Nick Hopton <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> In a recent message <
[email protected]>, Peter Browning <peter@worcester-
> networks.com> wrote.
>
> [...]
> >You will find that if a BOAT has been damaged to that extent then it is almost certainly due to
> >agricultural or forestry vehicles. The maximum depth of rut that a 4x4 can make is 9 inches; most
> >of the rutted sections I have seen have ruts up to 2 feet deep - no way this is 4x4 damage!
> [...]
>
> I mentioned in another part of this thread that regularly I drive 4WDs off-road. Thus, I know the
> sort of rutting that can 4WDs can cause, at first hand. The mechanism that underlies rutting is
> far more complicated than you suggest.
>
> [...]
> >> I don't think there is concerted effort by any organisation to set walker against 4WD-
> >> enthusiast with the object of restricting access to the countryside for everyone. For myself, I
> >> can't see how an idea like that could work.
>
> >Easy - 4x4 RoW users are the smallest minority (about 2%). They are also easy targets to whip up
> >emotive hatred about. So, step 1, remove vehicles. OK, who is next - horse riders (about 4% of
> >RoW users). Horses can scare walkers so lets have a go at them next. OK, next - mountain
> >bikers...... etc. Divide and conquer works well believe it. We should all be pulling together!
>
> But the all pulling together approach has been tried. It doesn't work.
When has it been tried? I have been walking for 30 odd years, mountain biking on-and-off for 20 and
4x4 greenlaning for 10. I have been over the years a member of AWDC, LARA, GLASS, Ramblers
Association and various bike clubs. I have never (as in not ever) ben made aware of any co-operative
venture. It has always (in general) been Ramblers vs everyone else (mainly 4x4 and motorbikes). The
RA have always wanted 100% of the RoW network exclusively.
>
> >> We have to face it, I'm afraid, codes of responsible use, et cetera, just don't seem to work
> >> when it comes to 4WD-enthuseasts. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the interests
> >> of walkers are fundamentally incompatible with those of the 4WD-community. This being the case
> >> I don't think that I, as a walker, have any option but to support moves to restrict the access
> >> of recreational vehicles to byways.
>
> [...]
> >You are insulting 4x4 drivers here as much as you would be insulted if I said that all ramblers
> >are litter scattering, path eroding morons. The vast majority of those who drive 4x4's on RoW's
> >do so legally and responsibly; I know, I am one of them. The trouble is caused as always by the
> >lawless minority and you will not exclude them whatever laws are passed. All you will achieve is
> >to remove the responsible users who also by-the-way make a major contribution to keeping the
> >byways clear and passable by all and leave the louts a clear field.
> [...]
>
> If I managed to insult the 4WD community then I apologise, that was not my intention. Look, a few
> years ago a group of interested parties including members of the 4WD lobby got together to agree a
> code of responsible practice for the Ridgeway. It hasn't worked, so something else must be tried.
I was on the AWDC committee at the time I think you are talking about
- there was never any spirit of co-operation. All I saw was RA and GLEAM saying 'do it our way or
we'll have you banned'
>
> >Neither will you stop agri use - once the 4x4's are banned you will see that most of the damage
> >still occurs and most of the lanes that the farmers don't need become rapidly overgrown and
> >impassable. The local councils will not clear them that's for sure. By then of course it will be
> >too late to do anything about it.
>
> I don't agree that the damage I see when I go walking is caused predominantly by agricultural
> vehicles and machines.
I am the last person to deny that 4x4's can cause damage in the wrong hands and when driven in
innapropriate conditions. I have seen damage that was obviously 4x4 BUT most damage is agri /
forestry - no bull, just plain fact. It's also plain fact that horses and walkers cause damage also
- I was cycling a bridleway a couple of weeks ago and a two mile stretch was impassable on two
wheels because of the surface churning. Look at the amount that is spent each year repairing
footpaths in the Lake District, Snowdonia, Dales, etc If a proportionate amount was spent on Byways
to give a properly maintained and drained durface then 80%+ of current damage would not occur.
>
> >What about live and let live - that has not been tried (I can feel the heat from the flames
> >already!).
> [...]
>
> Flame? Not from me, you won't. Live-and-let-live is what we have now, it doesn't work. For what
> its worth, I think that the 4WD lobby is doing itself no favours by arguing that 4WDs don't cause
> significant damage to the surface of byways, it is denying the undeniable. Perhaps the cause would
> be better served by making concrete proposals about the way that 4WDs and walkers can co-exist
> (and not just by telling walkers to p*ss off and go somewhere else, either).
No, we do not have live-and-let-live! We have the RA, YDGLA, GLEAM, CLA, etc all saying
unequivocably the all vehicles should be banned from all RoW's - just as they have been saying for
years. Look at the content of the DEFRA consultation - that's not something dreamt up by Alun
Michael, that's the result of years of lobbying.
And, furthermore I'm not saying walkers should p**s off elsewhere, I'm just trying to be realistic.
Wlakers can go wherever they please on the RoW network (and everywhere else under 'right to roam').
Horse riders get 10 - 15% to share with walkers and motorists get 5% to share with walkers, horse
riders, bikers, etc. All I am saying is why do walkers insist on chucking cars off that 5%? Isn't
95% enough for them? It is more than enough for me - I do far more walking than I do 4x4'ing and I
do not feel the lack of that 5%. Just live and let live for christs sake.
Peter
.