Jump to content

Overstaying


Gareth E

Featured Posts

On 14/08/2018 at 16:07, Sir Nibble said:

Go to Reading and try stopping to shop at Tesco's. See those signs threatening big charges for mooring? Brought to you by those considerate CMs who are no problem to anyone but curtain twitching snitches.

Apparently those signs are no longer there!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mayalld said:

You choose to define "operate" in that way. There is no basis for saying that. You are operating it by pushing it along.

 

And yes an elsan trolley is a vehicle.

 

There are two ways around that;

 

1) CRT could have issued a blanket permission (don't know if they have)

2) This would, in any case be de-minimis. There is ample case law around wheeling a bike, but it is vanishingly unlikely that a judge would strictly interpret this byelaw.

Back to cycling, regarding the blanket permission you suggested: Is this likely to be the case, that CRT or BW before them actually publicised that the bye law no longer applies, or is it perhaps the case that over a period of years more and more people chose to cycle without the authority taking action, thereby establishing that cycling is OK through usage?

 

By the way I like the concept of de minimis, it suggests that courts too agree with most of us, that not every single aspect of every single law must be followed 100% at all times.  

Edited by Gareth E
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mayalld said:

And yes an elsan trolley is a vehicle.

 

There are two ways around that;

 

1) CRT could have issued a blanket permission (don't know if they have)

2) This would, in any case be de-minimis. There is ample case law around wheeling a bike, but it is vanishingly unlikely that a judge would strictly interpret this byelaw.

 

Alan D E says, above that the Definitions (1965 Bye Laws)

 

“vehicle” means anything on wheels, runners or articulated tracks

 

But I doubt that something that is clearly not a vehicle in any sense, is one because of this definition.   A microwave turntable might be on wheels - but it is unlikely to become a vehicle by resting it on the towpath.  Whether or not a trolley is a vehicle for the purposes of the bye-laws probably depends on its nature.  A cassette with built-in wheels is a somewhat improbable candidate whereas a road vehicle trailer might well cross the line.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Back to cycling, regarding the blanket permission you suggested: Is this likely to be the case, that CRT or BW before them actually publicised that the bye law no longer applies, or is it perhaps the case that over a period of years more and more people chose to cycle without the authority taking action, thereby establishing that cycling is OK through usage?

C&Rt are actively encouraging cycling on towpaths . That seems to me  a very clear message  that any bye law is not going to be enforced against cyclists.

 

“The Canal & River Trust currently hosts 500 miles of the National Cycle Network on our towpaths” 

https://road.cc/content/news/242587-sustrans-announces-major-review-national-cycle-network

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

C&Rt are actively encouraging cycling on towpaths . That seems to me  a very clear message  that any bye law is not going to be enforced against cyclists.

 

“The Canal & River Trust currently hosts 500 miles of the National Cycle Network on our towpaths” 

https://road.cc/content/news/242587-sustrans-announces-major-review-national-cycle-network

 

 

I agree, just trying to establish when it became acceptable to ride bikes on the towpath without a licence, how this was communicated to folk or whether this just 'happened' i.e. through usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

I agree, just trying to establish when it became acceptable to ride bikes on the towpath without a licence, how this was communicated to folk or whether this just 'happened' i.e. through usage.

It’s happened because C&RT can do what they like (with the added bonus that boaters have become the tiny minority customer - behind walkers, cyclists, fishermen, joggers, nature lovers etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rowland al said:

It’s happened because C&RT can do what they like (with the added bonus that boaters have become the tiny minority customer - behind walkers, cyclists, fishermen, joggers, nature lovers etc)

That's only fair innitt as boaters don't pay anything whatsoever to use the inland waterways system wheras cyclists etc pay quite a hefty fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gareth E said:

I agree, just trying to establish when it became acceptable to ride bikes on the towpath without a licence, how this was communicated to folk or whether this just 'happened' i.e. through usage.

The following may suggests in the early 1980's cycling on towpaths  was considered acceptable by British Waterways who began cooperation with Sustrans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans

That is something like  35 years of  usage  that has been encouraged and not challenged by British Waterways nor by C&RT.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rowland al said:

It’s happened because C&RT can do what they like (with the added bonus that boaters have become the tiny minority customer - behind walkers, cyclists, fishermen, joggers, nature lovers etc)

Yes I know lol I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what the process was to allow cycling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

Yes I know lol I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what the process was to allow cycling. 

It's very simple. People just kept cycling on the towpath and as there are no resources to police it cart and bw before them simply let it continue as its by far their easiest option, much the same with hands free phone use age in cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

That's only fair innitt as boaters don't pay anything whatsoever to use the inland waterways system wheras cyclists etc pay quite a hefty fee.

Not really, the majority are still the tax payer (yes boaters pay tax as well as cyclists, walkers, fishernen etc). Wayleave charges (pipeline and cable access etc) also account for a large proportion. 

 

If you look at C&RT waterways on a pure financial basis, boaters are stuffed. That is the problem, the people running CRT are just seeing the waterways as a financial concern. That’s why the infrastructute supporting boating is faiing due to lack of maintenance. 

 

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country,  volunteers with public donations can successfully renovate canals with little suppirt from C&RT.  

 

There is a clue there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rowland al said:

If you look at C&RT waterways on a pure financial basis, boaters are stuffed. That is the problem, the people running CRT are just seeing the waterways as a financial concern. That’s why the infrastructute supporting boating is faiing due to lack of maintenance. 

Last year's income from boat licences: £20 million.

Last year's spend on infrastructure: £132 million.

 

We're doomed Pike!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Last year's income from boat licences: £20 million.

Last year's spend on infrastructure: £132 million.

