This will probably cause a stir......

[David Schweizer]

 

Devils advocate mode......

 

I suppose it can be argued that a large part of the perceived problem is precisely that enforcement is the same as everywhere else!

 

With the best will in the world, CRT do not have anything like enough enforcement capability to stringently enforce both the 14 day rule, and "bona fide for navigation" on every single boater that feels any urge to be less than fully compliant in these matters.

 

One sees that all over the system, or at least on the more popular waterways in the South, but 95% of the time failure to fully comply doesn't actually cause any more problems than a few "tut tut, that boat was there a month ago" comments from those passing. If a boat is persistently on the same rural stretch it seldom causes me a problem, but if it is one of those I regularly recognise as I try to access triple breasted visitor moorings at Little Venice, then it is causing significant inconvenience to me and others.

 

I', not defending CRT, but undoubtedly the reason they try and concoct specialist approaches for Inner London, Outer London, the Western K&A etc, is simply because they are the ones perceived as being by far the worse congested, and where overstaying or non movement are conceived to be largely the cause.

 

That said, (and I think someone made the point), if you have the same large number of boats in (say) a 20 mile stretch, then forcing them to move every 14 dyas, even if it also enforces a good rotation on "places", doesn't increase the total mooring space available. In fact it undoubtedly makes "congestion" worse overall than if they move less, or less often.

 

Agreed

[George94]

This will probably also cause a bit of a stir.

 

Why cant the western K&A just be subject to the same terms and conditions as the rest of CRT's waterways?

 

And the enforcement the same as everywhere else. Why make a special case?

 

Nobody is making a special case; the special case already exists in that this is an unusually popular waterway that has become over-crowded, and where some people are allegedly staying too long in one place, to the detriment of others

 

What this is is a set of special rules to deal with the special case, and I see nothing wrong with that in principle, although obviously it is more complicated than one rule for everywhere.

 

One potential advantage of this is that CART may feel that in some other areas, those which are markedly less popular, there could be LESS enforcement of the existing rules, or fewer restrictions, on the basis that nobody is being disadvantaged by people staying in one place.

 

The fly in the ointment though is that CART would not appear to have any legal basis for treating different areas differently. Ideally, there would be a change in the law to allow them more flexibility, but we should be careful what we wish for. A new law could impose all sorts of nasty new restrictions that would be to the benefit of nobody.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Agreed

 

I agree also.Which is why I dont get the need for this "new" policy.

 

Nobody is making a special case; the special case already exists in that this is an unusually popular waterway that has become over-crowded, and where some people are allegedly staying too long in one place, to the detriment of others

 

What this is is a set of special rules to deal with the special case, and I see nothing wrong with that in principle, although obviously it is more complicated than one rule for everywhere.

 

One potential advantage of this is that CART may feel that in some other areas, those which are markedly less popular, there could be LESS enforcement of the existing rules, or fewer restrictions, on the basis that nobody is being disadvantaged by people staying in one place.

 

The fly in the ointment though is that CART would not appear to have any legal basis for treating different areas differently. Ideally, there would be a change in the law to allow them more flexibility, but we should be careful what we wish for. A new law could impose all sorts of nasty new restrictions that would be to the benefit of nobody.

Which will muddy the waters further?

[alan_fincher]

As the new rules require a significant increase in monitoring and enforcement to have any chance of working (which, as pointed out may create it's own problems) the simplest and cheapest solution would have been to increase monitoring and enforcement in the first place??

 

Very much what we have argued throughout the attempts to impose a lot of (in my view) quite unjustified visitor mooring changes on South East Waterways.

 

1) First enforce what you already have.

2) Only then monitor the situation to see where you still have congestion problems.

3) Only then propose changes for those places where enforcement of existing rules still does not produce a result.

[George94]

 

That said, (and I think someone made the point), if you have the same large number of boats in (say) a 20 mile stretch, then forcing them to move every 14 dyas, even if it also enforces a good rotation on "places", doesn't increase the total mooring space available. In fact it undoubtedly makes "congestion" worse overall than if they move less, or less often.

 

True, but it might encourage some people to leave the canals altogether, or to go to a different canal - or even up the Caen flight to the peace and quiet of the long pound.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

That said, (and I think someone made the point), if you have the same large number of boats in (say) a 20 mile stretch, then forcing them to move every 14 dyas, even if it also enforces a good rotation on "places", doesn't increase the total mooring space available. In fact it undoubtedly makes "congestion" worse overall than if they move less, or less often.

But this is not about congestion

[alan_fincher]

But this is not about congestion

 

For clarity, John, can you confirm this is you expressing your view, rather than that of those who have put forward the proposal, as they start off as follows......

 

The western end of the Kennet & Avon Canal between Bath and Foxhangers is an attractive and popular stretch of canal that attracts a large number of boats. Following consultation with local boaters, the Kennet & Avon Waterways Partnership and the Canal & River Trust has created an interim 12-month local plan for the area aimed at reducing the congestion that is affecting the canal.

 

 

What is your view on what it is actually about?

[George94]

 

I agree also.Which is why I dont get the need for this "new" policy.

Which will muddy the waters further?

 

Not necessarily. They could divide the whole system up into three categories - High enforcement, some enforcement and minimal enforcement, with a standard set of guidelines for each category.

 

Normally, rationing of scarce products or resources is done by price. So the obvious alternative to rules of this nature would be to set higher and higher prices for licences to busy waterways until demand fell and there was no over-crowding. However, this would require a lot of extra administration, and if the same effect can be achieved without higher prices, then that is surely the right way to go, as well as being fairer to those who don't have deep pockets.

[cotswoldsman]

 

For clarity, John, can you confirm this is you expressing your view, rather than that of those who have put forward the proposal, as they start off as follows......

 

 

What is your view on what it is actually about?

I am expressing my own view as I normally do

it is about trying to accommodate a group of boaters who have ties to the area and finding a solution to allow them to stay in the area and I do not have a problem with that my problem is all the other new rules that go with it that effect other boaters

[magnetman]

George94 has hit the nail on the head IMO.

 

If its too popular increase the cost. Its not like boating is a requirement to lead an ordinary life, it is a Luxury.

[alan_fincher]

it is about trying to accommodate a group of boaters who have ties to the area and finding a solution to allow them to stay in the area

 

OK, I think we are just arguing about words, but surely those putting forward the proposal are right to talk about "congestion", even if that "congestion" is being caused in no small degree by a group of boaters who have ties to the area and who wish to be allowed to stay in the area?

[magnetman]

And judging by the number of boats 'on the towpath' its obviously too cheap :.:

[Captain Fizz]

Don't be surprised when your licence arrives with a transponder attached.

Job done, keep moving or the computer will generate the fine.

[magnetman]

Bridge mounted enforcement cameras like anpr?

[mark99]

Don't be surprised when your licence arrives with a transponder attached.

Job done, keep moving or the computer will generate the fine.

 

Yes but you know and I know what will happen.

 

I bloke in a van will drive the licence(s) around the country laughing at the ineptitude of this solution.

[magnetman]

At 4mph? this will cause congestion

[Captain Fizz]

But the roving enforcement officer revoke the licence when the tag is found to not be on the vessel to which it is allocated.

Plus a van travelling at 4mph may draw attention of other agencies!

[dmr]

Well the 14 day rule is in law so that would be a good starting point and really that is why the is K&A proposal is all about but with a lot of other stuff. Why not just simply a trial that says all boaters must move every 14 days? Instead we have something that completely changes stuff for all boaters blanket changes to Visitor Moorings being just one

 

I am pretty sure that there are quite a lot of boats that just move between Bradford on Avon and Bath (and thus never do a lock!) and this is partly why this short and very attractive length is so busy. I believe this new scheme is trying to spread these boats over a greater distance and so ease this congestion. Just enforcing the 14 day rule would not do this, a lot of these boats already do move every 14 days.

 

The proposed cruising range is still quite short but I suspect CaRT would prefer not to see all of these local boats going up Caan Hill flight and visiting the Eastern end. Parts of the Eastern end are very quiet and there is also a serious potential issue with silt getting into the river Kennet from boat movements. I reckon this new scheme is a good plan to improve the specific K&A issues

 

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

[cotswoldsman]

 

", even if that "congestion" is being caused in no small degree by a group of boaters who have ties to the area and who wish to be allowed to stay in the area?

It would seem that unlike you I do not know all the boaters in that area so have no knowledge of those with no ties so will bow to your obvious knowledge of the boaters in that area

[Captain Zim]

For those saying that the trust simply needs to enforce the current rules, the problem is enforcement is unsustainable as an ongoing cost to the trust (as it is to many organisations these days). So alternative 'partnership' solutions need to be found. See the governements initiatives on better business regulation. In other words, let people regulate themselves. This relies on the good will of all which, the cynical amongst us may say, is bound to end in disaster. Those even more cynical could argue that the long term plan is to let the system deteriorate to the extent that the people in charge can then simply say that it's not economically viable to sustain the canal network and get rid of the problem altogether.

 

One solution to enforcement costs is to increase the licence fee to cover this. But I'm assuming this would be unpopular? And before anyone comes back to argue that there is insufficient detail in the rules to allow for enforcement, that is not necessarily the same as having a number of dedicated wardens keeping the traffic flowing, as it were. Oh, yes I forgot, we used to have those.

 

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the rules, I'd say it would be fairly straightforward to prove a case against a dedicated non-mover. Not so much the shufflers, agreed. But still. Most of the time the shufflers don't cause too much of a problem.

 

Another question. If I were to choose to adopt these pilot rules elsewhere on the system, how would I stand if then challenged for not moving enough?

Edited May 2, 2014 by Captain Zim

[wreckferret]

George94 has hit the nail on the head IMO.

 

If its too popular increase the cost. Its not like boating is a requirement to lead an ordinary life, it is a Luxury.

For some it may be but for others, myself included it's a lifestyle choice.

The rules already existed, they just needed enforcing.....

[magnetman]

I live on a boat as a lifestyle choice. I see that as a luxury personally.

[KenK]

 

But this is not about congestion

Actually that is exactly the problem, too many boats in too short a stretch of canal in the Summer months. There isn't a problem in the Winter time as there a few if any boats moving. In the Summer the hire boats come out, the visiting boats arrive and they all want to do the same thing at the same time on the same days, hence the congestion. The congestion is generally confined to the extreme Western end there is little or none between Foxhangers and the Eastern side of Bradford on Avon.

This proposal won't reduce the number of boats, will not increase the available mooring and unless it is tested in court the penalties and conditions on boaters with a home mooring are not enforcable under existing leglislation.

 

Ken

[dmr]

This will probably also cause a bit of a stir.

 

Why cant the western K&A just be subject to the same terms and conditions as the rest of CRT's waterways?

 

And the enforcement the same as everywhere else. Why make a special case?

 

Because the K&A is a special case, (parts of it are very congested and its a semi-isolated navigation), and because nobody knows what the terms and conditions for continuous cruising are, even CaRT don't know and so have to rely on vague and conflicting opinions from judges!

 

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

[Alan de Enfield]

For those saying that the trust simply needs to enforce the current rules, the problem is enforcement is unsustainable as an ongoing cost to the trust (as it is to many organisations these days).

One solution to enforcement costs is to increase the licence fee to cover this. But I'm assuming this would be unpopular?

 

Other 'organisations' appear to make enfrcement 'self-funding'

 

Overstay in a privately owned carpark - get clamped and pay a fine for clamp removal

Park 'on the yellow lines', get a ticket and pay a fine

Overstay in a council carpark - get a ticket and pay a fine

 

If you have rules they need to be not only enforced but have some consequence for not complying - it seems pointless for an 'enforcement officer' to say "move along" and if the offender doesnt, then nothing happens for 6 years until a sectio 8 comes int force.

 

Is there anywhere in the Waterways Acts that allows for 'fines' if rules are broken ?