Jump to content

Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?


Tony Dunkley

Featured Posts

My understanding (which may well be flawed) is that the system 'logs' you on the 3rd August at place A, if it then 'logs' you again at Place A on the 29th August, and you have not been 'logged' anywhere else inbetween times, therefore the system shows you have not moved.

 

As I see it the system can only work when it logs boats 'as not being there, when they were there the day before, but have moved on

 

It appears that you are always (and have remained) in the last placed logged, until you are logged somewhere else.'

 

Mind-creep :-

 

If an enforcement officer checks a mooring on 1st August (and then moves on along the canal, checking all his moorings on a two-week cycle)

A boat arrives on the 2nd August.

Two weeks later the Enforcement officer arrives back at the 'first mooring' and logs the boat as being there (it already having been there 13 days, but he doesnt know that).

Two weeks later the Enforcement officer arrives back at the 'first mooring' and sees that the boat has departed (he doesnt know it went an hour before he arrived)

 

The boat has spent almost 4 weeks on a 14 day mooring, & has only been logged once.

 

How can the system ever work without daily checks ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fitting tracking devices to boats isn't so far fetched and in the scheme of things wouldn't be an overly expensive task to carry out.

 

Of course there will be people who don't like the idea but more often than not these will be the ones with something to hide!

 

As with most things if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry.

 

 

A fundamental part of being out and about on the canal is that one can switch off, and that goes for the phone or being attached to central command by a device to spoil that sense. A right to hide and tell others to f*ck off for the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fundamental part of being out and about on the canal is that one can switch off, and that goes for the phone or being attached to central command by a device to spoil that sense. A right to hide and tell others to f*ck off for the moment.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, Provided CRT collected all the boat index numbers at Braunston on 14 August then the database should be able to produce a report. However CRT would need to collect data on consecutive days to prove a boat had overstayed.

As an aside, during my conversation with the CRT Enforcement Officer who claimed to cover Braunston to Coventry I was informed he checked the entire length of canal once every fortnight. However he didn't walk or cycle the entire length, but drove from bridge to bridge.

I don't think that is right when we were doing the SEVM Consultation we asked CRT to produce numbers for the use of the VM's and they said they were not able to do this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I haven't given up driving but I do know exactly how you feel, as I mentioned earlier all commercial boats have to have AIS and there is some talk about all vessels over a certain size having to as well.....It does make you feel you are under a microscope all the time!

 

 

I don't think that's strictly true, my understanding is that it's all commercial vessels over 300 gross tons. And it can easily be switched off.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think that's strictly true, my understanding is that it's all commercial vessels over 300 gross tons. And it can easily be switched off.

 

Tim

No its right down to small vessels now....a friend has just had to have them installed on his workboats some of them quite tiny

 

7464996396_a2f0fa8371.jpgTug Viking ll by mudlarker2, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be grateful then if they missed you for nearly that whole month, or it would have been even more than 101 times in 24 months!

 

However, having been in Stoke Bruerne no more than 3 hours a two days ago, and having apparently had each boat recorded twice, (once by CRT man with the proper machine, and again by CRT volunteer with a phone), I would agree that the whole thing seems to have gone more than slightly bonkers. I have never understood the point of so much effort placed on recording people, but so little placed on enforcement based on any data collected. They must know heaps about who is overstaying, but almost never do much about it!

It would not be clever for CRT to go through the enforcement procedure unless there is definitive proof of a boat overstaying, and I expect that CRT want to focus their efforts on the more serious offenders. I think it's better to support the fact that some action is being taken rather than the fact that the data collection seems a bit haphazard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many lives has AIS saved? Are canals as dangerous as the sea?

 

I don't think that is the problem .......AIS like all aids has it's uses. The problem is officialdom is always trying to micro manage everyone else's lives. (They have to, to try to prove they are doing a useful job) and any form of instant identification aids them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No I don't.

 

I think they input what boats are there.

 

I would expect that if on the 3rd and the 29th of August, "Jenlyn" is amongst boats recorded at Braunston, but if (say) on 10th August it is not, that they have the wit to realise you have not been there continually for 26 or 27 days.

 

Have they actually used this particular data you are quoting, to claim you overstayed, or are you just saying they could, but haven't?

Might that raise concerns about possible bridge-hopping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would not be clever for CRT to go through the enforcement procedure unless there is definitive proof of a boat overstaying, and I expect that CRT want to focus their efforts on the more serious offenders. I think it's better to support the fact that some action is being taken rather than the fact that the data collection seems a bit haphazard.

But that is precisely what C&RT have been doing, based on documentation produced from a computer system which, by their own admission, can amend previous entries when a new entry is added.

 

From the OP : --

 

' When questioned about this C&RT's local Enforcement superstar, Stuart Garner said . ." Oh it's that `thing` with our system". He obligingly went on to explain that when a new location for a boat is being entered how their system can erase the previous locations and re-enter them as the same as the new location.'

Edited by tony dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that is the problem .......AIS like all aids has it's uses. The problem is officialdom is always trying to micro manage everyone else's lives. (They have to, to try to prove they are doing a useful job) and any form of instant identification aids them

 

The point I was making is that AIS is multi-purpose in that the boat location is used for a number of different purposes, one of which is in a life-saving role; another is to assist accident investigations. So its benefits outweigh the disadvantages (privacy concerns). A tracker fitted to a canal boat doesn't have benefits of this kind, its main beneficiary would be CRT, and indirectly the owner who compliantly cruises, because he knows there is a robust system to prove he is remaining compliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point I was making is that AIS is multi-purpose in that the boat location is used for a number of different purposes, one of which is in a life-saving role; another is to assist accident investigations. So its benefits outweigh the disadvantages (privacy concerns). A tracker fitted to a canal boat doesn't have benefits of this kind, its main beneficiary would be CRT, and indirectly the owner who compliantly cruises, because he knows there is a robust system to prove he is remaining compliant.

 

 

It's lazy, when applied to the canal system. It's overbearing, and I don't pay CRT to be that lazy for their benefit. For another reason, I'd prefer to keep staff on the ground. Similar to the reason I never use self service tills at the super market. There is point at which the customer deserves the convenience of the service they are paying for, and for me, that does not include the idea that the provider should be imposing unlimited control in order to moderate the behaviour of a few.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is precisely what C&RT have been doing, based on documentation produced from a computer system which, by their own admission, can amend previous entries when a new entry is added.

 

From the OP : --

' When questioned about this C&RT's local Enforcement superstar, Stuart Garner said . ." Oh it's that `thing` with our system". He obligingly went on to explain that when a new location for a boat is being entered how their system can erase the previous locations and re-enter them as the same as the new location.'

He is wrong Tony, as has been explained in this thread. He has an incomplete understanding of how his reporting works.

 

He was trying to say "...when a new location for a boat is being entered how *this report* can erase the previous locations and *display* them as the same as the new location"

 

You need to be careful not to base any part of your case on this statement by Garner as someone will simply say "he doesn't understand the system" and your argument will fail.

 

I cannot believe the designers of this database would make such a gross error as to allow fundamental transactions to be edited in retrospect as auditing would be impossible.

 

Then it really would be unfit for (any) purpose.

Edited by phill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its right down to small vessels now....a friend has just had to have them installed on his workboats some of them quite tiny

 

7464996396_a2f0fa8371.jpgTug Viking ll by mudlarker2, on Flickr

 

Maybe there's a particular requirement based on the work they do, eg carrying 'passengers', and the local MCA surveyor has stipulated they must have it fitted?

 

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/solas/solas_v/Annexes/Annex17.htm

 

Tim

Edited by Timleech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that is the problem .......AIS like all aids has it's uses. The problem is officialdom is always trying to micro manage everyone else's lives. (They have to, to try to prove they are doing a useful job) and any form of instant identification aids them

That sums up the activities of C&RT's Enforcement Team perfectly. They have put in a lousy performance in pursuit of their primary objective which was Licence evasion, and succeeded in diverting attention on to a problem which exists only in some particular areas of the country, but mainly in the minds of some C&RT management and as the subject of endless numbers of meetings in their offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is wrong Tony, as has been explained in this thread. He has an incomplete understanding of how his reporting works.

 

He was trying to say "...when a new location for a boat is being entered how *this report* can erase the previous locations and *display* them as the same as the new location"

 

You need to be careful not to base any part of your case on this statement by Garner as someone will simply say "he doesn't understand the system" and your argument will fail.

 

I cannot believe the designers of this database would make such a gross error as to allow fundamental transactions to be edited in retrospect as auditing would be impossible.

 

Then it really would be unfit for (any) purpose.

That sounds a lot like falsifying records, with C&RT able to blame the computer system when they get caught doing it. Do you think that the system is alright but the people using it are unfit for purpose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've never heard anything good about Stuart Garner but I don't think his inability to understand database reports counts against him.

 

I'm just saying don't rely on his statement because someone who does understand will come along and explain.

 

As has been said the report wasn't designed to show your mooring history so it ( the report) is not fit to show boat sightings *in relation to* home mooring location. That doesn't say anything about the underlying system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is wrong Tony, as has been explained in this thread. He has an incomplete understanding of how his reporting works.

 

He was trying to say "...when a new location for a boat is being entered how *this report* can erase the previous locations and *display* them as the same as the new location"

 

You need to be careful not to base any part of your case on this statement by Garner as someone will simply say "he doesn't understand the system" and your argument will fail.

 

I cannot believe the designers of this database would make such a gross error as to allow fundamental transactions to be edited in retrospect as auditing would be impossible.

 

Then it really would be unfit for (any) purpose.

It's not just a statement by Garner, he has produced it as a document to be used as evidence, and submitted it to the Court. There are more details about it on Post 547.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No I don't.

 

I think they input what boats are there.

 

I would expect that if on the 3rd and the 29th of August, "Jenlyn" is amongst boats recorded at Braunston, but if (say) on 10th August it is not, that they have the wit to realise you have not been there continually for 26 or 27 days.

 

Have they actually used this particular data you are quoting, to claim you overstayed, or are you just saying they could, but haven't?

 

This only works if they also record when no boats are there - that there's a record of a patrol - if not then a boat recorded at a location and then recorded again a number of weeks later will be a stand alone record if patrols in the intervening period recorded no boats in that location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make an argument that your home mooring hasn't changed? To show your home mooring history?

It's not just a statement by Garner, he has produced it as a document to be used as evidence, and submitted it to the Court. There are more details about it on Post 547.

Edited by phill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan where you theory goes slightly wrong is that the logging system logs boats not moorings. So for example they can not go into the system and ask who was on Braunston Visitor Moorings on 14 August.

I have nothing to hide (at least I don't think I do) but would not want a tracking device on my boat . I value my privacy

 

This makes it seem that their system is all but useless as an objective tool for enforcing over stayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've never heard anything good about Stuart Garner but I don't think his inability to understand database reports counts against him.

 

I'm just saying don't rely on his statement because someone who does understand will come along and explain.

 

As has been said the report wasn't designed to show your mooring history so it ( the report) is not fit to show boat sightings *in relation to* home mooring location. That doesn't say anything about the underlying system.

I don't know who said that, but it's wrong. The document is nothing but a Licencing and Mooring history. Again, more details on Post 547

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.