Overstaying

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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.

I don't really think you can define it as anything as formal as a plan.  It's really just a very old system falling slowly to bits (somewhat like me, in fact).  It's only functioning at all because some years ago, a load of enthusiasts put it back together - not because BW decided to run it as a going concern.

And once it's up and running, there's no need for slightly eccentric blokes (mostly) to get involved, and they mess up the bureaucracy anyway (which you need to keep it going), and there isn't a lot of money sloshing about because it's more important that it goes out of the country to the hedge funds and foreign governments that own most of the infrastructure of the country (and they don't see much of a profit in the waterways), and the little that's left has to end up as bonuses in the pockets of management - because it might as well, there isn't enough to keep the navigation open anyway, really ...

I discovered narrowboating purely by chance thirty years ago at the one time in my life I had enough money to buy a boat and as both of us are now getting on for seventy, we probably won't be doing it for much longer.  Reckon I've had the best of it, and like many things, it'll never be as good again...

[jds_1981]

33 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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. 

Sensible solution would be to increase license fees by three or four times which would then pretty much break even.

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Sensible solution would be to increase license fees by three or four times which would then pretty much break even.

Assuming of course that didn't greatly reduce the number of boats on the system.

[rowland al]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 It's only functioning at all because some years ago, a load of enthusiasts put it back together - not because BW decided to run it as a going concern.

 

— Reckon I've had the best of it, and like many things, it'll never be as good again...

Yet canals are still being restored by enthusiastic volunteers even now. Surely it’s got to take more time and money to renovate than to maintain? Given the funding C&RT have to maintain the canals for boating, what is going on? I think more open accounting might give us some answers. 

 

Regarding the second point, I believe the only way to stop the demise of the waterways network is to capture the imagination of the general public. Especially the youngsters as they will inherit what we leave behind. Given the fact that restoration is still going on around the country I suspect there would be a public outcry if the existing infrastructure fails. Maybe one day Mr Parry will be seen as the canal equivalent of Mr Beeching. I hope not. 

[rowland al]

9 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Sensible solution would be to increase license fees by three or four times which would then pretty much break even.

Or get C&RT to spend the money they are frittering away on maintaining locks, dredging and fixing leaks.

[mayalld]

17 hours 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?

 

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.  

They publicised the permission for people to use bikes without a permit.

 

The bye-law continues to apply, it is simply that they have issued a general authority to use bikes on the towpath

[mayalld]

20 hours ago, Gareth E said:

Absolutely. But it shows how you can analyse the law, find holes in it to suit your cause. I'd prefer a bit of common sense though. It's obvious that the law prohibiting motor vehicles was put in place for people's safety, to prevent motorcyclists potentially mowing people down. I'm all for this law, in it's spirit. Pushing a bike though, this presents no danger to anyone else. Neither does parking it in a safe place, out of the way of other towpath users. On this basis I'm happy to do it. Most others seem to be in agreement, as only 1 official in 5 years has discussed it with me.  

 

It always strikes me as incredibly convenient that somebody who wants to do something that the law prohibits can always adeptly figure out that whilst the law says that they can't do it, CLEARLY this is entirely unintended, and it is OK for them to do it.

 

CRT don't want your motorbike obstructing the towpath, and they don't want you wheeling it along the towpath, because both normalise the presence of motorbikes on the towpath, and embolden those who would ride them along the towpath to do so.

[Tanglewood]

21 minutes ago, mayalld said:

CRT don't want your motorbike obstructing the towpath, and they don't want you wheeling it along the towpath, because both normalise the presence of motorbikes on the towpath, and embolden those who would ride them along the towpath to do so.

And this is the crux of the matter.  All rule-breaking behaviour happens because, like-it or not, the rule breaker is intent on satisfying their own needs at the expense of the needs of others.  Rule-breaking encourages rule-breaking, and eventually change happens - sometimes this is good, mainly related to real human rights, such as abolition of slavery, universal suffrage etc.  Sometimes it just makes life unfairly difficult for other citizens - such as the general assumption that delivery drivers  can park on double yellow lines or any motorist can park on the pavement.  Sometimes it means that the rule-breaker is stealing an advantage to which they are not entitled.

 

There was an interesting discussion, led by Evan Davies on R4 this morning which introduced the concept that human beings are psychologically programmed to be 'averse to loss'.  Basically the argument is that our primeval brain was designed to keep us safe and that in the modern world this instinct, to protect our own interests,  has become attached to far more esoteric experience, such as the loss of a favourite view, or I suggest in this case, the loss of the opportunity to secure a mooring because some-one else is rule breaking.

