The answer!

[NigelMoore]

Remember C&RT are providing a service they to not have to allow you onto their waterway.

 

It is not ‘their’ waterway; they manage an asset held in trust for the nation.

 

They DO have to allow you onto that waterway, excepting only some failure to conform to the 1995 Act, which gives the limited statutory grounds on which they can refuse you a boat licence.

 

Failure to satisfy them as to those conditions allows them to refuse a licence, whereupon you can be removed from the waterway if entering it/remaining on it illegally.

 

If, while legitimately on the waterway, you breach any one of the statutory mooring [or other] regulations/byelaws, they can apply the sanctions provided for by that statute/byelaw. That ranges from simply moving your boat away from where it causes an obstruction; taking you to court to recover any monies owed on licence renewal [&/or including any fines provided for], to refusing renewal of a licence owing to failure to satisfy them that you genuinely intend to comply with the statutory requirements. The answers to the ‘problem’, in other words, are already in place; the choice to apply the most expensive, controversial and dramatic alternatives is driven by taste rather than necessity.

 

However practical your proposed solution might or might not be, it would require additional powers to implement, and is simply an alternative way of monitoring boat movement – whereas if it has not proved possible to determine that an individual boat has ‘overstayed’ anywhere, then it cannot have been creating a problem worth this expenditure of resources, at the expense of the privacy of everyone.

What's the question?

 

“What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?”

[pelicanafloat]

 

It is not ‘their’ waterway; they manage an asset held in trust for the nation.

 

They DO have to allow you onto that waterway, excepting only some failure to conform to the 1995 Act, which gives the limited statutory grounds on which they can refuse you a boat licence.

 

Failure to satisfy them as to those conditions allows them to refuse a licence, whereupon you can be removed from the waterway if entering it/remaining on it illegally.

 

If, while legitimately on the waterway, you breach any one of the statutory mooring [or other] regulations/byelaws, they can apply the sanctions provided for by that statute/byelaw. That ranges from simply moving your boat away from where it causes an obstruction; taking you to court to recover any monies owed on licence renewal [&/or including any fines provided for], to refusing renewal of a licence owing to failure to satisfy them that you genuinely intend to comply with the statutory requirements. The answers to the ‘problem’, in other words, are already in place; the choice to apply the most expensive, controversial and dramatic alternatives is driven by taste rather than necessity.

 

However practical your proposed solution might or might not be, it would require additional powers to implement, and is simply an alternative way of monitoring boat movement – whereas if it has not proved possible to determine that an individual boat has ‘overstayed’ anywhere, then it cannot have been creating a problem worth this expenditure of resources, at the expense of the privacy of everyone.

 

“What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?”

 

Thanks for that explanation, I found it most helpful. So, why don't they just update the 1995 Act to get it up to date? Too simple?

[sassan]

Perhaps , I am digressing.......

CRT have recently spent several hundred thousands on tracking devices for their road vehicle fleet, so they can better manage use and mileage wastage. Good, you might think, but couldn't that have been achieved by better management( by the managers) rather than electronic means, at no extra expense? This is at the same time as they are asking for donations and volunteers to maintain the canals. Did you really want your donation (of money or time) expended on an internal management problem?

I inferred that I /thought/ it was a wind up.

 

Given that you can fit GPS trackers from a couple of hundred per unit, compared to the cost of employing several extra staff to manage the fleet, in addition to wasting driver's time by requiring them to keep their own records, this is nothing.

 

It is perfectly possible to save money on fuel and wasted staff time due to unnecessary travel (eg: if two vans are dispatched to deal with 2 issues only a couple of miles apart) using such methods, they have proved beneficial overall to private business and I see no reason why they could not save the trust money.

 

The trust is not just a fund which buys things periodically, of which some are useful to us and some are not, it is primarily charged with performing administrative and maintainance tasks. I am sure the vast majority of its costs are operational costs (particularly staff salary and fuel). Reducing these costs is MUCH more effective in making the budget go further than simply "not buying things" is.

[Higgs]

Cart already record boat movements and whereabouts so is this very different? Just possibly more accurate and less open to abuse.

 

You may as well have an ASBO bracelet on if you value so little your right to go about your business and determine who should or shouldn't know your every move.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Higgs

[sueb]

 

You may as well have an ASBO bracelet on if you value so little your right to go about your business and determine who should or shouldn't know your every move.

I fully agree but the watching and recording has been going on for years now so it is a bit late to complain.

[Higgs]

I fully agree but the watching and recording has been going on for years now so it is a bit late to complain.

 

I understand, that CRT use information to help. They can join some of the dots up. I accept that much.

[carlt]

Presumably since "intent" has become as important as actual distance traveled, when deciding if a ccer is compliant or not, perhaps they should have a device implanted in the brain that records their journeys but also the purpose of the journey.

 

This device could also be upgradable so that, when the technology becomes available, it can be used to receive signals that create the urge to travel every 14 days.

[bottle]

Presumably since "intent" has become as important as actual distance traveled, when deciding if a ccer is compliant or not, perhaps they should have a device implanted in the brain that records their journeys but also the purpose of the journey.

 

This device could also be upgradable so that, when the technology becomes available, it can be used to receive signals that create the urge to travel every 14 days.

 

Got one already but it seems to be malfunctioning, as it starts giving the urge signals after about 72 hours.

[system 4-50]

Presumably since "intent" has become as important as actual distance traveled, when deciding if a ccer is compliant or not, perhaps they should have a device implanted in the brain that records their journeys but also the purpose of the journey.

 

This device could also be upgradable so that, when the technology becomes available, it can be used to receive signals that create the urge to travel every 14 days.

[NigelMoore]

 

So, why don't they just update the 1995 Act to get it up to date? Too simple?

 

Well there are two responses to that, as I see it on immediate reading.

 

Last first: it is not simple; it would take unavailable resources both of manpower and finances; it would involve coming up with justification for the new powers; the new powers would have to be shown to be both fair and above all effective, and the past history of their dealing with current powers would have to be dealt with and factored into that process.

 

 

All these questions came up before Parliament when drawing up the ’95 Act; subsequent history demonstrates why the fears of that time have been shown to be well founded. Overcoming similar fears now would be well-nigh impossible.

 

As to the first: you have to identify a justifiable need, of significant system-wide impact. As with the powers sought in 1990, so today the real need for them has not been demonstrated.

 

 

As the final Select Committee for the ’95 Act had understood [the relevant quotes from which I have posted up under different topics], “Operationally, you are OK” with the then present regulations and sanctions. It is the choices made as to dealing with the problems that creates the current problem.

 

[Dave_P]

In a former life as a white van man, the company I worked for decided to fit trackers to all the vans so they could keep an eye on us. Strangely, the trackers proved to be extremely unreliable. Might have had something to do with everyone dropping theirs 'accidentally' into a cup of tea or coffee.

 

I DO NOT WANT CART OR ANYONE ELSE TRACKING ME ROUND THE SYSTEM!!! We've all had enough personal freedoms stripped from us.

[Grace and Favour]

Flaw in the system, I just take the plate with RIF and cycle down the towpath to register my movements.

No need if you only use an Elsan..........

[bottle]

 

I DO NOT WANT CART OR ANYONE ELSE TRACKING ME ROUND THE SYSTEM!!!

 

To late they already do

[carlt]

No need if you only use an Elsan..........

Now that really would be tracking your movements.

[tillergirl]

I'm not a CC'er, but I can't think of anything more out of place than being tagged and clocked.

There's already a system in place...........

Edited September 26, 2013 by tillergirl

[sassan]

There's already a system in place...........

 

There's a difference between being observed by human beings (who in this case subsequently enter the data into computers) and being watch constantly by an automated system.

 

In the same way I am pleased to see a local policeman in the street, but unhappy about CCTV.

 

The line is one critical to human dignity.

[system 4-50]

I am happy for all my movements to be recorded. My sole concern is the risk that anyone looking at the data might die of boredom.

[Sunsoup]

How?

 

You're going to have to qualify that statement.

 

 

I don't think it is a good idea to try and define in minute detail the boundaries of CC'ing.

Sorry not you Higgs, the OP.

[carlt]

I am happy for all my movements to be recorded. My sole concern is the risk that anyone looking at the data might die of boredom.

Are you a vegetarian?

[system 4-50]

RFID and similar technology to continuously report where your boat is is a great idea but it is new and therefore will be instinctively opposed.

Therefore its introduction would have to be managed carefully.

It would have to be optional to start with and until take-up reached 90% or so.

It would have to offer benefits to the user. Some of these could be:

 

Cheaper license. Once the technology has matured it should provide cheaper methods of managing boats than having people wandering up and down noting numbers on labels. This should be passed on, and those forcing the use of these old methods should pay the cost of supporting them.

 

Notification of Problems. If CRT knows where you are it can tell you by text of any problems ahead. If you further tell "the system" your intended route or merely general direction it could be more precise. It could also tell you about possible traffic densities on your journey ahead, and ultimately, what was coming at you around that blind bend.

 

Trust. For RFID users CRT could confer "trusted" status where it does not worry too much about how you behave because it can see that overall you observe the general principles of good behaviour. For example, if you stayed once in a while for 3 days at a 48hr visitor mooring because of a personal difficulty it would not be bothered provided that it was rare.

 

Notices. Now this requires internet connectivity to be so cheap that everybody has it and coverage is good. No notices would be posted on the bank and all would be online. Then when long term online moorings were un-let for example, they would automatically become visitor moorings of a duration suitable to the expected load.

 

Obviously there would have to be substantial penalties for misuse.

 

Are there any other benefits to the boater possible?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Or just charge £3000 to £4000 a year for CCing.......

[Higgs]

Sorry not you Higgs, the OP.

 

[carlt]

 

Trust. For RFID users CRT could confer "trusted" status where it does not worry too much about how you behave

Tagging someone before they have committed an offence starts from a position of lack of trust.

 

Given someone "trusted" status because they are able to spy on them flies in the face of "innocent until proven guilty"

 

The society that presumes it's citizens guilty until proven innocent is a broken one.

 

 

Notices. Now this requires internet connectivity to be so cheap that everybody has it and coverage is good. No notices would be posted on the bank and all would be online. Then when long term online moorings were un-let for example, they would automatically become visitor moorings of a duration suitable to the expected load.

 

Here's a thought...all licence applications have a space where someone can put their email address, if they want to receive CRT notifications.

 

Cheap and no snooping.

 

 

Notification of Problems. If CRT knows where you are it can tell you by text of any problems ahead. If you further tell "the system" your intended route or merely general direction it could be more precise. It could also tell you about possible traffic densities on your journey ahead, and ultimately, what was coming at you around that blind bend.

 

 

Here's a thought...all licence applications have a space where someone can put their mobile phone number, if they want to receive CRT notifications.

 

Cheap and no snooping.

Edited September 27, 2013 by carlt

[NigelMoore]

Or just charge £3000 to £4000 a year for CCing.......

 

Why such a timid and tentative approach? The big problem is money? Then as we are dispensing with all considerations of statutory restraints, why not address this in one fell swoop?

 

We are told that boaters only contribute 30% of the authority’s income – which currently is itself inadequate to the purpose of preventing waterways decay; for now then, let’s just quadruple ALL boat licences. That will put us firmly in the preferred customer category, fund further big-brother schemes such as in the OP, enable more attractive employment contracts for enforcement teams, and just possibly even allow for some maintenance to be done as well.

 

If the system is still decaying after ten years or so of such increased income, the licence fees can be boosted again – but across the board, please.

[Chop!]

Cancel the HS2, use the dosh to fix our canals and reverse Beeching's cuts SIMPLES!