Continuous cruiser

[mayalld]

There has been much heated discussion about what constitutes a continuous cruiser, and whether certain pattern of use are legitimate.

 

So, let us cut to the question, and see whether people thing some hypothetical cruising patterns are OK.

 

The examples are local to me, because they were easier to dream up, but people from elsewhere can easily look them up!

 

In every case, the moorings given will allow the boater to be at Manchester Picadilly using a train that takes less than an hour, and is within 15 minutes walk of the train station.

 

In each case, the boater moors for two weeks at each location before moving on, and after two weeks at the last location returns to the first. The pattern repeats for ever

[sueb]

The 95 Act clearly gives the answer.

Sue

[mrsmelly]

There has been much heated discussion about what constitutes a continuous cruiser, and whether certain pattern of use are legitimate.

 

So, let us cut to the question, and see whether people thing some hypothetical cruising patterns are OK.

 

The examples are local to me, because they were easier to dream up, but people from elsewhere can easily look them up!

 

In every case, the moorings given will allow the boater to be at Manchester Picadilly using a train that takes less than an hour, and is within 15 minutes walk of the train station.

 

In each case, the boater moors for two weeks at each location before moving on, and after two weeks at the last location returns to the first. The pattern repeats for ever

 

Hi

 

I have voted and am one of the majority in your pole. I do not have a dictionary to hand but my understanding of the word continuous....means just that as in carry on going. I myself am sure that BW or whoever, originally intended the term to mean people using the system Not bits of it, thats the term we use as continuous moorers is it not ?

[Chris Pink]

I won't vote because your questions are so loaded.

 

Nobody does cruise like that so unless you are intending to it's just meaningless twaddle.

 

Hi

 

I have voted and am one of the majority in your pole. I do not have a dictionary to hand but my understanding of the word continuous....means just that as in carry on going. I myself am sure that BW or whoever, originally intended the term to mean people using the system Not bits of it, thats the term we use as continuous moorers is it not ?

 

Allow me to help (i really think you should get a better computer)

 

continuous: without interruption.

 

We spend so much time in the land of interpretation here, with plasticine flowers and cats that talk, and now you're postulating what BW meant.

 

just carry on going, like the flying dutchman, without cease, 24 hours a days, ghostly skulls at the helm.

 

Why don't you lot just come out and say it;

 

"we hate itinerant scum who think they can dare to live on their boats, getting something for nothing, never buying the Daily Mail, with your long hair and your drug taking children"

 

Your dripping bile is just so so irrelevant.

[GUMPY]

Can we add two boats local to me?

Been in the same pound for at least 6 years ( one has been there 8 years) moved between two moorings 200yards apart with the exception of 3 weeks away for blacking last year the odd week away when BW come knocking. Even two years ago when BW forced them to pay for a winter mooring they never went there.

 

Yes this is FACT and just one example local to me.

 

I am sure that they are not an isolated example, I can think of at least 3 others locally that run the same type of mooring pattern but because I don't see those every day I don't have absolute proof that they do.

 

And yes they were reported to BW (not by me) and what did BW do make one of them the local warden, she has since been relieved of her duties.

Edited January 29, 2010 by idleness

[carlt]

Hi

 

I have voted and am one of the majority in your pole. I do not have a dictionary to hand but my understanding of the word continuous....means just that as in carry on going. I myself am sure that BW or whoever, originally intended the term to mean people using the system Not bits of it, thats the term we use as continuous moorers is it not ?

I haven't voted because the term continuous cruiser is a label, given by BW, to fit into their interpretation of the BW Act.

 

Continuous Cruiser is not a legal term so it is purely down to the individual to decide what category he/she falls into (or wishes to pigeon hole others).

Edited January 29, 2010 by carlt

[Grace and Favour]

I won't vote because your questions are so loaded.

 

Nobody does cruise like that so unless you are intending to it's just meaningless twaddle.

 

 

 

Allow me to help (i really think you should get a better computer)

 

continuous: without interruption.

