CC distance

[DeanS]

well....apparently, from what John Sloane recently posted, 100miles is not enough..?

A serious question.

 

1. The minimum distance a CC-er must cruise over the summer....

 

is it the same distance that

 

2. A boater with a home mooring must cruise over the summer if they leave their marina mooring without returning to it?

 

 

anyone know?

[Arthur Marshall]

According to the new T&C, yes.

[Alan de Enfield]

According to the new T&C, yes.

 

According to the 1995 Act of Parliament. - NO

[Arthur Brown]

CaRT may also take issue with A-B-A cruising or even A-B-C-B-A.

 

imo Intent to cruise means going somewhere not having a place to moor one mile each way from a rail station and moving each weekend from one to the other.

[FadeToScarlet]

Is there any evidence that the number of boaters abusing the CC'ing rules is actually significant ?

And previous enforcement didn't work ?

I remember maybe a year ago seeing and hearing perhaps a year ago about a figure of 50% of CCers not having a particularly large cruising range. I can't remember the thread or the context, or the source, but I remember it because it was so shocking.

 

I'm sure someone with a better memory than me can remember where I got that from, or prove I'm misremembering and spouting rubbish.

[Alan de Enfield]

I remember maybe a year ago seeing and hearing perhaps a year ago about a figure of 50% of CCers not having a particularly large cruising range. I can't remember the thread or the context, or the source, but I remember it because it was so shocking.

 

I'm sure someone with a better memory than me can remember where I got that from, or prove I'm misremembering and spouting rubbish.

 

If its the same one that I remember it was based on C&RTs figures.

 

Approximately 5000 CCers and something like 3,400 did not cruise 'enough'

 

I think the information came from the C&RT website but there was certainly a thread that involved very similar figures.

 

Edit to add :

 

2013 - RBOA figures state 4400 registered ccers, however claim less than half are compliant.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[jenlyn]

I remember maybe a year ago seeing and hearing perhaps a year ago about a figure of 50% of CCers not having a particularly large cruising range. I can't remember the thread or the context, or the source, but I remember it because it was so shocking.

 

I'm sure someone with a better memory than me can remember where I got that from, or prove I'm misremembering and spouting rubbish.

Your memory is fine. Figures were indeed stated. However, it then transpired through Denise Yelland at a meeting that their system for checking boat positioning was flawed.

Consequently, this brought into question the statement she had made previously on boat movement.

[DeanS]

Another honest view....if we look at it from a completely different angle....surely the need to have a mooring, is only if a boater doesn't want to cruise anywhere, no matter how far that is...as long as they are INTENT on cruising around...and not staying in ONE PLACE, a mooring (which is a place to keep a boat IN ONE PLACE ) is not required.

[Naughty Cal]

Hi this is my first post, my boat should be built by the end of July and I wish to become a CCruise liveaboard I intend to travel the length of the river Stort and along the Lea navigation from Enfield to Hertford a total of approximately 28 miles do you think this will be far enough to comply with CaRTs CCruiser regulations,

Dave.

Do you think what you are proposing is continuous cruising?

[bassplayer]

As everyone is entitled to an opinion - here is mine :

 

I have seen absolutely no evidence of an anti-CCer stance on this forum. I have seen a very strong stance taken against those who sign up to CC but then remain tied up in the same spot for months, or move 1 foot per week, - call them CMers, Pisstakers or whatever,- these are the ones who deserve enforcement action.

That's not true Alan. For example there a few who clearly believe that you can't be a genuine CC'er and hold down a job or have kids etc. Some think you're taking the P if you don't travel hundreds of miles every year. Those sort of comments seem pretty anti-CC'er to me.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Do you think what you are proposing is continuous cruising?

Perhaps it would be better to ask if it he is using his boat 'bona fide for navigation'.

 

Cruising appears to be something that I have to do when I leave my home mooring ...

 

 

[DeanS]

Cruising appears to be something that I have to do when I leave my home mooring ...

 

 

 

doesn't the law say that if you are going to go cruising, you don't need a mooring ;-)

[spadefoot]

Do you think what you are proposing is continuous cruising?

No, I realise he missed off the question mark but I'm pretty sure he was asking. After all, we know that what he thinks is irrelevant.

[Alan Saunders]

I object to all the non legally defined terms, especially those now adopted by CRT.

 

At the beginning of enforcement of the 14 day rule:

• BW recorded a boat's position by the nearest bridge number and some boaters therefore believed that moving from one bridge to the next was sufficient. Common parlance labelled them 'Bridge Hoppers'.
• If you overstayed, according to BW, you received a duplicated note requesting you to 'move-on, return to your mooring or contact BW within two days'.
• Word 'on the cut' was that you had 28 days to comply and anyone who overstayed, even with good reason was labelled 'Continuous Moorer'..

Next:

• BW stopped issuing the 'warnings to move on' and waited for 28 days or much more to issue to issue a CC1 letter.
• Meanwhile, they issued 'guidance' that said:
  • A 'Place' could be a village, parish etc. but in remote areas could be an intermediate location (maybe any hamlet or large farm etc. named on the OS map?).
  • Moving a-b-a was not acceptable; a-b-c-b-a was.
• In Oxford the long-established 'Continuous Moorers' were granted 'residential status' and rather than satisfying a need like social housing, attracted a premium.

Next, CRT:

• Locally, e.g. western K&A, and London defined a 'cruising range'.
• CRT issued map that ignored parish boundaries let alone intermediate places, e.g. hamlets and large farms.
• The maps also ignored the common measurement of 'lock-miles'; e.g. traversing Caen Hill is twice a much 'cruising' as the 15 miles of the 'Long Pound'.

Now, CRT are:

• Applying the 14 day rule to those with a home mooring which I always believed to be the case but apparently they may now apply enforcement to those with a home mooring that, e.g. cruise every weekend to a local pub'!
• Doing nothing to enforce overstaying on restricted visitor moorings, water points and bridge/lock landings; not to mention the anglers who use the same.

Hamstrung by inadequate, unenforceable law CRT are spending more and more £M enforcing the powers that they have without regard for reasonable action or actually solving any perceived problem. Even If an area is crowded by 'local boaters' they may all be compliant but I admit that I have, with a young family, had to deal with a 'lack of welcome' from 'local boaters' when we were overnighting even 20 years ago.

 

The new 'guidance' is unwelcome to most and not legally enforceable. What harm or inconvenience does a boater who moors for a month half a mile from a 'popular mooring place' cause? If CRT were able to legally extend mooring limits (24hrs, 48hrs etc) and enforce the (excessive) £25/day fine for overstaying a much smaller department could police the 'problem', actually be profitable and may satisfy the demands of those who pay ridiculous money for a bankside mooring, cruise hundreds of miles p/a or object to passing miles of moored boats.

 

The roving winter towpath mooring scheme has been generally well received and demonstrates a sensible solution even if it is not provided for in the various Acts.

 

Alan

[TheBiscuits]

That's not true Alan. For example there a few who clearly believe that you can't be a genuine CC'er and hold down a job or have kids etc. Some think you're taking the P if you don't travel hundreds of miles every year. Those sort of comments seem pretty anti-CC'er to me.

But some of those who claim that are live aboard CCrs themselves. So surely it's not anti CC, just arguments about boating style.

[bassplayer]

But some of those who claim that are live aboard CCrs themselves. So surely it's not anti CC, just arguments about boating style.

Really? Or do you mean some CC'ers complain about CM'ers? Not that I have a problem with them BTW.

[MisterDave]

 

 

 

I have always been of the school that said if you need to ask then your intention is to extract the urine

 

 

 

In the last few years I've come to the conclusion that most "state agencies" will themselves extract the urine (and all your money) if they realise they are dealing with someone who doesn't know the rules.

[mayalld]

That's not true Alan. For example there a few who clearly believe that you can't be a genuine CC'er and hold down a job or have kids etc. Some think you're taking the P if you don't travel hundreds of miles every year. Those sort of comments seem pretty anti-CC'er to me.

 

Yes, there are SOME like that.

 

Equally there are some who believe that "reasonable in the circumstances" means more than 9 months, or that 14 days is ridiculous and can be ignored.

 

The overwhelming majority of posters who take issue with those who move too rarely or too little are not anti-CCer.

 

CRT have now defined a range (and a fairly small range) that represents the boundary of what they will actually believe. I think the range should be more, precisely because I know that a range of 100 miles per year wouldn't prevent me holding down a job etc.

[jenlyn]

 

Yes, there are SOME like that.

 

Equally there are some who believe that "reasonable in the circumstances" means more than 9 months, or that 14 days is ridiculous and can be ignored.

 

The overwhelming majority of posters who take issue with those who move too rarely or too little are not anti-CCer.

 

CRT have now defined a range (and a fairly small range) that represents the boundary of what they will actually believe. I think the range should be more, precisely because I know that a range of 100 miles per year wouldn't prevent me holding down a job etc.

Of course your not a ccer, so can only make assumptions, and at best second guess a ccers needs, thinking or boating matters.

I sometimes think to myself, what if ccers started discussing and promoting what boaters with a home mooring should do? What if next week at my meeting with CRT, I should suggest distance, mooring times etc for home moorers.

Or perhaps a token system where home moorers would be issued with twenty tokens per year.

1 token when leaving the marina. 2 tokens for each week they are away from home mooring. 3 tokens for each night spent on a vm.

A bit silly really. Why would I wish to interfere with how boats with home moorings behave? I don't have one. Hmmmmm

[MtB]

I sometimes think to myself, what if ccers started discussing and promoting what boaters with a home mooring should do?

<snip>

A bit silly really. Why would I wish to interfere with how boats with home moorings behave? I don't have one. Hmmmmm

 

 

That's rich coming from you, a CCer who never misses an opportunity to criticise home moorers for what you describe as 'dumping'.

 

A perfectly legal and legitimate use of their boats.

[system 4-50]

Of course your not a ccer, so can only make assumptions, and at best second guess a ccers needs, thinking or boating matters.

I sometimes think to myself, what if ccers started discussing and promoting what boaters with a home mooring should do? What if next week at my meeting with CRT, I should suggest distance, mooring times etc for home moorers.

Or perhaps a token system where home moorers would be issued with twenty tokens per year.

1 token when leaving the marina. 2 tokens for each week they are away from home mooring. 3 tokens for each night spent on a vm.

A bit silly really. Why would I wish to interfere with how boats with home moorings behave? I don't have one. Hmmmmm

Couldn't disagree more. I'm a boater first. Sometimes I'm a CCer and sometimes I have a mooring. I believe I have the right to express a view on any type of boating activity because it may change arrangements that might affect me in the future. Likewise any other boater has the right to express views on arrangements affecting other boaters. Certainly CCers can comment on mooring arrangements.

But of course only people who are me can possible understand what it is to be me.

[mayalld]

Of course your not a ccer, so can only make assumptions, and at best second guess a ccers needs, thinking or boating matters.

I sometimes think to myself, what if ccers started discussing and promoting what boaters with a home mooring should do? What if next week at my meeting with CRT, I should suggest distance, mooring times etc for home moorers.

Or perhaps a token system where home moorers would be issued with twenty tokens per year.

1 token when leaving the marina. 2 tokens for each week they are away from home mooring. 3 tokens for each night spent on a vm.

A bit silly really. Why would I wish to interfere with how boats with home moorings behave? I don't have one. Hmmmmm

 

No, I'm not a CCer.

 

I do, however, have a very clear idea of how I could manage doing so, and hold down my current job.

 

It appears that you now suggest that only CCers should be allowed to write the rules on what CCers can do. You don't appear to accept that there is any cause to take account of how those rules might impact on those with a home mooring.

[cotswoldsman]

That's rich coming from you, a CCer who never misses an opportunity to criticise home moorers for what you describe as 'dumping'.

 

A perfectly legal and legitimate use of their boats.

I was moored behind a dumper for 5 days at Dutton there are 4 really nice moorings with great views of the valley a viaduct as myself and Stan took 2 moorings this left one spare mooring that was normally taken by lunch time and you could see boaters going past wishing there had been a spare mooring. The shame is that yes it is perfectly legal to dump but that should mean when dumping think of others, had the dumper gone 300 yards further the boat would have been fine and other boaters could have enjoyed the great limited moorings

[MtB]

I was moored behind a dumper for 5 days at Dutton there are 4 really nice moorings with great views of the valley a viaduct as myself and Stan took 2 moorings this left one spare mooring that was normally taken by lunch time and you could see boaters going past wishing there had been a spare mooring. The shame is that yes it is perfectly legal to dump but that should mean when dumping think of others, had the dumper gone 300 yards further the boat would have been fine and other boaters could have enjoyed the great limited moorings

 

Yes. Fully agree. Some boaters are selfish shitbags.

 

CMers and inconsiderate dumpers both fall in this category.

[jenlyn]

 

 

 

It appears that you now suggest that only CCers should be allowed to write the rules on what CCers can do. You don't appear to accept that there is any cause to take account of how those rules might impact on those with a home mooring.

Not at all. My post was merely an ironic little stab at how some posts strike me on here.

I do however note your first sentence, and fully comprehend the direction you would like to tread