 

To get back to the point the logical conclusion is that rule breakers feel it is OK for rules to be broken, and arguably they would support everyone breaking rules.  This is anarchy.  Anarchy makes us feel unsafe, so most of us are averse to it.  That is why we dislike it - that is why we try to support democracy - that is why we are all rule-makers if we sign up to a set of terms and conditions, and that is why everyone has the right to call out anyone else who has signed up to those terms and conditions and then breaks them.

 

This is just my opinion, although it may be shared by many others.

[NigelMoore]

18 hours ago, mayalld said:

 

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.

 

I remember when bicycle permits were obtainable online, and I purchased one once, just out of interest. There was a subsequent press release from BW some years later, clearly stating that these would no longer be bothered with - unfortunately I never kept a record of either the statement or the licence.

 

As has been pointed out though, there IS official sanction now, despite the relevant byelaw remaining in force –

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling

 

This is the webpage where you end up if trying any of the original links to downloading the cycling permit, which were still up and running in 2008. The original content included: -

 

“Before cycling on some towpaths owned by British Waterways, you will usually need to obtain a free cycle permit." (when I applied for one there was a charge) "This includes most canals: for detailed local information, use our search box to look for (say) "Shropshire Union cycling".

You are not required to have a Cycle Permit in London.

Cyclists must follow the new London's new Towpath Code of Conduct at all times.

You can download a British Waterways permit as a PDF file. By accepting this cycle permit, you are agreeing to follow the Waterways Code, and to cycle only on those stretches of towpath classified as open to cyclists.

The Waterways Code aims to protect your own and other people's safety, to safeguard the environment, and to avoid disturbing the enjoyment of other users of the waterway and towpath. There is no public right of way for cyclists on canal towpaths, and British Waterways reserves the right to withdraw permission from users who disregard the rules.”

 

Nowadays, the content reads simply: - “We welcome all considerate cyclists to our towpaths and you don't need a permit.”  [my emphasis]

 

In terms of strict legality, it is not merely the “de minimus” rule that applies, in view of this representation - there is the relatively recent doctrine of “Legitimate Expectation” developed for Judicial Reviews, whereby in situations where an authority has given people to understand that an action will be tolerated (perhaps despite applicable secondary legislation), the ‘legitimate expectation’ of the public that the authority will abide by that may be relied upon by the public in a court of law should the authority ever choose to resile from their consent.

 

It can no longer be said then, that cycling on the towpaths is now effectively against the law, notwithstanding retention of the relevant law. It is a bit of a funny area.

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

And this is the crux of the matter.  All rule-breaking behaviour happens because, like-it or not, the rule breaker is intent on satisfying their own needs at the expense of the needs of others.  Rule-breaking encourages rule-breaking, and eventually change happens - sometimes this is good, mainly related to real human rights, such as abolition of slavery, universal suffrage etc.  Sometimes it just makes life unfairly difficult for other citizens - such as the general assumption that delivery drivers  can park on double yellow lines or any motorist can park on the pavement.  Sometimes it means that the rule-breaker is stealing an advantage to which they are not entitled.

 

There was an interesting discussion, led by Evan Davies on R4 this morning which introduced the concept that human beings are psychologically programmed to be 'averse to loss'.  Basically the argument is that our primeval brain was designed to keep us safe and that in the modern world this instinct, to protect our own interests,  has become attached to far more esoteric experience, such as the loss of a favourite view, or I suggest in this case, the loss of the opportunity to secure a mooring because some-one else is rule breaking.

 

To get back to the point the logical conclusion is that rule breakers feel it is OK for rules to be broken, and arguably they would support everyone breaking rules.  This is anarchy.  Anarchy makes us feel unsafe, so most of us are averse to it.  That is why we dislike it - that is why we try to support democracy - that is why we are all rule-makers if we sign up to a set of terms and conditions, and that is why everyone has the right to call out anyone else who has signed up to those terms and conditions and then breaks them.

 

This is just my opinion, although it may be shared by many others.

I think that is another way of stating the long established Game Theory principle of MiniMax.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

9 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

 

I remember when bicycle permits were obtainable online, and I purchased one once, just out of interest. There was a subsequent press release from BW some years later, clearly stating that these would no longer be bothered with - unfortunately I never kept a record of either the statement or the licence.

 

As has been pointed out though, there IS official sanction now, despite the relevant byelaw remaining in force –

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling

 

This is the webpage where you end up if trying any of the original links to downloading the cycling permit, which were still up and running in 2008. The original content included: -

 

“Before cycling on some towpaths owned by British Waterways, you will usually need to obtain a free cycle permit." (when I applied for one there was a charge) "This includes most canals: for detailed local information, use our search box to look for (say) "Shropshire Union cycling".

You are not required to have a Cycle Permit in London.

Cyclists must follow the new London's new Towpath Code of Conduct at all times.

You can download a British Waterways permit as a PDF file. By accepting this cycle permit, you are agreeing to follow the Waterways Code, and to cycle only on those stretches of towpath classified as open to cyclists.

The Waterways Code aims to protect your own and other people's safety, to safeguard the environment, and to avoid disturbing the enjoyment of other users of the waterway and towpath. There is no public right of way for cyclists on canal towpaths, and British Waterways reserves the right to withdraw permission from users who disregard the rules.”

 

Nowadays, the content reads simply: - “We welcome all considerate cyclists to our towpaths and you don't need a permit.”  [my emphasis]

 

In terms of strict legality, it is not merely the “de minimus” rule that applies, in view of this representation - there is the relatively recent doctrine of “Legitimate Expectation” developed for Judicial Reviews, whereby in situations where an authority has given people to understand that an action will be tolerated (perhaps despite applicable secondary legislation), the ‘legitimate expectation’ of the public that the authority will abide by that may be relied upon by the public in a court of law should the authority ever choose to resile from their consent.

 

It can no longer be said then, that cycling on the towpaths is now effectively against the law, notwithstanding retention of the relevant law. It is a bit of a funny area.

Here is the original web page I think Nigel is referring to -

https://web.archive.org/web/20071120140536/http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/cycling/permit
 

... and here are the two links mentioned above -

Towpath Code of Conduct

Waterways Code

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)
Edited to correct link

[NigelMoore]

That 'waybackmachine' is clever stuff Allan. Thanks.

[mayalld]

10 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

 

I remember when bicycle permits were obtainable online, and I purchased one once, just out of interest. There was a subsequent press release from BW some years later, clearly stating that these would no longer be bothered with - unfortunately I never kept a record of either the statement or the licence.

 

As has been pointed out though, there IS official sanction now, despite the relevant byelaw remaining in force –

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling

 

This is the webpage where you end up if trying any of the original links to downloading the cycling permit, which were still up and running in 2008. The original content included: -

 

“Before cycling on some towpaths owned by British Waterways, you will usually need to obtain a free cycle permit." (when I applied for one there was a charge) "This includes most canals: for detailed local information, use our search box to look for (say) "Shropshire Union cycling".

You are not required to have a Cycle Permit in London.

Cyclists must follow the new London's new Towpath Code of Conduct at all times.

You can download a British Waterways permit as a PDF file. By accepting this cycle permit, you are agreeing to follow the Waterways Code, and to cycle only on those stretches of towpath classified as open to cyclists.

The Waterways Code aims to protect your own and other people's safety, to safeguard the environment, and to avoid disturbing the enjoyment of other users of the waterway and towpath. There is no public right of way for cyclists on canal towpaths, and British Waterways reserves the right to withdraw permission from users who disregard the rules.”

 

Nowadays, the content reads simply: - “We welcome all considerate cyclists to our towpaths and you don't need a permit.”  [my emphasis]

 

In terms of strict legality, it is not merely the “de minimus” rule that applies, in view of this representation - there is the relatively recent doctrine of “Legitimate Expectation” developed for Judicial Reviews, whereby in situations where an authority has given people to understand that an action will be tolerated (perhaps despite applicable secondary legislation), the ‘legitimate expectation’ of the public that the authority will abide by that may be relied upon by the public in a court of law should the authority ever choose to resile from their consent.

 

It can no longer be said then, that cycling on the towpaths is now effectively against the law, notwithstanding retention of the relevant law. It is a bit of a funny area.

Evening Nigel.

 

I wasn't arguing de minimis in respect of the use of a pedal cycle, or even legitimate expectation.

 

The byelaw remains in full force, and everybody needs authority from CRT to use a bike on the towpath. Where people seem to lose the thread is that this authority need not be personal to them. It can instead be a generally published authority

 

Where I do argue de minimis is the fact that by a strict reading of the law, anything with wheels is a vehicle, and requires CRT permission. So a folding trolley to transport a toilet cassette is strictly a vehicle. However, we can be 99.99999% certain that should CRT try to prosecute, the just would tell them where to go.

