Motorists face unsurfaced road ban
Discussion
From the Motoring section of the Daily Telegraph 05Nov05 (written by a representative of the Trail Riders Fellowship):
At its last parliamentary reading, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (Nerc) Bill contained sections that will result in closing more than half of all vehicular rights of way.
Rumours abound that the anti-motoring lobby will go for broke during the Bill's passage through the Lords, extending the effect to all unsurfaced roads, writes Ian Packer of the Trail Riders Fellowship.
Even as it stands, the Bill will be devastating for the recreational motorist, rendering legal trail-riding and 4x4 use in some regions impossible or pointless. This is in spite of negotiations with Defra and minister Jim Knight, which had arrived at an equitable and sustainable process that Defra and the minister were apparently happy with.
The Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers stated earlier this year that vehicle use on Rights of Way (RoW) was "perceived as a problem, rather than actually being one".
Moreover, the Government's own Faber-Maunsell Report on the Impact of Motor Vehicle Use on Byways (2003) concluded that damage to unsealed RoW as a result of such use was minimal and that there were no grounds to assume that such use caused significant problems for other recreational users or those living in the countryside.
So what happened? During the Bill's passage through the Commons, politics and power took over from logic and reason. In early debates, Jim Knight had corrected the misinformed statements of those MPs set on banning vehicles at any cost, but then he seemed to join them.
Thus we are facing legislation that is likely to end a much-loved pastime, damage businesses and restrict access to the countryside to the fit and able-bodied, based on uninformed claims given to MPs by the Rambler community. Under the right to roam, walkers have access to 100 per cent of the country's trails and more than 95 per cent of them are already closed to vehicles, but it seems this is not enough.
This has been achieved by giving the impression that the Nerc Bill will stop the nuisance-use of vehicles in the countryside and town parks. Yet as the hooligans in question are already there illegally, why will they suddenly now stop at the introduction of a new law? Didn't we have this scenario with handguns? Those who enjoyed their use in clubs, under carefully certified conditions, lost them, while gun crime soared.
Much has been made of the fact that the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF), which I represent, has been applying for byway status for many trails. This has been presented as "claiming new byways", the implication being that new vehicular routes are being created.
This is absolute nonsense. The TRF and others have simply been applying for existing vehicular rights to be correctly recorded, because the RoW Act of 2000 required it. The task of research and correct recording has been given to local councils since at least 1968, but most have done little. Now we are to be punished for local authority failures and our own success at picking up the task.
There are claims that these unsurfaced roads exist through the legal loophole that cart and carriage rights give rise to motor-vehicle rights. This is nonsense, too. These same rights were given to provide the legal framework for the creation of our asphalt road network. Unsurfaced roads are simply those that escaped the tar machine.
What is more, the effects of this Bill will go well beyond trail riders and 4x4 users. Fans of outdoor sports, including the disabled, will lose their access to the countryside, especially where a 4x4 is the only practical form of transport. Rural householders and businesses may even find themselves landlocked without legal access, held to ransom by an unscrupulous landowner. Yes, they may apply for an "easement" but this can result in a lengthy bureaucratic process and an unpredictable public inquiry.
So how should we deal with nuisance vehicles? We must first accept the demand for sensible recreational activity. The public must be informed of a trail's vehicular status, rather than it being obscured. Signs and maps must be clear, with motorists retaining access to the unsurfaced road network, which is less than five per cent of all trails, leaving the remaining 95 per cent to people who wish to avoid vehicles.
Target resources at anti-noise legislation, the enforcement of existing laws, and, most of all, use the principles of tolerance and management, rather than "nanny-state" bans.
Streaky
At its last parliamentary reading, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (Nerc) Bill contained sections that will result in closing more than half of all vehicular rights of way.
Rumours abound that the anti-motoring lobby will go for broke during the Bill's passage through the Lords, extending the effect to all unsurfaced roads, writes Ian Packer of the Trail Riders Fellowship.
Even as it stands, the Bill will be devastating for the recreational motorist, rendering legal trail-riding and 4x4 use in some regions impossible or pointless. This is in spite of negotiations with Defra and minister Jim Knight, which had arrived at an equitable and sustainable process that Defra and the minister were apparently happy with.
The Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers stated earlier this year that vehicle use on Rights of Way (RoW) was "perceived as a problem, rather than actually being one".
Moreover, the Government's own Faber-Maunsell Report on the Impact of Motor Vehicle Use on Byways (2003) concluded that damage to unsealed RoW as a result of such use was minimal and that there were no grounds to assume that such use caused significant problems for other recreational users or those living in the countryside.
So what happened? During the Bill's passage through the Commons, politics and power took over from logic and reason. In early debates, Jim Knight had corrected the misinformed statements of those MPs set on banning vehicles at any cost, but then he seemed to join them.
Thus we are facing legislation that is likely to end a much-loved pastime, damage businesses and restrict access to the countryside to the fit and able-bodied, based on uninformed claims given to MPs by the Rambler community. Under the right to roam, walkers have access to 100 per cent of the country's trails and more than 95 per cent of them are already closed to vehicles, but it seems this is not enough.
This has been achieved by giving the impression that the Nerc Bill will stop the nuisance-use of vehicles in the countryside and town parks. Yet as the hooligans in question are already there illegally, why will they suddenly now stop at the introduction of a new law? Didn't we have this scenario with handguns? Those who enjoyed their use in clubs, under carefully certified conditions, lost them, while gun crime soared.
Much has been made of the fact that the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF), which I represent, has been applying for byway status for many trails. This has been presented as "claiming new byways", the implication being that new vehicular routes are being created.
This is absolute nonsense. The TRF and others have simply been applying for existing vehicular rights to be correctly recorded, because the RoW Act of 2000 required it. The task of research and correct recording has been given to local councils since at least 1968, but most have done little. Now we are to be punished for local authority failures and our own success at picking up the task.
There are claims that these unsurfaced roads exist through the legal loophole that cart and carriage rights give rise to motor-vehicle rights. This is nonsense, too. These same rights were given to provide the legal framework for the creation of our asphalt road network. Unsurfaced roads are simply those that escaped the tar machine.
What is more, the effects of this Bill will go well beyond trail riders and 4x4 users. Fans of outdoor sports, including the disabled, will lose their access to the countryside, especially where a 4x4 is the only practical form of transport. Rural householders and businesses may even find themselves landlocked without legal access, held to ransom by an unscrupulous landowner. Yes, they may apply for an "easement" but this can result in a lengthy bureaucratic process and an unpredictable public inquiry.
So how should we deal with nuisance vehicles? We must first accept the demand for sensible recreational activity. The public must be informed of a trail's vehicular status, rather than it being obscured. Signs and maps must be clear, with motorists retaining access to the unsurfaced road network, which is less than five per cent of all trails, leaving the remaining 95 per cent to people who wish to avoid vehicles.
Target resources at anti-noise legislation, the enforcement of existing laws, and, most of all, use the principles of tolerance and management, rather than "nanny-state" bans.
Streaky
Oh f@ck!
Another nail in the coffin of individual freedoms in this country! And it looks like the main "defender" in Parliament has just been bought-off!!!
Quite clearly those in power are going after minorities...one by one. Not racial or religious minorities, but those with common passions and interests. The problem is those interests conflict or offend very vocal and "influential" liberals or lentilists. And since they're not protected under law...they're easy targets.
Another nail in the coffin of individual freedoms in this country! And it looks like the main "defender" in Parliament has just been bought-off!!!
Quite clearly those in power are going after minorities...one by one. Not racial or religious minorities, but those with common passions and interests. The problem is those interests conflict or offend very vocal and "influential" liberals or lentilists. And since they're not protected under law...they're easy targets.
grahamw48 said:
.
Off-road bikes are anuisance too.
As the report suggests, any new law is unlikely to deter those who are already using vehicles off-road illegally. And since some also regard road bikes as a nuisance, might as well ban those too. Come to think of it, why not go back to the horse and cart. That'll keep the tree-huggers happy.
7.
number 7 said:
.
Off-road bikes are a
As the report suggests, any new law is unlikely to deter those who are already using vehicles off-road illegally. And since some also regard road bikes as a nuisance, might as well ban those too. Come to think of it, why not go back to the horse and cart. That'll keep the tree-huggers happy.
7.
Have you heard how loud some of those cart horses whinney?
Ban everything but walking, it's the only solution 
I would love to be the guy that answers the 999 telephone...
"Emergency Services, How can I help?"
"I am a Hiker, And I have broken my leg"
"Please walk to the nearest paved road and phone us again sir, we can't send an ambulance to your current location, Enjoy your walk you tree hugging "
"Emergency Services, How can I help?"
"I am a Hiker, And I have broken my leg"
"Please walk to the nearest paved road and phone us again sir, we can't send an ambulance to your current location, Enjoy your
walk you tree hugging " grahamw48 said:Perhaps you want to revise that statement?
This is good news.
I'm all for banning all 4wds that aren't owned by farmers.
I drive a 4x4 and I'm not a farmer. Why? They're much safer to drive for a given driving style. Mine has stopped me from ditching my car (derv spill I think). granted mine is of the sportier variety
To repeat what I said on an earlier thread.
Everyone assumes that this is just about unsurfaced roads, ie those which are mainly grass / mud and maybe some which are gravel.
Not so. There are many many miles (iirc thousands) of roads which will fall under the hammer of this legislation where the road surface is actually tarmac / asphalt.
If as someone mentions you live in a house which can only be accessed along one of these roads, be it unsurfaced or tarmac, you will have to apply for what is known as a derogation. Basically a permit to use your mechanically propelled vehicle along it.
Miss the deadline and you will have to leave your vehicle parked on the nearest public road and walk or take a horse or horse and cart. Of course if the public road is not a 30 then you will have to leave all your position lights and number plate light lit throughout the hours of darkness.
Meanwhile the problem children who cause the issue in the first place will just carry on, flick the V's at the rest of us because there will not be the resource to enforce it. Bit like mobile phone law really.
But of course Bliar and co don't care because the areas affected, ie rural, don't vote for them anyway.
Everyone assumes that this is just about unsurfaced roads, ie those which are mainly grass / mud and maybe some which are gravel.
Not so. There are many many miles (iirc thousands) of roads which will fall under the hammer of this legislation where the road surface is actually tarmac / asphalt.
If as someone mentions you live in a house which can only be accessed along one of these roads, be it unsurfaced or tarmac, you will have to apply for what is known as a derogation. Basically a permit to use your mechanically propelled vehicle along it.
Miss the deadline and you will have to leave your vehicle parked on the nearest public road and walk or take a horse or horse and cart. Of course if the public road is not a 30 then you will have to leave all your position lights and number plate light lit throughout the hours of darkness.
Meanwhile the problem children who cause the issue in the first place will just carry on, flick the V's at the rest of us because there will not be the resource to enforce it. Bit like mobile phone law really.
But of course Bliar and co don't care because the areas affected, ie rural, don't vote for them anyway.
Hahaha!
Thought that might wind up one or two.
So these (very few) folks who need to drive up some muddy track to get to their country retreat can just be issued with a permit.
Thousands of city-dwellers need them to park on their own street these days, so nothing new there.
Any walker with a broken leg, etc, can be rescued in exactly the same way as he would be right now.
I don't think he requires hundreds of hooray henrys to be racing around the countryside in their get-out-of-my-waymobiles does he ?
Nah.
You have a very weak case.
Start walking and get fit.
It'll save you a fortune posing down at the gym too.
Thought that might wind up one or two.
So these (very few) folks who need to drive up some muddy track to get to their country retreat can just be issued with a permit.
Thousands of city-dwellers need them to park on their own street these days, so nothing new there.
Any walker with a broken leg, etc, can be rescued in exactly the same way as he would be right now.
I don't think he requires hundreds of hooray henrys to be racing around the countryside in their get-out-of-my-waymobiles does he ?
Nah.
You have a very weak case.
Start walking and get fit.
It'll save you a fortune posing down at the gym too.
grahamw48 said:
This is good news.
I'm all for banning all 4wds that aren't owned by farmers.
Off-road bikes are a
I love my cars, but sometimes we need to get out and walk.
Peace and quiet is hard enough to find these days.
Did you see what I wrote above?
To make it clearer, 95% of off-road tracks are footpaths. So that's not enough for you? The word selfish springs to mind. People like you are what the government might call useful idiots.
I actually came across a club out for the day at a byway in Northern Hampshire a week or two back. I was going for a walk, photographing an amusing sign and these guys appeared.
THEY WERE DOING NO HARM AND DID NOT SPOIL MY WALK AT ALL!
Frankly - having actually seen 'em at it - you'd have to be a total
wit NIMBY bigoted to complain. They weren't loud. They weren't fast. It was not problem for them to pass us in safety. They were polite. Sure - if suddenly zillions of people all wanted to do the same thing - there would be a problem - the byways aren't up to it. But we're talking about five or six vehicles - every few months!
I agree with the author of the original article.
wit NIMBY bigots see one problem and are too thick to work out they're attacking a different set of people entirely. They'll be coming for sports cars next.
grahamw48 said:
Hahaha!
So these (very few) folks who need to drive up some muddy track to get to their country retreat can just be issued with a permit.
Ahh, now I understand. The intention is to create yet another layer of bureaucracy, with hundreds more civil servants / council employees, to monitor use if these roads / lanes and issue permits. At this rate my council tax won't just be going up by the 10% that is being suggested next year, it'll be more like 20%.
7.
grahamw48 said:
Hahaha!
Thought that might wind up one or two.
So these (very few) folks who need to drive up some muddy track to get to their country retreat can just be issued with a permit.
Thousands of city-dwellers need them to park on their own street these days, so nothing new there.
Perhaps - but we country bumpkins are not townies und off-roading ist essential for our farmers, vets und selves if we are visiting or buying from the farm shop! Beside - why whould Mad Doc und self pay even more to a greedy council to drive to our own home....
grahamw48 said:
Any walker with a broken leg, etc, can be rescued in exactly the same way as he would be right now.
I don't think he requires hundreds of hooray henrys to be racing around the countryside in their get-out-of-my-waymobiles does he ?
We see very few such.
grahamw48 said:
Start walking and get fit.
It'll save you a fortune posing down at the gym too.
If I wnat to get fit Liebchen - I may walk on local fells or ride one of my bicycles. But when cold und wet - I think I prefer to socialise at the gym.
grahamw48 said:
This is good news.
I'm all for banning all 4wds that aren't owned by farmers.
So how do you suggest a vet gets out und about then ...
grahamw48 said:
Off-road bikes are a
Depend where you use them like everything else...
grahamw48 said:
I love my cars, but sometimes we need to get out and walk.
Peace and quiet is hard enough to find these days.
Ist purrfectly possible to find idyllic place to walk - ist case of doing homework before you set off und avoiding the obvious tourist traps und areas where you know the off roaders will hoon it up.
Mmm, mixed feelings on this one....
As someone who cares deeply about our countryside, until recently a keen climber and fell runner and now living in a very rural village in Hertfordshire, I can't say I'm too sorry to see green laning / unregulated off roading being legislated against. I've seen too many lanes chewed up and despite the fact that most folks are courteous I have been pushed off paths by bikers on a number of occasions.
However, I am afraid of this government's / country's propensity to ban everything that is remotely dangerous, or considered antisocial (read unconventional in many cases). What's next - my Chimaera? After all I'm squandering vital natural resources....
Tiger
>> Edited by Tigertiger on Saturday 5th November 18:22
As someone who cares deeply about our countryside, until recently a keen climber and fell runner and now living in a very rural village in Hertfordshire, I can't say I'm too sorry to see green laning / unregulated off roading being legislated against. I've seen too many lanes chewed up and despite the fact that most folks are courteous I have been pushed off paths by bikers on a number of occasions.
However, I am afraid of this government's / country's propensity to ban everything that is remotely dangerous, or considered antisocial (read unconventional in many cases). What's next - my Chimaera? After all I'm squandering vital natural resources....
Tiger
>> Edited by Tigertiger on Saturday 5th November 18:22
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff