Continual cruising

[Gordias]

So now, in this fantasy land, you are postulating Camden council to be able to fit tracking devices on.... every boat? every boat they want to charge council tax?

 

How exactly are they going to establish the legislative framework to achieve this, let alone the practicalities.

 

Give it up. This one has no legs.

 

WIthout an understanding of the issues and problems, which you clearly do not have, you haven't a snowball's chance of coming up with a 'solution'.

 

The suggestion was for CaRT to mandate the RFID transponders as a complement to the license which must be displayed, and the (I assume - not sure if this is mandated by the license) the number which is painted on the boats.

 

I've already described the cost per tag: the one at 15 US cents per boat would be sufficient.

 

The five US dollars per boat version is over-specified, but it would allow for some interesting scanning methods - for example a small drone fitted with a scanner and flown above the canal could scan boats as fast as it could be flown. Not much use in remote areas (cheap drones have short range) but it would work in high-density areas (assuming it was legal ... but I'd expect a local council would be allowed to operate one).

 

 

Actually it's hard to believe anyone would assume that more than one RFID tag would be needed /lol. They're functionally similar to e.g. a motor vehicle's number plate, except designed to be read by an electronic device instead of people's eyes. One per boat would be enough - there's no need to e.g. fit one per local authority.

 

BTW - the most common RFID tags are deliberately kept very simple and cheap. One set of applications is to use them instead of bar codes on for products in supermarkets etc. The wikipedia article I used shows 2006 prices, and are already easily cheap enough for use on boats. I'd expect them to be available for much less than that soon (perhaps already)

Edited December 17, 2014 by Gordias

[jenlyn]

The suggestion was for CaRT to mandate the RFID transponders as a complement to the license which must be displayed, and the (I assume - not sure if this is mandated by the license) the number which is painted on the boats.

 

I've already described the cost per tag: the one at 15 US cents per boat would be sufficient.

 

The five US dollars per boat version is over-specified, but it would allow for some interesting scanning methods - for example a small drone fitted with a scanner and flown above the canal could scan boats as fast as it could be flown. Not much use in remote areas (cheap drones have short range) but it would work in high-density areas (assuming it was legal ... but I'd expect a local council would be allowed to operate one).

 

 

Actually it's hard to believe anyone would assume that more than one RFID tag would be needed /lol. They're functionally similar to e.g. a motor vehicle's number plate, except designed to be read by an electronic device instead of people's eyes. One per boat would be enough - there's no need to e.g. fit one per local authority.

 

BTW - the most common RFID tags are deliberately kept very simple and cheap. One set of applications is to use them instead of bar codes on for products in supermarkets etc. The wikipedia article I used shows 2006 prices, and are already easily cheap enough for use on boats. I'd expect them to be available for much less than that soon (perhaps already)

Put a little magnet behind them and they are kaput.

[gaggle]

 

The suggestion was for CaRT to mandate the RFID transponders as a complement to the license which must be displayed, and the (I assume - not sure if this is mandated by the license) the number which is painted on the boats.

 

I've already described the cost per tag: the one at 15 US cents per boat would be sufficient.

 

The five US dollars per boat version is over-specified, but it would allow for some interesting scanning methods - for example a small drone fitted with a scanner and flown above the canal could scan boats as fast as it could be flown. Not much use in remote areas (cheap drones have short range) but it would work in high-density areas (assuming it was legal ... but I'd expect a local council would be allowed to operate one).

 

 

Actually it's hard to believe anyone would assume that more than one RFID tag would be needed /lol. They're functionally similar to e.g. a motor vehicle's number plate, except designed to be read by an electronic device instead of people's eyes. One per boat would be enough - there's no need to e.g. fit one per local authority.

 

BTW - the most common RFID tags are deliberately kept very simple and cheap. One set of applications is to use them instead of bar codes on for products in supermarkets etc. The wikipedia article I used shows 2006 prices, and are already easily cheap enough for use on boats. I'd expect them to be available for much less than that soon (perhaps already)

This has got to be a joke .

[b0atman]

Now this Barcode on the boat roof I don't mind so much but that laser scanning drone at 6 O.clock every morning is doing my head in

[KenK]

There is of course a very simple solution to the problem.

It does not require any special technology.

No drones, tags etc. you do not even need to know the name of the boat.

I refer of course to that wonderful idea first proposed by the late Mrs. T's government.

 

The Poll Tax, a simple tax which does not need to take into account the value of your property, location of your boat, etc. Imposed equally on everyone except the very young, can't think why it didn't catch on.

 

Prior to typing this I have put on my flak jacket, tin hat and have retired to the bunker to await any incoming. It is a slow day at work.

 

ken

[bassplayer]

There is of course a very simple solution to the problem.

It does not require any special technology.

No drones, tags etc. you do not even need to know the name of the boat.

I refer of course to that wonderful idea first proposed by the late Mrs. T's government.

 

The Poll Tax, a simple tax which does not need to take into account the value of your property, location of your boat, etc. Imposed equally on everyone except the very young, can't think why it didn't catch on.

 

Prior to typing this I have put on my flak jacket, tin hat and have retired to the bunker to await any incoming. It is a slow day at work.

 

ken

...and we could put a chip and barcode on everyone's head...

[Wanderer Vagabond]

There is of course a very simple solution to the problem.

It does not require any special technology.

No drones, tags etc. you do not even need to know the name of the boat.

I refer of course to that wonderful idea first proposed by the late Mrs. T's government.

 

The Poll Tax, a simple tax which does not need to take into account the value of your property, location of your boat, etc. Imposed equally on everyone except the very young, can't think why it didn't catch on.

 

Prior to typing this I have put on my flak jacket, tin hat and have retired to the bunker to await any incoming. It is a slow day at work.

 

ken

Think we are drifting a long way off topic, but in answer to your suggestion, the Poll Tax was probably the most iniquitous tax possible to design, and it IS designed purely for the benefit of the wealthy. On both occasions it has been introduced it has rightly led to civil unrest (Peasants Revolt and Poll Tax Riots). When I paid mine, (I would have been sacked from my job for not doing so) I did so in loads of coins of small denominations (the maximum amounts still acceptable as legal tender) simply to register my disgust at such a tax.

 

The reason for it's iniquity is because it massively penalises the poor. If I am earning £1000 per month and have to pay £100 per month in Poll Tax that represents 10% of my income, if on the other hand I'm earning £10,000 per month it represents 1% of my income, so those who can least afford get to pay the most, fair? I don't think so!

 

If we were to talk about a Local Income tax in the manner of US States I may be interested but a Poll Tax should remain where it is, in the rubbish bin.

[KenK]

Think we are drifting a long way off topic, but in answer to your suggestion, the Poll Tax was probably the most iniquitous tax possible to design, and it IS designed purely for the benefit of the wealthy. On both occasions it has been introduced it has rightly led to civil unrest (Peasants Revolt and Poll Tax Riots). When I paid mine, (I would have been sacked from my job for not doing so) I did so in loads of coins of small denominations (the maximum amounts still acceptable as legal tender) simply to register my disgust at such a tax.

 

The reason for it's iniquity is because it massively penalises the poor. If I am earning £1000 per month and have to pay £100 per month in Poll Tax that represents 10% of my income, if on the other hand I'm earning £10,000 per month it represents 1% of my income, so those who can least afford get to pay the most, fair? I don't think so!

 

If we were to talk about a Local Income tax in the manner of US States I may be interested but a Poll Tax should remain where it is, in the rubbish bin.

I did say it was a slow day, I wasn't really serious. However a local income tax hmm!

 

Ken

[Captain Zim]

...and we could put a chip and barcode on everyone's head...

Would be easier for the drones to read it.

[wreckferret]

I like the drone idea.......

I have shootiing rights along side one strech of canal, would be good sport if it flew fast enough