Motor bikes on bridleways

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by al Mossah, Mar 27, 2006.

  1. al Mossah

    al Mossah Guest

    Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice concerning
    an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way open to all
    traffic). I registered an objection to the application with the local
    council. The applicant was an organisation known as the Trail Riders
    Federation.

    In the latest Private Eye there is an article about this innocuous-sounding
    organisation. The text is included below. In case my OCR isn't too good,
    I've scanned the article here.
    http://www.mossclan.co.uk/temp/trail_riders_fellowship.jpg

    Worth watching out for on a rural bridleway near you.

    "Down on the Farm

    A CURIOUS episode in Wiltshire again highlights the strangely intimate
    relationship which exists between council officials and the lobby group
    which campaign for country footpaths and bridleways to be made accessible to
    vehicles such as motorcycles, quad bikes and off-road 4x4s.



    In recent years the bikers have caused increasing havoc on hundreds of such
    "green lanes", and their aim is to get as many as possible "upgraded" from
    RUPPs (roads used as public paths) from which vehicles are barred, to BOATS
    (byways open to all traffic).

    When a Mr Bill Riley applied to Wiltshire County Council for vehicles to use
    a narrow, leafy "green lane" in West Grimstead, the villagers who enjoy
    walking down the footpath were horrified. 4x4s would inevitably tear off the
    branches of protected trees, gouge out the steep Banks and chum the
    footpath's surface to mud. But officials of the council's rights-of=way
    committee nodded through Mr Riley's application without even a site visit.



    It then turned out that Mr Riley had a rather closer association with these
    officials than had been clear. It seemed he had often put in such
    applications before, either privately or representing the Trail Riders
    Fellowship, a body innocuously described on the council website as promoting
    the "conservation of heritage of green lanes". On its own website, however,
    the TRF rather more honestly admits that it is for people who "enjoy
    exploring green lanes by motor cycle". Mr Riley had also, it seemed, been
    consulted by the council on such issues many times.



    When council representatives were challenged on their relationship with Mr
    Riley, the rights of way manager merely claimed that he "assists the council
    as a voluntary researcher". The council's chief executive, Dr Keith
    Robinson, denied even this, stating unequivocally that "Mr Riley is not
    consulted by the council". The chairman of the regulatory committee,
    however, was rather more forthright: Mr Riley is "consulted on every
    application".



    At this point Dr Robinson backtracked, explaining that Mr Riley was not
    consulted in his "private capacity" but only as representing the Trail
    Riders Fellowship. He refused to clarify the position further. A bemused
    councillor commented that Mr Riley seemed to, be acting as "batsman, bowler
    and wicketkeeper" all at once.



    So enraged were the villagers by all these evasions and contradictions that
    they complained to the local government Standards Board, which replied that,
    since the decision to upgrade the lane had been made by officials, not
    councillors, it was not their business. The Audit Commission also declined
    to get involved, saying that such matters were the responsibility of the
    local government ombudsman. He replied that it was not in his remit either.
    So they then wrote to the minister, Jim Knight, who also said it was the
    responsibility of the ombudsman. When they went back yet again to the
    ombudsman, quoting the minister, they were told the matter would now be
    given "further consideration". Meanwhile, as one body of officials after
    another passes the parcel, the villagers of West Grimstead grimly await the
    day when the first convoy of 20 bikers makes its way down their green lane,
    chewing up its grass and wild flowers into a sea of mud.

    'Muckspreader'"

    Private Eye, March 2006.
     
    Tags:


  2. Clive George

    Clive George Guest

    "al Mossah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice
    > concerning an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way open
    > to all traffic). I registered an objection to the application with the
    > local council. The applicant was an organisation known as the Trail
    > Riders Federation.


    They're doing it all over the place - I saw long lane (Clapham to Selside)
    has an application up, competing with the very successful ETRO there banning
    motor vehicles. IIRC they've also got one for the narrower track from Feizor
    to Austwick.

    With any luck the YDNPA will keep on their current track - their ETROs have
    resulted in significantly better track conditions, giving the lie to the
    TRF's claims that it's agricultural traffic causing the damage. (an
    impressive claim - most farmers round here use quad bikes with fairly wide
    tyres, which won't leave the narrow trail of damage so typical of what's
    happened round here.)

    cheers,
    clive
     
  3. Clive George wrote:
    > "al Mossah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice
    >> concerning an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way
    >> open to all traffic). I registered an objection to the application
    >> with the local council. The applicant was an organisation known as
    >> the Trail Riders Federation.

    >
    > They're doing it all over the place - I saw long lane (Clapham to
    > Selside) has an application up, competing with the very successful ETRO
    > there banning motor vehicles. IIRC they've also got one for the narrower
    > track from Feizor to Austwick.


    Might be worth alerting the CPRE on this one. They are quite good at
    watching councils' activities for changes that destroy the
    countryside, but they may not be aware of this problem.

    Colin McKenzie
     
  4. Learner

    Learner Guest

    al Mossah wrote:
    > Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice concerning
    > an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way open to all
    > traffic). I registered an objection to the application with the local
    > council. The applicant was an organisation known as the Trail Riders
    > Federation.
    >
    > In the latest Private Eye there is an article about this innocuous-sounding
    > organisation. The text is included below. In case my OCR isn't too good,
    > I've scanned the article here.
    > http://www.mossclan.co.uk/temp/trail_riders_fellowship.jpg
    >
    > Worth watching out for on a rural bridleway near you.
    >
    > "Down on the Farm
    >
    > A CURIOUS episode in Wiltshire again highlights the strangely intimate
    > relationship which exists between council officials and the lobby group
    > which campaign for country footpaths and bridleways to be made accessible to
    > vehicles such as motorcycles, quad bikes and off-road 4x4s.
    >
    >
    >
    > In recent years the bikers have caused increasing havoc on hundreds of such
    > "green lanes", and their aim is to get as many as possible "upgraded" from
    > RUPPs (roads used as public paths) from which vehicles are barred, to BOATS
    > (byways open to all traffic).
    >
    > When a Mr Bill Riley applied to Wiltshire County Council for vehicles to use
    > a narrow, leafy "green lane" in West Grimstead, the villagers who enjoy
    > walking down the footpath were horrified. 4x4s would inevitably tear off the
    > branches of protected trees, gouge out the steep Banks and chum the
    > footpath's surface to mud. But officials of the council's rights-of=way
    > committee nodded through Mr Riley's application without even a site visit.
    >
    >
    >
    > It then turned out that Mr Riley had a rather closer association with these
    > officials than had been clear. It seemed he had often put in such
    > applications before, either privately or representing the Trail Riders
    > Fellowship, a body innocuously described on the council website as promoting
    > the "conservation of heritage of green lanes". On its own website, however,
    > the TRF rather more honestly admits that it is for people who "enjoy
    > exploring green lanes by motor cycle". Mr Riley had also, it seemed, been
    > consulted by the council on such issues many times.
    >
    >
    >
    > When council representatives were challenged on their relationship with Mr
    > Riley, the rights of way manager merely claimed that he "assists the council
    > as a voluntary researcher". The council's chief executive, Dr Keith
    > Robinson, denied even this, stating unequivocally that "Mr Riley is not
    > consulted by the council". The chairman of the regulatory committee,
    > however, was rather more forthright: Mr Riley is "consulted on every
    > application".
    >
    >
    >
    > At this point Dr Robinson backtracked, explaining that Mr Riley was not
    > consulted in his "private capacity" but only as representing the Trail
    > Riders Fellowship. He refused to clarify the position further. A bemused
    > councillor commented that Mr Riley seemed to, be acting as "batsman, bowler
    > and wicketkeeper" all at once.
    >
    >
    >
    > So enraged were the villagers by all these evasions and contradictions that
    > they complained to the local government Standards Board, which replied that,
    > since the decision to upgrade the lane had been made by officials, not
    > councillors, it was not their business. The Audit Commission also declined
    > to get involved, saying that such matters were the responsibility of the
    > local government ombudsman. He replied that it was not in his remit either.
    > So they then wrote to the minister, Jim Knight, who also said it was the
    > responsibility of the ombudsman. When they went back yet again to the
    > ombudsman, quoting the minister, they were told the matter would now be
    > given "further consideration". Meanwhile, as one body of officials after
    > another passes the parcel, the villagers of West Grimstead grimly await the
    > day when the first convoy of 20 bikers makes its way down their green lane,
    > chewing up its grass and wild flowers into a sea of mud.
    >
    > 'Muckspreader'"
    >
    > Private Eye, March 2006.
    >
    >
    >
    >


    All very interesting, and obviously rather dodgy proceedings, but more
    important is what actual effect the decision had on the people using the
    bridleway after the change to a BOAT. Often people get very irate
    about these things, and then when it's all blown over, and nothing has
    really changed, they wonder what all the fuss was about. Anyone like to
    comment on the actual experiences of a change from bridleway to BOAT?


    Mark
     
  5. Paul - xxx

    Paul - xxx Guest

    al Mossah came up with the following;:
    > Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice
    > concerning an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way open
    > to all traffic). I registered an objection to the application with the
    > local council. The applicant was an organisation known as the Trail
    > Riders Federation.


    Good.

    Many more bridleways could revert back to BOAT's and benefit more of the
    population than they do at present.

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
  6. Rob

    Rob Guest

    Can anyone explain what the CPRE is?
     
  7. Bryan

    Bryan New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    0
    Council for the protection of rural England

    Bryan
     
  8. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Clive George wrote:

    >
    > They're doing it all over the place - I saw long lane (Clapham to
    > Selside) has an application up, competing with the very successful ETRO
    > there banning motor vehicles. IIRC they've also got one for the narrower
    > track from Feizor to Austwick.
    >


    Probably all related to the requirement of local authorities to form
    Local Access Forums and produce Right of Way Improvement Plans which has
    stimulated a wide range of RoW user groups.

    If there is a Map Modification Order the authority is required by law to
    send it to statutory consultees which include the CTC, the British Horse
    Association and the Byways and Bridleways Trust with a 42 day
    consultation period and its increasingly on the Public Rights of Way
    section on Local Authority websites. The Ramblers Association maintain
    a useful list of contacts at
    http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/contacts/links.html

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  9. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > al Mossah came up with the following;:
    >> Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice
    >> concerning an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way
    >> open
    >> to all traffic). I registered an objection to the application with
    >> the
    >> local council. The applicant was an organisation known as the Trail
    >> Riders Federation.

    >
    > Good.
    >
    > Many more bridleways could revert back to BOAT's and benefit more of
    > the population than they do at present.


    Benefit how? This is the tragedy of the commons, once again. People come
    in from far away by motor vehicle, wreck the place, and go on next
    weekend to wreck somewhere completely different. Unmetalled roads cannot
    stand up to the weight or the horsepower of motor vehicles. And once a
    footpath has been churned into a quagmire by half a dozen souped up
    landrovers, while it may continue to be fun for the rich kids from the
    cities with their landrovers with deep fording kits[1] and power
    winches, it's not much use as a footpath any more.

    The question isn't how many unmetalled roads motor vehicles should be
    permitted to use, but how many metalled roads they should be excluded
    from. Motor vehicles have wrecked enough of the country. Let us at least
    preserve what little is left.

    [1] Why is it you see far more deep fording kits in suburbia than you
    ever do in the hills?

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; part time troll.
     
  10. Ian Blake

    Ian Blake Guest

    On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:26:43 +0100, Simon Brooke
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >The question isn't how many unmetalled roads motor vehicles should be
    >permitted to use, but how many metalled roads they should be excluded
    >from. Motor vehicles have wrecked enough of the country. Let us at least
    >preserve what little is left.
    >


    We have lost at least one local Audax route due to the "sporting" use
    of 4x4s. David Lewis' Trefil Travail[1] used to go over a narrow lane
    (Blackvein Road) from Cross Keys to Cwmfelinfach. This was not a
    heavily used road as there are alternative roads more appropriate to
    large motor vehicles. This was never a pristine lane, stones used to
    fall out from the steep bank above it. Then 4x4 drivers discovered
    it. Most of these are too large and before long the road surface
    became covered in stones and it is no longer safe to ride a bike on.
    The last time this route was used everybody walked down the hill. Very
    nasty.

    [1] The Trefil Trevail now has a revised route. Rides up the Taff
    valley rather that the Sirhowy. Despite the Sirhowy being the more
    scenic valley (very pretty in places) most people think the route has
    been improved.
     
  11. Paul - xxx

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Simon Brooke came up with the following;:
    > in message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
    > ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    >> al Mossah came up with the following;:
    >>> Last year on a bridleway near Corsham in Wiltshire I saw a notice
    >>> concerning an application to convert the bridleway to a BOAT (By-way
    >>> open
    >>> to all traffic). I registered an objection to the application with
    >>> the
    >>> local council. The applicant was an organisation known as the Trail
    >>> Riders Federation.

    >>
    >> Good.
    >>
    >> Many more bridleways could revert back to BOAT's and benefit more of
    >> the population than they do at present.

    >
    > Benefit how?


    By allowing people to travel how they want to travel.

    > This is the tragedy of the commons, once again. People come
    > in from far away by motor vehicle, wreck the place, and go on next
    > weekend to wreck somewhere completely different. Unmetalled roads cannot
    > stand up to the weight or the horsepower of motor vehicles. And once a
    > footpath has been churned into a quagmire by half a dozen souped up
    > landrovers, while it may continue to be fun for the rich kids from the
    > cities with their landrovers with deep fording kits[1] and power
    > winches, it's not much use as a footpath any more.


    The groups I ride and drive with don't 'wreck' any place. Indeed we are
    also in the business (voluntarily) of conserving many places that walkers
    have 'wrecked' from over-use. Our 4x4's are logistically helping to mend
    many walks that are otherwise almost impossible to mend without hundreds and
    hundreds of willing volunteers man-handling the materials required. I fear
    that there simply aren't enough volunteers to do this. The fact that we
    also use 4x4's recreationally is one reason I also campaign, in my small
    way, to further open BOAT's etc..

    > The question isn't how many unmetalled roads motor vehicles should be
    > permitted to use, but how many metalled roads they should be excluded
    > from. Motor vehicles have wrecked enough of the country. Let us at least
    > preserve what little is left.


    An opinion you have which I obviously don't share.

    > [1] Why is it you see far more deep fording kits in suburbia than you
    > ever do in the hills?


    You obviously don't understand what the 'snorkel' kits are actually for,
    which seems par for the course for much of the anti 4x4 lobby.

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
     
  12. Clive George

    Clive George Guest

    "Paul - xxx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    >> Benefit how?

    >
    > By allowing people to travel how they want to travel.


    Play, not travel. At least be honest with yourself - motorbiking and 4x4ing
    off-road isn't about travel, it's a recreational activity. As indeed is
    mountain biking.

    > The groups I ride and drive with don't 'wreck' any place.


    I wish there were more like you. Round here there's not much problem with
    4x4s - it's motorbikes which cause the damage I see every time I'm up in the
    hills. The distinctive way a motorbike tyre cuts the grass - it only takes
    one to make that mess. The fantail pattern of motorbike tracks coming out
    from a gate - nice. The way they cut into and extend the end of ruts - mmm,
    that's good for the trail, isn't it?

    Yes, having hundreds of walkers does erode paths. In about the same way as
    one motorbike does.

    cheers,
    clive
     
  13. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Paul - xxx wrote:

    >> Benefit how?

    >
    > By allowing people to travel how they want to travel.


    There must be a balance. Would you be happy if a major airport was built
    adjoining your house, on the grounds you would be allowing people to
    travel how they want to travel?

    > The groups I ride and drive with don't 'wreck' any place.


    Without knowing who your groups are, I can't comment on the veracity of
    that statement. However it is a fact that many people, be they in
    groups or not, /do/ wreck places to the detriment of others. It's also
    noticeable that when individuals are identified as having caused a
    particular bit of damage, they are suddenly no longer members of, or
    acting for, these groups...until the next time when a large group
    membership is beneficial.

