BW's approach to Continuous Cruising?

[Sunset Rising]

you think CCers arranged for Lord Lucan to shoot JFK whilst using Shergar as a getaway and simultaneously faking the moon landings".

So are you seriously suggesting that this was not the case ?

[Sir Nibble]

Persecution is a red herring?

 

Yes but in the previous threads it was agreed that overstaying was the problem that needed to be addressed and all boaters from whatever designation were responsible. Reading what was actually written it is obvious that those with home moorings were being more sanctimonious about it and blaming CCERs to a great extent. The OP is suggesting the reasons for BW's interests in CCERs is pecuniary and I am saying they are aided in that, or a driver is, the misconceptions of those who are blinkered by their own exemplaryness pushing BW to do something.

 

Is that any clearer?

The system is a big wide space and different circumstances pertain in different places. I moor my boat on the wester k&A which is apparently a "hot spot" for this problem. Let's just for a minute have a look at my experiences.

Correct, it is rarely impossible to moor somewhere near where you want to be. However, not so long ago I could have driven you to a short length of 48hr moorings and on the way there told you the names of the boats that would be there, they lived there. Did I ever fail to find a mooring there? no, I never planned to stop there because I knew that 48hr mooring effectively, for cruising boaters did not exist. Since BW put a spotlight on this with the mooring consultation the local liveaboards have made a particular point of being whiter than white and the residents of that mooring have gone (to a winding hole 1/4 mile away)and I have sinced moored there several times. So yes, a mooring I would otherwise use was made innaccessable by resident CMers. Every bridgehole had a resident and in one case a fantastic little bbq spot nicely secluded from the towpath was occupied by one boat for 4 years. Yes I was prevented from using that mooring and have done since he moved. The K&A is famous for needing a long boarding plank because the canal is so shallow at the edges, I could show you stretches of good mooring where there is rare possibility of getting properly alongside, full of unnoccupied boats on CC licences that certainly do not move every 14 days and when they do it is for a weekend cruise or a holiday always returning to the same spot. In other words people who use their boat perely for leisure have simply claimed a towpath spot as their own permanent mooring. There are places where very busy 24 hour moorings are followed by a mile or more of permanently moored boats, many long unnoccupied, some sinking. If the 24 hr moorings are full then there is little hope of mooring within a mile of where you want to be.

Do I blame CCers? Of course not. The culprits are not CCers, they are people who should have a paid for permanent mooring and disguise themselves as CCers to avoid that requirement. As individuals they are no problem, as a group they are a total pain with the biggest bother these days being the unnofficial online moorings that have sprung up for leisure boaters.

To sum up, I am happy to believe that mooring holders account for more overstay tickets than CCers, but I would humbly suggest that when the fake CCer overstays we're talking serious overstay. Not a day or two but often years. BW must continue to put the pressure on having committed themselves to that course of action, to do otherwise would give the few the confidence to return to the selfish ways of yor and many the confidence to give up their mooring and just issue themselves a free one. After all, if BW don't care, why pay? Result is a waterway clogged and the whole idea of requiring a mooring to be issued a licence is effectively shot away in contravention of the stated will of parliament.

[matty40s]

Am I alone in not having a clue what this thread is about? Well obviously something to do with Continuous Cruisers but beyond that and i am lost.

 

I think that Damians current blog is a good hint that BW do appreciate that genuine CC'ers add value and possibly havn't been fully involved or appreciated by BW in what they bring to the canal system as a whole.

They also realise that the London Boaters contribute a massive amount to the canals use in London by adding to the security and enjoyment of the towpaths.

[Spesh]

Persecution is a red herring?

 

Yes but in the previous threads it was agreed that overstaying was the problem that needed to be addressed and all boaters from whatever designation were responsible. Reading what was actually written it is obvious that those with home moorings were being more sanctimonious about it and blaming CCERs to a great extent. The OP is suggesting the reasons for BW's interests in CCERs is pecuniary and I am saying they are aided in that, or a driver is, the misconceptions of those who are blinkered by their own exemplaryness pushing BW to do something.

 

Is that any clearer?

It's probably semantics, I just disagreed with your use of "persecution". There certainly are varying views about who is more to blame for overstaying, but I genuinely don't think I've seen lots of people calling for CCers to be persecuted. We've perhaps just got different understandings of the word.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Spesh

[blodger]

It's probably semantics, I just disagreed with your use of "persecution". There certainly are varying views about who is more to blame for overstaying, but I genuinely don't think I've seen lots of people calling for CCers to be persecuted. We've perhaps just got different understandings of the word.

 

The system is a big wide space and different circumstances pertain in different places. I moor my boat on the wester k&A which is apparently a "hot spot" for this problem. Let's just for a minute have a look at my experiences.

