A thorny issue - illegal off-roading - any advice?
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
OpulentBob said:
300bhp/ton said:
Stuff
300, sometimes you don't help the cause. Waffling and finding some slight angle on any point raised is a bit tiresome. Farmers in tractors don't have the attitude of "more revs and sliding around = fun", which appears to be the predominant attitude among the more informal off-roaders.
You've been given specific examples of where issues have arisen and you've chosen to defend them to the hilt, blaming wheelspinning cyclists instead. The issues - and culprits - are real.
Give it up.
It's the attitude of those he cites that allow the state to take control & enforce restrictions or outright bans because the hard of thinking are just that.
It's ruining what's left of proper community in this country.
But hey, I'm already a bigot a thousand times over because even though I generally don't go about doing what I like wherever I like, I do still maintain an opinion.
I drive a 4x4.
300bhp/ton said:
Bod (and op if you want).
As you both seem to think it's so damaging and evidently avoidable. Take this field, it's wet, but has no tracks on it.
Lets assume there is a legal by-way on it. Now please tell me how you can drive across the field in these conditions without making any tracks?
If you can provide an answer it will evidently solve all green lane issues across the country.
However if you come to the same logical conclusion that the point of a road is to be driven and that driving on soft non tarmaced surfaces will make tracks - and is 100% expected and normal. Then it will explain why mud tracks are sometimes muddy - especially in a country with a temperate climate and high annual rainfall.
300bhp/ton - despite you conveniently ignored my question earlier, I'll bite on this one.As you both seem to think it's so damaging and evidently avoidable. Take this field, it's wet, but has no tracks on it.
Lets assume there is a legal by-way on it. Now please tell me how you can drive across the field in these conditions without making any tracks?
If you can provide an answer it will evidently solve all green lane issues across the country.
However if you come to the same logical conclusion that the point of a road is to be driven and that driving on soft non tarmaced surfaces will make tracks - and is 100% expected and normal. Then it will explain why mud tracks are sometimes muddy - especially in a country with a temperate climate and high annual rainfall.
You say horses do more damage to tracks than 'light' 4x4s then surely driving across this field won't cause any additional damage.
Ian Geary said:
Strange - I have the opposite view. When I chose my house a year ago, I was very specific about choosing one that was right next to a road. It makes driving home so much simpler.
You deliberately chose a house right next to a motorway or unrestricted DCW? Takes all sorts I suppose.300bhp/ton said:
Silver Smudger said:
That is not impassable - This however may well be -
Note that my bike is not propped on anything, but stood there supported by the muck. In case you can't tell, I was riding between the ruts when I came across this claggy mess - The ruts are knee-deep with muddy mush and I would challenge any keen walker to get through without getting covered.
A couple of points:Note that my bike is not propped on anything, but stood there supported by the muck. In case you can't tell, I was riding between the ruts when I came across this claggy mess - The ruts are knee-deep with muddy mush and I would challenge any keen walker to get through without getting covered.
-do you honestly think it wouldn't be muddy if no vehicles had driven on it? Remember with no vehicles such a track would likely be only 1/4 of the width, so if the ground was soft and water logged it may actually be no better.Muddy, yes - whipped cream, no
-Do farm/forestry vehicles use the same track ever?No If so, then banning 4x4's will not prevent this.Banning 4x4s does not even prevent 4x4s
-Do horses also use the track? Yes
-Are there any alternative footpaths, tracks or bridleways you could have taken?There are LEGAL alternatives for 4x4s
Silver Smudger said:
The brambles are also sprayed with mud for some distance from the track, as the drivers' main technique in these conditions is flat out and all wheels spinning like a blender
Why do people make up such b
ks as this?? You're bike looks pretty mudddy and I bet sprayed up a fair bit of mud too, where you riding flatout wheel-spinning like a bender too?As a long term seasoned off roader it would be difficult to drive that track while wheel spinning, chances are most will use low range (so high engine revs, but low speed). And they might maintain momentum as this is what is needed to keep going in many off road situations. The shear weight of any vehicle combined with the fact tyres are designed to "disperse" water via the tread means mud being pushed either side of the vehicles is again 100% expected and normal.
Silver Smudger said:
which results in mud being whipped into a soggy chocolate mousse(!) which does not set for weeks as the trees keep the sun off for most of the year.
So are the trees at fault? Maybe the council should cut them all down to allow the ground to dry better? All would be happy then??? 
Silver Smudger said:
I have always wanted to have a go at off-roading, but never actually bought a 4x4 because I decided it was not a viable hobby without anywhere suitable to drive it near me - I do not think I should be entitled to drive wherever I like, day or night, just because I have invested in some knobbly rubber and some spotlights.
