March of the Widebeams

[Alan de Enfield]

48 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Wide beam = any boat which won't fit through a narrow canal lock due to width?

 

Nope - there is a legal definition of a narrowboat, and hence a widebeam is anything that a NB isn't.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

It was a consequence of an emergency stoppage that ultimately was a significant inconvenience to me but I could have gone back up the lock I moored below in reverse and then reversed around a junction and past a long line of moored boats to find a place to moor. I also chose to go home and return after the stoppage was cleared and as it turned out that ended up being 21 hours after the canal reopened. Doubtless to anyone passing during that time that hadn't been caught up in the stoppage it simply appeared that I was being inconsiderate. I did get one adverse comment from such a boater and I ultimately was inconveniencing them and could have done more to not be. Whether it would have been reasonable for me to do so is a matter for debate. And that's kind of my point. Things are not what they seem when you apply labels to people.

 

My real point is that if you wish to categorise boaters then despite the fact that I almost certainly fit your decription of a "proper boater" (which I recall from the original post as being somewhat more than simply being considerate) I don't want to be put into any such group. Folk go boating - by which I mean simply the act of floating on a boat - for as many different reasons as there are people on boats.

 

 

Which is why I tried to clarify what I meant -- and that the only division worth making is "considerate/rule-following" vs. "selfish/rule-breaking", not "wide/narrow" or "shiny/scruffy" or "moorer/crusier" or "trad/modern" or "steel/GRP" or "diesel/electric" or... 😉

 

Like all other categories, widebeam boaters can be either considerate or selfish. However due to demographics it seems that the number of selfish widebeam owners has been increasing in recent years -- and as I keep saying, it's unfortunate and unfair that considerate ones get tarred with the same brush, just like considerate BMW drivers... 😉

Edited April 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

It was a consequence of an emergency stoppage that ultimately was a significant inconvenience to me but I could have gone back up the lock I moored below in reverse and then reversed around a junction and past a long line of moored boats to find a place to moor. I also chose to go home and return after the stoppage was cleared and as it turned out that ended up being 21 hours after the canal reopened. Doubtless to anyone passing during that time that hadn't been caught up in the stoppage it simply appeared that I was being inconsiderate. I did get one adverse comment from such a boater and I ultimately was inconveniencing them and could have done more to not be. Whether it would have been reasonable for me to do so is a matter for debate. And that's kind of my point. Things are not what they seem when you apply labels to people.

 

My real point is that if you wish to categorise boaters then despite the fact that I almost certainly fit your decription of a "proper boater" (which I recall from the original post as being somewhat more than simply being considerate) I don't want to be put into any such group. Folk go boating - by which I mean simply the act of floating on a boat - for as many different reasons as there are people on boats.

 

What is your view of the unfeasibly wide boat which has been pictured moored in an inappropriate location? 

 

Do you assume they are there for a good reason? Maybe a health reason and need to be near the doctor or something? 

 

If so then is this perfectly ok? 

 

If it is and you don't actually know what the circumstances are then obviously it is an invitation for people (who do exist) to just be idiots. 

 

 

The boat is blocking half of the canal. 

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Which is why I tried to clarify what I meant -- and that the only division worth making is "considerate/rule-following" vs. "selfish/rule-breaking", not "wide/narrow" or "shiny/scruffy" or "moorer/crusier" or "trad/modern" or "steel/GRP" or... 😉

 

The problem occurs when one comes across a boat and makes an assumption. It is possible that the owner may have been swarmed very violently after stepping on a wasp nest and needs time to recover having been stung 17 times including in sensitive areas. 

 

Is mooring inappropriately okay in this sort of scenario? 

 

Unless you ask them you wouldn't know what the deal was and why they were demonstrating inconsiderate behaviours. 

 

 

 

 

I suppose one approach would be to have a traffic light coloured sticker system. 

 

Red "I am an idiot"

Orange "I sometimes do idiot type things.

Green "I am not an idiot"

 

 

Stickers to be sent out with licence renewals.

 

Put them in the windows both sides. 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What is your view of the unfeasibly wide boat which has been pictured moored in an inappropriate location? 

 

Do you assume they are there for a good reason? Maybe a health reason and need to be near the doctor or something? 

 

If so then is this perfectly ok? 

 

If it is and you don't actually know what the circumstances are then obviously it is an invitation for people (who do exist) to just be idiots. 

 

The boat is blocking half of the canal. 

 

The problem occurs when one comes across a boat and makes an assumption. It is possible that the owner may have been swarmed very violently after stepping on a wasp nest and needs time to recover having been stung 17 times including in sensitive areas. 

 

Is mooring inappropriately okay in this sort of scenario? 

 

Unless you ask them you wouldn't know what the deal was and why they were demonstrating inconsiderate behaviours. 

 

 

Of course people may have extenuating circumstances, but I'm talking here about the consistent p*ss-takers not those temporarily distressed. A boat moored on a VM for a year isn't there because they've stepped on a wasp nest... 😉

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

The problem occurs when one comes across a boat and makes an assumption. It is possible that the owner may have been swarmed very violently after stepping on a wasp nest and needs time to recover having been stung 17 times including in sensitive areas. 

 

Is mooring inappropriately okay in this sort of scenario?

 

The chap has been moored there about a year apparently, so it must have been a really nasty stinging event. 

 

 

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Of course people may have extenuating circumstances, but I'm talking here about the consistent p*ss-takers not those temporarily distressed. A boat moored on a VM for a year isn't there because they've stepped on a wasp nest... 😉

 

Demonising is too good for them. 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

 

Demonising is too good for them. 

 

I disagree.

 

I think demonising them would be 'about right'.

 

 

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I disagree.

 

I think demonising them would be 'about right'.

 

 

No brick throwing?

[___]

18 minutes ago, magnetman said:

What is your view of the unfeasibly wide boat which has been pictured moored in an inappropriate location? 

 

Do you assume they are there for a good reason? Maybe a health reason and need to be near the doctor or something? 

 

If so then is this perfectly ok? 

 

If it is and you don't actually know what the circumstances are then obviously it is an invitation for people (who do exist) to just be idiots. 

 

 

The boat is blocking half of the canal. 

 

As per one of my above posts:

 

1. I suspect it's wider than the published maximum craft dimensions and that is a possible reason why it doesn't move.

 

2.  It's moored in an inconsiderate place (which we could reasonably expect to be resolved by the owner)

 

3. It doesn't display any form of permission for overstaying which would be a sensible thing to do in the circumstances if such existed.

 

If it doesn't move due to the first reason then ultimately I suspect it will - and should - be sectioned 8'ed off CRT waters. The same ultimately applies if it doesn't move for any other reason to which CRT haven't agreed but ideally movement would be enforced as a preferred outcome.

 

If neither 1 or 3 (as in it has permission to overstay) apply, then it should be moved to a considerate mooring location and boated in accordance with the terms of it's licence thereafter .

 

I doubt my view is particualrly different from most other peoples.

 

ETA - even if there were permission to overstay CRT should have a word about finding a better location. I doubt they are blind to this boat though.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[doratheexplorer]

I'm wondering if I could have a 70'x14' boat made and register it as 14' long and 70' wide, thereby enjoying a very faviourable licence fee.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm wondering if I could have a 70'x14' boat made and register it as 14' long and 70' wide, thereby enjoying a very faviourable licence fee.

 

This probably happens all the time, so might be the root cause of CRT changing to charging by deck area.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm wondering if I could have a 70'x14' boat made and register it as 14' long and 70' wide, thereby enjoying a very faviourable licence fee.

 

Only until next year, then you'll be hit with 'extremely unfavourable fatty' charges.

[doratheexplorer]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Only until next year, then you'll be hit with 'extremely unfavourable fatty' charges.

I've got a plan, how about I tip the boat up on it's bow?  I reckon the draft plus airdraft of a fatty is under 10'.  So the calculation would be 14' x 10' = 140sqft.  That's bound to be cheap.

[___]

48 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Nope - there is a legal definition of a narrowboat, and hence a widebeam is anything that a NB isn't.

 

Whilst that may be technically correct (and isn't the distinction made at 7' 6"?) to all intents and purposes I think @Rambling Boater's premise was correct from a practical point of view.

[Momac]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Only until next year, then you'll be hit with 'extremely unfavourable fatty' charges.

Have C&RT confirmed that?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

and isn't the distinction made at 7' 6"?

 

It is - but a NB is to actually  have a beam of less than 7' 6"

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Only until next year, then you'll be hit with 'extremely unfavourable fatty' charges.

 

I very much doubt that.

 

The glacially slow speed with which CRT introduced the current 20% fat bustud surcharge suggests to me that even if they change to charging by deck area, they will find a way to dribble out the change over about a 25 year period. 

 

 

[___]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is - but a NB is to actually  have a beam of less than 7' 6"

 

Yes. The area between 7' 0" and 7' 6" is a grey area because it's wider than you can guarantee most narrow locks are going to be yet still technically within the width of a narrowboat. It's possibly a catch-all for those boats known to be a shade over 7' 0" and that do - by and large - fit narrow locks. Unsurprisingly there generally aren't (m)any 7' 5" wide boats on the network.

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I very much doubt that.

 

The glacially slow speed with which CRT introduced the current 20% fat bustud surcharge suggests to me that even if they change to charging by deck area, they will find a way to dribble out the change over about a 25 year period. 

 

 

 

 

Not sure I agree.

 

I think C&RT have finally come to realise that their very existence is under threat - despite DEFRA giving them time to 'correct the inconsistencies and variances' in their reporting, no announcement has been made that this years grant will be paid in full, and, the suggestion  from DEFRA that they should do everything possible to become self-funding before the grant period ends is not looking good for C&RT.

 

I think they now know they need to quickly maximise their income, and suggest it may be something like a 50% licence increase from April 2024 and another 35% from April 2025 for existing boats, with a '100% increase' (compared to existing rates) from XXXX (date) for all new registrations.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Jon57]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

There are two, considerate and selfish... 😉

3 know it all. 😏

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Jon57 said:

3 know it all. 😏

4 sarcastic twit 🙂

[zenataomm]

On 11/04/2023 at 19:13, peterboat said:

Andrew these boats are the right boat for the "Right" waterways

... there you go, I've corrected it for you.

[Athy]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I very much doubt that.

 

The glacially slow speed with which CRT introduced the current 20% fat bustud surcharge suggests to me that even if they change to charging by deck area, they will find a way to dribble out the change over about a 25 year period. 

 

 

A greeno for that quite splendid expression.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm wondering if I could have a 70'x14' boat made and register it as 14' long and 70' wide, thereby enjoying a very faviourable licence fee.

Ah.  But then you'd have to go through the locks sideways 

[Lady M]

I think it would be too big (over width) and therefore unsuitable for cruising on English inland waterways.  CRT should therefore not issue a licence.