CC distance

[Naughty Cal]

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

You and Stan could always have rafted to free up a mooring.

[jenlyn]

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.

Perhaps I should do the same. I can see your point.

[cotswoldsman]

You and Stan could always have rafted to free up a mooring.

What and block the canal that would have been selfish. Just out of interest when we're you last at Dutton? While you were there did you not notice how narrow the canal is? We often breast up but never do so when it makes it difficult for other boats to pass. You would also have noticed that the new moorings are on a bend

[Naughty Cal]

What and block the canal that would have been selfish. Just out of interest when we're you last at Dutton? While you were there did you not notice how narrow the canal is? We often breast up but never do so when it makes it difficult for other boats to pass. You would also have noticed that the new moorings are on a bend

Doesn't appear overly narrow from Google Earth.

 

Not sure what difference me having visited or not would make. Please tell.

[Guest]

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.

Unfortunately it's an increasing trend on the forum lately that some members think your opinion on a subject only counts on the basis you are posting on a subject from 'personal experience' of something.

 

So for example you can hold a view on continuous cruising if you yourself are a continuous cruiser or another being you can only hold a valid opinion on any aspect of boating if you actually have a boat.

 

It is of course nonsense, but some continue to pedal it. Given not least as you rightly point out the actions of one type of boater impacts on all users of the waterways. Additionally boaters are clearly not CRT's only priority, they see the users of the waterways in a much wider context particularly since their establishment they have obligations that stretch wider than just CCers or even boating alone. So if individuals on here are not particularly interested in the views of the wider waterways user base that is their loss.

 

The only thing it does achieve is cause hostility, resentment and division between categories of boater and waterways users too, if that is what they wish to achieve then if they keep on I'm sure it will only get worse.

[cotswoldsman]

Doesn't appear overly narrow from Google Earth.

 

Not sure what difference me having visited or not would make. Please tell.

Ah well if it looks ok on Google earth then it must be ok was that picture taken before or after the breach. Does Google earth give the depth of the off side? It makes a difference because had you been there you would firstly know it is not possible to breast up and leave room for any deep drafted boat to pass and almost impossible for a non deep drafted boat

[jenlyn]

 

 

Not sure what difference me having visited or not would make. Please tell.

I've often heard that fresh air can often help cleanse the mind.

Given that thought, I suppose your attending the sight in person could have many benefits for you.

[cotswoldsman]

And very difficult for anyone coming round the bend to see what is coming the other way

[Naughty Cal]

Ah well if it looks ok on Google earth then it must be ok was that picture taken before or after the breach. Does Google earth give the depth of the off side? It makes a difference because had you been there you would firstly know it is not possible to breast up and leave room for any deep drafted boat to pass and almost impossible for a non deep drafted boat

I refer you to post 80.

 

You are a classic example.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[cotswoldsman]

I refer you to post 80.

 

You are a classic example.

On phone so do not have post numbers does post 80 widen the canal

[Naughty Cal]

On phone so do not have post numbers does post 80 widen the canal

Here you go then

 

"Unfortunately it's an increasing trend on the forum lately that some members think your opinion on a subject only counts on the basis you are posting on a subject from 'personal experience' of something.

 

So for example you can hold a view on continuous cruising if you yourself are a continuous cruiser or another being you can only hold a valid opinion on any aspect of boating if you actually have a boat.

 

It is of course nonsense, but some continue to pedal it. Given not least as you rightly point out the actions of one type of boater impacts on all users of the waterways. Additionally boaters are clearly not CRT's only priority, they see the users of the waterways in a much wider context particularly since their establishment they have obligations that stretch wider than just CCers or even boating alone. So if individuals on here are not particularly interested in the views of the wider waterways user base that is their loss.

 

The only thing it does achieve is cause hostility, resentment and division between categories of boater and waterways users too, if that is what they wish to achieve then if they keep on I'm sure it will only get worse."

 

Post 80. Sound familiar?

[jenlyn]

On phone so do not have post numbers does post 80 widen the canal

Depends if he jumped in or not. Worth a try I suppose.

[cotswoldsman]

Here you go then

 

"Unfortunately it's an increasing trend on the forum lately that some members think your opinion on a subject only counts on the basis you are posting on a subject from 'personal experience' of something.

 

So for example you can hold a view on continuous cruising if you yourself are a continuous cruiser or another being you can only hold a valid opinion on any aspect of boating if you actually have a boat.

 

It is of course nonsense, but some continue to pedal it. Given not least as you rightly point out the actions of one type of boater impacts on all users of the waterways. Additionally boaters are clearly not CRT's only priority, they see the users of the waterways in a much wider context particularly since their establishment they have obligations that stretch wider than just CCers or even boating alone. So if individuals on here are not particularly interested in the views of the wider waterways user base that is their loss.

 

The only thing it does achieve is cause hostility, resentment and division between categories of boater and waterways users too, if that is what they wish to achieve then if they keep on I'm sure it will only get worse."

 

Post 80. Sound familiar?

Nope completely different you said Stan and myself could have breasted up and freed up a space. In this case had you been there you would not have made such a stupid statement. Would be a bit like saying myself and Stan could share the 3rd lock going up the Rochdale Canal Edited May 5, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Mike Todd]

I do actually agree with you on that, but CRT have now confused the issue by bringing in a non set distance.

Even though the law clearly indicates there is no such distance to comply with, I do believe CRT could, and should have come up with something a little less muddled.

Seems quite clear: under the limit and you stand a good chance of being prioritised for enforcement action. Over that limit, but not by much, you take your chances but you do so with authority from CRT that you are legitimate.

 

I think this is a good post and hits the nail on the head. I have always been of the school that said if you need to ask then your intention is to extract the urine but of late now that CART are policing it which I think is correct as in the past nothing was done but we now need clarity as to what ccing is. It is impossible to have a rule that no one knows what it is as it is untenable and cannot be policed fairly to all parties concerned. No I dont realy want a set distance as again that would be very hard to administer but to tell boaters they are not complying with a rule that they dont understand is ludicrous. I have always beleived that ccing means travelling a hell of a lot of the network but not necesarily in a hurry, I dont think it was brought into being for people who basicaly live and work in one spot but the trouble with the 95 act which was not in legislation when I became a liveaboard it is far too ambiguous so panders to pee takers but is not helpful to those who simply want to comply as what the hell do they comply with. New and non ambiguous legislation is needed but doubt it will ever happen.

 

Tim

Beware what you ask for: if CRT were forced to set a limit it may well be a lopt higher than their initial priority for non or almost non movers. Much better to have some ambiguity or leeway.

[churchward]

Unfortunately it's an increasing trend on the forum lately that some members think your opinion on a subject only counts on the basis you are posting on a subject from 'personal experience' of something.

 

So for example you can hold a view on continuous cruising if you yourself are a continuous cruiser or another being you can only hold a valid opinion on any aspect of boating if you actually have a boat.

 

It is of course nonsense, but some continue to pedal it. Given not least as you rightly point out the actions of one type of boater impacts on all users of the waterways. Additionally boaters are clearly not CRT's only priority, they see the users of the waterways in a much wider context particularly since their establishment they have obligations that stretch wider than just CCers or even boating alone. So if individuals on here are not particularly interested in the views of the wider waterways user base that is their loss.

 

The only thing it does achieve is cause hostility, resentment and division between categories of boater and waterways users too, if that is what they wish to achieve then if they keep on I'm sure it will only get worse.

I quite agree. There are no reasons for anyone not to join in a discussion on here regardless of personal circumstances we are all coming at it from our own personal experiences. Such statements are tactics to close down a discussion and demean the other poster, create controversy or be divisive or all the above. Unfortunately there are a vocal few that are only here for such hostilities and create them.

 

I find it increasingly sad that this forum is becoming so politicised and divisive rather than what it used to be.

[bassplayer]

 

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.

So I say a few, then you say SOME in capitals...I kind of lost interest after that...lol

[onionbargee]

You cannot have "interpreted " rules when you are dealing with potential enforcement action, please take a moment to think about what you would do if CRT refused to renew your licence ?

 

The rules have to be clear and simple, and based on reality, rather than a decades out of date canal act. Without that act theres no real reason to have boats shuffling around ad infinitum.

[mayalld]

So I say a few, then you say SOME in capitals...I kind of lost interest after that...lol

A few, some.

 

Or in other words "not many"

 

So the forum is, in general, not anti-CCer

[bassplayer]

A few, some.

 

Or in other words "not many"

 

So the forum is, in general, not anti-CCer

Agreed Dave...but a few/some succeed in winding me up. It's not easy being paranoid you know!

[Alan de Enfield]

Agreed Dave...but a few/some succeed in winding me up. It's not easy being paranoid you know!

 

Remember - just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you - they probably are !

[RLWP]

 

Remember - just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you - they probably are !

 

<Sssshh, I have him in my sights now - don't scare him off>

 

 

Richard

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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.

I would suggest you apply for a 'rivers only' licence and, if needed, a short term licence to enable you to get the boat onto the Lea.

 

This has the advantage of limiting your potential 'range' and also saves you money. If you apply for a 'standard licence' then the Trust might expect a greater 'range'.

 

Obviously, the Trust can not expect you to have a 'range' greater than your licence allows. However, I would suggest that in your first year you keep some photographic evidence that your boat has visited the extremities allowed by your licence.

 

Of course, the Trust might move away from enforcement on 'range' and back to 'zones' ...

[bassplayer]

 

Remember - just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you - they probably are !

I suppose if that was true, I could take delight in knowing I'm onto soneth£&@...pfffff...

[RLWP]

Curses, only winged him

 

Richard