Use of Motor Vehicles on Byways

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.

You only have to look at the Ramblers website (and others)
to have this anti-vehicle stance pushed down your throat!

The main arguments put forward by the Ramblers, CLBA and
associated cronies so far as I can see are:

1. Damage caused to the Rights of Way
2. Safety risks to ramblers
3. and as all the Rights of Way came into existence before
the internal combustion engine then the internal
combustion engine should be banned outright.

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. In
fact (and this is not meant for bias) the only time my
daughter had a problem was a year or so back when she (on
horseback on a bridleway) came upon a party of walkers who
had two free roaming dogs with them which scared the horse.
On the few occasions my daughter has come across 4x4's they
have, without fail stopped and turned off their engines
until she had passed by - there has never been a problem.

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.

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. 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. A lot of
byways I know are only kept passable at all by the
occasional use by 4x4's.

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. 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 used to think we had a tolerant society here in the UK,
sad the way its gone.

Pete

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"

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.

[...]
>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.

[...]
>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.

>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).

Regards, Nick.

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

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.

<snip>

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

"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.

--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

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.
--
Gordon

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. The most recent manifestation of this campaign can
> be seen in the DEFRA 'consultation document' on the
> subject.
>
> You only have to look at the Ramblers website (and others)
> to have this anti-vehicle stance pushed down your throat!

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.
> The main arguments put forward by the Ramblers, CLBA and
> associated cronies so far as I can see are:
>
> 1. Damage caused to the Rights of Way
> 2. Safety risks to ramblers
> 3. and as all the Rights of Way came into existence before
> the internal combustion engine then the internal
> combustion engine should be banned outright.
>
> 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. In fact (and this is not meant for bias) the
> only time my daughter had a problem was a year or so back
> when she (on horseback on a bridleway) came upon a party
> of walkers who had two free roaming dogs with them which
> scared the horse. On the few occasions my daughter has
> come across 4x4's they have, without fail stopped and
> turned off their engines until she had passed by - there
> has never been a problem.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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. A lot of byways I know are only kept
> passable at all by the occasional use by 4x4's.
>
> 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. 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 used to think we had a tolerant society here in the UK,
> sad the way its gone.
>
> Pete

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?

--

http://www.dscs.demon.co.uk/

barry <activator@beeteeinternet.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, I know that the width varies, but these 4x4s are
totally inappropriate for town use. My last holiday in
America horrified me, and I still see some here with
bullbars driving in towns; I thought they were to be banned?

Mothers who take their kids to school in these tanks should
be ashamed of the potential damage they could do if they hit
a child on the road. I avoid the 'school run' times on the
roads, having been carved up by mums who are rushing to get
there before their darlings are let loose.
--
Gordon

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. ;-)
--
Gordon

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". :-(
--
Gordon

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?
--
Gordon

In a recent message
<5da3666f.0403180315.37611228@posting.google.com>, Peter
Browning <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote.

[...]
>> 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??
[...]

Your freedom to engage in your pastime mustn't stop me from
engaging in mine.

Why do drivers of recreation vehicles on byways have to
destroy the whole width of the track? Why can't they leave
me half a metre at the edge of a fifteen metre-wide track to
walk on? Where's *my* freedom here? I've asked these
questions of the 4WD community time and time again and have
never received a sensible answer.

Regards, Nick.

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

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. I was going to
phase myself out of this thread because we're going round in
circles, 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. The simple canalised rutting
mechanism you have in mind is not the one that occurs in
practice on heavily trafficked byways.

Regards, Nick.

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

John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote
>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."
>
Close enough to convey the message, I think....
--
Gordon