Enforcement Options

[scrunch]

I agree, to some extent, though I would rather go slowly past a moored widebeam than meet one when its moving, especially if the owner is more interested in living on a boat than learning how to handle it.

Its a bit off topic but it has occurred to me quite often that what is needed is more moorings that capture something of the character of living on the cut. Living in a marina does not meet the needs of many boaters; they are often more "caravan park" than boaty and the view out of the window is most often another boat 2 feet away. (And this of course is why residential boaters don't want to move into mobile homes!).

 

I think small marinas built as "arms" would be quite nice, and ultimately a "layby loop" would be great, especially if the odd passing boater was encouraged to detour to simulate real life on the cut. This would happen naturally if they sold diesel etc. Sadly this would all work out much more expensive than digging the standard big square marina hole.

 

...........Dave

I have been thinking on the same lines, but wonder, now I know I am drifting possibly into a fantasy world , that new canals could be built to go towards flood management okay I will go back to sleep now.

[magnetman]

what we need is bypasses - streches of straight canal with locks , cutting and embankments, which bypass the places where people like to moor up

[dmr]

Didn't they do something along those lines a while ago in Birmingham????

I doesn't have any locks but there are certainly no moored boats on it!

 

.........Dave

[magnetman]

Didn't they do something along those lines a while ago in Birmingham????

I doesn't have any locks but there are certainly no moored boats on it!

 

.........Dave

 

BCN main line?

 

you would have to put locks people don't go boating just for the ditches

[dmr]

BCN main line?

 

you would have to put locks people don't go boating just for the ditches

 

Yes I did mean the main line.

I am always surprised at just how many boaters appear to dislike locks.

Just look at the adverts for some marinas..they boast "xx miles of lock free cruising".

We have certainly met boaters on the K&A who have never been to the "other half" of the canal because they won't do Devizes flight!!!!

 

So, we turn some sections of the cut into on-line mooring and build a M6 style toll canal as a bypass.

Boaters who don't like passing moored boats then pay a little toll to use the bypass, and as a reward are allowed to go at 6 miles per hour.!

Mr Bizzard would be proud of me!

 

..........Dave

[Lady Muck]

Tell me about it, a morning with Dave agreeing with me isn't half as much fun.

It is for me!

[Grace and Favour]

It is for me!

 

[mayalld]

It is for me!

 

Normal service will be resumed shortly

[Doorman]

 

I am always surprised at just how many boaters appear to dislike locks.

 

..........Dave

 

We used to moor along the Rufford Arm of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal and to get to the main line involved negotiating 7 double locks that always seemed to take ages to fill. So, we moved onto a marina on the main line that allowed miles of lock free navigation if you travelled towards Liverpool.

 

Having experienced the single locks on the Shropshire Union and up and down Heartbreak Hill on the Trent & Mersey, we thought nothing of settling here in sunny Audlem at the bottom of the flight. Locks add another feature to a journey and keep the old bones from seizing up too!

 

Mike

 

ETA I've even adopted a couple of them here and will keep them running smoothly whenever possible.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Doorman

[rgreg]

Yes I am to busy getting on with my life for it to cause me concern. In a ideal world everyone would obey the rules but hey some don't I only really concern myself with what I do

...until those rule breakers impact your life, then I think you would be a bit more concerned.

[cotswoldsman]

...until those rule breakers impact your life, then I think you would be a bit more concerned.

 

Well they haven't impacted my life for the last 7 years so not sure how they would impact my life going forward. The other problem is that what some people call "Rule Breakers" are not necessarily "Law Breakers"

[rgreg]

Well they haven't impacted my life for the last 7 years so not sure how they would impact my life going forward. The other problem is that what some people call "Rule Breakers" are not necessarily "Law Breakers"

Good for you; it's a great lifestyle, let's just hope it is allowed to continue unaffected by the actions of others.

[jenlyn]

Good for you; it's a great lifestyle, let's just hope it is allowed to continue unaffected by the actions of others.

I believe the actions of many who perceive there to be a problem are more damaging than the few that are causing any problem.

[rgreg]

I believe the actions of many who perceive there to be a problem are more damaging than the few that are causing any problem.

Yes, sometimes problems can be "blown up" in proportion by false perceptions. What is sensible though, is to take a proactive approach and tackle the growing problem before it becomes a big monster.

[jenlyn]

Yes, sometimes problems can be "blown up" in proportion by false perceptions. What is sensible though, is to take a proactive approach and tackle the growing problem before it becomes a big monster.

Aha, I think I follow your thought line now, blood letting and colonial attitudes?

[Tuscan]

Aha, I think I follow your thought line now, blood letting and colonial attitudes?

 

 

No just CRT applying a consistent approach to mooring regulations is probably all that's needed,

[carlt]

Yes, sometimes problems can be "blown up" in proportion by false perceptions. What is sensible though, is to take a proactive approach and tackle the growing problem before it becomes a big monster.

If "tackling the growing problem" involves giving those without a home mooring the same rights and privileges as those with a home mooring would that satisfy you?

 

Could those "false perceptions" not also include the perception that the problem is growing... for example one forum member who complained incessantly at the mooring problem on the K&A has acknowledged that the situation has vastly improved and most of the overstayers I knew around Rugby now have home moorings. I could continue with examples but won't bother.

 

The "problem" seems to be diminishing not growing in most areas, in my opinion.

[rgreg]

Aha, I think I follow your thought line now, blood letting and colonial attitudes?

Sorry you've lost me on that one.

 

If "tackling the growing problem" involves giving those without a home mooring the same rights and privileges as those with a home mooring would that satisfy you?

 

Could those "false perceptions" not also include the perception that the problem is growing... for example one forum member who complained incessantly at the mooring problem on the K&A has acknowledged that the situation has vastly improved and most of the overstayers I knew around Rugby now have home moorings. I could continue with examples but won't bother.

 

The "problem" seems to be diminishing not growing in most areas, in my opinion.

Has it not improved as a result of more action being taken, or even action being discussed having an impact?

What would satisfy me would be an assurance that the future lifestyle of ALL compliant boaters is not threatened by the actions of a few.

[carlt]

 

Has it not improved as a result of more action being taken, or even action being discussed having an impact?

No I think it has "improved" as a result of people gradually moving to a more stable lifestyle and getting moorings.

 

 

What would satisfy me would be an assurance that the future lifestyle of ALL compliant boaters is not threatened by the actions of a few.

 

I don't think "the actions of a few" threaten anybody's lifestyle.

 

It would seem that on the one hand you perceive a "growing problem" turning into a "big monster" and on the other claim that it is merely the "actions of a few" that are threatening your lifestyle.

 

You seem to vary your perceptions to suit a resentment that isn't entirely justified.

[rgreg]

No I think it has "improved" as a result of people gradually moving to a more stable lifestyle and getting moorings.

 

 

 

I don't think "the actions of a few" threaten anybody's lifestyle.

 

It would seem that on the one hand you perceive a "growing problem" turning into a "big monster" and on the other claim that it is merely the "actions of a few" that are threatening your lifestyle.

 

You seem to vary your perceptions to suit a resentment that isn't entirely justified.

No, I don't have any "varying" perceptions. All I am saying is that if you do nothing with a growing problem, which undoubtedly has grown in the past, it gets out of control. You suggest things may have improved as a result of people choosing more stable lifestyle options; why do you think this is?

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Has it not improved as a result of more action being taken, or even action being discussed having an impact?

What would satisfy me would be an assurance that the future lifestyle of ALL compliant boaters is not threatened by the actions of a few.

 

I presume you mean Compliant by your standards not how the law defines Compliant.

 

No, I don't have any "varying" perceptions. All I am saying is that if you do nothing with a growing problem, which undoubtedly has grown in the past, it gets out of control. You suggest things may have improved as a result of people choosing more stable lifestyle options; why do you think this is?

 

because mooring prices have dropped in many areas and more moorings have become available?

[carlt]

You suggest things may have improved as a result of people choosing more stable lifestyle options; why do you think this is?

Because as people get older and take on more responsibilities they require a more stable home environment.

 

I suggest that if you are foreseeing a "big monster" whilst acknowledging that there are less overstayers then your perceptions are wildly varying.

[rgreg]

I presume you mean Compliant by your standards not how the law defines

My "standard" would be that which is required by the law. Much as you may like to believe I think otherwise, I don't.

[rgreg]

Because as people get older and take on more responsibilities they require a more stable home environment.

 

I suggest that if you are foreseeing a "big monster" whilst acknowledging that there are less overstayers then your perceptions are wildly varying.

I haven't acknowledged that there are less overstayers, I just quoted your suggestion of this. I think this issue is regional anyway. I don't challenge what you say about your part of the world because you are there and I am not. I can say it has not diminished on the Lancaster, and I would be fairly sure if it was just ignored it would increase.

[alan_fincher]

No I think it has "improved" as a result of people gradually moving to a more stable lifestyle and getting moorings.

 

because mooring prices have dropped in many areas and more moorings have become available?

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit chaps.....

 

I can't immediately find the numbers, but I know we have been here before.

 

Actually the total number of issued licences is declared in the BW annual reports as pretty static, (that much I see).

 

But I know the one "growth area" is that of those not declaring a home mooring! (If you recall John, that was one reason Sally claimed they were important - the only area where licence revenue is rising! ).

 

So for those who see the "CC-er" numbers as a problem, I think we have to stop pretending the actual total could possibly be on the decline on the decline - I feel quite sure it isn't.

 

Proper enforcement may mean they are being held more to a boating pattern that CRT think they should adopt, but I think we are on very sticky ground trying to claim they are taking up permanent moorings in large numbers.

 

Certainly down here, I know many people have quit marinas due to rising costs, and are now without a declared home mooring. I suspect as many are giving up moorings as are taking them, but I can't prove that, I'll admit.