Jump to content

petition against the south east mooring proposals


jenlyn

Featured Posts

I have been reading and considering. I will say I have very little knowledge of the areas involved so cannot comment on what is or is not required in that area. I have up until now been thinking how these proposals would affect us if they were rolled out to the area where we tend to boat. It would not affect us right now but I can believe that in future it could be quite restrictive for us.

 

Then I thought a little further and wondered how this would affect trip boats. Most trip boats have their own mooring but have one or more regular routes that the travel, often to a place where the passengers will alight for a short time, perhaps enjoy a meal in the local pub or similar. Any trip boat that is making a decent profit is likely to stop at the same place much more often that 22 times. I wonder if CRT, having made the propsed changes, would then have to start issuing exclusions for certain boats - they would soon get into a situation where they had to issue permits to certain canal users. This in itself would take some organising and policing and how long would it be before a black market in these permits was created just like there is for blue badges for car users?

 

I feel it is a potential can of worms they are about to open

 

I have signed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be a blessing in disguise though.....with only a month of consultation for this, it may well be still possible to implement it in SE, but if they tried to spread it into other regions then at that point it clearly becomes 'national' and it could be stopped from occurring (in other areas....not SE).

 

I imagine the SE is a 'trial' of sorts, and they'll modify subsequent regional implementations a bit.

 

But surely it is a National issue. What we have is one national waterways system broken into regions so this effects anyone with a boat on that system, now you might not choose to cruise in the South East but I know plenty of boaters both in The Midlands and The North who are planning to cruise South within the next couple of years.

 

I am still in an email dialogue with Sally Ash.

 

I need to ponder quite a bit further the latest answers received from Sally, but basically (my paraphrase) their justification for these changes are that the problems came high up people's agenda in the last boaters survey, and also from the discussions that BW/CRT had already had with boater groups and hire companies that led to the drawing up of the 22 sites. Which boater groups is not specified, but given the IWA's high profile on mooring issues in the South East, one assumes they must have been a major player.

 

I recall that the boater survey referred to was rejected by many people at the time, because there was a feeling that it identified them, and the information being gathered could be misused. The response rate seems to have been about 11%, so when (for example) they actually say 50% of boaters are represented by an association, what they have actually done is extrapolated from quite a small sample, and assumed that non respondents fit the same pattern as those who did respond. I think it could be argued that averaged out those who might complete a survey may not represent the views of those who did not. Arguably those who join associations are more likely to complete surveys than those who do not.

 

If these are the major routes used to draw up the proposals, I think it is a shame that information has not been included in the discussion document. Perhaps sometimes those working on such projects are too close to the subject, and make assumptions that people already know more of the background than I believe is likely to be the case if a notification of a consultation just arrives in their inbox.

 

I'm not yet convinced that individual boater complaint about specific locations has actually played much part in drawing up this proposal.

 

The dialogue continues!

 

Unlike you Alan I am not much for carrying out long email dialog s partly because I can't spell and my grammar is terrible but mainly because I can't be bothered to spend hours on the keyboard. So unlike you I had a long conversation with Sally yesterday and among other things we discussed the controversy about this consultation. Sally did stress that it is what it says on the label a "consultation". I think you are right and it is mainly the complaints from users, user groups and organisations such as The IWA. The problem is that when people like me visit Uxbridge and Ricky and have no problem mooring I don't write or email CRT and say "I have just moored in Uxbridge, no problem finding a mooring" The points I raised concerning volume of boats going through there areas against those that want to moor was understood by her. In other words how many boats went through Uxbridge and actually wanted to moor as opposed to just saying "I could not see a mooring in a prime location in Uxbridge as I passed through" I also asked "why can there not be seasonal variations?" so for example 7 day moorings become 48 hour moorings during July and August and during November - March be 14 day moorings she quite rightly (IMO) stressed that this is work in progress.

I just feel that people like me (and yourself I think) who strongly oppose these changes need to ensure that we put up a good case against these proposed changes. Having said that I do think that there is a case for taking a good look at visitor moorings but this should be done with proper figures and facts not just based on complaints from people who are maybe using the same figures as Vaughan Welch. I applaud jenlyn's petition as this process needs to be done again starting from scratch based on facts that they could gather this year.

Having now reread my post you can see why I prefer to talk and not write!!!! It does make sense to me but most probably not to anyone else.

 

I don't agree that the problem is only July and August. Any time that people are out cruising, they will want / need to moor up - and so often it just isn't possible. Due in part to some people ignoring the guidelines.

 

Some people ignoring the guidelines is hardly a major problem. The only way to ensure plenty of spaces on VM's is to stop people cruising and then wanting to moor up.

Edited by cotswoldsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have up until now been thinking how these proposals would affect us if they were rolled out to the area where we tend to boat. It would not affect us right now but I can believe that in future it could be quite restrictive for us.

Imagine if this gets eventually rolled out and even finds it's way to those areas where you lot like to hold your banters, visitor moorings put in with only 1 day stay and then a daily fine. This would make it difficult for many boats to attend, having to hover some distance away before all rushing in on the specific day, only to have to chug off the next day..

Casp'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance on this, but can you tell me when the last boater's survey was conducted, how it is sent out and to how many licence payers (does it go to all)?

No, not ignorant at all - please don't apologise!

 

Many dismissed this survey for what I considered valid reasons at the time, particularly if they were CC-ers.

 

Incidentally, although I am doubtless in a category too small to be called "statistically significant", I was denied the possibility of giving any response that in any way accurately represented my use of the canals, be it mooring patterns, my home mooring, and a whole raft of other questions. The survey assumed you only used one boat on BW waters, and it was simply not possible to answer it in any way sensibly if you split your boating time between more than one. (If I had responded based on just one boat it would seriously have understated the use I make of the canals).

 

Here is a link to a page, which in turn provides a link to the survey conclusions....

 

CRT Link

 

It supposedly went out to 5000 boat license holders, last year. I was a recipient. I did not fill it in as I found it far to intrusive. I am pretty sure they had a response on it of about 3500, not really a good basis to make assumptions from.

Referring to notes I made at the MK meeting with CRT on the 28th November, I notice the survey was brought up by Sally Ash. After short discussion, it was agreed the survey did not reach enough people to substantiate any changes. It did not cover a broad enough spectrum of boat owners.

 

This is interesting, isn't it, (well it is to me, at least!). The whole survey talks in terms of percentages, after it has initially said....

 

The survey was carried out using the internet for the first time. This meant we could contact many more people and achieve a much greater response than in previous years – a total of 3,588

 

One hopes they mean that 3,588 responded, but the way it is worded it could at a pinch be interpreted that we contacted that number of people, but less actually replied! Like so much that is BW / CRT published, it would be better if it gave stuff in a way that could only be interpreted just one way, (e.g. Number of people survey sent to = xxxx, number of valid responses included to create this report = yyyy)

 

Another ambiguity in conversations I'm having is that the total number of private boaters keeps toggling between 32,000 and 34,000, but if we split the difference, then this survey was responded to by no more than 11% of us.

 

There are dangers with such a small sample of course, including.....

 

1) If it was largely conducted by the internet, it will have excluded a very large number of people who do not make use of the internet. (I was surprised when NABO told us the vast majority of their membership still do not, and need paper copy of everything).

 

2) If the data you have collected that 27% of the 3,588 respondees are members of the IWA, it is a fairly huge leap to suggest that 27% of all (say) 33,000 boat owners are members of the IWA.

 

3) It is quite possible that people will feel more inclined to fill out a boater survey if they think it will give them a chance to complain about things, than if they are 100% satisfied with their whole experience of the canals and BW/CRT. So those who think VMs are regularly overcrowded by boats that they think should not be there may well be more likely "survey completers", than those who don't get wound up by such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in how the complaints about visitor moorings are collated and processed.

 

At Uni I remember a discussion taking place about the quote. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" There was a quote from a statistician. She said "Statistics are particularly difficult things to manipulate to get to the truth. However, statistics are easy to manipulate to get a wanted answer."

 

I will paraphrase the above. In any consultation, the way that provided information and questions are formulated can help to guide the outcome to the wanted answer. Like the Scottish referendum, the devil is in the formulation of the question.

 

A pre-ordained outcome springs to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.7 Another issue that was raised by the consultation is one of communication. British Waterways may need to evaluate how information regarding future proposals or consultations are disseminated to the waterways communities, with particular regard to advance notice and the challenges of contacting people who may not always have immediate access to post/phone/internet. Additionally, once a set of proposals has eventually been implemented there will need to be a coordinated way of publicising the new regulations not only to existing waterways users, but to those who may purchase boats in future.

 

The people responsible for these proposals are already fully aware that what they are doing is not representative or inclusive. The above was taken from the Independant Report published following the withdrawal of the L&S Proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2) If the data you have collected that 27% of the 3,588 respondees are members of the IWA, it is a fairly huge leap to suggest that 27% of all (say) 33,000 boat owners are members of the IWA.

 

 

So whats the total membership of the IWA?

I seem to remember its about 16,000 someone correct me if I'm wrong

27% of 33,000 is only 8, 900

So from these figuresabout half the IWA membership own boats

 

 

Is that so far fetched?

 

 

Awaits the deluge

 

OH and I will not be supporting the petition as its of no relevance to me as I rarely use VM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whats the total membership of the IWA?

I seem to remember its about 16,000 someone correct me if I'm wrong

27% of 33,000 is only 8, 900

So from these figuresabout half the IWA membership own boats

 

 

Is that so far fetched?

I didn't say it was far fetched, just that to extrapolate in such a way is highly dodgy.

 

It may be right it may be wrong - I don't know, and you don't know, and I doubt CRT knows.

 

Don't forget the IWA covers more than CRT waters, so many of its boat owning membership may not have a CRT licence - they may instead have an EA one, for example.

 

IIRC the biggest ambiguity about trying to relate IWA membership to boat ownership on CRT waters, is that in many cases if a boat is owned by a husband and wife, we may well be talking about what the IWA count as two members, but which CRT count as only one boat.

 

We couldn't get to the bottom of all this before, and I'm not sure we can do any better now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whats the total membership of the IWA?

I seem to remember its about 16,000 someone correct me if I'm wrong

27% of 33,000 is only 8, 900

So from these figuresabout half the IWA membership own boats

I

 

Is that so far fetched?

 

 

Awaits the deluge

 

OH and I will not be supporting the petition as its of no relevance to me as I rarely use VM

 

I did read somewhere that only 4000 boat owners are members of IWA

As for not using VM's not quite sure why that means you can not sign. I hope you find plenty of places to moor away from VM's when all the boats that would normally have used them join you as they are unable to use VM's anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not ignorant at all - please don't apologise!

 

Many dismissed this survey for what I considered valid reasons at the time, particularly if they were CC-ers.

 

Incidentally, although I am doubtless in a category too small to be called "statistically significant", I was denied the possibility of giving any response that in any way accurately represented my use of the canals, be it mooring patterns, my home mooring, and a whole raft of other questions. The survey assumed you only used one boat on BW waters, and it was simply not possible to answer it in any way sensibly if you split your boating time between more than one. (If I had responded based on just one boat it would seriously have understated the use I make of the canals).

 

Here is a link to a page, which in turn provides a link to the survey conclusions....

 

CRT Link

 

 

 

This is interesting, isn't it, (well it is to me, at least!). The whole survey talks in terms of percentages, after it has initially said....

 

 

 

One hopes they mean that 3,588 responded, but the way it is worded it could at a pinch be interpreted that we contacted that number of people, but less actually replied! Like so much that is BW / CRT published, it would be better if it gave stuff in a way that could only be interpreted just one way, (e.g. Number of people survey sent to = xxxx, number of valid responses included to create this report = yyyy)

 

Another ambiguity in conversations I'm having is that the total number of private boaters keeps toggling between 32,000 and 34,000, but if we split the difference, then this survey was responded to by no more than 11% of us.

 

There are dangers with such a small sample of course, including.....

 

1) If it was largely conducted by the internet, it will have excluded a very large number of people who do not make use of the internet. (I was surprised when NABO told us the vast majority of their membership still do not, and need paper copy of everything).

 

2) If the data you have collected that 27% of the 3,588 respondees are members of the IWA, it is a fairly huge leap to suggest that 27% of all (say) 33,000 boat owners are members of the IWA.

 

3) It is quite possible that people will feel more inclined to fill out a boater survey if they think it will give them a chance to complain about things, than if they are 100% satisfied with their whole experience of the canals and BW/CRT. So those who think VMs are regularly overcrowded by boats that they think should not be there may well be more likely "survey completers", than those who don't get wound up by such things.

 

Many thanks Alan and Jenlyn for your replies. This is going to take a while for me to read through but very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thanks Allan (nb Albert) too, the governments guidelines for consultation are quite clear and I hope CRT trustees are aware the organisation is not adhering.

 

I'm writing my response now, and I have signed the petition and hope it gets a good response from boaters - if the consultation is stopped and re-done properly I hope everyone who is currently excluded gets a chance to be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OH and I will not be supporting the petition as its of no relevance to me as I rarely use VM

 

First they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself and another boat (both full length) have just arrived now at dusk and both found space on the Visitor Moorings at Foxton , half of which are given over to paying winter moorers. Given its Saturday and a sunny day where is the over crowding, indeed by making this mooring 24 hrs (the current 24hr mooring is also empty) the only potential net effect is that the local pub and shop will loose our trade I am sure this is not he intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself and another boat (both full length) have just arrived now at dusk and both found space on the Visitor Moorings at Foxton , half of which are given over to paying winter moorers. Given its Saturday and a sunny day where is the over crowding, indeed by making this mooring 24 hrs (the current 24hr mooring is also empty) the only potential net effect is that the local pub and shop will loose our trade I am sure this is not he intention.

I have never found it crowded during winter months either but it will be a different situation during peek holiday season. Which is why I think CRT need to consider the seasonal element to any popular spot and make any restrictions only for the period where it may do some good.

Edited by churchward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what we like to see; a bit of the old "I'm alright Jack, sod the rest of you"

 

It's a long time since I used a one of these visitor moorings, it doesn't stop me thinking through the consequences.

Absoloutely!

Now the rugby is over I will answer.

IMO all VM should be scrapped there's is no reason for them to exist they were created cos someone in the past whinged that moorings were unavailable in a certain area it should be just 14days anywhere. Thats how it started and that's how'd it should carry on.

 

 

Oh and Ireland England is going to be a stunning match next weekend, I just wish I was still over here and not back at home.........

 

 

ETA if anyone stays one second more than 14 days on non designated mooring they should have a bucket of sh1t dropped on them from a great height

Edited by idleness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absoloutely!

Now the rugby is over I will answer.

IMO all VM should be scrapped there's is no reason for them to exist they were crated cos someone in the past whinged that moorings were unavailable in a certain area it should be just 14days anywhere. Thats how it started and that's how'd it should carry on.

 

 

Oh and Ireland England is going to be a stunning match next weekend, I just wish I was still over here and not back at home.........

 

 

ETA if anyone stays one second more than 14 days the should have a bucket of sh1t dropped on them from a great height

 

That wouldn't work up here on some of the Northern waterways where the VM's are the only safe place to moor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absoloutely!

Now the rugby is over I will answer.

IMO all VM should be scrapped there's is no reason for them to exist they were created cos someone in the past whinged that moorings were unavailable in a certain area it should be just 14days anywhere. Thats how it started and that's how'd it should carry on.

 

 

 

ETA if anyone stays one second more than 14 days on non designated mooring they should have a bucket of sh1t dropped on them from a great height

 

Bloody hell. We are in agreement. Though I think the poo should rise slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wouldn't work up here on some of the Northern waterways where the VM's are the only safe place to moor.

Why not?...as long as the overstayers moved on as soon as CaRT deemed the waterway safe for navigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not?...as long as the overstayers moved on as soon as CaRT deemed the waterway safe for navigation.

 

Because the VM's up here have the rings and/or bollards required to ensure you can secure your boat and not be pulled off your mooring by the large commercial vessels that still ply their trade up here.

 

Mooring on anything else where it would involve mooring spikes for example is not an option.

 

If CRT allowed boats to stay 'anywhere' including VM's for up to 14 days it would potentially totally clog up VM's up here.

Edited by The Dog House
Link to comment
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.