Use of Motor Vehicles on Byways - Page 4

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:09:29 +0000 (UTC), "barry"
<activator@beeteeinternet.com> wrote:

>
>"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
>

Yes - we should have wider bays. Angled too. The present
system is daft.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"barry" wrote in message after>
> 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.
>

That's the same problem the 4x4 offroading guys are having,
a few stupid drivers are spoiling it for the rest. A bit
like who is it that keeps throwing rubbish down on the
footpaths I walk, it must be other walkers, so perhaps there
should be a ban on everyone walking the footpaths. Silly?
then so are the other calls for bans. If a small proportion
of the >5% that 4x4's can use is damaged don't call for a
ban, call for repair, or a separate raised walking track.
Don't just say the Council won't repair them, get together
with all the other users and fight for it, or even do the
work yourselves together, you all want the same, to be able
to use these paths. (or are you a selfish B and want it for
yourself alone) Of course, like some want the 4x4's to go
elsewhere, walkers also have an infinitely bigger choice and
can walk elsewhere.
--
Regards Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent
life amongst the stars

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403180301.31da729a@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Frederick Wildgoose" <wildgoose@zetnet.co.uk>
> wrote in message
news:<4058a6ba$0$25335$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net>...
> > BrianW <brian@nospam.net>
>
> 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?
>

It doesn't seem to be in our local Council's interests to
clear obstructed by-ways.

"Following receipt of a letter raising concerns about its
condition, it was decided that no action be taken at present
regarding clearance of Silkstead Lane, as it was considered
that the path is adequately passable on foot and any further
clearance might encourage motorised users which would not be
in the parish's interests."
http://compton.parish.hants.gov.uk/magazine/jul98.htm

This lane was still blocked recently!

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

> 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

I've never found paths churned up by horses to be much of a
problem on a bike. The surface is still pretty even, just a
bit bumpy if dry or muddy if wet. Ruts caused by motor
vehicles on the other hand can sometimes be very hard to
ride through because the pedals catch the sides if you try
to ride in the rut and trying to balance on what can be a
very narrow uneven strip between them often isn't easy.

But as well as ruts caused by vehicles you can find similar
worn grooves which make riding a bike tough going which have
been made by walkers, just water erosion or probably
cyclists themselves.

"AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3cgt7$iam$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote
>
> > These vehicles are ILLEGAL anywhere. RUPP's, BOAT's,
> > UCR's etc are all

> 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.

Whilst I have lots of sympathy for those folks whose day
is spoiled by some lout on a motorcycle doing wheelies &
tearing up the moorland - I really don't have much for
those who claim that they just "don't want them there", no
matter how careful or quiet. You aren't really saying
that, are you?

Cheers Andrew Kay

"barry" <activator@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c3cf8b$2i2$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> "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!

This is part of the reason why sensible 4x4 RoW drivers get
so annoyed;
1. There is a hooligan element that cause 95% of all
problems. If they wern't there no-one would even notice
the legal and sensible 4x4's
2. There are existing laws which allow for prosecution
and/or vehicle confiscation of such anti-social users!
3. The police will not get of their fat arses to do anything
about it so the problem grows
4. Everyone wants to ban ALL 4x4's from byways because of
the hooligans
5. Such a ban if it happened would make no difference to the
problems currently moaned about because the illegals will
not be deterred - all that will have been achieved will
be to deprive a few people of a harmless hobby and the
illegals / hooligans will still tear around on their
unlicensed bikes safe in the knowledge that they will
never be prosecuted.

BUT - no-one in the rambling community can (or will) accept
that this is the case. If the police would take a high
profile and prosecute a few in a high profile way then the
problem would rapidly dwindle. I would be greatful to anyone
who can explain to me logically why ramblers will not accept
this reasoning!!

Pete

"AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c3cgt7$iam$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "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.

Perfectly legal bikes are very annoying to me when they
leave the pub late on a summers Saturday night and disturb
me - but that's not a reason for a ban; maybe for a quieter
bike but not a ban.

Also you too have revealed yourself to be a true believer in
the true mantra of the Ramblers; - We do not want YOU here
because YOU spoil OUR enjoyment and OUR enjoyment is the
holiest of holy's that must not be interfered with by
anyone, so help me God!!

I live quite local to the Malvern Hills and I get very
annoyed by the hordes of Rambler 'tourists' we get here
every summer - they tend to walk in large groups along the
local lanes (tarmac ordinary road variety - not byways) with
an attitude that implies that we mere local motorists should
not be there. However, I do not write to my MP, HA, etc to
try and get them banned!

As I have said before - live and let live; it's much better
in the long run.

Pete

<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <0rqi50pnfrrbhi402ipuj4757gmlr3ivgm@4ax.com>,
>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>Yes - we should have wider bays. Angled too. The present
>>system is daft.
>>
>
>So do you want larger car parks or less spaces?

Larger car parks. The standard sized bay is OK for Hillman
Imps or suchlike. In your average modern car, it's not
possible to open the doors fully without hitting your
neighbour. An extra floor on multi-storeys wouldn't go
amiss, or an extra half acre in out of town store car parks.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

news:qDXckmD28WWAFwvx@dscs.demon.co.uk...
> In article <0rqi50pnfrrbhi402ipuj4757gmlr3ivgm@4ax.com>,
> Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> writes
> >>> They're a bloody nuisance in car parks too, because
> >>> they are too wide for the bays.
> >>> --
>
> So do you want larger car parks or less spaces?

BOTH !!!

Barry

"Andrew Kay" <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote

> Whilst I have lots of sympathy for those folks whose day
> is spoiled by
some
> lout on a motorcycle doing wheelies & tearing up the
> moorland - I really don't have much for those who claim
> that they just "don't want them
there",
> no matter how careful or quiet. You aren't really saying
> that, are you?

No, not me. I've never been bothered by the ones I've met,
legal or not. I was disappointed when a motorbike tyre sized
groove appeared down one of my local RUPPs and made it a
pain to cycle down but there's plenty of other places I can
use so I'm happy to leave it to them.

"Citizen Smith" <dorset_no_spam_hippy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3cfi9$26ivha$1@ID-53332.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
> message
> news:5da3666f.0403180301.31da729a@posting.google.com...
> > "Charles Frederick Wildgoose" <wildgoose@zetnet.co.uk>
> > wrote in message
> news:<4058a6ba$0$25335$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.-
> net>...
> > > BrianW <brian@nospam.net>
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> It doesn't seem to be in our local Council's interests to
> clear obstructed by-ways.
>
> "Following receipt of a letter raising concerns about its
> condition, it was decided that no action be taken at
> present regarding clearance of Silkstead Lane, as it was
> considered that the path is adequately passable on foot
> and any further clearance might encourage motorised users
> which would not be in the parish's interests."
> http://compton.parish.hants.gov.uk/magazine/jul98.htm

Highway Authorities will usually expend lots of time and
money to do nothing. If this lane definitely has vehicle
rights then the HA have a duty to maintain it to an
appropriate standard. If they won't, then issue them with a
s56 'highway out of repair' notice. Anyone can issue these
but a letter to the HA threatening s56 if nothing is done
will sometimes do the trick!

Pete

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:58:08 +0000, Gordon <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>NO! That wastes space. In some US car parks there are
>spaces closer to the store entrance for 'compacts', which
>favours the small car shoppers. Monster trucks should be
>parked well away from the doors.

In some UK car parks there are spaces closer to the store
entrance for disabled badge-holders, parents with small
children, or not for parking at all. They are all favoured
by krautmobiles and SUVs. Monster trucks appear to inhabit
the pavement directly outside the revolving doors.

[Sitting in a queue at the gate at Universal Studios in
Orlando, an *enormous* pickup drew up alongside. One of
those 7-litre V10s with double wheels on the back axle. H-u-u-u-g-
e it was. The ground shook as the engine ticked over. So, we
follow it in and park alongside, as directed. Out get Mr &
Mrs SUV. Both over 70, and neither more than 5'6" tall.]

--
I'm busy now. Do you mind if I ignore you later?

Mail john rather than nospam...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:58:08 +0000, Gordon <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>
>>Yes - we should have wider bays. Angled too. The present
>>system is daft.
>>
>NO! That wastes space. In some US car parks there are
>spaces closer to the store entrance for 'compacts', which
>favours the small car shoppers. Monster trucks should be
>parked well away from the doors.
>
>Of course a compact means anything the size of my Mondeo or
>less. ;-)

Angled bays can save space - the aisles can be narrower than
for straight ones.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"B.G. Finlay IT Services" <bgfinlay@dux.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c3d2qu$h11$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk...
> Peter Browning (peter@worcester-networks.com) wrote:
> : "AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in
> : message
news:<c3cgt7$iam$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> : > 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.
>
> : Perfectly legal bikes are very annoying to me when they
> : leave the pub late on a summers Saturday night and
> : disturb me - but that's not a reason for a ban; maybe
> : for a quieter bike but not a ban.
>
> 'Perfectly legal bikes' shouldn't be noisy. If a bike is
> noisy it's probably been fitted with a race exhaust in an
> attempt to increase power or sound sportier but it's
> illegal and riders get fined for using them. Blair.

Perfectly legal motorcycles are often noisy.......especially
when revved hard in lower gears.........and good old 2
strokes can be even worse..and smelly to boot !!! but think
of the fun those guys are having...................only a
dullard and spoilsport would object...............live and
let live. Some people just get annoyed that others are
having more fun in life than themselves..........

Barry

"AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c3d5rn$2m1$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Also you too have revealed yourself to be a true
> > believer in the true mantra of the Ramblers; - We do not
> > want YOU here because YOU spoil OUR enjoyment and OUR
> > enjoyment is the holiest of holy's that must not be
> > interfered with by anyone, so help me God!!
>
> Your mind reading abilities are playing up I'm afraid.
> Note the phrase "people who don't want them there" rather
> than the word "me".

Oops, sorry if I mislabled you ;-) It was lateish and it had
been a long day.

Pete