Government consultation on 4x4's using lanes

hi all,

in case nobody knows about this (I hope you do!), the Government have
released a consultation on "the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on
rights of way"

here's the URL to the news report which links you to the consultation paper
itself.

http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=17931&heading=e-mail+alert

I suspect that this is the opportunity for do-gooders to try and restrict
sensible green laning etc. etc.?

spread the word, write your points of view to the consultation and have your
say!!

JP

In article <BC0E1B7B.9716%[email protected]>, Jason Price wrote:
> hi all,
>
> in case nobody knows about this (I hope you do!), the Government have
> released a consultation on "the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on
> rights of way"
>
> here's the URL to the news report which links you to the consultation paper
> itself.
>
> http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=17931&heading=e-mail+alert
>
> I suspect that this is the opportunity for do-gooders to try and restrict
> sensible green laning etc. etc.?
>
> spread the word, write your points of view to the consultation and have your
> say!!
>
> JP
>

I've downloaded the consultation PDF and will take a look. I see that GLASS
have been asked for comments which makes me glad I'm a member. I'll try to
remember to mention to my area rep too on Sunday, though he probably knows
about it already.


--
simon at sbarr dot demon dot co dot uk
Simon Barr.
'97 110 300Tdi.

In <[email protected]> Simon Barr wrote:
> In article <BC0E1B7B.9716%[email protected]>, Jason Price wrote:
>> hi all,
>>
>> in case nobody knows about this (I hope you do!), the Government have
>> released a consultation on "the use of mechanically propelled
>> vehicles on rights of way" here's the URL to the news report which
>> links you to the consultation paper itself. http://www.info4local.
>> gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=17931&heading=e-mail+alert I suspect that
>> this is the opportunity for do-gooders to try and restrict sensible
>> green laning etc. etc.? spread the word, write your points of view
>> to the consultation and have your say!! JP
>
> I've downloaded the consultation PDF and will take a look. I see that
> GLASS have been asked for comments which makes me glad I'm a member.
> I'll try to remember to mention to my area rep too on Sunday, though
> he probably knows about it already.
>
>
Equally important for us to respond individually as the more responses
the better.
I see that the Country Land and Business Association (formerly Country
Landowners Association) who mainly represent large landowners are
supporting the proposed ban because of the danger use by recreational 4
x 4s are to walkers - BUT I for one have never heard of or seen any
reported incident of a walker on a green lane, RUPP or BOAT being
injured by a recreational 4 x 4.

Let em all know what we think, rationally if we can.

Neill

PS Visit www.bhclrc.co.uk

"Neill Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In <[email protected]> Simon Barr wrote:
> > In article <BC0E1B7B.9716%[email protected]>, Jason Price wrote:
> >> hi all,
> >>
> >> in case nobody knows about this (I hope you do!), the Government have
> >> released a consultation on "the use of mechanically propelled
> >> vehicles on rights of way" here's the URL to the news report which
> >> links you to the consultation paper itself. http://www.info4local.
> >> gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=17931&heading=e-mail+alert I suspect that
> >> this is the opportunity for do-gooders to try and restrict sensible
> >> green laning etc. etc.? spread the word, write your points of view
> >> to the consultation and have your say!! JP
> >
> > I've downloaded the consultation PDF and will take a look. I see that
> > GLASS have been asked for comments which makes me glad I'm a member.
> > I'll try to remember to mention to my area rep too on Sunday, though
> > he probably knows about it already.
> >
> >
> Equally important for us to respond individually as the more responses
> the better.
> I see that the Country Land and Business Association (formerly Country
> Landowners Association) who mainly represent large landowners are
> supporting the proposed ban because of the danger use by recreational 4
> x 4s are to walkers - BUT I for one have never heard of or seen any
> reported incident of a walker on a green lane, RUPP or BOAT being
> injured by a recreational 4 x 4.
>
> Let em all know what we think, rationally if we can.

There's quite a bit about it on the GLASS website. http://www.glass-uk.org/

Cheers
Andrew Kay

In article <[email protected]>, Neill Campbell
<[email protected]> writes
>I see that the Country Land and Business Association (formerly Country
>Landowners Association) who mainly represent large landowners are
>supporting the proposed ban because of the danger use by recreational 4
>x 4s are to walkers - BUT I for one have never heard of or seen any
>reported incident of a walker on a green lane, RUPP or BOAT being
>injured by a recreational 4 x 4.

Nor I but we do get the occasional *lets see how far we can splash the
puddles* wally.

Routine *retain the route* trips by elderly 4x4s are barely noticed.

Real mud plugging may not fit well with the objective of bringing more
people into the countryside to enhance physical fitness by *peaceful
enjoyment* such that extending the retirement age beyond 65 will not
overburden the NHS.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Jason Price wrote:
> hi all,
>
> in case nobody knows about this (I hope you do!), the Government have
> released a consultation on "the use of mechanically propelled
> vehicles on rights of way"
>
> here's the URL to the news report which links you to the consultation
> paper itself.
>
>
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=17931&heading=e-mail+alert
>
> I suspect that this is the opportunity for do-gooders to try and
> restrict sensible green laning etc. etc.?
>
> spread the word, write your points of view to the consultation and
> have your say!!
>
> JP

Knowing this bunch of tax mad w*nkers [1] they're prolly examining ways
of putting tolls on green lanes ;o)

[1] otherwise known as Her Majesties Government

--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

http://wrexhamseals.tripod.com

"Jason Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC0E1B7B.9716%[email protected]...
> hi all,
>
> in case nobody knows about this (I hope you do!), the Government have
> released a consultation on "the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on
> rights of way"
>
> here's the URL to the news report which links you to the consultation
paper
> itself.
>
>
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/searchreport.asp?id=17931&heading=e-mail+alert
>
> I suspect that this is the opportunity for do-gooders to try and restrict
> sensible green laning etc. etc.?
>
> spread the word, write your points of view to the consultation and have
your
> say!!
>
> JP
>
>

I saw an article on a British offroading site, about how councils and county
boards are trying to ban 4x4s from green lanes because they're pugging the
lanes and causing mudholes. while ignoring the fact that the lanes have been
allowed to become overgrown, shaded and not maintained for decades, those
lanes maintained by 4x4 clubs are about the only ones passable.

rhys

rnf2 wrote:
//
> I saw an article on a British offroading site, about how councils and
> county boards are trying to ban 4x4s from green lanes because they're
> pugging the lanes and causing mudholes. while ignoring the fact that the
> lanes have been allowed to become overgrown, shaded and not maintained for
> decades, those lanes maintained by 4x4 clubs are about the only ones
> passable.

Absolutely. The nature reserve around my house is privately owned and when
I asked the landowner if I could drive my Shogun across it (for shortcut
purposes), he said it was fine provided, in the areas afflicted with lots
of foliage, I kept to the footpaths as much as possible because it keeps
the undergrowth at bay (therefore keeping the path clearly defined).

I - and other 4x4 owners in the vicinity - have been given the impression
that our shortcut behaviour is beneficial to the reserve.
--
Lee J. Moore
http://cafe-society.com

"Steve Parry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Knowing this bunch of tax mad w*nkers [1] they're prolly examining ways
> of putting tolls on green lanes ;o)

If the options were to pay for using green lanes - or be banned altogether,
which would you choose?

Cheers
Andrew Kay

"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I saw an article on a British offroading site, about how councils and
county
> boards are trying to ban 4x4s from green lanes because they're pugging the
> lanes and causing mudholes. while ignoring the fact that the lanes have
been
> allowed to become overgrown, shaded and not maintained for decades, those
> lanes maintained by 4x4 clubs are about the only ones passable.

It also ignores the fact that the volume of recreational 4x4s is wholly
insignificant compared with the volume of agricultural traffic on many green
lanes..

Cheers
Andrew Kay

Andrew Kay wrote:
> "Steve Parry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Knowing this bunch of tax mad w*nkers [1] they're prolly examining
>> ways of putting tolls on green lanes ;o)
>
> If the options were to pay for using green lanes - or be banned
> altogether, which would you choose?
>
> Cheers
> Andrew Kay

I'd choose a different govt.

--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =

Exit wrote:
> Andrew Kay wrote:
>> "Steve Parry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Knowing this bunch of tax mad w*nkers [1] they're prolly examining
>>> ways of putting tolls on green lanes ;o)
>>
>> If the options were to pay for using green lanes - or be banned
>> altogether, which would you choose?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrew Kay
>
> I'd choose a different govt.

wot he said )

--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

http://wrexhamseals.tripod.com

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPA
Mkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Steve Parry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Knowing this bunch of tax mad w*nkers [1] they're prolly examining ways
>> of putting tolls on green lanes ;o)
>
>If the options were to pay for using green lanes - or be banned altogether,
>which would you choose?

Stepping aside from the green lanes issue, the consultation document
briefly refers to the provision of suitable alternatives (mainly for
bikers) ISTM that there is lots of derelict land, old extraction
workings or domestic waste sites where owners might be encouraged to
allow informal use if they could be relieved of any *duty of care*.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPA
Mkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> I saw an article on a British offroading site, about how councils and
>county
>> boards are trying to ban 4x4s from green lanes because they're pugging the
>> lanes and causing mudholes. while ignoring the fact that the lanes have
>been
>> allowed to become overgrown, shaded and not maintained for decades, those
>> lanes maintained by 4x4 clubs are about the only ones passable.
>
>It also ignores the fact that the volume of recreational 4x4s is wholly
>insignificant compared with the volume of agricultural traffic on many green
>lanes..

and bridleways... touché!

Mind you, we do then make an effort to keep the hedges trimmed to
protect our paintwork and amber lamps

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Andrew Kay <[email protected]> wrote:

> It also ignores the fact that the volume of recreational 4x4s is wholly
> insignificant compared with the volume of agricultural traffic on many green
> lanes..

In my part of Hampshire the lanes are frequently unfit for walking. But
it's not 4x4s causing the problem:

Dog**** - every fool with a dog seems to think green lanes are there to
provide a giant linear lavatory. This makes the areas closes to any main
road absolutely foul to use.

Horses - horse riders ignore requests not to use the lanes in the wet.
In consequence the lanes are churned to broth.

Walkers - so many of them that they have worn a deep rut down the centre
of the most popular lanes. This makes the lane dangerous to use by any
vehicle since the rut is deeper than 15 inches in many places. Drop a
pair of wheels in it and you're stuck.

Uncut hedges - lanes completely closed, even to walkers.


And that's before we get to the misleading signs (deliberately marking
lanes as "road closed ahead" when they are in fact open for their entire
length for example) or marking lanes shown as RUPPs or byways on the
definitive map as "footpath".

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Stepping aside from the green lanes issue, the consultation document
> briefly refers to the provision of suitable alternatives (mainly for
> bikers) ISTM that there is lots of derelict land, old extraction
> workings or domestic waste sites where owners might be encouraged to
> allow informal use if they could be relieved of any *duty of care*.

Err ... for many of us, Tim, it wouldn't actually sastisfy the requirement.
Many of us who drive green lanes do so because we like to explore the
countryside. Our chosen means of transporation is not shanks pony,
horseback, bicycle or a horse drawn trap - but a motor vehicle.

Driving around on a land infill site is no more a "suitable alternative"
than would be walking around a running track for a Rambler.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >It also ignores the fact that the volume of recreational 4x4s is wholly
> >insignificant compared with the volume of agricultural traffic on many
green
> >lanes..
>
> and bridleways... touché!
>
> Mind you, we do then make an effort to keep the hedges trimmed to
> protect our paintwork and amber lamps

Yes, but you don't exactly hold your hand up when *others* suggest that
damage is caused mainly by recreational 4x4s, do you?

Cheers
Andrew Kay

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPA
Mkay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Stepping aside from the green lanes issue, the consultation document
>> briefly refers to the provision of suitable alternatives (mainly for
>> bikers) ISTM that there is lots of derelict land, old extraction
>> workings or domestic waste sites where owners might be encouraged to
>> allow informal use if they could be relieved of any *duty of care*.
>
>Err ... for many of us, Tim, it wouldn't actually sastisfy the requirement.
>Many of us who drive green lanes do so because we like to explore the
>countryside. Our chosen means of transporation is not shanks pony,
>horseback, bicycle or a horse drawn trap - but a motor vehicle.
>
>Driving around on a land infill site is no more a "suitable alternative"
>than would be walking around a running track for a Rambler.

OK but, If you could segregate the mud pluggers from the explorers you
might improve your public image.

I have said before, my problem is not with public access but obstructive
parking.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAM
kay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >It also ignores the fact that the volume of recreational 4x4s is wholly
>> >insignificant compared with the volume of agricultural traffic on many
>green
>> >lanes..
>>
>> and bridleways... touché!
>>
>> Mind you, we do then make an effort to keep the hedges trimmed to
>> protect our paintwork and amber lamps
>
>Yes, but you don't exactly hold your hand up when *others* suggest that
>damage is caused mainly by recreational 4x4s, do you?

Well I do. Probably not in a way that is likely to cost me money
though

There may be a hidden twist to the agenda in that eliminating
recreational traffic will expose the level of damage due to commercial
use.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >Driving around on a land infill site is no more a "suitable alternative"
> >than would be walking around a running track for a Rambler.
>
> OK but, If you could segregate the mud pluggers from the explorers you
> might improve your public image.

Public image? Where do you get your information about the public's image
from? The NFU? The Ramblers Association?

I doubt that anyone really knows what the public's image is - or do you know
of the results of some research that I haven't seen?

Cheers
Andrew Kay