IMPORTANT: Off road use of vehicles

  • Thread starter Michael Farthin
  • Start date



"RJ Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >The road over the Corrieyairack Pass isn't "open to vehicles". It's been blocked at its western
> >end since the mid 90s.
>
> Was pretty busy with traffic when I was there in July last year. A big convoy of Landrovers. No
> real bother there, it was a road! Horrid thing to walk on.

They might have been a shooting party. The road is definitely blocked at the Fort Augustus end, so
there is no through route for a motor vehicle. I was there last year in August.and saw a single Land
Rover parked near the bothy at Melgarve Farm. It was towing a trailer with a little 6 wheel buggie
that a couple of chaps with guns had used to drive across the moorland.

> There seem to be some old roads in the Highlands that have been closed under dubious
> circumstances.

I think that applies to lots of old public roads in Scotland - at least judging the by the number of
motor & cycle routes shown on old Bacon's Atlases that have now had the padlocked gate treatment. It
doesn't help to have the concept of "negative prescription" built into Scottish RoW legislation that
essentially removes the public right if usage cannot be proven over a period of 20 years.

Cheers Andrew Kay
 
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:25:25 GMT, [email protected] (RJ
Webb) wrote:

>O
>>But we all used to travel on the off-road until some great wuss invented the road ;)
> I think then, few travelled far at all. And if so, mostly on foot. Mind, see the above post about
> the gullies... But they would have taken many lifetimes to form, Engines have changed the rules.

I've been shot down in flames before for pointing out that if it's true historic precedent that
defines rights ,most footpaths should only be open to local labourers travelling to work or church
and all frivolous leisure use by "outsiders" would be considered a needless source of erosion.

Working this morning I was compelled to conclude that we should accept 4x4's in the coutryside in
exchange for a total ban on all the helicopters and light aircraft that disturb the peace and
tranquility by buzzing aimlessly round the sky.

>Then again, for a few hundred years we had a very boring straight road network.

I believe they were all boring surfaced affairs as well :)

Regards

Tim Jones
 
In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
<[email protected]> wrote.

[...]
>I think that applies to lots of old public roads in Scotland - at least judging the by the number
>of motor & cycle routes shown on old Bacon's Atlases that have now had the padlocked gate
>treatment. It doesn't help to have the concept of "negative prescription" built into Scottish RoW
>legislation that essentially removes the public right if usage cannot be proven over a period of
>20 years.
[...]

Not the same as English law then? My limited understanding is that in England you can't establish a
right by committing an offence, such as blocking a right of way.

But there are lawyers involved, so it won't be as simple as that <g>.

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England <[email protected]
 
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:22:36 +0000, Nick Hopton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In a recent message <[email protected]>, Paul Rooney
><[email protected]> wrote.
>
>[...]
>>>By all means, have a look at:
>>>
>>>http://www.hopton.dsl.pipex.com/4WD/4WD2.jpg
>>>
>>>and then tell me that 4WDs don't do widespread damage the surface of byways.
>>>
>>>Regards, Nick.
>>
>>It's just a muddy track. In what way has it been damaged?
>
>Paul, this isn't just any section of muddy old track, it's a part of The Ridgeway.

So what? It's still just a muddy track. In what way has it been damaged? As someone else has just
pointed out, that's exactly what it would have looked like when it was being used for its
original purpose.

--

Paul

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

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
 
>these are probably equivalent of what everybody uses in Spain and that we cannot access here.

Probably, but most of them are not old roads, but recently built for estate activities. Rarely do
they connect up, being largely cul de sacs. Before the staff lived out in what are often now bothies
and travelled on pony tracks.

I dont know about Spain, but there is a fine network of such roads in Portugal. Their equivalents in
Britain, were nearly all tarred. We have a very dense network of country lanes, and many in Mid
Wales seem to be reverting back into the sort of track reserved for the off roaders.

Richard Webb
 
>I've been shot down in flames before for pointing out that if it's true historic precedent that
>defines rights ,most footpaths should only be open to local labourers travelling to work or church
>and all frivolous leisure use by "outsiders" would be considered a needless source of erosion.

I thought they were grudgingly given so as that workers could get to work/church at the time of the
enclosures. Before then, there were no public footpaths, or any need for them.

I doubt very much that there was a local path for local people clause
- travel being so rare and difficult , there only were local people.

I remember the CLA spouting this when planning to close the paths that I , a local person, relied
upon as public transport in 1984. I was not best pleased.

Yes and you are right, microlights and helicopters are truely the spawn of Stan.

Richard Webb
 
>They might have been a shooting party.

Definitely not. Recreational off roaders, certainly. A very out of season shooting party, and not
dressed the part. Guns well hidden too. All too familiar, just like the convoys you see going over
Stanage or Merthyr Common.

I wonder if they did an out and back from Melgarve? I must say I was very surprised to see them,
having heard about the discouragement of use of the route.

Richard Webb
 
In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
<[email protected]> wrote.

[...]
>The URL was posted in response to a request from myself for information about any *independent*
>research that showed that 4x4 vehicles caused significant widespread damage to the surface of
>byways. The link is to a single photograph of an obviously very wet lane. Is a single photo with
>the words "Campaign Green Lane" at the top really the nearest you can get to independent research?
[...]

Tell you what then, Andrew. You show me your independent scientific research which demonstrates that
4WDs don't damage the surface of byways and I'll show you mine that demonstrates that they do. I
can't say fairer than that.

If your side of this argument persist in maintaining that 4WDs don't do serious damage to byways
like the Ridgeway, you'll loose. Look at that picture again, somewhere else in this thread someone
accused me of being selfish for wanting to stop 4WDs from doing that kind of thing. Look at that
picture and tell me who's being selfish. Those vehicles and other ones like them have rendered that
part of the Ridgeway impassible to walkers. Why do they have to destroy the whole width of the
byway, why can't they leave me half a metre at the side so that I can get through? I have asked this
question several times before and not one of the 4WD community has ever replied. I wonder if you'll
be any different?

[...]
>Do these *prove* that all damaqe to byways is caused by agricultural vehicles? No - of course they
>don't - at least not any more (nor any less) than your single photo of The Ridgeway. Having said
>that, the last of these is quite interesting. The photographer is clearly standing on a muddy,
>rutted byway. It continues through the gate on the right. The one on the left is merely an access
>to a farmers field. So - did recreational 4x4s cause this damage? Hands up those who think so
>.........
>:))
[...]

Can you tell me precisely where that last picture was taken, Andrew?

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England <[email protected]
 
"Nick Hopton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
> <[email protected]> wrote.
>
> >have the concept of "negative prescription" built into Scottish RoW legislation that essentially
> >removes the public right if usage cannot be proven over a period of 20 years.
>
> Not the same as English law then?

No - quite different. The Scotways site is pretty good. You might be interested in the FAQ at:
http://www.scotways.com/help/faqs.php3

Cheers Andrew Kay
 
"Nick Hopton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
> <[email protected]> wrote.
>
> If your side of this argument persist in maintaining that 4WDs don't do serious damage to byways
> like the Ridgeway, you'll loose.

I didn't say anything about 4WDs not damaging byways. I merely asked for a reference to independent
research substantiating the notion that they do, because I have yet to see any. I guess you haven't
seen any either.

I don't know The Ridgeway myself - but this seems relevant.
http://www.byways.org.uk/The_Ridgeway_Truth/index.htm

> Can you tell me precisely where that last picture was taken, Andrew?

I didn't take the photo - but I rather think it speaks for itself. You wouldn't really claim that
recreational 4x4s did that, would you?

Cheers Andrew Kay
 
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:32 GMT, [email protected] (RJ
Webb) wrote:

>
>>I've been shot down in flames before for pointing out that if it's true historic precedent that
>>defines rights ,most footpaths should only be open to local labourers travelling to work or church
>>and all frivolous leisure use by "outsiders" would be considered a needless source of erosion.
>
>I thought they were grudgingly given so as that workers could get to work/church at the time of the
>enclosures. Before then, there were no public footpaths, or any need for them.
>
>I doubt very much that there was a local path for local people clause
>- travel being so rare and difficult , there only were local people.

There certainly wouldn't have been such a clause and given that they could never have foreseen the
rise of the motor vehicle, I guess they missed to exclude those as well :)

It must be very hard to claim historic precedent to allow access for one set of users and yet
exclude another. Best let sleeping dogs lie and accept that motor vehicles have access to a pretty
minor percentage of the national ROW network IMHO. I can seen no way that they'll ever be allowed to
expand the range of their access, so lets leave them with what they've got.

>I remember the CLA spouting this when planning to close the paths that I , a local person, relied
>upon as public transport in 1984. I was not best pleased.

Ooooh you weren't driving a bus down them were you ;)

>Yes and you are right, microlights and helicopters are truely the spawn of Stan.

I'm afraid I call them something else all together ruder than that. I don't think they ever hear my
yells of frustration though ;) . Regards

Tim Jones
 
In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
<[email protected]> wrote.

[...]
>> If your side of this argument persist in maintaining that 4WDs don't do serious damage to byways
>> like the Ridgeway, you'll loose.
>
>I didn't say anything about 4WDs not damaging byways. I merely asked for a reference to independent
>research substantiating the notion that they do, because I have yet to see any. I guess you haven't
>seen any either.
[...]

What would be the point of such independent research? All it would prove is that if you traffic a
wet, green field with a 4WD the surface of the field would rapidly become a rutted, impassible, slurry-
covered bog. I've done this, I know that this is what would happen and so do you, so why the need
for independent research?

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England <[email protected]
 
"Nick Hopton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
> <[email protected]> wrote.
>
> >reference to independent research substantiating the notion that they do, because I have yet to
> >see any. I guess you haven't seen any either.
>
> What would be the point of such independent research? All it would prove is that if you traffic a
> wet, green field with a 4WD the surface of the field would rapidly become a rutted, impassible,
> slurry-covered bog. I've done this, I know that this is what would happen and so do you, so why
> the need for independent research?

I think that you again miss the point of my original question.

When launching the DEFRA publication "Making the best of byways" in February 1998, Michael Meacher
said ""There may be a need for better management of byways at local level...... however, we have
found no compelling evidence of widespread problems being caused by recreational use of motor
vehicles on byways and have concluded that there is no case for a general ban.". I am not alone,
therefore in not having seen evidence of widespread problems being caused by 4x4s.

Perhaps I worded it badly, but my original intention was to ask whether anyone was aware of
independent research which showed that "4x4 vehicles caused significant widespread damage to the
surface of byways" - i.e. not that they potentially might (which I accept is obvious), but that
they actually do. Surely, the current frenzy to ban recreational 4x4 vehicles, whixh spawned this
thread, cannot be based on pure prejudice and misinformation, can it? Where is the evidence of
*widespread* problems?

Cheers Andrew Kay
 
>It must be very hard to claim historic precedent to allow access for one set of users and yet
>exclude another. Best let sleeping dogs lie and accept that motor vehicles have access to a pretty
>minor percentage of the national ROW network IMHO. I can seen no way that they'll ever be allowed
>to expand the range of their access, so lets leave them with what they've got.

Fair play.. I will concede this one graciously.. But Motor bikes on hills Grrr!
>Ooooh you weren't driving a bus down them were you ;)

Busses went out in the 1970s... You had a 3 mile walk across the fie;ds to the bus stip and railway
station. See it was not that bad! We had a station with a nearly hourly service to Newport or Crewe
just over an hour away.
>
>
>>Yes and you are right, microlights and helicopters are truely the spawn of Stan.
>
>
>I'm afraid I call them something else all together ruder than that. I don't think they ever hear my
>yells of frustration though ;)

And add those demon jetskis to the list.

Richard Webb
 
Following up to RJ Webb

>And the problem is?
>
>Sorry but I do honestly feel that a foot traveller is superior to one who bruises the hill with a
>ton of stinking metal.

I think a foot traveller causes less damage. I think a superior traveller has a superior attitude,
which I feel rather uncomfortable with and in the case of the rule ignoring urban cyclist, requires
a huge kick up the **** :) I would hate anybody to view walkers the way sanctimonious selfish urban
cyclists are regarded by many.
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London
etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site Spain, food and walking "http://www.fell-
walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I think a foot traveller causes less damage.

Undeniably true.

> I would hate anybody to view walkers the way sanctimonious selfish urban cyclists are regarded
> by many.

I would hate anybody to view 4x4 drivers and motorcylists as uncaring, noisy polluting oiks who care
nothing for the countryside or for the rights of others.

Unforunately, both of us seem destined to be disappointed - primarily as a result of the
machinations of the small but very noticeable subsets of walkers and motorists who actually do fit
those descriptions.

Tolerance has much to commend it, but seems to be in increasingly short supply these days.

Cheers Andrew Kay
 
Emergency vehicles, yes the 'can'

But lots are voulnteers, e.g Raynet, mountain rescue, they are members of the public and can't.
Members of Raynet have posted concern about this.

Also access along the 'tracks' will also be banned for farm vehicles unless the farmer has
permision of all landowners of the track, which will be impossible to obtain, assuming the
landowners can be found!

Ted Ferenc. (http://www.ndrw.co.uk) This message, and any attachment, is private and confidential.
It is intended only for the named addressee(s). "Simon Caldwell" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >Also, are there any crags that are currently accessed by driving down a RUPP/BOAT? If vehicular
> >rights are removed this will impact on ALL users including climbers - not just 4x4 drivers and
> >motor cyclists. This could mean a longer walk-in/out and less time spent climbing.
>
> Another advantage I'd not thought of, crags without queues :)
>
> >What about emergency vehicle access?
>
> They can drive anywhere they need to AFAIK
>
> >If vehicular rights of way are not used they will eventually become impassable.
>
> Yeah, right.
 
The acid test is how many, I belive, section 36 notices the councils have servered because of
damage, plus the number of conviction the police have made, you will find that these details are not
kept because the are so small, usually zero.

But I do feel this campain is divide and conquer, next are horses, have you seen a lane after the
local hunt has used it in autumn? Don't forget 4x4's have brakes horses don't.

--

Ted Ferenc. (http://www.ndrw.co.uk) This message, and any attachment, is private and confidential.
It is intended only for the named addressee(s). "Nick Hopton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> In a recent message <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
> <[email protected]> wrote.
>
> [...]
> >> If your side of this argument persist in maintaining that 4WDs don't do serious damage to
> >> byways like the Ridgeway, you'll loose.
> >
> >I didn't say anything about 4WDs not damaging byways. I merely asked for
a
> >reference to independent research substantiating the notion that they do, because I have yet to
> >see any. I guess you haven't seen any either.
> [...]
>
> What would be the point of such independent research? All it would prove is that if you traffic a
> wet, green field with a 4WD the surface of the field would rapidly become a rutted, impassible,
> slurry-covered bog. I've done this, I know that this is what would happen and so do you, so why
> the need for independent research?
>
> Regards, Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England <[email protected]
 
"Ted Ferenc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> But I do feel this campain is divide and conquer, next are horses, have
you

I fear you might be right here.

There is a common belief (amongst 4x4 drivers) that the whole anti-4x4 campaign is being
orchestrated by the Ramblers Association. Personally, I don't believe that to be the case. Whilst I
do know that the RA campaign to exclude recreational 4x4s from unsealed byways, I suspect that
landowners in the form of CLBA and their hangers-on GLEAM, FoTR, YDGLA and so on are the primary
movers here.

If you saw the Beeb programme "InsideOut" a couple of weeks back, they wheeled out Mike Bartholomew
of the Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes Alliance (YDGLA) who again stood on one of the wet bits of
Mastilles lane & harangued 4x4 drivers and motorcyclists (you might have heard a similar performance
from him on Countryfile last April). The acute of hearing might also have heard him condemn walkers
for the damage they cause.

Mike Bartholomew's address at the YDGLA is at the Civic Centre in Otley. I bet he's not an RA
member - and his anti-vehicle lobby group operate from a council building? Who is this man? Does
anyone know?

Cheers Andrew Kay
 
Yes I agree, once a 'track' looses it's higway status and becomes a footpath, then there is nothing
to stop the farmer gribbing out the hedges and ploughing or diverting it. Last year I must have done
30 walks in the Peak disrict and can say I only once saw any vehicles on the 'tracks' and rarely saw
any wheel tracks, apart from cyclists of course.

But if there is a problem, where is the FACTUAL evidence, e.g. how many section 36 notices, I
believe this is the correct number, have been servedfor damage to lanes? Virtually zero.

In a way it is like banning speedboats on Windermere.

But ths law is so bad it is unbelievable, I have heard reports of a RUPP which is the only
access road to a crematorium, so will this be closed as well? Not to mention access roads to new
housing estates!

--

Ted Ferenc. (http://www.ndrw.co.uk) This message, and any attachment, is private and confidential.
It is intended only for the named addressee(s). "Andrew Kay" <[email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ted Ferenc" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
>
> > But I do feel this campain is divide and conquer, next are horses, have
> you
>
> I fear you might be right here.
>
> There is a common belief (amongst 4x4 drivers) that the whole anti-4x4 campaign is being
> orchestrated by the Ramblers Association. Personally, I don't believe that to be the case. Whilst
> I do know that the RA campaign
to
> exclude recreational 4x4s from unsealed byways, I suspect that landowners in the form of CLBA and
> their hangers-on GLEAM, FoTR, YDGLA and so on are the primary movers here.
>
> If you saw the Beeb programme "InsideOut" a couple of weeks back, they wheeled out Mike
> Bartholomew of the Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes Alliance (YDGLA) who again stood on one of the wet
> bits of Mastilles lane &
harangued
> 4x4 drivers and motorcyclists (you might have heard a similar performance from him on
> Countryfile last April). The acute of hearing might also have heard him condemn walkers for the
> damage they cause.
>
> Mike Bartholomew's address at the YDGLA is at the Civic Centre in Otley.
I
> bet he's not an RA member - and his anti-vehicle lobby group operate from
a
> council building? Who is this man? Does anyone know?
>
> Cheers Andrew Kay
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back