What SHOULD the rules be for mooring

[mayalld]

Ok, so we've gone round in circles for many days, arguing about what the rules are, and what powers BW has or does not have.

 

Much of that discussion centres on the fact that there are some holes in the law that a small number of people exploit to behave in a way that is arguably legal, but clearly at odds with what most people accept as a proper way to behave.

 

The discussion also touched on the fact that the rules are inconsistent as to moorers and CCers.

 

So, let us try to redesign the system in a way that CCers and moorers will find acceptable. Such a redesign might require primary legislation, which might be difficult (or might not be that difficult if the new Waterways Charity consults and gets agreement before proposing a Bill).

 

The discussions and the outcome of the Davies case have in some ways generated more heat than light, but there is something there that we might be able to use to build a simpler system.

 

Let me offer a suggested system, which would, I hope, form the skeleton of a system that would not be massively different to the present system, but with the anomalies and loopholes removed.

 

====

Terms

---------

The first thing is to define certain terms, in broadly similar ways to how they are defined now;

 

Place: A locality. This may be a village, a neighbourhood in a town or city, or a rural section of canal between two towns or villages. In order to avoid endless arguments, there will be a definitive list of places arrived at following consultations

 

Location: A single stretch of moorings, having a specific time limit for mooring (and in some cases other restrictionsas to who may use the mooring, for what purpose and how soon they may return) each change of time limit or restrictions marks a boundary between locations. The interposition of a stretch where no moorings are permitted also marks a new location. Each "Place" will contain one or more "Locations". In the absence of any signage, there will be a limit of 14 days at a mooring.

 

Home Mooring: A mooring set aside for the use of a particular moorer by the owner. The term includes short term private mooring arrangements.

 

Cruise: The period during which a boat is in use, from the time it leaves a home mooring to the time it returns. If a boat has no home mooring, it is said to be Continuously Cruising.

 

Rules

--------

Having defined our terms, we can now use them to lay out rules;

1. Mooring at any particular "location" is restricted to the maximum time displayed. Boaters are however free to combine stays at multiple locations in a single place, up to the time limit for a place. Once they have used up their time at a location, the clock doesn't reset until they have been to a different place, or have commenced a new "Cruise"
2. Mooring at any "Place" is limited to 14 days in total, which can consist of stays at multiple locations within that place. Having left a place to go to another place, the clock doesn't normally reset on that place until you have spent at least 12 hours moored in 7 different places, or you have started a new Cruise.
3. In order to allow for necessary, and elective, changes of direction, a boater may elect to reset the clock on any "Place" once in any period of 3 months during a cruise without visiting the requisite number of intermediate places.

Now, leaving aside what the rules currently say, or what the Acts of Parliament allow today, are these rules "fair", and would they create a properly level playing field for moorers and CCers alike?

 

The intent is that each "Cruise" is taken in isolation, such that moorers are allowed to visit the same locations repeatedly, without falling foul of the rules, but that they can only do so if they actually return to their home mooring. Boaters with a paper mooring on the other side of the country that they never visit would have to obey the same rules as CCers.

 

 

 

[cereal tiller]

nearly ALL of the "legit" continuous cruisers that i know(and respect)rarely stay on ANY mooring for more 3 days.

a live aboard canal boat has a similar profile to a horse-drawn gipsy caravan appearing on the village green,people enjoy it's colourful appearance,and enjoy seeing it gone a FEW days later.

[WotEver]

Two questions spring immediately to my mind:

 

Having left a place to go to another place, the clock doesn't normally reset on that place until you have spent at least 12 hours moored in 7 different places, or you have started a new Cruise

How on earth could this be policed? "Ah, now, I think you've only moored in 6 Places."

 

 

Once they have used up their time at a location, the clock doesn't reset until they have been to a different place, or have commenced a new "Cruise"

The wording here confuses me. It's not possible to go to a different place without cruising, so why say "or have commenced a new cruise"?

 

Tony

[mayalld]

Two questions spring immediately to my mind:

 

 

How on earth could this be policed? "Ah, now, I think you've only moored in 6 Places."

 

 

 

The wording here confuses me. It's not possible to go to a different place without cruising, so why say "or have commenced a new cruise"?