That's rather tarring everyone with a single brush isn't it?No just my situation - I do not have enough legal routes near me to justify buying myself a 4x4 - SOME people do seem to think that having a 4x4 entitles them to have routes provided for them, and will drive off road ILLEGALLY if there are not enough green lanes that they can findCouple of points -
This is a BRIDLEWAY - I am allowed to ride on it. If it looks like this when I get there, then I have to take an alternative route, and a pain in the arse it is too, when I have to turn back and look for another way home.
I have seen poorly-driven 4x4s, in this area, hitting mud, getting slowed down and gassing it so spinning their wheels - Then needing to be pulled out of their self-made swamp - I can safely assume it was not you, as you would never do such a thing, but it did happen.
Stop accusing people of lying.
Illegal off-roading happens.
It causes damage and inconvenience and nuisance.
People who live near it are actually affected by it.
300bhp/ton said:
So once you've banned 4x4's and it's still muddy, will you be trying to ban horses as well?
I sure you know very well that the occasional horse isn't going to do anything like the kind of damage that 4x4's have done in this case. Quite honestly, I think you just enjoy arguing rather than actually believing what you write.As I said before, I'm indifferent to the argument, although obviously if it is illegal you have every right to fight it, and it must be annoying to ask for advice only to have to justify that position needlessly.
But
"Clearly there is no way alot of ^ that ground could ever recover by natural means - the damage is far too great and it no longer dries out in the summer. "
Is simply untrue.
But
"Clearly there is no way alot of ^ that ground could ever recover by natural means - the damage is far too great and it no longer dries out in the summer. "
Is simply untrue.
I used to mountain bike the local bridleway, it was reasonably flat about 4 years ago. Then the 4x4 and scrambler community decided it would be good to use it. Not to get from A to B but just for fun.
Problem is that when it's wet they do loads of damage by rutting the lane, then during the drier months the clay soil sets solid.
For anyone young it's quite easy to walk, for anyone older it's a hazard. Cyclists cant use because the zig zag add they are so deep that you cant peddle. I cant imagine horse riders finding it very easy either.
I don't mind everyone having access to bridleways but there needs to be some level of responsibility for the damage done. They should either be seen to be maintaining them (in the drier months) or contribute towards the maintenance. I cant blame it on farm vehicles either because they have used the lane for a number of years prior and it has never been as bad as it currently is.
Problem is that when it's wet they do loads of damage by rutting the lane, then during the drier months the clay soil sets solid.
For anyone young it's quite easy to walk, for anyone older it's a hazard. Cyclists cant use because the zig zag add they are so deep that you cant peddle. I cant imagine horse riders finding it very easy either.
I don't mind everyone having access to bridleways but there needs to be some level of responsibility for the damage done. They should either be seen to be maintaining them (in the drier months) or contribute towards the maintenance. I cant blame it on farm vehicles either because they have used the lane for a number of years prior and it has never been as bad as it currently is.
300bhp/ton said:
Lets assume there is a legal by-way on it. Now please tell me how you can drive across the field in these conditions without making any tracks?
If you can provide an answer it will evidently solve all green lane issues across the country.
Flotation tyres. Or you could simply not drive across it if you have no actual need to.If you can provide an answer it will evidently solve all green lane issues across the country.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 18th February 10:53
Smiler. said:
I've followed this thread with interest & I'm in agreement with larrylamb on this one.
It's the attitude of those he cites that allow the state to take control & enforce restrictions or outright bans because the hard of thinking are just that.
It's ruining what's left of proper community in this country.
But hey, I'm already a bigot a thousand times over because even though I generally don't go about doing what I like wherever I like, I do still maintain an opinion.
I drive a 4x4.
Spot on.It's the attitude of those he cites that allow the state to take control & enforce restrictions or outright bans because the hard of thinking are just that.
It's ruining what's left of proper community in this country.
But hey, I'm already a bigot a thousand times over because even though I generally don't go about doing what I like wherever I like, I do still maintain an opinion.
I drive a 4x4.
There are a number here defending off roading to the hilt no matter what. (legal/illegal, considerate/inconsiderate)
This does eventually lead to new laws and methods of enforcement which are then applied to everyone and restricts all our freedoms.
S59 anyone?
No angel myself TBH but there are to many people clearly taking the p
slarrylamb11 said:
we are now at the point where illegal off-roading is occuring literally 7 days a week, 24 hours a day
larrylamb11 said:
Police always want photo evidence - not easy at night!
