how long can you stay

[mrsmelly]

Yes, I think that a valid assumption.

 

Those who moor for 7 days will, as a general rule be living on their boats, whilst leisure users will tend to stay for 1 or 2 days.

 

It seems reasonable to assume that leisure users eat in pubs more than liveaboards.

You are 100 per cent correct. Also when people move around more often they tend to try things out whereas when they stay put they visit a pub once but often do not go back in again.

[blodger]

So take it up with your association or even with BW.

Sue

Well as has been said in later postings it is no business of BWs to respond and concede to the Thrupp mafia or manipulate for the local economies. It should take into account the needs of all boat users. I'll argue with BW or ignore it should it come to fruition and if I am affected by it.

 

I am commenting on what has been said not asking for advice on how to deal with it

Trouble is it makes it harder to weekend (Friday, Sat & Sun in my case) a boat around the system if there is nowhere adjacent to moor for 5 days in between legitimately

Edited January 3, 2011 by blodger

[Tam & Di]

My bet is that this thread will reach 3 pages

 

Would you like to review this estimate now? My own feeling is that it is beginning to tail off now, but there's probably a way to wind everyone up again if somebody really tried.

[DeanS]

Would you like to review this estimate now? My own feeling is that it is beginning to tail off now, but there's probably a way to wind everyone up again if somebody really tried.

 

I think it got to 3 and I stirred it up... I'll estimate 7 pages...you never know.

 

I heard that BW had the ear of hiring boat companies. Is that right....that maybe CCers are looked upon with suspicion...to be honest though...when I applied for my licence...I put down the marina I currently use...but there is nothing to say that someone isnt going to just leave a marina any time in the year and go cruising...so there's no difference really in CCers and those who claim to only cruise on weekends. It's a completely faded line...surely it should just be...a "private" boat user, and a "hire user" ....and perhaps there shouldnt even be a different category for those 2.... you're either a boat user, or not. The only difference being that in the case of hired boats, the boat is managed by a representative of the actual users.

 

 

 

[Alan Saunders]

Every time this thread is repeated I become confused as to the consensus because there is none. Properly drafted laws are for the benefit of the majority, allow some discrimination at all levels but allow no ambiguity if a penalty is threatened or imposed.

 

It may cheer the heart of some to hear that I have received a notice for overstaying on a 48hr mooring. I filled up with water one December evening at Gt Bedwyn Wharf. At 5pm it was getting dark and I moored on the 48hr section. The next day saw heavy rain and the following morning at 10am, I had a notice saying that I had overstayed at "Wooton Rivers". There was just one other boat on the 48hr moorings, a local moorer who had been there for a week or so with engine problems. BTW, the notice for the boat that had a Gt Bedwyn mooring said "Continue your journey or return to your mooring". If you have a mooring anywhere, BW consider it acceptable for you to return to the same place over and over again.

 

I was once told by a BW enforcer that 'local fishermen' had complained about my presence at a particular location; next day my boat was set adrift and two of my car tyres were slashed. I am also assured that a resident of Wilcot will urinate on your car door and pile dog faeces next to it if his complaints to BW do not bring satisfaction.

 

Please folks, let's live and let live. If you find me moored in the middle of no-where please don't complain to BW.

 

I have been iced in for many weeks and very short of water. First chance I had to get to the water point I found a boat moored overnight denying me access. There was plenty of room further along the wharf. Where are the 'rules' or the enforcement for that sort of selfish behaviour!

 

Alan

[cotswoldsman]

This subject always goes on for ages with everyone agreeing to disagree or not.

If the reason for 48 hour moorings is because local business's feel it is better for them then I have no problem with this based on the fact that some of this extra income will be paid to BW to help with the maintenance of the system, or do they feel they can put pressure on how long boaters can stay in one area completely to their benefit and not put anything back into the system.

Now the other point I would make is that I have now been in Cropredy for 3 weeks having eaten in the pub most nights with 2 other CCers and every day we have been to the local shop buying bits and pieces. During the last 3 months on The South Oxfordshire I have most probably spent £1,000 a month including nearly £400 with Dusty the coal boat on coal and diesel. Over and above this I have also spent £550 at Tooley's in Banbury on new batteries, at the boat yard in Aynho £400 on having work done on my boat including a new header tank. Last week I went and paid a local farmer £500 for 3 months winter mooring. Funny thing is during this period I have only seen about 4 hire boats and certainly none during the last 2 months. Of the hire boats I have seen not seen any of them supporting what I would call the real canal traders such as Tooley's, Dusty or the boat yard at Aynho, yet it seems that these hire boats are deemed to be more important than me, and for that reason some think 7/14 day moorings should be changed to 48 hour mooings to benefit Hire Boats.

Edited January 4, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[blodger]

This subject always goes on for ages with everyone agreeing to disagree or not.

If the reason for 48 hour moorings is because local business's feel it is better for them then I have no problem with this based on the fact that some of this extra income will be paid to BW to help with the maintenance of the system, or do they feel they can put pressure on how long boaters can stay in one area completely to their benefit and not put anything back into the system.

Now the other point I would make is that I have now been in Cropredy for 3 weeks having eaten in the pub most nights with 2 other CCers and every day we have been to the local shop buying bits and pieces. During the last 3 months on The South Oxfordshire I have most probably spent £1,000 a month including nearly £400 with Dusty the coal boat on coal and diesel, £550 at Tooley's in Banbury on new batteries, at the boat yard in Aynho £400 on having work done on my boat including a new header tank. Last week I went and paid a local farmer £500 for 3 months winter mooring. Funny thing is during this period I have only seen about 4 hire boats and certainly none during the last 2 months. Of the hire boats I have seen not seen any of them supporting what I would call the real canal traders such as Tooley's, Dusty or the boat yard at Aynho, yet it seems that these hire boats are deemed to be more important than me, and for that reason some think 7/14 day moorings should be changed to 48 hour mooings.

I agree that BW should not be reducing mooring stay length to please anybody. Whatever conclusions it reaches are usually wrong and its improvements end up detrimental at times. It should leave well alone.

[DeanS]

This subject always goes on for ages with everyone agreeing to disagree or not.

If the reason for 48 hour moorings is because local business's feel it is better for them then I have no problem with this based on the fact that some of this extra income will be paid to BW to help with the maintenance of the system, or do they feel they can put pressure on how long boaters can stay in one area completely to their benefit and not put anything back into the system.

Now the other point I would make is that I have now been in Cropredy for 3 weeks having eaten in the pub most nights with 2 other CCers and every day we have been to the local shop buying bits and pieces. During the last 3 months on The South Oxfordshire I have most probably spent £1,000 a month including nearly £400 with Dusty the coal boat on coal and diesel, £550 at Tooley's in Banbury on new batteries, at the boat yard in Aynho £400 on having work done on my boat including a new header tank. Last week I went and paid a local farmer £500 for 3 months winter mooring. Funny thing is during this period I have only seen about 4 hire boats and certainly none during the last 2 months. Of the hire boats I have seen not seen any of them supporting what I would call the real canal traders such as Tooley's, Dusty or the boat yard at Aynho, yet it seems that these hire boats are deemed to be more important than me, and for that reason some think 7/14 day moorings should be changed to 48 hour mooings.

 

 

That's exactly what I was getting at in my earlier posts, but I began to doubt myself.. I hereby re-publish my belief that CC-ers shouldnt be relegated to "boaters who dont contribute as much as hire boats" . In fact if you take the winter months, when hire boats dont run, Im sure CC-ers keep local businesses alive I feel better now

[mayalld]

I would suggest that BW has no responsibility regarding the economic impact of any given areaand should not make mooring decisions on this basis.

 

Your suggestion is noted.

 

However, s104(1)( of the Transport Act 1968 is also noted, which says;

 

the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as “the cruising waterways”) to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes

 

BW has a legal duty to ensure that cruising waterways are PRINCIPALLY available for recreational purposes, which means that they can (and should) manage moorings so as to benefit leisure use on the canals, and improving the economic impact on riparian communities, ensuring that the pub keeps going etc., is beneficial for leisure users.

 

It is also worth noting that every application for funding for canal restoration hinges largely upon the claimed economic benefits to the communities that the canal passes through. Those economic benefits will only happen if there are moorings available for leisure users wishing to have meals in pubs etc.

 

If the moorings are occupied by liveaboard boaters spending less money, the funders will treat future applications more scepticaly, and it will be harder to get funds for restoration.

[weeble]

This subject always goes on for ages with everyone agreeing to disagree or not.

If the reason for 48 hour moorings is because local business's feel it is better for them then I have no problem with this based on the fact that some of this extra income will be paid to BW to help with the maintenance of the system, or do they feel they can put pressure on how long boaters can stay in one area completely to their benefit and not put anything back into the system.

Now the other point I would make is that I have now been in Cropredy for 3 weeks having eaten in the pub most nights with 2 other CCers and every day we have been to the local shop buying bits and pieces. During the last 3 months on The South Oxfordshire I have most probably spent £1,000 a month including nearly £400 with Dusty the coal boat on coal and diesel. Over and above this I have also spent £550 at Tooley's in Banbury on new batteries, at the boat yard in Aynho £400 on having work done on my boat including a new header tank. Last week I went and paid a local farmer £500 for 3 months winter mooring. Funny thing is during this period I have only seen about 4 hire boats and certainly none during the last 2 months. Of the hire boats I have seen not seen any of them supporting what I would call the real canal traders such as Tooley's, Dusty or the boat yard at Aynho, yet it seems that these hire boats are deemed to be more important than me, and for that reason some think 7/14 day moorings should be changed to 48 hour mooings.

 

Good post! One of the things I like about this forum is that every now and again you get to see a point of view that you'd previously not given much consideration.

[cotswoldsman]

david you certainly have the ability to interpret a small part of an Act of Parliament to suit your self.

Where does it say

BW has a legal duty to ensure that cruising waterways are PRINCIPALLY available for recreational purposes, which means that they can (and should) manage moorings so as to benefit leisure use on the canals, and improving the economic impact on riparian communities, ensuring that the pub keeps going etc., is beneficial for leisure users.

 

 

 

In this part of the Act that you are quoting

 

 

However, s104(1)( of the Transport Act 1968 is also noted, which says;

 

the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the cruising waterways") to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes

 

 

[Speedwheel]

As such, you must move off that stretch (which would include passing through a bridge, or passing a time limit sign) to start another 14 day limit.

 

So does that mean that moving from one side of a bridge hole, or moorings restriction marker, to the other would suffice?

[mrsmelly]

Trouble is it makes it harder to weekend (Friday, Sat & Sun in my case) a boat around the system if there is nowhere adjacent to moor for 5 days in between legitimately

 

That is exactly why the time period will hopefully be reduced. There is no need to leave a boat on a prime visitors site for days between useage as people moving around the system then cannot stop there. There are many many places to leave a boat between weekends within a mile either side of so called honey pot moorings, leaving a boat at a hot spot when not in use can be quite selfish, unless of course a genuine disability may need to be taken into account.

[mayalld]

david you certainly have the ability to interpret a small part of an Act of Parliament to suit your self.

 

 

The act requires that the waterway is PRINCIPALLY available for recreational purposes.

 

It seems self evident to me that where there is a limited resource to be shared amongst leisure users and non-leisure users, then that resource must be allocated such that leisure users get at least 51% of what is available, and the waterway managed so as to encourage leisure users.

[cotswoldsman]

The act requires that the waterway is PRINCIPALLY available for recreational purposes.

 

It seems self evident to me that where there is a limited resource to be shared amongst leisure users and non-leisure users, then that resource must be allocated such that leisure users get at least 51% of what is available, and the waterway managed so as to encourage leisure users.

 

david you do have the ability to tax my rather simple brain. Just so I understand are you saying that

 

1. CCer are not leisure users.

2. That 7/14 day moorings should be changed to benefit local business as they are leisure users.

3. That moorings should be in some cases be made exclusive for fishermen/woman say moorings close to pubs, bridges and roads.

4. That 51% of moorings should be for non boating activities such as feeding the ducks before going to the pub.

[mayalld]

david you do have the ability to tax my rather simple brain. Just so I understand are you saying that

 

1. CCer are not leisure users.

2. That 7/14 day moorings should be changed to benefit local business as they are leisure users.

3. That moorings should be in some cases be made exclusive for fishermen/woman say moorings close to pubs, bridges and roads.

