Very confused over CC rules

[John V]

Goes without saying really. If you upset people they lose respect.

 

I suppose this leads onto who started it? Was it CM'ers or was it a desire by a few individuals to use them as an excuse to cleanse the waterways of 'undesirables'.

 

BTW, I don't have an answer.

 

Ahhh !............ I should have inserted the word "navigation" before "system"

[bassplayer]

 

Yes, I can see that some people are unhappy.

 

I can also see that in many cases, the people who are unhappiest are the same people who want to not obey the rules.

 

They aren't simply unhappy about the data collection and being asked for their own data. That is more a proxy for their unhappiness

 

They are actually unhappy that the rules are being enforced, and their lack of joy is because they are well aware that if CRT have a workable solution to actually knowing whether they cruise or not, enforcement of the rules they want to go away will be possible.

I suppose time will tell Dave.

 

In case anyone was wondering, I do try to abide by CRT's T&C's and signage and, touch wood, I've not had any warnings yet. It doesn't mean to say I have to agree though.

 

 

I guess law abiding boaters will just have to hope CRT's dodgy logging system doesn't affect us directly one day. I'm sure you'd be the first onto CRT if it was you.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Goes without saying really. If you upset people they lose respect.

I suppose this leads onto who started it? Was it CM'ers or was it a desire by a few individuals to use them as an excuse to cleanse the waterways of 'undesirables'.

BTW, I don't have an answer.

... or was it a navigation authority who failed to get an Act passed that required everybody to have a home mooring.

[NilesMI]

 

 

As I see it, the process is (or perhaps should be);

• Does CRT sighting data show compliance? If yes, accept that movement is OK, and stop.
• Ask boater to supplement CRT data with details of their movements.
• If boater data indicates sufficient movement, and is consistent with CRT observations of the boat, AND observations at the claimed locations, accept that movement is OK, and stop.
• If boater data is inconsistent with CRT data (i.e. boater claims to have been in one location, when CRT have observed them elsewhere at that time, or boater claims to have been somewhere, but that location was logged by CRT that day and the boat wasn't logged), ask boater for evidence.

 

 

Given that sightings appear to be sporadic, just because there are insufficient sightings to show that a boat has been moving enough, that does not mean that it hasn't been moving enough.

 

I would say you need to ammend stage one of your suggested process to read: "Does CRT sighting data show non-compliance? If no, accept that movement is OK, and stop."

 

I don't have a problem with CRT chasing licencees who, on the face of it, are not complying with the rules.

 

I do have a problem with licencees who are legitimatly going about their boating business, being asked for logs, photos, GPS tracking and whatever else, just because CRT's boat spotting and recording process isn't up to the job.

[bassplayer]

 

Ahhh !............ I should have inserted the word "navigation" before "system"

Lets hope the navigation is still useable in a few years then..and it's not just CM'ers you need to worry about...

... or was it a navigation authority who failed to get an Act passed that required everybody to have a home mooring.

Maybe I'm not up on the history, did they try after the 1995 act?

[John V]

Lets hope the navigation is still useable in a few years then..and it's not just CM'ers you need to worry about...

 

I am pretty sure our hope is the same, we just have different views on what might cause it not to be

[bassplayer]

 

I am pretty sure our hope is the same, we just have different views on what might cause it not to be

Maybe it's both extremes, it usually is when everyone in the middle is affected.

[NigelMoore]

Maybe I'm not up on the history, did they try after the 1995 act?

 

No.

 

There were other clauses they failed to get into the 1995 Act, which they made a start on incorporating into Byelaws instead, but not only has that been on hold for years, no secondary legislation [which is all that CaRT can promote] could hope to overturn primary legislation. At least, I don’t think it could – and certainly it has not been attempted in the draft Byelaws. I seriously doubt it would be worth the effort even if possible.

[mayalld]

 

Given that sightings appear to be sporadic, just because there are insufficient sightings to show that a boat has been moving enough, that does not mean that it hasn't been moving enough.

 

I would say you need to ammend stage one of your suggested process to read: "Does CRT sighting data show non-compliance? If no, accept that movement is OK, and stop."

 

I don't have a problem with CRT chasing licencees who, on the face of it, are not complying with the rules.

 

I do have a problem with licencees who are legitimatly going about their boating business, being asked for logs, photos, GPS tracking and whatever else, just because CRT's boat spotting and recording process isn't up to the job.

 

As I have said before;

 

At the time of licence renewal, it is the boater's responsibility to satisfy the board that they will comply with the term of the licence.

 

It is not the board's responsibility to satisfy itself.

 

If the board has tracking systems that will enable it to do this on behalf of the boater in some cases, then that is great for those that it assists.

 

It doesn't mean that those they can't assist are exempt from satisfying them.

[NilesMI]

 

As I have said before;

 

At the time of licence renewal, it is the boater's responsibility to satisfy the board that they will comply with the term of the licence.

 

It is not the board's responsibility to satisfy itself.

 

If the board has tracking systems that will enable it to do this on behalf of the boater in some cases, then that is great for those that it assists.

 

It doesn't mean that those they can't assist are exempt from satisfying them.

 

And as I have said before... Rather what I have asked you before, but you haven't replied... what does the licencee with an existing licence have to do to satisfy the trust, that they didn't have to do to satisfy the trust at first application?

 

All that has changed is that the boat has been used and the trust has monitored its use. If the trust has detected a non-compliance with the rules, it has grounds to cancel or not to renew the licence. But in the absence of any non-compliance being detected, what grounds can there be for the board not to be satisfied?

 

I can see why the trust would like licencees to have to prove compliance and to be denied a licence if they can't or won't. It reduces the need for the trust to have a reliable system for checking compliance.

[mayalld]

 

And as I have said before... Rather what I have asked you before, but you haven't replied... what does the licencee with an existing licence have to do to satisfy the trust, that they didn't have to do to satisfy the trust at first application?

 

All that has changed is that the boat has been used and the trust has monitored its use. If the trust has detected a non-compliance with the rules, it has grounds to cancel or not to renew the licence. But in the absence of any non-compliance being detected, what grounds can there be for the board not to be satisfied?

 

Where an applicant is applying for a first licence, the trust has to take a pragmatic view as to what it can demand in terms of being satisfied.

 

It would be unreasonable to demand that a new boater should be asked to demonstrate that they have experience of actually complying with the rules. There is no other way than to take it on trust. (Actually, they could ask new boaters a series of questions about their intentions, and their understanding)

 

Where the applicant is applying for a subsequent licence, it is reasonable to take into account whether the boater can show that they are able to obey the rules

[carlt]

(Actually, they could ask new boaters a series of questions about their intentions, and their understanding)

A sort of boater's citizenship test?

[bassplayer]

A sort of boater's citizenship test?

'Do you intend to store logs in top of your boat?'

 

'Do you intend to leave your brass unpolished?'

 

'Do you intend to tip your poo into the canal?'

 

Yep, I can see it working...

[Laurence Hogg]

 

Where an applicant is applying for a first licence, the trust has to take a pragmatic view as to what it can demand in terms of being satisfied.

 

It would be unreasonable to demand that a new boater should be asked to demonstrate that they have experience of actually complying with the rules. There is no other way than to take it on trust. (Actually, they could ask new boaters a series of questions about their intentions, and their understanding)

 

Where the applicant is applying for a subsequent licence, it is reasonable to take into account whether the boater can show that they are able to obey the rules

 

I totally agree with this, a form of competency test would be suitable.

Edit to add, also a general basic knowledge test if a CC licence is involved.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[carlt]

'Do you intend to store logs in top of your boat?'

 

'Do you intend to leave your brass unpolished?'

 

'Do you intend to tip your poo into the canal?'

 

Yep, I can see it working...

and so it begins...

[TheBiscuits]

A sort of boater's citizenship test?

 

 

"I pledge allegiance to the Burgee of the Canal and River Trust and to the cyclists for which it stands; one Navigation indistinguishable with liberty and justice for all."

 

That's a sobering thought.

[bassplayer]

 

I totally agree with this, a form of competency test would be suitable.

Edit to add, also a general basic knowledge test if a CC licence is involved.

Do I get grandad rights?