Government consultation on 4x4's using lanes

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.


Well, yes, maybe .......... but proving that the RA, FoTR, YDGLA and others
make very sparing use of the truth is of very limited value if it only comes
to light AFTER recreational vehicles have been banned from the countryside.

Many more unsealed routes are destroyed through lack of use, rather than by
use. One needs only to try to research the routes of Roman roads in the UK
to understand that.

Cheers
Andrew Kay



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

> >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:)


You may in this NG, Tim, but landowners & farmers are not especially visible
in their repudiation of the nonesense purveyed by some. I wonder what the
NFUs response was to the recent DEFRA consultation on use of motorised
vehicles on public RoW. See:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/mpvehicles/index.htm

Do you think readers of this NG would have supported the NFUs response
(whatever it was) to the DEFRA consultation?

Cheers
Andrew Kay




 
In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAM
kay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> 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?


Umm. No definable source. There have been threads about the Ridgeway,
some comment in equestrian groups, the CLA may be averse to 4x4s used
for poaching on farmland. I have no direct knowledge of the RAs opinion
but you are a minority group and vulnerable to critical comment. (see
hunting with hounds:) There may have been comments in here lauding the
difficulties of a particular route and discussions on suitable tyre
treads will not have gained sympathy from a walker.
>
>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?


No. I suppose I am guilty of assigning my vague views, as a rational
person, to the population at large.

You have explained the desire to use a suitable vehicle to reach and
explore areas of land where access rights exist. Where this has little
impact on the rights of others and is achieved at a cost the exchequer
is prepared to bear, I can see no benefit from a ban.

Personally I have no wish to climb into my Hilux and head on out for
parts unknown, but then, I do not work indoors.

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]...
>
>> >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:)

>
>You may in this NG, Tim, but landowners & farmers are not especially visible
>in their repudiation of the nonesense purveyed by some. I wonder what the
>NFUs response was to the recent DEFRA consultation on use of motorised
>vehicles on public RoW. See:
>http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/mpvehicles/index.htm


Yes. Got that on disk.

I am not an NFU member. If I find out what the CLA intend to say, I will
pass it on. All responses will be available according to the DEFRA site.

I am on friendly terms with the Highway officer responsible for PRoWs in
my part of Herts. He is under no illusions as to what causes deep
parallel grooves on bridleways and must be capable of transferring that
knowledge to vehicular routes.
>
>Do you think readers of this NG would have supported the NFUs response
>(whatever it was) to the DEFRA consultation?


No. Whatever it was:)

You are a pretty broad church however and not all subscribers are
committed to the squeaky clean message needed to head off this attack.

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]...
>
>> 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.

>
>Well, yes, maybe .......... but proving that the RA, FoTR, YDGLA and others
>make very sparing use of the truth is of very limited value if it only comes
>to light AFTER recreational vehicles have been banned from the countryside.


Commercial use for logging or agriculture? As this can usually be traced
to an individual farm/landowner the existing *public good* justification
may fall down with the maintenance burden shifting to the user.
>
>Many more unsealed routes are destroyed through lack of use, rather than by
>use. One needs only to try to research the routes of Roman roads in the UK
>to understand that.


Yes. I have not quite got my mind round the concept that a route created
by the most up to date vehicle of the time (horse drawn cart) can not be
allowed to progress to motors. Maybe it is the commercial/recreational
bit?

regards

--
Tim Lamb
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tim Lamb
<[email protected]> writes

>and bridleways... touché!


And changing tack, so to speak. Have you read the latest in LROI mag
and quote.

'New Brussels safety regulations set to change the face of future Land
Rovers.

You see them on every street: boy racer-beskirted hot hatches with
barely enough ground clearance to negotiate the speed bumps. But don't
laugh too hard, because future Land Rovers may very well look like this.

New European safety regulations will change the shape of Land Rovers to
come-and this may make the vehicle useless off road.

These latest regs to be introduced by EU law makers are designed to make
vehicles more pedestrian friendly if an accident occurs, But they will
also have serious implications on ground clearance, which will effect
performance on uneven ground.

Vehicles that have bumpers more than 500mm from the ground - including
Defender, Discovery and Range Rover will have to change. These bumpers
must be lowered to less than 500mm (about 20inches). They will also
need to be fitted with deep underskirts to spread the load under impact.

The regulations mean that bonnet shapes are also likely to change, to
cause least injury to pedestrians in the event of an accident, they will
have to be sloping - similar to the shape typified by most modern MPV's.

Land Rover's reputation has been built upon unrivalled off road
excellence. It's designers now face the inevitable task of keeping
within the law while creating the next generation of world beating off
roaders.

'This will certainly be a real challenge' says Andy wheel, lead designer
at LR. 'Over the next 10 years we're going to see fundamental changes in
the look of new cars. and is exercising our creativity.'

The new laws will come into force in two stages: from 2005 new vehicle
design will be 'monitored', but will have to comply fully be 2010.

But LR remains bullish that it can stay within the law without diluting
it's off road reputation. Technical communications manager Roger
Crawthorne an engineer on the team that designed the original RR says
'We fitted bib spoilers on the P38a RR when it was launched because they
looked good and were aerodynamically correct. But they're not a problem
if you want to go off road you can just take the spoilers off by undoing
three small fixings on each side.'

In common with other vehicle manufacturers LR refuses to comment on
septic areas of design on future models, But it is being hinted that the
back room boys are already working on retractable spoilers for future
LR's. These can be raised and lowered at the flick of a switch. This
will come as no surprise to anyone who has sat among the myriad of
switches in the gizmo-loaded cabin of the new RR. 'If there's
legislation to meet, we will meet it.' Says Roger.


Sorry for the long post but you need to read it all to get it across.

Ps Merry Christmas.
--
Graham Jones
110 Defender 300tdi (special vehicle)
 
"Tim Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >Many more unsealed routes are destroyed through lack of use, rather than

by
> >use. One needs only to try to research the routes of Roman roads in the

UK
> >to understand that.

>
> Yes. I have not quite got my mind round the concept that a route created
> by the most up to date vehicle of the time (horse drawn cart) can not be
> allowed to progress to motors. Maybe it is the commercial/recreational
> bit?


Well, if it is recreational use as distinct from other kinds of use that is
perceived a being a problem, it doesn't bode expecially well for any user
group. Recreational walking is a relatively modern middle-class townie
phenomenon. There was very little prior to the early 1900s - life just
wasn't that long. :)

Cheers
Andrew Kay





 
In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAM
kay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes

>> Yes. I have not quite got my mind round the concept that a route created
>> by the most up to date vehicle of the time (horse drawn cart) can not be
>> allowed to progress to motors. Maybe it is the commercial/recreational
>> bit?

>
>Well, if it is recreational use as distinct from other kinds of use that is
>perceived a being a problem, it doesn't bode expecially well for any user
>group. Recreational walking is a relatively modern middle-class townie
>phenomenon. There was very little prior to the early 1900s - life just
>wasn't that long. :)


Umm again...

Making five out of two twos the consultation may be part of a wider
strategy to encourage more people to make use of the countryside for
exercise.

I had a tentative approach from an agency loosely connected with
spending EU money in the rural area. Basically they were mooting the
idea of creating a commercial parking area on farmland giving good
access to recreational amenity sites and PRoWs.

During the discussion it was hinted that the government is interested in
encouraging a further 40% of us, over the 25% currently involved, to
take regular fitness enhancing exercise.

I suppose it might be considered that 4x4s on current RUPPs would have a
negative impact?

regards

--
Tim Lamb
 
Tim Lamb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay
> <andrew@NOSPAM kay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>> 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?

>
> Umm. No definable source. There have been threads about the Ridgeway,
> some comment in equestrian groups, the CLA may be averse to 4x4s used
> for poaching on farmland. I have no direct knowledge of the RAs
> opinion but you are a minority group and vulnerable to critical
> comment. (see hunting with hounds:) There may have been comments in
> here lauding the difficulties of a particular route and discussions
> on suitable tyre treads will not have gained sympathy from a walker.
>>
>> 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?

>
> No. I suppose I am guilty of assigning my vague views, as a rational
> person, to the population at large.
>
> You have explained the desire to use a suitable vehicle to reach and
> explore areas of land where access rights exist. Where this has little
> impact on the rights of others and is achieved at a cost the exchequer
> is prepared to bear, I can see no benefit from a ban.
>
> Personally I have no wish to climb into my Hilux and head on out for
> parts unknown, but then, I do not work indoors.
>
> regards


In my experience green laners fall into 2 distinct categories:

1. Those who love the countryside and use the rights of way network to
access it in vehicles, cycles, horses or on foot.

2. Those who want to play in the mud and aren't too bothered about the
scenery.

I count myself as the former - I often lane to get to somewhere nice to walk
or camp. I am just as happy trundling along hard stone tracks in the peak
district or north wales that wouldn't tax a Rav 4 as I am struggling to get
through 4ft deep ruts made by agricultural and logging machinery. The point
is, I care where I am going, not the condition of the route. The problem is,
I am not the type of laner that gets apoplectic rants written about them in
The Mail on Sunday, it's mud merchants who do.

To me green laning is like fox hunting - it's something people who do not
partake, do not understand but still know they don't like it and that it
should be banned to be on the safe side.

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


 
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:57:10 -0000, "Steve Parry"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> I'd choose a different govt.

>
>wot he said :eek:)


But that wouldn't remove the toll/tax. It's been a hell of a long time
since an incoming Government has revoked or significantly removed
taxes imposed by it's predecessor ... despite opposing them quite
vehemently before assuming power.

Cynical? What me? Nah!

Regards
Steve G
 
SteveG wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:57:10 -0000, "Steve Parry"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> I'd choose a different govt.

>>
>> wot he said :eek:)

>
> But that wouldn't remove the toll/tax. It's been a hell of a long time
> since an incoming Government has revoked or significantly removed
> taxes imposed by it's predecessor ... despite opposing them quite
> vehemently before assuming power.
>
> Cynical? What me? Nah!
>


which prolly explains why so few peeps bother voting nowadays 'cos the
political parties are all lying self seeking spineless tw*ts nowadays
....


--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

http://wrexhamseals.tripod.com


 
Steve,

Could you let me know which lanes you are referring to here. Hampshire are
one of the more helpful and accepting counties as far as vehicular use is
concerned and I am sure that the things that you mention are not deliberate
attempts to stop use. HCC do use TROs to prevent access but they are quite
open about where these are. If lanes are incorrectly signed we need to
bring this to their attention.

Patrick Manuel

Wessex Hillrunners Rights of Way Officer
GLASS Area Representative for Hampshire

[email protected]
"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g6hdvn.1ln846yn72r9cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Andrew Kay <[email protected]> wrote:
>

SNIP>
>
> 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".
>

SNIP


 
In article <[email protected]>, Exit
<[email protected]> writes
>In my experience green laners fall into 2 distinct categories:
>
>1. Those who love the countryside and use the rights of way network to
>access it in vehicles, cycles, horses or on foot.
>
>2. Those who want to play in the mud and aren't too bothered about the
>scenery.


3. The owner of a recently acquired 4x4 anxious to justify the money
spent but without the fortitude to do either of the above.
>
>I count myself as the former - I often lane to get to somewhere nice to walk
>or camp. I am just as happy trundling along hard stone tracks in the peak
>district or north wales that wouldn't tax a Rav 4 as I am struggling to get
>through 4ft deep ruts made by agricultural and logging machinery. The point
>is, I care where I am going, not the condition of the route. The problem is,
>I am not the type of laner that gets apoplectic rants written about them in
>The Mail on Sunday, it's mud merchants who do.
>
>To me green laning is like fox hunting - it's something people who do not
>partake, do not understand but still know they don't like it and that it
>should be banned to be on the safe side.


:)

Try .. "my business is pressing", said the steamroller to the worm, for
your missing pretentious .sig

regards
>


--
Tim Lamb
 
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:05:03 -0000, "Steve Parry"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>SteveG wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:57:10 -0000, "Steve Parry"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I'd choose a different govt.
>>>
>>> wot he said :eek:)

>>
>> But that wouldn't remove the toll/tax. It's been a hell of a long time
>> since an incoming Government has revoked or significantly removed
>> taxes imposed by it's predecessor ... despite opposing them quite
>> vehemently before assuming power.
>>
>> Cynical? What me? Nah!
>>

>
>which prolly explains why so few peeps bother voting nowadays 'cos the
>political parties are all lying self seeking spineless tw*ts nowadays
>...


Can't argue with that ..

LOL
Steve G
 

"Steve Parry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SteveG wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:57:10 -0000, "Steve Parry"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I'd choose a different govt.
> >>
> >> wot he said :eek:)

> >
> > But that wouldn't remove the toll/tax. It's been a hell of a long time
> > since an incoming Government has revoked or significantly removed
> > taxes imposed by it's predecessor ... despite opposing them quite
> > vehemently before assuming power.
> >
> > Cynical? What me? Nah!
> >

>
> which prolly explains why so few peeps bother voting nowadays 'cos the
> political parties are all lying self seeking spineless tw*ts nowadays
> ...
>
>
> --
> Steve Parry
>
> http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
>
> http://wrexhamseals.tripod.com



And that's just their good points!

JohnB



 

Steve Firth <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g6hdvn.1ln846yn72r9cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> 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.

You forget to berate cyclists, Merry Xmas!


 
"Roger Hainsworth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Steve Firth <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1g6hdvn.1ln846yn72r9cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > Andrew Kay <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.


> You forget to berate cyclists, Merry Xmas!


I doubt that berating any RoW user group helps the public to maintain the
rights it currently has. Of course you can find instances of "wear"
(substitute the word "damage" if the mood takes you) here & there caused by
all user groups - but the majority of real problems on green lanes are
caused by a mix of agricultural traffic, lack of maintenance and the
weather. Sometimes lack of use is also an issue - unless, of course, you
actually like wading through the several inches of silt that now overlays
many old roads.

It's a shame that the hysterical bleatings of the pseudo-environmental
loonies who seem to have infiltrated some user groups and national parks
seem to be taken seriously by many who should know better. I cannot claim
to know what the solution is - but slagging off other users ain't it.


Cheers
Andrew Kay




 
In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Kay <andrew@NOSPAM
kay5juniper.fsnet.co.uk> writes

>It's a shame that the hysterical bleatings of the pseudo-environmental
>loonies who seem to have infiltrated some user groups and national parks
>seem to be taken seriously by many who should know better. I cannot claim
>to know what the solution is - but slagging off other users ain't it.


Quite.

And..

Closing RUPPs to non *private rights* vehicles is likely to increase the
use/pressure on the remaining network:-(

regards

--
Tim Lamb
 
Patrick Manuel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Could you let me know which lanes you are referring to here.


I take it that your email address works? I'll look up the map references
and mail them to you.

--
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.
 
Steve,

Thanks, my email address is good.

Patrick

[email protected]
"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g6p04e.23eo0jas8z6mN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Patrick Manuel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Could you let me know which lanes you are referring to here.

>
> I take it that your email address works? I'll look up the map references
> and mail them to you.
>
> --
> 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.



 
Back
Top