Jump to content

CRT and continuous cruising


DavidAN

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, dmr said:

So are you saying that a boat will be disturbed less by passing boats if its on moored on rings rather than pins? No, it will possibly be more, but at least the boat will be in approximately the same place after they've passed.

Have you ever actually been on a (correctly) moored boat on a typical canal when a large widebeam goes past at 4 mph ??? No. Didn't realise they moved.

Many canals have a saucer profile, they were made that way, so its not really a case of dredging to the edge, more like reprofiling and maybe relining and building a new edge. So some places are not suitable for online moorings?

Many boats display a "sow down or pass at tickover" notice. Maybe you should "put your money where your mouth is" and whenever you moor erect a notice saying "Please pass at normal maximum cruising speed" :D I am happy with people passing at some speed, though possibly not as fast as S***** that passed me within a foot, on the plane, to overtake a lunatic day boat a few weeks ago, but I am lucky that the width and depth of the canal (and my wheels) seem to make most passing traffic (and there is a lot) no problem. The opposite applies to a farm mooring on the Middlewhich branch where almost any speed seems to disturb the resident's boats. The notice is already on my to-do list but is around position 175.

 

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

The notice is already on my to-do list but is around position 175.

I am glad it is so far down the list those notices really get my goat.

If you are the sort of person who doesn't slow down a notice won't make any difference and if you regularly slow down the notice is 1) not needed and 2) to me at least a little insulting suggesting I wouldn't have slowed down without the notice.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

If you are the sort of person who doesn't slow down a notice won't make any difference and if you regularly slow down the notice is 1) not needed and 2) to me at least a little insulting suggesting I wouldn't have slowed down without the notice.

Agreed. They always make me speed up a bit from tickover just because they aggravate me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

Which would have to be built and paid for put of licence fees, making the licence even less affordable for those struggling to pay it now, but who meet the very relaxed "continuous cruising" requirements.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you don't want to to move, then a boat is not the right type of accommodation for you. 

perhaps just perhaps... The owner may have lived on his boat for years and is to infirm to move... Of has got cancer and just wants to enjoy his remaining life..... Could even be family who lost their job and now find themselves in financial difficulties..... Sounds like some of the people on here would have them thrown off the waterways so not to clutter up their personal playground...... there are some horrible people on here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rbrtcrowther said:

perhaps just perhaps... The owner may have lived on his boat for years and is to infirm to move... Of has got cancer and just wants to enjoy his remaining life..... Could even be family who lost their job and now find themselves in financial difficulties..... Sounds like some of the people on here would have them thrown off the waterways so not to clutter up their personal playground...... there are some horrible people on here....

I would suggest that this forum would have a cross section of 'people' in much the same way as the general population.

What you may consider to be 'horrible' may be considered to be 'realists' by others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rbrtcrowther said:

perhaps just perhaps... The owner may have lived on his boat for years and is to infirm to move... Of has got cancer and just wants to enjoy his remaining life..... Could even be family who lost their job and now find themselves in financial difficulties..... Sounds like some of the people on here would have them thrown off the waterways so not to clutter up their personal playground...... there are some horrible people on here....

In both of those cases a quick phone call to CRT to appraise them of the situation will involve their welfare officer, to ensure the best possible out come.

In any case, people in the situations you describe must make up a very small percentage of all those without a home mooring.

  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, system 4-50 said:

Have you ever actually been on a (correctly) moored boat on a typical canal when a large widebeam goes past at 4 mph ??? No. Didn't realise they moved.

They don't move often but when they do it can be big trouble. There is a small fleet of the things for hire on the K&A and they certainly move. 

A widebeam hotel boat, possibly late to pick up guests, past at serious speed a few years ago, that was not good. Last winter I stopped to open a Swing Bridge, secured the boat to a mooring bollard on the centre line (with hindsight a foolish move) and an approaching wide beam, rather than waiting for me, decided to make an almighty dash to get through. My boat dropped several inches as he pulled all the water away then rose up as he passed instantly snapping the centre line.

But as you have suggested, its not really about speed or tickover, its down to canal width and depth, and the way to do it is to watch the boats you are passing to see how much they move and adjust speed accordingly. Nobody slows down on the Bridgewater, but then again Bridgewater boats don't slow down when they are not on the bridgewater!

Wish the forum would stop moaning about widebeams never moving, it really is best that they don't :D

............Dave

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rbrtcrowther said:

perhaps just perhaps... The owner may have lived on his boat for years and is to infirm to move... Of has got cancer and just wants to enjoy his remaining life..... Could even be family who lost their job and now find themselves in financial difficulties..... Sounds like some of the people on here would have them thrown off the waterways so not to clutter up their personal playground...... there are some horrible people on here....

Just like there are in the general world, but you obviously live in a perfect world, unlike the rest of us.
 

Edited by Dave_P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

knowledgeable or opinionated...... .. I stopped using forums many years ago.. They always attract the keyboard warrior types who take great pleasure in putting others down for such thing as not using the search properly... Or accidentally missing key point Ina question.... They have nothing better to do than be obtuse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rbrtcrowther said:

perhaps just perhaps... The owner may have lived on his boat for years and is to infirm to move... Of has got cancer and just wants to enjoy his remaining life..... Could even be family who lost their job and now find themselves in financial difficulties..... Sounds like some of the people on here would have them thrown off the waterways so not to clutter up their personal playground...... there are some horrible people on here....

Yes the world is full of horrible people. Look at Grace Mugabe! But the thing is, the canals are just a microcosm of society in general. And society in general does not make much allowance for sick or destitute people, they have to abide by the law just the same as everyone else. You can say that is unfair, nasty or whatever and maybe you are right. But the reality is that being ill and infirm isn’t an excuse to break the law. Try deciding to live in a caravan beside the road on the grounds that you are ill and see how long you last!

But in fact, the canals are far more tolerant than the “real world” and folk in genuine distress are looked on in kindly fashion by CRT, despite the attempts of a few folk to exploit the system by, for example, declaring that they can’t possibly move for 6 months because they’ve stubbed their toe.

Edited by nicknorman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nicknorman said:

Yes the world is full of horrible people. Look at Grace Mugabe! But the thing is, the canals are just a microcosm of society in general. And society in general does not make much allowance for sick or destitue people, they have to abide by the law just the same as everyone else. You can say that is unfair, nasty or whatever and maybe you are right. But the reality is that being ill and infirm isn’t an excuse to break the law. Try deciding to live in a caravan beside the road on the grounds that you are ill and see how long you last!

But in fact, the canals are far more tolerant than the “real world” and folk in genuine distress are looked on in kindly fashion by CRT, despite the attempts of a few folk to exploit the system by, for example, declaring that they can’t possibly move for 6 months because they’ve stubbed their toe.

Ah, so the Mugabes are horrible people. That helps me to gauge my recently bestowed status as one of the bad people. :giggles:

JP

12 minutes ago, matty40s said:

......e

 

 

Don't worry Matty, you are the forum's favourite hippogriff.

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Yes the world is full of horrible people. Look at Grace Mugabe! But the thing is, the canals are just a microcosm of society in general. And society in general does not make much allowance for sick or destitute people, they have to abide by the law just the same as everyone else. You can say that is unfair, nasty or whatever and maybe you are right. But the reality is that being ill and infirm isn’t an excuse to break the law. Try deciding to live in a caravan beside the road on the grounds that you are ill and see how long you last!

But in fact, the canals are far more tolerant than the “real world” and folk in genuine distress are looked on in kindly fashion by CRT, despite the attempts of a few folk to exploit the system by, for example, declaring that they can’t possibly move for 6 months because they’ve stubbed their toe.

So much more eloquently put than my feeble efforts in post #84

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Athy said:

Am I alone in thinking that Rbrt's idea may have "legs"? Volunteer lock-keepers at busy places, for example? Or being responsible for the cleaning and upkeep of a sanny station? (Someone cleans our local one regularly but I have no idea whether it's a local boater, a kindly villager or a CART employee).

probably yes.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cuthound said:

Which would have to be built and paid for put of licence fees, making the licence even less affordable for those struggling to pay it now, but who meet the very relaxed "continuous cruising" requirements.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you don't want to to move, then a boat is not the right type of accommodation for you. 

 

4 hours ago, rbrtcrowther said:

perhaps just perhaps... The owner may have lived on his boat for years and is to infirm to move... Of has got cancer and just wants to enjoy his remaining life..... Could even be family who lost their job and now find themselves in financial difficulties..... Sounds like some of the people on here would have them thrown off the waterways so not to clutter up their personal playground...... there are some horrible people on here....

CRT have made plenty of exceptions under the Equality Act 2010. I, and I am sure cuthound (and others) perfectly well accept that there will be exceptions. As such, there are a number of boat(er)s which may appear to be overstaying but are in compliance with the law. And I certainly accept its an imperfect process to have such an adjustment/exception agreed with CRT.

However it still leaves a number of CCers who don't fall under the protection of the Equality Act 2010 and thus, have to comply with the law as written in the 1995 legislation. I don't see a need for a blanket exemption or a need to place a (further) obligation on CRT to provide cheap/free moorings. I suppose there is an argument to be made that the actual cost of providing eg an unserviced/no shoreline online mooring is quite cheap, and well below the actual market value for such a mooring. However a significant alteration to offer a large number of this type of mooring would inevitibly result in a market re-evaluation and a net loss for CRT, given they are a significant supplier of existing moorings. How would/should that shortfall be made up? For now let us assume that "efficiency gains" are a separate issue with/without these extra moorings so the shortfall would need to come from something other than this.

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.