A grey area

[Lesd]

Jon didn't want us to cloud the 'unlicencensed boat' thread by talking about cc'ers and bridge hoppers but I am very interested in people's views about what I think is a grey area on that debate.

 

My scenario (actually based on people I've met and talked to on the cut) is as follows;

 

A live aboard boat spends two weeks in one spot, then after two weeks moves a few miles up the cut to a new neighbourhood. They then stay there for a further two weeks and then move on again to a new neighbourhood. This pattern continues for 2-3 months at which point they then turn around and return to the same spot that they started 2-3 months ago. They then start the same pattern again covering the ground covered 2-3 months previously. So they dont stay in one place for more than two weeks and they only return to a spot they have visited before every 2-3 months.

 

Is this CC'ing or bridge hopping ? legalor illeagle ? To me its actually somewhere in the middle. I'd be interested in your views of how this fits in with the BW regulations.

 

Oh and its not supposed to just stir up a load of grief again but just to get opinions on the rules and regs and how this scenario fits. Thanks

 

Rgds

Les

[Amicus]

snip

A live aboard boat spends two weeks in one spot, then after two weeks moves a few miles up the cut to a new neighbourhood. They then stay there for a further two weeks and then move on again to a new neighbourhood. This pattern continues for 2-3 months at which point they then turn around and return to the same spot that they started 2-3 months ago. They then start the same pattern again covering the ground covered 2-3 months previously. So they dont stay in one place for more than two weeks and they only return to a spot they have visited before every 2-3 months.

 

snip

 

Rgds

Les

is 'bridge hopping', logically. Outside of the terms of a CC license, therefore againt da rules. Donno about 'illegal' that means against the Law, dunnit?

But I'm no authority

Edited February 12, 2006 by Amicus

[Maffi]

Any one with a reasonable secondary education should have no trouble understanding the 'rules'.

 

For those that are uncertain there is an explanation of the terms used at the end of the 'Mooring Guidance' .

 

The Mooring Guidance specifically identifies the practice you describe as not being 'in the spirit of the Guidance'.

 

The Guidance does specify 'a progressive journey around the system or a large part of it'.

 

If you follow the rules to the letter it is possible that you can get away with cruising for about two hours every two weeks (52 hours a year), but at the end of the year you should be 52 cruising hours away from where you started.

 

Ostensibly if you hold down a land based job you can't really be a CCer and comply with the rules unless you want to have a greater distance to travel to work each week/fortnight.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Maffi

[Lesd]

Maffi, next time i bump into these folks I'll ask them about their educational qualifications, or was you comment aimed at me ? Sorry we're not all as perfectly upto speed as you but I thought forums like this were all about education.

 

 

 

Any one with a reasonable secondary education should have no trouble understanding the 'rules'.

 

For those that are uncertain there is an explanation of the terms used at the end of the 'Mooring Guidance' .

 

The Mooring Guidance specifically identifies the practice you describe as not being 'in the spirit of the Guidance'.

 

It does specify 'a progressive journey around the system or a large part of it'.

 

If you follow the rules to the letter it is possible that you can get away with cruising for about two hours every two weeks (52 hours a year.) but at the end of the year you should be 52 cruising hours away from where you started.

 

Ostensibly if you hold down a land based job you can't really be a CCer and comply with the rules unless you want to have a greater distance to travel to work each week/fortnight.

[Maffi]

Maffi, next time i bump into these folks I'll ask them about their educational qualifications, or was you comment aimed at me ? Sorry we're not all as perfectly upto speed as you but I thought forums like this were all about education.

 

I wasn't having a 'pop' at any one.

 

The Mooring Guidance is written in a fairly simple fashion to be easily understandable. Any clarification required is at the end of the document.

 

If it is read objectively there are no 'grey areas'.

 

I think you will find my post was informative, if a littler curt.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Maffi

[dor]

I am the first to take a pop at Bridge hoppers, especially when they overstay on visitor moorings as well. I agree that the scenario described is not strictly withing the spirit of the guidance.

 

However, if they only returned to the same bit of towpath every three or four months, I don't think I would have too much trouble with that. I don't think BW would either. In fact I suspect this is what a large rnumber of CCers do, judging by the boats I see reappearing every few months.

 

I think there is a big difference between that and stopping on a bit of towpath for a month, then moving a mile down the cut for another tree or four weeks, then moving back again.

Edited February 12, 2006 by dor

[Bones]

I am the first to take a pop at Bridge hoppers, especially when they overstay on visitor moorings as well. I agree that the scenario described is not strictly withing the spirit of the guidance.

 

However, if they only returned to the same bit of towpath every three or four months, I don't think I would have too much trouble with that. I don't think BW would either. In fact I suspect this is what a large rnumber of CCers do, judging by the boats I see reappearing every few months.

 

I think there is a big difference between that and stopping on a bit of towpath for a month, then moving a mile down the cut for another tree or four weeks, then moving back again.

 

 

Dor - here here.

[Sue1946]

I think BW are more concerned about the bridge hoppers who hang around for months on end and use the towpath as a garden/tip. I am sure they will not chase any genuine c/c who happens to re- appear a month or two later in the same vicinity. For example if i make my way to london from hemel hempstead and then turn to head north past hemel again this is because i have decided not to access the stort or thames at this time. Surely if i stop again on my return a moth later at watford or hemel they(BW) are not going to accuse me of bridge hopping. They are not stupid they know of the problem boaters so i am in no fear of any BW accusations of breach of my licence status. I have every faith in any BW patrol who happens by. Or am i making a big mistake???

[Maffi]

I am the first to take a pop at Bridge hoppers, especially when they overstay on visitor moorings as well. I agree that the scenario described is not strictly withing the spirit of the guidance.

 

However, if they only returned to the same bit of towpath every three or four months, I don't think I would have too much trouble with that. I don't think BW would either. In fact I suspect this is what a large rnumber of CCers do, judging by the boats I see reappearing every few months.

 

I think there is a big difference between that and stopping on a bit of towpath for a month, then moving a mile down the cut for another tree or four weeks, then moving back again.

 

 

Personally I don't see the difference but then what do I know I'm not a boater..................yet.

 

What is the difference between being a little bit of a bridge hopper and a big bit of a bridge hopper?

 

None!

 

OK you might not see them that much but when they are not in your line of sight they are in somone elses.

[Richard Bustens]

No Dor, Bones you are wrong and Maffi is right.

 

The object and rules say to travel around the system or a large part of it, and to do as sudgested is to bend the rules with the hope of getting away with it.

 

You are not supost to return to a mooring in the same year, what Les is preposing is extended bridge hopping.

[fender.]

No Dor, Bones you are wrong and Maffi is right.

 

The object and rules say to travel around the system or a large part of it, and to do as sudgested is to bend the rules with the hope of getting away with it.

 

You are not supost to return to a mooring in the same year, what Les is preposing is extended bridge hopping.

 

I take if that you mean if I went up the Llangollen, or the Ashby, or Kennet & Avon etc I must not return to the same mooring within a year? Its a bit silly isnt it? It means that if I decide to moor to take on water or pump out I am technically returning to the same mooring for the facility (eg at Ellesmere or at Hurleston) or if it happens to be the top of Grindley Brook where one will often find themselves at the end of a day having queued up for the locks (and getting in the queue early to get down them on the return) I hope you are not proposing/discussing stuff etc that is so circular and impossible to give a valid answer to. Because no doubt as I am so certain, when you are out boating you will be entrapped by the very insanity of your own logic and you will defintely have to moor at places you only passed a couple of weeks or so ago!

[Maffi]

Richard you are agreeing with me again, do you know how unnerving that is for me.

 

Sue,

 

Your case is different. You are not in a particular area so that you can hold down a job. CC status was not originally designed for land based working people and as far as I am aware that hasn't changed.

 

The fact that you pass the same place several times in a few months does not mean you are a bridge hopper. You are doing the system albeit for a short time you are in a 30/40 mile area. If you continually moved from Hemmel to London in order to be near your job that would be a different matter.

 

 

Am I the only one that sees the Mooring Guidance as 'black and white'?

Edited February 12, 2006 by Maffi

[Maffi]

I take if that you mean if I went up the Llangollen, or the Ashby, or Kennett & Avon etc I must not return to the same mooring within a year? Its a bit silly isn't it? It means that if I decide to moor to take on water or pump out I am technically returning to the same mooring for the facility (eg at Ellesmere or at Hurleston) or if it happens to be the top of Grindley Brook where one will often find themselves at the end of a day having queued up for the locks (and getting in the queue early to get down them on the return) I hope you are not proposing/discussing stuff etc that is so circular and impossible to give a valid answer to. Because no doubt as I am so certain, when you are out boating you will be entrapped by the very insanity of your own logic and you will definitely have to moor at places you only passed a couple of weeks or so ago!

 

 

No! There are canals that come to an end so the boater has to turn around and go back, but it is not his intention to 'loiter' on one piece of canal with the expressed purpose of avoiding the rules and staying in that local area.

 

If a boater stays at one place for two weeks and then moves a mile for two weeks and then moves another mile for two weeks, then after two or three months starts the process all over again this is not in the spirit of the Mooring Guidance and is not why the CC status exists. Ergo he is what is colloquially known as 'bridge hopper'.

 

 

Richard

 

Where did this 'not supposed to return to a mooring in the same year' come from?

Edited February 12, 2006 by Maffi

[DHutch]

I am the first to take a pop at Bridge hoppers, especially when they overstay on visitor moorings as well.

 

I agree that the scenario described is not strictly withing the spirit of the guidance.

- However, if they only returned to the same bit of towpath every three or four months, I don't think I would have too much trouble with that. I don't think BW would either.

I think BW are more concerned about the bridge hoppers who hang around for months on end and use the towpath as a garden/tip.

Its a tricky one.

- As dor says, its not really within the spirt of the thing, and there clearly pushing/working they system for all its worth.

- But however, they are unlikey to be cause much of a neusense of themselfs, and if there not causeing any harm or cost to anyone else, im not going to cause a fuss.

- And i think its very very unlikly BW would even even say anything, esplaically knowing how wooly the deffintions of CCing are i wouldnt be suppressed if they technicaly complieing anyway (it reads somethink like "must make a logical and progressive journey between atlease three places")

 

Even we have been known to push the rules a little bit, for instance, as dor may have noticed, we spent 14 days (and about 10hours) moored on the 14day mooring at nantwich during which we painted the roof and handrails.

- Then did a two day "out-and-back" up the middlewich cut, only to return to eactly the same place (within about 4ft) and then proceaded to stay there another 15 days.

 

However, prevously we had only sayed in the same place one day at a time for 4weeks, all the way from market dryton, down past trentlock, and back up, via the harecastle to nantwich.

- And then afterwards crused upto preston brook for a w/end before mooring up in a marina for winter.

 

 

 

To me however, the biggest grey area is the one we are stuck right in the middle of.

- We continually cruse non-stop, very rairly over staying our welcome, all thought the summer (march onwards)

- Then as winter aproaches, we find a private marina, and stop there untill sping comes again.

 

Do we count as a CC or not?

- We certainly done CC all year round.

- But at the same time, we vary rairly return to the same mooring.

 

 

Daniel

Edited February 12, 2006 by dhutch

[Maffi]

- And i think its very very unlikly BW would even even say anything, esplaically knowing how wooly the deffintions of CCing are i wouldnt be suppressed if they technicaly complying anyway (it reads something like "must make a logical and progressive journey between at least three places")

 

No Daniel it says:-

 

The law requires that the boat 'will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]'. 'Bona fide' is Latin for 'with good faith' and is used by lawyers to mean 'sincerely' or 'genuinely.

 

'Navigation' in this context means travelling on water i.e. making a journey. A 'cruise' is a journey or series of journeys 'making for no particular place or calling at a series of places'.

 

Therefore, subject to stops of permitted duration, those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be engaged on a journey or series of journeys. Such journey or cruise must take place 'throughout the period of [the licence]' and therefore requires progression around the network, or at least a significant part of it.

 

Thus short trips within the same area, 'bridge hopping' and shuttling backwards and forwards along a smaller part of the network does NOT meet the legal requirement for continuous cruising. The law requires a genuine progressive journey (a cruise) around the network or significant part of it.

 

It does not mention 'at least three places'

 

I fail to see how tha can be described as 'wolly'.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Maffi

[fender.]

Richard

 

Where did this 'not supposed to return to a mooring in the same year' come from?

 

hear! hear! creating non existent rules again are we??? I think this topic will always go round and round until BW can actually pass legislation on what constitutes a mooring. So far its all cards up in the air and no-one ever has any sensible answer to any of this stuff. Here we go again on this rats race of an arguement on what a paid moorer/bridge hopper/cc'er, etc is or is not or is supposed to be or not supposed to be or whatever - yes people who do stay on moorings for months on end are the BIG PROBLEM; apart from that I dont care if someone stays 5 seconds or 5 minutes longer than 14 days, or has to stay on a 24 hour mooring for a week because of illness or a breakdown - as long as people reasonbly try to move on and dont hog the same spot for yonks, and have a valid reason for any overstaying, then there isnt a problem ok - for christssake everyone please get a life and enjoy the canals instead of faffing around on this shite subject!

