Access to walking areas - Page 3

"KRO" <KRO@anon.com> wrote in message news:<c3eeag$e6m$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in
> message
> news:5da3666f.0403181209.7fdc9b31@posting.google.com...
> > Phil Cook <urwalk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk>
> > wrote in message
> news:<6e9j50tlmj0kmuq0a8k3f9pmgugdnb3lt6@4ax.com>...
> > > On 18 Mar 2004 03:32:34 -0800, Peter Browning wrote:
> > >
> > > >A question for all who travel to walk and who wish to
> > > >ban MPV's from byways.
> > > >
> > > >How many of you drive to the start of your walk? If
> > > >it's in a national park do you leave your vehicle
> > > >outside the park boundary and walk in?
> > > >
> > > >No - well there's a surprise!
> > >

> > > authority. Now piss of back under your bridge.
> >
> > Well, a Rambler having to plumb the depths of bad
> > language in order to try and make a point! Whatever next
> > - a logical argument?
> >
> > The fact that the road is tarmac makes not a jot of
> > difference to the argument; both the tarmac you speak of
> > and unsealed byways are Highways with exactly the same
> > legal standing. The mere fact that one type of road has
> > been polluted with smelly, carcinogenic and polluting
> > fossil fuel extracts in order to protect wussy cars and
> > the other has a natural stone surface has no bearing on
> > their legality to be driven.
> >
> > If you seek to ban cars from one then you also should
> > not drive on the other.
> >
> > Alternatively perhaps we should press for all byways to
> > be tarmaced??
> >
> > Pete
>
> I agree with Phil, you're a troll. If you don't know the
> difference between a road (A831/B78/M6 etc) and an
> unsealed byway then you're not fit to own a motor vehicle
> of any kind.

I know exactly what the differences and similarities are
thank you! In terms of Highway law there is no difference
whatsoever between, for example the A1, A44, B4308, any UCR
or UUCR and Sarn Helen (at least the southern section from
Aberdulais to Brecon) - they are all Public Carriageways
open to all traffic and all are subject to exactly the same
provisions of the Road Traffic Acts. Perhaps you would be
kind enough to explain what you perceive to be the legal
difference between them?

BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject of
concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t stirring
seems to come from people who belong to the walking
fraternity. Where should I raise the subject IYO?
alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?

BTW there's not
> many "Ramblers" on here.

Well, now you know how other groups feel when tarred with an
inappropriate brush!

Pete

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:R4RuiHMWJwWAFwrI@local.mail...
> In a recent message
> <me+gkcBRXsWAFwuB@braeburn.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Hill
> <Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote.
>
> Well, I'm a member of the Ramblers' Association, so I
> suppose that makes me a <gulp> rambler. Of course, I
> belong to the secret Provisional Wing of the RA that
> exists solely to terrorise 4WD enthusiasts with the threat
> of banishment from green lanes.

Did you go to the Annual General Meeting of the R.A. that
authorised the
R.A. campaign to ban motor vehicles from byways? If you did,
how many people attended that AGM? Was the vote
unanimous?

Cheers Andrew Kay

In article <R4RuiHMWJwWAFwrI@local.mail>, Nick Hopton
<hopton@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>In a recent message
><me+gkcBRXsWAFwuB@braeburn.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Hill
><Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote.
>
>[...]
>>In fact I would guess that not many of the contributors
>>here even describe themselves as "ramblers". We are
>>"walkers". Much more macho <g>
>[...]
>
>Well, I'm a member of the Ramblers' Association, so I
>suppose that makes me a <gulp> rambler. Of course, I belong
>to the secret Provisional Wing of the RA that exists solely
>to terrorise 4WD enthusiasts with the threat of banishment
>from green lanes.
>
>What am I doing here writing this tosh? I had a thirty-odd
>km ramble around Nettlebed, Stonor and Turville planned for
>today but the weather forecast put me off. Now the sun's
>just come out.
>

LOL!

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In a recent message <c3f1b2$v3q$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>Did you go to the Annual General Meeting of the R.A. that
>authorised the
>R.A. campaign to ban motor vehicles from byways? If you
> did, how many people attended that AGM? Was the vote
> unanimous?
[...]

In fact, I didn't go to the AGM, so I can't help you
here. The facts you want must be a matter of record, I'd
have thought.

Regards, Nick.

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

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:c+BNjzQWJxWAFw6Y@local.mail...
> In a recent message <c3f1b2$v3q$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.
>
> >Did you go to the Annual General Meeting of the R.A. that
> >authorised the
> >R.A. campaign to ban motor vehicles from byways? If you
> > did, how many people attended that AGM? Was the vote
> > unanimous?
> [...]
>
> In fact, I didn't go to the AGM, so I can't help you here.
> The facts you want must be a matter of record, I'd have
> thought.

Of record, maybe - but not of public record. I doubt that an
Email from me to the RA would have them admit that the
policy was approved by a majority of only a few dozen, if
that were indeed true.

Cheers Andrew Kay

In a recent message <c3f4a1$dia$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>> >Did you go to the Annual General Meeting of the R.A.
>> >that authorised the
>> >R.A. campaign to ban motor vehicles from byways? If you
>> > did, how many people attended that AGM? Was the
>> > vote unanimous?
>> [...]
>>
>> In fact, I didn't go to the AGM, so I can't help you
>> here. The facts you want must be a matter of record, I'd
>> have thought.
>
>Of record, maybe - but not of public record. I doubt that
>an Email from me to the RA would have them admit that the
>policy was approved by a majority of only a few dozen, if
>that were indeed true.

I've just been looking for the data you want on the RA web
site. I couldn't find it, but I did find the following,
which perhaps you ought to have a look at.

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/arch...reenlanesopin-
ionpoll.html

Regards, Nick.

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

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

> BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject of
> concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t stirring
> seems to come from people who belong to the walking
> fraternity. Where should I raise the subject IYO?
> alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?

The Ramblers website forum?

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/forum/default.asp

"AndyP" <AndyP@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3f87g$aqr$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote
>
> > BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject of
> > concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t stirring
> > seems to come from people who belong to the walking
> > fraternity. Where should I raise the subject IYO?
> > alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?
>
> The Ramblers website forum?
>
> http://www.ramblers.org.uk/forum/default.asp

Errr ........ no.

There were a number of threads on the public RA forum a
month or two back about vehicular rights of way. The
opinions expressed seemed to be generally very different to
the official RA policy. Interestingly, they were all removed
from the forum for being "off-topic". I wonder if that would
have happened if the views expressed had been supportive of
RA policy?

Ho hum .......

Cheers Andrew Kay

"Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:KOsI$4Sh9xWAFw6N@local.mail...

> I've just been looking for the data you want on the RA web
> site. I couldn't find it, but I did find the following,
> which perhaps you ought to have a look at.
>
> http://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/arch.../greenlanesop-
> inionpoll.html

You can get any answers you like from a survey if you devise
a questionnaire with leading or emotively phrased questions
- but I'm sure you know that.. Devising an unbiassed survery
is an artform that few master. Clearly the RA haven't.

For example, if the question about "recreational offroading"
had asked about "members of the public driving on unsealed
roads", the answer would have been very different. OTOH, it
was the RA who commissioned the survey and they didn't want
a very different answer, did they?

Cheers Andrew Kay

In a recent message <c3ff89$6er$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.

[...]
>> I've just been looking for the data you want on the RA
>> web site. I couldn't find it, but I did find the
>> following, which perhaps you ought to have a look at.

>> http://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/arch...4/greenlaneso-
>> pinionpoll.html

>You can get any answers you like from a survey if you
>devise a questionnaire with leading or emotively phrased
>questions - but I'm sure you know that.. Devising an
>unbiassed survery is an artform that few master. Clearly
>the RA haven't.

The poll was paid for by the RA but carried out by ICM, so
there was unlikely to be *rank* unfairness involved, I would
have thought.

>For example, if the question about "recreational
>offroading" had asked about "members of the public driving
>on unsealed roads", the answer would have been very
>different. OTOH, it was the RA who commissioned the survey
>and they didn't want a very different answer, did they?
[...]

No, it's not a very bright idea to commission the sort of
research that is likely to tell you something you'd
rather not know.

But the reason I pointed this story out to you was well
meant, the results of that poll are going to be used as a
stick to bash you with over the next couple of months and
you need to come up with a response. Not the 'there isn't a
problem' response either, I suggest.

Regards, Nick.

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

highcruxroad@blueyonder.co.uk (RJ Webb) wrote in message news:<405ae06d.5006859@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> >4. Pressure on LA's to provide visitor centres, cafe's
> > and lots of parking spaces close to popular walking
> > routes resulting in a certain amount of defilement to
> > the natural beauty of the area (NOT true of byway
> > drivers who are self sufficient and demand no
> > facilities other than the lanes themselves)
>
> We dont need these things, they are foist upon us. NAsty
> little eyesores. They are popular because they extract
> money -not a bad thing..
>
> Most hill areas seem to manage quite well without them. If
> there is no parking available then tough! More walking!
>
> Of course those of us travelling lightoften have to rely
> on local businesses and services, thus providing a means
> where folk can live off their scenery, (Gawd I am
> begining to sound like a certain ruddy duck obsessed
> troll :-) ) Unlike those environmentally pure ;-) self
> sufficient types.
>
> Other points.. You chugg out more crap bashing ruts than
> on a smooth surface, and we stop polluting once at the
> car park.
>
> Long term parking is great, because the longer a car is
> parked the less harm it does. Recognised by the North
> Yorks Moor Park, where they tried charging short term
> parking more, in a bid to get the cars offthe roads
>
> Also a lot of trips are done by public transport, an
> option your mode does not have. Especially long trips. Not
> all of us go out for the day. Not much car use on a
> multiday walk.

I don't disagree with what you say - there are good and bad
points on both sides. But, a couple of further points:

Those of us who are the resposible types (sorry) do not go
'bashing ruts', at least I don't - a nice smoothish byway
will do very nicely for me as my 20 year old range rover
would not put up with too much bashing! I pootle along the
byways at tickover speeds.

The visitor centres and car parks still exist whether
foisted or not and IMO they are all eysores and totally
unnecessary.

We should just put up with each others faults, clan together
to get rid of the illegal hooligans and get a quiet life :-)

Pete

>
>
> Richard Webb

"Andrew Kay" <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c3f4a1$dia$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Nick Hopton" <hopton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:c+BNjzQWJxWAFw6Y@local.mail...
> > In a recent message <c3f1b2$v3q$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> wrote.
> >
> > >Did you go to the Annual General Meeting of the R.A.
> > >that authorised the
> > >R.A. campaign to ban motor vehicles from byways? If you
> > > did, how many people attended that AGM? Was the
> > > vote unanimous?
> > [...]
> >
> > In fact, I didn't go to the AGM, so I can't help you
> > here. The facts you want must be a matter of record, I'd
> > have thought.
>
> Of record, maybe - but not of public record. I doubt that
> an Email from me to the RA would have them admit that the
> policy was approved by a majority of only a few dozen, if
> that were indeed true.

I'm not intending to be derogatory to anyone here so sorry
if I gave that impression.

I'm quite sure that the policy was only dreamt up, and then
approved by a small minority of RA membership, and an even
smaller minority of walkers as a whole (that phrase again!).
However, the problem is that probably 99% of the UK
population associate 'walkers' with 'Ramblers' and by
association with the RA. I am not an RA member either.

Campaigns like this, especially based on unfounded
allegations and downright incorrect propoganda set user
against user and in the end no-one benefits.

Pete

"Paul Rooney" <paulrooney@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e1gl50plc91ued82ijkjnvffi61p1e0mdb@4ax.com...
> >I agree with Phil, you're a troll. If you don't know the
> >difference between a road (A831/B78/M6 etc) and an
> >unsealed byway then you're not fit to own a motor vehicle
> >of any kind. BTW there's not many "Ramblers" on here.
> >
>
> A byway *is* a road. The difference is not between an
> unsealed byway and a road, but between an unsealed road
> and a tarmaced one. The only difference is its surface.
>
Oh dear, not you as well.

KRO

"Peter Browning" <peter@worcester-networks.com> wrote in message
news:5da3666f.0403190638.20a0605@posting.google.com...
> BTW, it is not trolling to raise a legitimate subject of
> concern when most of the ill feeling and s**t stirring
> seems to come from people who belong to the walking
> fraternity. Where should I raise the subject IYO?
> alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?

We don't care where you raise it, as long as it's somewhere
else. It's a private feud between yourself & the RA. Take it
up with them, stop bothering urw with loud-mouthed &
opinionated non-walking crap.

You're not doing your own side of the argument any good by
the way. I'd no opinion whatsoever on 4x4s till I read a few
of your apocalyptic posts. Now I despise them. Myself & KRO
have argued about practically every subject that's come up
on this newsgroup, but even we agree on this! So back under
the bridge for you.

--

Bernie Get back on the wagon to reply..

In 5da3666f.0403190638.20a0605@posting.google.com Peter
Browning mused: <snippage>
> alt.rec.deepseadiving perhaps?

uk.rec.right-of-way? Although it does appear to have been
rather quiet there.

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