    > Indeed we are
    > also in the business (voluntarily) of conserving many places that
    > walkers have 'wrecked' from over-use.


    That does not permit you, or anyone else, to wreck some places because
    you help "conserve" others; it is irrelevant. Just because I recycle
    more than the average household does not entitle me to do a bit of
    flytipping from time to time. You have bought too much into the
    pollution-trading arguments of various governments.

    >> [1] Why is it you see far more deep fording kits in suburbia than you
    >> ever do in the hills?

    >
    > You obviously don't understand what the 'snorkel' kits are actually for,


    Either they are for driving through deep water, or for posing. Which
    is found more in suburbia - deep water fords, or pose-audiences?

    R.
     
  14. Around here (Peak District) we get convoys of lardarses in lard rovers
    who have systematically destroyed many miles of green lanes which had
    been quietly used by walkers, cyclists and farmers needing access,
    without causing any problems for many years. The impact of trail bikes
    is much less and arguably would be sustainable in moderation except on
    all-grass surfaces. It's been quite recent - within the last 10 years
    or less, and many tracks are now impassible except by lardrovers. These
    moronic bastards should be banned. Instead the local authorities are
    converting them to hard surfaces at great expense. This renders them
    less attractive to the lardarses as there are fewer ruts and muddy
    puddles but also makes them less attractive as quiet country lanes.
    Nobody gains anything and much has been lost. I've heard the argument
    re 'conservation' by 4x4 users but it's bollocks except in the rare
    cicumstances where conservation requires lardrover access to convey
    stone etc.

    cheers

    Jacob
     
  15. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Around here (Peak District) we get convoys of lardarses in lard rovers
    > who have systematically destroyed many miles of green lanes which had
    > been quietly used by walkers, cyclists and farmers needing access,
    > without causing any problems for many years. The impact of trail bikes
    > is much less and arguably would be sustainable in moderation except on
    > all-grass surfaces.


    Round us its actually the farm vehicles which do all the damage and they
    cannot be banned from their own land. There was a similar finding on
    the notorious Ridgeway AFAIR. A TRO was put on it after restoration
    work but they found it was actually the farm vehicles doing all the
    churning up and not, as everyone thought, the Chelsea tractors

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  16. mark

    mark Guest

    "Tony Raven" wrote ...
    > Round us its actually the farm vehicles which do all the damage and they
    > cannot be banned from their own land. There was a similar finding on the
    > notorious Ridgeway AFAIR. A TRO was put on it after restoration work but
    > they found it was actually the farm vehicles doing all the churning up and
    > not, as everyone thought, the Chelsea tractors
    >
    > --
    > Tony


    Excuse the thread drift, but when was the Ridgeway restored? I recall trying
    to cycle it in 2000 and being defeated by tire tracks that were just narrow
    enough and deep enough that my pedals would clip the sides of the rut hard
    enough to take me off the bike. Extremely wet, slippery grass and clay
    didn't help, either.

    I remember thinking that the Ridgeway would be a very scenic route if it
    were dry and if it weren't for the deep ruts.
    --
    mark
     
  17. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Simon Brooke came up with the following;:
    >>> Many more bridleways could revert back to BOAT's and benefit more of
    >>> the population than they do at present.

    >>
    >> Benefit how?

    >
    > By allowing people to travel how they want to travel.
    >
    >> This is the tragedy of the commons, once again. People come
    >> in from far away by motor vehicle, wreck the place, and go on next
    >> weekend to wreck somewhere completely different. Unmetalled roads
    >> cannot stand up to the weight or the horsepower of motor vehicles. And
    >> once a footpath has been churned into a quagmire by half a dozen
    >> souped up landrovers, while it may continue to be fun for the rich
    >> kids from the cities with their landrovers with deep fording kits[1]
    >> and power winches, it's not much use as a footpath any more.

    >
    > The groups I ride and drive with don't 'wreck' any place.