Top tip; try taking pictures of them during daylight hours. It sounds like it should be easy to then collect evidence of the swarming masses and maybe the police will up their response then.larrylamb11 said:
The land being driven on (where it isn't byway) is common land - motorised vehicles are expressly prohibited from driving on common land (without permission from the land owner, whom I know and no, he hasn't given any permission).
This is a good example of where the application of S59 is justified. If that doesn't work then a few of them up in court for a S34 offence might get the message across. larrylamb11 said:
With regards the Police, the bib are aware of the 'criminal activity' (which it is) but are also realistic about catching people in the 'act' - there are not enough resources to cover a large rural area and the illegal off-roaders are a moving target!
Did you vote in the PCC election? Maybe its time you applied some pressure via that route. After all that's what they were set up to do. Their oath includes the following words "I will give a voice to the public". Take him/her up on it. larrylamb11 said:
I am asking if anyone has any thoughts or ideas as to how one can encourage or educate these illegal off-roaders to desist.
First you have know who they are. Having done so it then comes down to whether they are amenable to rational discussion. If not then it requires firm application of the law.larrylamb11 said:
Likewise, if anyone has any practical suggestions, be that a high-vis wearing parishioner camped out on site or whatever (legal and sensible), I would be interested to hear them. If you are a 4x4 driver, what would persuade you not to use a particular area but to seek out a more appropriate place to off-road?
Physically blocking the access points is probably the only practical solution. The offenders are hardly likely to complain to the police are they? I don't know the answer re what would persuade them to move on. larrylamb11 said:
What are the laws on causing damage to a byway? how does one go about having a byway downgraded or a TRO applied?
You may find this link helpful. The powers are there: it's mainly a matter of getting the Council to use them.http://www.bobw.co.uk/Default.aspx?page=Legal%20Po...
This may not be your part of the country but gives you an idea of how Councils approach the problem.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/vehicles-row.htm
Gooood grieeeeeef! Gentlemen (and ladies), please - in this location this activity is ILLEGAL, other than on the byways - look at the pictures, driving on a bridleway, driving through the woods, weaving through the trees, nobody has the legal right to do that here!
I am not some 4x4bigot, anti-off-road lobbyist - I have made this perfectly clear already. I am trying to explore the options for preventing illegal use and damage to common land / ancient woodland - maybe the ground will recover by natural means, but at the moment it is not! I have looked at it over the last 20 years and seen it getting progressivley more and more damaged - it never recovers in the summer now, there is no longer the plant life that used to be here, the roots that used to bind the ground together are no longer there, the huge pools of water created in these mud holes never used to be there! It simply isn't able to recover on its own - all the top soil has gone and the clay substrate is exposed, nothing grows here anymore.
300bhp/ton With regards your picture of the poached field and how you would cross it without leaving tracks - I would approach it thus. Arrive at the field, assess the ground as too wet and likely to be damaged by driving on it, turn around and find an alternative route or go home. Call me old fashioned, but it seems common-sensical that if your leisure pursuit is going to cause damage such that it is going to detract from someone else being able to enjoy a resource you desist or postpone your leisure pursuit until such time as it won't inconvenience others....
I very much get the impression I am beating my head against the wall here and those pro-4x4 voices will argue that there is nothing wrong with the activities depicted in my photos irrespective of how much damage it may cause or where any moral obligation may lie.
OpulentBob and RedDevil, thank you for your constructive posts, I will start looking into these with the local council.
I am not some 4x4bigot, anti-off-road lobbyist - I have made this perfectly clear already. I am trying to explore the options for preventing illegal use and damage to common land / ancient woodland - maybe the ground will recover by natural means, but at the moment it is not! I have looked at it over the last 20 years and seen it getting progressivley more and more damaged - it never recovers in the summer now, there is no longer the plant life that used to be here, the roots that used to bind the ground together are no longer there, the huge pools of water created in these mud holes never used to be there! It simply isn't able to recover on its own - all the top soil has gone and the clay substrate is exposed, nothing grows here anymore.
300bhp/ton With regards your picture of the poached field and how you would cross it without leaving tracks - I would approach it thus. Arrive at the field, assess the ground as too wet and likely to be damaged by driving on it, turn around and find an alternative route or go home. Call me old fashioned, but it seems common-sensical that if your leisure pursuit is going to cause damage such that it is going to detract from someone else being able to enjoy a resource you desist or postpone your leisure pursuit until such time as it won't inconvenience others....
car crazy said:
It's took the OP 6 pages to admit most of the lanes in his pics are legal, my golf course has worse tracks on it than that and its in the cumbrian fells.
so where's my prize I was the only one to call the OP a NIMBY and I'm right
Eh? I said there are two byways, right from the outset I have said this - the photos I have published clearly show vehicle tracks on bridleways, virgin woodland and all over the place - very much NOT on the byways. ALL of this is illegal here - surely that isn't hard to comprehend? so where's my prize I was the only one to call the OP a NIMBY and I'm rightI very much get the impression I am beating my head against the wall here and those pro-4x4 voices will argue that there is nothing wrong with the activities depicted in my photos irrespective of how much damage it may cause or where any moral obligation may lie.
OpulentBob and RedDevil, thank you for your constructive posts, I will start looking into these with the local council.
larrylamb11 said:
I very much get the impression I am beating my head against the wall here and those pro-4x4 voices will argue that there is nothing wrong with the activities depicted in my photos irrespective of how much damage it may cause or where any moral obligation may lie.
This is indeed the case with some of the people posting on here.Simply too blinkered to accept that there is anything wrong.
larrylamb11 said:
Gooood grieeeeeef!
300bhp/ton With regards your picture of the poached field and how you would cross it without leaving tracks - I would approach it thus. Arrive at the field, assess the ground as too wet and likely to be damaged by driving on it, turn around and find an alternative route or go home. Call me old fashioned, but it seems common-sensical that if your leisure pursuit is going to cause damage such that it is going to detract from someone else being able to enjoy a resource you desist or postpone your leisure pursuit until such time as it won't inconvenience others....
Based on his recent posting history ( modifications/ remap threads and this one), I think you mention something he appears to lack..300bhp/ton With regards your picture of the poached field and how you would cross it without leaving tracks - I would approach it thus. Arrive at the field, assess the ground as too wet and likely to be damaged by driving on it, turn around and find an alternative route or go home. Call me old fashioned, but it seems common-sensical that if your leisure pursuit is going to cause damage such that it is going to detract from someone else being able to enjoy a resource you desist or postpone your leisure pursuit until such time as it won't inconvenience others....
Those pictures that Larrylamb posted made me really quite sad, it seems to be such a shame to have what was probably a beautiful spot made to look so ugly.
I have been out on my mountain bike a few times down routes marked as bridleways and seen mess like that, it really does make the route unusable in any practical sense by anything but a 4x4. I also find that the claim that walkers, horses or mountain bikes cause similar or worse damage to be frankly ridiculous. Those photographs show persistent use and abuse of the land by 4x4s and if it is illegal for them to be there then I don't see how anybody can defend it? Even the heaviest farm vehicles wouldn't cause that sort of damage as they simply don't use these routes that frequently, if at all, and they certainly don't push new trails through woodland.
I fully support the OP though I can't provide any additional advice other than speak to the council, keep taking the photographs, and give the police as much information as possible.
I'm sure the very vast majority of the 4x4ers on here are law abiding and responsible, and I hope you get the opportunity to enjoy your hobby safely and responsibly in areas that you are legally entitled to do so. I'd also hope that you try to encourage the small minority of irresponsible people that cause damage and spoil things by disregarding the law, not to mention demonstrating a lack of simple courtesy for other users of the countryside, to just grow up a bit. The more damage that gets done, the tighter the laws will get and the more restricted things will get for you all.
If there aren't enough places for you to go then the correct course of action is lobby the government, use your vote, or even stand for election yourself. Disregarding the law and then getting all hot under the collar when people try to stop you basically makes you look like you are throwing your toys out of the pram, and ultimately will get you nowhere, except perhaps in a brush with the BiB.
I have been out on my mountain bike a few times down routes marked as bridleways and seen mess like that, it really does make the route unusable in any practical sense by anything but a 4x4. I also find that the claim that walkers, horses or mountain bikes cause similar or worse damage to be frankly ridiculous. Those photographs show persistent use and abuse of the land by 4x4s and if it is illegal for them to be there then I don't see how anybody can defend it? Even the heaviest farm vehicles wouldn't cause that sort of damage as they simply don't use these routes that frequently, if at all, and they certainly don't push new trails through woodland.
I fully support the OP though I can't provide any additional advice other than speak to the council, keep taking the photographs, and give the police as much information as possible.
I'm sure the very vast majority of the 4x4ers on here are law abiding and responsible, and I hope you get the opportunity to enjoy your hobby safely and responsibly in areas that you are legally entitled to do so. I'd also hope that you try to encourage the small minority of irresponsible people that cause damage and spoil things by disregarding the law, not to mention demonstrating a lack of simple courtesy for other users of the countryside, to just grow up a bit. The more damage that gets done, the tighter the laws will get and the more restricted things will get for you all.
If there aren't enough places for you to go then the correct course of action is lobby the government, use your vote, or even stand for election yourself. Disregarding the law and then getting all hot under the collar when people try to stop you basically makes you look like you are throwing your toys out of the pram, and ultimately will get you nowhere, except perhaps in a brush with the BiB.
Pontoneer said:
Not here in Scotland .
As a fundamental principle of law , in general anything is permitted unless specifically prohibited .
9 Conduct excluded from access rightsAs a fundamental principle of law , in general anything is permitted unless specifically prohibited .
(f)being on or crossing land in or with a motorised vehicle or vessel (other than a vehicle or vessel which has been constructed or adapted for use by a person who has a disability and which is being used by such a person);
see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2 if you want to read it for yourself.
I wish people who read this thread wouldn't just assume that all offroaders support illegal offroading. I have said several times on this thread that the majority do not. Any labels of 'the off roading crowd on here' should refer to those who don't mind illegal off roading, and not tarring us all with the same brush.
Edited by TheHeretic on Monday 18th February 14:31
Sorry, I need to address alot of this and will do so in the text below
However a point I didn't pick up, if it is private land, then the Police will be able to do nothing, it will be down to the land owner to take action, and to a certain degree prevent people gaining access. Nobody else can claim people are there without permission, only them.
Like I said, it is common land - which is privately owned but open to the public through a Scheme of Management, administered by the local council. The bylaws do not permit access to vehicles - full stop. Anyone driving there is breaking the law, unless they are on a byway - simple
It is a public right of way! Nobody has a right to cause damage to a public right of way - it is arguably criminal damage or at least 'irresponsible use'. Whatever happened to the old adage of 'take only pictures, leave only footprints'.... Motorists using byways should at the very least do so responsibly - are you seriously suggesting that the damage pictured could be regarded as responsible use?
YES, I do know this for certain - I agree it is an important point because absolutely all the damage seen here has been done by private off-road vehicles. These byways are NOT used by farm (or any other commercial) vehicles.
because, apart from all the other things, off-roading here is illegal! that isn't suitable in anyone's book. Doing it legally would be a start...
As a rule if you go round telling people they can't do something, even more so if they aren't actually hurting anybody or causing any real harm, then it tends to rile them up more than anything.
I agree. However, in this case they are not only doing something illegal, but also causing harm to the environment, which in turn is denying other individuals access to recreational areas - which tends to rile the other users up more than anything. Its a bit like asking for advice on the internet and it being suggested that one has posted 'blatant lies'
but we will gloss over that and keep it gentlemanly
the BestOfBothWorlds link posted by Red Devil is enlightening - have a read of it. They suggest the predominant use of a byway is normally by walkers, horse riders and cyclists. I don't believe these byways would have suffered the damage that they have if they had been used predominantly by these users. To answer your question, YES, if the byway is not able to cope with 'traffic' in the wetter months, they should be closed and only open during the summer (much like parts of the Ridgeway) - it would be logical.
Honestly I'm happy to help were I can, but I think some of these claims do boarder on the ridiculous and are not in line with an unbiased view on what is likely to occur by using such things in their intended way?
I am sorry you feel that way and that I have not been able to put forward a reasoned case or argument - I don't believe I am being particularly biased here and appreciate both sides of this argument (don't forget I have and do engage in off-roading myself and don't hold myself up as a paragon of virtue) but the damage on the ground speaks for itself. Lets agree to disagree here
I don't want to prevent people using it at all - I would like it to be passable to all class of user - if that means restricting, say 4x4 use, so that the rest of the other classes of user (horse riders, pedestrians, cyclists etc.) get the benefit of being able to use it, so be it. You argue it is still passable - I argue it isn't, you couldn't get a pushchair, for example, through that quagmire. Again, we will have to agree to disagree here.
It's a muddy track in trees. If you've ever driven on such terrain you'd know how slippery it is. It's just physics that tracks will be made and erosion will happen.
But erosion also happens without vehicles. And you must conceded it had been very very wet of late. If you took these pictures in the middle of a dry summer they would look totally different.
I freely concede that it has been an incredibly wet year. In the summer it actually doesn't look very different any more as the water does not drain from the 'bomb holes'. One would expect responsible users to conduct their activities with due consideration for the prevailing weather and environment - much as they have to in most other 'sports'.
I'll be perfectly honest and say I can't see a single area where there isn't a possible foot route. And lets not forget 4x4's don't bring all that water. The water would exist anyhow, so chances are if the ground is that soft it would be just as "impassable' on foot even if a vehicle had never driven on it.
I admit you can see the tracks and were vehicles have been. But as I've said, if you tarmaced them, it'd be far more noticeable. And it doesn't stop the trees or wildlife growing by the vehicle tracks being there.
