Continuous Cruisers

[dor]

If only the only thing that Council Tax had to pay for was removing rubbish.

[Big COL]

Fender

Quote......I agree with Maffi's response (posted below) - raising the license fee will probably price those on quite low incomes (who dont have wages but are able to manage to get by) off the canal. As I have pointed out before - those who are part of the anti-CC crusade have never thought through the issues properly - they just want to impose a status q.

Would it not be fair to say that these people of whom you refer to as CCers if they are in the position you say eg no job low income etc will not be moving about and therefore not CCers... in the true sense of the word.

 

This does not mean i want to get rid of anyone, just get things into prospective.

22123[/snapback]

 

Richard

 

Have you secretly discovered The Holy Grail, shall we now have to call you Richard The Lion Heart defender of the faith. When did this change of HEART take place? Three weeks ago you were advocating charging continuous cruisers extra fees for their usage of the system, arguing with Maffi and myself over this very point. I am confused, as to which wedding you are dancing at, would the real Richard stand up and clarify as to which side of the fence he is on. Friend or foe?

[Richard Bustens]

Big Col

 

I still have the same opinion of charging for what is used but if you read the previous posts and conversation with Maffi i did retract a lot of what i said.

 

I never had a problem with CCers or bridge hoppers only that they should pay extra, but on reflection if they did there would be no one paying the standard amount as everyone would fall into ether a CCer or moorer. so would be paying different amounts and no one paying the basic rate.

 

I still think there is a unbalance but can see no way of addressing it, so as maffi says, it work's ok as it is.

[maffi mushkila]

Big Col

 

I still have the same opinion of charging for what is used but if you read the previous posts and conversation with Maffi i did retract a lot of what i said.

 

I never had a problem with CCers or bridge hoppers only that they should pay extra, but on reflection if they did there would be no one paying the standard amount as everyone would fall into ether a CCer or moorer. so would be paying different amounts and no one paying the basic rate.

 

I still think there is a unbalance but can see no way of addressing it, so as maffi says, it work's ok as it is. 

 

The important thing is Richard that BW set the rules and charges a long time ago. Those that abide by those rules and pay their dues are legal and do not deserve to be the brunt of ill conceived comments, so please stop using CCer in the same breath as other..................not so legal boaters.

 

Expecting CCer's to pay extra for the same level of service is as preposterous as you throwing your toys out of the pram a few weeks ago prattling on about never coming back to CWF and the next thing we know you are a moderator. (Yes I know what you are going to say I departed and returned).

 

I know people who don't change their socks as often as you change your mind!

 

You still don't grasp the fact that everyone pays the same for the same service. If you choose not to use it thats up to you.

 

Here in Saudi if you don't use the government services you pay for you are fined. A specific case in mind is the multi-exit/re-entry visa which allows you to come and go into the Kingdom as and when you please. If you have it in your passport and only leave the Kingdom and return once in a 6 month period at the end of that time you are not allowed to leave the Kingdom again until you have paid a SR1000 fine, (just short of £150) a single visa costing only SR200 about £30.

 

So maybe we should think about fining Marina moorers for not using the canal they have paid to use. This would generate a huge amount of revenue, then we could see how they moan about being priced off the cut.

 

I have been out here for nearly two years. I still pay my TV licence even though I only spend 4/5 weeks a year in my house. And I don't go on about the need to pay less because I am rarely there.

 

Give it a rest!

Edited June 8, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[Big COL]

Big Col

 

I still have the same opinion of charging for what is used but if you read the previous posts and conversation with Maffi i did retract a lot of what i said.

 

I never had a problem with CCers or bridge hoppers only that they should pay extra, but on reflection if they did there would be no one paying the standard amount as everyone would fall into ether a CCer or moorer. so would be paying different amounts and no one paying the basic rate.

 

I still think there is a unbalance but can see no way of addressing it, so as maffi says, it work's ok as it is. 

22374[/snapback]

 

Richard

 

You have missed your vocation you should have been an MP you have answered my question and left me totally confused, I'm beginning to think I have got this all wrong.

Can we look at this from a different angle? Imagine there are no marinas,or any moorings anywhere on the system. You license your boat according to Length (as it's done today,(which is fair and just). Off you go on to the system abiding by the short stay rules, and you continue to do this for some time, then you decide I have had enough of this I want to cruise when I want to cruise not keep moving on all the time I want the privilege of doing what I want to do and I am prepared to pay extra, so I can escape from being on the move all the time.

So you kick up a stink and BW say OK if this is what you want and you are prepared to pay for this privilege then we will create space for private moorings and you will pay for this space (mooring fees) So now you are happy you have paid to escape continuous cruising. Surprise, surprise - you have created the system that operates today, only some of the boaters want the same privilege as you, but don't want to PAY as you have done, to enjoy this privilege. Now we have created something else, let's call them overstayers, bridge hoppers, plus the ones that haven't bothered to license their boat at all, but they are fine by you, you're not bothered that they are enjoying the same privilege that you have paid extra for. You want to charge the ones that are still operating under status quo extra fees to continue to do, what you have paid extra for, to escape from. WHY, where is the logic in this. Surely you can see that it's the bridge hoppers and co that are ripping YOU off BIG TIME.

Perhaps not, then it will only enhance what I said at the beginning You would make an excellent MP somewhere, NIMBY. There may only be a very small number of genuine CC's but even if it was only one boat it still has the right and should have the respect from the rest of us to do so, correct definition is all that's required, genuine CC's as few or as many as there are are not and should not be classed with any of the non rule abiders.

Edited June 8, 2005 by Big COL

[DHutch]

You license your boat according to Length, as it's done today,which is fair and just.

Well, its interesting you say that, becuase there was an artical in last months mag that was argueing that this was silly.

- And i have to admit, it was making a lot of sence!

 

Why should licences for longer boats cost more?

- They use the locks/bridges just as much/often at the longer boats.

- They use the water/pumpout just about as much.

- The cause about as much pollotion and erroding of the banks as a longer boat.

 

- The only thing they should cost more for is mooring on the towpath, becuase they take up more lenght. But that said, theres a lot of towpath to go at!

 

 

Daniel (59ft NB)

[maffi mushkila]

Well, its interesting you say that, becuase there was an artical in last months mag that was argueing that this was silly.

- And i have to admit, it was making a lot of sence!

 

Why should licences for longer boats cost more?

- They use the locks/bridges just as much/often at the longer boats.

- They use the water/pumpout just about as much.

- The cause about as much pollotion and erroding of the banks as a longer boat.

 

- The only thing they should cost more for is mooring on the towpath, becuase they take up more lenght. But that said, theres a lot of towpath to go at!

Daniel (59ft NB)

 

Daniel

 

There are 26,000 licenced boats and 2000miles of waterway that is only 135 yards each. If you add in the non licence payers it comes down to 125 yards each.

 

Each 72 ft boat when moored on the tow path only leaves 303 feet of his 'allotted' 125 yards free.

 

A 60 ft boat when moored leaves 315 ft free.

 

A 40 ft boat when moored leaves 335 ft free.

 

So in all fairness the smaller the boat the more space left for others such as fishermen and the more revenue that BW can generate from that unused space. Its only fair that the smaller boat should pay less.

 

Ps this is not a serious comment

Edited June 8, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[maffi mushkila]

Well, its interesting you say that, becuase there was an artical in last months mag that was argueing that this was silly.

- And i have to admit, it was making a lot of sence!

 

About a silly as reduced Road tax for small cars

[DHutch]

About a silly as reduced Road tax for small cars

Yeah, is was going to say "they dont tax cars by the foot!"

 

- Also, another thing the artical pointed out is that the lenght of the boat is not ever propotional to the weathyness of the owner.

 

 

Daniel

[maffi mushkila]

Yeah, is was going to say "they dont tax cars by the foot!"

 

- Also, another thing the artical pointed out is that the lenght of the boat is not ever propotional to the weathyness of the owner.

Daniel

 

You missed my point.

 

To encourage people to use less polluting cars the Road Tax is lower.

 

There must be a similar analogy with the length of boat.

 

 

And on the subject of wealthyness (is that a good word?) if Joe Boater has a 40 ft income and chooses to buy a 70 ft boat that is no reason to assume that paying for the boat by the foot is not a good idea.

[Amicus]

I think Daniel if referring to an article by ******. The article also advocates charging by usage, i.e. the more you are away from your mooring the more you should pay.

So all boats, irrespective of length pay the same standing charge plus usage, look at it another way, a large boat that does not move much (a houseboat, say) will benefit. Now perhaps we should examine the situation pertaining to ******, what sort of vessel, what sort of usage, and wonder if an agenda doth appear?