 

Tony

 

Policing is always going to be difficult, but the proposal seeks to define what is expected. I would expect that in general policing will be a matter of a boat "coming to the attention" of BW, who then observe it.

 

As to the wording, the term "Cruise" is explicitly defined as the period between leaving a home mooring and returning to it.

 

That has the effect that ALL boaters have to play by the same rules for whatever period they are out cruising, but that returning to a home mooring resets all the clocks.

[WotEver]

Policing is always going to be difficult, but the proposal seeks to define what is expected. I would expect that in general policing will be a matter of a boat "coming to the attention" of BW, who then observe it.

 

As to the wording, the term "Cruise" is explicitly defined as the period between leaving a home mooring and returning to it.

 

That has the effect that ALL boaters have to play by the same rules for whatever period they are out cruising, but that returning to a home mooring resets all the clocks.

Gotcha

[Gibbo]

I'm not sure how to work it out but would appear that rule 3 allows someone to bridge hop in a small section of canal forever.

[mayalld]

I'm not sure how to work it out but would appear that rule 3 allows someone to bridge hop in a small section of canal forever.

 

That bit might require refinement.

 

However, the intent is that whilst there is a presumption against returning to a place without visiting other places, there should also be a way of doing so that allows for reversals of direction, but limits how often that can be done.

[carlt]

If we are talking about personal opinion, here, then I believe that moorings with a specific time limit, indicated by signage, should be strictly enforced, but there needs to be a valid reason for such a limit.

 

 

As far as towpath bridge hopping goes, I still think that the, now retired, patrol officer's comment to me sounded like plain common sense...

 

"If it is more than a five minute walk, either side of a road bridge, then it isn't there."

 

A boat moored in the middle of nowhere is doing nobody any harm and I don't see the point in moving it to the middle of nowhere else...except to satisfy the "He's getting something for nothing" brigade.

 

If this type of "bridge hopping" incurred an extra charge then it may well be a much needed additional revenue earner.

[nb Innisfree]

If we are talking about personal opinion, here, then I believe that moorings with a specific time limit, indicated by signage, should be strictly enforced, but there needs to be a valid reason for such a limit.

 

 

As far as towpath bridge hopping goes, I still think that the, now retired, patrol officer's comment to me sounded like plain common sense...

 

"If it is more than a five minute walk, either side of a road bridge, then it isn't there."

 

A boat moored in the middle of nowhere is doing nobody any harm and I don't see the point in moving it to the middle of nowhere else...except to satisfy the "He's getting something for nothing" brigade.

 

If this type of "bridge hopping" incurred an extra charge then it may well be a much needed additional revenue earner.

 

Sounds sensible and practical to me but with the addition of heavy fines for anyone causing a nuisance with belongings and/or rubbish on any of the towpaths + instead of 5 min walk from any road bridge make it 10 min walk from any road access (or half a mile?)

[MtB]

Policing is always going to be difficult <snip>

 

There's an easy answer to that....

 

If all boats were fitted with GPS then a Big Computer somewhere could police all the mooring rules with minimal effort beyond the intial programming.

 

This could include automatic issuing of fines for overstaying or any other of the rule-flouting that has lead to this debate.

 

Popcorn, anyone?.

 

Mike

[jim and pat dalton]

There's an easy answer to that....

 

If all boats were fitted with GPS then a Big Computer somewhere could police all the mooring rules with minimal effort beyond the intial programming.

 

This could include automatic issuing of fines for overstaying or any other of the rule-flouting that has lead to this debate.

 

Popcorn, anyone?.

 

Mike

 

 

Why do we have to have a fine someone for overstaying (like it already is). If the issue is getting boats to part with mooring fees, then surely if you could track boats, then it would be far better to have a smaller charge for stays over a fixed period and encourage extra income to be earned by the new charity? then you would no longer have to waste time and resources mithering over the blooming subject anymore.

 

If the issue is jealousy between people who pay for mooring and people who don't, then just put up the fee for licences not tied to actual moorings or put down those that are.

 

At the end of the day the canal system outside of the obligations within various acts of parliament have to be paid for. why don't we concentrate on doing it fairly and robustly to have a vibrant system.