You are missing the point here - you can get by on foot via an alternative route, but not on the byway. This in itself is damaging the flora and causing erosion. The water does exist, but would have naturally drained away through the bog which has now been turned into a 'bomb hole'. It can't drain away from there because the top soil has been eroded down to the clay substrate and an artificial 'pond' formed. Of course the vehicle tracks stop the trees and wildlife growing! The vehicles are driving over the wildlife - an eco-system isn't just limited to the big trees you can see, you know. You cannot argue that the vehicles driving over the ground and creating tracks is not hindering wildlife and plant growth....
The ground will easily recovery naturally. As for drying out, again the vehicles don't make the water - it's already there. So it'd be wet regardless. Although if you are basing it on last summer which was very wet in its entirety, then it isn't a logical conclusion. Also remember places in woods need to remain wet in summer - else where will plants get water from?
Oh dear, I wasn't aware you were a botanist or naturalist In which case I will gladly concede and bow to your greater knowledge of the local flora and drainage in this area, as you seem to know it well - the ground may recover.... lets re-visit this in the Autumn and see how its getting on.
Why would I want to ban horses? They are legally allowed to enjoy these beautiful woods and I would encourage it - 4x4s are not. When these bridleways were used exclusively by horses they were nowhere near as muddy, for your information.
Eh? you seem to have left your common sense and morality at home. You have neatly highlighted one of the key problems here - the base fact of allowing road traffic to use a road appears to have bypassed those users common sense as to whether it is actually a good idea or not - the notion that it may cause damage or be anti-social to others is brushed aside by the moral highrgound of being a 'legal right'. How can we redress this balance so people actually think before setting off cross country?
No, the byway isn't passable on foot - I can leave the byway and travel parallel to it to reach the same destination, but in doing so I will be trampling over previously untrodden ground. I have the right to do that, but A) is it right that I should have to because other byway users have not been considerate in their use? and B) is it right to begin damaging the flora on my detoured route so that I can reach my destination?
I really don't understand your problem, most of what makes it difficult to pass on foot is water - which has nothing directly to do with 4x4's. If dry this would be 100% passable with ease.
Yes, if dry it would. However its wet and when its wet 4x4 use makes the byways muddier and less passable, that is a fact. So what would you have other byway users do? Only use it on sunny days after a drought sort of thing, or do you have something practical in mind?;)
As they stand now they are still highly passable, but lets not forget you are likely there through choice, not for commuting. You have the option to take a different route, or wear welly boots if you do want to pass.
Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that I can 'go somewhere else or lump it' how immensely magnanimous of you - I am sure the reverse sentiment expressed by, say the Ramblers to a 4x4 club would be equally well received.... Lets not forget, we live in a democracy and have equal rights here - nobody has the exclusive right to use a byway, particularly if that is to the detriment of others.
I'm still not against helping you, but from all available evidence you do appear to have an agenda to "stop this action" because you disagree with it and don't like it - on a personal level. Not because it is actually doing any real harm.
I say this as you don't seem to be wanting to prevent use of 4x4's in areas you say are legal - but you also seem determined to stop them using legal routes too. Which would be the obvious alternative to point 4x4 owners at if they are somewhere they shouldn't. I don't want to prevent the use of 4x4s in legal areas -
We aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this as, to my increasing amazement, you do not see any 'real harm'. I am very surprised that the evidence I have offered here and by email has not shown you that much of this activity is illegal and damaging to the countryside - yes, I have an agenda to "stop this action" because I disagree with it - because it is LARGELY ILLEGAL and casuing criminal damage. The byway issue is seperate but related in as much as I feel morally obliged to fight for the rights of ALL users to be able to use the byways and that the activities of certain groups should be curtailed if their actions are prohibiting such use for everyone else. It is the old adage of a selfish few spoiling it for everyone else.
'Not in my backyard' does seem to override your entire point.
You have rather undermined yourself with this parting shot as it shows you haven't really understood the point of the whole post (or I haven't explained it well enough). Thanks for your input all the same, it has brought up some useful dailogue.300bhp/ton said:
larrylamb11 said:
The land being driven on (where it isn't byway) is common land - motorised vehicles are expressly prohibited from driving on common land (without permission from the land owner, whom I know and no, he hasn't given any permission).
I've sent you an email.However a point I didn't pick up, if it is private land, then the Police will be able to do nothing, it will be down to the land owner to take action, and to a certain degree prevent people gaining access. Nobody else can claim people are there without permission, only them.