 

PS. To Moderators, I have been as careful as I can here but I am (nearly) guilty of playing the man, not the ball. If, as mods, you are uncomfortable with this post please delete it, not edit it. The man in question, *******, though, does put himself in the public domain.

[fender]

What might make a difference is if those boats that are polluting the waterway also help aerate it with their prop! I like to feel that although I may dump some un-natural material into the eco-system, I at least help the natural process of breakdown by assisting the oxygenation of the water. If a boat never moves then I expect they are a much greater pollutant.

22400[/snapback]

 

 

I've just had a change to catch up with whats happening on the forums today. I read about the eco-stuff on another thread and at the behest of causing offence to moorers, I can see that from this eco-stuff thread if boats are not moving then they are not doing their bit for the canal, but are - as Khayamanzi says - a much greater pollutant. I expect everyone will know where I am heading on this - so i wont say anymore because I can see the brickbats coming.

 

I just hope that those anti's will accept that whatever they think there is always some logic that deflates their arguements. I always remember the logic espoused for canal restoration that moving boats create a much healthier and vibrant waterway - and this is still a strongly valid arguement.

 

Let us remember that the lack of moving boats (commercial traffic decline) caused many canals to be closed down and filled in because people didnt want stinking ditches. Surely by conducting this anti-CC crusade, some are becoming guilty of forsaking the strong pioneering canal spirit that has been such a feature of the Uk waterways?

[dor]

Surely by conducting this anti-CC crusade,

 

I'm still not clear on this.

 

Are people anti- continuous cruisers, or anti bridge hoppers?

 

Do people understand the difference yet?

[fender]

I'm still not clear on this.

 

Are people anti- continuous cruisers, or anti bridge hoppers?

 

Do people understand the difference yet?

22439[/snapback]

 

Depends. Some will be anti-CC's whillst others will be anti-Bridge Hoppers. But so far it seems most are mixing the two up making CC's synonymous with bridge hoppers. Its just because both categories dont have permanent moorings that they get villified.

 

Some see CC's as nothing more than glorified bridge hoppers. But as always their views wil be clouded by pre-judgements and wrongful perceptions. When I read the topic by psychicdreamer I can see a bit of where he is coming from - it is that the negative perceptions and atttiudes that have been displayed on this thread that are so much like those found in racism. It is how racism starts. It is how minoritiy groups are pigeonholed. The constructs are there. The targets are only different. It is dangerous to also tarnish bridge hoppers without a prior knowlegde of the social issues and why they might be bridge hoppers. Some CC's may have become bridge hoppers through no fault of their own, whilst some bridge hoppers may have become CC's due to a change of circumstances. Its the same as some boaters becide to give up boats and live on the land or some house dwellers decide to move onto the canals.

 

There are always movements across the social spectrum and so categorising is not a very effective way. An observation made means the set-up is altered completely. This, as well as being a feature of quantum physics, is also sadly a feature of real life. You meet someone or you contact someone - the set-up has already been changed and the perceptions no longer apply. Everytime someone tries to re-open the CC box, the problem is they bring a fixed perception of what a cc'er is (viz a cc/bridgehopper/overstayer/neverpays/socialmisfit/untidyboater etc) and there is no positive insight. That is why the anti-cc bridgade are so rancid. They cant see the limitations of their own arguements.

Edited June 9, 2005 by fender

[Richard Bustens]

Fender

What you are saying is not that far from what I'm saying.

Only you are putting it better

So what do you think should be done with the various categories?

[DHutch]

To encourage people to use less polluting cars the Road Tax is lower.

Yes, but that worked out on emistions and MPG etc

- Not by the foot.

 

I think Daniel if referring to an article by ******. The article also advocates charging by usage.

Yeah, i beleave thats the one

 

Licencing and mooring fees are charged by the foot, or I should say by the metre.

Yes, i realize that. What where (im) saying is that although is sensable to charge mooring fees 'by the foot'.

- This my not be the cast for licencing.

 

 

Daniel

Edited June 9, 2005 by dhutch

[maffi mushkila]

Yes, but that worked out on emistions and MPG etc

- Not by the foot.

 

Agreed, but what if the plan was to get smaller boats on the canal, then charging by the foot would have an impact.