4. That 51% of moorings should be for non boating activities such as feeding the ducks before going to the pub.

 

 

1. Some CCers are indeed leisure users. Many are not. Most cruising non-CCers are leisure users. Hence any action that favours non-CCers will of necessity favour leisure use.
2. Riparian businesses are not leisure users, but their presence make the canal more appealing to leisure users, hence managing the canal to encourage leisure use improves the prospects of riparian businesses, which increases the appeal to leisure users.
3. Yes, it would be appropriate to make provision for them.
4. No, that does not follow at all.

[cotswoldsman]

1. Some CCers are indeed leisure users. Many are not. Most cruising non-CCers are leisure users. Hence any action that favours non-CCers will of necessity favour leisure use.
2. Riparian businesses are not leisure users, but their presence make the canal more appealing to leisure users, hence managing the canal to encourage leisure use improves the prospects of riparian businesses, which increases the appeal to leisure users.
3. Yes, it would be appropriate to make provision for them.
4. No, that does not follow at all.

 

I can not accept what you are saying. The idea that CCers are some sort of second class citizen and should be treated as such is difficult to accept. That aside I still don not see how you get to all the above conclusions fron this:

 

However, s104(1)( of the Transport Act 1968 is also noted, which says;

 

the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the cruising waterways") to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes

 

 

 

[mayalld]

I can not accept what you are saying. The idea that CCers are some sort of second class citizen and should be treated as such is difficult to accept. That aside I still don not see how you get to all the above conclusions fron this:

 

 

 

I don't claim that they are second class citizens.

 

I merely claim (and do so with facts to support my claim) that the legislation governing BW requires them to favour leisure interests on cruising waterways over the interests of liveaboard boaters. Liveaboards are welcome, but they must accept that the way moorings are managed will often be sub-optimal for their needs, because they are rightly optimised for leisure users, as required by the act.

[cotswoldsman]

I don't claim that they are second class citizens.

 

I merely claim (and do so with facts to support my claim) that the legislation governing BW requires them to favour leisure interests on cruising waterways over the interests of liveaboard boaters. Liveaboards are welcome, but they must accept that the way moorings are managed will often be sub-optimal for their needs, because they are rightly optimised for leisure users, as required by the act.

 

 

However, s104(1)( of the Transport Act 1968 is also noted, which says;

 

the waterways for the time being specified in Part II of that Schedule, being waterways (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the cruising waterways") to be principally available for cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes

 

 

 

 

Where does it say that it says" cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes" in equal amount it does not say "to the exclusion of CCers" unless you are saying that anyone that chooses to cruise the system is not a leisure user.

[mayalld]

Where does it say that it says" cruising, fishing and other recreational purposes" in equal amount it does not say "to the exclusion of CCers" unless you are saying that anyone that chooses to cruise the system is not a leisure user.

 

I wouldn't clam that anyone who chooses to cruise the system is not a leisure user, nor do I claim that anything must be to the complete exclusion of CCers.

 

However;

• anybody who lives on board a boat is using the boat for something more than simply recreation.
• the act requires that the primary focus must be recreation. Other uses can be accomodated, but not to the extent that they predominate.

[romarni123]

Does any of the acts laws etc apply just to liveaboards not ccers as you can cc and not live on your boat.What I mean laws just for liveaboards and nothing else.

Edited January 4, 2011 by romarni123

[mayalld]

Does any of the acts laws etc apply just to liveaboards not ccers as you can cc and not live on your boat.What I mean laws just for liveaboards and nothing else.

 

If you CC but don't liveaboard (weekending), then you are a leisure user.

[Wishihadaname]

So if you you are a ccer how far are you expected to move?

[mayalld]

So if you you are a ccer how far are you expected to move?

 

To another "place"

 

BW have provided guidance on what they will accept as another "place", and until such time as anybody challenges their view in court, that is the de-facto rule

[romarni123]

If you CC but don't liveaboard (weekending), then you are a leisure user.

The question was about liveaboards what laws relate to them.