Removal of continuos cruiser licences

[Dignity]

Spent some time this week thinking about escape from work and travelling on the boat long term. I wonder if CART will ever insist on everyone having a home mooring and the removal of the continuous cruiser licence.It would certainly solve a few issues for them regulating the movement of boats.What do we think peeps.

[NigelMoore]

It is irrelevant what we think. They tried it on in 1990 and failed. They and we are stuck with it, for good or ill.

[jenlyn]

If I go to tesco's, I don't pay for a loaf of bread if I have no need for it. Likewise, I see no need to pay for a parking space if I have no wish to use one.

[bassplayer]

Spent some time this week thinking about escape from work and travelling on the boat long term. I wonder if CART will ever insist on everyone having a home mooring and the removal of the continuous cruiser licence.It would certainly solve a few issues for them regulating the movement of boats.What do we think peeps.

We're all doomed...I wouldn't bother mate...

[homer2911]

If I go to tesco's, I don't pay for a loaf of bread if I have no need for it. Likewise, I see no need to pay for a parking space if I have no wish to use one.

 

Hobby horse time. I have a home mooring, for which I have to pay CaRT and the land-owner a mooring fee. OK, so I pay CaRT because I occupy a bit of their water when I am at my home mooring - but unless they crane out their boat every night, every continuous cruiser occupies a bit of CaRT's water, every day and every night - just not the same bit of water for any length of time (theoretically anyway.)

 

Abolish the mooring charge, and increase EVERYONE's licence fee, so that the cost to boaters of maintaining the system is shared equally. What's wrong with that?.

Edited September 13, 2014 by homer2911

[GillianOlcay]

BW shouldn't have bothered either, insisting on what they did, as a condition for licences.

 

Is there any other navigation authority who thought such clauses necessary?

[bassplayer]

 

Hobby horse time. I have a home mooring, for which I have to pay CaRT and the land-owner a mooring fee. OK, so I pay CaRT because I occupy a bit of their water when I am at my home mooring - but unless they crane out their boat every night, every continuous cruiser occupies a bit of CaRT's water, every day and every night - just not the same bit of water for any length of time (theoretically anyway.)

 

Abolish the mooring charge, and increase EVERYONE's licence fee, so that the cost to boaters of maintaining the system is shared equally. What's wrong with that?.

...but you'd still have to pay the land owner a fee plus a higher licence fee...you can always become a CC'er if you think it's so good...

[junior]

What on earth is a continuous cruiser licence?

 

Everybody has the same licence.

Edited September 13, 2014 by junior

[Wanted]

I pay a premium for a mooring in London, my choice. I'm glad that there are others doing things differently because a, it makes for a more interesting life and b, it gives me options for as and when I change my mind, and to be honest I have never noticed the difference between a ccer and a moorer on a cruise.

[NigelMoore]

 

Abolish the mooring charge, and increase EVERYONE's licence fee, so that the cost to boaters of maintaining the system is shared equally. What's wrong with that?.

 

What's wrong with it is that it imposes an extra level of charge for no rational reason. A much better idea, given that use of the waterways is overwhelmingly non-boating use according to CaRT, is to spread the cost of maintaining the system far more "equally". So for a better idea – abolish the mooring charges, and get approval for licensing:-

 

Travelling through tunnels longer than 50 mtrs if unpowered;

Driving any vehicles or animals over any towpath;

Riding a horse on CaRT property [including towpaths];

Cycling on towpaths;

Obstructing towpaths;

Discharging fireworks on or over the waterway;

Bona fide lighting fires on waterway land including towpath, unless having a BBQ in designated areas;

Displaying adverts on, over, in or under a waterway;

Selling anything on waterway land including towpath;

Chugging on CaRT property;

Making commercial films/videos on waterway land including towpath;

Executing any construction works on, over, in or under a waterway;

Excavating bed or banks;

Dredging any waterway;

Removing any material from “the bed or banks of, or any other land forming part of, a waterway”;

Suspending pipes or cables on, over, in or under a waterway;

Excavating bed or banks;

Connecting any pipe, culvert or drain to a waterway;

Permitting surface water discharge into waterway;

Abstracting water from a waterway;

Breaking up boats on a waterway;

Lifting vessels into &/or out of the waterway;

Organising any water or land based activities;

Swimming in the waters of a waterway;

Watersking, jet skiing and aqua-planing;

Kiting or parachuting;

Wet biking or using any personal watercraft;

Rowing competitively;

Ice-skating;

Operating power-driven model aircraft;

Taking off or landing of model aircraft on the waterway;

Operating power-driven model boats;

Introducing or removing fish from any waterway;

Fishing in any otherwise proscribed areas;

Camping on the towpath or bank of, or any other land forming part of, a waterway;

Hunting any animal or bird, or

Removing or interfering with any plant.

 

All of these would become subject to chargeable licences under the draft byelaws.

[Noah T]

Chugging on CaRT property;

 

 

Chugging? is that the sound made by a historical diesel engine?

[Dave_P]

 

What's wrong with it is that it imposes an extra level of charge for no rational reason. A much better idea, given that use of the waterways is overwhelmingly non-boating use according to CaRT, is to spread the cost of maintaining the system far more "equally". So for a better idea abolish the mooring charges, and get approval for licensing:-

 

Travelling through tunnels longer than 50 mtrs if unpowered;

Driving any vehicles or animals over any towpath;

Riding a horse on CaRT property [including towpaths];

Cycling on towpaths;

Obstructing towpaths;

Discharging fireworks on or over the waterway;

Bona fide lighting fires on waterway land including towpath, unless having a BBQ in designated areas;

Displaying adverts on, over, in or under a waterway;

Selling anything on waterway land including towpath;

Chugging on CaRT property;

Making commercial films/videos on waterway land including towpath;

Executing any construction works on, over, in or under a waterway;

Excavating bed or banks;

Dredging any waterway;

Removing any material from the bed or banks of, or any other land forming part of, a waterway;

Suspending pipes or cables on, over, in or under a waterway;

Excavating bed or banks;

Connecting any pipe, culvert or drain to a waterway;

Permitting surface water discharge into waterway;

Abstracting water from a waterway;

Breaking up boats on a waterway;

Lifting vessels into &/or out of the waterway;

Organising any water or land based activities;

Swimming in the waters of a waterway;

Watersking, jet skiing and aqua-planing;

Kiting or parachuting;

Wet biking or using any personal watercraft;

Rowing competitively;

Ice-skating;

Operating power-driven model aircraft;

Taking off or landing of model aircraft on the waterway;

Operating power-driven model boats;

Introducing or removing fish from any waterway;

Fishing in any otherwise proscribed areas;

Camping on the towpath or bank of, or any other land forming part of, a waterway;

Hunting any animal or bird, or

Removing or interfering with any plant.

 

All of these would become subject to chargeable licences under the draft byelaws.

Most of this list is either extremely rare or almost impossible to enforce.

[homer2911]

...but you'd still have to pay the land owner a fee plus a higher licence fee...you can always become a CC'er if you think it's so good...

 

I have no opinion whatsoever on the merits or otherwise of continuous cruising. I am merely pointing out that unless their boat is craned out, they are they are perpetually occupying a bit of CaRT water, the same as me. I'm quite happy to carry on paying the landowner, and quite happy to pay the same increased licence fee as every boater.

Edited September 14, 2014 by homer2911

[magnetman]

Most of this list is either extremely rare or almost impossible to enforce.

And I would need a license for my magnet. No no no

 

I Think its a good point NigelMoore makes but enforcement would be tricky yes.

 

Whats "Bona fide lighting fires" does it mean -not arson- ?

[NigelMoore]

 

Chugging? is that the sound made by a historical diesel engine?

 

It is a summary offence under proposed Byelaw 60(1)( c ) to “tout for, or solicit money . . .” “except in accordance with the consent of” – CaRT – “on any towpath or other land forming part of a waterway”. That written consent must be carried upon your person at all times while engaged in the licensed activity so that it can be produced “to an authorised officer whenever requested to do so.”

Most of this list is either extremely rare or almost impossible to enforce.

 

So what? Are you disparaging the efforts of CaRT’s former Legal Director, bought at the cost of umpteen thousands of pounds of our money as paid out in bonuses to him specifically for concocting these Byelaws? Each activity listed above [and I have even condensed it somewhat] requires a Licence under the proposed byelaws, and it is a summary offence not to carry that Licence for production on demand – and the police can get involved in prosecution for breaches also.

 

The level of fine to be chosen is subject to discussion with Government, but they are hoping for level 3 fines – currently £1,000 – on summary conviction as “provided for by Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 as amended.”

 

Easy enough for a police officer to haul you into the nearest station for booking on the spot, if you can’t produce the Licence on demand for whatever it is you are doing that needs one. A straightforward summons follows, and you have a criminal record plus thousands to pay out into the public purse, helping to subsidise the waterways.

 

A few widely advertised instances of “Licence it or lose your wallet” and I am sure everyone will be earnestly complying with the need to fork out such payments as CaRT “may determine” for their grant of the Licence.

 

Sharing the cost of maintenance of the waterways more equally instead of relying solely on boaters and volunteers.

Whats "Bona fide lighting fires" does it mean -not arson- ?

 

It is my paraphrase [for my amusement] of proposed byelaw 59( b ) no person, without the relevant consent [the written Licence] “shall on the towpath or other land forming part of a waterway intentionally light a fire, or place, throw or let fall a lighted match or any other thing so as to be likely to cause a fire.”

 

It is all in the “intention”! [shades of Davies etc]

[jenlyn]

Hobby horse time. I have a home mooring, for which I have to pay CaRT and the land-owner a mooring fee. OK, so I pay CaRT because I occupy a bit of their water when I am at my home mooring - but unless they crane out their boat every night, every continuous cruiser occupies a bit of CaRT's water, every day and every night - just not the same bit of water for any length of time (theoretically anyway.)

 

Abolish the mooring charge, and increase EVERYONE's licence fee, so that the cost to boaters of maintaining the system is shared equally. What's wrong with that?.

Your sitting in the same spot because you choose not to move every 14 days. That's your choice, and it's acceptable that you have to pay for that choice. Why should I have to pay extra for you to overstay?

[Paul C]

 

Hobby horse time. I have a home mooring, for which I have to pay CaRT and the land-owner a mooring fee. OK, so I pay CaRT because I occupy a bit of their water when I am at my home mooring - but unless they crane out their boat every night, every continuous cruiser occupies a bit of CaRT's water, every day and every night - just not the same bit of water for any length of time (theoretically anyway.)

 

Abolish the mooring charge, and increase EVERYONE's licence fee, so that the cost to boaters of maintaining the system is shared equally. What's wrong with that?.

 

There's a good argument for abolishing the EOG mooring fee.

[bassplayer]

I have no opinion whatsoever on the merits or otherwise of continuous cruising. I am merely pointing out that unless their boat is craned out, they are they are perpetually occupying a bit of CaRT water, the same as me. I'm quite happy to carry on paying the landowner, and quite happy to pay the same increased licence fee as every boater.

You're paying for the privilege of having your very own mooring which nobody else can moor into. A CC'er can't always guarantee a mooring of their choice and has to make way for other boaters after a certain time period.

 

You're not paying for a spot if water (that's covered by the boat licence), you're paying for the mooring. That's why it's called a mooring fee not a water fee...I hope that helps....

[bottle]

 

 

Hobby horse time. I have a home mooring, for which I have to pay CaRT and the land-owner a mooring fee. OK, so I pay CaRT because I occupy a bit of their water when I am at my home mooring - but unless they crane out their boat every night, every continuous cruiser occupies a bit of CaRT's water, every day and every night - just not the same bit of water for any length of time (theoretically anyway.)

 

Abolish the mooring charge, and increase EVERYONE's licence fee, so that the cost to boaters of maintaining the system is shared equally. What's wrong with that?.

 

Not quite correct, you pay for a licence the same as everyone else that has a boat on C&RT waters, with that you have the right to keep your boat on the water and comply with the rules.

 

You have chosen to pay for the privilege of being able to moor in the same spot that is reserved for you and you only.

 

For those that do not have a 'home mooring' they do not have that privilege but can obtain it, 'Winter mooring' for example, and will then have to pay the extra for the privilege.

 

If you do not want that privilege then do not pay and go CCing.

 

Edit: double quote and I see that bassplayer beat me to it.

Edited September 14, 2014 by bottle

[Paul C]

You're paying for the privilege of having your very own mooring which nobody else can moor into. A CC'er can't always guarantee a mooring of their choice and has to make way for other boaters after a certain time period.

 

You're not paying for a spot if water (that's covered by the boat licence), you're paying for the mooring. That's why it's called a mooring fee not a water fee...I hope that helps....

 

The "certain time period" is 2 weeks, though. Once a CCer arrives at a spot and moors, they can remain there for 2 weeks, they don't have to make way for other boaters until that time period is up. 2 weeks is incredibly generous, when you compare it with (for example) the allowed transit mooring time on Bridgewater canal (24 hours) or the times on many visitor moorings on the River Avon.

[homer2911]

You're paying for the privilege of having your very own mooring which nobody else can moor into. A CC'er can't always guarantee a mooring of their choice and has to make way for other boaters after a certain time period.

You're not paying for a spot if water (that's covered by the boat licence), you're paying for the mooring. That's why it's called a mooring fee not a water fee...I hope that helps....

Well done - you win First Prize for today's most patronising post.

[jenlyn]

The "certain time period" is 2 weeks, though. Once a CCer arrives at a spot and moors, they can remain there for 2 weeks, they don't have to make way for other boaters until that time period is up. 2 weeks is incredibly generous, when you compare it with (for example) the allowed transit mooring time on Bridgewater canal (24 hours) or the times on many visitor moorings on the River Avon.

Hmm, are you against ccing, or are you just against anyone choosing a different lifestyle to your own?

[magnetman]

Lol

 

Would people still make the "continuous cruising" 'lifestyle choice' if it was not blatantly cheaper?

[Paul C]

Hmm, are you against ccing, or are you just against anyone choosing a different lifestyle to your own?

 

No, you've misunderstood. I'm wholly in support of CCing. The point I'm making is that EOG mooring fees are incredibly poor value for money, and CCing is incredibly good value for money, in the grand scheme of things. Yes I understand some people need one permanent mooring spot, hence they're somewhat stuck with paying the EOG fee. (Yes I know there's other options such as finding a marina mooring etc).

[bassplayer]

The "certain time period" is 2 weeks, though. Once a CCer arrives at a spot and moors, they can remain there for 2 weeks, they don't have to make way for other boaters until that time period is up. 2 weeks is incredibly generous, when you compare it with (for example) the allowed transit mooring time on Bridgewater canal (24 hours) or the times on many visitor moorings on the River Avon.

If you have travelled around the country, you'll find that most decent practical moorings are 24 hour or 48 hour. As I say, there's nothing stopping anyone being a CC'er , except maybe their lifestyle choice.

 

When I first came on this forum, I got attacked for saying that there seems to be resentment from some of those with permanent moorings against CC'ers...I'm still wondering...

Well done - you win First Prize for today's most patronising post.

Thank you..