‘ Ban on wood burners threatens British boat-dwellers with winter freeze’

[MtB]

I'd like to see CRT set up their own ULEZ scheme, which might solve the London canal overcrowding problem!

 

 

[magnetman]

Add to the t&c that you are not allowed to run the boat when stationary for more than 5 minutes. 

 

 

(main engine)

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Add to the t&c that you are not allowed to run the boat when stationary for more than 5 minutes. 

 

 

(main engine)

 

Or at all. 

 

Engine OFF when moored. 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Or at all. 

 

Engine OFF when moored. 

 

 

Sometimes you have to start it before you move the boat. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Boat safety records engine detail so it would be easy enough to find out if they are euro wotsit compliant...

 

 

Do they ?

 

Mine never has, are you just guessing or is your BSS different to others ?

 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

OK. I thought they did. 

 

What does it say about your cooker ? 

 

My boat safety man needed to know the make and model of the cooker. I thought the same happened with the engines but maybe not. 

 

To be fair there has never been an attempt to get the engine model from the makers plate so I guess they don't. 

 

Thank you for correcting me .

 

 

 

 

 

I also think there is information collected about your boat which is not on the paperwork that you receive. 

 

 

This sounds all a bit conspiratorial. 

 

If you have a gas system the BS ticket issuer will ask if the boat is the primary residence. I bet it doesn't say anything about residential status on your BS ticket but it is asked by the examiner so the information is presumably recorded. 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If you have a gas system the BS ticket issuer will ask if the boat is the primary residence. I bet it doesn't say anything about residential status on your BS ticket but it is asked by the examiner so the information is presumably recorded.

 

Indeed The answer NEEDS to be recorded in case something bad happens, and a non-GSR BSS examiner is required to produce evidence he was told it was not residential.

[cuthound]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

I'd like to see CRT set up their own ULEZ scheme, which might solve the London canal overcrowding problem!

 

 

 

Be careful what you wish for. They might extend it to cover all of their canals!

 

If they did and given that they probably won't install any charging points for pure electric boats, does anyone make Euro 6 compliant cocooned diesel generators?

 

If not then they will have solved the lack of funds to maintain and repair their navigation.

[Momac]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed The answer NEEDS to be recorded in case something bad happens, and a non-GSR BSS examiner is required to produce evidence he was told it was not residential.

I have never been asked any questions and I have never been present at a BSS examination. I have had two BSS exams on my first boat and two so far on my present boat (another will be due next year). On the other hand its fairly obvious my boats have been non residential.

 

The bss  exam records the type of fuel the boat uses as can be seen from the certificate and also the fuel type has to be indicated on the boat itself.

The examiner might struggle to identify individual engine makes and engine models might be impossibly difficult.

But the C&RT require the boater to declare the engine horsepower on the online customer account for the boat.

 

 

[Tonka]

8 hours ago, MartynG said:

I have never been asked any questions and I have never been present at a BSS examination. I have had two BSS exams on my first boat and two so far on my present boat (another will be due next year). On the other hand its fairly obvious my boats have been non residential.

 

The bss  exam records the type of fuel the boat uses as can be seen from the certificate and also the fuel type has to be indicated on the boat itself.

The examiner might struggle to identify individual engine makes and engine models might be impossibly difficult.

But the C&RT require the boater to declare the engine horsepower on the online customer account for the boat.

 

 

But if you look at the records that canalplan show on the boat listing a lot of the ratings shown are wrong  and way out

[David Mack]

20 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Its interesting to consider that the Environment Act, which also updated the Clean Air Act, was able to apply laws to chimneys on boats. 

 

Is it actually possible for the ULEZ to be extended to boats given the land ownership question,? 

 

I think but am not sure that the canal land belongs to CRT so is privately owned property. 

 

 

Perhaps ULEZ could be applied to the Thames as it is a public highway but not to canals as they are private. 

 

Legally? Yes of course. What's land ownership got to do with it? The Clean Air Act provisions apply to all chimneys in the smoke control area. Boats used to be specifically exempted. Now moored boats aren't.

[magnetman]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Legally? Yes of course. What's land ownership got to do with it? The Clean Air Act provisions apply to all chimneys in the smoke control area. Boats used to be specifically exempted. Now moored boats aren't.

Someone else above suggested that the ULEZ does not apply on privately owned land. 

 

 

ULEZ and Clean Air Act/Environment Act are two different things. 

 

I was referring to the ULEZ. 

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Someone else above suggested that the ULEZ does not apply on privately owned land. 

 

It was I who said that at Heathrow Airport you do not need a Mot or a road tax as it is private land and A380's land 

[magnetman]

This is what led me to suggest that it may not actually be possible for the Mayor of London to add canals to the ULEZ charging scheme even if he wanted to. 

 

It seems quite probable that ULEZ refers to vehicles used on public highways. The canals are not public highways. 

 

 

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems quite probable that ULEZ refers to vehicles used on public highways. The canals are not public highways. 

 

 

Rivers are though, AIUI.

 

[Tonka]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Rivers are though, AIUI.

 

Not all rivers and I think that is why you need to have a licence to use them, like the Thames non tidal section.

[magnetman]

15 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Not all rivers and I think that is why you need to have a licence to use them, like the Thames non tidal section.

The non tidal Thames is a public highway. You can actually go through locks unregistered but then you can be prosecuted for being unregistered.

 

On the Thames it is the PRN which confers the right to navigate not a licence. On canals you need a licence but on CRT scheduled rivers it is a registration. 

 

Nobody can licence the right to use the Thames because it has a Public Right of Navigation. 

 

When you buy your Thames 'Licence' or 'Visitor licence' what you are actually doing is registering the craft which is a legal requirement. You are not being issued with a licence giving permission you are simply carrying out the legally required registration of the vessel. There is a critical difference.

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Rivers are though, AIUI.

 

This is why I said earlier that boat traffic on the Thames could perhaps be brought into the ULEZ whereas it may not be possible with canals because of the ownership. 

 

 

 

 

People traveling between Brentford and Teddington will notice the obvious difference. 

 

If you arrive at Teddington from Brentford the lock keeper will put you up the lock and ask you to come back to buy your visitor registration. 

 

If you go the other way the lock keeper requires your canal licence details before they will open the lock to let you out into the partly tidal section above Thames lock. 

 

This is where the key difference is. The PRN gives you the right to access the Thames so the lock keeper at Teddington can not hold you regardless of boat status. 

 

Going from Highway (Thames) to canal (Brentford) you lose the Public Right of Navigation and are obliged to be licensed therefore the lock keeper can hold you and deny passage. 

 

Technically at Brentford the PRN is meant to stop at the gauging locks but the CRT use Thames locks as the gateway to their network. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by magnetman

[Mike Todd]

23 hours ago, MtB said:

If I need to drive into the ULEZ, I still do and pay the charge. 

 

Like a lot of people with ten year old vehicles, it makes no sense to spend £30k on a new vehicle to save the occasional £12.50. 

 

As someone on Facebook acerbically commented, "Sadiq Khan says ULEZ is to reduce deaths of the elderly and vulnerable from vehicle pollution, but if the vehicle owner pays Sadiq £12.50, the elderly and vulnerable can go f*** themselves."

 

The correct solution to the problem to ban the polluting vehicles. Not just charge them to pollute. 

 

 

No, it is a deterrent and has largely worked if the official stats are accurate. A very, very high percentage of cars in the ULEZ and LEZ areas are said to be compliant. Still means quite a bit of pollution, however. Don't forget that tyres remain a significant source, whatever the fuel.

[Rambling Boater]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Don't forget that tyres remain a significant source, whatever the fuel.

Yes, and EV's produce more nano particles than combustion engine cars due to the extra weight of the batteries and extra torque.

 

It's debatable how much more though.

 

I've often wondered what effect ULEZ zones are having on local businesses. It can't be helping especially after trying to recover from the events of the last few years.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

I've often wondered what effect ULEZ zones are having on local businesses. It can't be helping especially after trying to recover from the events of the last few years.

 

 

It will be depressing their profits by £12.50 per day per vehicle they run, I'd suggest.

 

Unless they are well off enough to have bought ULEZ compliant vehicles. 

 

 

[Rambling Boater]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It will be depressing their profits by £12.50 per day per vehicle they run, I'd suggest.

 

Unless they are well off enough to have bought ULEZ compliant vehicles. 

 

 

True, although I was thinking more about the loss of custom, shops, restaurants etc

[cuthound]

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It will be depressing their profits by £12.50 per day per vehicle they run, I'd suggest.

 

Unless they are well off enough to have bought ULEZ compliant vehicles. 

 

 

 

The company that my youngest son works for as about a quarter of a mile inside the ULEZ zone. They have noticed that sales from their on-site shop has dropped by about 5% since the ULEZ introduction which has not been compensated for by increased web sales.

[Naughty Cal]

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

The company that my youngest son works for as about a quarter of a mile inside the ULEZ zone. They have noticed that sales from their on-site shop has dropped by about 5% since the ULEZ introduction which has not been compensated for by increased web sales.

That could of course be because people have less spare expendable cash due to price rises rather than the ULEZ charges.

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

That could of course be because people have less spare expendable cash due to price rises rather than the ULEZ charges.

 

It could be, but it coincided exactly with the introduction of the ULEZ charge, whereas the cost of living crisis has been ongoing for some time, although obviously it gets worse the longer it goes on.

[MtB]

55 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

It could be, but it coincided exactly with the introduction of the ULEZ charge, whereas the cost of living crisis has been ongoing for some time, although obviously it gets worse the longer it goes on.

 

So what is the thinking about the mechanism causing the drop in sales? ULEZ sucking £3k a year out of the disposable income of some of their customers, perhaps?