Use of services without a stay?
Comments
-
At Easter we attended a Rally Victoria park Southport. Along with about 300 hundred other caravans and Motorhomes. Victoria park is next door to Southport Club site.
Logically some people on here think it would be Ok if approximately a 1000 people hopped over the fence each morning for a shower. Actually why stop at that some of us were so close we could have used the EHU's as well after all we are all members.
0 -
Exactly, things change over time and this could well be one of them.
It saddens me to read the entrenched, and sometimes vitriolic (too strong?), views of some. I thought K put it well with the comment that the Club should cater for all its members' needs. I always use campsites rather than 'wild' camping but I can see why others take a different course.
The 'freeloading' argument really needs examining as, in the extreme, if a member pays the annual subscription, never uses CMC sites, and pays, say, £5 to use a MH service point for 10 minutes, is that not more profitable?
1 -
Let me point out here, in case there is any misunderstanding, that my earlier post was intended to inform the OP of the official position. It was not my personal view of how things could, or should, be.
I think there is a good case for allowing members to use facilities for a fee when they are not staying on site. It would need to be at certain times and for a fixed duration. I appreciate that not all sites might lend themselves to this use but it's surely worth a trial on a few around the country.
Far from encouraging wild camping, I think it might encourage wild campers to act responsibly.
We are club members - one for all etc - so why not help our fellow members enjoy their vanning in whatever way they choose?
2 -
Like Tw I agree with his comments and think it would be worth a trial.
Unfortunately a lot of sites don't lend themselves to further traffic coming and going and those that can would have to have limited hours to cater for arrival/departure times, plus the approach road having a good two way system. On top of that site design may not lend itself to its one way system with the increased traffic flow.
It really needs a good rethink on water and waste without causing too much mayhem to the already 'settlers' on site.
0 -
Proper frre-loaders!
At the facilities site in Killin, there is a sign pointing out that those staying on the no facilities site up the hill are not permitted to come in and use the showers etc, so the Club are aware it does happen.
The site in Stonehaven also has/had a problem with people staying in the MHs parked on the sea front only metres away, they just walk onto the site and use the toilets/showers. We noticed it happening when we were there about 3 years back, maybe they have fitted locks on the doors now.
0 -
....but Boff, the suggestion is that a y particpating member actually PAYS for this service, not hop over the wall and 'scrump some apples'
0 -
Ahhh..................
It is all of a few weeks since we last discussed this to death.......
Go and enjoy your holidays folks........
2 -
If I was on a no facilities site I might consider it worthwhile to be able to do some washing. In reality I would probably stop 2 nights on a site with facilities.
A few years ago, in Wales mainly, we were on 3 non facility sites for 5 nights each in row. ( As it transpired the first site was actually 7 nights as we left home early.) So I included a 2 night stop after the first two sites where we could do some washing
0 -
If I was on a no facilities site I might consider it worthwhile to be able to do some washing. In reality I would probably stop 2 nights on a site with facilities.
A few years ago, in Wales mainly, we were on 3 non facility sites for 5 nights each in row. ( As it transpired the first site was actually 7 nights as we left home early.) So I included a 2 night stop after the first two sites where we could do some washing
0 -
The £7.20 includes the use of washing machine if it comes within the short time allowed. It is only available on some sites, not all C&CC sites. If the CMC were to consider this service then it could only be on sites where there was somewhere for M/Hs could park while the occupants showered etc. As a user of the sites of both clubs it seems to me that CMC members arrive earlier in the day while C&CC members tend to arrive later in the afternoon. There does not seem to be such a scramble to arrive at noon or 1pm. Keswick is an exception! Perhaps this is a result of being able to book a hardstanding and knowing that if you arrive at 4.30 you will be on the type of pitch you want.
0 -
" If the CMC were to consider this service then it could only be on sites where there was somewhere for M/Hs could park while the occupants showered etc."
BM, in places where this proceess is almost 'the norm', in the main, non resident vans dont actually come onto the residential part of the site....
the MHSP areas are usually near reception, where both 'residents' and passers by can both make use of them without inconveniencing either.
a visitor using the MHSP/bollard would just pay, dump, fill and drive away.
should they require a shower (or other paid for services) they would park outside, in the equivalent of a visitors' car park and stroll inside.
its very rare to see visiting vans 'on site' if theyre not actually staying... , though occasionally the 'services' might be in a forecourt inside.
...even arriving 'stayers' dont tend to come (fully) onto site until they've chosen (or been allocated) a pitch by strolling round the site for a recce..(yes, against all current CC practise, but just illustrating how the 'issues' here dont loom quite as large as at home)....
in general, the issue of site traffic is thus minimised as much as possible.
as ive said many times, theres usually only one (possibly two) vans ever circling a site at any one time and there are two main reasons for this.
firstly, vans arrive over a much more spread out period (no bow wave in general) and secondly, those that do arrive arent allowed to drive onto site unless they have been allocate (or chosen) a pitch....
now, as it happens, after lunch yesterday, there was an almighty rush to get on the site (about 4 vans) and they had to queue.......two in the site forecourt and two outside.....none of this presented a problem and all guests were safely inside (one at a time) in 20 mins or so....
again, this is a pretty busy/popular site with a short, narrow entrance, usually negotiated with a smile and wave should things get a bit tight if someone wanted to 'escape'.....
0 -
even arriving 'stayers' dont tend to come (fully) onto site until they've chosen (or been allocated) a pitch by strolling round the site for a recce..(yes, against all current CC practise, but just illustrating how the 'issues' here dont loom quite as large as at home)...
On most CC sites leaving outfit at reception and strolling leisurely around would cause problems with congestion? On some CC sites it is the norm however.
As for the rest ........... what happens in UK on CC sites is pretty much standard practice.
2 -
BM, in places where this proceess is almost 'the norm', in the main, non resident vans dont actually come onto the residential part of the site....
the MHSP areas are usually near reception, where both 'residents' and passers by can both make use of them without inconveniencing either.
On most UK sites that I have been on services points are well within the site. So a different scenario and also CC would not wish to support wild camping. Indeed why would they? Would not make good political or financial sense. Nor would it be a service to those that use CC sites or CLs.
Oh yes all IMO
1 -
yes, it is a different scenario, Alan, but all some seem to do is to highlight reasons why something cant be acheived, rather than looking at ways to overcome those 'difficulties'.
i agree that CC will never get involved in allowing these services to 'passers by' (even paid up members who wish to pay for them) but i was responding to earlier posts, showing that, apart from a huge mentality change, some of the (oft quoted) 'congestion issues' can be avoided/reduced with a change in design.....especially of the MHSPs.
during the MHSP'revamp project' i hope the club looks at the location of some of these and, rather than just 'changing them' in situ, actually look to see if it would be better in a different place.....the obvious place NOT being halfway round a one way circuit where using it would cause an obstruction.
personally, i dont give a fig as to whether the club provides this service or not, (and i don't benerally wildcamp) although i do agree with TW's earlier point that, providing a place for members who do wild camp to fill/dump might make them 'more responsible' regarding waste.....wild campers will wild camp whatever the CC does, so why not provide a members only service that might do something to aid responsible disposal.
i cant for the life of me think that there are hundeds of CCC members who woke up one morning and decided to become wild campers just because they provide a drop in fill/dump service.....
those who wish to do this, wont be encouraged (or not) by a club's position on this issue.
1 -
I wonder why there is so much animosity against CMC members who use Motorhomes. The CMC is an all embracing organisation and the needs of Motorhomers should be catered for as well as those of the Towed Caravanner. ----No need for an "either or" scenario.
On the subject of so called "Wild camping", mentioned earlier on this thread, may I suggest that most of the antisocial "wild camping" causing litter, human waste, and costing councils much expense in having them removed is done by Caravanners. ----- Not Motorhomers
K
0 -
On the subject of so called "Wild camping", mentioned earlier on this thread, may I suggest that most of the antisocial "wild camping" causing litter, human waste, and costing councils much expense in having them removed is done by Caravanners. ----- Not Motorhomers
I would suggest that is not wild camping K. Partially because it is 24/7 365 days and partially because the Cambridge Dictionary (English) defines it as using a tent on holiday.
0 -
I would suggest the scenario K describes is (deliberately?) fudging the issue as wild camping and that are two entirely different things. Let's not get sidetracked here.
0 -
It's a shame threads like his so often degenerate into a MH v Caravan slanging match.
For years now, and certainly in all the time we've been members, both have coexisted quite amicably on sites; I don't think I really notice to any great extent what type of unit is parked up next to me - it's the folk with it who are important.
But lately, going by some comments on CT, you'd be forgiven for thinking the club is favouring one set over another. That's nonsense IMHO as evidenced by the numbers using the club sites we've stayed at this year.
It seems to me that the club, in redeveloping and improving sites, is showing awareness of the needs of both groups, but it's surely unrealistic to expect all sites to be overhauled except in the very long term.
We all enjoy, or should, our common hobby, however we take part in it and fortunately that still seems to be the case out on sites "in the real world"
1 -
I always think that the CC shows great favour to Motorhomers, far more so than many of the "commercial" sites or indeed the C&CC....
CC allows one night bookings even at the weekend which suit the transient nature of my touring (
) in a M/H.Many of the commercials don't and similarly the C&CC sites.
So short of introducing the "splash & dash" advocated elsewhere on here I'm not sure what else they could reasonably do to pamper to us motorhomers.....??...
0 -
Of course you are correct Steve You and I both know what real wild camping is and long may it continue. I've done it for years while mountaineering.
You will notice that in my first sentence I referred to the "Wild Camping" people mentioned earlier in the thread, which is something totally different.
K
0
