Use of Motor Vehicles on Byways - Page 2

In a recent message <c3cdlr$80u$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>> Why do drivers of recreation vehicles on byways have to
>> destroy the whole width of the track?
>
>> I've asked these questions of the 4WD community time and
>> time again and have never received a sensible answer.
>
>I guess that's because they are all "When did you stop
>beating your wife?" questions. If you cannot ever
>accept truthful answers such as "They don't do that" -
>then you are destined always to believe that you never
>to get an answer.
[...]

They were fair questions, I think. The wife-beating one
isn't of course, because it asks two questions but demands a
single answer to both.

On the question of damage to green lanes, I think we've
reached an agreement to disagree; you deny that recreational
vehicles cause such damage and I insist that they do.

Our discussions here are interesting, but things have moved
on and we are now dealing with political realities rather
than technical arguments. Perhaps we always were. Because
the parties to this debate can't agree on fundamental
questions like whether or not recreational vehicles cause
damage to green lanes things have come to the point where
this will all be slugged out in the political arena, with
victory going to the side that can muster the biggest
hitters. As you know, this isn't my preferred solution, some
sort of deal ought to have been possible but bloody-minded
intransigence *on both sides* has stopped this from
happening.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<hopton@dsl.pipex.com

As you say a lot of the 'evidence; is subjective. i.e. in
the Peak District I personally have not seen any problems
during my walks last year.

Surely, as has been mentioned in the previous thread, then
only way to really know the real situation is to ask how
many section 56 notices have the coucil raised in those
areas because of damage?

In my experience somewhere near zero, if there really is a
problem the councils already have the power to act, so why
haven't they? IMHO becasue there is no problem.

--

Ted Ferenc. (http://www.ndrw.co.uk) This message, and any
attachment, is private and confidential. It is intended only
for the named addressee(s). "Mike Clark" <mrc7@cam.ac.uk>
wrote in message
news:ant171200868zokP@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> In article
> <5da3666f.0403170318.265c7475@posting.google.com>, Peter
Browning
> <URL:mailtoeter@worcester-networks.com> wrote: [snip]
> > Lets be clear that we are talking here about perfectly
> > legal use of MPV's on BOAT's, RUPP's and UCR's (in
> > total about 5% of the RoW network), NOT any sort of
> > illegal use.
> >
> > I write from the viewpoint of a countryside user (for
> > nearly 40 years) who mainly walks, often cycles and
> > sometimes drives a 4x4 (maybe one day a month, less in
> > winter). My daughter is a keen horse rider so she also
> > makes use of bridleways.
> >
> > Now, I take the general view of live and let live - I
> > find it works very well in real life generally. I have
> > never come across any problem caused by the legal and
> > considerate use of MPV's in the countryside. Neither has
> > my daughter.
>
> I have to say that from my experience of walking on the
> Byways and

> and Norfolk. That there is a considerable problem now
> arising with inconsiderate use of these tracks by 4x4 when
> the ground is too wet. Many lanes have become completely
> churned up so that they are wall to wall mud and deept
> ruts. The contrast can be seen in areas such as
> Hertfordshire where seasonal restrictions on use have been
> put in place, so that 4x4 usage is restricted to the drier
> seasons. These tracks are still in good condition.
>
> [snip]
> >
> > When I walk I stick to FP's and bridleways, when I cycle
> > I mainly use bridleways + some BOAT's. I very rarely
> > even meet a 4x4 when I'm cycling and I personally have
> > never had a problem.
>
> When I walk I expect to be able to use all ROWs.
>
> >
> > Some byways do get a bit rutted in wet weather but no
> > worse than many bridleways I know after a few parties of
> > horse trekkers have been through, and certainly no worse
> > than they would have been in times past when carthorse
> > traffic used them heavily. Most byways stand up to
> > vehicle use extremely well.
>
> Words like "Some" and "Most" are subjective unless you can
> put hard numbers on them. I certainly know of byways in my
> local area that are completely trashed by excessive 4x4
> usage in inappropriate weather conditions.
>
> > Where excessive ruts are formed this is mainly due to
> > poor, or non-existent maintenance by the Highway
> > Authority resulting in a build up of mud to a
> > considerable depth over the original road surface which
> > is usually stone.
>
> Yes but we have to accept that the HA has spending
> priorities and people are already complaining about how
> much they pay in taxation. If we can't afford the regular
> maintainence then we should restrict the damage.
>
> > A lot of byways I know are only kept passable at all by
> > the occasional use by 4x4's.
>
> Passable by 4x4s or by other traffic such as cycles,
> horses or on foot? Certainly on foot you can get to places
> you certainly can't get to by vehicle.
>
> >
> > So where is this problem that everyone seems to bang on
> > about. I have never seen one in nearly 40 years of
> > accessing the countryside.
>
> Well I've seen it so obviously your samples are different
> to my samples.
>
> > Seems to me like the Ramblers saying we have 95% of the
> > network to ourselves already lets take the rest and sod
> > everyone elses rights and enjoyment!
>
> I think it is one of those problems of balancing rights
> and expenditure. If we agree that the expenditure on
> maintainence out of taxation has to be limited, then we
> have to set priorities. Personally I'd rather more
> taxation was spent on hospitals and education. If we can
> limit the costs of maintainence of certain classes of by-
> way by placing restrictions on their use, then that has to
> be a realistic consideration.
>
> >
> > I used to think we had a tolerant society here in the
> > UK, sad the way its gone.
> >
>
> But tolerance isn't a right for anyone to do as they
> please. Tolerance is about recognising that there is a
> need for compromise in society and that the compromise
> should take a medium to long term view of problems, not
> short term. Part of the problem is of course that 4x4
> ownership is much greater than it was in the past. A large
> percentage of families now own an SUV or 4x4 and some of
> them regard it as a fun day out to drive these by-ways.
> Thus the problem is one of increased usage of a limited
> resource. The solution is either to increase the resource
> or ration the usage in some way.
>
> Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
> --
> o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A
> mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\
> \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` ||
> (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

"Mike Clark" <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ant171200868zokP@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> part of the problem is that 4x4 ownership is much greater
> than it was in
the past. A large percentage of families now
> own an SUV or 4x4 and some of them regard it as a fun day
> out to drive these by-ways.

I should think that is less than half of one percent of all
four-wheel drive vehicle owners. Most of them don't go
anywhere rougher than Tesco's car park.

Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message

[snip]
> > Now, I take the general view of live and let live - I
> > find it works very well in real life generally. I have
> > never come across any problem caused by the legal and
> > considerate use of MPV's in the countryside. Neither has
> > my daughter.

> I have to say that from my experience of walking on the
> Byways and

> and Norfolk. That there is a considerable problem now
> arising with inconsiderate use of these tracks by 4x4 when
> the ground is too wet. Many lanes have become completely
> churned up so that they are wall to wall mud and deept
> ruts. The contrast can be seen in areas such as
> Hertfordshire where seasonal restrictions on use have been
> put in place, so that 4x4 usage is restricted to the drier
> seasons. These tracks are still in good condition.

Hmm.. the expression 'completely churned up' is a bit
emotive. If it is a road then the mud is probably a layer
that has built up over the original stone base due to lack
of maintenance. Over what length of each byway are there
ruts? - the whole length, 5%, 30%? How deep are the ruts? if
upto about 6 inches then could be normal 4x4 - if over 6
inches or so then almost certainly not caused by
recreational 4x4's. Seasonal restrictions are appropriate in
some cases BUT not to allow the Highway Authority to escape
basic maintenance responsibilities.

>
> [snip]
> >
> > When I walk I stick to FP's and bridleways, when I cycle
> > I mainly use bridleways + some BOAT's. I very rarely
> > even meet a 4x4 when I'm cycling and I personally have
> > never had a problem.
>
> When I walk I expect to be able to use all ROWs.

Ahh, now here we have an example of the magic Mantra -
I already have exclusive use of the vast majority of
RoW's BUT I want exclusive access to the rest as well,
and sod everyone who disagrees! You CAN use ALL RoW's!
Just dont expect to be able to walk on a bowling green
surface all the time

[snip] I certainly know of byways in my local area that are
> completely trashed by excessive 4x4 usage in inappropriate
> weather conditions.

Name examples, and state how much damage in terms of % of
total length of the lane. Refer to my earlier point about
depth of ruts.

>
> > Where excessive ruts are formed this is mainly due to
> > poor, or non-existent maintenance by the Highway
> > Authority
>
> Yes but we have to accept that the HA has spending
> priorities and people are already complaining about how
> much they pay in taxation. If we can't afford the regular
> maintainence then we should restrict the damage.

Mantra again - just so long as the HA spends money on the
roads that let you drive to your walking areas you are happy
then? Who says that the HA is spending on the right
priorities without wastage? Most are very happy to spend
many thousands of pounds on a TRO application, and then
thousands more on putting up signs, gates, etc whereas they
could have just spent a few hundred pounds to put the lane
into all-season use condition.

>
> > A lot of byways I know are only kept passable at all by
> > the occasional use by 4x4's.
>
> Passable by 4x4s or by other traffic such as cycles,
> horses or on foot? Certainly on foot you can get to places
> you certainly can't get to by vehicle.

This is not a logical argument. A 4x4 can make a way through
dense overhanging brambles etc that no horse rider or
cyclist would attempt to go near - thus a 4x4 can open up a
neglected lane to other user groups.

[snip]
>
> > Seems to me like the Ramblers saying we have 95% of the
> > network to ourselves already lets take the rest and sod
> > everyone elses rights and enjoyment!
>
> I think it is one of those problems of balancing rights
> and expenditure. If we agree that the expenditure on
> maintainence out of taxation has to be limited, then we
> have to set priorities. Personally I'd rather more
> taxation was spent on hospitals and education. If we can
> limit the costs of maintainence of certain classes of by-
> way by placing restrictions on their use, then that has to
> be a realistic consideration.

Whose priorities? See my earlier point about costs of TRO,
gates etc - total wstage of money. Personally I'd rather see
all money raised by road tax and fuel duty spent on highways
but I recognise this is not a reasonable request.

>
> >
> > I used to think we had a tolerant society here in the
> > UK, sad the way its gone.
> >
>
> But tolerance isn't a right for anyone to do as they
> please. Tolerance is about recognising that there is a
> need for compromise in society and that the compromise
> should take a medium to long term view of problems, not
> short term. Part of the problem is of course that 4x4
> ownership is much greater than it was in the past. A large
> percentage of families now own an SUV or 4x4 and some of
> them regard it as a fun day out to drive these by-ways.
> Thus the problem is one of increased usage of a limited
> resource. The solution is either to increase the resource
> or ration the usage in some way.

I beg to differ. Tolerance is equivalent to 'live and let
live' so long as no one is hurt. There is plenty of room for
ALL users in the countryside.

One big problem which I agree exists is illegal use of RoW's
by scramble bikes, hooligan 4x4 drivers etc. Now this
problem exists only because the police have no interest in
clamping down on. If the illegal use was got rid of then 95%
of the percieved problems would also dissappear.

BTW, very few 4x4's ever venture off-tarmac (about 1%) so I
don't agree with your last point.

Pete

Nick Hopton <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<lMYj$dDyLHWAFweO@local.mail>...
> In a recent message
> <5da3666f.0403170318.265c7475@posting.google.com>, Peter
> Browning <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote.
>
> >There is currently apparent an orchestrated campaign
> >being run by a combination of the Ramblers Association,
> >GLEAM and the CLBA (plus others) with the avowed aim of
> >banning mechanically propelled vehicles from all unsealed
> >Rights of Way. The most recent manifestation of this
> >campaign can be seen in the DEFRA 'consultation document'
> >on the subject.
>
> Some recreational mechanically propelled vehicles, yes.
> You've evidently not been following another thread in this
> group where this topic has been discussed at some length,
> without much by way of agreement between the parties.

No, all MPV's. And I did see the earlier thread but it
seemed a bit too contentious so I made a new one in the
(forlorn?) hope of a more balanced discussion.

>
> [...]
> >Now, I take the general view of live and let live - I
> >find it works very well in real life generally. I have
> >never come across any problem caused by the legal and
> >considerate use of MPV's in the countryside.
> [...]
>
> Well, I have you see, particularly on parts of the
> Ridgeway and the Wayfarers' Walk. At this time of year
> some parts of these byways have been rendered impassible
> over their whole width to walkers like me.

Don't shoot yet... but it's always the Ridgeway I see
mentioned, hardly ever anywhere else. Anyway, surely this
is just a management issue - not a case for banning legal
users from what is after all ... a road (not a footpath)! I
have driven on lots of scenic roads (the normal tarmac type
that is) and often wished I could stop, get out, walk
around and admire the view but I couldn't because, guess
what, it's a road!

>
> [...]
> >Seems to me like the Ramblers saying we have 95% of the
> >network to ourselves already lets take the rest and sod
> >everyone elses rights and enjoyment!
>
> This is the 'if you don't like it, push off and walk
> somewhere else' argument. Make this case by all means, but
> it won't do you any good.

Why is this argument so reviled by Ramblers? I don't
understand the mentality here! No one is saying you can't
walk here. What is being said is that walkers already have
the vast majority of RoW's EXCLUSIVELY (90%?)! They also
have access to ALL of the rest with only 4% being available
to MPV's on a shared basis. OK, you can walk where you like,
no one minds but just don't expect on the few vehicular
RoW's to walk on a 'bowling green' surface!! NO-ONE IS
SAYING 'PUSH OFF'!

>
> >I used to think we had a tolerant society here in the UK,
> >sad the way its gone.
>
> By and large I think we still have a tolerant view of
> things, but there must be limits to individual freedom.
> Your freedom stops where mine begins (Rousseau).

BUT, by the same argument your freedom stops where mine
begins. I wish to exercise my freedom to drive a 4x4
responsibly on the very few lanes that are open to me; you
and people like you are trying to stop me - freedom??

Pete

"Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3a6qq$26qis5$1@ID-177711.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> In 5da3666f.0403170318.265c7475@posting.google.com Peter
> Browning mused: <snip>
> > When I walk I stick to FP's and bridleways,
>
> Well, that's scuppered your chances of walking at least
> two of the National Trails.

So what? I do not share the desire that 'if it's there I
must walk it' and if I did, and it was a road I would be
prepared to share it with other users.

I am more than happy to walk in areas that I like on
footpaths (mainly). I have never walked, ridden or driven on
the Ridgeway for example - I have no particular desire to go
miles out of my way to do so.

Pete

>
> <snip

"Bernie Hughes" <berniehughes@bevy.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MW16c.25575$ra4.13112@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
> message
> news:5da3666f.0403170318.265c7475@posting.google.com...
> > There is currently apparent an orchestrated campaign
> > being run by a combination of the Ramblers Association,
> > GLEAM and the CLBA (plus others) with the avowed aim of
> > banning mechanically propelled vehicles from all
> > unsealed Rights of Way.
>
> Good for them.

> > You only have to look at the Ramblers website (and
> > others) to have this anti-vehicle stance pushed down
> > your throat!
>
> Er, if you deliberately go to a website looking for
> something, can you really complain of having it 'pushed
> down your throat' when you find it?
>
> > Lets be clear that we are talking here about perfectly
> > legal use of MPV's on BOAT's, RUPP's and UCR's (in
> > total about 5% of the RoW network), NOT any sort of
> > illegal use.
>
> Not illegal yet. Hopefully soon.
>
> > I used to think we had a tolerant society here in the UK
>
> Really? How peculiar.

Oh grow up for gawds sake! It's bigots like you that cause
most of the conflict in this world!!

Pete

"allan.lambert" <allan.lambert@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:<Nx46c.3$zG.1@newsfe1-win>... [snip]

> I am not a member of the RA or any other walking or off-
> road organisation. Most of my walking is in the Yorkshire
> Dales. I've seen few 4x4s, but I've been unable to walk
> some parts of some green lanes because of deep ruts wall
> to wall from vehicles, and the damage and erosion from
> 'trail bikes' in some peaty areas has to be seen to be
> believed. I've seen bikes (but not 4x4s) breaking down
> stone walls by riding over them in preference to opening
> gates. I've seen trail bikes apparently competing to see
> how much peat they can spray from the back wheel when
> going through peat bog. Yes, too many walkers in sensitive
> areas also causes damage, and as a result some routes have
> to be closed to them. But just as you wouldn't accept a
> traction engine on a motorway, because it is not a
> suitable use of the facility, certain uses of certain
> types of non-tarmacked surfaces should be restricted to
> some users, including occasionally ramblers. And some non-
> tarmacked surfaces should stay that way. So let common
> sense prevail and let's keep traffic on roads, by-ways,
> bridleways and footpaths appropriate to the surface
> provided.

How deep are the ruts? If more than about 6" they are not
caused by 4x4's - agricultural / forestry vehicles mainly.

I agree that trail bikes are by-and-large a big problem. If
they are unlicensed then they are ILEGAL and should be
reported to the police immediately.

All vehicular byways were originally built to a standard
that could take 5 ton horse/cart combo's with no major
problems - so if properly maintained they should easily
carry a three-quarter ton 4x4!

Pete

"Ted Ferenc" <tedferenc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3a1nn$2697lp$1@ID-27390.news.uni-berlin.de...
> As you say a lot of the 'evidence; is subjective. i.e. in
> the Peak
District
> I personally have not seen any problems during my walks
> last year.
>
> Surely, as has been mentioned in the previous thread, then
> only way to really know the real situation is to ask how
> many section 56 notices have the coucil raised in those
> areas because of damage?
>
> In my experience somewhere near zero, if there really is a
> problem the councils already have the power to act, so why
> haven't they? IMHO becasue there is no problem.
>
> --
>
> Ted Ferenc. (http://www.ndrw.co.uk) This message, and any
> attachment, is private and confidential. It is intended
> only for the named addressee(s). "Mike Clark"
> <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ant171200868zokP@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> > In article
> > <5da3666f.0403170318.265c7475@posting.google.com>, Peter
> Browning
> > <URL:mailtoeter@worcester-networks.com> wrote: [snip]
> > > Lets be clear that we are talking here about perfectly
> > > legal use of MPV's on BOAT's, RUPP's and UCR's (in
> > > total about 5% of the RoW network), NOT any sort of
> > > illegal use.
> > >
> > > I write from the viewpoint of a countryside user (for
> > > nearly 40 years) who mainly walks, often cycles and
> > > sometimes drives a 4x4 (maybe one day a month, less in
> > > winter). My daughter is a keen horse rider so she also
> > > makes use of bridleways.
> > >
> > > Now, I take the general view of live and let live - I
> > > find it works very well in real life generally. I have
> > > never come across any problem caused by the legal and
> > > considerate use of MPV's in the countryside. Neither
> > > has my daughter.
> >
> > I have to say that from my experience of walking on the
> > Byways and

> > and Norfolk. That there is a considerable problem now
> > arising with inconsiderate use of these tracks by 4x4
> > when the ground is too wet. Many lanes have become
> > completely churned up so that they are wall to wall mud
> > and deept ruts. The contrast can be seen in areas such
> > as Hertfordshire where seasonal restrictions on use have
> > been put in place, so that 4x4 usage is restricted to
> > the drier seasons. These tracks are still in good
> > condition.
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > When I walk I stick to FP's and bridleways, when I
> > > cycle I mainly use bridleways + some BOAT's. I very
> > > rarely even meet a 4x4 when I'm cycling and I
> > > personally have never had a problem.
> >
> > When I walk I expect to be able to use all ROWs.
> >
> > >
> > > Some byways do get a bit rutted in wet weather but no
> > > worse than many bridleways I know after a few parties
> > > of horse trekkers have been through, and certainly no
> > > worse than they would have been in times past when
> > > carthorse traffic used them heavily. Most byways stand
> > > up to vehicle use extremely well.
> >
> > Words like "Some" and "Most" are subjective unless you
> > can put hard numbers on them. I certainly know of byways
> > in my local area that are completely trashed by
> > excessive 4x4 usage in inappropriate weather conditions.
> >
> > > Where excessive ruts are formed this is mainly due to
> > > poor, or non-existent maintenance by the Highway
> > > Authority resulting in a build up of mud to a
> > > considerable depth over the original road surface
> > > which is usually stone.
> >
> > Yes but we have to accept that the HA has spending
> > priorities and people are already complaining about how
> > much they pay in taxation. If we can't afford the
> > regular maintainence then we should restrict the damage.
> >
> > > A lot of byways I know are only kept passable at all
> > > by the occasional use by 4x4's.
> >
> > Passable by 4x4s or by other traffic such as cycles,
> > horses or on foot? Certainly on foot you can get to
> > places you certainly can't get to by vehicle.
> >
> > >
> > > So where is this problem that everyone seems to bang
> > > on about. I have never seen one in nearly 40 years of
> > > accessing the countryside.
> >
> > Well I've seen it so obviously your samples are
> > different to my samples.
> >
> > > Seems to me like the Ramblers saying we have 95% of
> > > the network to ourselves already lets take the rest
> > > and sod everyone elses rights and enjoyment!
> >
> > I think it is one of those problems of balancing rights
> > and expenditure. If we agree that the expenditure on
> > maintainence out of taxation has to be limited, then we
> > have to set priorities. Personally I'd rather more
> > taxation was spent on hospitals and education. If we can
> > limit the costs of maintainence of certain classes of
> > by-way by placing restrictions on their use, then that
> > has to be a realistic consideration.
> >
> > >
> > > I used to think we had a tolerant society here in the
> > > UK, sad the way its gone.
> > >
> >
> > But tolerance isn't a right for anyone to do as they
> > please. Tolerance is about recognising that there is a
> > need for compromise in society and that the compromise
> > should take a medium to long term view of problems, not
> > short term. Part of the problem is of course that 4x4
> > ownership is much greater than it was in the past. A
> > large percentage of families now own an SUV or 4x4 and
> > some of them regard it as a fun day out to drive these
> > by-ways. Thus the problem is one of increased usage of a
> > limited resource. The solution is either to increase the
> > resource or ration the usage in some way.
> >
> > Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
> > --
> > o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A
> > mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_
> > |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer
and
> > ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
> >

I haven't come across problems with MPVs in the Peak
District, but a recent walk near Hope (along a bridleway)
wasn't exactly enhanced by the regular groups of offroad
motor bikes whizzing noisily past. The din they made could
be heard miles away.

These things don't generally have numberplates. Where can
they legally be driven? Not on bridleways I would assume,
but what is the position with RUPPs, BOATs etc?

Brian

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403180326.4164e13d@posting.google.com...

> How deep are the ruts? If more than about 6" they are not
> caused by 4x4's - agricultural / forestry vehicles mainly.

Most full size 4x4s on standard tyres have a clearance
under their diffs of at least 8 inches. Many of those
who regularly drive unsurfaced roads fit larger tyres to
increase clearance. I don't think its safe to assume
that they must be caused by agri/forestry if ruts are
more than 6 in

>
> I agree that trail bikes are by-and-large a big problem.
> If they are unlicensed then they are ILEGAL and should be
> reported to the police immediately.
>
> All vehicular byways were originally built to a standard
> that could take 5 ton horse/cart combo's with no major
> problems - so if properly maintained they should easily
> carry a three-quarter ton 4x4!
>
> Pete

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote

> Mantra again - just so long as the HA spends money on the
> roads that let you drive to your walking areas you are
> happy then? Who says that the HA is spending on the right
> priorities without wastage? Most are very happy to spend
> many thousands of pounds on a TRO application, and then
> thousands more on putting up signs, gates, etc whereas
> they could have just spent a few hundred pounds to put the
> lane into all-season use condition.

If they made a lane into "all-season use" by hard surfacing
it surely most 4x4drivers and trail bikers would consider it
spoiled. Isn't it the mud and the unevenness that are the
whole reason for wanting to use them?

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403180321.3909852f@posting.google.com...
> > > There is currently apparent an orchestrated campaign
> > > being run by a combination of the Ramblers
> > > Association, GLEAM and the CLBA (plus others) with the
> > > avowed aim of banning mechanically propelled vehicles
> > > from all unsealed Rights of Way.
> >
> > Good for them.
>
> > > You only have to look at the Ramblers website (and
> > > others) to have this anti-vehicle stance pushed down
> > > your throat!
> >
> > Er, if you deliberately go to a website looking for
> > something, can you really complain of having it 'pushed
> > down your throat' when you find
it?
> >
> > > Lets be clear that we are talking here about perfectly
> > > legal use of MPV's on BOAT's, RUPP's and UCR's (in
> > > total about 5% of the RoW network), NOT any sort of
> > > illegal use.
> >
> > Not illegal yet. Hopefully soon.
> >
> > > I used to think we had a tolerant society here in
> > > the UK
> >
> > Really? How peculiar.
>
> Oh grow up for gawds sake! It's bigots like you that cause
> most of the conflict in this world!!

I object to the persistent bombardment of this Walking
newsgroup by a handful of rednecks pushing their own weird
minority agenda. I'm not interested in your ridiculous
obsession with tearing around the countryside in willie-
substitute vehicles. Rather than causing unlimited
environmental pollution by churning up the few traffic-free
routes that remain, can't you just speed round Tesco's
carpark like the other emotionally retarded 4x4 Warriors.
It's desperately embarrassing really.

Rather than taking the huff you might actually try answering
the points I suggested:

-Is the phrase "You only have to look at the Ramblers
website (and others) to have this anti-vehicle stance pushed
down your throat!" not a little silly? -Does the phrase "I
used to think we had a tolerant society here in the UK"
contain any meaning whatsoever, or is it just a banal
reactionary mantra? -Does the fact that I disagree with your
(unsought-for & strictly OT) argument really qualify me as a
bigot? -If I do actually "cause most of the conflict in this
world!!" am I in fact Dr Evil?

--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

In 5da3666f.0403180318.100da32b@posting.google.com
Peter Browning mused:
> "Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3a6qq$26qis5$1@ID-177711.news.uni-
> berlin.de>...
>> In 5da3666f.0403170318.265c7475@posting.google.com Peter
>> Browning mused: <snip>
>>> When I walk I stick to FP's and bridleways,
>>
>> Well, that's scuppered your chances of walking at least
>> two of the National Trails.
>
> So what? I do not share the desire that 'if it's there I
> must walk it'

And I likewise do not share the desire that 'if it's there I
must drive it'.

Touchee? :-)

> and if I did, and it was a road I would be prepared to
> share it with other users.

I'd say that at least one (the oldest as in terms of being
designated as a National Trail) of these National Trails
(which form part of the EU long distance path network) was a
designated National Trail *before* the relevant sections of
UCR attracted 'recreational' motorised use.

Certain sections which use small lengths of UCR are barely a
Landrover's width. Therefore if one happens to meet an
oncoming Landrover whilst walking along these, one is faced
with a small quandry...

Foot traffic has right-of-way over non-foot traffic (I think
this is a correct basic assumption), so does one make the
driver reverse his/her vehicle all the way back to the
nearest passing place (which is probably where the 'lane'
left the tarmac road)?

Or does one commit a trespass onto adjacent land?

> I am more than happy to walk in areas that I like on
> footpaths (mainly). I have never walked, ridden or driven
> on the Ridgeway for example - I have no particular desire
> to go miles out of my way to do so.

I've never been on the Ridgeway, either.

--
A l'eau - c'est l'heure (French Navy Motto)

BrianW <brian@nospam.net>
> These things don't generally have numberplates. Where can
> they legally be driven? Not on bridleways I would assume,
> but what is the position with RUPPs, BOATs etc?

Whatever the situation as regards RUPPs and BOATs the motor
bikes have to get to them and if they use metalled roads
they will definitely be committing an offence - and I
should think they will on a RUPP [Road Used as a Public
Path] too. Someone I know who lives in Baslow reports that
most Sunday mornings motor bikes [without number plates]
are unloaded in the local car park. They then drive up
Eaton Hill onto the Bar Road which leads up to Baslow Edge.
Have you tried walking up Bar Road in bad weather - there's
one very messy patch.

As regards there being no real problem with 4x4s try walking
Sough Lane southwards from the footpath between Chelmorton
and Taddington [in the Peak District] after wet weather. The
ruts are horrendous.

Try telling the horserider who has been complaining about
the old road over Madge Hill, near Kniveton [Peak District
or as near as dammit]. 4x4s are getting stuck in the ruts
there and because the 'road' is narrow nothing can get past.
The local farmer has had to drag out a number of 4x4s and
recently nearly tipped over his tractor - so he's starting
to get rather fed up.

Have you seen some of the photographs of The Ridgeway ?

I am quite happy to live and let live but when when
something starts affecting want I want to do - surely I'm
going to wonder whether I can do something about it.

Charlie.

"BrianW" <brian@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:wO06c.4566$1h7.30196@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>
> I haven't come across problems with MPVs in the Peak
> District, but a
recent
> walk near Hope (along a bridleway) wasn't exactly enhanced
> by the regular groups of offroad motor bikes whizzing
> noisily past. The din they made
could
> be heard miles away.
>
> These things don't generally have numberplates. Where can
> they legally be driven? Not on bridleways I would assume,
> but what is the position with RUPPs, BOATs etc?

1) It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on a public RoW that
does not have provable vehicular rights. Unclassified
roads do (usually), BOATs do (always), many RUPPs do -
some bridleways & footpaths do (but most don't).

2) An unsealed vehicular RoW is a road just like any other.
It is illegal to ride a motorcycle on a public RoW if
the motorcycle is not fully street-legal. It must have
number plates, current tax disc, insurance & an MOT
certificate if relevant. The rider must have a current
driving licence.

3) Unlicenced motorcycles (and unlicenced quads) can only be
driven on private land with the landowners permission.

If you see illegal motorcyles on an public RoW, please
take a photo if you have a digital camera - and report it
to the police.

Cheer