Continuous Cruisers charging

[NB Alnwick]

At the end of the day, the present licensing system is quite adequate. Genuine Continuous Cruisers are not a problem and the only area of concern is a very small minority that ignore the rules.

 

The answer is quite straightforward - more British Waterways Patrol Officers either on boats or on foot.

 

The duties of these officers would include providing help and advice to boaters, noting any defects, maintenance requirements or boats in trouble, reporting any unlicensed or abandoned boats and generally making sure that boaters obey mooring restrictions. A sort of cross between the old-fashioned, friendly, AA/RAC Patrol Officer and a Parking Warden.

 

Simple - job done!

[Dominic M]

At the end of the day, the present licensing system is quite adequate. Genuine Continuous Cruisers are not a problem and the only area of concern is a very small minority that ignore the rules.

 

The answer is quite straightforward - more British Waterways Patrol Officers either on boats or on foot.

 

The duties of these officers would include providing help and advice to boaters, noting any defects, maintenance requirements or boats in trouble, reporting any unlicensed or abandoned boats and generally making sure that boaters obey mooring restrictions. A sort of cross between the old-fashioned, friendly, AA/RAC Patrol Officer and a Parking Warden.

 

Simple - job done!

I don't think it is adequate at all, Graham. Why not a toll system? Far cheaper than patrol officers - divert some of them to collecting the tolls and they can do lock management at the same time. A toll system would separate the "continuous moorers" from the "continuous cruisers" and establish a fair rate for use of the waterways.

[carlt]

I don't think it is adequate at all, Graham. Why not a toll system? Far cheaper than patrol officers - divert some of them to collecting the tolls and they can do lock management at the same time. A toll system would separate the "continuous moorers" from the "continuous cruisers" and establish a fair rate for use of the waterways.

Surely, if you're "continuously mooring" you'll never pass a toll booth.

 

Then again you're not wearing out the canals either, so why should you have to pay (see council tax argument).

[NB Alnwick]

I don't think it is adequate at all, Graham. Why not a toll system? Far cheaper than patrol officers - divert some of them to collecting the tolls and they can do lock management at the same time. A toll system would separate the "continuous moorers" from the "continuous cruisers" and establish a fair rate for use of the waterways.

 

Can't do that - all those modern boats will have to be re-built with ticket-drawers handy for the steerer.

[Postcode]

The whole debate is based on two premises.

 

Those that have moorings and choose to pay for them object to those who don't.

 

Those that do not have moorings flout the rules more than those that have moorings.

 

Neither of these premises are proven to my satisfaction.

 

There are a lot of marina based boats without licenses.

 

I am envious of those that do not need a permanent mooring and are able to live on their boats. My circumstances mean I have a land-based millstone.

 

I much prefer to see the waterways being used by everyone than the derelict ditches from the past. Any use helps to protect the system.

[Bones]

I don't think it is adequate at all, Graham. Why not a toll system? Far cheaper than patrol officers - divert some of them to collecting the tolls and they can do lock management at the same time. A toll system would separate the "continuous moorers" from the "continuous cruisers" and establish a fair rate for use of the waterways.

 

yeah right... so what you are saying is never mind all that, just impose the higher fees a different way, they will never guess that! There are better ways of separating the CCers from the CMers... patrol..

 

Oh gosh, I am just SO radical

 

I don't think it is adequate at all, Graham. Why not a toll system? Far cheaper than patrol officers - divert some of them to collecting the tolls and they can do lock management at the same time. A toll system would separate the "continuous moorers" from the "continuous cruisers" and establish a fair rate for use of the waterways.

 

 

sorry, I missed you ingenuity.... charge the people that aren't the problem tolls (i.e. higher mooring rates) AND get them to do the lock management... what a brilliant idea. That way erm... more people will moor because they don't want to pay tolls, and the problem is exacerbated.

 

Hurrah for bright ideas....

[Maffi]

I don't think it is adequate at all, Graham. Why not a toll system? Far cheaper than patrol officers - divert some of them to collecting the tolls and they can do lock management at the same time. A toll system would separate the "continuous moorers" from the "continuous cruisers" and establish a fair rate for use of the waterways.

 

 

Not very well thought out that little gem was it? A continuous moorer would not pass a toll point and once again the onus is on the genuine CCer to stump up! GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!

 

In case you have missed it we already have a fair system we all pay the same licence fee for the same access to the whole system. It is so simple a five year old could have thought it up.

 

Whats that "you cant use the whole system" so why is that my problem? If I pay £10,000 a year your fees will not drop by one penny and if you are daft enough to think that they will then you would probably be better off weaving baskets.

 

At present 3% of the canal users pay 13% of the cost. Charging CCers more will mean 3% of canal users will pay 15/16% of the cost. Oh yeah thats fair isnt it? NO no no!

 

I got a visit from the new warden today. His patch is from Oxford to Napton there are a lot of places to hide on 50 miles of canal.

[Maffi]

How far did the working boats of the past travel? Suely they completed the same few journeys for years on end. I doubt if the majority of these boats would be termed as continuous cruisers today because they would only be using one or two canals. Is that a 'large part of the network', probably not.

 

The canals were soley for trading in those days so has no bearing on the present situation. No licence just tolls and 18 hour days 6 days a week and they moored where they want to.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Maffi

[Maffi]

I called a friend of mine who used to be on the committee of APCO last night and he had no knowledge of any survey.

 

Could just be a NBW wind up in which case they have done very well!

 

Julian

 

 

You are right Julian it could be a wind up . . . . . .but Nigel Hamilton Vice Chairman of APCO said to me in an email nearly two weks ago,

 

"I assume when you refer to "that petition" you are referring to some market research conducted on a small scale by some APCO members in response to the last BW Licence review."

 

Well yes he may be right in that asumption, but, I believe I have seen a more recent document parts of which I have quoted on my blog.

 

It not only lambasts CCers but wide beams as well.

 

As soon as I find it I will make it available to CWF members.

[Big COL]

Not very well thought out that little gem was it? A continuous moorer would not pass a toll point and once again the onus is on the genuine CCer to stump up! GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!

 

In case you have missed it we already have a fair system we all pay the same licence fee for the same access to the whole system. It is so simple a five year old could have thought it up.

 

Whats that "you cant use the whole system" so why is that my problem? If I pay £10,000 a year your fees will not drop by one penny and if you are daft enough to think that they will then you would probably be better off weaving baskets.

 

At present 3% of the canal users pay 13% of the cost. Charging CCers more will mean 3% of canal users will pay 15/16% of the cost. Oh yeah thats fair isnt it? NO no no!

 

I got a visit from the new warden today. His patch is from Oxford to Napton there are a lot of places to hide on 50 miles of canal.

 

Good on yer Maffi. Now could you please stop flying that froggy french flag on your avitar, and replace it with the true English battle flag. Cheers dude.

[Dominic M]

yeah right... so what you are saying is never mind all that, just impose the higher fees a different way, they will never guess that! There are better ways of separating the CCers from the CMers... patrol..

 

Oh gosh, I am just SO radical

 

 

 

 

sorry, I missed you ingenuity.... charge the people that aren't the problem tolls (i.e. higher mooring rates) AND get them to do the lock management... what a brilliant idea. That way erm... more people will moor because they don't want to pay tolls, and the problem is exacerbated.

 

Hurrah for bright ideas....

As I said, it was an idea, not my written-in-stone solution to the present licensing position.

 

The fact is that BW, a considerable number of boat owners and APCO are not comfortable with the present licensing arrangements. We know that BW sought to increase licence charges for CCers, although they had to back down. But I expect they'll be looking at it again, and again.

 

You may disagree with it, but I can understand why some boat owners, who pay marina mooring costs and use their boat perhaps 4-6 weeks a year, feel that paying just as much to license their craft as those who are fortunate enough to be able to navigate the entire system year in year out is unfair. A similar approach to this is the concept of road pricing, which I have no doubt is the coming thing as opposed to the current flat rate annual tax disc.

 

I think you have misread my idea about lock management - I'm not suggesting that the CCers do that, I'm saying that by altering the licensing system to a "pay as you go" structure you could reassign many patrol officers to toll collection, which would surely be at certain locks, and once again we would have lock keepers, which would not be a bad thing.

 

Finally, the continuous moorers would be exposed, because their failure to move would be instantly detectable without relying on a patrol officer to tramp along the towpath on a frequent basis. And it does seem that in a number of areas the patrol officers form a friendship with some of those who potter along up and down the same length of canal and they leave them alone, providing they play the game and don't take over prime visitor mooring sites too frequently.

 

You can take the view that you don't mind certain people bucking the system by claimig to be CCers when they are not - and I'm really not that fussed myself - but many boaters are, and it is a source of friction that is not going to go away.

 

I put this up as a point for discussion. Perhaps the above few who seem to have reacted like bears with haemorrhoids might refrain from their yah boo sucks responses and come up with some other constructive suggestions about a licensing structure that will, almost inevitably, be reformed sooner or later.

 

Now, about that 10p tax rate.................................

 

Dominic

[Tusses]

Ho about a CC's refundable deposit ?

 

Every body pays up front top whack - what ever that may be.

 

CC's get their book stamped as they pass through various parts of the system and get a refund at the next license time.

 

CM's with legit moorings pay their normal rate.

 

Bridge hoppers pay the full whack at the start of the year - which covers the costs of patrol officers. - of course - they do have to patrol - AND enforce !

 

 

????

 

Just thinking out loud

[jelunga]

I am not sure who started this debate or why. If, as I assume, it those with moorings carping about CCers without, and saying that because you use your boat more you should pay more in license fees, (somebody correct me if I am wrong) then I assume that car / motorcycle owners who license their cars but do not use them everyday will be asking for those who use their cars every day to pay a higher license fee!!

 

The license fee gives people the right to use the road / canals. The more you use these facilities the more tax you will pay on the fuel you use.

 

That is it. Why should CCers pay more? THey do already in fuel tax, soon to be an even higher fuel tax.

 

Those who say they are CCers but are C-Moorers should pay the correct mooring fees.

 

All those who agree put their hands up!

 

Why pay money for more staff and more beurocracy (how do you spell that?) by having tolls at locks. It will only cause delays etc. And what happens when the toll lock keeper person fails to turn up for work? No open lock. That is also a potential problem for the K & A Canal suggestions from BW.

 

AAAh, you say, a spare person can be there quite quickly to take over. Ok, so what does that person do? Sit around all day waiting for someone to fail to turn up for work and costs money to do it.

 

No thanks.

Edited April 26, 2008 by jelunga

[Chris Pink]

Having just read all the posts in the re-started thread one thing jumps out; The people who think there is a problem are part of group other than the one they think are the problem. Why is everyone who posts on this thread looking for ways to divide people into groups and then objecting to the behaviour of that group?

 

The only problem on which everyone is agreed is that visitor moorings should be available to visitors. I navigate frequently on one of the busiest hire boat areas in the country and the number of boats floating in the middle of the canal because they can't find any where to moor is.... not very many, in fact.... none.

 

Visitor moorings are, in general, within a 100 yards or so of a geographical feature. so? moor 1/4 a mile away and walk. I would like to see visitor mooring kept free for wharfing, probably the only time I ever need a particular mooring. Disabled access may also be a good reason. Most people who use the canals do so for reasons other than visiting a town. If visitor moorings are full, moor alongside another boat.

 

My perception is that the canals are a wonderful place, I very very rarely fail to moor somewhere in the area I want to. The people who moor for ever in the middle of nowhere cause me less problem than all those people who cruise at weekends through busy locks.

 

What don't you people stop creating problems where none exist. All you do is add another layer to an already top heavy bureaucracy. The law contains more than enough power to manage the waterways.

[wotnot]

You may disagree with it, but I can understand why some boat owners, who pay marina mooring costs and use their boat perhaps 4-6 weeks a year, feel that paying just as much to license their craft as those who are fortunate enough to be able to navigate the entire system year in year out is unfair. A similar approach to this is the concept of road pricing, which I have no doubt is the coming thing as opposed to the current flat rate annual tax disc.

 

Dominic

 

Do you really believe that the flat rate road tax would be abolished if road pricing was introduced? I understand that the Dartford Crossing has been paid for but the last time I used it the tolls were still in place.

[Tusses]

Do you really believe that the flat rate road tax would be abolished if road pricing was introduced? I understand that the Dartford Crossing has been paid for but the last time I used it the tolls were still in place.

 

 

Nope ... we will continue to be outrageously screwed whilst 'they' squander 'our' money wastefully.

[Bones]

Having just read all the posts in the re-started thread one thing jumps out; The people who think there is a problem are part of group other than the one they think are the problem. Why is everyone who posts on this thread looking for ways to divide people into groups and then objecting to the behaviour of that group?

 

The only problem on which everyone is agreed is that visitor moorings should be available to visitors. I navigate frequently on one of the busiest hire boat areas in the country and the number of boats floating in the middle of the canal because they can't find any where to moor is.... not very many, in fact.... none.

 

Visitor moorings are, in general, within a 100 yards or so of a geographical feature. so? moor 1/4 a mile away and walk. I would like to see visitor mooring kept free for wharfing, probably the only time I ever need a particular mooring. Disabled access may also be a good reason. Most people who use the canals do so for reasons other than visiting a town. If visitor moorings are full, moor alongside another boat.

 

My perception is that the canals are a wonderful place, I very very rarely fail to moor somewhere in the area I want to. The people who moor for ever in the middle of nowhere cause me less problem than all those people who cruise at weekends through busy locks.

 

What don't you people stop creating problems where none exist. All you do is add another layer to an already top heavy bureaucracy. The law contains more than enough power to manage the waterways.

 

well said!

[Dominic M]

well said!

Come off it, Bones! The magazine to which you contribute is forever raising such issues. You can rightly say that you are not responsible for its editorial content, but you happily take the King's shilling. Of course licensing is going to be a debate, not least because the cost has risen far above the level of inflation in the past decade, and funding of the waterways is a major issue.

 

Dominic

[Tusses]

maybe the distinction should be made.

 

if you use the system you should pay to use it - however much that may be.

 

if you just moor and sit in one spot - why should you pay for the whole system ?

 

providing of course you have a legit mooring !

 

ok - another point then ... forgetting historic and all that ,, why shouldn't you be allowed to moor where ever you want and live there ???

 

there you go ... something to liven the debate up a bit

[Bones]

Come off it, Bones! The magazine to which you contribute is forever raising such issues. You can rightly say that you are not responsible for its editorial content, but you happily take the King's shilling. Of course licensing is going to be a debate, not least because the cost has risen far above the level of inflation in the past decade, and funding of the waterways is a major issue.

 

Dominic

 

I am not sure what I should come off.

Licencing will be a debate, and I beleive that by commenting on it I have entered into that debate, and I have been part of the CC debate for 4 years. That I write for a magazine is irrelevant. That a magazine has raised the issue simply suggests that it is a relevant issue. Indeed, I have a right to enter into this debate as much as you do.

[Chris Pink]

That I write for a magazine is irrelevant.

 

Which magazine do you write for?

[Bones]

CanalBoat

Edited April 28, 2008 by Bones

[GSer]

MMMMMM I'm only a new member of this community, and reading this thread has come as a bit of a shock. I am surprised there were such strong feelings against fellow boaters. I can understand the licence issues and I share peoples frustration over the lack of any apparant action by BW.

 

However I had no idea I was such a black sheep, it appears others would wish me banished from the sysytem, why? Because i no longer wish to pay others for a permanent mooring, to be honest I had a BW mooring, nice enough, but when the mooring rates increased well above inflation for three years running, the costs far outweighed the benifits as I only ever used the mooring from October to Easter, so over the summer the mooring was empty. So i decided to give it up and take winter moorings when needed and shuffle about within commuting distance (i'm still cursed with work). I never overstay, I never use visitor moorings unless its unavoidable (just one night so far this year), I tidy the bank area around where I stop. I make sure i use local supplers for fuel and coal (mostly buy of boats) and local shops & pubs for food and beer. I am always licensed, insured and otherwise a courteous safe boater. My only crime is that I can't CC and stay within commutable distance, i try to make sure i'm an a genuine progressive journey but inevitably I will return along the same route in a month or twos time.

 

Am I to be an outcast from the canal scene, what do I do so bad to offend others, enjoy myself maybe, dare to have a different lifestyle?

 

 

Bad to the bone, Paul

[bottle]

Paul

 

I will not castigate or condone what you do but by your own definition you are not a CCer so should have a pemanent mooring (paid for).

 

From BW:

 

• Continuous cruisers must be engaged in a genuine progressive journey (a

cruise) around the network, or a significant part of it.

• They must not stay moored in the same neighbourhood or locality for more than

14 days (unless special reasons prevent onward movement).

• It is the boater’s responsibility to satisfy BW that they keep to the rules.

 

Also:

 

Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to

stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study (e.g. a school or college).

 

If you keep your head down and don't cause trouble, I suspect you will get away with it.

 

[Maffi]

The fact is that BW, a considerable number of boat owners and APCO are not comfortable with the present licensing arrangements. We know that BW sought to increase licence charges for CCers, although they had to back down. But I expect they'll be looking at it again, and again.

You may disagree with it, but I can understand why some boat owners, who pay marina mooring costs and use their boat perhaps 4-6 weeks a year, feel that paying just as much to license their craft as those who are fortunate enough to be able to navigate the entire system year in year out is unfair. A similar approach to this is the concept of road pricing, which I have no doubt is the coming thing as opposed to the current flat rate annual tax disc.

 

I think you have misread my idea about lock management - I'm not suggesting that the CCers do that, I'm saying that by altering the licensing system to a "pay as you go" structure you could reassign many patrol officers to toll collection, which would surely be at certain locks, and once again we would have lock keepers, which would not be a bad thing.

 

Finally, the continuous moorers would be exposed, because their failure to move would be instantly detectable without relying on a patrol officer to tramp along the towpath on a frequent basis. And it does seem that in a number of areas the patrol officers form a friendship with some of those who potter along up and down the same length of canal and they leave them alone, providing they play the game and don't take over prime visitor mooring sites too frequently.

 

You can take the view that you don't mind certain people bucking the system by claimig to be CCers when they are not - and I'm really not that fussed myself - but many boaters are, and it is a source of friction that is not going to go away.

 

 

I have to wonder if you put your head on the right when you get up in the mornings. Yes BW are looking at Licencing again simply because some boaters do not understand the system as it works and even though BW did not take it further lastime some people insist on dragging it up again.

 

It is not the fault of the CCer that some boaters cant get their boats out more often so why penalise them. You hit the nail on the head some boaters are fortunate enough to be able to be out all year round. We/they planned their lives to do that, you obviously havent and are just jealous. If boating is to expensive then find something else to do.

 

"Reasign patrol officers to toll collection". What patrol officers?

 

Are you suggesting that Patrol Officers are less than diligent and corrupt?

 

If you are not that fussed whats your problem?

 

And another thing ............Why is this topic called "Continuous Cruiser charging" when people seem to be saying "continuous moorers"

Edited April 28, 2008 by Maffi