 

Yes different circumstances in different places which is a problem in speaking generally and looking at the network as a whole. It is also difficult for BW who have to be seen to be acting equably over the system when there are problem spots requiring something different within its encompass.

 

Semantically using 'persecution' is a bit of hyperbole to make a point and to make up for others of strong views who have given up bothering posting.

 

I am in agreement that all that is needed is for folk to adhere to the guidance and not create issues or prob;ems for others doing likewise.

[muddywaters]

Which part of it's not constant cruisers BW have a problem with.

It's constant moorers.

People who are genuinely constant cruising won't have a problem end of

[mayalld]

Sorry my shorthand is misleading; I do not think that BW persecutes CCERs either but it seems from the threads vocal on here there are plenty that feel they should and are encouraging that they do so.

 

I don't see anybody encouraging them to do that.

 

I see plenty who want CMers dealt with, but none that want CCers lives made difficult.

 

The only time I have an issue with CCers is when they make common cause with CMers.

[Sir Nibble]

I don't see anybody encouraging them to do that.

 

I see plenty who want CMers dealt with, but none that want CCers lives made difficult.

 

The only time I have an issue with CCers is when they make common cause with CMers.

Hear him hear him.

This has to be the number one most important point to be made. Those of us tied down by land based commitments look upon CCers with a sense of aspiration not resentment. NO one I have ever spoken to either here or in "real life" has a bad word to say about CCing or those fortunate enough to be able to do it. Long may it continue.

[SimonRNABO]

 

I am fascinated about how few of the posts in the last 24 hours attempted to deal with my starting proposition about whether by paying a fee, be it called an overstay charge or a roving mooring permit, boaters should be 'allowed' to legitimise 'overstaying'.

 

Anyone prepared to discuss the original proposition?

 

I do also take the point that many have made, that this is not about Continuous Cruising but about Overstaying and 'Continuous Mooring': and to that extent I might have better named this thread.

[Naughty Cal]

 

I am fascinated about how few of the posts in the last 24 hours attempted to deal with my starting proposition about whether by paying a fee, be it called an overstay charge or a roving mooring permit, boaters should be 'allowed' to legitimise 'overstaying'.

 

Anyone prepared to discuss the original proposition?

 

I do also take the point that many have made, that this is not about Continuous Cruising but about Overstaying and 'Continuous Mooring': and to that extent I might have better named this thread.

 

Probably because the wording of the original post was so poor that no one actually knew what the question was

[mayalld]

 

I am fascinated about how few of the posts in the last 24 hours attempted to deal with my starting proposition about whether by paying a fee, be it called an overstay charge or a roving mooring permit, boaters should be 'allowed' to legitimise 'overstaying'.

 

Anyone prepared to discuss the original proposition?

 

I do also take the point that many have made, that this is not about Continuous Cruising but about Overstaying and 'Continuous Mooring': and to that extent I might have better named this thread.

 

In my view;

 

Fees to allow a boater to exempt himself from the "boan fide navigation" element, whilst still having to abide by the time limit on any particular mooring, with the fee set at a level comprable with an unserviced towpath LTM, are fine.

 

Fees to allow certain moorings to become "first 48 hours free, then £5 per day up to 14 days" are OK (but shouldn't be that widely used)

 

Fees to allow overstaying beyond 14 days are out of order,

[Sunset Rising]

In my view;

 

 

Fees to allow overstaying beyond 14 days are out of order,

Why ?

[mayalld]

Why ?

 

Because it isn't sound policy to allow people to opt out of the general 14 day limit.

[GUMPY]

 

I am fascinated about how few of the posts in the last 24 hours attempted to deal with my starting proposition about whether by paying a fee, be it called an overstay charge or a roving mooring permit, boaters should be 'allowed' to legitimise 'overstaying'.

 

Anyone prepared to discuss the original proposition?

 

The whole thing about a roving mooring permit is a rubbish idea

It would just lead to many peeople giving up their moorings and mooring where they felt like it on the towpath. sure there is no security of tenure but what does that matter if you never move.

 

£2500 for a BW towptah mooring or £1500 for a roving permit you know what the result would be.

 

Far better to just clarify and enforce the rules then those that dont like it can go elsewhere.

[mayalld]

The whole thing about a roving mooring permit is a rubbish idea

It would just lead to many peeople giving up their moorings and mooring where they felt like it on the towpath. sure there is no security of tenure but what does that matter if you never move.

 

£2500 for a BW towptah mooring or £1500 for a roving permit you know what the result would be.

 

Far better to just clarify and enforce the rules then those that dont like it can go elsewhere.

 

If a RMP is introduced, there are certain prerequisites;

 

1) It must be price neutral as compared to taking up a cheap mooring, so comprably priced with a BW online towpath mooring.

2) It must only obviate the need for bona fide navigation. It must still require the boater to move every 14 days.

[Sir Nibble]

If a RMP is introduced, there are certain prerequisites;

 

1) It must be price neutral as compared to taking up a cheap mooring, so comprably priced with a BW online towpath mooring.

2) It must only obviate the need for bona fide navigation. It must still require the boater to move every 14 days.

BW towpath mooring permit as we all know does not entitle one to a particular mooring, but rather permits mooring within a certain stretch. This idea seems to be simply setting that stretch wider and ultimately comes back to, get a mooring.

[the grinch]

Which part of it's not constant cruisers BW have a problem with.

It's constant moorers.

People who are genuinely constant cruising won't have a problem end of

 

sorry but i have to disagree, BW made my life hell with their attitude in the last year i had a boat, i had a permanent mooring at Ponder's End but spent the summer out on the system. I received a shitty note at kidlington because i moored for 4 days (BW in there infinate wisdom reduced the time allowed there to 3 days!! yet 500 yards further south it was solid with CM's)

next came another shitty note whilst moored at Gnosall again spending only 11 days there on a 14 day mooring! then finally getting a further one on the lee at edmonton, I had left the boat there for 12 days (no restriction notice)

 

they then finished it off with a refusal to reissue a licence, only backing down when i threatened to move the boat to EA waters on a permanent basis.

 

i never stayed anywhere more than 14 days on most cases only staying Sunday Night to Thursday night, never returning to any mooring that would have meant a total of 14 days or more. cruised from the thames to wales and right up to lincolnshire and manchester.

so don't say that BW care for anyone but themselves.

[Robin2]

sorry but i have to disagree, BW made my life hell with their attitude in the last year i had a boat, i had a permanent mooring at Ponder's End but spent the summer out on the system. I received a shitty note at kidlington because i moored for 4 days (BW in there infinate wisdom reduced the time allowed there to 3 days!! yet 500 yards further south it was solid with CM's)

next came another shitty note whilst moored at Gnosall again spending only 11 days there on a 14 day mooring! then finally getting a further one on the lee at edmonton, I had left the boat there for 12 days (no restriction notice)

 

they then finished it off with a refusal to reissue a licence, only backing down when i threatened to move the boat to EA waters on a permanent basis.

 

i never stayed anywhere more than 14 days on most cases only staying Sunday Night to Thursday night, never returning to any mooring that would have meant a total of 14 days or more. cruised from the thames to wales and right up to lincolnshire and manchester.

so don't say that BW care for anyone but themselves.

 

It would be interesting to know if others have had a similar experience. It sounds to me a bit like confusion and incompetence by some of the BW people and when it happened to a friend of mine a phone call to the local BW office sorted things out without any animosity on either side.

 

Personally I have had no problems from BW while CCing.

 

What I do object to is when boats illegally overstay their entitlement - usually because the location is convenient to a road, shops or services - just the sort of place where a cruising boat would like to stop for a night.

 

One of the problems is that an enforcement system that ensures no boat stays too long on a 48hr mooring would be very expensive. And, personally, I don't see any problem staying a bit longer PROVIDED there are some empty spaces in case another boat comes along.

 

The whole purpose of boating is to have a relaxed way of life which does not sit comfortably with the idea of "telling tales" on CMers.

[cotswoldsman]

Why ?

 

Because why should those that can afford it be allowed to hog the 14 day moorings?

[sebrof]

Because why should those that can afford it be allowed to hog the 14 day moorings?

 

Why should those who can afford it be able to eat steak and drink champagne?

Why should they hog the big houses?

Why should they stay in the best hotels?

Why should they sit in the best seats at the opera?

Why should they jump the hospital waiting list by going private?

Why should they.....?

 

I think you get my drift.

 

In a sophisticated society, money is used to determine how best to allocate scarce resources. It may not be perfect, but it's quite an efficient way of doing so, and it's the system used to allocate longer-term moorings.

 

Why should 14 day moorings be different?

 

We need to have a good answer to this question, because the new charity is going to be trying every trick in the book to wring more money out of boaters.

[the grinch]

It would be interesting to know if others have had a similar experience. It sounds to me a bit like confusion and incompetence by some of the BW people and when it happened to a friend of mine a phone call to the local BW office sorted things out without any animosity on either side.

 

 

with regards kidlington, A phone call to the then manager Simon Ainley produced absolutely nothing he just defended the stance!!that i had overstayed even though there were no signs displayed at the time and i had left the boat on Sunday night returning on Thursday night.

[RichardN]

sorry but i have to disagree, BW made my life hell with their attitude in the last year i had a boat, i had a permanent mooring at Ponder's End but spent the summer out on the system. I received a shitty note at kidlington because i moored for 4 days (BW in there infinate wisdom reduced the time allowed there to 3 days!! yet 500 yards further south it was solid with CM's)

next came another shitty note whilst moored at Gnosall again spending only 11 days there on a 14 day mooring! then finally getting a further one on the lee at edmonton, I had left the boat there for 12 days (no restriction notice)

 

they then finished it off with a refusal to reissue a licence, only backing down when i threatened to move the boat to EA waters on a permanent basis.

 

i never stayed anywhere more than 14 days on most cases only staying Sunday Night to Thursday night, never returning to any mooring that would have meant a total of 14 days or more. cruised from the thames to wales and right up to lincolnshire and manchester.

so don't say that BW care for anyone but themselves.

 

I am not sure if we cover as many miles as you do but once clocks change we cruise most weekends, work the week and probably do around 1200 lock miles over 60 days in 6 months (need to check that figure). Our normal mooring whilst cruising is for 5 or 6 nights but 11 or 12 is not unusual. On occasions we need to overstay by a day or two and we talk to the patrol officer and ask where will we cause least grief, they have always been helpful. The most extreme case was when Sue needed to see a man with a black & decker to get bits of bone screwed together and we did not move for 6 weeks (I offered to get my nice Bosch drill out but she said no but with a few more consonants). Their attitude then was look you can't be in that place but if you are in this place then we will keep an eye on your boat for you. Clearly you have not had the same happy experience that we have had, I have no idea why not.

 

Going back to the OP and the CC/CM debate: I do despair when for example I see the London Boaters survey figures with roughly half getting tickets and most not talking to BW when they say they have a genuine reason for overstaying. If you talk to BW they are very helpful. If you overstay somewhere then say your engine has broken down then they won't believe you and I have to say that I fully understand why.

 

NABO says that they represent all boaters yet for years it has always been unclear does that mean they represent the Paul Davieses of this world or the people who pay for a mooring. The problem with having some sort of permit to CM is then you need to charge an amount similar or more than the local moorings or people on the moorings will start CN-ing. The Lee consultation pitched the figure under the local day rate and there were squeals of anguish so no your idea won't work but I am surprised that you seem to be pushing the Lee Consultation approach.

[Robin2]

Why should those who can afford it be able to eat steak and drink champagne?

Why should they hog the big houses?

Why should they stay in the best hotels?

Why should they sit in the best seats at the opera?

Why should they jump the hospital waiting list by going private?

Why should they.....?

 

I think you get my drift.

 

In a sophisticated society, money is used to determine how best to allocate scarce resources. It may not be perfect, but it's quite an efficient way of doing so, and it's the system used to allocate longer-term moorings.

 

Why should 14 day moorings be different?

 

We need to have a good answer to this question, because the new charity is going to be trying every trick in the book to wring more money out of boaters.

 

For me the answer is very simple. Long term moorings and marina berths are allocated on an economic basis. But moorings with time limits - be they 24h, 48h, 5d or the remainder of the towpath at 14d - are defined like that so that everybody has equal access to them regardless of means. And that's how it should stay.

 

 

The alternative is a move to a situation where you have to pay an overnight fee everywhere you stop. At the moment that "overnight payment" is subsumed in my annual licence fee and I want it to stay like that. While nobody likes price increases I would prefer a general price increase to a change to a system where I had to pay short term mooring fees in addition to my annual licence.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Robin2

[the grinch]

For me the answer is very simple. Long term moorings and marina berths are allocated on an economic basis. But moorings with time limits - be they 24h, 48h, 5d or the remainder of the towpath at 14d - are defined like that so that everybody has equal access to them regardless of means. And that's how it should stay.

 

 

so you think a blanket 3 day maximum for the entire kidlington to oxford section is Equal access to all?? I DON'T!! the real problem is LONG TERM moored boats a blanket 14 day stay would be fair, the situation as it was last time i was there isn't (although it may have changed again)

[Flossie007]

the whole idea of requiring a mooring to be issued a licence is effectively shot away in contravention of the stated will of parliament.

It was BW that wanted a mooring to be a requirement before issuing a boat licence, not Parliament. The stated will of Parliament is that you must either have a mooring for your boat or use the boat bona fide for navigation....without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances. Parliament stated this in Section 17 3 c ii of the 1995 British Waterways Act. BW had originally sought powers to require every boat to have a mooring and wanted criminal sanctions against anyone caught living on their boat without a houseboat certificate and a residential mooring, with a fixed fine of £1000 plus a daily penalty of £100 for offenders. Parliament considered this to be unacceptably harsh and did not intend a mooring to be required as a condition of issuing a boat licence.