- You are currently viewing DISCO4.COM as a guest - Register to take part or Log In
djheaton321
Member Since: 18 Sep 2005
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 45
  
|
| Possible threat to the future of off roading! |
|
Below is an extract from last weekends motoring telegraph, sorry about the length of the post, but I think it is worth reading the article in its entirety. As Clarkson said on Radio 2, the Ramblers Association is the communist party under another name....
"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.
• For more information and details of the Trail Riders Fellowship, go to www.trf.org.uk"
Should we, who like to use our vehicles as they were designed, in a responsible manner be prevented from doing so? I will be joining GLASS as I think that we need to make our voices heard! Discovery 3 TDV6 HSE
Defender 90 XS - now with a Webasto FBH that works!
|
 9th Nov 2005 7:45 pm |
|
|
Gareth
Site Moderator
Member Since: 07 Dec 2004
Location: Bramhall
Posts: 26701
|
Well said. GLASS is a good organisation with the aim of promoting sensible use on sustainable routes.
Sadly, the goings on that some of us on the Disco3 Wales Weekend experienced on a byway in Wales the other weekend will ultimately undermine all of the positive work that the TRF and GLASS and other groups do. We sadly saw a group of irresponsible 4x4 drivers (a 110 and a couple of 90's I believe) who were off the track, tearing up and down a mud hole that they had created. They caused extensive damage and put shame on us all in the minds of the walkers that we encountered on the way down.
These are the loonatics who will not be affected by any ban, for they will carry on illegaly regardless.
|
| 9th Nov 2005 7:59 pm |
|
|
10forcash
Member Since: 09 Jun 2005
Location: Ubique
Posts: 16534
|
So we are demonised for having a 4x4, then demonised again for using it for its purpose
Time for the worm to turn.....
|
| 9th Nov 2005 8:02 pm |
|
|
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
 
|
So... they want 100% of all un-surfaced tracks !! Is 95% not enough for them ?
If they live din the country like myself they would be up in arms that their public rights of way were under threat from townies and city folk looking for our green an pleasant land. If this is what they seek... why live in town and city ?
Leave the countryside to those that have been looking after it for centuries.
I bet most of the litter and escaped sheep are down the 'Other Communist Party' and they seem to congregate in all our villages at weekends stuffing our car parks full so locals have no where legal to park !
I will be joining GLASS very soon too as well as checking out 'The Fellowship'
-s
|
| 9th Nov 2005 8:04 pm |
|
|
Dom Harvey
Lord of the Four Fingers
Member Since: 15 Apr 2005
Location: Dorset
Posts: 7454
 
|
Mmmmh! makes my blood boil, I'm joining GLASS too! 2004 Discovery 3 - gone
2006 Discovery 3 - gone
2008 Discovery 3 GS - gone
2011 Freelander LE Special Edition - gone
2007 Discovery 3 XS - gone
2012 Discovery 4 GS - current
|
| 9th Nov 2005 8:08 pm |
|
|
Slimer
Site Moderator
Member Since: 06 Jan 2005
Location: Last Exit to Nowhere
Posts: 16295
|
My GLASS application form is in the post... The End
|
| 9th Nov 2005 8:25 pm |
|
|
Smarticus
Member Since: 01 Jan 2005
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 655
|
The "ban the off roaders" voice is a very loud and powerful one and I have "debated" with some of them a number of times in recent years.
They all feel that the existence of "Ancient Byways" is a "quirk" of the legislation and that these routes were never intended for motor vehicles, so it is very obvious to them that we should all be banned from using them. My counter argument is that virtually every single road in the UK exists through just the same "quirk" in the legislation.
Many of our tarmaced roads are Roman in origin and I don't believe they had motor vehicles. Many more were laid down during successive military campaigns and the rest were established over the centuries to allow people and goods to get to market on foot, horseback or horse drawn cart. It was only in living history that any of these routes began to be used by motor vehicles. Over the last 75 years a number of these routes were tarmaced and in rural areas many were only finally tarmaced in the 1960's. Due to the cost of initially tarmacing and subsequently maintaining tarmac the local highways authority only selected "busy" routes and ignored quieter routes (often where populations had shifted away from older mining or industrial areas) or parrallel routes or steep routes or those without bridges.
Just imagine if the arguments that are used today to ban driving on untarmaced roads were used back then. We wouldn't have any roads suitable for "normal" cars at all and no city dweller would have access to the countryside other than for those driving Land Rovers or riding horses. 
Afraid we live in a world where there are many who hate seeing other people enjoying themselves, many who love the thought of removing precious rights and liberties and many more who want everything to be totally frozen in time with no more roads, houses, quarries, resevoirs or wind farms that aren't already there.
Our best tactic is to quietly point out to the anti's that:
- many of their arguments are based on a total ignorance of history
- that "rights" are very very precious and should only be removed if they give rise to very real "wrongs"
- that with a bit of mutual respect and responsible behaviour even in a crowded country like the UK there is still plenty of room for everyone to enjoy themselves in their own way
GLASS and LARA and the Trail Riders Fellowship all serve a worthwhile collective purpose and joining one or more helps, but I would also suggest that individual's entering the debate and responsibly exercising their existing rights and most of all, sharing the fun of driving on unsealed highways is the best way forward.
So endeth the sermon - thanks for listening  Disco 4 TDV6HSE
Defender 200TDi CSW
RR Evoque
|
| 9th Nov 2005 8:27 pm |
|
|
Mossy
Member Since: 01 Jul 2005
Location: Hollyoaks, UK
Posts: 2682
|
 Maybe we should jall join the Ramblers' Association? They would then have to reflect the views of their membership, and we have a view. 
Rather than polarizing the debate and creating a "them and us", we may add some reason, counterview and dilution.
Agree that it is worth joing the accociations (GLASS etc) too.
Paul D3 HSE V8...
|
| 11th Nov 2005 7:22 am |
|
|
BN
Member Since: 18 Mar 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 6463
|
I was travelling a lawful green lane a while ago in a LR 90 with a friend and came across a particularly unpleasant lady walking in the hills with presumably her husband. When I said 'good morning' to him he replied. But when I said the same to the lady, she informed, "these vehicles should not be here".
I asked her why she was walking with a hiking stick and she hautily replied, "to assist me of course".
I said, perhaps she would care to look closely in the car following and note that there were two people who could not walk at all and it was the only way that they would be able to see such beautiful sights and that the woman was very priviledged indeed to be able to walk and view them.
She actually appologised and and said "she didn't realise". I did not say anything else as the point was clearly made.
|
| 11th Nov 2005 8:40 am |
|
|
Gareth
Site Moderator
Member Since: 07 Dec 2004
Location: Bramhall
Posts: 26701
|
I am sure that all of us who go green laning have a story to tell.
Mine is about three years ago, on a well known lane in South Wales (Sarn Helen). There was a group of 4 vehicles, a 90, My S2a, Range Rover and a Discovery. We turned onto the beginning of SH, and drove along until we got to a narrow section, where we met a lone mountain biker coming the other way. We stopped at a passing point to allow him through, but he decided to stop by the first car and remonstrate with the driver that we were driving a bridleway and should turn round and get off the lane immediately, or he would call the police on his mobile phone.
We of course refused, and politely told him that we were on a Byway, and we knew we were not breaking any laws as we had researched the lane's status before the trip, and when we asked him if he had researched the status of the lane, he got quite angry and vocal, and considering the presence of children his language was entertaining to the extreme!
He of course disagreed and proceeded to sit down in the middle of the road blocking our progress! The fact that it was raining rather heavily amused us, so we all calmly retired to the rear of my s2a, sat under the canvas and brewed up. We even offered him a cup of tea, but he refused and after about 15 minutes he realised he was on to a looser and rode away.
I wish I'd had a bull bar cam like 10 does, it would have made classic viewing
|
| 11th Nov 2005 10:18 am |
|
|
Smarticus
Member Since: 01 Jan 2005
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 655
|
The Telegraph Motoring section has an article with a couple of "responses" to last weeks article on the future of "Green Lanes". Before you even start reading the words you just have to look at the photo to see how "balanced" the argument will be.
The photo is of a motocross rider tearing up a hill. That isn't a road legal bike, it isn't a road and it isn't what the article is about at all. But that doesn't stop readers associating green laning with totally different activities.
In our local newspaper (The Hexham Courant) any articles on Green Laning are usually accompanied by a picture of a huge Humvee tearing up a bomb hole in somewhere that looks like Salisbury plane. No pictures of a sedate Series 2a bimbling accross a scenic green lane with a couple of bobble hatted middle age men with smiles on their face. Such a photo would obviously be more representative of the activity but would fail to outrage the readership, which appears to me to be the sole purpose of the editors choice of photo.
Perhaps we should email some of the D3 welsh weekend photo's to The Telepgraph and suggest they keep them in their Photo Libary to accompany future articles on Green Laning. Disco 4 TDV6HSE
Defender 200TDi CSW
RR Evoque
|
| 13th Nov 2005 8:31 am |
|
|
Gareth
Site Moderator
Member Since: 07 Dec 2004
Location: Bramhall
Posts: 26701
|
Smarticus wrote:The Telegraph Motoring section has an article with a couple of "responses" to last weeks article on the future of "Green Lanes". Before you even start reading the words you just have to look at the photo to see how "balanced" the argument will be.
The photo is of a motocross rider tearing up a hill. That isn't a road legal bike, it isn't a road and it isn't what the article is about at all. But that doesn't stop readers associating green laning with totally different activities.
In our local newspaper (The Hexham Courant) any articles on Green Laning are usually accompanied by a picture of a huge Humvee tearing up a bomb hole in somewhere that looks like Salisbury plane. No pictures of a sedate Series 2a bimbling accross a scenic green lane with a couple of bobble hatted middle age men with smiles on their face. Such a photo would obviously be more representative of the activity but would fail to outrage the readership, which appears to me to be the sole purpose of the editors choice of photo.
Perhaps we should email some of the D3 welsh weekend photo's to The Telepgraph and suggest they keep them in their Photo Libary to accompany future articles on Green Laning.
No perhaps about it, lets do it. Whats the email address? I have plenty of photos.
|
| 13th Nov 2005 8:41 am |
|
|
Smarticus
Member Since: 01 Jan 2005
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 655
|
Could try letters@honestjohn.co.uk
Thats the email address for a chap who writes a weekly page in the Motoring section. Seems like a human being with a reasonably balanced view of the world (although he does occassionally express a sense that Land Rovers are an unreliable breed).
I have sent a couple of emails to that address in the past and been surprised to get a personal response within 24 Hours. Disco 4 TDV6HSE
Defender 200TDi CSW
RR Evoque
|
| 13th Nov 2005 8:46 am |
|
|
Gareth
Site Moderator
Member Since: 07 Dec 2004
Location: Bramhall
Posts: 26701
|
Smarticus wrote:Could try letters@honestjohn.co.uk
Thats the email address for a chap who writes a weekly page in the Motoring section. Seems like a human being with a reasonably balanced view of the world (although he does occassionally express a sense that Land Rovers are an unreliable breed).
I have sent a couple of emails to that address in the past and been surprised to get a personal response within 24 Hours.
I suppose I better go and buy the paper first, but I will send him a message and some photos. cheers.
|
| 13th Nov 2005 8:47 am |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
DISCO4.COM Copyright © 2004-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
|
|