 

A motorbike, even if pushed along the towpath is unlikely to benefit from either de minimis or legitimate expectation. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

23 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

That 'waybackmachine' is clever stuff Allan. Thanks.

It is worth noting that anyone can archive a web page on 'waybackmachine'. This is in addition to  its normal archiving functions.

[NigelMoore]

5 hours ago, mayalld said:

Evening Nigel.

 

I wasn't arguing de minimis in respect of the use of a pedal cycle, or even legitimate expectation.

 

The byelaw remains in full force, and everybody needs authority from CRT to use a bike on the towpath. Where people seem to lose the thread is that this authority need not be personal to them. It can instead be a generally published authority

 

Where I do argue de minimis is the fact that by a strict reading of the law, anything with wheels is a vehicle, and requires CRT permission. So a folding trolley to transport a toilet cassette is strictly a vehicle. However, we can be 99.99999% certain that should CRT try to prosecute, the just would tell them where to go.

 

A motorbike, even if pushed along the towpath is unlikely to benefit from either de minimis or legitimate expectation. 

Evening (morning) Dave. Agreed, although I could easily see the law considering a prosecution over somebody pushing a motorbike along the towpath as too trivial, due to the lack of any real adverse consequences; people pushing perambulators could be as dangerous.

 

On a practical note of course, even your example would be left alone; probably even if driven rather than pushed. CaRT have never prosecuted over any breach of byelaws; they have never considered it worthwhile.

 

I do wonder whether that view might change, now that they have poached Lucy Barry from Shoosmiths as an in-house solicitor-advocate. Representation in all current litigation has now been transferred from Shoosmiths by way of formal notice to the courts, so it would appear that - in a reversal of their general policy of out-sourcing work - the legal department's business will henceforth be handled in house (as it ought to be, in my opinion).

 

My suspicion is that any byelaw prosecutions will still be shied away from though, on the basis that it could be seen as antithetical to wooing financial support from the general public.

[mayalld]

5 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Evening (morning) Dave. Agreed, although I could easily see the law considering a prosecution over somebody pushing a motorbike along the towpath as too trivial, due to the lack of any real adverse consequences; people pushing perambulators could be as dangerous.

 

On a practical note of course, even your example would be left alone; probably even if driven rather than pushed. CaRT have never prosecuted over any breach of byelaws; they have never considered it worthwhile.

 

I do wonder whether that view might change, now that they have poached Lucy Barry from Shoosmiths as an in-house solicitor-advocate. Representation in all current litigation has now been transferred from Shoosmiths by way of formal notice to the courts, so it would appear that - in a reversal of their general policy of out-sourcing work - the legal department's business will henceforth be handled in house (as it ought to be, in my opinion).

 

My suspicion is that any byelaw prosecutions will still be shied away from though, on the basis that it could be seen as antithetical to wooing financial support from the general public.

 

I suspect that they might try their luck on it.

 

There is evidence that courts will consider pushing a motorbike as an offence (in drink driving cases for example)

 

I also think that as there is an issue with misuse of the towpath by motorbikes, they would be interested in taking action to avoid this becoming the thin end of the wedge,...

> I only push the bike,

> I push the bike, but use the engine to help it along, because it is heavy

> I only ride it a short distance along the towpath and very slowly.

> Why can't I ride my scrambler on the towpath. Boaters ride their bikes.

 

Whilst CRT may never have prosecuted under byelaws, BW did in recent memory.

 

 

[NigelMoore]

It is largely down to the managerial ethos in the end. The EA consistently prosecute byelaw breaches, and do so successfully in the huge majority of cases. In roughly the same 5 year period since the Transfer to CaRT and the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010, the EA prosecuted over 300 cases to CaRT’s nil.

 

Drink driving offences are prosecuted even if you are sleeping in the car with the keys in your pocket.

 

Can you remember what ‘recent’ byelaw prosecutions were actioned by BW?

[Tanglewood]

13 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I think that is another way of stating the long established Game Theory principle of MiniMax.

I'm not sure it is.  The theory to which you refer is strategic thinking often based on understanding probability, which aims to minimise loss in certain scenarios,  what I am getting at here is a subliminal response affecting emotion where most humans tend to feel potential loss as a great threat and potential gain often not recognised.  This   obviously  varies from individual to individual and extreme sports exist because some folk seem to be wired in the exact reverse.   

 

As a society we tend to embrace rules as they seem to be protective.  Once a number of people have broken those rules then the likelihood of them being broken increases, although the factors that influence this are multiple rather than singular and not solely related to someone else's behaviour.  

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 

I suspect that they might try their luck on it.

 

There is evidence that courts will consider pushing a motorbike as an offence (in drink driving cases for example)

 

I also think that as there is an issue with misuse of the towpath by motorbikes, they would be interested in taking action to avoid this becoming the thin end of the wedge,...

> I only push the bike,

> I push the bike, but use the engine to help it along, because it is heavy

> I only ride it a short distance along the towpath and very slowly.

> Why can't I ride my scrambler on the towpath. Boaters ride their bikes.

 

Whilst CRT may never have prosecuted under byelaws, BW did in recent memory.

 

 

BW Policy on Motorcycles on Towpaths

Motorcycles_on_Towpaths_British_Waterways_and_the_Fieldfare_Trust.pdf

 

The following legal powers have been used in addressing the problem:
• Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives general prohibition of driving motor
vehicles other than on roads without lawful authority
• Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 gives police the powers to confiscate
vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance. A warning must be
given first, but this legislation has been successfully used to seize vehicles
• Use of a motor vehicle without insurance on a road or other public place is an
offence under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Motor Vehicles
(Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2000.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

 

Drink driving offences are prosecuted even if you are sleeping in the car with the keys in your pocket.

 

And this has been the case right from day one of the DD law. In my first job out of skool a bloke in the office was banned from driving for just this. He reeled out of the pub pished on the night of the first day the law came in so he claimed, and knew he must now not drive so settled himself into the passenger seat to sleep it off. At 3.00am there was a 'tap-tap' on the window, and the copper breathalised him and arrested him for being drunk in charge. He was highly indignant about the whole affair as he had tried to do what he thought was the right thing. 

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

BW Policy on Motorcycles on Towpaths

Motorcycles_on_Towpaths_British_Waterways_and_the_Fieldfare_Trust.pdf

 

Interesting to see reference to such towpaths as were defined Public Rights of Way. Slightly off-topic, this tends to contradict BW’s past stance that towpaths never could be so designated. Their predecessor the British Transport Commission objected vehemently when local Councils drew up their provisional Definitive Maps & Statements following the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, and filed formal evidence on their case for the towpaths to be essentially private.

 

The ensuing enquiry at the Middlesex Guildhall on 3 March 1955 resulted in rejection of the argument, so that – at least in London (I have only reviewed the Middlesex documentation) – the towpaths all ended up as public footpaths in the Definitive Maps, becoming highways maintainable at the public expense even prior to the formation of BW.

 

 

 

A curious side note in the 1953 Report of a conference at the Ministry of Housing & Local Government over what should go into the official definitions, was that saying that any notices forbidding cycling should be disregarded!

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by NigelMoore

[George and Dragon]

On 16/08/2018 at 11:28, NigelMoore said:

Nowadays, the content reads simply: - “We welcome all considerate cyclists to our towpaths and you don't need a permit.”  [my emphasis]

 

Thereby leaving open the possibility of taking action against inconsiderate cyclists, perhaps.

[Gareth E]

It was interesting to read the BW motor cycle publication. The problem was identified, specifically, as being people riding motor cycles along the towpath. The suggested legal remedies, again, applied to riding the bike, rather than its presence on the towpath, or it being pushed along it. Unless a further publication exists referring to problems caused by motor cycles being on the towpath, not ridden, and assuming that they are not causing an obstruction, it seems that this has not been identified as a problem. This fits in with the reality of my bike being 'spotted' by CRT staff on occasions that run into the hundreds, with just the one resultant discussion. 

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Drink driving offences are prosecuted even if you are sleeping in the car with the keys in your pocket.

That's because you are still in charge of the vehicle, and drunk. It so happens that the line is drawn in the right place in that case, IMHO.

[Dave123]

On 16/08/2018 at 09:53, rowland al said:

Yet canals are still being restored by enthusiastic volunteers even now. Surely it’s got to take more time and money to renovate than to maintain? Given the funding C&RT have to maintain the canals for boating, what is going on? I think more open accounting might give us some answers. 

 

Regarding the second point, I believe the only way to stop the demise of the waterways network is to capture the imagination of the general public. Especially the youngsters as they will inherit what we leave behind. Given the fact that restoration is still going on around the country I suspect there would be a public outcry if the existing infrastructure fails. Maybe one day Mr Parry will be seen as the canal equivalent of Mr Beeching. I hope not. 

Exactly this! And one way youngsters have been drawn to the canals is as a cheaper way of life in places like London and Bath.