Motorists face unsurfaced road ban
Discussion
grahamw48 said:
This is good news.
I'm all for banning all 4wds that aren't owned by farmers.
Off-road bikes are anuisance too.
I love my cars, but sometimes we need to get out and walk.
Peace and quiet is hard enough to find these days.
Then you're a closed minded, fascist, ill-read, moron. Hopefully "they" will come for something of yours. Soon.
yertis said:
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..?
But since when were "green lanes" natural ? How do you think they got there in the first place ? They were created by the ancient equivalent of a pickup truck - the horse and cart (which does a lot more damage).
Cooperman said:
Well, that should end all club rallying in this country if it goes ahead. Expect the MSA to fight it very hard in view of the loss of revenues from competition licences not being renewed. If you can't drive on unsurfaced roads to get into the special stages, that's it!
Of course don't forget the double pronged attack on off-road motorsport due to changes in set-aside payment rules. Motorsport is THE only sport so affected from what I can see.
The continual witch hunt by the govermnet against green laning is a disgrace really. Just because one group of narrow minded bigots in this country doesnt approve of something is no reason to get it banned. as several people have pointed out, they are working their way through eveything..... be warned.
I took up greenlaning on a motorbike 5 years ago. One of the biggest problems faced by us is the fact that an awful lot of byways are wrongly marked, deliberately by the local councils.
Here in Bucks, our local TRF group have reported over 20 legal byways that are wrongly signed as bridleways. People who ride and walk on what they think is a bridleway get pretty pissed off when they see motorbikes on "their" turf. When you try and explain that the bridleway sign at the beginning of the lane is actually illegal and should really be a byway sign, you are greeted with derision and disbelief.
In contrast, some county councils (Somerset is great for example) mark all their rights of way properly so that other users know exactly what status of trail they're walking/riding along. They know to expect motorised vehicles on a byway and therefore aren't surprised/upset to see a group of motorcyclists out for a Sunday ride.
When you take into account that walkers have SOLE access to 100,000's miles of footpaths, why should we be forced to give up the few thousand miles that are left with vehicular access?
The government have cynically moved the goalposts and ignored the findings of a consultation paper (Faber Maunsell report) that DEFRA commisioned.
It will be horse riders next, Ramblers don't like mud so they'll campaign to get Bridleways reduced to footpaths.
There is plenty of countryside for everyone to enjoy however they wish, but it seems a very vocal minority (The Ramblers Assoc.
)may have got their way again.
Here in Bucks, our local TRF group have reported over 20 legal byways that are wrongly signed as bridleways. People who ride and walk on what they think is a bridleway get pretty pissed off when they see motorbikes on "their" turf. When you try and explain that the bridleway sign at the beginning of the lane is actually illegal and should really be a byway sign, you are greeted with derision and disbelief.
In contrast, some county councils (Somerset is great for example) mark all their rights of way properly so that other users know exactly what status of trail they're walking/riding along. They know to expect motorised vehicles on a byway and therefore aren't surprised/upset to see a group of motorcyclists out for a Sunday ride.
When you take into account that walkers have SOLE access to 100,000's miles of footpaths, why should we be forced to give up the few thousand miles that are left with vehicular access?
The government have cynically moved the goalposts and ignored the findings of a consultation paper (Faber Maunsell report) that DEFRA commisioned.
It will be horse riders next, Ramblers don't like mud so they'll campaign to get Bridleways reduced to footpaths.
There is plenty of countryside for everyone to enjoy however they wish, but it seems a very vocal minority (The Ramblers Assoc.
)may have got their way again.TypeR said:
When you take into account that walkers have SOLE access to 100,000's miles of footpaths, why should we be forced to give up the few thousand miles that are left with vehicular access?
The government have cynically moved the goalposts and ignored the findings of a consultation paper (Faber Maunsell report) that DEFRA commisioned.
It will be horse riders next, Ramblers don't like mud so they'll campaign to get Bridleways reduced to footpaths.
There is plenty of countryside for everyone to enjoy however they wish, but it seems a very vocal minority (The Ramblers Assoc.
I'm a walker, and I for one don't mind motor vehicles on the byways - as you say, we've so much to choose from I and my friends just walk elsewhere most of the time.
The only thing I do dislike a bit is the ultra-loud exhausts that trail-bikes seem to have - you can hear them from the next valley, FFS! Sort of spoils the tranquility of a walk-in-the-country a bit.
Otherwise, this legislation is a great steaming pile of manure for a whole host of reasons.
havoc said:
When you take into account that walkers have SOLE access to 100,000's miles of footpaths, why should we be forced to give up the few thousand miles that are left with vehicular access?
The government have cynically moved the goalposts and ignored the findings of a consultation paper (Faber Maunsell report) that DEFRA commisioned.
It will be horse riders next, Ramblers don't like mud so they'll campaign to get Bridleways reduced to footpaths.
There is plenty of countryside for everyone to enjoy however they wish, but it seems a very vocal minority (The Ramblers Assoc.
I'm a walker, and I for one don't mind motor vehicles on the byways - as you say, we've so much to choose from I and my friends just walk elsewhere most of the time.
The only thing I do dislike a bit is the ultra-loud exhausts that trail-bikes seem to have - you can hear them from the next valley, FFS! Sort of spoils the tranquility of a walk-in-the-country a bit.
Otherwise, this legislation is a great steaming pile of manure for a whole host of reasons.
You're right aboubt noisy exhausts. Most responsible riders hate noise too. We're very aware that we use the countryside under suffrance. It's the lads who tear around on unlicensed motocross bikes that screw it up for the rest of us. But it's already against the law to ride unlicensed bikes on byways. Why don't the authorities enforce the existing rules rather than bring in a whole raft of regulations that affect the law abiding.
Most lanes are public highwayt and byways which means that the vehicle has to be road worthy;tax, MOT, etc.
A lot of ramblers also don't realise that alot of 4x4 clubs spend time maintaining green lanes on a voluntary basis.
Clubs also are an entry point into county level emergency response teams and search and rescue teams.
A lot of ramblers also don't realise that alot of 4x4 clubs spend time maintaining green lanes on a voluntary basis.
Clubs also are an entry point into county level emergency response teams and search and rescue teams.
Liszt said:
Most lanes are public highwayt and byways which means that the vehicle has to be road worthy;tax, MOT, etc.
A lot of ramblers also don't realise that alot of 4x4 clubs spend time maintaining green lanes on a voluntary basis.
Clubs also are an entry point into county level emergency response teams and search and rescue teams.
Cave Rescue in Yorkshire would be prevented from operating in any sensible way if this new law came into force. Madness. Get rid of the w*nke*s who spoil it for the rest, life seems to be so full of people who spoil things for others these days.
Cooperman said:
They dropped that business with 'set-aside' land due to pressures from the MSA, ACU and other organisations.
This, however, for club rallying, is much more of a serious threat, or so it would seem.
Thanks Cooperman, didn't realise that had been dropped. Good news though.
This business of Govt flying kites and then dropping things which seem hot potatoes gets a bit wearing. Maybe being paranoid but sometimes wonder about those policy changes which get through on the nod.
This government are just a bunch of political weathervanes...except that this lot seem to follow whoever is releasing the most hot-air. So not only do they lack integrity they lack any vertebrae at all. Clearly they also have very hard skins given all the recent scandals.
So we have an invertebrate with a chitinous outer layer...any suggestions for exactly which phylum/phyla we're dealing with here?!?
So we have an invertebrate with a chitinous outer layer...any suggestions for exactly which phylum/phyla we're dealing with here?!?
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.
There are hundreds of thousands of miles where you can walk in peace. All we ask for is the right to use the few thousand miles of non surfaced roads which have been recognised as such for donkey's years. Don't be such a selfish c**t.
annsxman 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.
There are hundreds of thousands of miles where you can walk in peace. All we ask for is the right to use the few thousand miles of non surfaced roads which have been recognised as such for donkey's years. Don't be such a selfish c**t.
Grahamw48, you really take the biscuit, as annsxman says, you are selfish. I suggest you take a long walk off a short cliff.
One point that I haven't seen mentioned.
This is not about banning something it is amending an existing regulation on private landowners; the requirement to allow access along rights of way.
The land is owned by private individuals, it required/requires government (at national or local level) intervention for people to have access to it. If the government decides that motor vehicles should not be able to take advantage of these rights of way then they are REDUCING regulation not increasing it.
This is not about banning something it is amending an existing regulation on private landowners; the requirement to allow access along rights of way.
The land is owned by private individuals, it required/requires government (at national or local level) intervention for people to have access to it. If the government decides that motor vehicles should not be able to take advantage of these rights of way then they are REDUCING regulation not increasing it.
TypeR 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.
There are hundreds of thousands of miles where you can walk in peace. All we ask for is the right to use the few thousand miles of non surfaced roads which have been recognised as such for donkey's years. Don't be such a selfish c**t.
Grahamw48, you really take the biscuit, as annsxman says, you are selfish. I suggest you take a long walk off a short cliff.
Well said that man!
Jaglover said:
One point that I haven't seen mentioned.
This is not about banning something it is amending an existing regulation on private landowners; the requirement to allow access along rights of way.
The land is owned by private individuals, it required/requires government (at national or local level) intervention for people to have access to it. If the government decides that motor vehicles should not be able to take advantage of these rights of way then they are REDUCING regulation not increasing it.
True enough, but do you agree with it?
Oh...and while it's reducing regulation, it's also reducing the freedoms of the population by that extra little bit (they seem good at that, this government!!!). Not ALL regulation constricts us - some constricts government, some constricts the wealthy and powerful from abusing their power and wealth...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff