CRT cruising guidlines

[kris88]

There needs to be a distinction between a Continuous Cruiser and a Live Aboard! On the Kennet and Avon to a Gongoozler the CCers normally have reasonably tidy boats the LB's are untidy with piles of ''useful'' items stacked on the roof or on the towpath and many do not look capable of moving the 20 miles needed to comply with rules. Say what you see.

Yes air your preducices in public, why not?

 

 

Regards kris

[Sabcat]

Yes air your preducices in public, why not?

 

 

Regards kris

 

Not really. More a case of signup another account and use that to air prejudices for the entertainment and delight of us all

[Arthur Marshall]

There needs to be a distinction between a Continuous Cruiser and a Live Aboard! On the Kennet and Avon to a Gongoozler the CCers normally have reasonably tidy boats the LB's are untidy with piles of ''useful'' items stacked on the roof or on the towpath and many do not look capable of moving the 20 miles needed to comply with rules. Say what you see.

That's a distinction between a Continuous Cruiser and a Continuous Moorer and has nothing to do with whether someone's living on the boat. If you're living on your boat you need to maximise storage space, so using the roof is logical. It's also hard to tell whether a boat is capable of moving 20 miles by looking at it - not everyone has the money (or the time, or the urge) to keep the boat painted and the brass polished.

[Hawkmoth]

There needs to be a distinction between a Continuous Cruiser and a Live Aboard! On the Kennet and Avon to a Gongoozler the CCers normally have reasonably tidy boats the LB's are untidy with piles of ''useful'' items stacked on the roof or on the towpath and many do not look capable of moving the 20 miles needed to comply with rules. Say what you see.

What load of bollix. We CCed for 10 years and while our boat wasn't in the 'polished' class we didn't cover the roof with detritus. We did have storage boxes, but that's neat ain't it.

Bob

[Sabcat]

Why are people replying to an obvious made up troll account?

[Mike Todd]

 

I know.

 

What's your answer to it?

A classic case for the use of the legal 'reasonable' phrase which, despite its apparent lack of precision, has an honourable and reliable basis. What it would mean in this case is that if a boater challenged CaRT's failure to be satisfied that they have engaged in bona fide navigation then the court would apply a reasonableness test - what would the person on the Clapham Omnibus think was right?

 

So, just to speculate: if CaRT say that they are unlikely to be satisfied with a travel pattern less than x miles and then they declared themselves not satisfied by a journey that is twice x, then it could well be anticipated that they might have that lack of satisfaction declared unreasonable, whilst a boater who said that they had a pattern which was x miles less a few metres ought to be accepted then CaRT's lack of satisfaction might be declared reasonable, unless very specific circumstances were cited by the boater. After all, the legislation uses the phrase 'reasonable in the circumstances' with regard to overstaying - a different but related issue.

 

As has been already stated, if a boater seeks a much tighter definition then they are likely, on a reasonableness test, to be considered not bona fide navigating almost by their own admission.

 

'Reasonableness' is a much more helpful concept in the context of widely varying circumstances and a lack of clear statutory rules.

[mrsmelly]

Why are people replying to an obvious made up troll account?

 

We reply to yours

 

Tim

[Sabcat]

 

We reply to yours

 

Tim

 

Yes. Yes you do

[Dave_P]

 

 

Were both these people cruising in compliance with the CC guidelines then? I thought not. Or perhaps we are thinking of different people.

I have no idea. I think we're at cross purposes. You seem to have two specific people in mind. I was simply explaining how they perceive things as a way of understanding why boaters get hung up on the law.

[Paul C]

So we have to satisfy the board, but the board will not tell us what we need to do to satisfy them ?

 

The home that I own is reliant on whether they choose be satisfied or not based on how they feel on a given day ?

 

 

A classic case for the use of the legal 'reasonable' phrase which, despite its apparent lack of precision, has an honourable and reliable basis. What it would mean in this case is that if a boater challenged CaRT's failure to be satisfied that they have engaged in bona fide navigation then the court would apply a reasonableness test - what would the person on the Clapham Omnibus think was right?

 

So, just to speculate: if CaRT say that they are unlikely to be satisfied with a travel pattern less than x miles and then they declared themselves not satisfied by a journey that is twice x, then it could well be anticipated that they might have that lack of satisfaction declared unreasonable, whilst a boater who said that they had a pattern which was x miles less a few metres ought to be accepted then CaRT's lack of satisfaction might be declared reasonable, unless very specific circumstances were cited by the boater. After all, the legislation uses the phrase 'reasonable in the circumstances' with regard to overstaying - a different but related issue.

 

As has been already stated, if a boater seeks a much tighter definition then they are likely, on a reasonableness test, to be considered not bona fide navigating almost by their own admission.

 

'Reasonableness' is a much more helpful concept in the context of widely varying circumstances and a lack of clear statutory rules.

 

Pretty much agree but in the context of onionbargee's assertion that CRT "won't tell us what satisfies them", I counterpointed that in post #1 he'd actually pretty much quoted what would satisfy them. Yes its not a simple black/white law such as a speed limit where if you're over 30, its against the law. It takes an amount of thought to properly understand. BUT CRT have pretty much spelt it out in simple terms. I think the issue is that some are seeking to either question, or want more and more precision on "the line" below which CRT are going to pursue enforcement.

[Dave_P]

There needs to be a distinction between a Continuous Cruiser and a Live Aboard! On the Kennet and Avon to a Gongoozler the CCers normally have reasonably tidy boats the LB's are untidy with piles of ''useful'' items stacked on the roof or on the towpath and many do not look capable of moving the 20 miles needed to comply with rules. Say what you see.

Assuming you're not just having a wind-up, what ARE you on about? I'm, a liveaboard and I've never heard the term defined the way you use it. Most liveaboards have home moorings, so they don't have to move 20 miles or any miles! There's liveaboards at my moorings who move once every 5 years or so to go and get their bottoms painted.

 

Edited: to add, what part of the regs limit the amount of items you're allowed on the roof?

Edited January 9, 2016 by Dave_P

[Jerra]

So, just to speculate: if CaRT say that they are unlikely to be satisfied with a travel pattern less than x miles and then they declared themselves not satisfied by a journey that is twice x,

It has to be kept in mind CRT have not declared any distance X or otherwise they have declared a range. They may expect you to cover 1000 miles (OK an exaggeration) within that 15 to 20 range.

 

At an average speed of 3 miles per hour, moving every 14 days the minimum I would expect to be covered would be 26 X 3 = 78miles (ish) it isn't really worth casting off for less than an hours travel and certainly to me at least less wouldn't be classed as Bona fide navigation.

[onionbargee]

As it stands now you are all hoping an organisation that has a proven culture of lying won't be dissatisfied with you, while it holds all the cards, and can arbitrarly decide whether it is satisfied or not, until the day that it happens and you find your licence renewal is declined, then what will you do ?

[Paul C]

As it stands now you are all hoping an organisation that has a proven culture of lying won't be dissatisfied with you, while it holds all the cards, and can arbitrarly decide whether it is satisfied or not, until the day that it happens and you find your licence renewal is declined, then what will you do ?

 

Sounds like any other number of large organisations, for example DVLA, HMRC, Local Councils etc - in that its perfectly possible that a minority hold a perception of unfairness. Given that scenario, you either stay the right side of the line and keep robust evidence of this; or dig your heels in and prepare for a long drawn out legal battle.

[dogless]

Being paranoid doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't out to get you !

Happy 2016 cruising

Rog

[Tony Brooks]

As it stands now you are all hoping an organisation that has a proven culture of lying won't be dissatisfied with you, while it holds all the cards, and can arbitrarly decide whether it is satisfied or not, until the day that it happens and you find your licence renewal is declined, then what will you do ?

 

That is why advised that you ask for your logging data and then ask what conclusions they draw from it. Then you will know what they are thinking. Of course if your cruising pattern is insufficient to satisfy them you may be drawing attention to yourself but that is the penalty for wanting clarity.

 

Me thinks you probably know you are on the borderline for CaRT.

[Jerra]

Being paranoid doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't out to get you !

Happy 2016 cruising

Rog

Surely to be paranoid there has to be delusions so if they are out to get you it isn't paranoia.

[Graham Davis]

Yes air your preducices in public, why not?

 

 

Regards kris

 

What?

And you don't?

Hypocrisy rules!!

[adam1uk]

As it stands now you are all hoping an organisation that has a proven culture of lying won't be dissatisfied with you, while it holds all the cards, and can arbitrarly decide whether it is satisfied or not, until the day that it happens and you find your licence renewal is declined, then what will you do ?

I sometimes think that if some people spent as much time moving as they spent worrying about not moving, it's unlikely they'd have a problem.

[Arthur Marshall]

As it stands now you are all hoping an organisation that has a proven culture of lying won't be dissatisfied with you, while it holds all the cards, and can arbitrarly decide whether it is satisfied or not, until the day that it happens and you find your licence renewal is declined, then what will you do ?

Too many adjectives. The culture of lying isn't "proven" and decisions aren't "arbitrary". I've been boating for thirty years without a single problem with BW or CRT, probably because I mostly don't try to live on the margins of what is permissable (legally or practically), and when I have, I've kept my head down, not made a fuss and stayed comfortably under the radar.

If you think it hold all the cards, maybe you ought to start keeping some of your own, like your own detailed log of your travels and why you are fully compliant (assuming you are and always have been). And, of course, CRT is entitled to decide whether it's satisfied or not - it's legally obliged to. Nothing arbitrary about it, just sometimes there are disagreements over interpretation of the law. As I said, it's dodgy on the margins - if you don't want hassle, don't try and live there.

[Sabcat]

Too many adjectives. The culture of lying isn't "proven" and decisions aren't "arbitrary". I've been boating for thirty years without a single problem with BW or CRT, probably because I mostly don't try to live on the margins of what is permissable (legally or practically), and when I have, I've kept my head down, not made a fuss and stayed comfortably under the radar.

If you think it hold all the cards, maybe you ought to start keeping some of your own, like your own detailed log of your travels and why you are fully compliant (assuming you are and always have been). And, of course, CRT is entitled to decide whether it's satisfied or not - it's legally obliged to. Nothing arbitrary about it, just sometimes there are disagreements over interpretation of the law. As I said, it's dodgy on the margins - if you don't want hassle, don't try and live there.

 

That's the basis for a guide to life in general.

[kris88]

 

What?

And you don't?

Hypocrisy rules!!

Yes, you'd know all about hypocrisy. Wouldn't you?

 

 

Regards kris

[cloggy]

Due to health issues we try to stay within 1 1/2hrs of the hospital (by road). We still manage to travel at least 350miles per year of just pottering around. So anyone who has a problem with moving in less than a 20 mile range should seriously think about giving up. Just my opinion

Edited January 9, 2016 by cloggy

[Mike Todd]

It has to be kept in mind CRT have not declared any distance X or otherwise they have declared a range. They may expect you to cover 1000 miles (OK an exaggeration) within that 15 to 20 range.

 

At an average speed of 3 miles per hour, moving every 14 days the minimum I would expect to be covered would be 26 X 3 = 78miles (ish) it isn't really worth casting off for less than an hours travel and certainly to me at least less wouldn't be classed as Bona fide navigation.

Of course - I was trying to use shorthand.

 

Also need to re-emphasise that CaRT have not and cannot say what will satisfy them - they have simply stated what will not sayisfy them. Above that limit they are silent and have little choice really.

[Jerra]

Of course - I was trying to use shorthand.

 

Also need to re-emphasise that CaRT have not and cannot say what will satisfy them - they have simply stated what will not sayisfy them. Above that limit they are silent and have little choice really.

I realise they are unable to say what will satisfy them but by implication if you do a reasonable amount above what won't satisfy them you stand a fair chance of having hit your/their target.

 

It is the constant search for what is the minimum satisfactory distance which creates the problem. I am afraid that to me is you :

 

1: Can't move in a range of say 30 miles (that is only 15 canal miles each side of where you want to be less by road probably) and

 

2. Aren't moving over this range quite often

 

you aren't IMO bona fide navigating you are trying to stay in one place and not navigate. Just my opinion and it will be considered by many draconian. I suspect that if somebody where only moving within a 20 mile range but could show they had travelled 300 miles in the year they would possibly not be in trouble. On the other hand somebody using the same range but only covering 50 miles per year would not.