 

We spend so much time in the land of interpretation here, with plasticine flowers and cats that talk, and now you're postulating what BW meant.

 

just carry on going, like the flying dutchman, without cease, 24 hours a days, ghostly skulls at the helm.

 

Why don't you lot just come out and say it;

 

"we hate itinerant scum who think they can dare to live on their boats, getting something for nothing, never buying the Daily Mail, with your long hair and your drug taking children"

 

Your dripping bile is just so so irrelevant.

 

 

Oh - Chris - - come on now . . .

 

This isn't like you - - sitting on the fence like this . .

 

Why don't you say what you really mean?

[magpie patrick]

I won't vote because your questions are so loaded.

 

Nobody does cruise like that so unless you are intending to it's just meaningless twaddle.

 

 

 

Allow me to help (i really think you should get a better computer)

 

continuous: without interruption.

 

We spend so much time in the land of interpretation here, with plasticine flowers and cats that talk, and now you're postulating what BW meant.

 

just carry on going, like the flying dutchman, without cease, 24 hours a days, ghostly skulls at the helm.

 

Why don't you lot just come out and say it;

"we hate itinerant scum who think they can dare to live on their boats, getting something for nothing, never buying the Daily Mail, with your long hair and your drug taking children"

Your dripping bile is just so so irrelevant.

 

I don't say that Chris because, um, it's not what I think, but then you probably weren't targeting me.

 

Going to Dave;s question, context is all, I think Devizes to Bristol is okay if you work in Bath because there is no cruising ring. If the coal canal was open I might suggest you ought to go up it as well every now and then and get a bus into work.

 

If you are working in central Manchester then the entire Cheshire Ring is at your disposal and I would suggest that just sticking on the upper peak forest is being a bit mean.

 

We often talk of intentions, well, i'd describe whether someone is genuinely a bona fide navigator by their intentions. The other day I saw someone take their boat through Bradford Lock with no engine, as it had failed, but it was time to move, that's bona fide navigation. Someone who sits on ANY mooring (other than an official one) for six weeks or six month's because it is handy for the kids school or they like the view is not a bona fide. Please don't pick holes in the examples for the sake of it though, I'm just trying to illustrate my point.

[wrigglefingers]

I am cross, seriously cross.

 

One, I can't see why this is necessary.

 

Two, I think it's fair to say that there is no definite answer as the law itself is unclear. As long as we stick close to the definition in the 95 act there's not a problem.

 

Three, Whatever happened to the idea of letting sleeping dogs lie? We have enough worries to contend with without encouraging BW to take action on how people moor. The system as it stands works perfectly well without interference. You often cite the example of the western end of the K & A as the exemplar of where the system doesn't work and yet you declined my offer to come and see how it really is, and you refuse to accept the evidence offered by those of us who do (did, in my case) live there.

 

Four, Your poll is specious because BW have already stated that having job (ie needing to commute to Manchester daily) is incompatible with continuous cruising.

 

What are you trying to achieve here Dave? You have the right to an opinion but not to batter it down our throats on a daily basis. yes, people abuse the spirit of the law but so what? Why does it matter so much to you?

[magpie patrick]

I am cross, seriously cross.

Four, Your poll is specious because BW have already stated that having job (ie needing to commute to Manchester daily) is incompatible with continuous cruising.

 

Don's his pedant hat

 

Wriggles, what they've actually said is that having a job is not a reason for not sticking to the rules, it doesn't cover the "or longer period as is reasonable where circumstances dictate"

[wrigglefingers]

Don's his pedant hat

 

Wriggles, what they've actually said is that having a job is not a reason for not sticking to the rules, it doesn't cover the "or longer period as is reasonable where circumstances dictate"

 

Hmmm! When I read the regs (on the BW board at Bathampton) I recollect that it said that having a job or needing to get children to school was incompatible with continuous cruising. Could be wrong (it happens) but as it was my eureka moment (went to BoA and bought a boat on a mooring within a week) I do recall it very clearly.

 

My main point is that I can't see what Dave is trying to achieve. We know we are divided on the issue of continuous mooring, no amount of squabbling is going to resolve this. As it stands the forum is dividing into those who wish to argue about the issue and the rest of us. What particularly annoys me is that stands the chance of alerting BW to something that they feel they can 'resolve' cheaply with ramifications that will affect all of us (imposition of short-term mooring sites with fines in areas where there were no restrictions other than the 14 day one), when what they should be doing with their resources is dealing with the maintenance backlog and their own structural problems.

Edited January 29, 2010 by wrigglefingers

[deletedaccount]

I am cross, seriously cross.

 

One, I can't see why this is necessary.

 

Two, I think it's fair to say that there is no definite answer as the law itself is unclear. As long as we stick close to the definition in the 95 act there's not a problem.

 

Three, Whatever happened to the idea of letting sleeping dogs lie? We have enough worries to contend with without encouraging BW to take action on how people moor. The system as it stands works perfectly well without interference. You often cite the example of the western end of the K & A as the exemplar of where the system doesn't work and yet you declined my offer to come and see how it really is, and you refuse to accept the evidence offered by those of us who do (did, in my case) live there.

 

Four, Your poll is specious because BW have already stated that having job (ie needing to commute to Manchester daily) is incompatible with continuous cruising.

 

What are you trying to achieve here Dave? You have the right to an opinion but not to batter it down our throats on a daily basis. yes, people abuse the spirit of the law but so what? Why does it matter so much to you?

 

I'm with wriggles here.

 

The only people that appear to have a problem with the western K&A are those that never even come near it.

 

Continuous moaners continually moan about things they dislike the sound of rather than those that actually affect them. They should try putting all that that energy to better use imo.

[churchward]

Do you think we should have a poll to see how long this poll will remain open?

[magpie patrick]

Hmmm! When I read the regs (on the BW board at Bathampton) I recollect that it said that having a job or needing to get children to school was incompatible with continuous cruising. Could be wrong (it happens) but as it was my eureka moment (went to BoA and bought a boat on a mooring within a week) I do recall it very clearly.

 

Not picking on you Jill as I agree with you in principle but the guidance BW give is as follows

 

“14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances”

 

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

 

Examples are illness, family emergency, mechanical breakdown, emergency navigation stoppage etc. Such reasons should be made known to local BW people so that they can be noted. Reasonable steps (where possible) must be taken to remedy the cause of the longer stay – e.g. repairs put in hand where breakdown is the cause. Also a longer stop at an approved winter mooring outside the summer cruising season is permitted, subject to the payment of the local winter mooring fee.

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)

[carlt]

Do you think we should have a poll to see how long this poll will remain open?

or replace it with a poll about continuous moaners.

[churchward]

I'm with wriggles here.

 

The only people that appear to have a problem with the western K&A are those that never even come near it.

 

Continuous moaners continually moan about things they dislike the sound of rather than those that actually affect them. They should try putting all that that energy to better use imo.

I understand what you mean but "out of sight out of mind" is not always a good policy. An extreme example here is that I have never been directly effected by someone being murdered but just because of that doesn't mean to say I am OK with it happening.

 

Having said that though I don't really know the circumstances around the K&A dwellers and am not too interested in it either.

 

or replace it with a poll about continuous moaners.

Oh yes please, we all lilke a good moan!

[wrigglefingers]

Not picking on you Jill as I agree with you in principle but the guidance BW give is as follows

 

“14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances”

 

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

 

Examples are illness, family emergency, mechanical breakdown, emergency navigation stoppage etc. Such reasons should be made known to local BW people so that they can be noted. Reasonable steps (where possible) must be taken to remedy the cause of the longer stay – e.g. repairs put in hand where breakdown is the cause. Also a longer stop at an approved winter mooring outside the summer cruising season is permitted, subject to the payment of the local winter mooring fee.

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)

 

I didn't think you were, Patrick, it could well be that I've simply conflated it all in my mind and come to 'folk memory' version of it!

