Story's a bit mixed up, who won again?

[dmr]

Would it not be as simple as to zone off a canal, from bridge/post/landmark to another bridge/post/landmark is zone A, next zone B and next one zone C, only 14 days are permitted in a zone, then you are not allowed to return to a zone for 28 days, meaning it pushes you into Zone C before you can go back to zone A?

 

So is it ok to move just 58 feet to cross a boundary post?

If one area is a bit busy and you stop just 58 foot short of a boundary post is that an offence?

If you have to backtrack to visit a water tap and its busy are you allowed to stay overnight near the tap before dashing back to the correct zone.

If you need to worry about detailed rules and boundary posts then you are not bona fide navigating, you are moving just enough to stay within the rules....the Davies case!

 

.............Dave

[Chewbacka]

What I understand is there has to be a reason for the navigation which is related to the boat not a need to keep in a given area for work, school etc.

 

So could the following be classified as acceptable reasons - watering the boat - then mooring nearby for 14 day - getting the boat pumped out toilets then mooring nearby for 14 days - replenishing supplies - etc oh going to see this or that site.

No one can really answer your question as the act refers to "bona fide navigation" which the act does not define. There was a legal case, which was intended to clarify, but it did not as the boater stayed too long in one place rather than shuttling back and forth, so was 'got' on that rather than limited movement.

If you want to read the highlights of the judges comment which I hasten to point out was " with the express proviso that this does not form part of the decision." You can here - http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/boat-cases/284-canal-and-river-trust-v-geoffrey-douglas-mayers

[Dave Payne]

But then could bona fide also be i am travelling 10 miles to a pub where i like the ale, then i will be travelling back the other way to another pub that also serves great ale?

 

What counts as bona fide in terms of what is the end destination and the purpose of being there?

[Graham.m]

No one can really answer your question as the act refers to "bona fide navigation" which the act does not define. There was a legal case, which was intended to clarify, but it did not as the boater stayed too long in one place rather than shuttling back and forth, so was 'got' on that rather than limited movement.

If you want to read the highlights of the judges comment which I hasten to point out was " with the express proviso that this does not form part of the decision." You can here - http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/boat-cases/284-canal-and-river-trust-v-geoffrey-douglas-mayers

I know Chewbacka just trying to make the point that it is about what the boat is doing not the needs of the people aboard to stay in place A for work or schools. Although I suppose a case could be made for doing the school run. If someone has enough spare cash to mount the case.

[Jess--]

Would it not be as simple as to zone off a canal, from bridge/post/landmark to another bridge/post/landmark is zone A, next zone B and next one zone C, only 14 days are permitted in a zone, then you are not allowed to return to a zone for 28 days, meaning it pushes you into Zone C before you can go back to zone A?

That is exactly what CRT suggest (that you move from area A to area B then onto area C not back to A) but we have no information as to where the areas start / end, CRT are the only ones who currently know where the areas are and their boundaries.

 

this means that currently you can have 2 boats moving an identical distance over time (using stops of 14 days each) but can end up with one boat being flagged for overstaying while the other is not (because the first boat didn't quite move from area A to Area B on its first move and then moved to Area C and was logged in area A twice and then logged in C, but the second boat moved 100 feet further on its first move and was logged in Area A, B and C

[Dave Payne]

So they know the areas they class as a,b or c but are not willing to share?

 

Is it possible then for someone to take them to court to obtain details of these areas?

[Gordias]

If CaRT were going to provide easy definitions along the lines of these suggestions, they would have done so already. Similarly, if they wanted to use the courts to help define all the ambiguous terms they would have done so.

 

I think it's clear enough why they chose their current approach. It's not a good long-term solution though. IMO the interesting question is what they want to do, and what they can do over the next 8 or 9 years to simplify their recording and enforcement responsibilities.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Gordias

[Graham.m]

IMO the interesting question is what they want to do, and what they can do over the next 8 or 9 years to simplify their recording and enforcement responsibilities.

 

I think CRT do not want to be a housing provider with all the problems that brings. They appear to be quite happy to have a few residential moorings scattered through the system, but see people living on boats as a bar to their main aim which is to run the canals for leisure and pleasure boating with the odd bit of commercial thrown in. I can foresee the day when static CC (for want of a better word) liveaboards will not be permitted at all.

[Jerra]

In my innocence I thought somewhere I had read move from place to place or neighbourhood to neighbourhood. So in Birmingham this might be Edgebaston to Selly Oak to Bourneville and in less populated areas it might be Stone to Barlaston to Trentham.

 

Is this:

 

a. Too simplistic

b. Too difficult to understand and work out.

 

I know the exact boundaries of these places aren't defined but then to me if you need the exact boundaries you are probably wanting to stay as near to one place as possible because of say work and therefore not "bona fide" navigating.

 

With regard to what is wrong with just being allowed to drift backwards and forwards IMO it is a question of degree. Somebody will want to drift up and down in a very small area and if it is a popular area it will become crowded with people all wanting to live by drifting up and down in as small an area as possible, because what they really want is a static waterbound housing estate.

[tidal]

 

In my ideal world the answer is yes you can do this, and if one of those friends is unwell you can stay in that area for six months (with a phone call to CaRT and a short move every 14 days) . What you can't do is stay there for ten years, or stay for three months on a prime visitor mooring.

Its so very simple, its bona fide navigation and reasonable behaviour. Trying to make rules to cope with every eventuality is not realistic, there will always be grey areas and there will always be people who ignore the rules or misinterpret the rules for their own ends.

And sadly there will always be people who will mount a legal challenge to any rules that cause them any inconvenience, more rules will just result in more legal challenges!

 

.................Dave

 

And quite often these people are CaRT

[Chewbacka]

Probably if it was just a couple of dozen people moving short distances to stay in an area then CRT would probably have not bothered about them. But it is more and in areas like London it would rapidly become massive. If they continued to tolerate it then why would anybody pay for a towpath mooring when all they need to do is move the boat a few hundred yards every other weekend, though I have a mooring, if constant mooring was allowed in a limited area I would probably not bother and just keep moving about every couple of weeks. Save the money.

 

How many on this forum would honestly continue to pay for a mooring if it was not required????

 

So C&RT either robustly apply the rules (to be clarified eventually by the courts) or they give up.

The chaos in popular areas and the reduction income would not benefit anyone in the long run if they did give up, so I hope they continue to manage this situation, but they need to do so reasonably.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Chewbacka

[bigcol]

Am I right this guy Jeff done 60 miles cruising

Which is way more that the suggested 20 mile rule estimation re from CRT

So don't know whys they still weren't happy.?

If I'm wrong I apologise, but why does one feel like a target, the hunted when we venture out.

Why do some people have no dealings with CRT whether playing the system or not

But for some when your in their sights, whether cowboy or Indian, you have no chances. Your to fight to prove innocence

No prisoners no boats

 

Last year that's what We were promoted to shufflers, a nuisance to all lol

Hopefully will have early pilgrimages to the three locks, and Gifford next year

Edited December 22, 2015 by bigcol

[Loafer]

Didn't we all used to HAVE to have a mooring, pre-1995?

 

Wasn't the idea of continuous cruising a result of people not being allowed to do it, because they HAD to have a home mooring but didn't WANT to stay in one area all the time?

 

If you WANT to stay in one area all the time, why shouldn't you have to get a mooring?

[Bod]

Am I right this guy Jeff done 60 miles cruising

Which is way more that the suggested 20 mile rule estimation re from CRT

So don't know whys they still weren't happy.?

If I'm wrong I apologise, but why does one feel like a target, the hunted when we venture out.

Why do some people have no dealings with CRT whether playing the system or not

But for some when your in their sights, whether cowboy or Indian, you have no chances. Your to fight to prove innocence

No prisoners no boats

 

Last year that's what We were promoted to shufflers, a nuisance to all lol

Hopefully will have early pilgrimages to the three locks, and Gifford next year

 

C&RT weren't happy with the number/locations the boat was logged at.

When asked what was wrong, the case was dropped.

 

The real problem is with the boat logging system, not being fit for purpose, and not being properly understood by those trying to use it.

 

Bod

[Jerra]

Didn't we all used to HAVE to have a mooring, pre-1995?

 

Wasn't the idea of continuous cruising a result of people not being allowed to do it, because they HAD to have a home mooring but didn't WANT to stay in one area all the time?

 

If you WANT to stay in one area all the time, why shouldn't you have to get a mooring?

That is how I understood things to be. Which is why I always find it strange when people argue about how to not have a home mooring and still stay as close to one place as possible.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

C&RT weren't happy with the number/locations the boat was logged at.

When asked what was wrong, the case was dropped.

 

The real problem is with the boat logging system, not being fit for purpose, and not being properly understood by those trying to use it.

 

Bod

Saying it's not fit for the purpose is pointless. Unless you want a system where every single boat on the system is logged every single day, which is obviously impossible, you can only have a system which is approximate and is therefore prone to the odd error. What it does do is give an indication of a pattern which can then be followed up specifically by the enforcement bods. And then by communication between boater and CRT. What's important is that neither side descends into paranoia and starts from the position that evryone else is on the wrong side, but stays rational enough to sort things out.

ETA the real problem is that the real problem does actually exist, and CRT have to deal with it. Unfortunately this means that some who aren't really a problem get caught up in it, but I'm afraid that's the way life is.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Arthur Marshall

[NigelMoore]

Didn't we all used to HAVE to have a mooring, pre-1995?

 

No. Hence the 1990 Bill.

[Loafer]

No. Hence the 1990 Bill.

 

Don't follow. Very briefly?

[MtB]

Saying it's not fit for the purpose is pointless. Unless you want a system where every single boat on the system is logged every single day, which is obviously impossible,

 

 

Ahem. It's perfectly feasible, but privacy issues mean there is a lot of boater resistance. GPS device on all boats would do the trick very nicely from a technical POV.

[Shropie Lad]

If you want to Continuous Cruse, Do it. ----- If not Buy a mooring !

Simple as !.

[Graham.m]

 

 

Ahem. It's perfectly feasible, but privacy issues mean there is a lot of boater resistance. GPS device on all boats would do the trick very nicely from a technical POV.

 

The car insurance companies would love to fit recording stuff on all cars, they can't do it without permission to many dta problems. So can't see CRT succeeding where insurance companies can't.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Graham.m

[MtB]

 

I think CRT do not want to be a housing provider with all the problems that brings. They appear to be quite happy to have a few residential moorings scattered through the system, but see people living on boats as a bar to their main aim which is to run the canals for leisure and pleasure boating with the odd bit of commercial thrown in. I can foresee the day when static CC (for want of a better word) liveaboards will not be permitted at all.

 

 

I suspect by 'static CC liveaboards' you mean 'Home Moorer liveaboards'....

 

Any chance of you sticking to confusing just the electrical threads please?

[Graham.m]

 

 

I suspect by 'static CC liveaboards' you mean 'Home Moorer liveaboards'....

 

Any chance of you sticking to confusing just the electrical threads please?

 

No MIke I mean static CC liveaboards "Those with a home mooring do not have to comply with the 14 day moving on, or bonafide navigate. But I will leave you to puzzle the exact meaning

[valrene9600]

No MIke I mean static CC liveaboards "Those with a home mooring do not have to comply with the 14 day moving on, or bonafide navigate. But I will leave you to puzzle the exact meaning

A c/m c/c

[Alan de Enfield]

 

No MIke I mean static CC liveaboards "Those with a home mooring do not have to comply with the 14 day moving on, or bonafide navigate. But I will leave you to puzzle the exact meaning

 

Yes they do - they just do not have to move to a new 'place' (as in the definition of parish, etc etc) but they do have to be in a new place (as in a new 'location', which could be 200 yards away from the old location) but, then of course, 14 days later they can return to 1st mooring which a CCer cannot do.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Alan de Enfield