On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:21:05 +0100, Steve Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 29/06/2010 18:20, Adrian Stott wrote: > >> As I've said, I believe the key question is what you are/should be >> paying for when you buy a boat licence. My answer is "unlimited use >> of the waterways the boat is able to use, for a specified period". If >> you disagree, what's your alternative answer, please? > >BW specify this very clearly. It's the right to keep a boat in the >water. That's it. No guarantees that any specific stretch is navigable >at a particular time in a particular boat. So if BW decides (which it may soon have to) to return a large chunk of the network to remainder status, and part of that chunk then becomes unnavigable so your cruising range is seriously reduced, you will be happy to keep paying the same amount for your licence? >You still have to keep the boat in the water somewhere >so why complain that BW ask you to pay for the privilege? I don't. I complain about the amount I have to pay. I assert that the value of having my boat in BW water is correlated with the amount of waterway I can navigate with that boat from my mooring (without going out to sea). Continuing the point in my previous paragraph, I doubt you would pay anything to keep your boat in a length of navigable waterway only 1 km long. But you might in a length 1,000 km long. The size of the cruising range clearly makes a difference to the value to the boat owner of the licence, so the price of the licence would vary with that size. >Under your system the smallest go-anywhere cruiser would pay the most and the >biggest wide beam barge would pay the least. Why not? Surelym, as the barge owner gets less, he should pay less. Although, actually, the smallest cruiser would probably pay much less, because it could be trailered out of the water when it isn't being used, and under my proposal its owner would pay nothing for the days it is on its trailer. >For those whose range is restricted - and I am one of them in my 70' >boat - we still have places to go to at any time. It's not like anyone >is confined to base once they've cruised all their available patch ;) True. But since your boat can't use the L&L, why should you pay for the privilege of its doing so? On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:40:02 +0100, Steve Wood <[email protected]> wrote: >On 01/07/2010 08:07, Adrian Stott wrote: >> I feel that boat licences should be sold by the day, and the owner >> should pay (only) for every day his boat is in BW water. > >This is already the case. Not quite. BW no longer sells one-day licences. And, when it did, 365 of them would have cost a lot more in total than a one-year one. If I buy a one-year licence for a boat, and keep the boat on the Broads during May, August, and October, I don't get a 25% rebate from BW. My proposal is to pay for access to the network by the day. We could buy a number of (not necessarily contiguous) days of access, and use on up every day the boat was in BW waters. On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:13:21 +0100, "Neil Arlidge" <[email protected]> wrote: >..and are you, like Earnest, moored off BW water? No. On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:44:13 -0000, "peteuk" <[email protected]> wrote: >" You are totally mad--" Translation: "Your opinion is different from my opinion, so I feel perfectly justified in responding with ad hominem abuse." Adrian Adrian Stott Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