[Bernie]

Licencing and mooring fees are charged by the foot, or I should say by the metre.

[fender]

Licencing and mooring fees are charged by the foot, or I should say by the metre.

22482[/snapback]

 

That is right but the discussion is about comparisions with the roads where an incentive is made for zero emission vehicles.

[Big COL]

That is right but the discussion is about comparisions with the roads where an incentive is made for zero emission vehicles.

22506[/snapback]

 

Hi fender

 

Not true with commercial vehicles. The number of wheels in contact with the road applies with commercials. A six wheeled unit with a tri axled trailer capable of carrying 44 tonne gross, is cheaper than a four wheeled (2 axled) vehicle with a gross weight of 18 tonne. It's all about weight distribution per axle which equates

to the wear and tear to the road surface.

[fender]

Fender

What you are saying is not that far from what I'm saying.

Only you are putting it better

So what do you think should be done with the various categories?

22458[/snapback]

 

 

Its NOT easy. Every time there is a rule or a law there are always disaffected ones. I remember from my days of demonstrating the badges that many people wore - "every new law means a new criminal." The police arrest people (Guildford Four, Birmingham Six etc) totally convinced that they were bombers. Now evidence proves them police to be totally wrong. It happens a lot. Lots of people get locked up for having done nothing. What i want to say is that despite our well thought systems, there are always problems. There are always inconsistencies. The culprits may not necessarily be the ones your think they are. I do not advocate saying that we let off everyone who is potentially gullible. Far from it. Of course there are misdemanors and there are real culprits. All I am saying is that as we 'progress' it clearly becomes more impossible to justify things under our old systems of perceptions. It becomes more difficult to jusfify categorising and blaming certain sections of society. We say that the current craze for youths to go around faces hidden and under a hood is a excuse for theft and other crimes - perhaps some do but I belive the majority dont. The old catergories that we dwelled upon for a stable and workable society dont work now.

 

I often feel that there is a need for a re think on a lot of things right across the social spectrum. This is very much the same with canals. Unfortunately there is a main problem - the canals are a 200 year old plus network of waterways with a infrastructure that hasnt changed much in terms of two centuries. Compare this with the demands and pressures of modern day society that are forced upon the waterways - and I think it is too early to say we can devise solutions in terms of canal society.

 

The canals were built for peoples who lives were so different and for commercial markets that were also so different. If Marx had been around 200 years ago the canals probabaly would have never got built because the navvies were very cheap labour and very terribly exploited. In the same way things such as peristrokia deomlished what people thought were the 'new ways' in Russia post 1917. Now Russia is different but its also having to struggle terribly with conflicts of ideas from all directions on how to go forward. New ideas and new factors and new insights come up all the time and old arguements die away or get modified. The anti-cc rabble definitely doesnt help to bring up a new horizon from where perhaps we can see a much clearer way ahead. It just clouds perceptions and makes it much more difficult to think of solutions or new ways ahead.

[fender]

Hi fender

 

  Not true with commercial vehicles. The number of wheels in contact with the road applies with commercials. A six wheeled unit with a tri axled trailer capable of carrying 44 tonne gross, is cheaper than a four wheeled (2 axled) vehicle with a gross weight of 18 tonne. It's all about weight distribution per axle which equates

to the wear and tear to the road surface.

22512[/snapback]

 

Surely that makes sense in terms of how a better weight distribution reduces pressure on the road surface? However its not what we are looking at on the canals is it? We are talking about CC's arent we? How does this weight distribution philosophy equate with this discussion on CC's?

Edited June 9, 2005 by fender

[John Orentas]

Quote Fender;

 

"Now evidence proves them police to be totally wrong. It happens a lot. Lots of people get locked up for having done nothing"

 

I once got locked up for something I didn't do.

[John Orentas]

There is an aqueduct somewhere in the midlands, can't remember which one, for donkey's years there was a notice at each end.

 

"Only one boat is allowed on the aqueduct at a time"

 

Someone had been studying Archimedes.

[DHutch]

I once got locked up for something I didn't do.

That must a been tough, dude.

- I got a little bit caught up in somthing a while back, and even that changed the way i look at the world massivly.

- I know the police etc are just doing there job, and its is nessasary for them to go about it the why they do, but its not nice to be on the receaveing and even, not even somthing very small.

 

 

Daniel