    You may not - I can't tell (although I find it hard to believe). I have
    this argument not infrequently with wildfowlers. They all say 'I am a
    responsible wildfowler, therefore wildfowlers should be allowed to
    continue to slaughter the geese'. There may be responsible wildfowlers;
    I don't know. I know from the evidence that there are a lot of
    irresponsible wildfowlers, and without having a warden follow each one
    round all day it's impossible to tell which the rogues are.

    So unless the special interest group in question can police themselves,
    they should all be barred. And before you start saying this is like
    cyclists cycling on the pavement, no it's not. Cyclists are not
    permitted to cycle on the pavement, and we are not arguing that we
    should be permitted.

    >> [1] Why is it you see far more deep fording kits in suburbia than you
    >> ever do in the hills?

    >
    > You obviously don't understand what the 'snorkel' kits are actually
    > for, which seems par for the course for much of the anti 4x4 lobby.


    I do indeed know what a deep fording kit is for, having at one time had
    to use a deep ford regularly (there's a bridge there now, and I don't
    live there any more). I also know the difference between a deep fording
    kit and a raised intake, and I'd be interested to know what feature of
    suburban driving makes either necessary.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; better than your average performing pineapple
     
  18. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >> Around here (Peak District) we get convoys of lardarses in lard rovers
    >> who have systematically destroyed many miles of green lanes which had
    >> been quietly used by walkers, cyclists and farmers needing access,
    >> without causing any problems for many years. The impact of trail bikes
    >> is much less and arguably would be sustainable in moderation except on
    >> all-grass surfaces.

    >
    > Round us its actually the farm vehicles which do all the damage and
    > they cannot be banned from their own land.


    This, of course, is true. And the ridiculous thing is that we as
    taxpayers are actually paying farmers to do this; it doesn't seem to me
    unreasonable that subsidies should be withdrawn from farmers who do
    damage to the environment with heavy vehicles (actually, it doesn't seem
    to me unreasonable that the subsidies should just be withdrawn, period).

    But just because other people are doing it doesn't make it OK. The
    Scottish Land Reform Act solution, which says in effect that you're
    allowed to go anywhere provided you do it under your own power, seems to
    me the right one.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
    patiently for the RAC to arrive.
     
  19. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    mark wrote:
    >
    > Excuse the thread drift, but when was the Ridgeway restored? I recall trying
    > to cycle it in 2000 and being defeated by tire tracks that were just narrow
    > enough and deep enough that my pedals would clip the sides of the rut hard
    > enough to take me off the bike. Extremely wet, slippery grass and clay
    > didn't help, either.
    >
    > I remember thinking that the Ridgeway would be a very scenic route if it
    > were dry and if it weren't for the deep ruts.


    There have been numerous attempts, none of which have really worked,
    mostly involving rotavating the surface and recompacting it but
    including tests of mixing cement powder in with the mud. Where they do
    this they often put in TROs to allow the ground to recover but found
    them churned up just the same. There are also now permanent seasonal
    TROs in places. Thinking it was breaches of the TROs that were
    continuing to damage the surface they found virtually no breaches but
    plenty of farm vehicles doing the damage.

    See
    http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/ridgeway/article.asp?PageId=3&ArticleId=21
    for a recent TROs and http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3C222FDC for details
    of some of the restoration work.


    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  20. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:
    >
    > You may not - I can't tell (although I find it hard to believe). I have
    > this argument not infrequently with wildfowlers. They all say 'I am a
    > responsible wildfowler, therefore wildfowlers should be allowed to
    > continue to slaughter the geese'. There may be responsible wildfowlers;
    > I don't know. I know from the evidence that there are a lot of
    > irresponsible wildfowlers, and without having a warden follow each one
    > round all day it's impossible to tell which the rogues are.
    >
    > So unless the special interest group in question can police themselves,
    > they should all be barred. And before you start saying this is like
    > cyclists cycling on the pavement, no it's not. Cyclists are not
    > permitted to cycle on the pavement, and we are not arguing that we
    > should be permitted.
    >


    What about red lights then. A few here arguing that we should be
    allowed to run them.

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
Loading...
Loading...