66% of continuous cruisers travel less than 12 miles.

[Alf Roberts]

 

No it doesn't.

 

It means according to the data held, this group of CCers limits the area in which they CC regularly to a patch 12 miles across.

 

In reality this probably means the 66% are regularly shuffling up and down one 12 mile stretch of canal, to paraphrase the judge in Mr Davies case. I notice dozens of boats doing this on the southern oxford so suspect it is the norm in many other areas too.

 

Moving around regularly in a 12 mile area is far more acceptable than CMing, in my opinion.

 

MtB

not just your opinion, it's the law of the land.

 

we can look forward to Shoosmiths getting another pretty wedge while CRT tilt at this particular windmill.

CaRT claim to gather "boat at location" data with a measurement frequency between one and 14 days.

 

This cannot be used for a good estimate of distance traveled (**), but it can give good estimates of the area within which boats move.

 

 

**

NB: You could get some useful information, but not the numbers quoted above (Alan Fincher's post #42)

 

...and your boating experience that backs up this assertion?

[MtB]

not just your opinion, it's the law of the land.

 

we can look forward to Shoosmiths getting another pretty wedge while CRT tilt at this particular windmill.

 

 

...and your boating experience that backs up this assertion?

 

 

It wasn't, the last time I read it.

 

MtB

[Gordias]

 

How so?

 

I have seen from my own data that I can have travelled hundreds of miles in a two week period, where there are no sightings at all.

 

If there are umpteen sightings of me on (say) the Shroppie, and a couple of weeks later (say) one on the T&M, with none in between, it in no way proves that I haven't been across the Pennines in the meantime, does it?

 

I agree that if all sightings in a year are no more than 20Km apart it would be supporting evidence that that boat probably doesn't travel far, but it is certainly not possible to say that is the only stretch it has been on.

 

The very short version: the error factor (gaps between measurements times (approx) a day's travel at local canal speeds) is large for boats that are always observed in a small radius, but small for boats that move around the system.

 

It's also affected by the measurement frequency of course. I've never seen data on this, but you'd expect more frequent measurements in urban areas, fewer in remote areas - this would mean the error factor is larger (e.g. relative to measurement intervals averaging 7 days for all boats) in remote areas but it would still be high in urban areas.

 

BTW - I made a small update my post above - yours may have "crossed" the update. What I added was that you could make some interesting travel distance estimates, but they wouldn't support the numbers CaRT have released in the form they released them.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Gordias

[costalot]

I would have thought the CRT strategy was quite apparent.

1. Any boater who has been given a standard licence without a home mooring is being monitored to ensure the comply with the CC guidelines.

2. Those assessed as not complying are encouraged to comply.

3. Those who fail to modify their cruising pattern will not have their CC licence renewal application approved. Instead they will be required to prove they have a home mooring in order to obtain a licence.

4. Those who keep their boat on CRT waters without a licence may have their boat seized and removed.

 

Cruising within a 22km radius on a CC licence appears to place a boater in the "to be monitored and encouraged to move further" category.

CRT appear to be focussing on what might be considered to be the 'hot spots'

[Gordias]

...and your boating experience that backs up this assertion?

 

Have you found that boating is a good way to learn basic statistics?

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

It wasn't, the last time I read it.

 

MtB

you've obviously looked since I did so, if you would be so kind, can you show me the law that says a 12 mile range is illegal please

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

It wasn't, the last time I read it.

 

MtB

That would be in 1994 then ?

[bassplayer]

Going back to the original reason why the CC'er concept started (people wanting to explore the system so didn't require a home mooring). How far does everyone believe one must travel to explore?

 

Some people like to go to the the same area on holiday, others like to go somewhere different each time. Isn't it possible that some boaters just enjoy exploring the same stretch of waterway? Many boaters become CC'ers for a year or two, explore, then get a permanent mooring once the've done.

 

Regarding bridge hoppers and CM'ers, could we officially accept another category of boater who just want to stay in the same area? If they agreed not to moor on VM's would that be acceptable? Or is the resentment that they don't pay for a mooring the real issue here?

[DeanS]

...and your boating experience that backs up this assertion?

 

Many non boat owners post on this forum, and comments like these are out of order.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Many non boat owners post on this forum, and comments like these are out of order.

Not allowed to ask people about their boating experience now? This is getting stupid now!!!

[Paul C]

Going back to the original reason why the CC'er concept started (people wanting to explore the system so didn't require a home mooring).

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that's factually true.

 

 

 

 

Regarding bridge hoppers and CM'ers, could we officially accept another category of boater who just want to stay in the same area? If they agreed not to moor on VM's would that be acceptable? Or is the resentment that they don't pay for a mooring the real issue here?

 

Who is "we"? The law defines two choices - genuine CCing or have a home mooring (or other place etc etc). If "we" (the UK voting public, which is a superset of canal users, which is a superset of boaters) wanted to create this, it would require a change in the law.

 

I'm also not sure the issue is a resentment that they don't pay - many people have different reasons for not wanting CMers on the system etc.

 

Unofficially, its already happening because CRT basically don't have the enforcement structure to be able to effectively police 100% of the canal network, 100% of the time, detecting overstaying etc with 100% accuracy and 100% success in enforcement action. And less than 100% of people have a problem with this.

[cuthound]

It';s probably worth extracting what it actually says in the minutes of the association meetings with CRT that OP refers to, as it has been simplified somewhat in this thread......

 

 

 

To me it is very clear that it is a statement of the range they are claimed to be cruising within, not a statement about the total they have done for any period. So if they are spotted every two weeks at one location, and every alternate two weeks at another that is under 20Km away, and never anywhere that is not between those locations, then they fall in the 66%, even if in a year they have overall travelled 52 times 20Km.

 

 

It would help if the statistics being minuted actally said from when to when, though - I don't think they do.

Alan, for the sake of clarity, can you confirm whether those staying within a 6km area are also included in the numbers for those staying within a 12km area?

[jenlyn]

Many non boat owners post on this forum, and comments like these are out of order.

I believe the content within this thread needs the knowledge of actual boating experience to maintain the debate.

Alf has asked a simple enough question that warrants a reply, if only to justify the posters reason for his thoughts.

[cuthound]

No it doesn't.

 

It means according to the data held, this group of CCers limits the area in which they CC regularly to a patch 12 miles across.

 

In reality this probably means the 66% are regularly shuffling up and down one 12 mile stretch of canal, to paraphrase the judge in Mr Davies case. I notice dozens of boats doing this on the southern oxford so suspect it is the norm in many other areas too.

 

Moving around regularly in a 12 mile area is far more acceptable than CMing, in my opinion.

 

MtB

I completely agree. It is those that will drive any change in enforcement regulations, for which all boaters will suffer.

[bassplayer]

Many non boat owners post on this forum, and comments like these are out of order.

I don't agree. I think those with boating experience get fed up with being judged by those with no (or little experience). The only way to see how things really are is to see the system in real life. The data captured by CRT is not accurate due to the poor sample rate so any statistics generated from the data are rubbish too.

[Paul C]

I don't agree. I think those with boating experience get fed up with being judged by those with no (or little experience). The only way to see how things really are is to see the system in real life. The data captured by CRT is not accurate due to the poor sample rate so any statistics generated from the data are rubbish too.

 

I think you need to look at the PDF within the FOI that Jenlyn posted a link to. CRT acknowledge that their data capture has to be sufficiently accurate to proceed with enforcement action, its not true to simply say "the data is not accurate due to the poor sample rate". Specifically, look at the email exchange on page 11.

[bassplayer]

I'm not sure that's factually true.

 

 

....so what do you think is true then?

[Gordias]

[...]

 

The data captured by CRT is not accurate due to the poor sample rate so any statistics generated from the data are rubbish too.

 

Those numbers could be very accurate (95% CI). There is no reason to expect they're not accurate, and plenty of anecdotal evidence on CWDF that supports them.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Gordias

[Jerra]

Alan, for the sake of clarity, can you confirm whether those staying within a 6km area are also included in the numbers for those staying within a 12km area?

The way I read this line from the quoted minutes they would be.

 

16 % of c.5,400 CC-ers were recorded cruising within a range of <5 kms, and 66% in a range of <20 kms.

 

If 66% of the boaters are within the <20km area that to me must include the number in <5KM or it would have said something like 66% were in the >5Km and <20Km range.

 

Edit to change mu to me.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Jerra

[bassplayer]

I think you need to look at the PDF within the FOI that Jenlyn posted a link to. CRT acknowledge that their data capture has to be sufficiently accurate to proceed with enforcement action, its not true to simply say "the data is not accurate due to the poor sample rate". Specifically, look at the email exchange on page 11.

What CRT acknowledges is accurate and the truth aren't necessarily the same though are they? This is the root of the problem not the data itself.

Edited February 13, 2015 by bassplayer

[MtB]

you've obviously looked since I did so, if you would be so kind, can you show me the law that says a 12 mile range is illegal please

 

 

You started the quibble with your assertion that the law states 12 miles. It doesn't.

 

 

MtB

[Gordias]

What CRT acknowledges is accurate and the truth aren't necessarily the same though are they? This is the route of the problem not the data itself.

 

If you're suggesting CaRT is deliberately faking their statistics all bets are off, but it doesn't seem likely.

 

Assuming they're honest, we can say those numbers are probably accurate, because the numbers shown would be relatively easy to collect.

 

Note that they probably couldn't make similar statements about the boats that travel a lot (say 500 miles or more per year) and spend a lot of time in remote areas where measurements are less frequent.

 

But they didn't do that. They made some statements about the boats that are easiest to measure.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Gordias

[b0atman]

Whether a boater or not all should have the right to a comment if they have some knowledge to impart.

CMers are not going to go away in the short and maybe long term unless CRT are given the right to impose licencing terms that can be backed up by a court of law .

So until that happens why not set up where possible online moorings at a reasonable rate of charge and try to get these CMers to use them ?

[bassplayer]

If you're suggesting CaRT is deliberately faking their statistics, all bets are off, but it doesn't seem likely.

 

Assuming they're honest, we can say those numbers are probably accurate, because the numbers shown would be relatively easy to collect.

 

Note that they probably couldn't make similar statements about the boats that travel a lot (say 500 miles or more) and spend a lot of time in report areas.

 

But they didn't do that. They made some statements about the boats that are easiest to measure.

I said that the sample rate (collecting data) is poor, I didn't say they are faking statistics. However it's also true that without proper auditing of data, it could be altered without anyone knowing. The big cities like London have unique issues so to draw conclusions for the whole system based on localised data is poor logic.

[Paul C]

What CRT acknowledges is accurate and the truth aren't necessarily the same though are they? This is the root of the problem not the data itself.

 

Do you honestly believe that CRT would distort or deliberately misinterpret their available data to systematically target a large group of law-abiding boaters and try to eliminate them?

 

Have you read ANY of the PDF I mentioned previously? Its worth properly reading.