[dor]

Many years ago I was involved with a "society".

 

Rule no. one in the constitution of that body was "Common sense should prevail at all times".

 

 

I think to try and interpret the rules of CCing as black & white goes against that view.

 

Maffi, when you have been boating for a while, you too may adopt the above maxim, and find that returning to a favorite mooring after three or four months seems perfectly reasonable and not an abuse of the CC rules. So let common sense prevail; we regular boaters know perfectly well who is abusing the system and who isn't.

[Lesd]

Ever heard the expression ''wish I'd never asked'' ?? But then again at least I've confirmed that this scenario is indeed a very 'grey' one, no boubt BW will clarify this one day but until then I wish the people I met the best of luck, they were nice folk causing no harm as far as I'm concerned, a far cry from the floating skips that never ever move.

Jon, is there a way to wind back the clock and delete a question on here, lol ???

Les

 

 

hear! hear! creating non existent rules again are we??? I think this topic will always go round and round until BW can actually pass legislation on what constitutes a mooring. So far its all cards up in the air and no-one ever has any sensible answer to any of this stuff. Here we go again on this rats race of an arguement on what a paid moorer/bridge hopper/cc'er, etc is or is not or is supposed to be or not supposed to be or whatever - yes people who do stay on moorings for months on end are the BIG PROBLEM; apart from that I dont care if someone stays 5 seconds or 5 minutes longer than 14 days, or has to stay on a 24 hour mooring for a week because of illness or a breakdown - as long as people reasonbly try to move on and dont hog the same spot for yonks, and have a valid reason for any overstaying, then there isnt a problem ok - for christssake everyone please get a life and enjoy the canals instead of faffing around on this shite subject!

[Maffi]

Many years ago I was involved with a "society".

 

Rule no. one in the constitution of that body was "Common sense should prevail at all times".

I think to try and interpret the rules of CCing as black & white goes against that view.

 

Maffi, when you have been boating for a while, you too may adopt the above maxim, and find that returning to a favorite mooring after three or four months seems perfectly reasonable and not an abuse of the CC rules. So let common sense prevail; we regular boaters know perfectly well who is abusing the system and who isn't.

 

Quite right 'Common sense should always prevail', whose common sense? You cannot apply common sense to this situation unless you know what the rules are and that was the point of LesD's OP in the first place.

 

 

Remarks like when you have been boating for a while and we regular boaters really show the snobbery of boating. If that was intended as a slapdown then you missed your mark.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Maffi

[fender.]

Quite right 'Common sense should always prevail', whose common sense? You cannot apply common sense to this situation unless you know what the rules are and that was the point of LesD's OP in the first place.

Remarks like when you have been boating for a while and we regular boaters really show the snobbery of boating. If that was intended as a slapdown then you missed your mark.

 

in my view LesD's question was a valid one - its plain common sense if someone practises boating in the way he describes. After all it is impossible not to return to a mooring every now and again (unless one decides to sail across the channel) Apart from that there is nothing more to discuss, those who hog moorings for months dont have a clue about the rules (or KNOW that BW is totally crap at this kinda game) and BW dont even have a clue about how to approach these people about their rule-breaking (because BW know its crap and it knows boaters know BW is crap so it dont bother) Discussing this any further is a mugs game. Anyone who has stayed on a mooring more than the limit without any good reason is without a doubt a bridge hopper. Isnt that clear enough guidance????? yes? no?

[alan_fincher]

Richard you are agreeing with me again, do you know how unnerving that is for me.

 

Sue,

 

Your case is different. You are not in a particular area so that you can hold down a job. CC status was not originally designed for land based working people and as far as I am aware that hasn't changed.

 

The fact that you pass the same place several times in a few months does not mean you are a bridge hopper. You are doing the system albeit for a short time you are in a 30/40 mile area. If you continually moved from Hemmel to London in order to be near your job that would be a different matter.

Am I the only one that sees the Mooring Guidance as 'black and white'?

