Visitor Mooring Survey Last Few Days

[Rusty Shackleford]

For those who find that the 2 day limits are confusing, how about a system where there is a set time limit (like 48hrs) and there is signage indicating you a text number to 'log in'. Your time starts then and you text again when leaving. For those who would 'pretend' they arrived later, a website should be available to check for mooring movements, leaving times, boats currently moored etc. Personally, I feel the 48hr old way is open to abuse, skimming a few extra hours (or days), warden watching etc.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Rusty Shackleford

[alan_fincher]

For those who find that the 2 day limits are confusing, how about a system where there is a set time limit (like 48hrs) and there is signage indicating you a text number to 'log in'.

 

Have you tried using a mobile phone at all the locations they might wish to put in short stay limits?

 

Some are notorious phone black-spots.

 

Not all boaters will even have a mobile of course, let alone one that works everywhere at all times.

[jenlyn]

For those who find that the 2 day limits are confusing, how about a system where there is a set time limit (like 48hrs) and there is signage indicating you a text number to 'log in'. Your time starts then and you text again when leaving. For those who would 'pretend' they arrived later, a website should be available to check for mooring movements, leaving times, boats currently moored etc. Personally, I feel the 48hr old way is open to abuse, skimming a few extra hours (or days), warden watching etc.

I dont see the need for more rules, regulations or any other fluff that takes away the actual spirit of boating on the canals. I definitely do not think CRT need help in developing daft ideas to deal with something they have adequate tools for already.

I know we all enjoy the debates on the subject, but helping them develop a problem to find a solution for is ridiculous.

[dmr]

For those who find that the 2 day limits are confusing, how about a system where there is a set time limit (like 48hrs) and there is signage indicating you a text number to 'log in'. Your time starts then and you text again when leaving. For those who would 'pretend' they arrived later, a website should be available to check for mooring movements, leaving times, boats currently moored etc. Personally, I feel the 48hr old way is open to abuse, skimming a few extra hours (or days), warden watching etc.

 

Its very entertaining to invent new rules and then to dream up technological solutions to the enforcement of those rules, but one of the main reasons why many people come to the canals, both to live and to holiday, is to escape from this sort of thing. Many of us are concerned that this wonderful way of life will be destroyed by a clumsy attempt to solve what is a very small problem.

 

Have a look at a few canal holiday brochures and tell me how many say "have a relaxing time avoiding amateur mooring wardens and send texts everyday to report where you and what you are doing" ?..

 

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

[Rusty Shackleford]

I think the 2 day rules is easy and simple to understand. I don't want the canals to get like the roads and parking signage (which can be way more confusing) but it will evolve that way eventually if individual boaters can't take responsibility for themselves and stick within the rules, not bending them. My idea (or what is basically similar to road parking, so not technically mine!) is only in response to those who pick holes because they want fairness from a situation where they will be penalised for returning (why?) or may lose out where they gained before. If your going to complain, be prepared for a solution to your problem. Careful what your arguing for is the moral!

[sueb]

Several years ago, on the K&A, there were signs asking boaters to use their mobiles to pay for extra time. We laughed as we had stayed in the same spot for 5 weeks without seeing an enforcement officer. Who on earth is going to pay when they needn't?

[Coelum Ruat]

Several years ago, on the K&A, there were signs asking boaters to use their mobiles to pay for extra time. We laughed as we had stayed in the same spot for 5 weeks without seeing an enforcement officer. Who on earth is going to pay when they needn't?

 

Honest people?

[Arthur Marshall]

Another solution looking for a problem?

Most of us are on the water to move about. The ones who aren't are a nuisance, but avoidable. Unless, of course, you are someone else who's on the water not to move about...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Several years ago, on the K&A, there were signs asking boaters to use their mobiles to pay for extra time. We laughed as we had stayed in the same spot for 5 weeks without seeing an enforcement officer. Who on earth is going to pay when they needn't?

Which just proves human nature and our current culture in this country. Don't do the right thing unless means are put forward so your forced to. It's no different to any other thing, benefits, motoring etc. We all have to ask ourselves..personally, 'what would make me comply?' . If the answer is anything other than its the right thing to do, for the benefit of all, then your personally voting for measures to force you to comply. So, ask yourself, am I a problem that needs a solution forced on me to change my ways, or can I make a personal responsible positive decision without pressure? The lowest common denominator will justify actions to make you comply. So, If a sign says 48hrs then move on, and there is no enforcement....no stick, and your first thought is 'I can get away with this', the solution is what makes you....forces you to comply.

 

We can moan as much as we like, but in the end, the silent minority ( or majority who just don't admit to it) will shape how problems are dealt with. The only short term solution before the inevitable is to look down on those who abuse rules, bend them. Those who love the canals and the freedom we have (compared to the roads which will get tougher and tougher restrictions fuelled by technology) should promote responsibility, not getting away with it and the 'I'm alright jack, it's only me doing it' singular attitude. Personally, people will not ( or can't) act In the best interest in us all, and will continue on with their own personal agenda, screwing it up for all of us.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Rusty Shackleford

[alan_fincher]

But most of the above is just not relevant to this debate, frankly.

 

There is very little evidence at many of the South East Visitor Mooring sites where these complex measures have been proposed of many boaters who "will continue on with their own personal agenda, screwing it up for all of us."

 

CRT may have attempted to sell that story, but they have consistently failed to produce any strong evidence of it, and it is not the experience of many of us who know the locations well.

 

Even many at last night's meeting who were clearly anti live-aboard, and particularly anti "scruffy boat", freely admitted that these are almost never a problem at sites like Stoke Bruerne, and when I suggested that there was ever seldom a problem finding a mooring at Stoke Bruerne before these changes, most would also readily agree. I had one actually standing up and singing this out for our discussion table, even though he had been speaking freely of "towpath dossers" before that!

 

I don't dispute there are serial over-stayers and piss takers on the system, and that this sometimes causes problems. What I do dispute is that the case has ever been made for the majority of the 22 sites where it was claimed initial these changes had the highest priority.

 

Last night there seemed to be consensus that on South East Waterways Braunston is one of the places where it is hardest to find a spot, (and this is the only place we have really struggled this year - admittedly only when turning up late on an August evening with two boats). Braunston was not even one of the sites where changes were proposed, (I have no idea why).

 

On the whole this exercise is, in my view, a solution trying to find a largely non-existent problem.

Most of these sites are really are not much troubled by serial overstayers - even at those that have them, most still have space for anyone else wishing to stop there. If that were not the case, my view might be different, but I boat these waterways all the time, and use my own eyes.

[David Schweizer]

Alan. We have not been much further down the GU than Linslade for quite a few years, so I am unaware of the current position. However, on other parts of the system, particularly where there are very few undesignated towpath moorings, there are places where the 14 day moorings are consistently occupied by boats on which people are clearly living. Whether they are moving regularly or not, I do not know, but I certainly recognised the same boats in the same area a few weeks later when we passed through again.

 

On those canals where all the visitor moorings are restricted to 48 hours we always managed to find a space. Andecdotal evidence I know, but no less valid than your "use my own eyes" assessment.

Edited November 8, 2013 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

David,

 

My comments were really aimed at the 22 sites that ate proposed as priority for the SEVM project

 

Cleary there are some locations where finding a space is often problematic - Thrupp (the Oxford one) is probably a good example, but even there most agree the issue is simply not enough space to meet peak demand, and that it is generally not hogging of moorings by CCers.

 

Draconian, (and expensive to CRT) measures should be restrcted to VMs where genuine evidence can be produced to support it. A year further on, no attempt seems to have been made for their next 19 proposed sites

 

If people are broadly saying that nothing was actually needed at Stoke Bruerne or Foxton, how can it possibly be justified at less 'honeypot' sites whilst there is insufficient money to spend on the basic infrastructure of the canals involved?

[Leo No2]

I notice a couple of boats are starting to 'squat' on the 2-day moorings between the museum green and the tunnel mouth in Stoke Bruerne. They turned up on Sunday (last) and I am very sure they have not moved in the intervening period. They are certainly still there this morning and were on Wednesday and Thursday.

Picking up on a point that was, I think, raised at Wednesday night's meeting one has no idea if the reason is:

• Confusing signage
• Assumption that the restrictions have lifted
• there's a personal reason why they are both staying on.

It would be helpful if CRT could provide a signed permit with an expiry date which confirms that, for personal reasons, a particular boat is entitled to stay and is displayed in the window of the boat.

Likewise there's a trading boat which turned up on Thursday and has on it's website that it will be in Stoke Bruerne every weekend until Christmas - I think that could be described as 'taking the Michael'.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Leo No2

[nicknorman]

I thought the regulations were being relaxed over the winter starting 1 Nov? Or did I get that wrong.

[David Schweizer]

David,

 

My comments were really aimed at the 22 sites that ate proposed as priority for the SEVM project

 

Cleary there are some locations where finding a space is often problematic - Thrupp (the Oxford one) is probably a good example, but even there most agree the issue is simply not enough space to meet peak demand, and that it is generally not hogging of moorings by CCers.

 

Draconian, (and expensive to CRT) measures should be restrcted to VMs where genuine evidence can be produced to support it. A year further on, no attempt seems to have been made for their next 19 proposed sites

 

If people are broadly saying that nothing was actually needed at Stoke Bruerne or Foxton, how can it possibly be justified at less 'honeypot' sites whilst there is insufficient money to spend on the basic infrastructure of the canals involved?

 

Yes, I confused the issue by responding to the wrong post, my observations were primarily related to tghe extracted paraghraph in this post:-

 

Snip< What you also don't seem to appreciate is that this is a potential "model" or "template" for something that could get rolled out to a large number of South East VM, or even national mooring sites.> Snip

 

 

With regard to the locations you specificly identify, i have never had a problem finding a space at any of them, and there are rarely any boats at those sites which appear to be overstayers, probably because they are alreafy well monitored. In that respaect I would accept that consistent monitoring could resolve the issue at any identified "problem" loctaions.

 

The last thing I want to see is over complictaed regulations which are difficult to interpret, but CaRT cannot do nothing if some boaters insist upon constantly breaking the rules

Edited November 8, 2013 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

I notice a couple of boats are starting to 'squat' on the 2-day moorings between the museum green and the tunnel mouth in Stoke Bruerne. They turned up on Sunday (last) and I am very sure they have not moved in the intervening period. They are certainly still there this morning and were on Wednesday and Thursday.

Picking up on a point that was, I think, raised at Wednesday night's meeting one has no idea if the reason is:

 

• Confusing signage
• Assumption that the restrictions have lifted
• there's a personal reason why they are both staying on.

It would be helpful if CRT could provide a signed permit with an expiry date which confirms that, for personal reasons, a particular boat is entitled to stay and is displayed in the window of the boat.

Likewise there's a trading boat which turned up on Thursday and has on it's website that it will be in Stoke Bruerne every weekend until Christmas - I think that could be described as 'taking the Michael'.

why the need for yet more expense with handing out something to stick in a window, why not just rely on enforcement? Squat??

Have you seen the agreement signed between the Trust and Traders?

[alan_fincher]

I thought the regulations were being relaxed over the winter starting 1 Nov? Or did I get that wrong.

 

Yes, and no! (Sorry!)

 

We thought we had brokered a situation where the whole of sites like Stoke Bruerne would revert to 14 days over winter - rightly or wrongly that is what we came away with in May.

 

Now they are making some of it for 14 days in Winter, but keeping what many consider the "prime" part, (between museum and tunnel), as 2 days for Winter.

 

What that does mean is that anyone visiting from. and then returning to the North with a longer boat remains restricted to just 2 days in Winter, unless they work down the lock flight and back up, (assuming no stoppages!) to access the 14 day Winter moorings in the "long pound". They will not be able to use the winding hole near the tunnel mouth, and hence avoid a double trip through the locks flight

 

Does it matter? If I'm honest, probably not that much, other than if you have been in this as long as I now have, it can be seen as an attempt to take back something that most thought was already agreed.

 

Is that a reasonably balanced, unemotional answer? That's what I'm desperately trying to back off to, as we attempt to unravel actual facts from some of the fiction!

[David Schweizer]

 

Yes, and no! (Sorry!)

 

We thought we had brokered a situation where the whole of sites like Stoke Bruerne would revert to 14 days over winter - rightly or wrongly that is what we came away with in May.

 

Now they are making some of it for 14 days in Winter, but keeping what many consider the "prime" part, (between museum and tunnel), as 2 days for Winter.

 

What that does mean is that anyone visiting from. and then returning to the North with a longer boat remains restricted to just 2 days in Winter, unless they work down the lock flight and back up, (assuming no stoppages!) to access the 14 day Winter moorings in the "long pound". They will not be able to use the winding hole near the tunnel mouth, and hence avoid a double trip through the locks flight

 

Does it matter? If I'm honest, probably not that much, other than if you have been in this as long as I now have, it can be seen as an attempt to take back something that most thought was already agreed.

 

Is that a reasonably balanced, unemotional answer? That's what I'm desperately trying to back off to, as we attempt to unravel actual facts from some of the fiction!

 

 

Not really Alan, they can moor on the 14 day stretch and reverse back to the winding hole. I have seen boats do it in the summer when it can be quite congested, so in the winter it would not be much of an issue.

 

Apart from that, it is possible to wind a boat above the top lock assuming there is not much traffic, the trip boat does it all the time. In the summer!!

Edited November 8, 2013 by David Schweizer

[adam1uk]

 

 

Not really Alan, they can moor on the 14 day stretch and reverse back to the winding hole. I have seen boats do it in the summer when it can be quite congested, so in the winter it would not be much of an issue.

 

Apart from that, it is possible to wind a boat above the top lock assuming there is not much traffic, the trip boat does it all the time. In the summer!!

 

The point Alan was making was that the 14 day stretch is in the long pound -- so that's quite a lot of reversing to get to the winding hole.

[David Schweizer]

 

The point Alan was making was that the 14 day stretch is in the long pound -- so that's quite a lot of reversing to get to the winding hole.

 

Right, I had misunderstood that point, but to be honest why would you want to stay at Stoke Bruerne for more than two days? apart from the museum there isn't really much else there. And yes I have walked around the village to confirm that.

[alan_fincher]

 

Right, I had misunderstood that point, but to be honest why would you want to stay at Stoke Bruerne for more than two days? apart from the museum there isn't really much else there. And yes I have walked around the village to confirm that.

 

But why should you be prevented from doing so at none busy times, if there is ample space.

 

The relevant acts of parliament permit stays of up to 14 days, (if CRT place no other rules or restrictions on you), so why should anybody who prefers to spend several days at a time in one place be prevented from doing so, provided there is enough space for everybody.

 

We don't all do our boating the same ways, do we? Go back and read sensible posts by people like Tiggy ("Madcat") where they say they just want to be able to tie up somewhere nice, with a decent bit of bank, a few facilities, and maybe a pub, and just chill, free from unnecessary signs, rules or wardens. Stoke Bruerne in winter would seem ideal as a place to tie up and just chill, and people doing so will provide much needed out of season trade to the businesses there, so why place it out of bounds, just because it suits some new Visitor Mooring model to do so?

 

I don't oppose sensible restrictions anywhere a case can be made for them, but sending wardens/rangers out every day with applications on mobile phones to record people on near deserted moorings in the Winter months still sounds bonkers to me.

 

Would you not prefer that every pound spent on this was instead spent on fixing the deteriorating state of much of the canals involved? I'm completely clear that I would, and will continue to say that at every opportunity until someone produces any evidence that such severe measures are actually required.

[mayalld]

 

But why should you be prevented from doing so at none busy times, if there is ample space.

 

The relevant acts of parliament permit stays of up to 14 days, (if CRT place no other rules or restrictions on you), so why should anybody who prefers to spend several days at a time in one place be prevented from doing so, provided there is enough space for everybody.

 

 

 

The relevant acts of parliament are utterly silent on the subject of how long one may stay moored in one place (provided that you have a Home Mooring)

[Leo No2]

Not really Alan, they can moor on the 14 day stretch and reverse back to the winding hole. I have seen boats do it in the summer when it can be quite congested, so in the winter it would not be much of an issue.

 

Apart from that, it is possible to wind a boat above the top lock assuming there is not much traffic, the trip boat does it all the time. In the summer!!

You can get 60' round (just - fenders up) outside my house (opposite the Boat) but anything even 6" longer won't go even if Indian Chief (the longer of the two trip boats at 57') is not there. If Indian Chief is there then with 60' you need pinpoint accuracy. More than 60' and you'll likely punch a hole in Indian Chief's window, as happened this summer, and still not manage to wind. So anything over 60' is definitely three locks down to wind and if you are 70' then it is 5 locks Edited November 8, 2013 by Leo No2

[alan_fincher]

The relevant acts of parliament are utterly silent on the subject of how long one may stay moored in one place (provided that you have a Home Mooring)

 

Many seem to feel these initiatives have more to do with controlling those who don't have a home mooring!

[David Schweizer]

 

But why should you be prevented from doing so at none busy times, if there is ample space.

 

The relevant acts of parliament permit stays of up to 14 days, (if CRT place no other rules or restrictions on you), so why should anybody who prefers to spend several days at a time in one place be prevented from doing so, provided there is enough space for everybody.

 

We don't all do our boating the same ways, do we? Go back and read sensible posts by people like Tiggy ("Madcat") where they say they just want to be able to tie up somewhere nice, with a decent bit of bank, a few facilities, and maybe a pub, and just chill, free from unnecessary signs, rules or wardens. Stoke Bruerne in winter would seem ideal as a place to tie up and just chill, and people doing so will provide much needed out of season trade to the businesses there, so why place it out of bounds, just because it suits some new Visitor Mooring model to do so?

 

I don't oppose sensible restrictions anywhere a case can be made for them, but sending wardens/rangers out every day with applications on mobile phones to record people on near deserted moorings in the Winter months still sounds bonkers to me.

 

Would you not prefer that every pound spent on this was instead spent on fixing the deteriorating state of much of the canals involved? I'm completely clear that I would, and will continue to say that at every opportunity until someone produces any evidence that such severe measures are actually required.

 

Are you suggesting my posts aren't sensible?

 

Seriously I agree with you that during the winter, at least, most of the moorings could revert to 14 days as is the case in Braunston, my original comments were on the basis that I had not realised that the whole length between top lock and the tunnel were now 48 eight hours rather than just part of that stretch.

 

To play devil's advocte for a moment. could CaRT be worrying that if the moorings reverted to 14 days during the winter, they could become fully occupied by people leaving their boats and going home, something which seems to be becoming an increasing problem at some locations on the Southern Oxford.

 

.........................................................................................................................................................................

 

 

The relevant acts of parliament are utterly silent on the subject of how long one may stay moored in one place (provided that you have a Home Mooring)

 

 

 

Many seem to feel these initiatives have more to do with controlling those who don't have a home mooring!

 

Once again playing Devil's advocate, but wasn't the 14 days mooring restriction put into the Act as a consequence of the concession agreed that a boat does not have to have place where it can be moored provided it continuously cruises?

Edited November 8, 2013 by David Schweizer