Use of Motor Vehicles on Byways - Page 3

"Gordon" <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B88YELADIMWAFwIK@g3snx.demon.co.uk...
> Rifleman <me9@privacy.net> wrote
> >"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.
> >
> They're a bloody nuisance in car parks too, because they
> are too wide for the bays.

That works the other way too. Personally, I'm sick to death
of driving around a busy car park, finding an 'empty' space
and turning into it only to find there's a flaming 'smart
car' taking up about a 3rd of the space. These damn things
are just too small to be allowed out in public!! At least
you can see 4x4's in the car park, and you know that parking
space is full and you needn't waste your time trying to park
in the same place!!

Dave

"Gordon" <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B88YELADIMWAFwIK@g3snx.demon.co.uk...
> Rifleman <me9@privacy.net> wrote
> >"Mike Clark" <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message 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.
> >
> They're a bloody nuisance in car parks too, because they
> are too wide for the bays.
> --
> Gordon

------------------------------------------------------------
-

Gordon like aircraft seats there is a trend to cram more
parking spaces into smaller and smaller spaces. its the
parking space dimensions that are a problem.Not the size of
the vehicles.

Cram more in /make more money is the approach as opposed to
what's a reasonable size.

Barry

"BrianW" <brian@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<wO06c.4566$1h7.30196@newsfep4-
glfd.server.ntli.net>... [snip]
>
> 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

These vehicles are ILLEGAL anywhere. RUPP's, BOAT's, UCR's
etc are all ROADS and subject to the same regulations. Any
vehicle using them, be it a motor bike, car or whatever must
have current Road Tax, Current insurance, current MOT (if
appropriate) and the driver must hold a driving licence.

This is one of the BIG problems - ILLEGAL use of byways
which spoils things for everyone.

I suggest that if you see any of this sort of activity again
you take pictures AND call the police at once giving your
location and as many details as you can.

A lot of these bikes are brought by car/trailer - if you
happen to see any of these vehicles photograph them as well
and give to the police with a request to prosecute.

I would like to se all these bast***s caught and their poxy
bikes confiscated!

Pete

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:xgQm0$FR3aWAFwO4@local.mail...

> 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.

Cheers Andrew Kay

**********************************
A closed mind is like a closed book - just a block of wood:
Chinese proverb
**********************************

"AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3chlb$sd0$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

> 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?

Many of the unsealed roads that we are talking about here do
have a hard "metalled" surface (i.e. stone not tarmac). It
will be under several inches of silt if the lanes are rarely
used by vehicles. Try poking one that looks like its just
soil with the pointed end of a walking pole or umbrella. You
might be surprised what you find.

To try to answer your question from a personal perspective
(I cannot speak for others but I do know that many share
my view) - no, mud isn't anything to do with wanting to
use lanes.

I don't consider the repaired lane over Dead Man's Hill in
the Yorkshire Dales spoiled because it was repaired to look
pretty much as it would have done originally.

I do, however, consider the road from Dyfi Forest over the
mountain & down to the A487 a few miles south of Dolgellau
as having being spoiled forever by the tarmac machine. Its a
terrible eye-sore and the tarmac is an act of vandalism
perpetrated, I think, solely for the benefit of long
distance road cyclists. I doubt that it has much attraction
any more for motorists, horse riders or walkers alike.

Cheers Andrew Kay

>-If I do actually "cause most of the conflict in this
>world!!" am I in fact Dr Evil?

Then I must be.....

Fat Bastard!

Richard Webb

"AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c3chlb$sd0$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "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?

This is the common and fallacious belief of the 'anti-4x4
brigade' NO, mud is the opposite of what we look for. A
properly made up byway (as it would have been originally) is
a compacted but roughish stone surface which greens over due
to soil being washed into the interstices between the
stones. Hence the road does not become an eysore (as tarmac
roads are) but which also stands up to very heavy use.

If a byway is not maintained and has little vehicle use then
several inches (or many inches) of mud and silt will build
up over the stone layer; it is this layer where the ruts are
formed and which anti's mistakenly point at and cry 'foul'
In fact it is the mud itself whichis the damage.

The last thing most laners want is to a) get stuck in mud
and b) slither around on a muddy slippy surface and as a
result hit a tree or something and bend our nice 4x4's ;-)

Pete

Pete

"Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3cumo$26dok8$2@ID-177711.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> 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? :-)

No, not really. In total in England and Wales there are
about 9000 Km of vehicular RoW's. That's not all that much
and certain counties have relatively very few. Therefore 4x4
drivers have little choice as to where they can drive. Also,
if a vehicular byway is not used by vehicles then the HA /
local residents can apply to the courts for a stopping up
order on the grounds it is no longer necessary; this doesn't
happen with FP's and BW's for some reason.

So, a combination of not much road and having to use or lose
it means that most does get driven.

>
> > 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.

I think you'll find it was designated an 'essential' Drove
Road, Coffin Road, or whatever for carrying essential goods
and vehicles long before any sort of national trail or EU
path was thought of!

>
> 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...

This is a result of lack of maintenance and use resulting in
encroachment of vegetation and soil onto the carriageway
thus reducing its width. You will find that most
carriageways, when originally concieved were at least 20
feet in width. So I suggest you contact the relevant HA to
see about geting some maintenance done. Maybe you could
consider threatening the HA with an s56 order.

>
> 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)?

On a carriageway (like any other road) vehicular traffic has
right of way over foot traffic except where there is also a
dedicated FP alongside the carriageway.

Pete

-




"Andrew Kay" <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:c3ad98$19i$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "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

...........................................................-
................. .......

Motor cycles can only legally ride Rupps Boats and other
legal byways Only if they are legal themselves. These byways
are for all purposes unmade roads .......so all normal road
licences and insurance , number plate etc are needed. Many
of the legal riders ride with great responsibility.........a
lot are menbers of the TRF who do a lot to look after the
lanes. The bandits with no number plates...........are
irresponsible and spoil it for others and will in the end be
the cause of greater bans.

Barry

"Charles Frederick Wildgoose" <wildgoose@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4058a6ba$0$25335$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net>...
> 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.

Again, mainly caused by ILLEGAL off-road scramble bikes! Not
4x4's. Get the boys in blue to get off their fat arses and
do something about it - these people cannot be hard to catch
if they are unloading bikes in the car park for goodness
sake! So why haven't they been reported??

>
> 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.

How do you mean horrendous? Over what length of the lane and
how deep are they.

>
> 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.

Maybe a little maintenance by the Highway Authority would
solve the problem fo everyone?? Have you contacted the HA to
see what they intend to do about it?

Also there are several bridleways near where I live that are
used for 'horse trekking groups' or whatever it's called.
They are so churned up by horses hooves that it is
completely impassable to a cyclist (me
- even on a decent ATB) and very difficult for walkers

And before you have a go at me for being anti-horse, I'm not
- my daughter is a keen horse rider.

>
> Have you seen some of the photographs of The Ridgeway ?

I have, mostly of damage caused by agricultural & forestry
vehicles and equipment.

>
> 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.

Not if what you want to do is something that you could
perfectly well do elsewhere, like on footpaths & bridleways,
etc. I could moan about horsey use causing problems, but I
don't because it's not much of a problem in absolute terms
so live and let live, why not!?

Pete

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403180249.524224ca@posting.google.com...
> "BrianW" <brian@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<wO06c.4566$1h7.30196@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> [snip]
> >
> A lot of these bikes are brought by car/trailer - if you
> happen to see any of these vehicles photograph them as
> well and give to the police with a request to prosecute.
>
> I would like to se all these bast***s caught and their
> poxy bikes confiscated!
>
> Pete

I agree confiscate the motorcycles of the illegal
users...but give the legal riders a fair chance to enjoy
their chosen pastime. The police already have powers to
confiscate illegal users vehicles. But are they doing
this..?...............A good friend of mine was mugged at
2pm last Friday in a busy village outside shops by 4
guys..who took his credit cards and cash..............the
Police had not even visited him at home by weds this week

Too busy processing the cash from roadside cameras no doubt!

Barry

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

> These vehicles are ILLEGAL anywhere. RUPP's, BOAT's, UCR's
> etc are all ROADS and subject to the same regulations. Any
> vehicle using them, be it a motor bike, car or whatever
> must have current Road Tax, Current insurance, current MOT
> (if appropriate) and the driver must hold a driving
> licence.
>
> This is one of the BIG problems - ILLEGAL use of byways
> which spoils things for everyone.

Why is the lack of road tax etc any kind of problem?
Perfectly legal bikes would still be noisy, put wear and
tear on the road surface and generally be annoying to people
that don't want them there.

In 5da3666f.0403180249.524224ca@posting.google.com
Peter Browning mused:
> "BrianW" <brian@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<wO06c.4566$1h7.30196@newsfep4-
> glfd.server.ntli.net>... [snip]
>>
>> 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
>
> These vehicles are ILLEGAL anywhere. RUPP's, BOAT's, UCR's
> etc are all ROADS and subject to the same regulations. Any
> vehicle using them, be it a motor bike, car or whatever
> must have current Road Tax, Current insurance, current MOT
> (if appropriate) and the driver must hold a driving
> licence.
>
> This is one of the BIG problems - ILLEGAL use of byways
> which spoils things for everyone.
>
> I suggest that if you see any of this sort of activity
> again you take pictures AND call the police at once

A bit impractical when one (a) may not have a camera and (b)
may be one or more hours walk away from the nearest phone.

> giving your location and as many details as you can.
>
> A lot of these bikes are brought by car/trailer - if you
> happen to see any of these vehicles photograph them as
> well and give to the police with a request to prosecute.

In all probability, I'll have already left the car and be
on the hill, so I will neither see them arrive nor see
them depart.

> I would like to se all these bast***s caught and their
> poxy bikes confiscated!

We agree on this.

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

"RJ Webb" <highcruxroad@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:405a05aa.40439093@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >-If I do actually "cause most of the conflict in this
> >world!!" am I in
fact
> >Dr Evil?
>
> Then I must be.....
>
> Fat Bastard!

By your own words damned ..:-)
--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

In 5da3666f.0403181437.2abd3bd7@posting.google.com
Peter Browning mused:
> "Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3cumo$26dok8$2@ID-177711.news.uni-
> berlin.de>...
>> 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? :-)
>
> No, not really. In total in England and Wales there are
> about 9000 Km of vehicular RoW's.

Does that include the 'defiled' stuff? Because, after all,
they are all Highways ;-)

> That's not all that much and certain counties have
> relatively very few.

Similar observations can be applied to bridleways and
footpaths. Some areas have 'more than their fair share'.

> Therefore 4x4 drivers have little choice as to where they
> can drive. Also, if a vehicular byway is not used by
> vehicles then the HA / local residents can apply to the
> courts for a stopping up order on the grounds it is no
> longer necessary; this doesn't happen with FP's and BW's
> for some reason.

Scotland?

> So, a combination of not much road and having to use or
> lose it means that most does get driven.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I think you'll find it was designated an 'essential' Drove
> Road, Coffin Road, or whatever for carrying essential
> goods and vehicles long before any sort of national trail
> or EU path was thought of!

Almost certainly - but the National Trail came before the
other 'non essential', and is of great importance in the
history of access to the 'outdoors' by the great unwashed.

Or are you saying that usage by all 4x4 is 'essential'? :-P

>> 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...
>
> This is a result of lack of maintenance and use resulting
> in encroachment of vegetation and soil onto the
> carriageway thus reducing its width.

Might I say bovine processed grass :-) One of 'em I'm
thinking of has a very fine stone base, quite well
maintained (mainly by the landowner and the 4x4 'crews'),
and is pure moorland to one side, and fine old gritstone
wall to the other. I don't think the moor has moved *that*
much, and neither has the wall. It was just 'made' that way.
Perhaps it has been mis-classified...

> You will find that most carriageways, when originally
> concieved were at least 20 feet in width. So I suggest you
> contact the relevant HA to see about geting some
> maintenance done. Maybe you could consider threatening the
> HA with an s56 order.

I don't think that it would be 'correct' in this case (and
others). But I accept your point that some historic ways may
have been/are that width, although the wider ones have long
been 'defiled' (to use your term?).

>> 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)?
>
> On a carriageway (like any other road) vehicular traffic

<historically pedant> Vehicular as in (traditionally) horse-
drawn? </>

> has right of way over foot traffic except where there is
> also a dedicated FP alongside the carriageway.

(A judgement in court against a member of my family at one
time would suggested otherwise to me. I'd be interested in
relevant clauses, codes, case law and judgements that
support your assertions.)

But being a bluidy-minded sort, I'll play your line...

OK - I meet an oncoming Landrover.

I turn, knowing that the nearest passing place is closer,
distance-wise, in the direction from which I came. I have
not immediate wish to trespass, and I am walking at 1.3 mph
(I'm too tired to go any faster, and will be even more tired
after I have travelled this section of 'road' for the third
time) until I get back to a suitable passing place...

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