Well Maffi, we haven't always agreed in the past either, but I agree with you that the rules are pretty clear, and not open to too much mis-interpretation.

Maffi, when you have been boating for a while, you too may adopt the above maxim, and find that returning to a favorite mooring after three or four months seems perfectly reasonable and not an abuse of the CC rules. So let common sense prevail; we regular boaters know perfectly well who is abusing the system and who isn't.

But I agree with that too, David, even if you and Maffi may not be completely in accord on that topic.

Ever heard the expression ''wish I'd never asked'' ?? But then again at least I've confirmed that this scenario is indeed a very 'grey' one, no boubt BW will clarify this one day but until then I wish the people I met the best of luck, they were nice folk causing no harm as far as I'm concerned, a far cry from the floating skips that never ever move.

Jon, is there a way to wind back the clock and delete a question on here, lol ???

Les

No Les, I think it IS correct to ask.

 

I know you are local to my stretch of the Grand Union, and walk its length's regularly.

 

Like me, therefore, you must be able to name something like a two dozen boats that never ever seem to make it more than 5 miles in either direction of a mid-point that's close to the facilities, (and probably an easy train commute into London, for the day job).

 

They may all be nice folk. They may all be doing nobody any harm, (even if spending 2 weeks or more on stretches marked as "No Overnight Mooring").

 

But "grey area" or not, nobody, but nobody could say these in any way fit the requirement Maffi has reproduced for a Continuous Cruiser, could they?

 

Mostly, I suspect they are simply people looking to save the £1,500 pa it might cost to be on a linear mooring, or perhaps £2,500 it might cost to enjoy a marina berth.

 

The only reason I'd not call them "bridge hoppers" is that they moor some distance from the bridges, sometimes.....

 

If you or I can name those 2 dozen boats, so surely could the local BW staff, if they so wished?

 

Alan

[Maffi]

.........................its plain common sense.................................

 

Whose common sense. CS is different for everyone.

 

 

Yes it is 'common sense' if someone breaks down or is ill to stay as long as it takes.

 

Nobody wants to break down or be ill and so could not really be considered as 'intentionally avoiding the rules'.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Maffi

[fender.]

Well Maffi, we haven't always agreed in the past either, but I agree with you that the rules are pretty clear, and not open to too much mis-interpretation.

 

But I agree with that too, David, even if you and Maffi may not be completely in accord on that topic.

 

No Les, I think it IS correct to ask.

 

I know you are local to my stretch of the Grand Union, and walk its length's regularly.

 

Like me, therefore, you must be able to name something like a two dozen boats that never ever seem to make it more than 5 miles in either direction of a mid-point that's close to the facilities, (and probably an easy train commute into London, for the day job).

 

They may all be nice folk. They may all be doing nobody any harm, (even if spending 2 weeks or more on stretches marked as "No Overnight Mooring").

 

But "grey area" or not, nobody, but nobody could say these in any way fit the requirement Maffi has reproduced for a Continuous Cruiser, could they?

 

Mostly, I suspect they are simply people looking to save the £1,500 pa it might cost to be on a linear mooring, or perhaps £2,500 it might cost to enjoy a marina berth.

 

The only reason I'd not call them "bridge hoppers" is that they moor some distance from the bridges, sometimes.....

 

If you or I can name those 2 dozen boats, so surely could the local BW staff, if they so wished?

 

Alan

 

First point; Anyone who has stayed on a mooring more than the limit without any good reason is without a doubt a bridge hopper. Isnt that clear enough guidance?????

 

Second point; There arent enough moorings, linear or otherwise, to go round. Some of you play this game to BW's advantage in its desire for property development....

Edited February 12, 2006 by fender.

[DHutch]

No Daniel it says:-

It does not mention 'at least three places'

Well i dont know,

- There certainly was somwhere that mentioned somthing along the lines of "logical and progressive journey" and three places.

- Maybe they've changed it, or somthing. (or im just talking rubbish...)

 

Remarks like when you have been boating for a while and we regular boaters really show the snobbery of boating. If that was intended as a slapdown then you missed your mark.

Possably your right.

 

But, i think its odd that you are about the most anti bridge hopper out there.

- And yet you've bearly even spent any time on the canal

[Maffi]

Well i dont know,

- There certainly was somwhere that mentioned somthing along the lines of "logical and progressive journey" and three places.

- Maybe they've changed it, or somthing. (or im just talking rubbish...)

 

Maybe