Enforcement

[bassplayer]

If there was no enforcement no one would buy a license, would you give CRT £900 if it was voluntary?

That's different and easier to manage. I'm talking about this nonsense of making boats move further and more often. I'm talking about the increasing number of restrictive signs. I wasn't talking about licence fees.

[bassplayer]

You can see from this forum and others the problem of CMers is a constant nagging cancer. If I was on CRT, I'm sure it would begin to get under my skin too.

 

No, all I see is a few nagging cancers who unfortunately seem to have a lot of influence over CRT.

[Dave Clinton]

If RFID readers were installed to monitor boats they would soon be removed/destroyed by those that feel strongly about being tracked.

 

or even surrounded by a metal box.....

 

hang on...

[Jess--]

If you keep a boat in one place and travel a couple of miles to work or the shop and back everyday would that constitute bone fide navigation? I think it would. So the question then is do you have a 'right to keep your boat' in one place? In CRT opinion only if you have a mooring. But if you accept the distance argument above constitutes bone fide navigation then why not be allowed to moor in different places if not exceeding the stated mooring period, even if they are near each other.

 

Maybe it should be like cars, where you pay the road fund duty and this then gives you the right to park anywhere subject to restrictions - yellow lines etc. In busy places, this is further limited by no return within xx hours or even residents parking permits only, though residents parking permits don't guarantee a space, just a right to park if one is available.

 

Those that do not want to keep moving the boat can still have a mooring.

 

The law I think refers to bone fide navigation which CRT would like to interpret as cruising, which is not really the same thing at all, and until the law is made clear, there can only be friction.

moving a boat from one location and back every day sounds very much like extreme bridge hopping to me.

an obvious flaw in your plan is if the area you would be moving from / to each day is checked each day / week etc at the same time of day your boat would always be there (allowing CRT to make the assumption that it had never moved).

 

If I am understanding what CRT are looking for it would be better described as onward travel rather than continuous cruising

[Paul C]

If RFID readers were installed to monitor boats they would soon be removed/destroyed by those that feel strongly about being tracked.

 

IF they were introduced (they won't be though) there would need to be some kind of legislative framework concering the requirement to fit one, penalty if tampered with/removed etc. IF they were going to introduce more legislation regarding CCing (they won't be) I imagine CRT would use it as an opportunity to go far further than minor tweaking to allow RFIDs/similar. Be careful what you wish for etc (having said that, there won't be any new legislation, so it doesn't really matter).

[Jess--]

 

or even surrounded by a metal box.....

 

hang on...

that's the reason I would rule out GPS tracking

 

RFID tags can be added into something flat that could be required to be on display on a boat (usually in a window), a perfect example would be the license.

[Dave Clinton]

moving a boat from one location and back every day sounds very much like extreme bridge hopping to me.

an obvious flaw in your plan is if the area you would be moving from / to each day is checked each day / week etc at the same time of day your boat would always be there (allowing CRT to make the assumption that it had never moved).

 

If I am understanding what CRT are looking for it would be better described as onward travel rather than continuous cruising

 

"extreme bridge hopping" - in one fell swoop the Daily Mail aka CWDF has another pejoration.

 

Pray tell me, where exactly is your extreme bridge hopping proscribed by law?

that's the reason I would rule out GPS tracking

 

RFID tags can be added into something flat that could be required to be on display on a boat (usually in a window), a perfect example would be the license.

 

And what's to stop me jumping on my bike with my license and taking it for a stroll?

 

What amuses me about these discussions is how quickly they descend to the ridiculous, without any awareness of what they are trying to achieve or what crimes (I shall have another little chuckle over 'extreme bridge hopping") they are designed to prevent.

 

The reason there is an enforcement department is to ensure, rightly, that licenses are paid. End of. The rest is just stuff they made up to inflate their sense of slef-importance.

 

Otherwise why not tackle the thing that really affects the quality of boating - generator use at night?

I'm running with this;

 

"Extreme bridge hopping" has the image of a pimped pogo stick in the same way "continuous cruising" brings to mind the Flying Dutchman.

 

Or to return to the real world, empty phrases conceived from people who have all intelligence sucked by a diet of TV and tabloids to the point at which they can't look outside their tunnel vision to see reality.

[Jess--]

I'm glad you got a chuckle from extreme bridge hopping comment, that's how it was intended to be taken.

 

With regards to the tech side of things I'm really just thinking out loud here, I work with tech systems most days so viewed it as something that would be an interesting system to design so that it would work by gathering the minimum of information.

 

obviously there will be flaws in any system like the taking my license for a bike ride example but for the most part I would think that a system that roughly tracked boats around the network would work well for boaters and CRT assuming the system would give access to view your own records since it would give both parties access to the same data.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Jess--

[bassplayer]

 

IF they were introduced (they won't be though) there would need to be some kind of legislative framework concering the requirement to fit one, penalty if tampered with/removed etc. IF they were going to introduce more legislation regarding CCing (they won't be) I imagine CRT would use it as an opportunity to go far further than minor tweaking to allow RFIDs/similar. Be careful what you wish for etc (having said that, there won't be any new legislation, so it doesn't really matter).

I just don't get how making more boats move, more often, and further, helps any of us boaters or CRT.

 

For the very few people who are actually prepared to live on a boat and want to stay in the same place, make it official. Use benefits to pay for the mooring if applicable.

[Delta9]

 

IF they were introduced (they won't be though) there would need to be some kind of legislative framework concering the requirement to fit one, penalty if tampered with/removed etc.

I was referring to readers at choke points not chips on boats.

[MtB]

To me, 'extreme bridge hopping' would be un-mooring, cruising through the bridge hole, then mooring up on the other side of the bridge...

[Dave Clinton]

I just don't get how making more boats move, more often, and further, helps any of us boaters or CRT.

 

For the very few people who are actually prepared to live on a boat and want to stay in the same place, make it official. Use benefits to pay for the mooring if applicable.

 

Exactly this. I have always been firmly of the opinion that the waterways are owned by all and if there is a sizeable proportion that want to use them in a certain way that causes no damage to other people or the infrastructure it is CRT's job to do everything they can to facilitate this.

To me, 'extreme bridge hopping' would be un-mooring, cruising through the bridge hole, then mooring up on the other side of the bridge...

 

through the bridge hole? that's not very extreme. At the least it should be around it.

[Tony Dunkley]

If you keep a boat in one place and travel a couple of miles to work or the shop and back everyday would that constitute bone fide navigation? I think it would. So the question then is do you have a 'right to keep your boat' in one place? In CRT opinion only if you have a mooring. But if you accept the distance argument above constitutes bone fide navigation then why not be allowed to moor in different places if not exceeding the stated mooring period, even if they are near each other.

 

Maybe it should be like cars, where you pay the road fund duty and this then gives you the right to park anywhere subject to restrictions - yellow lines etc. In busy places, this is further limited by no return within xx hours or even residents parking permits only, though residents parking permits don't guarantee a space, just a right to park if one is available.

 

Those that do not want to keep moving the boat can still have a mooring.

 

The law I think refers to bone fide navigation which CRT would like to interpret as cruising, which is not really the same thing at all, and until the law is made clear, there can only be friction.

 

If it was the boat that was the means of transport, then I would say that does constitute being used 'bona fide for navigation'. The movements of the boat in question certainly pass the ' purpose of the journey' test that has been introduced into proceedings by Counsel for BW/C&RT and applied, or alluded to, by Judges. The boat is leaving and returning to one place with a frequency far exceeding that required by law, and is fulfilling the requirements of the 1995 Act for boats without a mooring. The law is in fact very clear on this matter, and it is only C&RT who seek to make it unclear.

[Rich]

 

 

Or to return to the real world, empty phrases conceived from people who have all intelligence sucked by a diet of TV and tabloids to the point at which they can't look outside their tunnel vision to see reality.

In view of your use of the words "End of." I find the above rather amusing. Innit?

[carlt]

Would these GPS or RFID snooping devices be capable of recording intent as well as distance?

Edited June 22, 2015 by carlt

[billS]

 

 

through the bridge hole? that's not very extreme. At the least it should be around it.

 

Over it would be extreme - and literal...

[cotswoldsman]

Would these GPS or RFID snooping devices be capable of recording intent as well as distance?

I think they are working on something to wire to the head for the intent bit.

[Delta9]

Brain scans at choke points. Carried out by volunteers of course.

[starman]

I just don't get how making more boats move, more often, and further, helps any of us boaters or CRT.

 

For the very few people who are actually prepared to live on a boat and want to stay in the same place, make it official. Use benefits to pay for the mooring if applicable.

I think the argument would be that those who pay for a bank side mooring would say 'why bother' and thus CRT loses income

[Delta9]

I think the argument would be that those who pay for a bank side mooring would say 'why bother' and thus CRT loses income

That might encourage CRT to make their online moorings more appealing

[bassplayer]

I think the argument would be that those who pay for a bank side mooring would say 'why bother' and thus CRT loses income

I suppose that depends whether CRT charged a sensible bank side mooring fee. I think the winter mooring fees were/are too high. Some boaters got a better 'normal' mooring with facilities and better access at a lower price. It's all about not taking the P again.

[b0atman]

If RFID readers were installed to monitor boats they would soon be removed/destroyed by those that feel strongly about being tracked.

 

Would this be the same people who remove mooring time labels from the posts.

[Delta9]

Maybe

[NigelMoore]

The main thesis of you argument appears to be "it's too difficult / expensive to enforce the byelaws . . .

 

CaRT actually expand on that a little [bearing in mind that the general pleasure boat licences are those enforceable under the relevant byelaw sanction, whereas the pleasure boat certificates can be enforced through the specific sanctions under the 1971 Act.]

 

As a foundation to the argument, they pretend that actions against non licence payers are limited to purely “monetary action”. That is not true of course, there can be the accompanying criminal records on a par with every traffic offence conviction, as well as the record of a CCJ; there are the court costs imposed, and there are the fines levied. It is on top of all that that CaRT on successful prosecution obtain the court’s order for payment, with interest, and whatever other requirement there may be outstanding in order to obtain the licence, and so comply with the byelaw.

 

[it is notable as a curiosity that some more enlightened County Court judges have provided time for such re-payment of sums owed and for achieving compliance with licence requirements, in lieu of blanket approval of summary s.8 removal.]

 

BUT – on the [false] premise that pursuing the civil debt owed is all that is involved in prosecuting the byelaw offence, CaRT argue:

 

1. At the end of the process, having recovered the sum owed, the boat remains unlicensed;

 

2. the consequence of such action is that the boater succeeds in paying in arrears as opposed to in advance, thereby obtaining an advantage over other boaters as well as depriving the Trust of monies due to it;

 

3. a further consequence of such action is the disproportionate requirement of the Trust to seek payment of monetary sums, potentially on a frequent basis; and

 

4. a yet further consequence of such action is that the boater and the applicable vessel will not have agreed to the numerous terms and conditions.

[b0atman]

that's the reason I would rule out GPS tracking

 

RFID tags can be added into something flat that could be required to be on display on a boat (usually in a window), a perfect example would be the license.

I use GPS tracking on my phone inside this metal box and it locates me for local weather information and local pubs restaurants etc with mileage from my location.