After you have done your 20 miles then what?

[WotEver]

19 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

No speeding involved.

Amazing how you managed to get 40 hours of cruising into a day at canal speeds. 

[pearley]

11 hours ago, Mike on the Wey said:

There is a huge amount of irony about the issue of 20 mile range. Many people without a home mooring "manage" 20 miles in one year, sometimes moving as little as 1km every 14 days. Many people with a home mooring travel as much as 20 miles in a single day. That is very ironic.

And where did this kilometre thing come from? That is in it being the minimum distance you have to move every 14 days. Every so often people ask on Facebook for a link to the CRT kilometre map. 

[matty40s]

3 minutes ago, pearley said:

And where did this kilometre thing come from? That is in it being the minimum distance you have to move every 14 days. Every so often people ask on Facebook for a link to the CRT kilometre map. 

The hand held devices used by the boat checkers have a 1km minimum "different area" programmed in.

[zenataomm]

10 hours ago, Jess-- said:

I suspect this is because people with a home mooring (residential or not) have already seen the areas close to that mooring many times over and thus travel to other areas, my personal best was from norton side of braunston tunnel to hawkesbury in one day (somewhere around 24 miles by my reckoning)

I did Norton Jctn to Sutton stop ...... with a loaded pair!

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, pearley said:

And where did this kilometre thing come from? That is in it being the minimum distance you have to move every 14 days. Every so often people ask on Facebook for a link to the CRT kilometre map. 

Well - now you can provide it

 

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1

[tomsk]

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

No speeding involved.

Any petulant temper tantrums?

[Graham Davis]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Well - now you can provide it

 

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1

I've just followed the canal through Rugeley on that map and couldn't find any kilometer markers.

[Momac]

31 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I've just followed the canal through Rugeley on that map and couldn't find any kilometer markers.

On the River Trent there are km markers starting from Nottingham up to Gainsborough (the bridge at Gainsborough is the limit of C&RT responsibility).

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5129789

Also on the Trent there are speed limit signs on the locks in km/h. Depth boards at locks are in metres.

So , accepting the river is not a canal, C&RT (and British Waterways before them) do, in some circumstances, use metric units . 
 

 

 

[Guest]

Step 1. Read CRT's rules and advice 

Step 2. Use some common sense

Step 3. Never hear a word from CRT because you're not trying to get something for nothing.

[AndyV]

There are many posts and many thousands of words on here about this subject when really the situation is very simple.

if you are fortunate enough to be without any commitments and with the time to be able to continuously cruise then you will not be in any way concerned with the "rules" because you will travel further and more often than you will need to to comply with them.

if you have anything that you are committed to that has to happen in one place (kids at school, job etc) then you CANNOT be a continuous cruiser. You need a permanent place to live.

Everybody knows and understands the above. There are some who try to avoid a mooring cost by pretending not to. Clearly the "rules" attempt to set parameters that prevent people who need to be in one place from living in one place whilst pretending that they don't. It is always the case that defining precise "rules" to impose common sense is difficult.

the fact that there are areas with too few moorings and ridiculous property prices is another problem and may need resolving. But trying to "bend" what should be simple rules is not the answer. I can't afford to live in, for example, central London. Why should I expect that to be different if I were to do it on a boat.

 

[PhilAtterley]

21 hours ago, Jstupot said:

Could someone please clear this up for me. You are CCing and you have travelled your 20 miles, then what? I have heard many differing opinions. Can you turn around and go back the other way? Does the not going back to the same mooring within 2 months apply? Can you then move around a bit freely? 

seems there is a bit of a grey area here and nobody knows the correct answer. 

Although not binding on any other Court, the words of one of the few Judges, HHJ Halbert in CRT-v-Mayers, to see through CRT's disingenuous utterances on this subject are probably the most authoritative available to you.

Canal and River Trust v Geoffrey Douglas Mayers Chester County Court 22 November 2013 

  In paras 7.21 to 7.22.4 of his Judgment, HHJ Halbert stated:-

7.21. It seems to me that the expression ‘navigation’ clearly means the process of undertaking any purposeful journey from one specific point to another by water.  The addition of the words ‘bona fide’ import an entirely subjective element and merely mean that the journey must be undertaken for genuine purposes and not for the purpose of circumventing the legislation, when in reality the intention of the boat owner is to stay as nearly as possible in the same place. 

7.22.1. It is, as I have already said several times, unnecessary for me to comment on whether the guidelines match the legislation.  I do so in only two respects and with the express proviso that this does not form part of the  decision.

7.22.2. I think the guideline’s interpretation of ‘in the same place’ is correct.  It cannot be taken to mean ‘in exactly the same position’ because to do so would drive, perhaps not a coach and four but at least a horse drawn narrow boat through the purpose of the legislation.  The requirement not to stay in the same place for more than 14 days is imposed on boats with either form of licence so if it could be satisfied by moving 50 yards the legislation would be wholly ineffective.  I agree that it only makes sense if it is interpreted in a much more general sense.  If a boat were moved 500 metres within the Parish of Anderton it would in my view be in the same place.  If it were moved to Northwich, over 2 miles away, it would not.

7.22.3. I consider the requirement imposed by CRT that a substantial part of the network is used cannot be justified by relying solely on section 17 (3).  That section requires ‘bona fide navigation throughout the period of the licence’ not ‘bona fide navigation throughout the canal network’.  The requirement is temporal not geographical.  In my view it does NOT follow from:-

 ‘Such journey or cruise must take place throughout the period of the licence’.

 that it    ‘therefore requires progression round the network or at least a significant part of it.’

7.22.4. If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence ‘bona fide navigation’.  In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat and was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load.

[Murflynn]

7.21 says it all.   the onus is on the boat-owner to demonstrate that he has some genuine purpose for navigating, other than for the convenience of staying near one place.

4 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

No speeding involved.

would you prefer we cut and paste the full story?  

[PhilAtterley]

34 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

7.21 says it all.   the onus is on the boat-owner to demonstrate that he has some genuine purpose for navigating, other than for the convenience of staying near one place.

A "genuine purpose for navigating" a pleasure boat could be derived from the purpose for which the boat was designed, built and purchased, could it not ? I think anyone seeking to minutely define the motives which drive any individual to own and use, or 'navigate', a pleasure boat  could quite reasonably be accused of straining at a gnat. Surely, the word 'pleasure' in the description of both the boat and it's Licence is the key to this question and defines the purpose for owning and using it.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, PhilAtterley said:

 

Canal and River Trust v Geoffrey Douglas Mayers Chester County Court 22 November 2013 

  In paras 7.21 to 7.22.4 of his Judgment, HHJ Halbert stated:-

And on C&RTs latest - "you must comply with the CC rules even if you have a mooring" HHJ Halbert stated :

 

 

6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

So, the answer (if you want to shuffle about) is get a mooring somewhere and never use it.

 

Let the debate begin !!!

Edited April 15, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

22 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I hadnt heard it? and CART have no such authority to say such a thing they are tied as are boaters by legislation.

The legislation requires that you "satisfy the board" , unfortunately it relies on board that is unprejudiced,  if you read the minutes to the bill,  the legislators of the 1995 act chose 14 days as a random number that would satisfy everyone as a reasonable time to stay in one place without those paying for moorings becoming frustrated. They probably didn't envisage " the board" turning into a nasty lying organisation that abuses the legislation, and attempts to falsify the rules to create a climate of fear among boaters. There is no law that requires anyone to make an effort to cover huge numbers of miles, or cruise the entire canal system, only an intent to keep on the move every 14 days, unless there is a reasonable reason not to do so.

If everyone who wants too was constantly cruising hundreds of miles a year as some on here make out is the only valid option the place would be like a motorway, and they would not want to cruise it. 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

A good example could be the following, a boater has cruised the whole system for many years, and now has developed poor health, they don't like the idea of living on a mooring, but need to take things easy, a couple of locks a day and they are done in, fuel costs are also a worry nowadays,  they want to move the minimum to satisfy CaRT, surely they should not be considered to be " taking the piss" ?

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

A good example could be the following, a boater has cruised the whole system for many years, and now has developed poor health, they don't like the idea of living on a mooring, but need to take things easy, a couple of locks a day and they are done in, fuel costs are also a worry nowadays,  they want to move the minimum to satisfy CaRT, surely they should not be considered to be " taking the piss" ?

Then take a mooring and don't use it.

Then - no need to move more than 1000 metres every 14 days, and you can even turn around and go back no need to be on a continuous journey.

The legislation says you 'must have' a mooring (unless you are declaring CC) but it does not say you must use it.

[Richard10002]

15 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

A good example could be the following, a boater has cruised the whole system for many years, and now has developed poor health, they don't like the idea of living on a mooring, but need to take things easy, a couple of locks a day and they are done in, fuel costs are also a worry nowadays,  they want to move the minimum to satisfy CaRT, surely they should not be considered to be " taking the piss" ?

Even if exceptions were made, or a blind eye turned, your example would not apply to many CCers not cruising very far.

[mrsmelly]

27 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The legislation requires that you "satisfy the board" , unfortunately it relies on board that is unprejudiced,  if you read the minutes to the bill,  the legislators of the 1995 act chose 14 days as a random number that would satisfy everyone as a reasonable time to stay in one place without those paying for moorings becoming frustrated. They probably didn't envisage " the board" turning into a nasty lying organisation that abuses the legislation, and attempts to falsify the rules to create a climate of fear among boaters. There is no law that requires anyone to make an effort to cover huge numbers of miles, or cruise the entire canal system, only an intent to keep on the move every 14 days, unless there is a reasonable reason not to do so.

If everyone who wants too was constantly cruising hundreds of miles a year as some on here make out is the only valid option the place would be like a motorway, and they would not want to cruise it. 

I dont think the 14 days was chosen as a random number in 95 as I was told in no uncertain terms when I moved onboard in 89 that I had to move at least every 14 days which of course is a maximum staying period not a minimum period. If working in one place or with kids at school etc then obviously we would not be bone fide cruising and need a mooring. I am working at present so I have a mooring, when I finish and cruise again I will not have need of a mooring as I will be moving most days and a mooring would be unused therefore not needed. In my time onboard I have never come across any nasty lying organisations and have only ever found BW and CART to be helpful. In what way have " The Board " persecuted you?

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, Murflynn said:

Phylis, may I remind you that this forum is called Canal World?

We know you have speeding points but please don't tempt the others.

I think the point is that she travels 8 hrs in the first day away from her moorings and then lots more before returning. In canal speak she does 20 miles on the first day

[Murflynn]

25 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

A good example could be the following, a boater has cruised the whole system for many years, and now has developed poor health, they don't like the idea of living on a mooring, but need to take things easy, a couple of locks a day and they are done in, fuel costs are also a worry nowadays,  they want to move the minimum to satisfy CaRT, surely they should not be considered to be " taking the piss" ?

That is not a good example at all.  If said person moved in one general direction he would not attract the attention of CRT - he would be a bona fide continuous cruiser.  Why mix him up with piss takers who have no intention of making a progressive journey?

[Murflynn]

39 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The legislation requires that you "satisfy the board" , unfortunately it relies on board that is unprejudiced,  if you read the minutes to the bill,  the legislators of the 1995 act chose 14 days as a random number that would satisfy everyone as a reasonable time to stay in one place without those paying for moorings becoming frustrated. They probably didn't envisage " the board" turning into a nasty lying organisation that abuses the legislation, and attempts to falsify the rules to create a climate of fear among boaters. There is no law that requires anyone to make an effort to cover huge numbers of miles, or cruise the entire canal system, only an intent to keep on the move every 14 days, unless there is a reasonable reason not to do so.

If everyone who wants too was constantly cruising hundreds of miles a year as some on here make out is the only valid option the place would be like a motorway, and they would not want to cruise it. 

sounds like the opinion of a frustrated continuous moorer who has been asked by a nasty lying organisation to move his backside 'Carry on Cruising'.

[lulu fish]

21 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

 If working in one place or with kids at school etc then obviously we would not be bone fide cruising 

That is not obvious.  You can have kids at shool, work etc.. and still use a boat bona fide for navigation.

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, lulu fish said:

That is not obvious.  You can have kids at shool, work etc.. and still use a boat bona fide for navigation.

Having thought about it after your reply I suppose you could do but it would of course be much easier and cheaper to take a mooring as the time taken to ship kids to school from thirty or fifty miles in any direction every few days and from one canal to another would be too prohibitive and people may then start taking the pee and just shuffling up and down one stretch of canal and doing something absurd like say ( twenty miles ) and everyone knows that wouldnt be bone fide cruising dont they.

[lulu fish]

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Having thought about it after your reply I suppose you could do but it would of course be much easier and cheaper to take a mooring as the time taken to ship kids to school from thirty or fifty miles in any direction every few days and from one canal to another would be too prohibitive and people may then start taking the pee and just shuffling up and down one stretch of canal and doing something absurd like say ( twenty miles ) and everyone knows that wouldnt be bone fide cruising dont they.

Distance has no relevance on whether the boat's use is bona fide for navigation.  You can genuinely navigate 1 mile or 1000 miles.