Use of Motor Vehicles on Byways - Page 5

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.

"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".

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:59:35 +0000, Gordon <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>"If you want Paradise - put up a parking lot". :-(

Are you making up your own lyrics ? It actually goes: "They
paved paradise, put up a parking lot."

--
Do not disturb... Already disturbed enough!

Mail john rather than nospam...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:01:12 +0000, Gordon <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> In your average modern car, it's not possible to open the
>> doors fully without hitting your neighbour.
>
>So it was you, was it?

I'm thin - I can get out of the car without fully opening
it! Fat people struggle. As do old people, people with
kids, etc. It's ridiculous - there should be room to open
your doors!

--

Paul

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

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

In c3d92h$4tf$1@titan.btinternet.com
barry mused:
> "B.G. Finlay IT Services" <bgfinlay@dux.dundee.ac.uk>
> wrote in message news:c3d2qu$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 !!!

I don't smell a boot, I smell a troll, but...

> 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..........

Mmm. Noise is fun?

National Parks.

Quiet Enjoyment?

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-
office.co.uk/pa/ld199495/ldhansrd/vo941215/text/41215-14.htm

The Dower report, which created the framework for today's
national parks, stated in 1945:

"Those who come to National Parks should be such as wish
to enjoy and cherish the beauty and quietude of unspoilt
country and to take their recreation, active or passive,
in ways that do not impair the beauty or quietude, nor
spoil the enjoyment of them by others".

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

"Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3df62$26dphn$1@ID-177711.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In c3d92h$4tf$1@titan.btinternet.com barry mused:
> > "B.G. Finlay IT Services" <bgfinlay@dux.dundee.ac.uk>
> > wrote in message news:c3d2qu$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 !!!
>
>
> I don't smell a boot, I smell a troll, but...

------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
>

So now you don't agree with me so I'm a troll >> ? Not so.
Just have never liked the attitude of those who don't want
to share the countryside with other law abiding citizens.

If you smell a troll...................go see your doctor,
your nose might need sweeping. I have as much right to my
opinion as you. Once again ROWs are there for all legal
users to enjoy.......it's selfish folks like the Ramblers
that want it all to themselves.

Barry

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:19:19 +0000, Nick Hopton <hopton@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:

>On the question of damage to green lanes,

<snip>

We 'damage' our roads constantly, by using them. It's wear
and tear. The solution is not to stop using them, but to
maintain them where necessary. Whether they are 'green' or
tarmac is immaterial - except that green lanes don't require
constant resurfacing!

--

Paul

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

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

"Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3df62$26dphn$1@ID-177711.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> In c3d92h$4tf$1@titan.btinternet.com barry mused:
[snip]
>
>
> I don't smell a boot, I smell a troll, but...
>
> > 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..........
>
> Mmm. Noise is fun?
>
> National Parks.
>
> Quiet Enjoyment?
>
> http://www.parliament.the-stationery-
> office.co.uk/pa/ld199495/ldhansrd/vo941215/text/41215-
> 14.htm
>
> The Dower report, which created the framework for today's
> national parks, stated in 1945:
>
>
>
> "Those who come to National Parks should be such as wish
> to enjoy and cherish the beauty and quietude of unspoilt
> country and to take their recreation, active or passive,
> in ways that do not impair the beauty or quietude, nor
> spoil the enjoyment of them by others".

I'm not disagreeing in totality but why only snipe at car
drivers. When I am after peace and quiet, be it in The
Lakes, YD's, Welsh Marches or wherever there is far, far
more disturbance and intrusion from (in various locations):

Microlights Pleasure trip helicopters Pleasure trip light
aircraft Glider tug aircraft speedboats Water skiing jetskis

All far more intrusive and polluting than the
infrequent 4x4.

Why is no-one shouting for all these to be banned from
National Parks??

Pete

"allan.lambert" <allan.lambert@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<Nx46c.3[snip]
> 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.

Errr... they already are, they are called Footpaths and
their frequency in the RoW network is a little more than
occasional!

> 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.

That is exactly what motorised user-groups are arguing for:

FP's (85% of RoW network) for walkers BW's (10% of RoW
network) for walkers, horses and cyclists BOAT's,
RUPP's & UCR's (5% of RoW network) for MPV, walkers,
horses and cyclists.

Pete

In a recent message
<26gl50h2sflof3bq11igso1hn59bbrs5mf@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
<paulrooney@aol.com> wrote.

[...]
>>On the question of damage to green lanes,
>
><snip>
>
>
>We 'damage' our roads constantly, by using them. It's wear
>and tear. The solution is not to stop using them, but to
>maintain them where necessary. Whether they are 'green' or
>tarmac is immaterial - except that green lanes don't
>require constant resurfacing!

There is a difference between unsurfaced byways and surfaced
roadways. A thousand passes by a Land River on a dry, green
track won't mark it. One pass by a Land Rover on a wet,
green track will produce significant rutting. Your solution
would be to metal the surface of every byway in the country,
my solution would be to stop recreational vehicles from
using such byways when they're wet.

But you've cunningly lead me back to technicalities and
these are not important any more. We're now in the political
phase and it's only perception and clout that counts there.

Regards, Nick.

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

In a recent message
<5da3666f.0403190216.1bd0d6be@posting.google.com>, Peter
Browning <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote.

[...]
>> The simple canalised rutting mechanism you have in mind
>> is not the one that occurs in practice on heavily
>> trafficked byways.
>
>Yes it is.
[...]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this. If it was ever
important, it's not now.

Regards, Nick.

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

Nick Hopton <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<zB12syGHGbWAFw9k@local.mail>...
> In a recent message
> <5da3666f.0403180326.4164e13d@posting.google.com>, Peter
> Browning <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote.
>
> [...]
> >How deep are the ruts? If more than about 6" they are not
> >caused by 4x4's
> [...]
>
> That's a mantra that keeps being repeated.

In the same way as the Ramblers Mantra keeps being repeated
then, i.e. 'We already have 90% of RoW's exclusively to
ourselves; now we want the rest as well and sod anybody
elses enjoyment'!?

> I was going to phase myself out of this thread because
> we're going round in circles,

How does one conduct a 'phased withdrawl' from an NG thread?
I thought one either posted or not (or lurked, which is the
same as not posting)? ;-)

but I don't
> feel I can let this statement go unchallenged.
>
> I have made enough passes in enough 4x4s over enough wet,
> green fields to know that what you assert is not correct.
> So have you, I don't doubt.

No, actually I haven't. I rarely if ever drive on wet green
fields, that would be anti-social; only on byways that are
in a suitable state to not be affected materially by the
passage of my vehicle.

> The simple canalised rutting mechanism you have in mind
> is not the one that occurs in practice on heavily
> trafficked byways.

Yes it is.

Pete

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:18:39 +0000, Nick Hopton <hopton@dsl.pipex.com>
wrote:

>In a recent message
><26gl50h2sflof3bq11igso1hn59bbrs5mf@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
><paulrooney@aol.com> wrote.
>
>[...]
>>>On the question of damage to green lanes,
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>We 'damage' our roads constantly, by using them. It's wear
>>and tear. The solution is not to stop using them, but to
>>maintain them where necessary. Whether they are 'green' or
>>tarmac is immaterial - except that green lanes don't
>>require constant resurfacing!
>
>There is a difference between unsurfaced byways and
>surfaced roadways. A thousand passes by a Land River on a
>dry, green track won't mark it. One pass by a Land Rover on
>a wet, green track will produce significant rutting. Your
>solution would be to metal the surface of every byway in
>the country, my solution would be to stop recreational
>vehicles from using such byways when they're wet.
>
>But you've cunningly lead me back to technicalities and
>these are not important any more. We're now in the
>political phase and it's only perception and clout that
>counts there.
>
>Regards, Nick.

No - my 'solution' would not be as you say. My 'solution'
would be to do nothing, as there isn't a problem. There
would only be a problem if ordinary cars needed to use the
unmetalled roads. As it is, the only vehicles that use them
are tractors, 4 x 4s, etc. They get muddy and rutted, but
that doesn't stop tractors, 4 x 4s, or me (on foot). No
problem. If it stops you from walking there then I suggest
you try wellies, a la Adny, for your walks.

--

Paul

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

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

>In the same way as the Ramblers Mantra keeps being repeated
>then, i.e. 'We already have 90% of RoW's exclusively to
>ourselves; now we want the rest as well and sod anybody
>elses enjoyment'!?

While sympathetic to you over row closures - I despise
vehicles elsewhere mind... I dont get the argument here. Its
your vehicles that would be banned, not you. Hope it does
not come to that though.

Anyway what are the RA doing closing Rows.. They dont like
it being done to them..

Should unite agaist the illegals that are carving up so many
great places and ruining almost half of my quiet days out in
Radnorshire for example.

Richard Webb

"Bootlaces" <bootlaces@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3de0r$26g8u0$1@ID-177711.news.uni-
berlin.de>... [snip]
> >>
> >> 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 ;-)

Joke taken - but I am talking about the unsealed type here.

>
> > 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'.

Probably so, but in any particular area there will be at
least ten times as much FP as BOAT, and probably much more.

>
> > 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?

RoW's as we know them in England and Wales do not exist
north of the border.

>
> > 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.

Not so. National trails only came about because of use
pressure from 'non-essential' users. That could have been
walkers, trail bikers, horse riders or drivers, or whomever.

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

Is usage of any byway, FP or whatever by Ramblers essential?

>
> >> 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...

Perhaps - impossible for me to comment on this
particular case but *most* carriageways were originally
at least 20 feet wide (and often wider) in order to
allow two carts to pass.

> >> 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?

As in whatever you like - a vehicle is a vehicle is a
vehicle. Try walking on the M1, or parts of the A44 near
me (no footpath) and see whether cars or pedestrians have
to give way.

[snip]
>
> But being a bluidy-minded sort, I'll play your line...
>
> OK - I meet an oncoming Landrover.

In the extreme, said landrover can be said to be an
obstruction at that particular point in time, though not a
permanent one; so you are within your rights to make a
minimum detour to get around the obstruction :-)

Pete