Overstaying

[Sir Nibble]

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.

[jds_1981]

5 hours ago, Gareth E said:

 I consider this safer than a cyclist doing 15 mph along a narrow towpath which incidentally, is also illegal, 

Link please? I try to be aware of laws and bylaws where I can but I'm not aware of this one.

[Mike Todd]

7 hours ago, rowland al said:

 

I’m not sure that making judgements based on heresay is right though (but clearly some people do).

 

Yes, there are piss takers, but there are also legitimate reasons for overstaying (breakdown, illness, emergencies). Some people also seem to expect to be able to moor up on a visitor mooring, and when they can’t, they throw their toys out of the pram and start blaming others 

 

As Matty pointed out, when the visitor moorings are full, there are usually other places to moor up so long as you can walk a few hundred yards. 

 

 

(I did post a response to this particular assertion but it seems to have disappeared into the ether)- apologies for repeating myself if it rep-appears We have just been to Fen-land (Nene, Middle Level and Great Ouze). Moorings are not possible apart from designated places (either not feasible or not allowed) and overstayers are very much occupying spaces that - by rights - should have been available to others who are genuinely disadvantaged as a result. The journey to the next one may well be quite some time.

 

However, I should correct my earlier statement: a victimless offence is nothing more than a myth. Rules are put in place to protect the position of certain people (sometimes but not always those who are not in a position to defend their rights themselves) Ignoring/breaking that rule will, at some point, disadvantage someone. Rules that have no impact should be rescinded - campaign for it! (and I am well aware of the benefit of a Nelson-like blind eye in the appropriate context! Some things in life are about balancing greater and lesser goods/evils but it does not help if the downsides are simply ignored. One day it may be you)

 

An example: vandalism is an offence. You could argue that in many cases (like 'decorated' bridges) there is no victim but there will always be someone who is upset by the revised appearance. A damaged life belt may not, immediately, harm anyone - but wait to see how you feel if it is you that falls in the water and needs it.

 

So what offences (rule breaking) have no victims?

[Athy]

33 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Link please? I try to be aware of laws and bylaws where I can but I'm not aware of this one.

I have some recollection of the speed limit on towpaths being 10 m.p.h., though whether this has ever been enforced, and if so by whom, I've no idea. Nor do I know if it applies only to cycles.

[jds_1981]

16 minutes ago, Athy said:

I have some recollection of the speed limit on towpaths being 10 m.p.h., though whether this has ever been enforced, and if so by whom, I've no idea. Nor do I know if it applies only to cycles.

Not in the the canal bylaws. No idea where else it would be.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Not in the the canal bylaws. No idea where else it would be.

Actually the 1965 Bye-Laws prohibit the use of bicycles on the towpath unless specifically authorised by 'the board', or otherwise legally permitted to do so.

[Momac]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Actually the 1965 Bye-Laws prohibit the use of bicycles on the towpath unless specifically authorised by 'the board', or otherwise legally permitted to do so.

C&RT encourage cyclists to use the towpath responsibly .......... therefore permission granted ?

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/our-campaigns/share-the-space-our-towpath-code/top-10-towpath-code-questions-answered

[Momac]

An interesting video about a cyclist and a boat owner getting along nicely .

 

 

 

 

[jds_1981]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Actually the 1965 Bye-Laws prohibit the use of bicycles on the towpath unless specifically authorised by 'the board', or otherwise legally permitted to do so.

Ah, under the guise of vehicles. I'd never connected that before. I guess as MartynG said they must be permitted across the board. 

[Jerra]

3 hours ago, MartynG said:

C&RT encourage cyclists to use the towpath responsibly .......... therefore permission granted ?

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/our-campaigns/share-the-space-our-towpath-code/top-10-towpath-code-questions-answered

Being my normal pedantic self I would question urging cyclists to be responsible was covering "specifically authorised by 'the board'".

 

Dictionary definition of specifically is: in a way that is exact and clear; precisely.

 

Urging cyclists to be responsible could be argued that it was the ones who had been "specifically" given authority to cycle and not just Joe Public.

 

However I can see that it is just another case of CRT not quite knowing what it is doing and thinking such advice covers specific authorisation.

[nbfiresprite]

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

The poster who said they had reported the overstayer seemed to be working on personal observation not hearsay, so that argument is out of the window.

 

If the overstayer had a legitimate reason for the stay CRT would know and either reply politely with words to the effect of "Thank you for your concern we are aware of the boat and its reasons for staying or not reply as they knew about the stay and that it was legitimate.  So no harm done.

The overstayer in question has been there for nearly a year (How do I know, I pass these mooring twice a day, five days aweek), The owner brought when the boat was moored in Foxes, As soon as it changed hands he moved on to the visitors moorings along with all the other squatters, he also painted out the name and index number on the boat.  There is only room for two standard length narrowboats on the West End Park Moorings and only room for another six on the two town moorings. Last summer three quarters of the moorings were taken up by squatter boats therefore preventing most people from stopping in Town. This appeared in the local paper.  The owner of the green 70ft narrowboat claimed to have broken down. It does not take 42 weeks to repair a engine, On being served the court order, the engine started first time. He did turn down offers of help to repair the engine or tows to the boatyard. The three boats  on the right in the first picture are all overstayers  August 2017. 

 

Last month another squatter boat was removed from the moorings.

 

Clearly some people on this forum seem to think they can moor where they like, When they like, For as long as they like.  And they clearly have no respect for other people's property.  Mooring on some person's property without their permission is no differnt than a traveller parking their cavavan on your front lawn.

 

There is a old saying ' The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.' which applies in this case. If local boaters don't complain the council will do nothing and then the problem will get worse. 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by nbfiresprite

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Being my normal pedantic self I would question urging cyclists to be responsible was covering "specifically authorised by 'the board'".

 

Dictionary definition of specifically is: in a way that is exact and clear; precisely.

 

Urging cyclists to be responsible could be argued that it was the ones who had been "specifically" given authority to cycle and not just Joe Public.

 

However I can see that it is just another case of CRT not quite knowing what it is doing and thinking such advice covers specific authorisation.

C&RT are encouraging the public to make use of towpaths and that include cyclists . Whatever the bylaw may say it is clearly not going to result in any issues for amy cyclist who behaves reasonably.

 

 

.

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Ah, under the guise of vehicles. I'd never connected that before. I guess as MartynG said they must be permitted across the board. 

Definitions (1965 Bye Laws)

 

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

 

Bye Law 31 :

 

Towing Paths
31. (1) No person, unless authorised by the Board or otherwise
legally entitled so to do shall:
(a) Ride or drive any animal or vehicle over any towing path
(b) Obstruct any towing path or interfere with the authorised use
thereof
(c) Leave open any gate or rail used as a fence or part of a fence
alongside across or on any way leading to a towing path

 

[Momac]

19 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

The overstayer in question has been there for nearly a year (How do I know, I pass these mooring twice a day, five days aweek), The owner brought when the boat was moored in Foxes, As soon as it changed hands he moved on to the visitors moorings along with all the other sqatters, he also painted out the name and index number on the boat.  There is only room for two standard length narrowboats on the West End Park Moorings and only room for another six on the two town moorings. Last summer three quarters of the moorings were taken up by sqatter boats therefore preventing most people from stopping in Town. This appeared in the local paper.  The owner of the green 70ft narrowboat claimed to have broken down. It does not take 42 weeks to repair a engine, On being served the court order, the engine started first time. He did turn down offers of help to repair the engine or tows to the boatyard. The three boats  on the right in the first picture are all overstayers  August 2017. 

Well explained.

i particularly like the part about the engine starting after the court order was  served . 

 

An earlier post asked how many times the 14 day rule need to be broken before action is taken . It does  seem once may well be  sufficient.

[Gareth E]

12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Definitions (1965 Bye Laws)

 

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

 

Bye Law 31 :

 

Towing Paths
31. (1) No person, unless authorised by the Board or otherwise
legally entitled so to do shall:
(a) Ride or drive any animal or vehicle over any towing path
(b) Obstruct any towing path or interfere with the authorised use
thereof
(c) Leave open any gate or rail used as a fence or part of a fence
alongside across or on any way leading to a towing path

 

As far as I know this bye law has never been officially rescinded. It used to be that permissions was granted to cycle along tow paths by 'the board' by way of a paid for licence. Now, obviously, in the current climate, where cycling is widely encouraged and 'the board' receives money to improve infrastructure to be more cycling friendly, it's highly unlikely that any cyclist would be collared for breaking this bye law. Those who are slaves to the law should note though that cyclists are indeed breaking the law as it stands, each and every one of them, every time they pedal along the towpath.

 

I guess I could be 'done' for obstructing the towpath when I park my motor bike against my boat but interestingly, not pushing it along the towpath, as the law only prohibits riding or driving vehicles, pushing them is OK. If my motor bike obstructs the towpath though so are mooring lines attached to pins. To be fully compliant with the law you must dump your mooring pins (or at least, never use them) and only moor in places where your mooring lines do not protrude beyond the water's edge.

 

What a lovely life we would all have, if every single statute and bye law was enforced rigorously, to the very letter of each law.        

[mayalld]

46 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

As far as I know this bye law has never been officially rescinded. It used to be that permissions was granted to cycle along tow paths by 'the board' by way of a paid for licence. Now, obviously, in the current climate, where cycling is widely encouraged and 'the board' receives money to improve infrastructure to be more cycling friendly, it's highly unlikely that any cyclist would be collared for breaking this bye law. Those who are slaves to the law should note though that cyclists are indeed breaking the law as it stands, each and every one of them, every time they pedal along the towpath.

 

I guess I could be 'done' for obstructing the towpath when I park my motor bike against my boat but interestingly, not pushing it along the towpath, as the law only prohibits riding or driving vehicles, pushing them is OK. If my motor bike obstructs the towpath though so are mooring lines attached to pins. To be fully compliant with the law you must dump your mooring pins (or at least, never use them) and only moor in places where your mooring lines do not protrude beyond the water's edge.

 

What a lovely life we would all have, if every single statute and bye law was enforced rigorously, to the very letter of each law.        

 

You need to look more carefully at what "Authorised by the board" means.

 

The board doesn't need to authorise each individual. It can generically issue an authority. In the past when there were cycle permits, a permit was an authority, but they also authorised boat crews to use a bike without a permit.

 

They have now issued a general permit to all cyclists (except in areas where cycling is prohibited by signs).

 

Those who obey the law will note that cyclists are not breaking the law, but taking advantage of a general permission.

 

Yes you are obstructing the towpath, and yes you are driving the motorbike. The definition of Drive is; "Operate and control the direction and speed of a motor vehicle." You can do that even if you aren't riding it.

 

And again, there is a general permission to use ropes for mooring, so that is with permission.

[Athy]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

 

 

Yes you are obstructing the towpath, and yes you are driving the motorbike. The definition of Drive is; "Operate and control the direction and speed of a motor vehicle." You can do that even if you aren't riding it.

 

Interesting; but does the bike count as a "motor vehicle" when the "motor" is switched off?

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

 

You need to look more carefully at what "Authorised by the board" means.

 

The board doesn't need to authorise each individual. It can generically issue an authority. In the past when there were cycle permits, a permit was an authority, but they also authorised boat crews to use a bike without a permit.

 

They have now issued a general permit to all cyclists (except in areas where cycling is prohibited by signs).

 

Those who obey the law will note that cyclists are not breaking the law, but taking advantage of a general permission.

 

Yes you are obstructing the towpath, and yes you are driving the motorbike. The definition of Drive is; "Operate and control the direction and speed of a motor vehicle." You can do that even if you aren't riding it.

 

And again, there is a general permission to use ropes for mooring, so that is with permission.

Basically if you have enough money, and the ‘right’ contacts, you can get the relevant paperwork in place to twist around the law. That is as much piss taking as stretching the rules and law WRT to mooring. 

 

I recently queried a notice to fell some trees. To cut a long story short, the council just used the excuse they were too ‘under resourced’ to investigate. So the trees got cut down anyway 

 

Nothing has changed, you’ll always have piss takers at all levels of society and those will justify their cause.

[mayalld]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Interesting; but does the bike count as a "motor vehicle" when the "motor" is switched off?

Yes.

 

[Gareth E]

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

 

You need to look more carefully at what "Authorised by the board" means.

 

The board doesn't need to authorise each individual. It can generically issue an authority. In the past when there were cycle permits, a permit was an authority, but they also authorised boat crews to use a bike without a permit.

 

They have now issued a general permit to all cyclists (except in areas where cycling is prohibited by signs).

 

Those who obey the law will note that cyclists are not breaking the law, but taking advantage of a general permission.

 

Yes you are obstructing the towpath, and yes you are driving the motorbike. The definition of Drive is; "Operate and control the direction and speed of a motor vehicle." You can do that even if you aren't riding it.

 

And again, there is a general permission to use ropes for mooring, so that is with permission.

OK fair enough. In that case, having already established that a vehicle is anything with wheels, and that pushing it is driving it, does that mean that a boater taking a toilet cassette to the elsan point on a wheeled trolley is breaking the law too?

 

Edit: a motorcycle requires an engine for its operation. We know this for certain, there is no alternative of peddling. If you're pushing it with the engine off it isn't being operated. It would seem that both operation and steering is required to satisfy the description of what constitutes driving. If it's only being steered, it isn't being driven.   

Edited August 15, 2018 by Gareth E

[rowland al]

3 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

OK fair enough. In that case, having already established that a vehicle is anything with wheels, and that pushing it is driving it, does that mean that a boater taking a toilet cassette to the elsan point on a wheeled trolley is breaking the law too?

 

That really is taking the piss! :D :D

[Gareth E]

2 minutes ago, rowland al said:

 

That really is taking the piss!

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.  

[jds_1981]

Definitely can drive livestock.

[Alan de Enfield]

39 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Definitely can drive livestock.

But you cannot wash them.

[mayalld]

2 hours ago, Gareth E said:

OK fair enough. In that case, having already established that a vehicle is anything with wheels, and that pushing it is driving it, does that mean that a boater taking a toilet cassette to the elsan point on a wheeled trolley is breaking the law too?

 

Edit: a motorcycle requires an engine for its operation. We know this for certain, there is no alternative of peddling. If you're pushing it with the engine off it isn't being operated. It would seem that both operation and steering is required to satisfy the description of what constitutes driving. If it's only being steered, it isn't being driven.   

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.