Jump to content

CART Refusing to licence boats

Dovetail

By Dovetail
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

ditchcrawler Veteran II

ditchcrawlerDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

 

That would be an interesting idea, and I would be delighted to discuss the practicalities of it with you.

 

Clearly, as Home Moorers and CCers pay the same price for licences, they would each get the same number of inclusive overnight mooring tokens, and then have to buy more if they needed them

400 tokens per boat.

 

Mooring to the towpath = 1 token per night

Mooring to a 8-14 day VM = 2 tokens per night

Mooring to a 5-7 day VM = 3 tokens per night

Mooring to a 2-4 day VM = 4 tokens per night

Mooring to a 24 hour VM = 5 tokens per night

Mooring beyond the permitted time = 10 tokens for the first 24 hours, and 20 tokens for each additional 24 hours.

 

 

Additional tokens £5 each.

 

I don't think it would work, but let us discuss it.

 

Ah, right.

 

So, the problem isn't that a significant number of people are signing up for one thing and then not actually keeping their end of the bargain.

 

It's all about the nasty people who actually point out that they are doing it.

I would swing it the other way 1 for a 24hr mooring and 5 for a 14 day mooring, that would keep boats moving even more as you could moor for a fortnight on 14 different moorings for 14 tokens or a fortnight in one place for 70 tokens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

It may be perceived problem about significance but it is also equality. If I pay for a mooring in Fradley and you tootle up, moor and don't pay, is that fair on me?

So what are you paying for? A guaranteed mooring where you don't have to move your boat every 14 days to somewhere less convenient or local maybe?

 

If you aren't worried about the above benefits maybe CC'ing might be a better choice for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b0atman Veteran

b0atman

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

No, it's that the ''problem'' is perceived by some to be significant.

 

Keith

 

it is when they cm on visitor moorings and even waterpoints not much of a problem when the stayed in the rural areas

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

The question is equality and about cmers v those who pay for moorings, dodge as much as you like but you can see the inequality.

I see you have now slipped in the CM'er bit. Well most CM'ers I come across moor well out of the way of VM's and waterpoints and don't personally cause me jealousy or greif. At the end of the day though some are technically breaking the law (14 days).

 

 

Why is it I see very few real examples where boaters have been directly affected by CM'ers or even CC'ers? It's all generalisation based on few facts.

 

This is the kind of rubbish causing CRT to run around in circles wasting our money on unnecessary enforcement. This is the kind of rubbish causing honest boaters to worry whether they are breaking rules or incorrectly get accused of breaking rules.

 

If anyone gets off on policing become a member of the police force.

 

(the last 3 paragraphs weren't directed at you personally NB Lola)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mango Experienced

mango

Posted
Posted

I see you have now slipped in the CM'er bit. Well most CM'ers I come across moor well out of the way of VM's and waterpoints and don't personally cause me jealousy or greif. At the end of the day though some are technically breaking the law (14 days).

 

 

Why is it I see very few real examples where boaters have been directly affected by CM'ers or even CC'ers? It's all generalisation based on few facts.

 

This is the kind of rubbish causing CRT to run around in circles wasting our money on unnecessary enforcement. This is the kind of rubbish causing honest boaters to worry whether they are breaking rules or incorrectly get accused of breaking rules.

 

If anyone gets off on policing become a member of the police force.

 

(the last 3 paragraphs weren't directed at you personally NB Lola)

In buying a licence they have agreed to abide by the rules. What suits you or me does not really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John V Veteran

John V

Posted
Posted

although it is now a while since I passed through London the problems with bankside shufflers masquerading as CCers seems to be predominantly in metropolitan areas with parts of London being probably the worst case. The cry seems to go up that these areas are desperately short of water points, waste and elsan disposal etc etc.

 

Why should CRT add more of these facilities at great expense when they are perfectly adequate for transient boaters? It's not good enough to say "they pay their license" as the facilities are adequate IF they were obeying the terms of their license OR had a mooring where these things are provided.

 

So in answer to the question this is why the terms and conditions need to be enforced. Otherwise money that should be spent on maintenance of the whole system will get funnelled into a few areas for the benefit those who are not playing fair

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
abraxus Collaborator

abraxus

Posted
Posted (edited)

First let me stress this is a personal view of how I see the moral side of the argument

 

If your cruising pattern is such that you stay within an area that a boat would, if it was only used for days/weekends out throughout the license period then you should have a mooring.

If you cover an area such that it would not be possible to return to a fixed spot, with this or similar pattern of movement then you needn't.

That makes perfect sense to me, and is how I understand the moral side of it. It's a far better way of defining it than trying to do so by arbitrary distance requirements, which can potentially, and unfairly, penalise and cause unnecessary stress to continuous cruisers.

Edited by abraxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
abraxus Collaborator

abraxus

Posted
Posted (edited)

Isn't this what CRT are trying to do by specifying the idea of a range of miles?

It may be what CRT are trying to do, but specifying a range of miles seems to be an inherently flawed method of trying to achieve what John V neatly described.

 

In my opinion, by specifying a range of miles, all you do is put an unnecessary burden on continuous cruisers, whilst simultaneously giving continuous moorers a minimum target to hit to achieve their aim. The former just want to cruise, without being told how far and for how long, which they should rightly be allowed to do, and so a mileage range unfairly inconveniences them. Whereas the latter want to stay put, and a mileage range tells them how best to do it.

 

It might have seemed a good idea on paper, for a nanosecond. However, the merest amount of logical examination shows that it's potentially the worst of both worlds, as it inconveniences the customers you want to support, whilst enabling those you don't.

 

At least that's how I see it.

Edited by abraxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

It may be what CRT are trying to do, but specifying a range of miles seems to be an inherently flawed method of trying to achieve what John V neatly described.

 

In my opinion, by specifying a range of miles, all you do is put an unnecessary burden on continuous cruisers, whilst simultaneously giving continuous moorers a minimum target to hit to achieve their aim. The former just want to cruise, without being told how far and for how long, which they should rightly be allowed to do, and so a mileage range unfairly inconveniences them. Whereas the latter want to stay put, and a mileage range tells them how best to do it.

 

It might have seemed a good idea on paper, for a nanosecond. However, the merest amount of logical examination shows that it's potentially the worst of both worlds, as it inconveniences the customers you want to support, whilst enabling those you don't.

 

At least that's how I see it.

So is there any way at all that both objectives (allowing CCers to CC as they want and moving CMers as CRT seem to want) can be achieved? Personally I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NilesMI Community Regular

NilesMI

Posted
Posted

So is there any way at all that both objectives (allowing CCers to CC as they want and moving CMers as CRT seem to want) can be achieved? Personally I doubt it.

 

There is a genuine issue about what is meant by using the boat, bona fide, for navigation. My understanding is that "use, for navigation" cannot be determined solely by looking at the distance travelled in a particular period, but also the purpose of the travel.

 

Of course CRT want to try to make it simply a matter of range or distance travelled, as that is something which they can hope to measure.

 

As I see it the thing which distinguishes a CM-er from a CC-er, is that in the case of the former, the sole, or primary purpose of moving the boat is to ensure it does not remain in the same place, whereas the latter may not always move the boat very far or fast, but has an underlying motive for moving from place to place. A genuine purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ange Veteran

Ange

Posted
Posted (edited)

It may be what CRT are trying to do, but specifying a range of miles seems to be an inherently flawed method of trying to achieve what John V neatly described.

 

In my opinion, by specifying a range of miles, all you do is put an unnecessary burden on continuous cruisers, whilst simultaneously giving continuous moorers a minimum target to hit to achieve their aim. The former just want to cruise, without being told how far and for how long, which they should rightly be allowed to do, and so a mileage range unfairly inconveniences them. Whereas the latter want to stay put, and a mileage range tells them how best to do it.

 

It might have seemed a good idea on paper, for a nanosecond. However, the merest amount of logical examination shows that it's potentially the worst of both worlds, as it inconveniences the customers you want to support, whilst enabling those you don't.

 

At least that's how I see it.

Totally agree with this post. It's a bugger isn't it!

 

We're in the former brigade, travelling far and wide but sometimes wanting to dither a while in one area. A permanent mooring is totally inappropriate for us - we only dither in one area for a while - we moved aboard so we could experience different parts of the country. We cruised hundreds of miles in our first few years then realised we'd not seen so much of the amazing country we'd passed through, so then got out our pink maps, put on our walking boots and thoroughly explored every place we visited - which meant we only cruised about 100 miles that year but didn't break any rules.

Edited by Ange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.