 

We're doomed Pike!

Not quite sure about your figures. 44.7 income from boating and moorings, 18.3 expense in getting that income. 26.4MM income. 

Could then easily be argued that boaters are actually heavily subsidised to cover all of the other maintenance and enhancement costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Last year's income from boat licences: £20 million.

Last year's spend on infrastructure: £132 million.

 

We're doomed Pike!

Not so fast Biscuit Man.

 

You try to get a proper breakdown of that figure. Good luck!

 

How much was spent specifically on the infrastructure to support boating?

 

How much of that have they spent on rebranding, ‘licence fee consultations’, company cars, empire building, enforcement (court fees) etc? Where is that in the ‘creative accounting’ pie chart? 

 

How much have they spent on dredging, lock repairs and leakage issues? Where is that in the pie chart? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Not so fast Biscuit Man.

 

You try to get a proper breakdown of that figure. Good luck!

 

How much was spent specifically on the infrastructure to support boating?

 

How much of that have they spent on rebranding, ‘licence fee consultations’, company cars, empire building, enforcement (court fees) etc? Where is that in the ‘creative accounting’ pie chart? 

 

How much have they spent on dredging, lock repairs and leakage issues? Where is that in the pie chart? 

Agreed, but at nearly 1:7 ratio or 1:5 if you include moorings, there is room for quite a bit of fudge factor.

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Us boaters are a tourist attraction.  CRT want to keep us boating so the other visitors can see boats - it is where most of the external income comes from.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Not so fast Biscuit Man.

 

You try to get a proper breakdown of that figure. Good luck!

 

How much was spent specifically on the infrastructure to support boating?

 

How much of that have they spent on rebranding, ‘licence fee consultations’, company cars, empire building, enforcement (court fees) etc? Where is that in the ‘creative accounting’ pie chart? 

 

How much have they spent on dredging, lock repairs and leakage issues? Where is that in the pie chart? 

 

 

 

You can read somewhat more detailed reports if you click the link on the site.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Agreed, but at nearly 1:7 ratio or 1:5 if you include moorings, there is room for quite a bit of fudge factor.

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Us boaters are a tourist attraction.  CRT want to keep us boating so the other visitors can see boats - it is where most of the external income comes from.

Exactly. I would add what I call the dream factor. So many people dream of the idea of one day living on a boat or travelling the system (even though most never will). 

 

Take that option away and watch what hapoens. Our freedoms are being gradually eroded. The waterways are one of the few places left we can feel free. It’s all hanging on a fine line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

You can read somewhat more detailed reports if you click the link on the site.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts

 

Yes, thanks I’ve already seen that. Dredging is actually on there but what about the other stuff I mention? 

 

What are the  ‘Allocated Support Costs’?  How much of the ‘maintenance’ costa are actually to do with boating? 

 

When Damian quoted that figure in the ‘boaters update’ there was no detail to support it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Exactly. I would add what I call the dream factor. So many people dream of the idea of one day living on a boat or travelling the system (even though most never will). 

 

Take that option away and watch what hapoens. Our freedoms are being gradually eroded. The waterways are one of the few places left we can feel free. It’s all hanging on a fine line. 

I am not sure its fair to say that freedoms are being eroded, when the underlying laws are unchanged and that the "dream" has somewhat relied on bending/breaking the law but not being caught. In other words, all that has changed is the approach or level of enforcement of that same illegal activity.

 

Its a bit like saying the "dream" of speeding along country lanes or motorways at 100mph is being eroded by more speed cameras.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I am not sure its fair to say that freedoms are being eroded, when the underlying laws are unchanged and that the "dream" has somewhat relied on bending/breaking the law but not being caught. In other words, all that has changed is the approach or level of enforcement of that same illegal activity.

 

Its a bit like saying the "dream" of speeding along country lanes or motorways at 100mph is being eroded by more speed cameras.

I’m not sure what you are on about Paul as 10’s of thousands of people are already living the dream and they are doing it totally within the law and C&RT’s rules. 

 

It’s these people who may very soon find that they cant go anywhere with their boat because of closures due to lack of maintenence. 

 

So I’m not sure what the relevance of your analogy regarding speed cameras is either.  Have you got a boat? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Us boaters are a tourist attraction.  CRT want to keep us boating so the other visitors can see boats - it is where most of the external income comes from.

 

And I say you are kidding yourself. For evidence look at the Basey where there are virtually no boats and it IS a linear duck pond. People still go there in droves to feed the ducks, stretch their legs, fish, take the dog for a shit, birdwatch, cycle, and the list goes on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

And I say you are kidding yourself. For evidence look at the Basey where there are virtually no boats and it IS a linear duck pond. People still go there in droves to feed the ducks, stretch their legs, fish, take the dog for a shit, birdwatch, cycle, and the list goes on. 

I grew up by the Chichester canal - very popular towpath walk it was too, plenty of fishermen. Totally derelict in those days, no boats and one broken down lock. I didn't even know canal boats existed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I grew up by the Chichester canal - very popular towpath walk it was too, plenty of fishermen. Totally derelict in those days, no boats and one broken down lock. I didn't even know canal boats existed. 

 

Quite. As I think this is the governments' and CRT's unstated goal for all the canals they own/manage. I think they perceive the loss of £25m of net boater licence and mooring income in return for being released from the need to spend £100m a year maintaining the infrastructure in working order for boating as an EXCELLENT outcome. 

 

Hence all the faux horror at breaches and obvious reluctance to pour money into fixing them. And this unspoken policy fully explains the refusal to spend anything on preventative maintenance.  Big breaches and failures are expected and welcomed and all form part of The Plan.

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
  • 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.