Like I said, it is common land - which is privately owned but open to the public through a Scheme of Management, administered by the local council. The bylaws do not permit access to vehicles - full stop. Anyone driving there is breaking the law, unless they are on a byway - simple
larrylamb11 said:
There is also an issue with excessive damage to byways from over-use by 4x4s and motorised vehicles
Excessive is not easy to define, in winter and when wet (which it is at present) then it is not excessive damage. I'll touch on this with regards to your pictures in a mo, but the use of the word 'excessive' is not advisable IMO.It is a public right of way! Nobody has a right to cause damage to a public right of way - it is arguably criminal damage or at least 'irresponsible use'. Whatever happened to the old adage of 'take only pictures, leave only footprints'.... Motorists using byways should at the very least do so responsibly - are you seriously suggesting that the damage pictured could be regarded as responsible use?
larrylamb11 said:
- these byways are NOT being used by any farm machinery
Do you know this for certain, as most tracks are used at some point. It might just be it isn't daily, or less regular at certain times of the year. I'm not saying you are wrong, but again this is a rather important point to actually get right.YES, I do know this for certain - I agree it is an important point because absolutely all the damage seen here has been done by private off-road vehicles. These byways are NOT used by farm (or any other commercial) vehicles.
larrylamb11 said:
If you are a 4x4 driver, what would persuade you not to use a particular area but to seek out a more appropriate place to off-road?
Very serious question. What makes you think, support and define that this isn't a suitable area? Or more importantly how would you define a 'suitable area'?because, apart from all the other things, off-roading here is illegal! that isn't suitable in anyone's book. Doing it legally would be a start...
As a rule if you go round telling people they can't do something, even more so if they aren't actually hurting anybody or causing any real harm, then it tends to rile them up more than anything.
I agree. However, in this case they are not only doing something illegal, but also causing harm to the environment, which in turn is denying other individuals access to recreational areas - which tends to rile the other users up more than anything. Its a bit like asking for advice on the internet and it being suggested that one has posted 'blatant lies'
but we will gloss over that and keep it gentlemanlylarrylamb11 said:
What are the laws on causing damage to a byway?
Another question, as a by-way is a legal dirt road, how do you expect it to be used and not cause damage? Only open it on sunny days after a drought sort of thing, or do you have something practical in mind?the BestOfBothWorlds link posted by Red Devil is enlightening - have a read of it. They suggest the predominant use of a byway is normally by walkers, horse riders and cyclists. I don't believe these byways would have suffered the damage that they have if they had been used predominantly by these users. To answer your question, YES, if the byway is not able to cope with 'traffic' in the wetter months, they should be closed and only open during the summer (much like parts of the Ridgeway) - it would be logical.
Honestly I'm happy to help were I can, but I think some of these claims do boarder on the ridiculous and are not in line with an unbiased view on what is likely to occur by using such things in their intended way?
I am sorry you feel that way and that I have not been able to put forward a reasoned case or argument - I don't believe I am being particularly biased here and appreciate both sides of this argument (don't forget I have and do engage in off-roading myself and don't hold myself up as a paragon of virtue) but the damage on the ground speaks for itself. Lets agree to disagree here
larrylamb11 said:
Some pictures:-
Ancient woodland, in an AONB, turned into what looks like a 'pay & play' site - there is a byway, now impassable, that skirts the edge of this.
Certainly doesn't look impassable. But can I ask another serious question, if you want to prevent people using it all - what use it by being passable? Ancient woodland, in an AONB, turned into what looks like a 'pay & play' site - there is a byway, now impassable, that skirts the edge of this.
I don't want to prevent people using it at all - I would like it to be passable to all class of user - if that means restricting, say 4x4 use, so that the rest of the other classes of user (horse riders, pedestrians, cyclists etc.) get the benefit of being able to use it, so be it. You argue it is still passable - I argue it isn't, you couldn't get a pushchair, for example, through that quagmire. Again, we will have to agree to disagree here.
It's a muddy track in trees. If you've ever driven on such terrain you'd know how slippery it is. It's just physics that tracks will be made and erosion will happen.
But erosion also happens without vehicles. And you must conceded it had been very very wet of late. If you took these pictures in the middle of a dry summer they would look totally different.
I freely concede that it has been an incredibly wet year. In the summer it actually doesn't look very different any more as the water does not drain from the 'bomb holes'. One would expect responsible users to conduct their activities with due consideration for the prevailing weather and environment - much as they have to in most other 'sports'.
I'll be perfectly honest and say I can't see a single area where there isn't a possible foot route. And lets not forget 4x4's don't bring all that water. The water would exist anyhow, so chances are if the ground is that soft it would be just as "impassable' on foot even if a vehicle had never driven on it.
I admit you can see the tracks and were vehicles have been. But as I've said, if you tarmaced them, it'd be far more noticeable. And it doesn't stop the trees or wildlife growing by the vehicle tracks being there.
You are missing the point here - you can get by on foot via an alternative route, but not on the byway. This in itself is damaging the flora and causing erosion. The water does exist, but would have naturally drained away through the bog which has now been turned into a 'bomb hole'. It can't drain away from there because the top soil has been eroded down to the clay substrate and an artificial 'pond' formed. Of course the vehicle tracks stop the trees and wildlife growing! The vehicles are driving over the wildlife - an eco-system isn't just limited to the big trees you can see, you know. You cannot argue that the vehicles driving over the ground and creating tracks is not hindering wildlife and plant growth....
larrylamb11 said:
Clearly there is no way alot of ^ that ground could ever recover by natural means - the damage is far too great and it no longer dries out in the summer.
Disagree 100%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%The ground will easily recovery naturally. As for drying out, again the vehicles don't make the water - it's already there. So it'd be wet regardless. Although if you are basing it on last summer which was very wet in its entirety, then it isn't a logical conclusion. Also remember places in woods need to remain wet in summer - else where will plants get water from?
Oh dear, I wasn't aware you were a botanist or naturalist
In which case I will gladly concede and bow to your greater knowledge of the local flora and drainage in this area, as you seem to know it well - the ground may recover.... lets re-visit this in the Autumn and see how its getting on.larrylamb11 said:
Specific evidence of illegal off-roading? How about this..... note: those are bridleway signs.....
So once you've banned 4x4's and it's still muddy, will you be trying to ban horses as well?Why would I want to ban horses? They are legally allowed to enjoy these beautiful woods and I would encourage it - 4x4s are not. When these bridleways were used exclusively by horses they were nowhere near as muddy, for your information.
larrylamb11 said:
Now for some damage to byways..... yes, technically it is legal to drive here, but is it really a good idea when it creates damage like this?
So it's more about your sensibility than the base fact of allowing road traffic to use a road?Eh? you seem to have left your common sense and morality at home. You have neatly highlighted one of the key problems here - the base fact of allowing road traffic to use a road appears to have bypassed those users common sense as to whether it is actually a good idea or not - the notion that it may cause damage or be anti-social to others is brushed aside by the moral highrgound of being a 'legal right'. How can we redress this balance so people actually think before setting off cross country?
larrylamb11 said:
you can see that it is no longer possible for other users to use the actual byway, having to skirt along the edges which effectively widens it.
So it is passable then??No, the byway isn't passable on foot - I can leave the byway and travel parallel to it to reach the same destination, but in doing so I will be trampling over previously untrodden ground. I have the right to do that, but A) is it right that I should have to because other byway users have not been considerate in their use? and B) is it right to begin damaging the flora on my detoured route so that I can reach my destination?
I really don't understand your problem, most of what makes it difficult to pass on foot is water - which has nothing directly to do with 4x4's. If dry this would be 100% passable with ease.
Yes, if dry it would. However its wet and when its wet 4x4 use makes the byways muddier and less passable, that is a fact. So what would you have other byway users do? Only use it on sunny days after a drought sort of thing, or do you have something practical in mind?;)
As they stand now they are still highly passable, but lets not forget you are likely there through choice, not for commuting. You have the option to take a different route, or wear welly boots if you do want to pass.
Excuse me? Are you seriously suggesting that I can 'go somewhere else or lump it' how immensely magnanimous of you - I am sure the reverse sentiment expressed by, say the Ramblers to a 4x4 club would be equally well received.... Lets not forget, we live in a democracy and have equal rights here - nobody has the exclusive right to use a byway, particularly if that is to the detriment of others.
I'm still not against helping you, but from all available evidence you do appear to have an agenda to "stop this action" because you disagree with it and don't like it - on a personal level. Not because it is actually doing any real harm.
I say this as you don't seem to be wanting to prevent use of 4x4's in areas you say are legal - but you also seem determined to stop them using legal routes too. Which would be the obvious alternative to point 4x4 owners at if they are somewhere they shouldn't. I don't want to prevent the use of 4x4s in legal areas -
We aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this as, to my increasing amazement, you do not see any 'real harm'. I am very surprised that the evidence I have offered here and by email has not shown you that much of this activity is illegal and damaging to the countryside - yes, I have an agenda to "stop this action" because I disagree with it - because it is LARGELY ILLEGAL and casuing criminal damage. The byway issue is seperate but related in as much as I feel morally obliged to fight for the rights of ALL users to be able to use the byways and that the activities of certain groups should be curtailed if their actions are prohibiting such use for everyone else. It is the old adage of a selfish few spoiling it for everyone else.
'Not in my backyard' does seem to override your entire point.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff