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
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.
Jaglover said:Well, private landowners have already retaliated against the banning of fox-hunting, by banning the army from using their land to train.
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.
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff