Continual cruising

[Phil.]

non bona fide would be A to B to A whereas bona fide would be A to B to C to B to A, A to B to C to D to C to B to A

allthough that really depends on how far B is to A and so on.

 

It's not that complicated....

But this would only work if you can be guaranteed to be logged at each location by crt which I think is doubtful under their current system of logging.

[dunfixing]

When you buy a boat and get it licenced it states that if you don't have a home mooring, then you are a ccer.

If your harassed for not doing this its your fault not C&RT.

End of.

[Gordias]

CaRT could request a photograph with a GPS location tag from anyone with a smartphone.

Or provide an app that did that for you as long as the phone camera was aimed correctly.

 

I saw a mention on their site of a "date wheel" similar thing you sometimes get for showing the time you arrived at some parking locations. It's a bit low-tech IMO, but they'd need a manual option too, so perhaps they're starting with that.

 

People that don't like this kind of tracking might consider that CaRT is running out of options.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Gordias

[Alan de Enfield]

non bona fide would be A to B to A whereas bona fide would be A to B to C to B to A, A to B to C to D to C to B to A

allthough that really depends on how far B is to A and so on.

 

It's not that complicated....

 

So - the boater with a home mooring who is on his 3 week summer holiday cannot meet these new requirements.

 

Leave the mooring - on the 2nd day out location noted by C&RT - cruise for another week then turnaround and head for 'home', a week later you are again noted by C&RT.

 

You have been noted in the same 'place' (not location) for over 14 days, you are not meeting the 'new place in 14 days' rules.

 

Or another :

 

Boater with a home mooring goes out to his favourite mooring / pub for the weekend on Friday night, heads back to the mooring on Sunday, following weekend the same, following weekend the same.

Boat is observed in the same place 3 times in 14 days, it has 'overstayed' and has failed to move to a "new place" within the 14 days.

[Dar Kuma]

But this would only work if you can be guaranteed to be logged at each location by crt which I think is doubtful under their current system of logging.

 

then make a log yourself.

[Tony Dunkley]

non bona fide would be A to B to A whereas bona fide would be A to B to C to B to A, A to B to C to D to C to B to A

allthough that really depends on how far B is to A and so on.

 

It's not that complicated....

No, it isn't complicated, but you've missed the point too. Just consider this . . . let's say you're driving a car, how would you distinguish between 'bona fide driving' and 'non bona fide driving'.

[Dar Kuma]

 

obviously if you are going to a place you can use the canal plan to route it, which I just have for goole to gloucester, even if you write down the lock numbers and take a quick photo of the lock that's still a partial log.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Dar Kuma

[Phil.]

then make a log yourself.

I do, but that is by choice, not legal requirement.

[Gordias]

Dar

What kind of phone do you have?

[Alan de Enfield]

When you buy a boat and get it licenced it states that if you don't have a home mooring, then you are a ccer.

If your harassed for not doing this its your fault not C&RT.

End of.

 

But if you do have a home mooring, then you do not (legally) need to comply with the "CC Rules" - much of the recent argument in this thread is that C&RT have now decided (illegally) that a Boat with a home mooring must also comply with the "CC rules"

 

No one is arguing that as a CCer you should comply with the CC rules.

[Rich]

When you buy a boat and get it licenced it states that if you don't have a home mooring, then you are a ccer.

If your harassed for not doing this its your fault not C&RT.

End of.

What about the occasion(s) when someone with a home mooring gets harassed by Canal and River Trust because they aren't conforming to a cc pattern of movement.

[NigelMoore]

 

 

The former I think, as you seem not to have noticed Section 17 (3) © (ii) states it is for the boater to satisfy the board.

 

To do it the cotswold man way, can you point out which law obliges CRT to track CCers to determine their compliance? I must have missed that bit.

 

There is yet another way of looking at this situation, MtB: if it takes exhaustive surveillance work to discover whether someone is breaking the rules, then the only management problem that the rule-breaker will be causing [if they cannot provide proof that they haven't broken the rule] lies in creating difficulties in determining whether or not he is a rule-breaker. It starts to get a bit ridiculous, and above all utterly pointless.

 

If you add to that the semantic somersaults that are needed/wanted to define/refine the rule in the first place, it is appropriate to ask what the end result of that is desired. If it is only to reinforce the perception that the authority is on the ball, then a lot of time, effort and money is being spent on what boils down to a purely PR exercise of no immediate practical benefit to anyone else.

 

Sometimes, laws are created only to provide a tool that can be relied upon when necessary, to resolve situations that might arise, but which are never intended to be enforced regardless of such situations. A classic example being the ridiculous law passed in West Australia back in the last century, making it a criminal offence to sleep out under the stars or even in your car, unless you did so in a recognised official camping ground.

 

There was no intention of undertaking the impossible task of sending aerial reconnaissance parties over millions of square miles of outback, in case some wicked individual curled up at the bottom of rare tree of an evening; the intent was to provide police with a useable threat of arrest and imprisonment of biker gangs camping along suburban beaches en-masse, in situations where fights often broke out.

 

In the legislation under discussion, the relevant law is not even applicable or useful for resolving the difficulties in problem areas. If non-compliant CC’ers are perceived to be the problem, I don’t see how turning everybody into CC’ers when away from home moorings is going to help. As I said earlier, rules governing congested areas apply to both ‘classes’ of boater; away from congested areas, what does it really matter if someone on the move every 14 days is doing so within a certain area, or according to one pattern rather than another? It is a question to ask before even considering whose responsibility it is, to produce evidence of CC compliance in the boat movement pattern.

 

I don’t believe for a moment that the pattern of your boating as you have described it, interferes adversely with anybody else, and I don’t believe that you think so either. Yet, you are away from your home mooring when indulging in that boating pattern, and CaRT are saying that your Terms & Conditions demand that you abide by the Guidance for Continuous Cruisers when away from your home mooring, and according to their current interpretation/desired effect of that, you should have your licence revoked and be s.8’d.

[Dar Kuma]

Dar

What kind of phone do you have?

 

nokia 5200

 

Alan, if they were on a 3 week holiday surely they would have some pictures of the holiday....

Edited October 30, 2014 by Dar Kuma

[NigelMoore]

non bona fide would be A to B to A whereas bona fide would be A to B to C to B to A, A to B to C to D to C to B to A

allthough that really depends on how far B is to A and so on.

 

It's not that complicated....

 

Aside from being inaccurate, you are making it more complicated.

 

According to the one CC judgment on this topic, A to B to A qualifies as used bona fide for navigation - regardless of the distance between A & B - provided only that you are doing so for fun, rather than because you want to comply with the rules.

 

Besides which, I venture to think you have overlooked the real question Tony was posing.

[Gordias]

 

nokia 5200

 

I'm currently using a 3720 because I broke my real phone, so no GPS either.

I don't think I know anyone locally (except me) that doesn't have a GPS in their phone. AFAIK GPS phones normally tag pictures with their location automatically.

 

A lot of boat owners will already have phones with GPS, and the picture formats are standard. A minimal "high tech log" for CaRT for many boaters would be to use a phone known to CaRT to take a picture of the boat on arrival and when leaving each location, then send them to CaRT.

CaRT would need a relatively simple program to strip out the GPS locations, phone id, and timestamps, and log them to a database. Every so often they would just analyze each boat's movement.

 

They could code up an app for it too of course - the point isn't to say how they should do it, but to say that it's relatively easy to do.

 

It might not suit every boater for CaRT to have an efficient method to track their boat location, but that won't affect the fact that it's possible

Edited October 30, 2014 by Gordias

[cotswoldsman]

non bona fide would be A to B to A whereas bona fide would be A to B to C to B to A, A to B to C to D to C to B to A

allthough that really depends on how far B is to A and so on.

 

It's not that complicated....

And where did you get that startling fact from?

[NigelMoore]

No one is arguing that as a CCer you should comply with the CC rules.

 

I think you have inadvertently missed out an important "not" from that sentence Alan?

[Dar Kuma]

i have no idea Cman, I'm just making it up as I go along, Loooool

 

It just seems to me if you really want to CC and stay within the rules of C&RT it is fairly easy with even minimal tech.

[Jerra]

To me too much emphasis in discussion is put on the navigation noun and not enough on the adjective Bona fide.

 

If you consider the various definitions of Bona fide: genuine; real, Made or carried out in good faith; sincere, Authentic then it is the intent of what the boater is doing which should be focused on.

 

IMO and I know the legal eagles will say I am wrong, it isn't difficult to decide if it is Bona fide. The boater with a mooring is "navigating" in good faith even if it is just down to the pub and back. Again just my opinion but a person trying to stay in one fairly small area (for any reason) is not navigating in good faith and their boat isn't being used for navigation in good faith.

 

I will explain why I believe this. For the "bridge hopper" the purpose of their boat is primarily a home not a tool for navigation and therefore is not being used Bona fide.

 

This probably doesn't have a legal leg to stand on but it is my personal opinion.

[NigelMoore]

This probably doesn't have a legal leg to stand on but it is my personal opinion.

