Jump to content

Free Loaders ?


Featured Posts

Which leads to the issue of a licence under a different sub-section of BWA 1995, bearing a distinct code that shows this.

 

That is a CC licence.

 

It's still the same licence for the same price, with the same conditions, no matter what code it shows.

 

Tone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I've started to read the article "A personal view by RBOA member Peter Earley" and In context with the article I think it's fine tbh. He's just making the point that some people will look down their snobbish noses at you. It's just journalistic puff really imo, although I can see why it might come across as odd to an outsider: http://www.rboa.org.uk/CCMembersView All in all the article is fairly balanced giving a good impression of the compromises you make and the problems you can encounter. The author is obviously a forum regular of some sort so he's used to the name throwing that goes on in such anonymous 'debating' spaces, hence the reviled bit at the start. :D

 

Just to reassure the OP, the only people who seem to have major problems with CCers are the same people that revile gypsies, travellers, black people, poor people, chavs, anyone who doesn't read the mail, the welsh, the cornish, the polish, asians and anyone else that doesn't do things the way they think they should be done (i.e the way they do things).

Edited by deletedaccount
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am rather disturbed that the Residential Boat Owners Association should make such a broad sweeping statement, particularly as I do not consider it to be accurate.

 

I have many friends who are, or who have been, long term Contiuous Cruisers, I have not considered any of them to be free loaders, and as far as I am aware they have not felt that others considered them in that way either.

 

On our cruises we meet all sorts of people, and because we prefer to stop overnight in out of the way places, which are often also preferred by Continuous Cruisers, we have met many delightful people who were cruising around the system.

 

I can only assume that the RBOA are referring to the attitude of (some) "other waterways users" towards those who declare themselves as Continuous Cruisers, but do not comply with the requirements of continuous cruising, by staying in one place for months on end. That is an entirely different issue, and if it concerns them, one which the RBOA should address with their membership, rather than simply try to load the blame onto others.

 

 

(blah blah)

 

 

I doesn't seem that either of you have read the article in question. It is a humorous article clearly sub headed a personal view and does not pretend to reflect the views of RBOA.

 

read before commenting

 

 

on edit: i seem to have jumped the gun by quoting deleted so have removed..see his later posts etc

Edited by LoneWolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it was New Year's Day, so I expect a long wait would have been in order!

 

 

 

 

Maybe so, but if you have photographic evidence and report it soon asw, i would hope something was done, otherwise i would lodge a complaint with thew local waterways manager.

 

Maybe i am lucky, but where i am we have a guy who regularly patrols the area and deals with such things as overstayers and license dodgers.

 

Rick

 

p.s. i am not a bigot of any kind, dont have a problem with anyone, just think if people cannot afford to boat or dont want to follow the basic rules we all have to adhere to they shouldnt be on the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but if you have photographic evidence and report it soon asw, i would hope something was done, otherwise i would lodge a complaint with thew local waterways manager.

 

Maybe i am lucky, but where i am we have a guy who regularly patrols the area and deals with such things as overstayers and license dodgers.

 

Rick

 

p.s. i am not a bigot of any kind, dont have a problem with anyone, just think if people cannot afford to boat or dont want to follow the basic rules we all have to adhere to they shouldnt be on the water.

And how does he "deal" with them as his bosses seem unable to

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought most moorings were run by private enterprise, I had not appreciated that mooring profits were ploughed back into waterway maintenance.

 

Apart from some long standing historical arrangements, most private mooring providers do pay BW. Marinas pay a connection charge - the quoted figure is 9% of what the marina could earn when full (whether or not it is actually full). To moor at the end of your garden will cost you 50% of the going rate for a mooring in that area. And if you moor against a farmer's field, BW usually find it easier to get you to pay the 50% of the going rate direct to them, rather than chasing the farmer for it - this is of course in addition to what you pay the farmer.

 

BW are a significant provider of moorings, with towpath and offside moorings, and marinas run by their subsidiary BWML.

 

And all of these mooring costs are in addition to the standard licence fee.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like this:

 

5324039087_27a7e0a27e_o.jpg

Moor poorly by articulator, on Flickr

 

Moored on the lock landing at St Pancras for long enough to dam in a pile of canal cack between him and the towpath.

 

Could he have just broken down ?.

 

Doesn't appear to have enough on the roof to be a CCer. :rolleyes:

Edited by sumajan
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the great thing about being a 'Constant Cruiser' is that on the rare occasions you may meet one of the unpleasant people you know you wont have to put up with them for more than 14 days. :)

 

 

 

Just to reassure the OP, the only people who seem to have major problems with CCers are the same people that revile gypsies, travellers, black people, poor people, chavs, anyone who doesn't read the mail, the welsh, the cornish, the polish, asians and anyone else that doesn't do things the way they think they should be done (i.e the way they do things).

 

I am with the 'Goodies' on this one. Lets forget all that and have the tall versus the short.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doesn't seem that either of you have read the article in question. It is a humorous article clearly sub headed a personal view and does not pretend to reflect the views of RBOA.

 

read before commenting

 

 

on edit: i seem to have jumped the gun by quoting deleted so have removed..see his later posts etc

 

I agree that had we been correcty informed, or been given the chance to read the article, a different response may have resulted. However, the OP's original post states "As someone who is planning to become an inland waterway ‘Constant Cruiser’ in the very near future, I was a bit taken aback to discover (from the Residential Boat Owners Association) that I will be “reviled” by other waterway users as a “free loader”.

 

The OP implies that the advice is that of the RBOA and makes no mention of the statement being taken from an article expressing a personal view of the writer, No link to the "quoted" article was given, and no indication was given that view expressed does not reflect the views of the RBOA.

 

Having now read the article via your link, I agree that it is a well balanced one, which reflects problems experienced by many boaters, not just Continuous Cruisers. Of course the discussion has not been helped by the OP misquting the article which actually says "you will also be reviled by half of the canal population as a free loader"

 

I think that if you look again at my post, you would recognise that I am disagreeing with the quoted statement made about Continuous Cruiser, whilst at the same time have attempted to explain why the views expressed may have arisen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just to reassure the OP, the only people who seem to have major problems with CCers are the same people that revile gypsies, travellers, black people, poor people, chavs, anyone who doesn't read the mail, the welsh, the cornish, the polish, asians and anyone else that doesn't do things the way they think they should be done (i.e the way they do things).

 

 

In my opinion this is a very unfounded and sweeping statement, there are i guess a few like that for whatever reason, but i think the larger majority are like myself... i have no problem at all with genuine cc'ers and will be one myself later this year, what i and a lot of others have a problem with is those that use a cc license to flaunt the rules and in doing so spoil boating for those of us that genuinly pay our way to enjoy the waterways, just like i would shop anyone for drink driving or driving without relevant insurance, or for parking in disabled spaces in car parks when they are not entitled.

It isnt about doing things the way i think they should, it is about doing things that are wrong and to the detriment of others.

 

Rick

Edited by dccruiser
Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who is planning to become an inland waterway ‘Constant Cruiser’ in the very near future, I was a bit taken aback to discover (from the Residential Boat Owners Association) that I will be “reviled” by other waterway users as a “free loader”.

 

Why?

 

I am 53, my partner and I have been together for 35 years, we have both worked hard since our teens and never at any time asked for or received state financial help.

 

We are both uncomfortable and always have been, with the worlds insatiable consumerism and see life afloat as a way of minimising the need to be a part of it.

We wont be asking for anyone’s help to pay for this life style (which as far as I can tell is not particularly cheap) and will be making some considerable life style sacrifices (all-be-it willingly).

 

I had imagined that many other, if not most, other Constant Cruisers held a similar philosophy so I am puzzled by the ‘free loading’ label?

 

Cheers,

 

Joshua

 

:cheers:

 

Hi

 

The ones who moan are the ones who have not the bottle or the opportunity to commit fully to their life afloat and are often jealous of people like yourself. Why should you pay for a mooring you will never use, its as daft as paying for a car parking space somewhere that you never leave your car. If you pay your licence fee then you are playing right by ALL the rules. I have spent years in the past cc ing it is great and I am off again very soon using my boat for its intended use and no way will I pay for moorings etc unless I make use of one.

Hope to see you on the cut, we need more like you.

 

Regards

 

Tim

Edited by mrsmelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can summarise that its the boats that are bridge hopping and staying in a limited geography to try and lower their costs (avoidance) as they will often claim that there no suitable/affordable moorings where they want them, eg commutable distance to their work.... (umm research - you dont see caravans parked on the M4)

 

and then often (but not all) stay close to the facilities such as water points etc because its easier/less work rather than moor a further 100 metres down the towpath and not become a point of irratance.

 

My recent examples are the boats by the Black Horse nr greenford on the paddington arm, they were moored for 5 days on the water point and the winding hole, when just 100 metres up were enough gaps to moor several boats.. ( 5 days taken whilst we went to little venice etc and returned)

 

(not sure these folks would feel about a 70 ft'r winding on them and then taking water on)

 

also there is the "lazy" owner of a Narrow "dutch" barge style moored on the water point/ lock bollards at coppermill, its been there for at least 3 weeks, and they have left enough space that a 40 footr might get in front to use the lock bollards and likewise a boat behind might get its nose on the last one..

 

Clearly they dont need to be there, if they had moored up approx 200 metres earlier on the straight or the piece by the Coy carp they wouldnt be in the way and cause less inconvenience and "lower their profile" re staying for more than 14 days....

 

We all want a bit of slack and stretch the rules for a day or so to suit our needs occasionally, and as long as boats are licenced and moored with consideration then i dont mind a few days overstay..

 

I'm sure it will become clear as you try it out,, boating is much like the rest of life... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the fact that it actually has different conditions.

 

To clarify:

 

Section 17(3)© British Waterways Act 1995 states that BW may refuse a licence ("relevant consent") unless (i) BW is satisfied the relevant vessel has a home mooring or: "(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

How does the following official summary differ from the licence requirements of a mooring holder on a long cruise? If someone with a mooring bridge-hops or overstays in the same area, he is still breaking the following requirements and will still attract a ticket.

 

Summary

 

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.

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

 

Tone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made no suggestion as to which side I would be on. :)

From that response, my guess is veering towards the tall, yet geeky, Graeme Garden.

 

just like i would shop anyone for drink driving or driving without relevant insurance, or for parking in disabled spaces in car parks when they are not entitled.

It isnt about doing things the way i think they should, it is about doing things that are wrong and to the detriment of others.

 

Presumably you ring the police every time somebody overtakes you, on the motorway, as you are travelling along at 70mph (because you have never exceeded the speed limit)...or do you just pick and choose the rules you want to be the self-appointed enforcer, for?

 

(umm research - you dont see caravans parked on the M4)

 

Having spent a significant time dealing with travellers camped on the public highway, I can assure you that, though the extreme of "caravans parked on the M4" doesn't occur, caravans parked up in lay-bys, or on the highway verge, does, to a much greater extent than boats moored up inconveniently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify:

 

Section 17(3)© British Waterways Act 1995 states that BW may refuse a licence ("relevant consent") unless (i) BW is satisfied the relevant vessel has a home mooring or: "(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

How does the following official summary differ from the licence requirements of a mooring holder on a long cruise? If someone with a mooring bridge-hops or overstays in the same area, he is still breaking the following requirements and will still attract a ticket.

 

Summary

 

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.

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

 

Tone

 

Well, thank you for asking the question.

 

Whilst the differences, in terms of the immediate action from staff on the ground, are not obvious, they so exist.

 

Firstly, let us consider a boater with a home mooring (such as me).

 

I can cruise down to Marple, spend 2 nights on the visitor mooring between bridges 1 & 2 on the Macc, then move to just above bridge 19 on the PF and stay for 14 days, then back to the visitor mooring for another 2 days, before returning to my mooring. I have spent 18 days in one town, and broken no rules. If I was licenced as a CCer, I would have broken the rules.

 

Next, we need to consider what action BW can take AFTER issuing a ticket.

 

If I was a CCer, they can, ultimately, use their powers under BWA 1995 to withdraw my licence. If I have ahome mooring, they can impose a charge on me, and take court action to recover that charge, but they can't withdraw my licence

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can cruise down to Marple, spend 2 nights on the visitor mooring between bridges 1 & 2 on the Macc, then move to just above bridge 19 on the PF and stay for 14 days, then back to the visitor mooring for another 2 days, before returning to my mooring. I have spent 18 days in one town, and broken no rules. If I was licenced as a CCer, I would have broken the rules.

 

Which rule have they broken?

 

There is nothing, in BWA 1995 that says you can't spend 18 days, in one town and, if that stay is part of a "progressive journey around the system", then they haven't upset BW's interpretation, of the law, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.