[carlt]

An extreme example here is that I have never been directly effected by someone being murdered but just because of that doesn't mean to say I am OK with it happening.

But somebody has been affected by a murder.

 

The vast majority of Bridge hoppers, with the exception of those who hog visitor moorings, are affecting nobody.

[mayalld]

I haven't voted because the term continuous cruiser is a label, given by BW, to fit into their interpretation of the BW Act.

 

Continuous Cruiser is not a legal term so it is purely down to the individual to decide what category he/she falls into (or wishes to pigeon hole others).

 

Perhaps you would care to answer on the basis that the term is being used as shorthand for "somebody who has obtained a licence on the basis that the will engage in navigation throughout the duration of the licence"

[magpie patrick]

I didn't think you were, Patrick, it could well be that I've simply conflated it all in my mind and come to 'folk memory' version of it!

 

I will admit that, in your circumstances, those words may in effect mean you can't CC and have job!

Given yours and Val's joint interest in folk dancing I suspect we'd all get on pretty well if we ever meet up.

[churchward]

But somebody has been affected by a murder.

 

The vast majority of Bridge hoppers, with the exception of those who hog visitor moorings, are affecting nobody.

I generally agree on the whole I am not that bothered I am just saying that if there is a real problem then "out of sight out of mind" is not a good way to deal with it always.

 

However I can see an issue if people are prevented from using visitor moorings IF folk are camping there on a long term basis.

 

On the whole as I have experienced it I don't see people causing problems by being CCers.

[magpie patrick]

I generally agree on the whole I am not that bothered I am just saying that if there is a real problem then "out of sight out of mind" is not a good way to deal with it always.

 

However I can see an issue if people are prevented from using visitor moorings IF folk are camping there on a long term basis.

 

On the whole as I have experienced it I don't see people causing problems by being CCers.

 

To be honest I've had more problems with the retired boaters who stop at 1pm and bag the best moorings than with non-moving bona fides. Perhaps we should make it a condition that no one is allowed to stop for the day before 7pm

[mayalld]

I am cross, seriously cross.

 

One, I can't see why this is necessary.

 

Two, I think it's fair to say that there is no definite answer as the law itself is unclear. As long as we stick close to the definition in the 95 act there's not a problem.

 

Three, Whatever happened to the idea of letting sleeping dogs lie? We have enough worries to contend with without encouraging BW to take action on how people moor. The system as it stands works perfectly well without interference. You often cite the example of the western end of the K & A as the exemplar of where the system doesn't work and yet you declined my offer to come and see how it really is, and you refuse to accept the evidence offered by those of us who do (did, in my case) live there.

 

Four, Your poll is specious because BW have already stated that having job (ie needing to commute to Manchester daily) is incompatible with continuous cruising.

 

What are you trying to achieve here Dave? You have the right to an opinion but not to batter it down our throats on a daily basis. yes, people abuse the spirit of the law but so what? Why does it matter so much to you?

 

Well, I'm taken aback!

 

Why would somebody asking some questions get under your skin so much (and why has it got under the skin of certain other posters such that they have vented rather than answer the questions).

 

However, let me address your points.

1) Is anything necessary? However, I believe that polls like this sometimes give a clearer view of what the balance of opinion is that discussions where some voices (mine included) dominate.

2) Yes, there is uncertainty and debate about what the definition means, so let us see what the consensus is.

3) There are stretches of canal where I might like to moor sometimes, but these stretches are always occupied by boats that seem to be there for weeks on end, and keep returning with monotonous regularity.

4) It isn't specious. There are places that one can commute to, and still CC. Manchester is one such place.

 

I'm not trying to batter an opinion down your throat. You don't have to read the thread, and in any case, I'm asking for opinions, not giving them out.

[deletedaccount]

It's the boring monotony of your threads dave.

 

You need a new hobby.

[mayalld]

It's the boring monotony of your threads dave.

 

You need a new hobby.

 

Really?

 

Of the last 10, 20, 30 threads I've started how many were about CCers?