 

 

 

Jim

Edited May 27, 2011 by jim and pat dalton

[mayalld]

If we are talking about personal opinion, here, then I believe that moorings with a specific time limit, indicated by signage, should be strictly enforced, but there needs to be a valid reason for such a limit.

 

 

As far as towpath bridge hopping goes, I still think that the, now retired, patrol officer's comment to me sounded like plain common sense...

 

"If it is more than a five minute walk, either side of a road bridge, then it isn't there."

 

A boat moored in the middle of nowhere is doing nobody any harm and I don't see the point in moving it to the middle of nowhere else...except to satisfy the "He's getting something for nothing" brigade.

 

If this type of "bridge hopping" incurred an extra charge then it may well be a much needed additional revenue earner.

 

I would support a move that says that unjustified restrictions on mooring time limits shouldn't be permitted. I suppose the question of "valid reason" would need to be explored, as would a fair, but not cumbersome way of ensuring that limits were fair.

 

I can'r support your assertion that a boat moored in the middle of nowhere is doing nobody any harm. Mooring in the middle of nowhere affects the peace and quiet of that area. Mooring for a prolonged period will inevitably begin to make the effects more permanent.

 

Additionally, every towpath squatter who takes up permanent residence in the middle of nowhere removes a potential "middle of nowhere" mooring opportunity from somebody just passing through,

[carlt]

I can'r support your assertion that a boat moored in the middle of nowhere is doing nobody any harm. Mooring in the middle of nowhere affects the peace and quiet of that area. Mooring for a prolonged period will inevitably begin to make the effects more permanent.

Well I used to moor in the middle of nowhere in order to enjoy the peace and quiet, not disturb it.

Additionally, every towpath squatter who takes up permanent residence in the middle of nowhere removes a potential "middle of nowhere" mooring opportunity from somebody just passing through,

The good thing about the "middle of nowhere" is that there's quite a bit of it about.

 

If someone is moored in one isolated spot then I just find another. It's not hard.

[sociable_hermit]

Having left a place to go to another place, the clock doesn't normally reset on that place until you have spent at least 12 hours moored in 7 different places, or you have started a new Cruise.

I am sympathetic to your intentions here, and I do think it's logically worded in the main, but I'm concerned it would be difficult to police. One idea might be to make keeping a "Log of distance travelled / locations moored" compulsory, but that only works as an enforcement tool if it is accessible when the BW Officer calls. If the boat is empty and locked up, how would you see it? And then there's the obvious likelyhood of fake journal entries. I can't see how it would actually aid the detection of anyone being deliberately dishonest.

 

Unless... How about a boating passport? Equip canalside pubs, shops and BW offices with a unique numbered stamp each, with which they stamp your book. Local businesses would benefit, as more people would stop off to use them, in order to get their books stamped. A huge undertaking to organise, though. And not very helpful for those of us who like to get a shift on, though surely everyone must stop somewhen? And there's still the issue of what happens when there's no-one on the boat to hand over the book. Some way of displaying in the window, maybe?

 

On a more detailed level, I've quoted the rule above because I think it's badly defined. It does not state whether "at least 12 hours moored in 7 different places" means mooring for 12 hrs at each of 7 different mooring sites (i.e. 84 hours in total) or whether it means mooring up 7 times within 12 hours. The latter is clearly daft but then so is the former, as it effectively constrains cruising hours and forces people to stay on moorings for longer than they might wish. If I moored up at 20:30 and departed at 07:00 it wouldn't count as one of the seven, for example.

[WotEver]

On a more detailed level, I've quoted the rule above because I think it's badly defined. It does not state whether "at least 12 hours moored in 7 different places" means mooring for 12 hrs at each of 7 different mooring sites (i.e. 84 hours in total) or whether it means mooring up 7 times within 12 hours. The latter is clearly daft but then so is the former, as it effectively constrains cruising hours and forces people to stay on moorings for longer than they might wish. If I moored up at 20:30 and departed at 07:00 it wouldn't count as one of the seven, for example.

I didn't read the rule as either of those options. I read it as stopping in at least 7 Places for a combined total of not less than 12 hours.

 

Which I guess proves that it needs re-wording

 

Tony

[mayalld]

I didn't read the rule as either of those options. I read it as stopping in at least 7 Places for a combined total of not less than 12 hours.

 

Which I guess proves that it needs re-wording

 

Tony

 

It does indeed.

[luctor et emergo]

Logbooks won't work (trucks used to have them, and no trucker ever drove longer than allowed... . Some drivers would fill their log in for the week in advance... )

 

As for electronic, GPS derived monitoring, don't go there. It will not only fine you for overstaying, but also for speeding. And it will be your responsibility that such a machine works at all times, and no doubt you will have to buy, and have it installed, in the first place.

 

It could be so simple. Designate the local (time restricted), and visitor moorings, and enforce rigidly. Leave the 'middle of nowhere' alone, save for say a weekly or forthnightly check, to ensure that there is no 'overspill' onto the towpath.

 

But what is the chance of that ?

[Morat]

Logbooks won't work (trucks used to have them, and no trucker ever drove longer than allowed... . Some drivers would fill their log in for the week in advance... )

 

As for electronic, GPS derived monitoring, don't go there. It will not only fine you for overstaying, but also for speeding. And it will be your responsibility that such a machine works at all times, and no doubt you will have to buy, and have it installed, in the first place.

 

It could be so simple. Designate the local (time restricted), and visitor moorings, and enforce rigidly. Leave the 'middle of nowhere' alone, save for say a weekly or forthnightly check, to ensure that there is no 'overspill' onto the towpath.

 

But what is the chance of that ?

 

This, and broad support of carlt's position would be my opinion. I would want limits defined in places that require them, and the odd person wandering past to make sure that noone is making a mess of an unrestricted area. I might ban electrical/water/sewage hookups outside designated moorings too just to ensure you don't end up with shanty towns.

 

Also, there's no point defining a law that can't or won't be enforced - it will be flouted and then useless.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Morat

[WotEver]

Also, there's no point defining a law that can't or won't be enforced - it will be flouted and then useless.

This is/was my problem with Rule 2.

 

Tony

 

Logbooks won't work (trucks used to have them, and no trucker ever drove longer than allowed... . Some drivers would fill their log in for the week in advance... )

Oh my dad was never that organised... he used to fill it in more like every 6 weeks just in case he got stopped

 

Tony

[canaldrifter]

Perhaps they should ban mooring altogether. That would be a great leveler.

 

All those boats on the move continuously would do a fine dredging job.

 

Then they could use the revenue they raise in fines, for having the audacity to stop anywhere, to maintain the waterways... which would be ironic, cos that would favour those who keep moving anyway, not the continuous moorers, who would have been penalised unfairly.

 

(Just an alcohol fueled idea... or is it?).

 

Tone

[cotswoldsman]

nearly ALL of the "legit" continuous cruisers that i know(and respect)rarely stay on ANY mooring for more 3 days.

a live aboard canal boat has a similar profile to a horse-drawn gipsy caravan appearing on the village green,people enjoy it's colourful appearance,and enjoy seeing it gone a FEW days later.

 

All CCers are different

[warwickshireman]

 

How about this for a way to monitor overstaying.

 

Each place (or location?) is given reference number which is displayed on a sign (and given in cruising guides etc).

Anyone mooring overnight at any designated place (location) must telephone or text their boats reg no. and the place no. to an automated registration service each night.

It would be an offence, perhaps punishable by a fine added to the next licence renewal fee, to be moored at say 0800 but not registered.

 

Clearly there must be some flexibility - mobile coverage is not 100% for example - but I think the principle merits consideration.

[Dr Bradley]

Some people seem to want to regulate the pleasure out of boating. Passports, phoning in, getting stamps, GPS.It would be like being on parole without committing a crime. Why not go the whole hog - all boaters to have electronic tags fitted as a condition of the license.

[carlt]

all boaters to have electronic tags fitted as a condition of the license.

In this day and age it would be feasible to chip everyone who owns a boat.

 

Then the patrol officers could use a scanner, while they are carrying out routine strip searches.

[system 4-50]

...

The first thing is to define certain terms, in broadly similar ways to how they are defined now;

...

quote]

 

I suggest the first thing is to define the objectives, precisely.