Adrian wrote: > > As it turns out, that presumption seems to be incorrect. > > > > I was strongly in favour of a usage element in navigation charges, > > based on it. However, BW did some research, and came to the > > conclusion that the marginal cost to it of a vessel navigating is so > > small that it can be ignored.
And Will replied: > I don't believe that. I understand that a significant part of > BW's maintenance bill is due to user damage to locks, eroded > banks and other assets. That is to poor boat handling. To me that > means more boat movement equates to more damage and general wear > and tear. Will, although I wholeheartedly agree with your right to challenge Adrian's argument ;-) aren't you in danger of publicly supporting a move by BW to put the *blame* for system damage firmly onto the boater thus giving them justification for the massive licence rises over the next three years. Also, it is highly likely even though Eugene has gone, that someone from BW is monitoring this group. If they see us supporting a stance that they themselves want to use I suspect that it will gladden their heart and that the argument will eventually be thrown back in our faces. Roger
