IWA proposals

[Lady Muck]

There seems to be a lot of consulting with live a board boaters, rather less with leisure boaters, there are 8 cruising clubs on the Lea and Stort, London and lower GU - how many of them are in the loop?

I think someone from the Stort Cruising Club was invited but they didnt attend. The consultation was a very broad spread of boaters, there were only a few liveaboards in the meeting which was about 20 strong. Just had a look at the invite again, two different cruising clubs from the L&S were invited to attend, plus we also had trip boaters and a trader.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Lady Muck

[novascotianboy]

I think the point about consultation with leisure boaters is a valid one - particularly as the "2 visits per year" would presumably affect them as well. "2 visits per year" probably wouldn't be too difficult for me as I might only visit London once per year - if at all - but for someone with a mooring somewhere near London who might want to cruise into the city more than once in a year, it could prove problematic.

 

I'd also be interested to hear from leisure boaters themselves what they perceive the problem to be - is it access at VMs? Is it that it seems to always be the same boats on VMs, etc?

[churchward]

It wasn't the same article, but it did irritate me slightly that "Twerton" kept getting spelt as "Tiverton"

Why? Tiverton is such a nice place! Mind you so is Twerton.

[DeanS]

It seems to me that perhaps there should be 2 "systems". One for the "city of London" and one for the rest of the country. I can see why overstaying is such a major issue within the M25, but it's probably much less of an issue outside the M25. It would be silly to rewrite the rules to deal with the challenges within the M25, and roll them out, beyond the M25. I'm sure most boaters outside the M25, wouldnt want to travel within the M25 zone too often.....(maybe once a year?). Why dont they just declare a congestion charge on any boater within the M25 who does not have a home mooring. This would then dissuade too many boats travelling into that area, but wouldnt impact true CC-ers at all, who navigate the many other thousands of kms of canals to the east, west, north and south of Big Ben. A blanket congestion charge could be a ticket purchased at any locks entering the M25 zone, and would bring in extra income for C&RT to put into enforcement WITHIN THE M25 ZONE.

 

 

TADAAAAAA!

Edited December 13, 2012 by DeanS

[PiRSqwared]

So we are not interested in whats being done with the visitor moorings?

 

Part of the role of any new "community" moorings should surely be to take pressure off the VMs. I think the x days max visit/2 visits PCY is a poor idea - if an annual limit needs to be applied then surely it should be a total of 2x days PCY. Otherwise people making 2 one day visits to say Angel VM would not be allowed to return until the year is up, even though a total of 14 days per year would be the permitted annual maximum.

[novascotianboy]

I suspect that the "2 per year" is easier to manage which is why they've proposed it - i.e. a boat checker sees you once - puts your number in - sees you again a few months later - puts your number in - sees you a third time - puts your number in and a penalty notice comes up! Doing it by days (i.e. 14 days per year) means that, unless they are checking a particular stretch every day, they can't keep track of how many days a boat has been on a given mooring (a problem we once had when accused of overstaying on a VM when we had in fact gone to a terminus, winded, and stopped at the same place on the way back).

 

Not saying the "2 per year" system is right - but just that I can see why they prefer it.

[jenlyn]

I wish some people would accept that VM's can simply be, busy places. Possibly not overstayers sights.

[churchward]

I wish some people would accept that VM's can simply be, busy places. Possibly not overstayers sights.

Indeed either are possible explanations.

[novascotianboy]

I wish some people would accept that VM's can simply be, busy places. Possibly not overstayers sights.

Absolutely - and that it's not unreasonable to have to sometimes not moor up exactly where you had planned to or had hoped to.

[jenlyn]

Every year, a certain little armada leaves their lea and stort moorings to cruise for the summer. You know when they have set off, because the first thing they do, is pull into paddington basin, hit the CRT facebook page and complain about the overstay problem in the basin. Now I and many others know its nigh on impossible to overstay at paddington basin. This sort of mentaliy is what is causing problems, not overstayers. I dont deny people overstay, but dont make it up to suit.

[Phoenix_V]

Every year, a certain little armada leaves their lea and stort moorings to cruise for the summer. You know when they have set off, because the first thing they do, is pull into paddington basin, hit the CRT facebook page and complain about the overstay problem in the basin. Now I and many others know its nigh on impossible to overstay at paddington basin. This sort of mentaliy is what is causing problems, not overstayers. I dont deny people overstay, but dont make it up to suit.

 

Paddington Basin is well policed, it is 7 days max stay no return within 2 months, mostly there is space when I have been there - except in June/July when it gets full, may be it needs to be say 5 days max stop max 2 visits not per year, I dont know, I do not know either whether the boats moored there or elsewhere in London are all visitors or local.

 

What I do know is that wheras just a very few years ago it was always possible to get a mooring at the other central and east london moorings now it is not, some sort of restriction is needed so that everyone can get a fair crack at the moorings

 

It seems to me that perhaps there should be 2 "systems". One for the "city of London" and one for the rest of the country. I can see why overstaying is such a major issue within the M25, but it's probably much less of an issue outside the M25. It would be silly to rewrite the rules to deal with the challenges within the M25, and roll them out, beyond the M25. I'm sure most boaters outside the M25, wouldnt want to travel within the M25 zone too often.....(maybe once a year?). Why dont they just declare a congestion charge on any boater within the M25 who does not have a home mooring. This would then dissuade too many boats travelling into that area, but wouldnt impact true CC-ers at all, who navigate the many other thousands of kms of canals to the east, west, north and south of Big Ben. A blanket congestion charge could be a ticket purchased at any locks entering the M25 zone, and would bring in extra income for C&RT to put into enforcement WITHIN THE M25 ZONE.

 

 

TADAAAAAA!

 

Its certainly a problem within the M25 or therabouts and probably not in many other places so what may be necessary in the City may be totally unnecessary elsewhere

Edited December 13, 2012 by Phoenix_V

[sueb]

I suspect that the "2 per year" is easier to manage which is why they've proposed it - i.e. a boat checker sees you once - puts your number in - sees you again a few months later - puts your number in - sees you a third time - puts your number in and a penalty notice comes up! Doing it by days (i.e. 14 days per year) means that, unless they are checking a particular stretch every day, they can't keep track of how many days a boat has been on a given mooring (a problem we once had when accused of overstaying on a VM when we had in fact gone to a terminus, winded, and stopped at the same place on the way back).

 

Not saying the "2 per year" system is right - but just that I can see why they prefer it.

Sounds as though we are becoming a communist country with restricted travelling

[novascotianboy]

I didn't say it was right, Sue - just why I thought they would propose it (i.e. easier to manage)

[NBDensie]

Sounds as though we are becoming a communist country with restricted travelling

 

 

No - you can travel as much as you like. It's the non-traveling that's the problem.

[jenlyn]

No - you can travel as much as you like. It's the non-traveling that's the problem.

So they would have us believe ;-)

[sueb]

No - you can travel as much as you like. It's the non-traveling that's the problem.

Not if I can go to London only twice a year

[carlt]

Not if I can go to London only twice a year

I think they'll let you get a train in as often as you like.

[PiRSqwared]

Every year, a certain little armada leaves their lea and stort moorings to cruise for the summer. You know when they have set off, because the first thing they do, is pull into paddington basin, hit the CRT facebook page and complain about the overstay problem in the basin. Now I and many others know its nigh on impossible to overstay at paddington basin. This sort of mentaliy is what is causing problems, not overstayers. I dont deny people overstay, but dont make it up to suit.

 

Mmm..whinging yoghurt pots...another reason not to do FaceBook!