, Tonka said:

So we should all remove our names and index number and stop paying. 

 That’s not what I said, but it’s up to you? It’s the inevitable course of events if crt go down this  path. The only people forced off the cut will be the law abiding middle income boaters especially leasure boaters. So I’d be careful what you wish for. A large liscence fee increase isn’t going to effect the lawless or benefit funded. 

[Tonka]

Just now, kris88 said:

 That’s not what I said, but it’s up to you? It’s the inevitable course of events if crt go down this  path. The only people forced off the cut will be the law abiding middle income boaters especially leasure boaters. So I’d be careful what you wish for. A large liscence fee increase isn’t going to effect the lawless or benefit funded. 

So you are proposing to do nothing. At least with my proposal, CRT or whoever will have to do something