As a 4x4 owner with a love of off-roading, I find myself completely in the same camp as Robbie.
If I get time, I too shall write to say that vehicles tearing up the byways is unacceptable and very strong steps should be taken to stop it.
|
Simliar things happening near to where I live as well.
archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2004/01/24/15063.h...l
|
DD,
I read your link.
Quote>
"How can a motorbike, or even a 4X4, cause more damage than farm vehicles and heavy machinery, or even a one-tonne horse?"
A dodgy point, I would have thought. I'd say my Landcruiser can cause hugely more damage than a "one-tonne horse" could even conceive of without even trying very hard.
|
There has to be a middle ground here upon which all the parties could agree.
There is no question that some off road vehicle users abuse the situation, but to take a blanket approach?
For the record the Government has already introduced statutory instruments to stop this, but because they have found themselves unable to enforce they have changed the law again to make it an absolute offence of using a motorised vehicle on certain classes of byways. By this it's a case of the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove they have a right to be there, ie guilty till proved innocent.
However HMG made such a mess of the legislation that in pure law the current situation exists whereby someone could be charged with the offence but not have the right to put evidence to defend themselves. This is clearly an absurd situation and it is right to try and sort it out by means of a consultation.
Unfortunately the way they are doing the consultation is biased, they have largely, but not exclusively, sent out the consultation documents to bodies who will agree with HMG line. The minister is personally meeting such bodies, eg ramblers, who are sympathetic, yet actively refusing to meet parties who are intending to represent motorised access, even when that organisation clearly wishes motorised land access in a responsible manner.
Clearly, in my view, the Government in this case should be a moderator for the discussion in the truest sense and is failing in that task abysmally.
I repeat that I firmly believe it is not a black and white situation , there has to be some middle ground upon which all the parties can agree.
FiF
|
FiF,
"there has to be some middle ground upon which all the parties can agree."
Any form of consultation on a subject like this is futile.
The number of people who wish to use their 4 x 4 vehicles off road is small. However through a campaign, similar to the one the author of this thread is encouraging, a completely unrepresentative picture can be painted. Similarly ramblers could organise a campaign.
It is rather like the situation when Arthur Scargill - at the height of his unpopularity - was voted BBC personality of the year. The BBC admitted recently that they have had sufficient votes cast for obscure sportsmen to enable them to become 'Sports Personality of the Year'. They rule them out for 'Unusual voting patterns.'
For my part I would like to see 4x4s etc banned from all public byways and if a referendum were held I suspect the vast majority of the public would feel the same. I really don't feel there has to be 'middle ground' to cater for those who wish to use and ruin our countryside in such a manner.
C
|
For my part I would like to see 4x4s etc banned from all public byways
That's your opinion and I guess it concurs with that of Robbie and others. Fair enough, but I ask you this.
Are you aware that if the legislation is enacted as is, this will have the effect of banning vehicles from quite a number of byways which are actually tarmac? That is not to mention a greater mileage of those which have been constructed as roads. By this I mean a proper foundation, graded and rolled top surface albeit gravel or similar construction stone.
I think most people think that only the vulnerable green lanes as in grass / soil surface will be affected by the ban, not so.
That is the middle ground I'm asking for. Not unreasonable, and if you think it is then please explain why driving up a tarmac road constitutes ruining the countryside?
FiF
|
this will have the effect of banning vehicles from quite a number of byways which are actually tarmac?
No, I wasn't aware of that.
Under what circumstances is it made up but not a normal highway ? And are we talking a significant amount ?
|
>> this will have the effect of banning vehicles from quite a number of byways which are actually tarmac? No, I wasn't aware of that. Under what circumstances is it made up but not a normal highway ? And are we talking a significant amount ?
Mark,
It's around the definitions that HMG have changed to class as a byway. eg Road used as Public Path is just one of the definitions now defunct.
I don't have the figures to hand but will see if I can find more info later.
However from personal experience, and I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for this, I know several roads which now come under the classification byway that I could take an HGV down without damaging the surface, even after very inclement weather.
Just asking for a common sense approach really. Not too much is it?
FiF
|
Well now, legislating against vehicles using a paved road, especially if it is a route between A & B seems silly.
On the other hand, 4x4s and the like charging around dirt lanes seems equally ridiculous. For goodness sakes, most people can't drive a large 4x4 vehicle on the road in normal conditions, without letting them loose on the countryside. And they must do a lot of damage; partly to the surface, but also to surrounding shrubbery and the like.
Why does this government always seem to take the route of using a basically sensible idea and then going to far and screwing up by introducting a load of ridiculous ideas.
And why don't they enforce the ones they've got ?
Have some paved roads been reclassed as byways or have some byways been paved ?
>>Just asking for a common sense approach really. Not too much is it?
I admire your optimism.
|
FiF,
I appreciate the difficulties in framing a 'one size fits all' law.
I would like to prevent 4x4s and motorcycles etc disturbing the tranquillity of the countryside and causing damage to tracks etc.
The Ridgeway is a classic example of a track the campaigners want to use and a perfect example of why they should be prevented from doing so.
C
|
"Have some paved roads been reclassed as byways or have some
byways been paved ?
Good question, again based on local knowledge it is a mixture of the two. In the main suggest local knowledge needs to be applied because a broad brush approach based on the categories of rights of Way and other definitive maps etc gives what is clearly a nonsensical result.
Basically ignoring footpaths and bridleways we have
1. Byways open to all traffic
2. Roads used as Public path
3. Unclassified road maintained by council.
4. Under recorded roads. (for example many white roads on OS maps)
As I understand the law we have already more or less lost the right to drive down 3 & 4 without first proving vehicular rights. Use of 4 could result in prosecution and forfeiture of the vehicle.
What will happen is that category 2 will be downgraded to a restricted byway. Over this right of way will be held by walkers cyclists horse riders and horse drawn vehicles, but not motorised.
So let us say one lives in a house access to which is along what will become a restricted byway. So what do you do?
Well first you have to apply to get a "Definitive map Modification Order" to upgrade to a Road Open to All Traffic. Also bear in mind that HMG if given half a chance would close these too!
Anyone who has ever gone through the heartache of dealing with a change to a footpath wil know its exactly that, heartache.
If you don't get the road upgraded then you have to get what is known as an easement. Great cost, no certainty of success and no chance of selling your house while all the procrastination goes on. In the worst case and you are not successful as I read it you will have to park your car at the nearest point on the public road and proceed therafter by horse and cart.
That is before we get into the question of "4x4s and the like charging around dirt lanes"
Finally, as I really must get on and do something else this evening, consider the problem children, the hooligans who do charge around willy nilly. Are they going to take any notice of this?
Trying very hard not to step over the line, (or go off motoring) but it could be argued yet another example where the innocent middle of the road citizen will have their life made more complicated and expensive while the real culprits go untackled.
FiF
|
|
Mark, it will be interesting to see if the damage continues on the Ridgeway if they do ban motorbikes, etc. If it does, who will the farmers blame next?
I know a few people that motorcross & 4x4 on the Ridgeway, and have also previously done so myself in the past. Unless the motorcross bikes & 4x4's have tractor tyres fitted, it's obvious which vehicles are causing the deep ruts and other damage by the tyre tread patterns that are left in the mud. ie Huge tractors.
|
|
In theory a balloon tyre will do less damage in soft conditions as the load is spread over a much greater area. In Cyclo-Cross the riders use narrow tyres as they cut through the soft mud to get a purchase on the firmer surface below. Ditto with 4x4s.
|
|
Not all tractor tyres are balloon type though. When crop spraying, for instance, they use narrow ones to prevent crushing too much crop.
|
I was about to join Mark in writing to my MP. But then I read Fif's note about unnecessary legislation.
Now I don't know WHAT to do!
If you want to take your 4x4 'off road' then go round a purpose built track. It'll be more fun (I suppose), and safer (no risk of suddenly hitting 6' deep mud and never seeing your beloved car again).
|
Hypothetically, if 'off-roading' is not allowed then no-one will buy 4x4s any more? After all, they'll be pointless won't they?
|
Patently
I'll still need mine for towing my caravan to, across and from rally fields. I'll also still enjoy driving it on the roads for the sheer pleasure of its grunt and the excellent driving position (in all senses).
If people like something, it's not pointless.
Terry
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand"
|
|
I was about to join Mark in writing to my MP. But then I read Fif's note about unnecessary legislation. Now I don't know WHAT to do! If you want to take your 4x4 'off road' then go round a purpose built track. It'll be more fun (I suppose), and safer (no risk of suddenly hitting 6' deep mud and never seeing your beloved car again).
>>
Mapmaker, like me you'll do according to your personal opinion regardless of the side of the fence you sit on.
By all means anyone write to their MP, but please do it in full possession of the facts, see my later post re tarmac and unsurfaced byways, as opposed to true green lanes.
Actually I have great sympathy with those who find a bit of countryside churned up, plus a lot of sympathy with DD's post regarding who will the farmers blame when its all banned. Difficult when you can see the wider picture.
Just for the record, I don't have a 4x4 and not much desire to own one, but I wouldn't deny anyone the right to have one for any reason, be it they had a genuine use or simply liked it.
FiF
|
Ban the 4 x 4 's from the by ways and the school run...
At the risk of upsetting a Moderator I repeat the statement I made in my earlier thread ' what earthly reason should anyone want one of these dangerous machines for unless they are a farmer'.
The only time I went on the Ridgeway it was a churned up rutted muddy mess where the normal ruts were so deep that the normal 4 x 4 would be grounding so the drivers that passed me ( on foot)were moving sideways and spread the rutting to both sides causing untold damage and mess in the name of pleasure in a peaceful rural environment.
If you want to go off road ask your local farmer if he has somewhere you can practice or find an old quarry or a proper track where you are not going to spoil everyones enjoyment.
|
Blimey - I chipped into the "Mods" thread earlier and suggested we get back to serious stuff like mats, 4X4 etc and what happens - we get a 4X4 thread going the same day.
I've been following this subject with some interest from a mountain biking perspective - there's been some heated debate, on some lesser moderated sites (!).
The BBC recently ran a program on the topic - here's the web link to the story.
tinyurl.com/3av6a
|
Another hammer to crack a nut. We're talking about an extremely small percentage of available tracks that can be used by vehicles, and incidentally they are legally public roads and have been for many years.
If some off-roaders are driving in a way that causes damage, catch them and punish them. There's no need to blanket ban all off-roaders, it's just a knee-jerk reaction.
The instigators of this are the Ramblers Association. Ramblers seem to be a large group of people who think they should have the right to walk anywhere they like regardless of who owns the land.
I have suffered from these people for years, walking past in large groups on a pleasant afternoon shouting to each other, leaving a trail of chocolate wrappers and letting their dogs run out of control. They can become quite unpleasant when asked to stay on the footpath and put the dog on a lead. I'm sure most of them are reasonable and considerate, but I've come across a lot that are not, so maybe all Ramblers should be banned from public footpaths?
I have not had any problems at all with motorised users of the 2 sections of green lane near me. We hear bike engines now and then but not so much that it becomes a problem. The ramblers shouting is much worse!
By the way, I am not a land owner, I just live in the country.
|
GoG - the legal eagles will correct me, but I thought that public roads were not necessarily open to vehicles, although they are to pedestrians. People may pass and repass on the monarch's highway, but not necessarily on wheels?
My previous point was that anyone who uses these roads/tracks should leave them as they found them. Many wouldn't.
|
|
Picking up this thread after 8 hours (a lot has been added since then) - in an ideal world I would gladly tolerate vehicles on surfaced roads. The problem is always the grey areas - e.g roads which start hard and turn soft. I am afraid I go for a ban, because while (as always) the majority would probably behave responsibly, the remainder cause most of the damage and get the others a bad name.
|
Don't often sit on fences, FIF - that's not me!
I hate the idea of more regulation. But I hate noisy vehicles trotting around the countryside for the sake of it.
100s of ramblers do quite a lot of damage. A couple of 4x4s if it's wet enough will do lots & lots of damage. A farmer may do some damage, but he has to get around his fields.
Sadly, many people lack social responsibility these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
