Smoke and mirrors of continuous cruising
I READ with interest, the latest narrowboatworld article (Continuous Cruisers must obey the rules) anticipating that perhaps the confusing smoke and mirrors of CaRT's rules over Continuous Cruisers might finally be lifting, but once more read the same rhetoric that I have been reading for some years now writes John Howard.
It reads:
The Trust is concerned that those who are new to this way of living may not be aware of or fully understand the requirements for navigation as a continuous cruiser without a home mooring. . .
It is concerned that many may believe it is sufficient to move around within a small area and will be shocked when they find that they are in breach of the rules and the subject of an enforcement process.
Not new
Never mind those new to this 'way of living', what about those of us who are not so new to this 'way of living', who seek guidance from CaRT, its web site, its wardens and its enforcement officers in order to establish what these rules actually are. I believe that the bulk of Continuous Cruisers really do want to have a clear definition of the rules in order that they can make every effort to comply with them.
We all know of the small, but quite visible minority who seem to get away with sitting in the same spot for year after year with their piles of junk cluttering up the towpath and semi permanent structures impinging on the hedgerows. It also seems that every CaRT representative's 'interpretation' of the rules is different, and the web site is what appears to be deliberately vague . . .
Positive note
CaRT's 'Want to be a Continuous Cruiser' web page starts of on a really positive note, and gives you the impression that perhaps CaRT aren't actually out to 'hound us' off the waterways:
It's not just the vibrancy of this section of the boating community that everyone loves. You'd also bring more tangible things such as improved towpath security and early identification of maintenance issues. For most continuous cruisers, boating isn't a hobby, it's their life and passion.
So far so good . . . but then it goes on to say . . .
What rules would I have to follow as a continuous cruiser?
The law is quite ambiguous, (so let's make it unambiguous, eh?) using terms such as ‘bonâ fide used for navigation' to mean that the boat will be ‘navigating in good faith'. As managers of 2,000 miles of canals and rivers we have to interpret this law. We have to translate it into something that not only creates a literal framework for us to manage the waterways by, but also something that boaters can understand. This has been done, and revised, over many years and it's called the ‘Guidance for boaters without a home mooring'.
The Guidance, in brief, sets out one main concept:
• You must use the boat to genuinely cruise in a mainly progressive fashion (A to B to C to D rather than A to B to A to B) from place to place and must not stop for more than 14 days in any one place, except in exceptional circumstances beyond your control.
The only thing you might question is ‘what is a place?' There is a very good description in the Guidance but, to save you time, it's different depending on where you are. In London, a borough might be considered a place but in a rural setting a village will be a place and the gap between it and the next village might also be a place."
Rather vague
Even following its handy link the 'Guidance for boaters without a home mooring' states, still rather vaguely:
"Place"
The law requires that stops during such cruising should not be "in any one place for more than 14 days."
"Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position.
Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).
What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood' will vary from area to area—on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made.
It is not possible (nor appropriate) (Why is it not appropriate—amazingly many wardens and enforcement officers seem happy to state one) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually be a locality and also a "place").
Exact precision is not required or expected—what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine cruise.
Truing to understand
So, let's try and understand this . . .
"What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood' will vary from area to area."
" - on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood."
So please let's please have a map or a document of some kind that defines the boundaries of these hamlets, villages and neighbourhoods!
" . . . . and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city may be a neighbourhood."
Define the boundaries
Again, let's please have a map defining the boundaries of our major towns and cities, with sub boundaries of each suburb or district!
I heard a story recently of a boater who had been told to ‘get out of Milton Keynes for three months', as he wasn't moving sufficiently far enough. I don't know the details, but surely so long as he was moving between the suburbs and districts of Milton Keynes, he could have ‘legally' stayed in the Milton Keynes area?
Who is making judgements
"A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made."
Who is supposed to be making this ‘sensible and pragmatic judgement'? The boater? Or the local volunteer warden, whose definition of sensible and pragmatic may well be different to the boater concerned? Again, we have vague guidelines, no doubt resulting in ten different definitions from ten different individuals.
We need clear and well publicised rules. We need enforcement representatives who apply those clear rules even handedly. Not turning a blind eye to their pals, as I hear with amazing frequency across the entire network—so let's see some auditing/policing of the wardens to weed out the ‘old boys network' which will help stop the exasperation and frustration of those of us who genuinely move every 14 days, but continuously pass by boats that are quite blatantly ignoring even the vague guidelines that are currently in place.
Process for investigation
Let's also see some process for the investigation and escalation of boats that have supposedly broken down. I have lost count of the number of boats who trot out the excuse to the warden "Oh, I can't move, I'm broken down." I've seen boats sitting for weeks and even recently several months with the simplest of engine issues, where the boaters concerned are making no attempt to resolve the most simple of repairs, because the warden is happy to accept that they are ‘working on it'. Surely there comes a point where someone from CaRT, with some basic engineering knowledge should be assessing the legitimacy of a boat sitting for more than a month with no apparent incentive to fix it and move on?
Another interesting dimension. What if I break down but can't afford the repair (heard this one recently too!)? How long before the Enforcement Team take action, and what are the process steps to bringing that boat/boater back into compliance?
Continuous moorers
Finally, let's start a national campaign to re-brand those ‘working the system' as ‘Continuous Moorers'—not ‘Continuous Cruisers', so that the majority of true Continuous Cruisers who genuinely are trying to work within the, albeit confusing, CaRT rule book, are not tarred with the same brush as those who seem determined to bend it to it's limits (to the detriment of the rest of us).
John Howard
Continuous Cruiser (not Continuous Moorer!)