Roger Millin wrote: > 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.
I don't believe in making spin Roger. If it is true that boaters are a significant cause of the need to repair locks then I think we are better off being aware of it. That way we can take steps to improve the situation. I mean, it doesn't require a degree in aeronautics to steer a boat in and out a lock without hitting the gates. If more people know that it is a problem then perhaps more people will take more care. > Also, it is highly likely even though Eugene has gone, that someone > from BW is monitoring this group. I hope they are. > 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. The reality is quite different. I'll explain when we next meet or speak on the phone. Cheers Will -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
