Adrian Stott wrote: > > Especially no problem if this way of charging spread across all the > waterways (i.e. those run by other authorities than BW too), as the > complete (physical) cruising range could then be used in the charge > calculation.
Good idea. As we're all part of the EU, let's standardise for the EU. I reckon your cruising range is a bit more than mine by that metric. > True. But it is of use to the continuous moorers, and it is those > that I think would get one (and a conventional licence) if all CCers > paid a mooring component in their charges I'm not convinced by this distinction between continuous cruisers and bridge shufflers. It really doesn't matter to me if the moorings I want to use are full of the same boat or a different boat every day - if a boat moves between three different moorings in 20 miles of each other every two weeks, or never stops the same place twice and covers the whole system, it is still using a mooring every time it stops and if there aren't enough moorings, then there aren't enough moorings. Are you ever going to address the question of why BW charging for theirs would somehow make it economic for others to build new moorings, but that it isn't when BW don't? Even though in each case the same number of people would be prepared to pay the same amount to moor.
