Greenlaning...... happy solution?
Discussion
There was a thread which turned into a bit of OP bashing that has now been closed before I managed to respond, regarding bikes/cars greenlaning where they should not have been. I am not looking to get into the other thread details, so mods please leave this open, and others don't get involved with the facts from the other thread please.
It is a genuine discussion I would like to have re greenlaning, and how we try to resolve this so everyone is happy.
I ride an Enduro bike, and where possible I only ride where allowed - these would be BOAT's and private land with landowners permission. However every week we are out we end up in discussions with ramblers and (less frequently) horse riders re where we are riding, and are told we should not be there. I even had a conversation with a horsey woman a couple of weeks ago, where she admitted legally I could be where I was, but morally I knew I shouldn't have been!! I politely disagreed.
How do we get this resolved? I agree that vehicles, and ramblers, and in some cases horses do not mix very well. TRF have an advisory limit of 20mph for lanes, yet the lanes mostly have a NSL limit on them, typically the average rider will be doing 40/45 mph, so there is always a risk of the different hobbies meeting with bad consequences.
From my side of the fence, and certainly where I live, I would suggest the ramblers have 90% of what were lanes changed to banning vehicles already, yet they still want to walk where the vehicles are allowed. I have also heard a number of these walking placed are now no longer accessible to walkers because they are too overgrown to use, due to lack of use. http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/07/08/englis...
It always seems to be the vehicles that get the bad press here. The problem is as quoted below, shutting more lanes down, will not help.
If there were more lanes for vehicles to use I am convinced road legal riders would not ride where they shouldn't be, and the authorities would know those riding where they shouldn't be will be illegal.......
Would it not make sense to have access to both for all people but at different times of year? Even switch it every couple of years if necessary? That way the vehicles can do the work the government were previously spending on by keeping the routes accessible.
Just a thought................
It is a genuine discussion I would like to have re greenlaning, and how we try to resolve this so everyone is happy.
I ride an Enduro bike, and where possible I only ride where allowed - these would be BOAT's and private land with landowners permission. However every week we are out we end up in discussions with ramblers and (less frequently) horse riders re where we are riding, and are told we should not be there. I even had a conversation with a horsey woman a couple of weeks ago, where she admitted legally I could be where I was, but morally I knew I shouldn't have been!! I politely disagreed.
How do we get this resolved? I agree that vehicles, and ramblers, and in some cases horses do not mix very well. TRF have an advisory limit of 20mph for lanes, yet the lanes mostly have a NSL limit on them, typically the average rider will be doing 40/45 mph, so there is always a risk of the different hobbies meeting with bad consequences.
From my side of the fence, and certainly where I live, I would suggest the ramblers have 90% of what were lanes changed to banning vehicles already, yet they still want to walk where the vehicles are allowed. I have also heard a number of these walking placed are now no longer accessible to walkers because they are too overgrown to use, due to lack of use. http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/07/08/englis...
It always seems to be the vehicles that get the bad press here. The problem is as quoted below, shutting more lanes down, will not help.
Thinfourth2 said:
Sadly the response will be as follows.
See those folk over here causing damage by doing something illegal we are going to stop them by making those folk over there who are legal and causing no damage illegal.
Those riding illegally now will continue to do so anyway, and others may join them if no-where left to go. So how does this help? So what do we do?See those folk over here causing damage by doing something illegal we are going to stop them by making those folk over there who are legal and causing no damage illegal.
If there were more lanes for vehicles to use I am convinced road legal riders would not ride where they shouldn't be, and the authorities would know those riding where they shouldn't be will be illegal.......
Would it not make sense to have access to both for all people but at different times of year? Even switch it every couple of years if necessary? That way the vehicles can do the work the government were previously spending on by keeping the routes accessible.
Just a thought................
i completely missed the original thread. but greenlaning is legal, no?
the whole point of green laning, is that they are proper roads that anyone can go on, just tracks more than roads. If they are private, then it isn't greenlaning.
personally I find it boring as f
k, but there you go. its not like finding somewhere decent to offroad is exactly hard.
the whole point of green laning, is that they are proper roads that anyone can go on, just tracks more than roads. If they are private, then it isn't greenlaning.
personally I find it boring as f
k, but there you go. its not like finding somewhere decent to offroad is exactly hard.Efbe said:
i completely missed the original thread. but greenlaning is legal, no?
the whole point of green laning, is that they are proper roads that anyone can go on, just tracks more than roads. If they are private, then it isn't greenlaning.
personally I find it boring as fk, but there you go. its not like finding somewhere decent to offroad is exactly hard.
might not be where you live but most of the uk is pretty short on areas to off road .the whole point of green laning, is that they are proper roads that anyone can go on, just tracks more than roads. If they are private, then it isn't greenlaning.
personally I find it boring as f
k, but there you go. its not like finding somewhere decent to offroad is exactly hard.It's a very tricky one because 90% of the public only see it as people pratting about in the countryside in noisy 4x4s and motorbikes, which is automatically considered bad, and 90% of people consider any type of imprint on 'the environment' to be a scar and therefore bad.
Whilst green laning does have a visible impact on some bits of countryside, it very rarely has a significant impact on the natural environment on a bigger scale. That is to say, a narrow muddy track up the side of a hill does not make the whole hill devoid of flora and fauna.
Whilst green laning does have a visible impact on some bits of countryside, it very rarely has a significant impact on the natural environment on a bigger scale. That is to say, a narrow muddy track up the side of a hill does not make the whole hill devoid of flora and fauna.
When i was a kid (and as young adult) we used to spend hrs offroading around and on the Oxfordshire, Berkshire and wiltshire downs, then slowly the rules changed and more and more tracks were "Lost" to walkers and horse riders. A particular track called "old street" (there's a clue in it's name lol) was highly contested by ramblers and walkers, and eventually closed to motorised traffic completely. Last year, for the first time in something like 15 years i went back there and found the lane completely overgrown and impassible (the council obviously is not going to maintain it). It's possible to trace the history of this particular drovers road back over 600 years of use, and now it has disappeared completely.
The primary reason for restricting motorised use was because the lane was "muddy"! Now exactly how muddy do you think that lane was in say 1745, when it was used to move animals between market towns??
Effectively by "protecting" the countryside (something that is not static, and never has been) the people seeking to "preserve" the right of way actually destroyed it.............
Unfortunately, it is a matter of fact that there are simply many more ramblers, and many more "influential" horse riders than motorised users, and with the kick back in "enviromentalism" things can only get worse.
Personally i gave up off-roading in 1995 when i saw the beginning of the end of the freedom to explore the UK's under used byways.
(at one point we did a Ridgeway traffic survey, which showed the major "damage***" was actually caused by large agricultural contracting equipment (we always laughed when "off roaders" were blamed for 3 feet deep ruts when we only have about 8" under our diffs.........) It became quite clear that the Ramblers really wanted complete and free access to the countryside, but only if they didn't get their boots muddy.)
(*** damage was basically muddy ruts, something that has been present in our byways since time immemorial, and in fact was how all roads were before the widespead application of tar macadam in the 1800's)
The primary reason for restricting motorised use was because the lane was "muddy"! Now exactly how muddy do you think that lane was in say 1745, when it was used to move animals between market towns??
Effectively by "protecting" the countryside (something that is not static, and never has been) the people seeking to "preserve" the right of way actually destroyed it.............
Unfortunately, it is a matter of fact that there are simply many more ramblers, and many more "influential" horse riders than motorised users, and with the kick back in "enviromentalism" things can only get worse.
Personally i gave up off-roading in 1995 when i saw the beginning of the end of the freedom to explore the UK's under used byways.
(at one point we did a Ridgeway traffic survey, which showed the major "damage***" was actually caused by large agricultural contracting equipment (we always laughed when "off roaders" were blamed for 3 feet deep ruts when we only have about 8" under our diffs.........) It became quite clear that the Ramblers really wanted complete and free access to the countryside, but only if they didn't get their boots muddy.)
(*** damage was basically muddy ruts, something that has been present in our byways since time immemorial, and in fact was how all roads were before the widespead application of tar macadam in the 1800's)
O?T, but this seems like a good thread to ask in - are there any legalities surrounding riding a motorbike along a canal towpath?
I don't ride (or offroad) and have no problem with those that want to. However, a 3ft wide towpath that is mainly populated by dog walkers and cyclists is not, IMO, a sensible place to ride a motorbike. I've never complained about a rider yet, just on the offchance they do have a right to be there, but I would happily report every one of them if necessary.
I don't ride (or offroad) and have no problem with those that want to. However, a 3ft wide towpath that is mainly populated by dog walkers and cyclists is not, IMO, a sensible place to ride a motorbike. I've never complained about a rider yet, just on the offchance they do have a right to be there, but I would happily report every one of them if necessary.
parapaul said:
O?T, but this seems like a good thread to ask in - are there any legalities surrounding riding a motorbike along a canal towpath?
I don't ride (or offroad) and have no problem with those that want to. However, a 3ft wide towpath that is mainly populated by dog walkers and cyclists is not, IMO, a sensible place to ride a motorbike. I've never complained about a rider yet, just on the offchance they do have a right to be there, but I would happily report every one of them if necessary.
That would depend on wether it is classed as a footpath, bridleway or green lane which a towpath could be any one of.I don't ride (or offroad) and have no problem with those that want to. However, a 3ft wide towpath that is mainly populated by dog walkers and cyclists is not, IMO, a sensible place to ride a motorbike. I've never complained about a rider yet, just on the offchance they do have a right to be there, but I would happily report every one of them if necessary.
But I think you hit on the bigger problem here- cyclists and dog walkers don't like sharing their path with motorbikes, wether they have a right to be there or not. In amsterdam, scooters can use cycle lanes-even those on pavements, so pedestrians and cyclists are used to sharing their path with motorvicles, and I don't know of any issues with that.
A walker complaining about a motorbike being on 'their' path is the same situation as a motorist complaining about a pedestrian walking on a country road, but nobody is ever going to say the pedestrian can't do that are they?
I'm not sure that referring to green laning as 'off-roading' helps send the right message to other ROW users. I see it most definitely as on-roading, in that you are travelling along a public right of way with vehicular rights - just like driving down the High Street or the M25, but with the difference that the road in question escaped the tarmac gangs of the 1930s. If other users saw it like that, there might not be such a problem.
If it happens to be an ancient right of way, as many are, to my mind that just means I have an even more established right to travel it (but not to damage the surface - those who deliberately churn up old roads should be put in the stocks!).
Also helps to have a completely bog standard looking vehicle - a lot of the ramblers I used to encounter whilst out laning probably just assumed I was a gamekeeper or something.
If it happens to be an ancient right of way, as many are, to my mind that just means I have an even more established right to travel it (but not to damage the surface - those who deliberately churn up old roads should be put in the stocks!).
Also helps to have a completely bog standard looking vehicle - a lot of the ramblers I used to encounter whilst out laning probably just assumed I was a gamekeeper or something.
busta said:
A walker complaining about a motorbike being on 'their' path is the same situation as a motorist complaining about a pedestrian walking on a country road, but nobody is ever going to say the pedestrian can't do that are they?
Except it's not, on a road (all the way down to a Byway open to all traffic) vehicles, horses, bicycles, motorbikes and pedestrians are permitted. On a 'path' pedestrians only (public footpath).
On a bridleway, pedestrians, cyclists and horses are permitted.
So the motorbike is breaking the law by being on a path or bridleway, the pedestrian is perfectly entitled to be on a road (with exceptions like motorways obviously).
IIRC when NeuArbeit brought in the asinine new legislation(which basically allowed council byways officers to make up their own rules, and the law's assumption was toward removing rights rather than maintaining the status quo), there was something like 50,000 miles of ROW in England and Wales, of which a bit more than 1% was accessible to vehicles; by golly weren't we offroaders being SOOOO greedy wanting to keep most of that 1%.
There was some arbitrary deadline set where if you didn't register a lane in time, it stopped existing even if it got a mention in the doomsday book. Some byways officers did a good job, but even those guys only saved a fraction of the lanes in their council areas as the paperwork required was byzantine, councils usually only had 1 or 2 byways officers and they had other work to do also. Other officers were rabidly anti and actively obstructed GLASS reps trying to register routes; I recall NYCC were particularly bad. The Coalition could do a lot worse than just repealing the whole Countryside & Rights of Way act.
As noted, there are a number of unintended consequences; the chief of which is removing vehicular traffic from a RoW results in nature reclaiming it, and makes RoW repair/maintenance much more expensive as access is so much more difficult. There's also the fact that you're essentially saying nobody gets to see the countryside from anywhere other than a carpark or roadside unless they are able-bodied, which is a little unfair if you're disabled; what price the disability discrimination act? NeuArbeit were a shower of fascists.
There was some arbitrary deadline set where if you didn't register a lane in time, it stopped existing even if it got a mention in the doomsday book. Some byways officers did a good job, but even those guys only saved a fraction of the lanes in their council areas as the paperwork required was byzantine, councils usually only had 1 or 2 byways officers and they had other work to do also. Other officers were rabidly anti and actively obstructed GLASS reps trying to register routes; I recall NYCC were particularly bad. The Coalition could do a lot worse than just repealing the whole Countryside & Rights of Way act.
As noted, there are a number of unintended consequences; the chief of which is removing vehicular traffic from a RoW results in nature reclaiming it, and makes RoW repair/maintenance much more expensive as access is so much more difficult. There's also the fact that you're essentially saying nobody gets to see the countryside from anywhere other than a carpark or roadside unless they are able-bodied, which is a little unfair if you're disabled; what price the disability discrimination act? NeuArbeit were a shower of fascist
s.Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 1st March 01:56
Eggman said:
Also helps to have a completely bog standard looking vehicle - a lot of the ramblers I used to encounter whilst out laning probably just assumed I was a gamekeeper or something.
This is a very valid point i think, with the modern trend for decking your 4x4 out as if you're off to cross the sahara instead of just gpoing to Tesco's, other users automatically think you are out to "wreck" the countryside. On the other hand, get a well used, Defender, totally standard except for the addition of an Ifor Williams Stocktop, and you could probably drive across the front lawn of Buckingham Palace without anyone noticing !!! ;-)Some good points made on here.
I think part of the issues are the lack of understanding as to what is allowed and what isn't. It amazes me everytime I have a conversation with rambler, how many "seem" to not realize it is a road, and we have entitlement to be there. Also amazes me how many people seem to think that it is ok to ride/drive wherever you want. As others have said - it is not off-roading that we do for fun, it is on-roading (green laning).
Perhaps part of the problem gets back to the changes when the ROW/RUPPS were changed. I am too young to really remember this, but my understanding as pointed out in this thread, is that a number of places were arbitrally (sp) changed to restricted byways/bridleways etc rather than the due diligence taken to classify them correctly. Or worse the local councils purposely obstructed this being done, so a blanket change was made. Maybe this is why people continue to use? i.e. It was wrong the lanes were taken away, so I will carry on using anyway. Perhaps this is why people are not prepared to use their road legal vehicles, as they are easier to track?
Basically all I can see is that the changes made, have actually made it worse for the Green-Laners, and the Ramblers. If more lanes were given back, and education provided to Ramblers/Horse Riders as to where they can walk with no risk of vehicles, and where they can walk with risk of vehicles, they can make their choice. The TRF (sorry I do not know car equivalent) already condemn illegal use of countryside for riding, and illegal bikes, but with more lanes to ride I think ALL sympathy for illegal riders would be gone. Give some land over, and make illegal use of other places as anti-social as Drink Driving.
Something has to give first though to get the extra space. Perhaps in light of this economic crisis amd the artificial maintenance of old byways being so costly the TRF/Car equivalent needs to add to it's agenda a "Not used, you lose" argument with the authorities. i.e. Stop all artifical maintenance of "old byways" immediately, and if they are then not maintained by the ramblers, they are handed back for vehicular access to naturally maintain them.
I think part of the issues are the lack of understanding as to what is allowed and what isn't. It amazes me everytime I have a conversation with rambler, how many "seem" to not realize it is a road, and we have entitlement to be there. Also amazes me how many people seem to think that it is ok to ride/drive wherever you want. As others have said - it is not off-roading that we do for fun, it is on-roading (green laning).
