Motorists face unsurfaced road ban
Discussion
Flat in Fifth said:
People like you are what the government might call useful idiots.
Indeed comment seconded. Either a useful idiot or a troll.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 5th November 15:04
Aah...so a troll is someone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
Yeah - right.
www.trf.org.uk/
The TRF's findings that most of the damage was caused by agricultoral vehicles was supported by the government's own research.
Despite this they shafted the TRF and it is yet another nail in the coffin of our liberties.
The TRF's findings that most of the damage was caused by agricultoral vehicles was supported by the government's own research.
Despite this they shafted the TRF and it is yet another nail in the coffin of our liberties.
Don said:
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 totalwit NIMBY bigoted
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.
They'll be coming for sports cars next.
I wonder how long that frontera lasted before braking down or got stuck
rsvmilly said:If "government research" doesn't support "policy", the government either commissions new research (at our expense), rubbishes the author, ignores it, or simply dissimulates and obfuscates - Streaky
www.trf.org.uk/
The TRF's findings that most of the damage was caused by agricultoral vehicles was supported by the government's own research.
Am I missing something here, why is it right to remove the rights of one group of society.
Why should vehicles be banned in an area they can now freely use, you might as well say the walkers (those wonderful members of society wwho never get lost or stry from the path) should get in their cars on unsurfaced roads.
Why should vehicles be banned in an area they can now freely use, you might as well say the walkers (those wonderful members of society wwho never get lost or stry from the path) should get in their cars on unsurfaced roads.
voyds9 said:
Am I missing something here, why is it right to remove the rights of one group of society.
"Because another group have complained" seems to be the ongoing justification. Actually it's couched as "safety" or "fair for all", but what it actually boils down to is some bunch of numpties with more time than they need have written to parliament moaning, and it just so happens that they've struck a chord with someone in power. Noticeably a lot of it appears to be "aimed" at the country-classes, or at driving enthusiasts, but actually ends up affecting a lot of ordinary people.
In short, our government have it in for drivers and for Tory voters (of which I'm not one but I'm being pushed VERY close!!!).
grahamw48 said:
Aah...so a troll is someone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
No! Was rather basing it on the "hahaha knew that would wind people up," coupled with the total failure to put any viewpoint across other than one deliberately designed to be controversial which is then unsupported in further discussion.
made my mind up about you
Officer of the court take him down.....
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 6th November 12:32
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 6th November 12:33
james_j said:
...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 ?...:
There's always an element of left wing chip-on-shoulderism behind this sort of "opinion" isn't there?
A lot of truth there.
All that we need legislation to be is common sense, coupled to fairness and understanding in all those who use the byways (or whatever is being legislated). But it seems to me you will always get arseholes who don't care about others, and who prompt this sort of thing.
I know it's naive, but it does frustrate me that we can never legislate against arseholes, it's always "blanket" legislation which hurts the everyday Joe more than the arsehole (who probably carries on as normal anyway, and MAY one day get a token slap-on-the-wrist from a magistrate!)
Rant over.
Flat in Fifth said:
Aah...so a troll is someone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
No! Was rather basing it on the "hahaha knew that would wind people up," coupled with the total failure to put any viewpoint across other than one deliberately designed to be controversial which is then unsupported in further discussion.
made my mind up about you
Officer of the court take him down.....
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 6th November 12:32
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 6th November 12:33
So is that edited to your satisfaction now ?
Small minds are usually pretty quickly made up.
havoc said:
There was a time when governments took their responsibilities seriously and TRIED to do what was right for the country as a whole...
...at least, I'm told there was. Can't remember it myself - anyone help?
Margaret Thatcher . . . she sent peole like Livingstone and Skargill off with a kick up their arses. People don't remember how bad it was then so they bring them back . . . now Ken is doing it all over again . . . OT I know but you did ask !
Libertarian side of me says "Oh FFS not more ignorant, freedom limiting legislation designed to keep us all in our boxes."
Ecologist side of me says "Green laning in 4x4s can ruin green lanes - there are better ways of seeing the countryside than from a car."
Probably better done with some sensible controls, rather than outright bans. But how to enforce..?
Ecologist side of me says "Green laning in 4x4s can ruin green lanes - there are better ways of seeing the countryside than from a car."
Probably better done with some sensible controls, rather than outright bans. But how to enforce..?
turbobloke said:
This is good news.
I'm all for banning all 4wds that aren't owned by farmers.
Oh, I'm sure there will be if they pay for it!!!
Face it - this is just another way of bashing the car owner and setting him up for more "taxation".
BTW - grahamw48 - have you not heard of "we all hang together or we all hang separately"?!? I can't stand Chelsea tractors, but there are some very good reasons for opposing this ban!
yertis said:
Probably better done with some sensible controls, rather than outright bans. But how to enforce..?
Now that makes more sense.
And for all the nitpickers:
Of course Vets and others GENUINELY in need of 4wd type transport in the countryside should be allowed it.
I would have thought that was OBVIOUS.
rsvmilly said:
Being OBVIOUS and becoming legislation are two very different things
grahamw48 said:
And for all the nitpickers:
Of course Vets and others GENUINELY in need of 4wd type transport in the countryside should be allowed it.
I would have thought that was OBVIOUS.
Aye, as obvious as moving out of the way at traffic lights so that emergency vehicles can get by won't get you a ticket for jumping a red light
grahamw48 said:
Of course Vets and others GENUINELY in need of 4wd type transport in the countryside should be allowed it.
I would have thought that was OBVIOUS.
Well no it isn't actually.
What makes you think that use of 4wd is only needed by countryside folk?
Emergency Services for example, Police, Fire, HM Coastguard, RNLI, Mountain Rescue. (For some strange reason you'd already discounted use of 4x4 by Mountain Rescue in an earlier post. DO try and be consistent!)
For example our local fire station not only has a 4wd rescue vehicle but it tows a trailer carrying one of those 8wd Bobcat type buggies. Are these banned according your rules?
Then we have the issue of linesmen for power and telephone companies. Are they going to park and walk with their equipment?
That is before we get onto people such as vets and so on who have a loose agricultural connection.
Then we have people who possibly have not much connection with the countryside but tow large-ish trailers and a 4x4 is the only dual purpose vehicle with enough capacity to tow such a trailer safely. Some small builders, landscape gardeners, vehicle traders just some minor examples. Of course one solution that such business people could be ordered to have a business vehicle (van/truck) and a private vehicle, despite a 4x4 covering both needs.
But no doubt then you would say no problem they can just get a permit if they have GENUINE NEED. That was the phrase you used.
Well how about people with leisure pursuits who tow large trailers. Boats, horse boxes even caravans. Do they get permits? They don't genuinely NEED to sail boats, just that their leisure interest and choice is different from others.
So where does the permit system stop. Are YOU willing to justify that YOU HAVE A GENUINE NEED to drive a grp sports car? After all you could carry more people in a Micra, have better crash resistance and driven properly more than keep pace with the flow of traffic.
On the other hand why should countryside folk get an automatic right to have a 4x4? A farmer lives down the road from me who would be very happy if he could have continued to use his Morris Marina pickup which quite adequately met his needs. His place is up a tarmac RUPP and is one of the very people faced with problems due to this stupid legislation in which you are guilty till you prove your innocence.
This is not a case of....
grahamw48 said:
"(very few) folks who need to drive up some muddy track to get to their country retreat
... but many many people who are on low incomes faced with getting something similar to a court order in order that they can continue to run their daily lives. Not simply a matter of applying for a permit.
concerning the country retreat comment
As james_j said:
There's always an element of left wing chip-on-shoulderism behind this sort of "opinion" isn't there?
Makes you wonder, is there a theme building?
For the record I do not have a 4x4, have never owned one and do not have any particular desire to have one. What is clear is that these vehicles can be very useful workhorses in many environments, but I would argue that they are sufficiently different from a driver's viewpoint that there should be some sort of driver license category for permit to drive, rather like LCVs. They do not handle like small cars and should not be driven as such. However I am for freedom of choice.
As said before this legislation is typical of the current Govt. They see a problem, inappropriate use of unsurfaced tracks in this case, and legislate. Fair enough there is some such bad use. No argument.
However by the time the legislation is in place they have gone totally over the top, criminalised a sector of the population who were never a problem in the first place, created a layer and wedge of administartion that we don't need and as a nation can't afford. Meanwhile the real problem children more or less carry on as before.
Don't expect you to agree but there it is. Personally I regard your argument as weak and not sufficiently thought through. I expect your feelings are reciprocal, I'll not lose any sleep.
FiF
edited solely to correct quote formatting on james-J quote
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 7th November 10:06
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff