Response to the Consultation on Waterway Partnership’s Towpath Mooring Plan for the Kennet & Avon Canal west of Devizes

[Alan de Enfield]

I am not an expert on vehicle law but where I used to work he had two Transits, one had twin wheels at the back and its extra weight pushed it into a whole new category, it needed plating and also many MOT stations were unable to test it. Is this the source of the different opinions here?

 

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

No -its the max 'all up weight' ( 2 tonnes) that determines 'commercial' or not

[kris88]

Wow the situation has got really bad on the K&A if they are continuously cruising transits

[Pete & Helen]

Back on topic please, or people will get fed up and not bother reading, as happens too often

 

I believe from what I read in the consultation that this is a 12 month trial to see how things go, and from CaRT's perspective (reading between the lines) people become more compliant with what they intemperate the act means.

 

Will be interesting to hear from those on the K&A as time goes by as to how they feel things have gone. At least there is some clarity to what is in the rules now.

[JDR]

If you expect to moor on rings, or get both front and back of the boat close to the bank possibly due to having mobility issues or dogs onboard I could see people having issues but I don't recognise the description of a lack of wild moorings. A long gangplank and a bit of creativity is the order of the day but that is more a reflection of the lack of piling than the absence of moorings. Perfectly normal to have one end of the boat two or three feet away from the bank, no different to mooring on most rivers

[NigelMoore]

I wonder how long it will be before Nick Brown either challanges C&RT right to impose fines (£25 per day overstaying charge / fine) or appeals against the Davies case on the basis that C&RT are now saying what he was doing is in fact acceptable.

 

Of course this will now apply across the system because you can't have one rule for one set of boaters (CC'rs) and a different rule for other (CC'rs), otherwise that is discrimination.

 

I believe all sides are to be congratulated on this result, both the Partnership for their widely consulted Plan and CaRT for their response to it. This is real, positive interaction aimed at a pragmatic solution to the problems of a popular, crowded locality.

 

I am particularly pleased with CaRT’s rejection of the elements they disagreed with, and for the rest which they accepted, there has been evidence of thoughtful pragmatism.

 

The key to this was always the lack of reliance on enforceable law, and rather, an acceptance of the principle in point 23 of the Partnership proposal – “A widely published local consensus carries with it an authority of its own and boaters are to be encouraged to observe all such locally-approved guidance.”

 

CaRT’s response acknowledged: “Local arrangements which have strong support from a large number of boaters is a potentially powerful influence on behavior.”

 

This places the onus for solutions squarely where it should rest – on all of us, instead of cries for greater powers of compulsion for the authority.

 

You will note that the Proposal did not unquestioningly accept CaRT’s legal right to impose extended stay charges – it acknowledged only that such would assist against ‘overstaying’ “assuming that CRT have the statutory authority to levy such charges”. CaRT have ignored that bit, but in the context of a general consensus, then the statutory power becomes, perhaps, less of an issue.

 

CaRT are most definitely NOT “saying what he [Davies] was doing is in fact acceptable.” They clarify this in paragraph 4.5 “(For the avoidance of doubt, boat movements in accordance with this interim arrangement would not fit within the Trust’s interpretation of the requirements of continuous cruising for the purposes of section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 and it is only for the 12 month period in this limited area that this range of movement would not attract enforcement action).”

 

Nor does this Response apply system wide, precisely because it is a matter of local consensus re: guidelines, and NOT a matter of unilaterally imposed “Rule”.

[Jerra]

Sorry off topic I know but to follow up my point about 4x4 pick ups.

 

HMRC say "Any vehicle is a commercial vehicle if it has a payload of one tonne or more,"

 

Pick ups by Totota Hilux, Mitsubishi, VW, Nissan, Isuzu and Ford all have payloads of over 1 tonne and so are commercial vehicles as far as I can make out.

[Tuscan]

I am sure the 12m period is to see whether boaters decide to follow the principle of these guidelines so that there is something for CRT to work with to develop a longer term solution or whether these proposals fall at the first hurdle. Only time will tell I guess.

[Alan de Enfield]

Jerra, on 13 Mar 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:Jerra, on 13 Mar 2014 - 11:38 PM, said:

Sorry off topic I know but to follow up my point about 4x4 pick ups.

 

HMRC say "Any vehicle is a commercial vehicle if it has a payload of one tonne or more,"

 

Pick ups by Totota Hilux, Mitsubishi, VW, Nissan, Isuzu and Ford all have payloads of over 1 tonne and so are commercial vehicles as far as I can make out.

 

I dont think HMRC have much involvement in setting or defining vehicle weight limits with regard to speed limits - their definition is purely for taxation purposes.

 

The definition of a 'commercial vehicle' (for speed limit purposes) is if it exceeds 2000kgs as a total laden weight. - ie (say) a 2100 kg Range Rover carrying 500 kgs of passengers, fuel and camping stuff would technically be restricted to the same speeds as a Transit van

 

Edit - links added

 

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

 

http://carleasingmadesimple.com/business-car-leasing/land-rover/range-rover/kerb-weight/

Edited March 14, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

 

I dont think HMRC have much involvement in setting or defining vehicle weight limits with regard to speed limits - their definition is purely for taxation purposes.

 

The definition of a 'commercial vehicle' (for speed limit purposes) is if it exceeds 2000kgs as a total laden weight. - ie (say) a 2100 kg Range Rover carrying 500 kgs of passengers, fuel and camping stuff would technically be restricted to the same speeds as a Transit van

 

Edit - links added

 

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

 

http://carleasingmadesimple.com/business-car-leasing/land-rover/range-rover/kerb-weight/

Using your references most 4 x4 pickups would be commercial vehicles and so fit the speed limits I suggest.

 

<Quote>

Most vans are under 7.5 tonnes laden (loaded) weight and must follow the speed limits for goods vehicles of the same weight.

‘Car-derived’ vans weigh no more than 2 tonnes when loaded and are based on car designs,

</Quote>

 

Pickups are not car derived vans. They do not have a car equivalent i.e the same shape as the examples given in your reference do. But take as an example a pickup kerb weight 1865Kg add 2 12st passengers (roughly 150Kg total) = over 2 tonnes. So again don't fit the car derived van as they weight more than 2 T most of the time when loaded. They appear to fall into the first part of the quote and follow speed limits for goods vehicles of the same weight.

Single Dual Motorway

Carriageway

Goods vehicles (not more than 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight) 30 (48) 50 (80) 60 (96) 70 (112)

60 (96) if articulated or towing a trailer

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Using your references most 4 x4 pickups would be commercial vehicles and so fit the speed limits I suggest.

 

<Quote>

Most vans are under 7.5 tonnes laden (loaded) weight and must follow the speed limits for goods vehicles of the same weight.

‘Car-derived’ vans weigh no more than 2 tonnes when loaded and are based on car designs,

</Quote>

 

Pickups are not car derived vans. They do not have a car equivalent i.e the same shape as the examples given in your reference do. But take as an example a pickup kerb weight 1865Kg add 2 12st passengers (roughly 150Kg total) = over 2 tonnes. So again don't fit the car derived van as they weight more than 2 T most of the time when loaded. They appear to fall into the first part of the quote and follow speed limits for goods vehicles of the same weight.

Single Dual Motorway

Carriageway

Goods vehicles (not more than 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight) 30 (48) 50 (80) 60 (96) 70 (112)

60 (96) if articulated or towing a trailer

 

 

I'm agreeing, thats why I posted the links.

[Guest]

Pete & Helen, on 13 Mar 2014 - 9:51 PM, said:Pete & Helen, on 13 Mar 2014 - 9:51 PM, said:

Back on topic please, or people will get fed up and not bother reading, as happens too often

 

Yes that sort of thing happens in discussions in a discussion forum Peter.......people have the option to skip over the off topic posts though.

 

(I'm actually intrigued more by the point Jerra has raised)

 

This web site would seem to say different -

 

https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q529.htm

Edited March 14, 2014 by The Dog House

[Paul C]

Phew! Just finished reading the report, well speed-reading the interesting bits of the 123 or so pages. I guess its up to CRT now for the next step, but the consultation has revealed a broad range of opinions on their proposals and adequately justifies why some of the proposals shouldn't be introduced.

[David Schweizer]

Back on topic please, or people will get fed up and not bother reading, as happens too often

 

I believe from what I read in the consultation that this is a 12 month trial to see how things go, and from CaRT's perspective (reading between the lines) people become more compliant with what they intemperate the act means.

 

Will be interesting to hear from those on the K&A as time goes by as to how they feel things have gone. At least there is some clarity to what is in the rules now.

 

I wish you two would stop telling other people what to post, and how to behave, Just because you started a thread, does not mean that you own it. If you don't like the way the forum works, may i suggest that you join that othe canal related forum which is heavily regulated.

Edited March 14, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Semitrad]

 

I wish you two would stop telling other people what to post, and how to behave, Just because you started a thread, does not mean that you own it. If you don't like the way the forum works, may i suggest that you join that othe canal related forum which is heavily regulated.

 

They do have a point, and they did ask nicely. The argument thread is in the virtual pub.

[David Schweizer]

 

They do have a point, and they did ask nicely. The argument thread is in the virtual pub.

 

Argument? Who is having an argument? Their request, which was not that polite, arose primarily from the fact that a thread they started has gone off topic, which frequently happens.

 

I concede that responding to this post might ammount to starting an argument, but there is nothing new about that either.

Edited March 14, 2014 by David Schweizer

[KenK]

Sorry the retired policeman who took me for my speed awareness course obviously tells lies.

 

He began the session by asking who drove what and then pointed out to the drivers of the 4 x4s that they were classed as commercial vehicles and limited to 50on normal roads and 60 on the motorway. I had better get in touch with the local police and tell them their man is no good.

I certainly think you should, the following is from the Goverment website.

 

 

Type of vehicle

Built-up areas mph (km/h)

Single carriageways mph (km/h)

Dual carriageways mph (km/h)

Motorways mph (km/h)

Cars and vehicles (including dual-purpose vehicles and car-derived vans up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight)

30 (48)

60 (96)

70 (112)

70 (112)

Goods vehicles (not more than 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight)

30 (48)

50 (80)

60 (96)

70 (112)

60 (96) if articulated or towing a trailer

 

Dual purpose vehicle:

 

a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry both passengers, goods or burden of any description the unladen weight of which does not exceed 2040 kgs and has either all wheel driver or:

 

a rigid roof with or without side panels

 

side windows with a minimum glass area of 1850 cm to the rear of the drivers seat.

 

a row of properly constructed transverse seats properly sprung behind the drivers seat, fixed or folding, for two or more passengers. The distance between the rear most part of the steering wheel and the backrests to the rear most seats not to be less than one third of the distance from the rear most part of the steering wheel to the rear most part of the vehicle floor.

[Guest]

Yes it seems to hang on the definition of dual purpose vehicle.

[David Schweizer]

 

Argument? Who is having an argument? Their request, which was not that polite, arose primarily from the fact that a thread they started has gone off topic, which frequently happens.

 

I concede that responding to this post might ammount to starting an argument, but there is nothing new about that either.

 

Their bleating hasn't worked though, people seem far more interested in discussing commercial vehicles than consultation on topwpath mooring. I live within a couple of miles from the K&A at Bradford on Avon, unlike Pete and Helen who live up North, and i am not that interested in the consultation. As they say, I have heard it all before.

Edited March 14, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Pete & Helen]

 

Argument? Who is having an argument? Their request, which was not that polite, arose primarily from the fact that a thread they started has gone off topic, which frequently happens.

 

I concede that responding to this post might ammount to starting an argument, but there is nothing new about that either.

 

David this had nothing to do with the fact that I started the topic, and it was a polite request. I don't mind the odd off topic comment but so many of these threads (as you pointed out yourself) tend to get taken over and filled with pages of non related chit chat to the point that when people want to read about the topic they give up , look at the Pillings thread for example I doubt anyone will ever read that one again from the start as its gone so viral.

 

And yes this could be seen as off topic as well but I think that I have the right to reply once. I won't reply to any other comments in the interest of reducing the number of off topic comments

[mango]

The mooring plan can be seen here https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/4082.pdf showing were the 14 "neighbourhoods" are so people know how far to travel so as to not be classed as bridge hoppers

 

And the home page for this and other consultations here http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/consultations/completed-consultations

Bath to Foxhangers is a bit much for a day's boating. Two days would be better.

[KenK]

 

 

 

 

 

CaRT are most definitely NOT “saying what he [Davies] was doing is in fact acceptable.” They clarify this in paragraph 4.5 “(For the avoidance of doubt, boat movements in accordance with this interim arrangement would not fit within the Trust’s interpretation of the requirements of continuous cruising for the purposes of section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 and it is only for the 12 month period in this limited area that this range of movement would not attract enforcement action).”

 

Nor does this Response apply system wide, precisely because it is a matter of local consensus re: guidelines, and NOT a matter of unilaterally imposed “Rule”.

C&RT did say what Paul Davies was doing was not acceptable but now they are saying it is. He was at the time moving every fourteen days between Bath and Foxhangers. The judgement said did it not that moving a distance as short as ten miles did not qualify as bona fide navigation but now it apparently does. C&RT are on record as stating that they cannot specify a distance as nothing is laid down in the 1995 act but now they are stating 20kms per year.

 

It may be the result of a local consultation but what happens when they take a boater in another part of the country to court for following this cruising pattern and the boater points out they allow it on the K&A and claims discrimination. That will be an interesting one for the courts.

 

The basic problem with the whole consultation is that it fails to address the real issue, too many boats in too short a distance between May and September.

The CM'ers were the obvious target and it seems like C&RT are doing something, box ticked.

Roll on the summer and the hire boats start moving all at once and we'll see what difference it really makes.

 

Ken

Sort of back on topic

 

Ken

[Jerra]

Yes it seems to hang on the definition of dual purpose vehicle.

I would disagree DH to me it hangs on the fact that all these large 4 x4 pickups have a maximum laden weight of more than 2 tonnes putting them into the commercial class.

[Guest]

Jerra, on 14 Mar 2014 - 2:46 PM, said:

I would disagree DH to me it hangs on the fact that all these large 4 x4 pickups have a maximum laden weight of more than 2 tonnes putting them into the commercial class.

 

You are still wrong I believe.

 

Read KenK's post above again it says -

 

Cars and vehicles (including dual-purpose vehicles and car-derived vans up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight)

 

I read the weight relating to car derived vans particularly when it also goes on to say -

 

Dual purpose vehicle:

 

a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry both passengers, goods or burden of any description the unladen weight of which does not exceed 2040 kgs and has either all wheel driver or: <snip>

 

By way of example a Nissan Navarna weighs 2038kgs - I suspect Nissan have purposely worked very hard to keep the weight of it below 2040kg for this very reason, other wise the reduced limit would reduce it's appeal to it's target market. Of course there may be other similar vehicles that weigh more than 2040 in which case the lower limits would apply, but it certainly can't applied in a blanket way to all such vehicles.

[Jerra]

 

You are still wrong I believe.

 

Read KenK's post above again it says -

 

Cars and vehicles (including dual-purpose vehicles and car-derived vans up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight)

 

I read the weight relating to car derived vans particularly when it also goes on to say -

 

Dual purpose vehicle:

 

a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry both passengers, goods or burden of any description the unladen weight of which does not exceed 2040 kgs and has either all wheel driver or: <snip>

 

By way of example a Nissan Navarna weighs 2038kgs - I suspect Nissan have purposely worked very hard to keep the weight of it below 2040kg for this very reason, other wise the reduced limit would reduce it's appeal to it's target market. Of course there may be other similar vehicles that weigh more than 2040 in which case the lower limits would apply, but it certainly can't applied in a blanket way to all such vehicles.

So what is the logic for including the words in line 1 of your bold up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight?

[NigelMoore]

The judgement said did it not that moving a distance as short as ten miles did not qualify as bona fide navigation but now it apparently does.

 

No. In fact the Davies judgment specifically discounted the extent of distance travelled as having anything to do with the relevant core definition of “used bona fide for navigation”.

 

Quoting from the judgment: "The phrase "used bona fide for navigation" involves consideration of the purpose of the use, rather than the extent of the movement.”

 

That particular paragraph was a litany of tortured semantics from a local court judge faced with extensive seemingly contradictory case law. The High Court judge in Brown v CaRT had a far clearer understanding of the phrase – to the effect, that is, that ‘the purpose’ to which ‘bona fide’ related had regard to the nature of the vessel itself, rather than the use made of it at any point in time.

 

The essence of the phrase, in other words, was intended [in the originating 1971 Act] to distinguish between Pleasure Boats and Houseboats, even though Houseboats could at times engage in navigation.

 

Notwithstanding, it is obvious that s.17(3)( c )(ii) boats were envisaged as never staying at the same place more than a fortnight, giving a level of credence to the use of the phrase to denote continual movement punctuated only by [maximum] 14 day stop-overs.

 

The problem for the authority, is that building on that simple phrase to specify with any exactitude just what could reasonably be relied upon for their satisfaction, is frankly impossible. That is why it is so important that boaters themselves band together where problems arise, to agree consensual guidelines as a matter of consideration for all.