Perhaps part of the problem gets back to the changes when the ROW/RUPPS were changed. I am too young to really remember this, but my understanding as pointed out in this thread, is that a number of places were arbitrally (sp) changed to restricted byways/bridleways etc rather than the due diligence taken to classify them correctly. Or worse the local councils purposely obstructed this being done, so a blanket change was made. Maybe this is why people continue to use? i.e. It was wrong the lanes were taken away, so I will carry on using anyway. Perhaps this is why people are not prepared to use their road legal vehicles, as they are easier to track?
Basically all I can see is that the changes made, have actually made it worse for the Green-Laners, and the Ramblers. If more lanes were given back, and education provided to Ramblers/Horse Riders as to where they can walk with no risk of vehicles, and where they can walk with risk of vehicles, they can make their choice. The TRF (sorry I do not know car equivalent) already condemn illegal use of countryside for riding, and illegal bikes, but with more lanes to ride I think ALL sympathy for illegal riders would be gone. Give some land over, and make illegal use of other places as anti-social as Drink Driving.
Something has to give first though to get the extra space. Perhaps in light of this economic crisis amd the artificial maintenance of old byways being so costly the TRF/Car equivalent needs to add to it's agenda a "Not used, you lose" argument with the authorities. i.e. Stop all artifical maintenance of "old byways" immediately, and if they are then not maintained by the ramblers, they are handed back for vehicular access to naturally maintain them.
It was the same in NY state when I was there. Rights for offroading were severely limited to a few places across the state. Different kettle of fish here in Bulgaria, where you can driver pretty much anywhere you want, as long as it isn't a field with crops in it. Oddly enough, you don't have the countryside all rutted up, or muddy. Rambler types aren't mown down all the time, and everyone seems to get on. It helps not having one side thinking they have more rights than the other, and they simply interact.
There's a more fundamental issue here - public rights of way are being eroded for the benefit of the few. Private land owners are doing everything in their power to stop people legally accessing their land. All it takes is the removal of a few footpath signs, the dumping of some waste/aggregate/logs to act as a barrier and waiting for mother nature to make the paths overgrown and another public right of way is lost forever.
This is nothing compared to what's happening in cities though - whole areas of many cities are being given away to private commercial organisations to run (and set their own rules). Take for example, the new Cabot Circus development in Bristol - this was once criss-crossed by public areas, but is now a large covered shopping area, with rules dictated by the management company. It might not seem a problem now, but wait until you want to have a smoke, take a photograph or hang around outside a shop and see how quickly those security guards move you along...
I'm not a fan of green laning, but those that do have every right to be where they are and should be supported.
This is nothing compared to what's happening in cities though - whole areas of many cities are being given away to private commercial organisations to run (and set their own rules). Take for example, the new Cabot Circus development in Bristol - this was once criss-crossed by public areas, but is now a large covered shopping area, with rules dictated by the management company. It might not seem a problem now, but wait until you want to have a smoke, take a photograph or hang around outside a shop and see how quickly those security guards move you along...
I'm not a fan of green laning, but those that do have every right to be where they are and should be supported.
tangerine_sedge said:
There's a more fundamental issue here - public rights of way are being eroded for the benefit of the few.
I'm not a fan of green laning, but those that do have every right to be where they are and should be supported.
I could not agree more (apart from the not being a fan of green laning bit!). I'm not a fan of green laning, but those that do have every right to be where they are and should be supported.
Surely it is time for the different groups, horse, ramblers, greenlaners to get together? I know there is already a good relationship between the majority of horse riders, and green laners. I assume the same of ramblers and horse riders. However between greenlaners and ramblers, it appears non-existent - in fact worse, it is polar opposites.
I am obviously biased here, but from my knowledge it is the militant ramblers, that are not for discussion, they want everything there way, and exclusively for them. Surely give back some unused walkways, get everyone on the same side, and it will be better for all?
The Crack Fox said:
The fundamental issue here, that no-one has mentioned, is that we have c.55 million people (and growing) crammed onto a very very small island.
There is still a shedload of green land in the UK. The vast majority of the UK population is centred around conurbations, not spread evenly. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff