Continual cruising

[alan_fincher]

 

I understood A-B-A was not allowed A-B-C-D was the reccomended way to move this in fact is progressing a system

 

It may be "progressing a system", but you said "progressing round the system", which I suggest has always had a different meaning to most people - i.e. "progressing around the canal and river system". If that was not your meaning, then please excuse the confusion.

Edited October 2, 2014 by alan_fincher

[John V]

 

It may be "progressing a system", but you said "progressing round the system", which I suggest has always had a different meaning to most people - i.e. "progressing around the canal and river system". If that was not your meaning, then please excuse the confusion.

 

sorry if I was not clear enough....I believe the recommendations for acceptable movement is a system of progression that does not include A-B-A which seemed to be the system in the OP and indeed in additional posts although somewhat modified by a later post

[Sir Nibble]

You do realise that by making the above statement on a public forum you have admitted that you are not cruising in accordance with the law, you fall foul of the "bonafide for navigation" part, as your intent is to stay near your work.

That is a similar argument that Davies put forward in his case and he lost.

Nail, head, hit. The OP is staying in one particular area due to work commitments and seeking to move the minimum to stay within the law. Davies to a tee and not bona fide by that standard.

[Alan de Enfield]

John V, on 02 Oct 2014 - 8:20 PM, said:

 

I understood A-B-A was not allowed A-B-C-D was the reccomended way to move this in fact is progressing a system

 

The 'problem' is that there is no defintion of an acceptable distance between point A and point B, and Point C etc etc.

 

C&RT say this cannot be defined :

 

The law requires that stops during such cruising should not be “in any one place for more than 14

days”.

“

Place” in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or

position

 

6.

Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The

necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual

steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it

must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to

neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the

end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area –

 

on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city

may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made.

It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely

populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they

may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually

be a locality and also a “place”).

Exact precision is not required or expected – what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine

cruise.

 

 

You must be in a different 'place' by day 15 - whilst 'place' is still undefined it must surely be accepted that it is more than 2 miles from the previous 'place' (The OP claims he is moving 2 miles per 14 days, and returning after 18 miles, and that this is an acceptable distance)

 

Of course, someone could then come along and claim moving 200 yards every 14 days is 'acceptable'

 

Until the 'places' are defined (and its looks as if they may soon be - following the accidental release of the 'places' maps) we can only work with what C&RT have provided.

 

The River Witham and Fossdyke (20+ miles) was shown on the proposed 'places' map as having only two-places. (Torksey to Lincoln, then Lincoln to Boston) It would therefore be totally impossible to CC on the 20 mile stretch as you would be A to B to A etc

Edited October 2, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Grace and Favour]

 

I think it is reasonable for the OP to expect an Enforcement Officer to know the official policy on 'how far is enough'

I don't disagree with you, at all.

 

But the OP would be wise to get the information in writing....

[Barry]

And somebody at CRT needs to have a word with that particular enforcement officer to let them know that his 18 miles advice was wrong

[LoneWolf]

I don't disagree with you, at all.

 

But the OP would be wise to get the information in writing....

 

indeed it would be

 

it would also be wise to take photos in each location visited

[MtB]

I don't disagree with you, at all.

 

But the OP would be wise to get the information in writing....

 

I agree too.

 

But when push comes to shove, the bosses in organisations tend to say stuff like "Oh but he (or she) wasn't authorised to tell you that". and "Further training has been arranged"...

 

MtB

[matty40s]

There was a study/survey done on the Oxford area looking at compliance and enforcement issues. The study looked quite intensively at boats in the area and 18 miles annually (!)was the cut off limit set to distinguish between compliant and boaters requiring enforcement action - of whatever level.

[MtB]

An arbitrary limit for the study? Or does the board formally declare itself 'satisfied' by peeps cruising 18 miles a year?

 

 

 

MtB

[pevil]

18 miles a year is continuous cruising, what a joke!

[MtB]

I agree. I'm very close to giving up my £3k a year home mooring as I cruise FAR more this just on the Oxford!

 

 

MtB

[Sir Nibble]

An arbitrary limit for the study? Or does the board formally declare itself 'satisfied' by peeps cruising 18 miles a year?

 

 

 

MtB

Nothing to do with distance. Intent is everything according to Davies. If the intent is to stay within range of work then it's not bona fide. Not a binding precedent for sure but it doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves as a very relevant case study.

[MtB]

I know.

 

I asked just so you could post that again! The word needs spreading.

 

 

MtB

[mango]

18 miles a year is continuous cruising, what a joke!

That would be a nice day's cruising as long as there are some locks.

[MtB]

That would be a nice day's cruising as long as there are some locks.

 

I disagree. 18 miles and some locks would take me two days as a single-hander.

 

MtB

[Tom Richmond]

So, either one cruises over a large range, or one gets a home mooring?

 

Personally I bought a boat to cruise. I want to wake up in different places, have different neighbours, enjoy new views and experience a new range of beers on tap in a different bar. However I also need to work and see my family and friends... It doesn't fit my lifestyle to travel massive distances. So I do as the OP, I ensure that I follow the minimum requirements. I am undergoing a bona fide navigation, but it will not take me further than Hungerford in one direction and Bristol in the other, at least not this year.

 

It has been suggested that someone in my position should just get a home mooring. This would not be OK for me. As I said, I want to use my boat to travel, to be in different places. I don't see why I should pay money for a mooring that I don't want. It is about saving money, yes, but more so it is about maintaining a lifestyle!

 

I suggest that there is in fact a fourth category of boater to add to those with home moorings, the continuous cruisers and the continuous moorers: the compliant cruiser.

 

I think C&RT should stop wasting time and money hassling boaters, but I also think that the OP, and other boaters who are being hassled should stop whining! Take a few pictures, keep a log book. It's not much to expect... You know, as I do, that you are sailing close to a line in a system ostensibly designed for another type of boating altogether, so just deal with the fact that you might have to prove that you are staying within the rules. It's no big deal, and if you get off your arse and take the pictures and send them to C&RT they can stop focusing on you and go grease some lock mechanisms instead.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

'The 14 days comes, as I see it, essentially as a guidance of definition of what is meant by bona fide navigation.

I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression 'bona fide used for navigation'. This is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by 'bona fide used for navigation'.

(Mr K Dodd, British Waterways Marketing and Communications Manager, 1st July 1993 in evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on the British Waterways Bill.)

 

 

[MtB]

This would not be OK for me. As I said, I want to use my boat to travel, to be in different places.

 

 

Tom,

 

This illustrates your intentions are different from the OP., and intention is everything.

 

The OP has declared she needs to be near her work in Oxford and wishes to cruise the minimum possible whilst staying near work. Your intentions appear to be the diametrical opposite.

 

MtB

[Tom Richmond]

 

 

Tom,

 

This illustrates your intentions are different from the OP., and intention is everything.

 

The OP has declared she needs to be near her work in Oxford and wishes to cruise the minimum possible whilst staying near work. Your intentions appear to be the diametrical opposite.

 

MtB

 

Indeed, but many of the posts on this thread do not give allowance for someone with my intentions. I only seek to offer another point of view.

 

I am aware of the foolhardiness of posting my intentions on a public forum like this, but find it incumbent to add to the debate. Getting a home mooring is just not an agreeable solution for many boaters like myself. Perhaps this is true for the OP as well, we do not know.

[John V]

 

I disagree. 18 miles and some locks would take me two days as a single-hander.

 

MtB

 

 

Blimey Mike that's a bit slow...just checked some of my singlehanding figures all fairly short days (0800 -1700 with an hour lunch break)

 

19.5m 7L......20m 5L.....22.5m 2L....15m 3L (with a shopping trip) and I definitely was not in a hurry

[Tony Dunkley]

Thanks for that so would they keep a record as to how many boats have their licence refused for not complying as against those that just don't renew their licence for whatever reason? Or would they all be lumped together. Just curious as to if CRT see none compliance as a huge problem .

They portray it as a huge problem, but in reality I think they blow it up out of all proportion as one way to divert attention from their miserable failure as a Navigation Authority.

[MtB]

 

 

Blimey Mike that's a bit slow...just checked some of my singlehanding figures all fairly short days (0800 -1700 with an hour lunch break)

 

19.5m 7L......20m 5L.....22.5m 2L....15m 3L (with a shopping trip) and I definitely was not in a hurry

 

My boat is slow. 2mph flat out.

 

 

MtB

(and I have to ride the bike back to where I started from to collect the van, too!)

[Tony Dunkley]

So, either one cruises over a large range, or one gets a home mooring?

 

Personally I bought a boat to cruise. I want to wake up in different places, have different neighbours, enjoy new views and experience a new range of beers on tap in a different bar. However I also need to work and see my family and friends... It doesn't fit my lifestyle to travel massive distances. So I do as the OP, I ensure that I follow the minimum requirements. I am undergoing a bona fide navigation, but it will not take me further than Hungerford in one direction and Bristol in the other, at least not this year.

 

It has been suggested that someone in my position should just get a home mooring. This would not be OK for me. As I said, I want to use my boat to travel, to be in different places. I don't see why I should pay money for a mooring that I don't want. It is about saving money, yes, but more so it is about maintaining a lifestyle!

 

I suggest that there is in fact a fourth category of boater to add to those with home moorings, the continuous cruisers and the continuous moorers: the compliant cruiser.

 

I think C&RT should stop wasting time and money hassling boaters, but I also think that the OP, and other boaters who are being hassled should stop whining! Take a few pictures, keep a log book. It's not much to expect... You know, as I do, that you are sailing close to a line in a system ostensibly designed for another type of boating altogether, so just deal with the fact that you might have to prove that you are staying within the rules. It's no big deal, and if you get off your arse and take the pictures and send them to C&RT they can stop focusing on you and go grease some lock mechanisms instead.

Don't you think C&RT should be doing that anyway . . . it's called getting priorities in order.

[John V]

 

Indeed, but many of the posts on this thread do not give allowance for someone with my intentions. I only seek to offer another point of view.

 

I am aware of the foolhardiness of posting my intentions on a public forum like this, but find it incumbent to add to the debate. Getting a home mooring is just not an agreeable solution for many boaters like myself. Perhaps this is true for the OP as well, we do not know.

 

 

Tom by my calculations, you are talking of a cruising range in the order of 60 miles somewhat different from the op's and even then I suspect you would be trying to go further afield during holidays etc. All of this paints a very different picture.