 

For what it is worth, it was the opinion of the judge in the Davies case.

 

Edit to add link to the judgment - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/67073/response/174565/attach/2/BW%20v%20Davies%20Sealed%20Judgment.pdf

Edited October 30, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Jerra]

 

For what it is worth, it was the opinion of the judge in the Davies case.

Thank you that proves I am not the only lunatic around!

[NigelMoore]

For completeness: the subsequent sealed Judgment & Order –

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/67073/response/174565/attach/3/BW%20v%20Davies%20Sealed%20Judgment%20and%20Court%20Order%20dated%2013%20April%202011.pdf

 

And notes from an observer at the trial:

 

“I was present at the court case in September and took verbatim notes of the proceedings. My notes show that when Paul’s barrister, Martin Westgate QC asked Nigel Johnson, BW’s Corporate Services and Legal Director the question “What about a private boat taken out for an hour at weekend, for a spot of fishing or a picnic, and back to the same place?”

 

Nigel Johnson replied “I’d call that navigating”

 

Martin Westgate asked “That is bona fide navigating?”

 

Nigel Johnson replied “Yes”.”

[Paul C]

This "bona fide for navigation" aspect needs clarifying properly. For a start, the 1995 waterways act section 17 c doesn't just say that, there's more words than the 4, and the bit after it is the pertinant bit for CCers. Here's the full wording, and I've highlighted the bit I mean:

 

 

 

the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Thus, CCers need to go from place to place. A boater with a home mooring doesn't need to, so he can moor somewhere, then move (so as not to overstay on the wider 14 day mooring time limit) but has no restriction on not returning to the same place, ie they can if they wish to return to the same place. It might not be the exact mooring point, but it can be the same place eg a few boats along on the same stretch of towpath.

 

One could use the abbreviation A-B-A for this, or even if no stop was done (ie a loop route, or a turn without stopping A-A.

 

Bona fide or not? A ferry may shuttle from A-B, but its navigation is considered bona fide.

 

 

I can think of many examples of something which WOULDN'T be bona fide. For example:

 

1. Going forwards or backwards a couple of feet, or a boat length, merely to be in a slightly different mooring position.

2. Going forwards to a winding hole (or wide stretch), turning, then returning to the same place facing the other direction

3. Going a couple of boat lengths for water then returning - maybe could be called bona fide depending on distance or other factors (ie was the cruise for the pure joy of boating, and coincidentally the water tank was low so an opportunity was taken to fill it; or was the sole purpose to go and get some water, the fact that the boat had to move to do it being an inconvenience which must be tolerated) - this is more difficult to clearly say, and relies on the boater's intention.

4. Any other services such as pump out etc in a similar fashion to 3.

5. Simply swinging a short boat around to face the other direction if the canal is wide enough (similar to 2)

6. Going a few yards up the canal to a convenient point with good banking/near a bridge/near road access, to load/unload something heavy, then returning.

 

3, 4 and 6 would probably involve the boat going backwards the same amount as forwards, if its a typical length boat on a typical width canal, ie its too long to turn most places except eg winding holes, junctions, marina/other entrances etc. Can anyone claim they enjoy boating only in reverse???

[cotswoldsman]

I seem to have missed the bit that say's boaters with a home mooring need to move every 14 days and as I am on phone difficult to look it up, maybe you could just post that bit for me

I have most probably missed it as normally I only look at the Act as it concerns boaters without a home mooring

Edited October 30, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[mayalld]

Have you given any thought whatsoever to the implications of forcing those with (home) moorings to comply with CC'ing requirements, leaving aside the consideration that it would almost certainly be illegal.

It's probably a waste of time, but I'll ask you again . . . Can you define "non bona fide navigation" ?

You still seem unable to grasp that I am putting forward a proposal for what a revised and better law might look like.

 

Central to the concept of revision of the law is that the new law redefines what will be legal in future. Suggesting that it would be illegal because it isn't what the current law says shows a fairly serious lack of understanding on your part.

 

Yes I have given consideration to what imposing CCing requirements on a boater with a mooring would be.

 

As to what "non bona fide navigation" is, the trite answer is that it is anything that isn't bona fide navigation.

 

That requires a definition of "bona fide navigation" (or some other term with no historical baggage)

 

This would be based on the guidance that has previously been issued an incorporate the concept of moving from place to place with some limitations on reversing direction and some concept of "areas" which would be groups of places with limitations on remaining in an area for more than so many months.

 

The rules would incorporate the concept of a "cruise". A boat must comply during each cruise

but NOT across multiple cruises

 

Does that assist you?