Access to walking areas

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So what right do you claim to ban legal 4x4's from
byways?? Surely it cannot be morally right to ban one type
of vehicle user but not another?

Peter,

I don't think that most walkers do want to ban legal
recreational 4x4s from byways. I rather think that most
walkers don't care a toss about the issue because they
rarely come across 4x4s when out & about anyway.

This whole move to ban recreational 4x4s is being driven by
the CLBA (i.e. the GOMLs) and their bedfellows GLEAM,
Friends of The Ridgeway, Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes
Alliance and similar. I find it frankly amazing that the
Ramblers Association should form an unholy alliance with
the GOMLs of this world by effectively sharing the same
campaign platform.

You cannot blame walkes as a whole for this - just their
unrepresentative representatives.

Cheers Andrew Kay

In message
<[email hidden]>, Peter
Browning <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

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!

So what right do you claim to ban legal 4x4's from byways??

None. That's what is being sought by pressing for
legislation. If achieved, the appropriate authorities may
seek to ban 4x4s and they will use a right derived from the
law of the land. Hope that makes it clear.

Quoted message said:

Surely it cannot be morally right to ban one type of
vehicle user but not another?

Moral right is something determined by each individual for
himself. It has no existence outside the individual's mind.
Society guides its conduct by the laws it passes (see above)
and by pressurising others into behaving in particular sorts
of way by the threat of sanctions (such as boycotts;
rudeness; and refusal to speak to individuals not conforming
to required patterns of behaviour). Morality does not come
into the picture at all. Hope this helps.

Quoted message said:

Pete

Troll.

But then he uses

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-
0000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000.

Will that be the length of the thread, I wonder?

This comment is an example not of law enforcement (there is
no law against trolling), nor of morality, but of social
pressure. Trying to prevent trolling by social pressure is,
however, one of the few cases in life where the technique is
entirely counter-productive.

Now shall I post or shall I not?

Heads!

Shucks, I lost.

Well.. no one will know I cheated.

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House

In message <[email hidden]>,
Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael Farthing said:

Moral right is something determined by each individual
for himself. It has no existence outside the
individual's mind.

Ah, subjectivism! It's serious tosh. Just because you
determine for yourself that something is right, it doesn't
make it so.

There is no absolute measure of right and wrong. It is
neither right nor wrong except in the context of the
individual's belief. Outside the individual's belief the
concept has no realistic meaning.

For example, is murder right or wrong? I believe it to be
wrong. It is certainly wrong for me. But there are many in
the world, including the august Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who believe
otherwise. What absolute authority can anyone bring to this
question? OK, so murder is a bad example - why don't you
pick a moral principle that is less controversial and more
susceptible to a unanimous view?

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House

Peter Browning said:

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 [censored] of back under your bridge.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

In message <[email hidden]>,
Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael Farthing said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:27:24 +0000, Michael Farthing
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>Moral right is something determined by each individual
>for himself. It has no existence outside the
>individual's mind.

Ah, subjectivism! It's serious tosh. Just because you
determine for yourself that something is right, it
doesn't make it so.

There is no absolute measure of right and wrong. It is
neither right nor wrong except in the context of the
individual's belief. Outside the individual's belief the
concept has no realistic meaning.

For example, is murder right or wrong? I believe it to be
wrong. It is certainly wrong for me. But there are many in
the world, including the august Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who
believe otherwise. What absolute authority can anyone
bring to this question? OK, so murder is a bad example -
why don't you pick a moral principle that is less
controversial and more susceptible to a unanimous view?

Unanimity is irrelevant. Your reference to the PM gives
your position away.

It may give away something of my (internal) moral
thinking and political beliefs. Quite what it gives away
about what we are discussing perplexes me! There does
seem to be a suggestion that I might be trying to hide
something if I have given it away, but again, I'm at a
loss to know quite what.

Quoted message said:

Tosh, Sir. Whether murder is right or wrong is not for
*you* to decide. You might *think* it is 'right for you',
but you would be guilty of woolly thinking.

If unanimity be irrelevant and it be not for me to decide,
then tell me do, who or what does decide?

--
Michael Farthing cyclades Software House

Quoted message said:

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!

Yes.. we also use sealed roads fit for the purpose, leave no
ruts,nor mud. Not carry on driving up the hill

HAving said that, I think the RA are well out of order on
this. Another case of solving a problem with the nuclear
option. Am I the only one a little fed up this organisation
thinking it speaks for everyone who sticks one foot in front
of another.

What ever next a breathers association?

Richard Webb

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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?

Haven't they banned vehicles, and dug up roads and carparks
from at least one National Park area in the US? Good thing
to do I say. Bit different here because people live and work
in the Parks but whatever happened to that plan to ban cars
from an area of Snowdonia?

In message <[email hidden]>,
Phil Cook <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Peter Browning said:

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!

Quoted message said:

authority. Now [censored] of back under your bridge.

Temper, temper. Leave the little troll alone.

--
Martin Richardson
227/284 Munros - 20% to go 34/34 'Furths' & 439/439 Nuttalls
- 0% to go
228/89 Donalds - 64% to go 0/? Himalayans - 100% to go
229/1552 Marilyns - 73% to go

On 18 Mar 2004 03:32:34 -0800, [email hidden] (Peter

Browning) said:

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!

Not really.

Quoted message said:

So what right do you claim to ban legal 4x4's from byways??

I don't. Drive on them for all I care- just remember to give
way etc when needed.

Quoted message said:

Surely it cannot be morally right to ban one type of
vehicle user but not another?

Pete

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other
42% are made up later on. In Warwick - looking at flat
fields and that includes the castle.

Michael Farthing said:

Moral right is something determined by each individual for
himself. It has no existence outside the individual's mind.

Ah, subjectivism! It's serious tosh. Just because you
determine for yourself that something is right, it doesn't
make it so.

--

Paul

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

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

AndyP said:

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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?

Haven't they banned vehicles, and dug up roads and
carparks from at least one National Park area in the US?
Good thing to do I say. Bit different here because people
live and work in the Parks but whatever happened to that
plan to ban cars from an area of Snowdonia?

In most wilderness areas. But ranchers and farmers are
trying to get every path declared a road and are yelling
about local control and states' rights. Dubya's Interior
Secretary, Gail Norton, is no friend to preservation of
National Parks or wilderness areas.

Katherine

"Andrew Kay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So what right do you claim to ban legal 4x4's from
byways?? Surely it cannot be morally right to ban one
type of vehicle user but not another?

Peter,

I don't think that most walkers do want to ban legal
recreational 4x4s from byways. I rather think that most
walkers don't care a toss about the issue because they
rarely come across 4x4s when out & about anyway.

This whole move to ban recreational 4x4s is being driven
by the CLBA (i.e. the GOMLs) and their bedfellows GLEAM,
Friends of The Ridgeway, Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes
Alliance and similar. I find it frankly amazing that the
Ramblers Association should form an unholy alliance with
the GOMLs of this world by effectively sharing the same
campaign platform.

You cannot blame walkes as a whole for this - just their
unrepresentative representatives.

Then why does the RA website contain loads of inflammatory
material on the subject??

Pete

Phil Cook <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter Browning said:

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!

Quoted message said:

authority. Now [censored] 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

[email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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!

Yes.. we also use sealed roads fit for the purpose, leave
no ruts,nor mud. Not carry on driving up the hill

But (and this is not meant to be inflammatory) you do cause
other problems;

1. Exhaust pollution (OK same for byway drivers but no
worse)
2. additional traffic congestion on routes to walking areas
("😉
3. local congestion due to lots of cars looking for long
term parking spaces (NOT true for byway drivers)
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)

So byway drivers make a few ruts on a very small percentage
of the vehicular byways in mud which if the lanes were
properly maintained would not be there in the first place.
Is that worse than 3 & 4 above which byway drivers do NOT
contribute to??

Quoted message said:

HAving said that, I think the RA are well out of order on
this. Another case of solving a problem with the nuclear
option. Am I the only one a little fed up this
organisation thinking it speaks for everyone who sticks
one foot in front of another.

I agree. And there is a lot of very inflammatory and well
biased anti-vehicle twaddle on the RA website.

Pete

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This whole move to ban recreational 4x4s is being driven
by the CLBA

(i.e.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the GOMLs) and their bedfellows GLEAM, Friends of The
Ridgeway,

Yorkshire

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dales Green Lanes Alliance and similar. I find it
frankly amazing that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ramblers Association should form an unholy alliance with
the GOMLs of

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

world by effectively sharing the same campaign platform.

You cannot blame walkes as a whole for this - just their

unrepresentative

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

representatives.

Then why does the RA website contain loads of inflammatory
material on the

subject??

The RA website isn't maintained by "walkers as a whole".

Cheers Andrew Kay

Martin Richardson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In message
<[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Peter Browning said:

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!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

authority. Now [censored] of back under your bridge.

Temper, temper. Leave the little troll alone.

It's funny how every time someone tries to present logical
arguments that you don't agree with you just call them a
troll and refuse to come up with a logical refutation!

Pete

On 18 Mar 2004 12:09:35 -0800, [email hidden] (Peter

Browning) said:

Well, a Rambler

That's below the belt!

--

Paul

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

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗

"Peter Browning" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook <[email hidden]>
wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Browning said:

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!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

authority. Now [censored] 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. BTW there's not many "Ramblers" on here.

KRO

Michael Farthing said:

In message <[email hidden]>,
Paul Rooney <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Michael Farthing said:

Moral right is something determined by each individual
for himself. It has no existence outside the
individual's mind.

Ah, subjectivism! It's serious tosh. Just because you
determine for yourself that something is right, it doesn't
make it so.

There is no absolute measure of right and wrong. It is
neither right nor wrong except in the context of the
individual's belief. Outside the individual's belief the
concept has no realistic meaning.

For example, is murder right or wrong? I believe it to be
wrong. It is certainly wrong for me. But there are many in
the world, including the august Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who
believe otherwise. What absolute authority can anyone bring
to this question? OK, so murder is a bad example - why
don't you pick a moral principle that is less controversial
and more susceptible to a unanimous view?

Unanimity is irrelevant. Your reference to the PM gives your
position away. Tosh, Sir. Whether murder is right or wrong
is not for *you* to decide. You might *think* it is 'right
for you', but you would be guilty of woolly thinking.

--

Paul

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

paulrooney.netfirms.compaulrooney.netfirms.comOpen ↗