Continual cruising

[bassplayer]

I think everyone should stop moaning and realise that the canal system is a huge success.

I wonder what Tom Rolt, Robert Aickman etc would have thought about what we have today, if they'd had a crystal ball?

 

My guess is that they'd have been delighted that the canals had found so many and varied uses and that different users bickering over who can do what, is just the price of that success.

 

It doesn't matter what they're used for, as long as they're used.

They could, so easily, have become a thing of the past.

 

Keith

I like this post...yes keep the spirit of the canals alive....

[NigelMoore]

I agree that CRT should stop worrying about CC'ers but it still leaves them a problem with general enforcement and policing on VM's. I'm not sure how bridge moorings are a special case unless they have a VM. Water points and lock moorings a bit clearer.

 

There IS no enforcement problem with the instances Vagabond Wanderer lists by way of example, because ALL of them [including ‘bridge moorings’ if I understand the term correctly] are clear obstructions to other users. Wherever there is interference with the ability of other users [boaters or not] to use facilities, there is incontrovertible breach of byelaws – as I say, no legal argument involved at all, it is a straightforward question of fact.

 

They don’t even need to go the 'bother' of the court route to have the fines imposed either, although that would be a good option in some cases of regular abusers; they can just move the boat away on the spot under s.18 powers and keep the facility available for others, which is [or ought to be] the prime motivation for enforcement.

 

As I have noted before, they already have one successful finding under their belt confirming that overstaying on visitor moorings constituted obstruction, so that they were fully entitled to summarily move the boat away.

[jenlyn]

It's odd though how time and time again we get long threads about CC'ers. There must be some reason for it being a hot topic. It can't be that nobody likes us, as anyone who suggests that gets shot down in flames...why is it a hot topic?

The strange thing is, there are no problems during the winter months. Although not that strange really. The marina brigade along with the IWA regional's have all headed home, being only fair weather types. The race for the vm's and pub moorings are over for another season. They will now collectively hold their little meetings throughout the winter month's, discussing and evaluating the seasons boating, hampered by other boaters who had beat them to the vm-waterpoint, and had been there for months.

 

Now the CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months, thus making sure the moaners, whingers and IWA have a working system next season.

[bassplayer]

There IS no enforcement problem with the instances Vagabond Wanderer lists by way of example, because ALL of them [including ‘bridge moorings’ if I understand the term correctly] are clear obstructions to other users. Wherever there is interference with the ability of other users [boaters or not] to use facilities, there is incontrovertible breach of byelaws – as I say, no legal argument involved at all, it is a straightforward question of fact.

 

They don’t even need to go the 'bother' of the court route to have the fines imposed either, although that would be a good option in some cases of regular abusers; they can just move the boat away on the spot under s.18 powers and keep the facility available for others, which is [or ought to be] the prime motivation for enforcement.

 

As I have noted before, they already have one successful finding under their belt confirming that overstaying on visitor moorings constituted obstruction, so that they were fully entitled to summarily move the boat away.

Sorry if I missed something somewhere Nigel but how is mooring near a bridge obstruction (are we talking about mooring posts at swing/lift bridges)? I can understand it if you are blocking access through the bridge. Regarding VM's, as we already know, CRT can't determine whether a boat has overstayed unless it was logged at that spot every day. I'm also not sure what is involved by 'moving' the boat....where would they put it? On a better mooring perhaps....I'm all for valet parking!

 

As you know I'm one of those against tinkering. In all the time I've been cruising I've not had many gripes really, I've always been able to find somewhere to moor within the rules even if it's not right outside a pub or near facilities.

[MtB]

The strange thing is, there are no problems during the winter months. Although not that strange really. The marina brigade along with the IWA regional's have all headed home, being only fair weather types. The race for the vm's and pub moorings are over for another season. They will now collectively hold their little meetings throughout the winter month's, discussing and evaluating the seasons boating, hampered by other boaters who had beat them to the vm-waterpoint, and had been there for months.

 

Now the CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months, thus making sure the moaners, whingers and IWA have a working system next season.

 

 

Excellent moan and whinge from a CCer...

 

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

The strange thing is, there are no problems during the winter months. Although not that strange really. The marina brigade along with the IWA regional's have all headed home, being only fair weather types. The race for the vm's and pub moorings are over for another season. They will now collectively hold their little meetings throughout the winter month's, discussing and evaluating the seasons boating, hampered by other boaters who had beat them to the vm-waterpoint, and had been there for months.

Now the CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months, thus making sure the moaners, whingers and IWA have a working system next season.

Oi you...stop stirring!

 

Don't forget it's only the odd few who take the P regardless of the type of boater...

[Tuscan]

The strange thing is, there are no problems during the winter months. Although not that strange really. The marina brigade along with the IWA regional's have all headed home, being only fair weather types. The race for the vm's and pub moorings are over for another season. They will now collectively hold their little meetings throughout the winter month's, discussing and evaluating the seasons boating, hampered by other boaters who had beat them to the vm-waterpoint, and had been there for months.

Now the CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months, thus making sure the moaners, whingers and IWA have a working system next season.

Didn't there were any CC'ers in the winter I thought they were all tucked up on there home moorings....................ducks for cover

[bassplayer]

Didn't there were any CC'ers in the winter I thought they were all tucked up on there home moorings....................ducks for cover

Us CC'ers learn a lot from ducks! They talk to us you know....(me thinks I've let myself in for trouble here)...

[Alan de Enfield]

Us CC'ers learn a lot from ducks! They talk to us you know....(me thinks I've let myself in for trouble here)...

 

Yuuup - you are all quackers !!!

[bassplayer]

Yuuup - you are all quackers !!!

No, not biting...it's water off a ducks back..

[Alan de Enfield]

CCers - just like a Duck - all calm and peaceful on the surface, but paddling away like the devil under the surface

[bassplayer]

CCers - just like a Duck - all calm and peaceful on the surface, but paddling away like the devil under the surface

Actually we spend most of our time sleeping after earning our bread. Of course we sometimes have to go to the bank to collect it...

[NigelMoore]

Sorry if I missed something somewhere Nigel but how is mooring near a bridge obstruction (are we talking about mooring posts at swing/lift bridges)? I can understand it if you are blocking access through the bridge. Regarding VM's, as we already know, CRT can't determine whether a boat has overstayed unless it was logged at that spot every day. I'm also not sure what is involved by 'moving' the boat....where would they put it? On a better mooring perhaps....I'm all for valet parking!

 

As you know I'm one of those against tinkering. In all the time I've been cruising I've not had many gripes really, I've always been able to find somewhere to moor within the rules even if it's not right outside a pub or near facilities.

 

I have never encountered problems either [most of my cruising has been in winter when it seems as though I have had the entire system almost all to myself] – but I accept that problems do arise.

 

As to “bridge moorings”, I can only interpret VW’s term as applying to mooring close enough to bridges so as to make it awkward for other boats to pass through, or even mooring to the bridge. That would breach the 1965 byelaws 28 & 29 – “Any vessel . . . shall be moored in such a manner and in such a position as not to cause any obstruction to the navigation of other vessels.” And: “No mooring rope shall be affixed to any sluice lockgate, bridge or other work of the Board not provided for the purpose of mooring.”

 

Yes, determination of whether a boat has overstayed at a visitor mooring requires confirmation of that from an official keeping accurate tabs.

 

What is involved in ‘moving’ the boat is either bow-hauling, or towing by boat, to anywhere away from the obstruction – i.e. to a point where it no longer obstructs.

 

They are entitled to do this without notice under the combined effect of s.18 of the 1995 Act and s.8(5) of the 1983 Act.

 

As to the conduct of the action, no further requirement is imposed on the Board, but certain parts of the following s.19 could be used as a guide to reasonable behaviour in those similar circumstances:

 

s.19(5)( a ) “If the Board in exercise of the powers of this section remove a vessel to a place not readily visible from the place from which it was removed they shall serve on the owner – (i) as soon as possible after the removal, a notice that they have exercised the powers of this section stating the place to which the vessel has been removed;”

[bassplayer]

I have never encountered problems either [most of my cruising has been in winter when it seems as though I have had the entire system almost all to myself] – but I accept that problems do arise.

 

As to “bridge moorings”, I can only interpret VW’s term as applying to mooring close enough to bridges so as to make it awkward for other boats to pass through, or even mooring to the bridge. That would breach the 1965 byelaws 28 & 29 – “Any vessel . . . shall be moored in such a manner and in such a position as not to cause any obstruction to the navigation of other vessels.” And: “No mooring rope shall be affixed to any sluice lockgate, bridge or other work of the Board not provided for the purpose of mooring.”

 

Yes, determination of whether a boat has overstayed at a visitor mooring requires confirmation of that from an official keeping accurate tabs.

 

What is involved in ‘moving’ the boat is either bow-hauling, or towing by boat, to anywhere away from the obstruction – i.e. to a point where it no longer obstructs.

 

They are entitled to do this without notice under the combined effect of s.18 of the 1995 Act and s.8(5) of the 1983 Act.

 

As to the conduct of the action, no further requirement is imposed on the Board, but certain parts of the following s.19 could be used as a guide to reasonable behaviour in those similar circumstances:

 

s.19(5)( a ) “If the Board in exercise of the powers of this section remove a vessel to a place not readily visible from the place from which it was removed they shall serve on the owner – (i) as soon as possible after the removal, a notice that they have exercised the powers of this section stating the place to which the vessel has been removed;”

All sounds pretty sensible to me...thanks for coming back Nigel...

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

I have never encountered problems either [most of my cruising has been in winter when it seems as though I have had the entire system almost all to myself] – but I accept that problems do arise.

 

As to “bridge moorings”, I can only interpret VW’s term as applying to mooring close enough to bridges so as to make it awkward for other boats to pass through, or even mooring to the bridge. That would breach the 1965 byelaws 28 & 29 – “Any vessel . . . shall be moored in such a manner and in such a position as not to cause any obstruction to the navigation of other vessels.” And: “No mooring rope shall be affixed to any sluice lockgate, bridge or other work of the Board not provided for the purpose of mooring.”

 

Yes, determination of whether a boat has overstayed at a visitor mooring requires confirmation of that from an official keeping accurate tabs.

 

What is involved in ‘moving’ the boat is either bow-hauling, or towing by boat, to anywhere away from the obstruction – i.e. to a point where it no longer obstructs.

 

They are entitled to do this without notice under the combined effect of s.18 of the 1995 Act and s.8(5) of the 1983 Act.

 

As to the conduct of the action, no further requirement is imposed on the Board, but certain parts of the following s.19 could be used as a guide to reasonable behaviour in those similar circumstances:

 

s.19(5)( a ) “If the Board in exercise of the powers of this section remove a vessel to a place not readily visible from the place from which it was removed they shall serve on the owner – (i) as soon as possible after the removal, a notice that they have exercised the powers of this section stating the place to which the vessel has been removed;”

To clarify, by 'bridge moorings' I was referring to the bollards near to swing/lift bridges situated so that you can moor near to the bridge to operate it. These were the moorings that one muppet on the west Kennet and Avon chose to spend his winter along with his pile of crap covering the towpath. Whenever passing through I did make the (childish) point of using far too much engine power whenever I could since he was making things difficult for me it seemed only fair to reciprocate!

[kevinl]

The marina brigade along with the IWA regional's have all headed home, being only fair weather types..

A bit insulting to all of us who lives that mean we can't liveaboard isn't it? Shit stirring between different types of boaters might come round and bite you on the arse sometime, a snotty, superior attitude like this isn't going to do much for the "leave the CCers alone" so many of us subscribe to.

I'll leave you to get on "CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months" with your busy work of maintaining a system that while I'm not using am still paying for.

K

[bassplayer]

A bit insulting to all of us who lives that mean we can't liveaboard isn't it? Shit stirring between different types of boaters might come round and bite you on the arse sometime, a snotty, superior attitude like this isn't going to do much for the "leave the CCers alone" so many of us subscribe to.

I'll leave you to get on "CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months" with your busy work of maintaining a system that while I'm not using am still paying for.

K

I agree it's not helpful pointing fingers. To be fair though, we're all paying for an all year round licence. CRT should offer monthly licences so people have the option of removing their boat from CRT waters (maybe they do). I suspect there's still a few hardy folk who bring their boats out of marinas during the winter and of course you are paying for that option.

[Paul C]

I agree it's not helpful pointing fingers. To be fair though, we're all paying for an all year round licence. CRT should offer monthly licences so people have the option of removing their boat from CRT waters (maybe they do). I suspect there's still a few hardy folk who bring their boats out of marinas during the winter and of course you are paying for that option.

 

They already do. And there's marinas which don't have a NAA (which, as one of its conditions, requires boats to be licensed) so that you could indeed keep the boat there unlicensed, then licence it short term for its use. I believe they've now disallowed this very practice for 1 month licences, but 3 and 6 month licences are still allowed.

 

And of course there's the option in many places of having the boat removed from the water (stored nearby on land) for the winter.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Paul C

[Arthur Marshall]

The strange thing is, there are no problems during the winter months. Although not that strange really. The marina brigade along with the IWA regional's have all headed home, being only fair weather types. The race for the vm's and pub moorings are over for another season. They will now collectively hold their little meetings throughout the winter month's, discussing and evaluating the seasons boating, hampered by other boaters who had beat them to the vm-waterpoint, and had been there for months.

 

Now the CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months, thus making sure the moaners, whingers and IWA have a working system next season.

And, of course, the vast majority of recreational boaters who are in favour of genuine CCers, would probably like to be one, and who appreciate the fact that they DO keep the damn system working over winter. And most of us don't bother about the race to the pub, although we may well whinge about the CCer who runs his genny all night in an otherwise quiet spot...

[NigelMoore]

To clarify, by 'bridge moorings' I was referring to the bollards near to swing/lift bridges situated so that you can moor near to the bridge to operate it.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I would classify that as use of the facility for purposes other than intended, and obstructing use of the swing/lift bridges. A double-whammy of byelaw breach that ought to be very firmly clamped down on, with the offending boat moved off pronto. Those are just the sort of cases where any legal process is hopeless to cure the problem - for all that they can be instigated for punishment after the obstructing boat has been cleared off. But it is the clearing of the obstruction that is the immediate necessity, and CaRT have the powers to do just that.

[jenlyn]

A bit insulting to all of us who lives that mean we can't liveaboard isn't it? Shit stirring between different types of boaters might come round and bite you on the arse sometime, a snotty, superior attitude like this isn't going to do much for the "leave the CCers alone" so many of us subscribe to.

I'll leave you to get on "CCer along with CRT, will look after the network for five months" with your busy work of maintaining a system that while I'm not using am still paying for.

K

Yes, it is rather insulting. Much like it is when we have associations meetings with the trust, where the IWA and AWCC continuously refer to CCer's as freeloaders. Then the public meeting last Monday with Richard Parry, where a few more decided to knock those scum CCer's.

 

Although my initial post was intended as a bit of a piss take, it's interesting reading your response. ;-)

[Les Kay]

 

A reference to the law that says that please

General Terms and Conditions for Boat Licences - Schedule 2: MOORING INFORMATION

 

GUIDANCE FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING

If a boat is licensed without a home mooring1 it must move on a regular basis. This Guidance2 seeks to explain in day to day terms the nature of the movement that must take place.

There are three key legal3 requirements:-

•  the boat must genuinely be used for navigation throughout the period of the licence.

•  unless a shorter time is specified by notice the boat must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days (or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances); and

•  it is the responsibility of the boater to satisfy the Trust that the above requirements are and will continue to be met.

  “Navigation”

  The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the

  licence]”.

  ‘Bona fide’ is Latin for “with good faith” and is used by lawyers to mean ‘sincerely’ or ‘genuinely’.

  ‘Navigation’ in this context means travelling on water involving movement in passage or transit. 4

  Therefore, subject to stops of permitted duration, those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be moving, in passage or in transit throughout the period of the licence.

  Importantly, short trips within the same neighbourhood, and shuttling backwards and forwards along a small part of the network do NOT meet the legal requirement for navigation throughout the period of the licence.5

  The terms ‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’ are used in this guidance to mean using a boat bona fide for navigation.

  “Place”

I think this states clearly that to move between two points continuously is not considered CCing.

 

Jenlyn is right though, there are a lot of people with appalling attitudes against CCers. Without doubt some CCers are abusing the system, but don't paint us all with the same brush.

Edited October 11, 2014 by lesdkay

[Paul C]

 

Thanks for the clarification. I would classify that as use of the facility for purposes other than intended, and obstructing use of the swing/lift bridges. A double-whammy of byelaw breach that ought to be very firmly clamped down on, with the offending boat moved off pronto. Those are just the sort of cases where any legal process is hopeless to cure the problem - for all that they can be instigated for punishment after the obstructing boat has been cleared off. But it is the clearing of the obstruction that is the immediate necessity, and CaRT have the powers to do just that.

 

Moved where though?

[SamKingfisher]

 

Moved where though?

Somewhere they've already put all the workboats!

[NigelMoore]

I think this states clearly that to move between two points continuously is not considered CCing.

 

 

Perhaps, that would be a reasonable extrapolation from the quote – though it still says nothing about progressive journeys around the system. But I strongly suspect that phill was asking for a reference to the law, not to an attenuated interpretation of it.

 

He was being deliberately disingenuous, because he knows there is no such law ‘that says that’. The ‘question’ was on a par with cotswoldsman’s refrain: “I must have missed that bit”.