Motorists face unsurfaced road ban

[number 7]

In the Saturday Telegraph (12 Nov. ) there is a response to the original article, this time on behalf of someone representing the Ramblers Ass. etc. However, I've not even bothered to read it because accompanying the article is a colour picture of what the majority of people reading the article will probably assume is the type of bike used in Green Laning. It is actually a shot, undoubtedly designed to cause outrage amongst the blue rinse brigade, of what I believe is a competition hill-climb bike being wheelied up a slope, complete with a rear tyre designed to dig as deeply as possible for max. grip, thereby causing huge damage to the terrain. AFAIK hill climbing does not take place on public roads, whether surfaced or otherwise. This is pure sensationalism, completely misleading and yet another example of the extreme bias that motorcyclists have to face from certain sectors of the press.

rant over.

7.

[streaky]

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.

Well, private landowners have already retaliated against the banning of fox-hunting, by banning the army from using their land to train.

Now here's an interesting thing ... will the military be banned alongside other users?

It's possible ... because this apology for a government has no time for the military, except as cannon-fodder in an (alleged) illegal war.

Streaky