Enforcement

[Delta9]

 

You would not necessarily even be able to identify an RFID reader if the installer chose to hide or disguise it. the device could be hidden completely out of site inside the woodwork of a lock gate, inside water level monitoring apparatus or even inside water and elsan points.

If the readers were hidden, those that strongly object to being tracked would use other methods to sabotage the system.

[abraxus]

That would depend on your opinion as to what the spirit of the law actually is.

 

I would think the spirit (and even the letter) of the law, is reasonably clear, as I suspect most without a dog in the fight would read it one way. That being that if your primary intention is to remain in one location, and only move occasionally to pump out, get water, or because you have to, then you should get a home mooring; whereas if your intentions are to continually travel around then you don't have to, and simply have to not remain in one place for more than 14 days.

 

The fact that it can be interpreted differently is only because some wish to equate moving sufficiently to meet the requirements as synonymous with bona fide navigation.

 

I think CRT are as much to blame for this, by focussing on time/distance requirements, rather than the intent behind bona fide navigation. However, whilst that may be easy to understand in principle, it's harder to define in a way that can be legislated/enforced.

[Jess--]

If the readers were hidden, those that strongly object to being tracked would use other methods to sabotage the system.

sabotaging a system would benefit no one.

 

 

using a system that automatically logs boats passing various places or entering / leaving the network would give a far more accurate picture of how the whole network is truly being used overall and the data could be used by CRT to make informed decisions about where extra VM's might be needed, where moorings on 48 hour restrictions might be relaxed, where an extra water / elsan point might be placed etc etc.

 

while the system can be used for checking the activity of a single boat the data the system would produce can be used for other purposes which could benefit boaters.

 

of course a system like this would also free up the current volunteers that log boat positions to do other jobs on the network that boaters might see as more useful

[Delta9]

sabotaging a system would benefit no one.

 

It would benefit those that don't want to be tracked.

 

 

using a system that automatically logs boats passing various places or entering / leaving the network would give a far more accurate picture of how the whole network is truly being used overall and the data could be used by CRT to make informed decisions about where extra VM's might be needed, where moorings on 48 hour restrictions might be relaxed, where an extra water / elsan point might be placed etc etc.

 

 

You wouldn't need to track individual boats to do that as you would only need to know how many boats are using each area, not which specific boats. There are cheaper and less intrusive ways to do that.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Delta9

[carlt]

 

I would think the spirit (and even the letter) of the law, is reasonably clear, as I suspect most without a dog in the fight would read it one way.

Well not "having a dog in the fight" (what a horrible expression) but having worked in an enforcement role relying on a far less ambiguous piece of legislation (Highways Act 1980) I can assure you that the relevant sections of the BWA 1995 are extremely unclear in both spirit and letter and, if you have bothered to read the various debates leading up to the Act, you will see just how the "spirit" has been distorted.

 

The BWA is a wishy washy piece of legislation that, through its ambiguity, has led to this current situation.

 

 

 

The fact that it can be interpreted differently is only because some wish to equate moving sufficiently to meet the requirements as synonymous with bona fide navigation.

Your ability to read the minds of others gives you an unfair advantage in this discussion.

[magictime]

 

I would think the spirit (and even the letter) of the law, is reasonably clear, as I suspect most without a dog in the fight would read it one way. That being that if your primary intention is to remain in one location, and only move occasionally to pump out, get water, or because you have to, then you should get a home mooring; whereas if your intentions are to continually travel around then you don't have to, and simply have to not remain in one place for more than 14 days.

 

The fact that it can be interpreted differently is only because some wish to equate moving sufficiently to meet the requirements as synonymous with bona fide navigation.

 

For the record, I don't have a dog in the fight. I used to have a boat with no home mooring, but did several long cruises a year in it as well as many shorter ones, and certainly complied with the guidance. When I buy my next boat, it will again be with the intention of CCing over large distances.

 

Conversely, I've never encountered (significant) problems of the sort 'bridge hoppers' are alleged to cause, perhaps because all my cruising has been done on the northern waterways.

 

My instinct was always to read the law in the way you think most people would be inclined to read it. I still think a case can be made for that interpretation, according to which using one's boat "bona fide for navigation" is a matter of using it for the purpose of travelling around the system (as opposed to using for some other purpose - most obviously, as a home in an area convenient for work commitments etc. - and travelling only as a means to that end). On reflection, however, I also think a case can be made for the interpretation according to which using one's boat "bona fida for navigation" is just a matter of genuinely cruising on one's boat (as opposed to pulling it twenty yards down the towpath, say, or faking a cruising log).

 

Nor do I think the latter interpretation is necessarily the "unnatural" one for someone without a dog in the fight to make. If you took a friend down to the canal in blissful ignorance of this whole debate, pointed at someone piloting a narrowboat, and said "is that bloke genuinely using that boat to navigate along the canal?", the obvious answer would surely be "yes" rather than "I don't know what he's using that boat for - I'm not a mind reader". In that perfectly intuitive sense, then, someone could be said to be using his boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence if, during that time, he regularly used it to make short but "genuine" journeys within (say) a ten-mile stretch.

[abraxus]

Well not "having a dog in the fight" (what a horrible expression) but having worked in an enforcement role relying on a far less ambiguous piece of legislation (Highways Act 1980) I can assure you that the relevant sections of the BWA 1995 are extremely unclear in both spirit and letter and, if you have bothered to read the various debates leading up to the Act, you will see just how the "spirit" has been distorted.

 

The BWA is a wishy washy piece of legislation that, through its ambiguity, has led to this current situation.

 

Your ability to read the minds of others gives you an unfair advantage in this discussion.

 

I agree that it's wishy washy and unclear, but only because there are two sides who wish to interpret it in opposite ways.

 

To the casual observer it appears to imply, if not categorically state, that you need to have a home mooring unless you can satisfy the board that your intention is navigation of the system rather than staying in one place.

 

I'm not reading minds, just the openly expressed views of those who have stated that going to collect water, or meeting the minimum movement requirements, counts as bona fide navigation.

[magictime]

On a bit of a tangent, and with the caveat that of course no one should have to do this if CRT's guidance is indeed based on a misinterpretation of the law, I do sometimes wonder whether CCers with ties to a local area couldn't nonetheless satisfy CRT just by doing the occasional longer cruise when holidays etc. allow. If you were at one end of your normal cruising range on the Friday evening before a bank holiday, say, you could be twenty miles away by Saturday evening, chill out on Sunday and cruise back on Monday. Then on the next bank holiday, same thing but starting at the other end of your cruising range. Then when you have a week or a fortnight off, head off on a longer cruise somewhere. You'd then be enjoying a lot of free boating holidays, and CRT would have much less reason to hassle you and a much weaker case that you weren't using your boat for what they see as genuine or bona fide cruising throughout your licence period. Even a couple of months spent moving in stages along a ten-mile 'home' stretch would be part of a lengthy progressive journey if it were preceded by a weekend's cruise in one direction and followed by a week's cruise in the other (for instance).

 

I'm sure that's exactly what many liveaboards do, of course, and I guess for others it's not always easy for a couple to get time off work at the same time, or desirable to spend holidays on the boat rather than visiting family or whatever.

[sirweste]

A cracking thread, Magictime and Abraxus, ten on ten.

[carlt]

 

 

 

To the casual observer it appears to imply, if not categorically state, that you need to have a home mooring unless you can satisfy the board that your intention is navigation of the system rather than staying in one place.

There is nothing in BWA 1995 that implies, categorically states or even vaguely suggests that you have to navigate the system and CRT have acknowledged this by removing this requirement from the guidelines.

[abraxus]

Nor do I think the latter interpretation is necessarily the "unnatural" one for someone without a dog in the fight to make. If you took a friend down to the canal in blissful ignorance of this whole debate, pointed at someone piloting a narrowboat, and said "is that bloke genuinely using that boat to navigate along the canal?", the obvious answer would surely be "yes" rather than "I don't know what he's using that boat for - I'm not a mind reader". In that perfectly intuitive sense, then, someone could be said to be using his boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence if, during that time, he regularly used it to make short but "genuine" journeys within (say) a ten-mile stretch.

 

That analogy is a little flawed, as if you pointed out to him a boat that was moored, he would say it wasn't navigating along the canal, even though it may be a bona fide navigator who had stopped for lunch.

 

If you give your friend the full picture though, and say that one needs a home mooring if one wishes to stay in one place, and show him two boats, one just passing through, never to be seen again, and another which makes short journeys to the shops/water point, but ultimately keeps returning, which might he reasonably think requires a home mooring?

 

[abraxus]

There is nothing in BWA 1995 that implies, categorically states or even vaguely suggests that you have to navigate the system and CRT have acknowledged this by removing this requirement from the guidelines.

 

A I understand it, BWA 1995 states: "the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation". Which seems to more than just suggest a requirement to navigate. I agree that the extent of any such navigation is not so important, and that it's more about the reason and motivation behind it.

 

The question then is what constiutes "bona fide" navigation, and that's where I believe the ambuity exists. However, the fact that "bona fide" was used, rather than just "navigation", implies that the intent is to travel rather than remain in one place and only move as a necessity.

 

Obviously you can take that as simply my opinion or interpretation, but I think it's supported by the law, as if the point was to allow one to remain in one place, and only make short trips to get water, or when you feel like it, then it would have had no need for a section on mooring requirements, as everyone with a functioning boat, who nips out every now then, would be classed as using their boat for bona fide navigation.

[magictime]

 

That analogy is a little flawed, as if you pointed out to him a boat that was moored, he would say it wasn't navigating along the canal, even though it may be a bona fide navigator who had stopped for lunch.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not making any analogy as far as I can see. I'm just pointing out that if you see someone piloting a boat along the canal, you don't need to have any insight into his motivations in order to see that he is, in a perfectly good and intuitive sense, genuinely or bona fide using that boat for navigation right there and then.

 

 

If you give your friend the full picture though, and say that one needs a home mooring if one wishes to stay in one place, and show him two boats, one just passing through, never to be seen again, and another which makes short journeys to the shops/water point, but ultimately keeps returning, which might he reasonably think requires a home mooring?

 

 

I think we need to be careful here to distinguish between the requirement not to spend more than 14 consecutive nights moored in the same place, and the requirement to use one's boat bona fide for navigation. What you're explaining to your friend there is just that you're not allowed to stay in the same place every night (for more than 14 days running) unless you have an official mooring there. No one disputes that, and of course once this is explained to him, your friend will conclude that the boater who keeps returning to the same spot is on the wrong side of the law and needs to start moving about or get a home mooring. But that doesn't mean your friend will or should change his opinion on whether the boater in question is using his boat "bona fide for navigation" right there and then as he pilots it along the canal.

[b0atman]

So if I am progressing along the canal then surely I should not be clocked as I am not static in that area ?

[abraxus]

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not making any analogy as far as I can see. I'm just pointing out that if you see someone piloting a boat along the canal, you don't need to have any insight into his motivations in order to see that he is, in a perfectly good and intuitive sense, genuinely or bona fide using that boat for navigation right there and then.

 

 

Not really. If you see a man on a park bench, is he using it for a "bona fide" rest, or is he a tramp who intends to live there? It's impossible to say without more information.

 

In effect though it boils down to what the defintion of "bona fide navigating" is.

 

If all it means is to move a boat under its own steam, then your friend has no choice but to conclude that it's bona fide navigation. However, if it means to navigate, solely for the purpose of travel, for its own sake, then your friend would need to know the purpose of the journey in order to draw any conclusion.

 

How would your friend answer this question? If the meaning of bona fide navigation is simply moving a boat under its own steam, regardless of purpose, distance, duration or intent, then what's the point of the mooring requirement in the law? Is that only for broken boats or those which never move at all?

[magictime]

 

Not really. If you see a man on a park bench, is he using it for a "bona fide" rest, or is he a tramp who intends to live there? It's impossible to say without more information.

 

Well, yes. To an observer, a man using a bench to have a rest looks just like a man using that bench to wait for a friend (say). As you suggest, you need more information.

 

If you ask simply whether that man is (genuinely or bona fide) using that bench to sit on, however, the answer is a straightforward "yes". Why he's sitting on it - to rest, to wait for a friend - is then a further question.

 

So yes, this -

 

In effect though it boils down to what the defintion of "bona fide navigating" is.

 

If all it means is to move a boat under its own steam, then your friend has no choice but to conclude that it's bona fide navigation. However, if it means to navigate, solely for the purpose of travel, for its own sake, then your friend would need to know the purpose of the journey in order to draw any conclusion.

 

- is right.

 

Is it the case that, just as someone we see sitting on a bench might or might not be (genuinely or bona fide) using it to rest on, so someone we see piloting a boat from one place to another might or might not be (genuinely or bona fide) using it to navigate?

 

Or is it the case that, just as someone we see with his backside on a bench thereby just is (genuinely or bone fide) using it to sit on, so someone we see piloting a boat from one place to another thereby just is (genuinely or bona fide) using it to navigate?

 

I don't deny that a case can be made for taking the former view, but I maintain that there's nothing unintuitive or unreasonable about taking the latter view (the view taken by someone who thinks "bona fide for navigation" just means something like "genuinely to move by water from one place to another").

 

 

How would your friend answer this question? If the meaning of bona fide navigation is simply moving a boat under its own steam, regardless of purpose, distance, duration or intent, then what's the point of the mooring requirement in the law? Is that only for broken boats or those which never move at all?

 

The point of the mooring requirement, the 14 day rule, is just what it appears to be: to ensure that no boater, with or without a home mooring, adopts a given spot on the public towpath as "his own" for longer than 14 days in a row, and so to ensure that such spots are available for different boaters to make use of at different times. The bona fide navigation requirement on its own could not achieve that, because it would mean a boater could legally use a spot on the public towpath as a quasi-private "home" mooring just so long as he did some out-and-back daytime cruising (to the services, the shops, a picnic/fishing spot, to visit a boating friend, or whatever).

Edited June 24, 2015 by magictime

[Steilsteven]

Bona fide = Good faith, good ( in this instance )= firm, faith = belief, navigation= following a course.

So to comply, one needs to firmly believe one's boat is being used for following a course.

 

It is also necessary for the boat not to remain static for more than fourteen days.

 

That, as I see it, is the law, yes it leaves a great deal of room for abuse and many people have taken advantage of it but, there are also boats without home moorings on the Thames and other waterways where you must have one!

 

Keith

[MtB]

 

 

 

If you ask simply whether that man is (genuinely or bona fide) using that bench to sit on, however, the answer is a straightforward "yes". Why he's sitting on it - to rest, to wait for a friend - is then a further question.

 

 

You missed out the real reason he is sitting on it.

 

To avoid being done for vagrancy for sitting too long on the other bench, across the park...

[Steilsteven]

Greenie for Mike, made me laugh out loud!

[b0atman]

Intersting point up here in 't' north near Stanley ferry overstay is £15 a day.

[sirweste]

I really had never thought of the point raised earlier that it could be argued that someone who moves 10 miles every 14 days on a linear journey (say from London to New Mills) aren't a using the boat bona fide for navigation because they are moving it to avoid the enforcement squad.

 

Therefore it could be argued that someone who moves around the same 25 mile patch, but uses the boat to go to the shops, work, docs etc. is actually using the boat bona fide for navigation and so more within the law than the previous example!

 

Only a judge will settle this one.

[NilesMI]

The judge in the Mayers case pointed out that the Mersey Ferry is a case of a vessel being used, bona fide for navigation, even though it simply moves from one side of the river to the other and back, ad infinitum.

[b0atman]

or being m

 

I really had never thought of the point raised earlier that it could be argued that someone who moves 10 miles every 14 days on a linear journey (say from London to New Mills) aren't a using the boat bona fide for navigation because they are moving it to avoid the enforcement squad.

 

Therefore it could be argued that someone who moves around the same 25 mile patch, but uses the boat to go to the shops, work, docs etc. is actually using the boat bona fide for navigation and so more within the law than the previous example!

 

Only a judge will settle this one.

or being members with terms and conditions

[abraxus]

The point of the mooring requirement, the 14 day rule, is just what it appears to be: to ensure that no boater, with or without a home mooring, adopts a given spot on the public towpath as "his own" for longer than 14 days in a row, and so to ensure that such spots are available for different boaters to make use of at different times. The bona fide navigation requirement on its own could not achieve that, because it would mean a boater could legally use a spot on the public towpath as a quasi-private "home" mooring just so long as he did some out-and-back daytime cruising (to the services, the shops, a picnic/fishing spot, to visit a boating friend, or whatever).

 

Sorry Magictime, I probably wasn't clear. By "mooring requirement", I mean the requirement for a "home mooring", rather than the 14 day rule.

 

Consequently my question is, if bona fide navigation is simply moving a boat under its own steam, regardless of purpose, distance, duration or intent, as you maintain, then what is the point of the home mooring requirement in the law?

 

If one is to interpret things the way you describe, then surely all the law would require is the 14 day rule.

 

Therefore, the fact that they did make the legal requirements to be either a home mooring, or bona fide navigation, suggests that bona fide navigation involves a sufficent extent of travel that would make a home mooring impractical.

[magictime]

 

Sorry Magictime, I probably wasn't clear. By "mooring requirement", I mean the requirement for a "home mooring", rather than the 14 day rule.

 

Consequently my question is, if bona fide navigation is simply moving a boat under its own steam, regardless of purpose, distance, duration or intent, as you maintain, then what is the point of the home mooring requirement in the law?

 

If one is to interpret things the way you describe, then surely all the law would require is the 14 day rule.

 

Therefore, the fact that they did make the legal requirements to be either a home mooring, or bona fide navigation, suggests that bona fide navigation involves a sufficent extent of travel that would make a home mooring impractical.

 

Yes, I did belatedly realise you must have been talking about home moorings!

 

Maybe it's a question of emphasis: the requirement is for a boater without a home mooring to use his boat bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence. Many people are not able or willing to do that, and only use their boat bona fide for navigation a few times a year (sometimes for a few hours, sometimes for a couple of days or weeks), and those people require a home mooring. Other people are in a position to use their boat bona fide for navigation much more frequently and all year round, and those people don't need a home mooring so long as they do use their boat in that way, and also make sure they comply with the 14 day rule.

 

Yes, if they complied with the 14 day rule, they'd arguably be ipso facto complying with the bona fide requirement (because they'd be using their boat to move from one place to another at least once a fortnight), so I can see that there's a lingering question there as to why the bona fide requirement is spelled out on top of the 14 day requirement. Hmm.