"jhar1945" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I don't believe BW take the costs of boating into account, just how >> much money they can sting us for. As for verifying the time spent on >> a boat you could clock in. As much sense as measuring the distance >> travelled. >> Sue >> >Thus we could infer that BW is learning lessons from those in charge of >the roads??? What next - boat speed cameras?
Too late! EA already uses them on the Thames. "Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >2008/9/23 Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> "Garry George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >Sizism is the same as CC`s, as long as it is not you who are >> >suffering then the blame is theirs. >> >> Not so. Sizism is discriminatory pricing based on an arbitrary and >> irrelevant parameter. Charging CCs more reflects that they are (on >> average) currently using public moorings a lot more than non-CCs, and >> thus are getting away without paying for moorings. If they want to >> use public moorings more, then I think they should pay for the >> privilege. Moorings cost. > >Adrian, nobody is going to support your arguments for broad beam craft if >you cannot see and support the argument for continuous cruisers. I can't see the logic to that. The two are simply not connected at all. Each of BWAF's proposed amendments to the charging regime has to be considered independently. It just happens that a CC charge increase is justified, while sizism is not. So why would I want to oppose both? "Roger Millin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian said: >> Please define "fair". It is a term a lot of boaters keep throwing >> about, but no-one seems to be able to say what it actually means. I >> think it is very *un*fair to charge large boats more. > >If you want a definition of "fair" and continually state that no-one >has defined what "fair" means than how can you possibly state that it >is "*un*fair" to charge large boats more when you haven't defined the >term unfair (presumably though it's diametrically opposite to fair >which has not been defined)? You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. >Roger Er, Roger, that was my point, and why I used "unfair". Irony, you know? I think that to most people "fair" actually means "more to my advantage" (the "my" referring to the person using the word, of course, not to this writer). Bruce Napier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 23 Sep 2008, at 12:43, Steve Wood wrote: > >>> No-one has produced "the maths" to explain why it is not right to >>> charge CCs more. I think that is because it is impossible, and that >>> it is right. >> >> See above. Also no-one has yet responded to my point that some boats >> have legal free or privately owned (i.e. not paying anything to BW) >> moorings. Are they to be charged extra as well in the interest of >> "fairness?" for that matter, what about end of garden moorings, are >> they to go up? The only moorers who pay a cut directly to BW are those moored on-line to private land on canals. Off-line moorers don't pay one, neither do who moor on rivers. However, those that *do* pay it don't pay any more in total than those who don't. The market price for a mooring is the same irrespective of how the revenue is split. It is the mooring landlord on canals who actually in effect pays BW. >Brings me back to the point I keep making, apparently to deaf ears. I >accept that, by and large, CCers pay less to BW than those who pay >for a mooring that includes an element handed over to BW. The >proposal is to adjust this by adding £150 to the CC licence. This >will leave those on moorings not including such an element still >advantaged. Not so. See above. >It would be better all round for BW to remove that (estimated 9%) >element from mooring charges and increase all licences by an amount >which recovered that revenue. That way, all would pay the same to BW, >and we'd get away from these barmy arguments about marginal cost of >cruising the system, cost of providing moorings, cost of providing >water points and so on. A few problems there. Not all moorers who pay a cut to BW pay the same number of £, as the amount depends on the market price of the mooring which varies from place to place. Adding a standard amount to the licence would damagingly remove this variation. BW has already effectively said that it accepts that the marginal cost to it of cruising is £0/km. The marginal cost of the use of water points, sani facilities, etc., is probably also too small to worry about. The "cost" of CC moorings is in two parts. First, the loss of amenity due to the additional use of the towpath as (long-term) moorings. Second, the use of scarce moorings in popular areas for long-term moorings instead of for visitors. In reality, I think the real purpose in increasing CC charges (in effect by adding a charge for mooring) is to remove the cost advantage of being a CC. If it cost the same to be a CC as to have a long-term mooring, I think most would get a long-term mooring as it will probably come with utilities, security, parking, etc. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
