Last minute gift

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

> I take it you fully agree with me on all the bits you snipped out of my
> post?

OK - let's reinsert a few. You said:

> From driving one back to back with a P38 RR round the LR jungle track. The
> new RR could get over obstacles that stumped the older one. The key was
the
> way the suspension software is programmed to mimic solid axles front and
> rear and actively push the lightly loaded side into depressions for superb
> traction. There was a very interesting test in a LR mag which put the new
RR
> up against a 90 and the 90 was beaten, something the previous RR's could
not
> do. You could also read any of the several off-road tests of the new RR
that
> have concluded the same. Have you driven both off-road?

I haven't driven either new or old RR - but:

1) A single run around some track or along some lane proves precisely squat.
A slight change in line or speed can make all the difference.

2) Mag tests often prove what the journalist wanted to prove in the first
place. The mere fact that LR Mag managed to devise a test to show that a
new RaRo could beat a 90 in some circumstances doesn't mean anything. I
suspect also that, if you want to read an unbiassed review of a LR product,
the last place you would be likely to see one is in a LR mag.

From a practical perspective, only a vanishingly small number of new RaRo
owners are likely to drive them off-tarmac - and even fewer in circumstances
that would challenge even a RAV4. Even if your assertion about the new
RaRo's off-road prowess is true, I cannot see one winning the next
Australian "Outback Challenge" (transmitted on Men & Motors last year) - can
you?


In connection with my earlier comments about RTI, you said:
> Impressive figures for standard vehicles

Possibly so - but still less than the figures quoted for the Troopers that
you previously said had "hardly any axle travel at all!"


You also said:
> It's odd though that for example sports cars can now out perform 1950's
> equivalents with ease and be more usable yet when it comes to 4x4's
off-road
> performance always seems to be sacrificed in jap motors to make them
happier
> on road.

I think that's just called commercial realism. Like I said before, if the
Jap majors wanted to make an off-road vehicle that was demonstrably better
(off-road) than the LR Defender, I'm sure they could do it., If they did, I
don't think they would sell many - just as LR don't sell many Defenders.

The "offroader" market seems to be polarised into two camps. Farmers seem
to buy pickups these days - the L200, Hilux and soon probably the new Isuzu
Rodeo too. All cheapish, reliable - and "adequate" in most circumstances.
(Most) everyone else wants something a bit more comfortable than a
Defender - and more road capable - but cheaper than a RaRo. In sacrificing
off-road performance (if that is what they are doing), maybe the Japs are
simply ahead of the game.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

Andrew Kay wrote:
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I take it you fully agree with me on all the bits you snipped out of
>> my post?
>
> OK - let's reinsert a few. You said:
>
>> From driving one back to back with a P38 RR round the LR jungle
>> track. The new RR could get over obstacles that stumped the older
>> one. The key was the way the suspension software is programmed to
>> mimic solid axles front and rear and actively push the lightly
>> loaded side into depressions for superb traction. There was a very
>> interesting test in a LR mag which put the new RR up against a 90
>> and the 90 was beaten, something the previous RR's could not do. You
>> could also read any of the several off-road tests of the new RR that
>> have concluded the same. Have you driven both off-road?
>
> I haven't driven either new or old RR - but:
>
> 1) A single run around some track or along some lane proves precisely
> squat. A slight change in line or speed can make all the difference.
>
Agreed, but it wasn't a single run, it was many over the course of 3 hours
and I have been off-roading seriously for 15 years including plenty of
trialling and the odd comp safari so I can tell what is luck and what is
ability.

> 2) Mag tests often prove what the journalist wanted to prove in the
> first place. The mere fact that LR Mag managed to devise a test to
> show that a new RaRo could beat a 90 in some circumstances doesn't
> mean anything. I suspect also that, if you want to read an unbiassed
> review of a LR product, the last place you would be likely to see one
> is in a LR mag.
>
Why on earth would a LR mag produce a biased report when both vehicles are
LR? Simply nonsense.

> From a practical perspective, only a vanishingly small number of new
> RaRo owners are likely to drive them off-tarmac - and even fewer in
> circumstances that would challenge even a RAV4. Even if your
> assertion about the new RaRo's off-road prowess is true, I cannot see
> one winning the next Australian "Outback Challenge" (transmitted on
> Men & Motors last year) - can you?
>
Absolutely not and I never claimed so. Let's not indulge too much in the old
99% of any 4x4 never goes off-road cliche shall we?

>
> In connection with my earlier comments about RTI, you said:
>> Impressive figures for standard vehicles
>
> Possibly so - but still less than the figures quoted for the Troopers
> that you previously said had "hardly any axle travel at all!"
>
Absolutely, but my comments about lack of axle travel were based purely on
the pictures on the URL the guy posted which as I said showed them doing
well off-road despite clearly demonstrating virtually no front axle artic.
If you look back at my post you will also note it was succeeded by a smiley!
I am however very pleased to see that the japs have managed to improve on
the series LR suspension with only 40 years and a big budget. . . . . . ;-)

>
> You also said:
>> It's odd though that for example sports cars can now out perform
>> 1950's equivalents with ease and be more usable yet when it comes to
>> 4x4's off-road performance always seems to be sacrificed in jap
>> motors to make them happier on road.
>
> I think that's just called commercial realism. Like I said before,
> if the Jap majors wanted to make an off-road vehicle that was
> demonstrably better (off-road) than the LR Defender, I'm sure they
> could do it., If they did, I don't think they would sell many - just
> as LR don't sell many Defenders.
>
But do sell many, many Discoverys with much the same solid axle chassis. . .
.. . . .

> The "offroader" market seems to be polarised into two camps. Farmers
> seem to buy pickups these days - the L200, Hilux and soon probably
> the new Isuzu Rodeo too. All cheapish, reliable - and "adequate" in
> most circumstances. (Most) everyone else wants something a bit more
> comfortable than a Defender - and more road capable - but cheaper
> than a RaRo. In sacrificing off-road performance (if that is what
> they are doing), maybe the Japs are simply ahead of the game.
>
Defender sales are increasing sharply. They still outsell things like the
L200 and unless I am mistaken Isuzu are now dead in this country. Personally
I wouldn't say making a mediocre product that suits more people is ahead of
the game, but of course jap motors have many benefits over Land Rovers, but
the one we are discussing here, off-road ability, is not one of them.

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

"Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Kay wrote:

> Defender sales are increasing sharply. They still outsell things like the
> L200 ....

Things like? I s'pose its *just about* possible that ALL Defender sales
might be greater than the UK sales of the Mitsubishi L200.

Where'd you get your stats about Defender sales? (and about sales of L200s)


> and unless I am mistaken Isuzu are now dead in this country.

I fear you might be right. Certainly the Trooper is no more - and not just
in the UK. Production ceased in June 03 (I think).

My local dealer seems very enthusiastic about the new Isuzu Rodeo doublecab
pickup (well, they would be, wouldn't they?) - and is trying to sell them as
a Trooper replacement. Personally, I don't think there's much chance of
current Trooper owners buying one as a replacement - certainly I will not.
Next time around, I guess the shortlist will be the Patrol, Landcruiser - or
if my brain really goes AWOL, maybe I'll look at the Disco too.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

Andrew Kay wrote:
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Kay wrote:
>
>> Defender sales are increasing sharply. They still outsell things
>> like the L200 ....
>
> Things like? I s'pose its *just about* possible that ALL Defender
> sales might be greater than the UK sales of the Mitsubishi L200.
>
> Where'd you get your stats about Defender sales? (and about sales of
> L200s)
>
www.smmt.co.uk - L200 4360 Defender 5500

>
>> and unless I am mistaken Isuzu are now dead in this country.
>
> I fear you might be right. Certainly the Trooper is no more - and
> not just in the UK. Production ceased in June 03 (I think).
>
> My local dealer seems very enthusiastic about the new Isuzu Rodeo
> doublecab pickup (well, they would be, wouldn't they?) - and is
> trying to sell them as a Trooper replacement. Personally, I don't
> think there's much chance of current Trooper owners buying one as a
> replacement - certainly I will not. Next time around, I guess the
> shortlist will be the Patrol, Landcruiser - or if my brain really
> goes AWOL, maybe I'll look at the Disco too.
>
The only real advantage I can see about these double cab pickups is if you
run them as a company car where you pay very little tax. The best of the
bunch on road is the Nissan Navarra which is actually quite nice to drive.
If you worry about residual value get the Defender 110 doublecab which
depreciates less than any BMW or Merc - not bad for a Ford!

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

"Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Kay wrote:

> If you worry about residual value get the Defender 110 doublecab which
> depreciates less than any BMW or Merc - not bad for a Ford!

Probably rarity value kicking in.
Whilst the Defender 110 doublecab may be great at what it does best, not
even its dearest friends would claim that it would make a good family car
(or would you?).

FYI, I bought this months copy of Total Offroad yesterday (I only really buy
it for the road books). There's a supplement giving descriptions & summary
verdicts on all current "offroaders". You might be interested in a few
snippets, deliberately quoted out of context. )

Isuzu Trooper:
"You could tow a house with a Trooper, or drive up the side of it"

Land Rover Defender:
"Their splendid suspension may have been emasculated with anti-roll bars,
their simple old engines may have been replaced by a turbo-diesel you can't
fix without a computer, but they do the same simple things as ever"

Range Rover:
"It'll still lift wheels and break traction where the original Range Rover
wouldn't even have needed a locked diff."

Nissan Patrol:
"The Patrol has a big-truck character that makes a complete winner among
fans of real off-roaders. It's not as refined as the vehicles that were
once its rivals - but as they go off chasing sales on the school run, it
looks more and more as if its in a class of one."

There you go then ...................

Cheers
Andrew Kay

"Andrew Kay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Andrew Kay wrote:
>
> > If you worry about residual value get the Defender 110 doublecab which
> > depreciates less than any BMW or Merc - not bad for a Ford!
>
> Probably rarity value kicking in.
> Whilst the Defender 110 doublecab may be great at what it does best, not
> even its dearest friends would claim that it would make a good family car
> (or would you?).
>
> FYI, I bought this months copy of Total Offroad yesterday (I only really
buy
> it for the road books). There's a supplement giving descriptions &
summary
> verdicts on all current "offroaders". You might be interested in a few
> snippets, deliberately quoted out of context. )
>
> Isuzu Trooper:
> "You could tow a house with a Trooper, or drive up the side of it"
>
> Land Rover Defender:
> "Their splendid suspension may have been emasculated with anti-roll bars,
> their simple old engines may have been replaced by a turbo-diesel you
can't
> fix without a computer, but they do the same simple things as ever"
>
> Range Rover:
> "It'll still lift wheels and break traction where the original Range Rover
> wouldn't even have needed a locked diff."
>
> Nissan Patrol:
> "The Patrol has a big-truck character that makes a complete winner among
> fans of real off-roaders. It's not as refined as the vehicles that were
> once its rivals - but as they go off chasing sales on the school run, it
> looks more and more as if its in a class of one."
>
> There you go then ...................
>
> Cheers
> Andrew Kay
>
>
>
I'll agree with the tropper comments, I've an 88 2.8TD and it tows trailers
loaded with gravel so high that the trailer springs (from an old bedford
panel van) are totally flattend.

rhys

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

Excuse the messy post - my server didn't get your post, only rnf's reply.

>>> If you worry about residual value get the Defender 110 doublecab
>>> which depreciates less than any BMW or Merc - not bad for a Ford!
>>
>> Probably rarity value kicking in.

One of the most ubiquitous vehicles in the world rare - lol!

>> Whilst the Defender 110 doublecab may be great at what it does best,
>> not even its dearest friends would claim that it would make a good
>> family car (or would you?).
>>
I wouldn't use it as a family car, but it makes a better one than the jap
doublecabs with their old leaf springs and much harder ride than the 110.

>> FYI, I bought this months copy of Total Offroad yesterday (I only
>> really buy it for the road books). There's a supplement giving
>> descriptions & summary verdicts on all current "offroaders". You
>> might be interested in a few snippets, deliberately quoted out of
>> context. )
>>
I once bought Total Offroad - it's errrrr, not very good is it!

>> Isuzu Trooper:
>> "You could tow a house with a Trooper, or drive up the side of it"
>>
Strange thing to say about a vehicle with lower towing limits than Land
Rovers. . . . . .

>> Land Rover Defender:
>> "Their splendid suspension may have been emasculated with anti-roll
>> bars, their simple old engines may have been replaced by a
>> turbo-diesel you can't fix without a computer, but they do the same
>> simple things as ever"
>>
LOL - even the 'emasculated' suspension provides more travel than a trooper
et al and then of course you can order them without. . . .

>> Range Rover:
>> "It'll still lift wheels and break traction where the original Range
>> Rover wouldn't even have needed a locked diff."
>>
They've clearly never driven one. . . . .even on the top gear test the RR
got places the TLC amazon with locked diffs couldn't and was then recovered
by the RR!

>> Nissan Patrol:
>> "The Patrol has a big-truck character that makes a complete winner
>> among fans of real off-roaders. It's not as refined as the vehicles
>> that were once its rivals - but as they go off chasing sales on the
>> school run, it looks more and more as if its in a class of one."
>>
I quite like the patrol - it's much nearer to a proper off-roader than the
trooper and the like, but it must be a bit embarrassing being seen in one,
which presumably is why they only sell about 5 a year. . .

>> There you go then ...................
>>

I can see why you only buy that rag for the road books, makes Auto Express
look like Tolstoy!

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

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

> Excuse the messy post - my server didn't get your post, only rnf's reply.

No problem

> >>> If you worry about residual value get the Defender 110 doublecab
> >> Probably rarity value kicking in.
> One of the most ubiquitous vehicles in the world rare - lol!

So, giiven that you seem to have access to statistics on vehicle volumes
sold. Which of the following is greater? The number of Hiluxs sold
worldwide last year - or the number of Defender 110 double cabs sold since
the beginning of time? I bet I can guess.

> >> Whilst the Defender 110 doublecab may be great at what it does best,
> >> not even its dearest friends would claim that it would make a good
> >> family car (or would you?).
> >>
> I wouldn't use it as a family car, but it makes a better one than the jap
> doublecabs with their old leaf springs and much harder ride than the 110.

How hard the suspension is depends upon spring rates not upon the type of
spring used, though it is certainly true that leaf spung Landies have a
harder ride than later coilers. As you already know, I wouldn't use a
doublecab of any make as a family vehicle - but some of the Jap doublecabs
were targetted as lifestyle accessories, so I think your claim about them
having a harder ride is a tad unlikely.

> >> FYI, I bought this months copy of Total Offroad yesterday (I only
> >> really buy it for the road books). There's a supplement giving
> >> descriptions & summary verdicts on all current "offroaders". You
> >> might be interested in a few snippets, deliberately quoted out of
> >> context. )
> >>
> I once bought Total Offroad - it's errrrr, not very good is it!

It contains articles about things other than Land Rovers if that is what you
mean. It also seems to have a sensible policy towards greenlanes - and has
a greenlane roadbook in the back each month, which is a pretty good reason
for buying it (for me, anyway),

> >> Isuzu Trooper:
> >> "You could tow a house with a Trooper, or drive up the side of it"
> Strange thing to say about a vehicle with lower towing limits than Land
> Rovers. . . . . .

So which Land Rovers have a towing limit for an overrun braked trailer
greater than the 3500kg for the LWB Trooper?

> >> Land Rover Defender:
> LOL - even the 'emasculated' suspension provides more travel than a
trooper
> et al and then of course you can order them without. . . .

Errr .... that wasn't the issue. You said that the Defender suspension had
not changed. It has.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

Andrew Kay wrote:
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Excuse the messy post - my server didn't get your post, only rnf's
>> reply.
>
> No problem
>
>>>>> If you worry about residual value get the Defender 110 doublecab
>>>> Probably rarity value kicking in.
>> One of the most ubiquitous vehicles in the world rare - lol!
>
> So, giiven that you seem to have access to statistics on vehicle
> volumes sold. Which of the following is greater? The number of
> Hiluxs sold worldwide last year - or the number of Defender 110
> double cabs sold since the beginning of time? I bet I can guess.
>
And you'd be right, but Hiluxes have been around for 25 years and 110 double
cabs were only introduced three years ago, so it is another of your
increasingly pointless comparisons.

>>>> Whilst the Defender 110 doublecab may be great at what it does
>>>> best, not even its dearest friends would claim that it would make
>>>> a good family car (or would you?).
>>>>
>> I wouldn't use it as a family car, but it makes a better one than
>> the jap doublecabs with their old leaf springs and much harder ride
>> than the 110.
>
> How hard the suspension is depends upon spring rates not upon the
> type of spring used, though it is certainly true that leaf spung
> Landies have a harder ride than later coilers. As you already know,
> I wouldn't use a doublecab of any make as a family vehicle - but some
> of the Jap doublecabs were targetted as lifestyle accessories, so I
> think your claim about them having a harder ride is a tad unlikely.
>
You should drive them before you continue assuming - the hilux double cab
ride is terrible, the L200 a little better but still bad and the Nissan
Navarra the best of the bunch with a ride similar to a coiled 110. I haven't
driven the Isuzu one so can't comment on that, unlike you.

>>>> FYI, I bought this months copy of Total Offroad yesterday (I only
>>>> really buy it for the road books). There's a supplement giving
>>>> descriptions & summary verdicts on all current "offroaders". You
>>>> might be interested in a few snippets, deliberately quoted out of
>>>> context. )
>>>>
>> I once bought Total Offroad - it's errrrr, not very good is it!
>
> It contains articles about things other than Land Rovers if that is
> what you mean. It also seems to have a sensible policy towards
> greenlanes - and has a greenlane roadbook in the back each month,
> which is a pretty good reason for buying it (for me, anyway),
>
I think road books in mags are a terrible idea. If people are too lazy to
investigate rights of way themselves or get taken along by knowledgeable
club members they shouldn't lane. It is handing out these routes to all and
sundry that is causing us to come closer and closer to a complete green lane
ban as it makes it very easy for the yob element to just go and play in the
mud without any thought of doing what I do which is put something back by
spending the odd sunday helping to repair damaged lanes.

>>>> Isuzu Trooper:
>>>> "You could tow a house with a Trooper, or drive up the side of it"
>> Strange thing to say about a vehicle with lower towing limits than
>> Land Rovers. . . . . .
>
> So which Land Rovers have a towing limit for an overrun braked trailer
> greater than the 3500kg for the LWB Trooper?
>
None, but SWB LR's have a higher towing limit than SWB Troopers and LR's can
tow 4000kgs with a coupled braking system.

> > >> Land Rover Defender:
>> LOL - even the 'emasculated' suspension provides more travel than a
>> trooper et al and then of course you can order them without. . . .
>
> Errr .... that wasn't the issue. You said that the Defender
> suspension had not changed. It has.
>
It hasn't it's exactly the same but some have anti-roll bars.

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

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

I've ignored the rest of your post, because I think you've raised a far more
important issue. Hope you don't mind - but it really wasn't going anywhere,
was it?

> I think road books in mags are a terrible idea. If people are too lazy to
> investigate rights of way themselves or get taken along by knowledgeable
> club members they shouldn't lane. It is handing out these routes to all
and
> sundry that is causing us to come closer and closer to a complete green
lane
> ban as it makes it very easy for the yob element to just go and play in
the
> mud

Changes in legislation are required for a "complete green lane ban". It is
politicians who create or change legislation. Politicians at both national
and local level tend to be influenced by sustained & large scale
campaigning. The simple fact is that those who are anti-laning are far more
effective because they are massively greater numerically and have massively
greater finiancial resources & organisation than those whose hobby is green
laning.

The antis include:

* The Ramblers Association, whose policies include a ban on the use of motor
vehicles on all unsurfaced routes in the countryside, have around 130,000
individual members. The cyclist organisations are generally anti-vehicle.
The British Horse Society (BHS) are at worst neutral - but only because they
recognise that they need the assistance of vehicular users to research
routes.

* Several small but very active anti-vehicle organisations who wield far
more influence than they should - such as the YDGLA (Yorkshire Dales Green
Lane Alliance), FoTR (Friends of the Ridgway), GLEAM (Green Lane
Environmental Action Movement), et al. Some of them claim Royalty as
patrons & some have parliamentary stooges as vice-presidents.

* Highways Authorities and National Parks seem to be increasingly
anti-laning. Whilst the Institute of Rights of Way Officers (IRPOW) seem
not to be, a mixture of high level lobbying and lack of resources for lane
maintenance influence their actions. National Parks seem to me to be
becoming oddities. Their original purpose was to facilitate access to the
countryside by the public - but these days seem to be doing just the
reverse. Maybe their boards have been infitrated by pseudo-environmental
loonies.

* It's commonly thought that landowners are fundamentally anti public access
using motor vehicles. In general that may be true, although there are
exceptions. I'm pretty confident that the NFU and CLA are anti-laning.

These four groupings - other users, anti-vehicle groups, Highway Authorities
& National Parks and the landowner lobby are fundamentally the anti-laning
"opposition".

So, what is the pro-laning lobby?

* The Green Lane Association (GLASS) has about 800 members - most of whom
are relatively inactive & only really joined to find out where they could
legally drive. GLASS claim to represent more than 5000 people (via
affiliated clubs such as the AWDC) - though most of the affiliates are
practically more interested in thrashing around private offroad sites than
in responsible green laning.

* LARA? Tim Stevens (LARA motor development officer) is certainly a very
effective advocate - but we cannot really count members represented by LARA
without also double-counting many of the GLASS affiliated members.

* Total Offroad magazine is very clearly pro responsible green laning - and
their readership must be massively higher than the GLASS membership, even if
you count all the affiliates. This has to be positive.

* There are lots of small local 4x4 clubs that are not members of GLASS -
but then again, they are not very influential either.

In toto, it's not very impressive - is it?

It is this disparity between the pro & anti vehicle lobbies in membership,
financial clout and organisation that is the reason for the inexorable shift
towards a total loss of the public's right to drive motor vehicles on
unsurfaced routes in the countryside. I really do not think that it has
*anything* to do with damage to lanes (because there is little evidence of
that from any objective research) or even the yob element, but has
everything to do with the fact that laning is a minority interest. currently
enjoyed by only a very small number of people. We are an easy target.

To believe that not "handing out these routes to all and sundry" will have
any beneficial effect is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

If we are to halt this inexorable shift, we need to promote green laning to
the public at large - not restrict it just to those prepared to research
lanes or turn out on National Green Lane Day to wield a shovel or a pair of
loppers. Without a major increase in the numbers of people involved in &
committed to defending green laning, I fear that David Lovejoy is right when
he says in TOR that: "Whether we like it or not, within the next decade or
so we will finally lose the green lane battle."

Cheers
Andrew Kay

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:58:02 -0000, "Andrew Kay"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry Andrew I snipped the lot

>
>Cheers
>Andrew Kay
>

Just wanted to say that Andrew's assessment of the situation is pretty
good, in my view. I'm an active member of my local club and a GLASS
member but when you look at the economics of making the club a GLASS
affiliate you soon see why so few are ... the cost is out of all
proportion to any reasonable expectation of benefit to the members.
The same is true of LARA as well.

GLASS and LARA have always worked well together and long may they do
so but if either of them want to really claim to represent the grass
roots (?) laner then they must reduce the price of affiliation to
something that more closely reflects the true cost and benefits.

If we don't get our act together soon - like yesterday - then our
legal use of unsurfaced roads will disappear forever and we might just
find it happens a damn sight sooner than we imagined. Ten years? I
don't give us 5, let alone 10 :-((

Regards
Steve G

In <[email protected]> SteveG wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:58:02 -0000, "Andrew Kay"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry Andrew I snipped the lot
>
>>
>>Cheers
>>Andrew Kay
>>
>
> Just wanted to say that Andrew's assessment of the situation is pretty
> good, in my view. I'm an active member of my local club and a GLASS
> member but when you look at the economics of making the club a GLASS
> affiliate you soon see why so few are ... the cost is out of all
> proportion to any reasonable expectation of benefit to the members.
> The same is true of LARA as well.
>
> GLASS and LARA have always worked well together and long may they do
> so but if either of them want to really claim to represent the grass
> roots (?) laner then they must reduce the price of affiliation to
> something that more closely reflects the true cost and benefits.

I don't think that the cost is particularly high - the problem is that
the benefits aren't tangible. Andrew's dismissal of all the affiliated
clubs perhaps is indicative of their problem.

The RA have a large membership but the vast majority of them haven't a
clue about vehicular use and their claim to represent 130,000 members on
this issue is far less credible than GLASS's claims. Ask your average RA
member why they think they have the right to withdraw rights from other
user groups and they won't have a clue what you're on about. My local
councillor is a member because "they organise good walks", he didn't
take kindly to my suggestion that his party may not be happy about him
belonging to another political group without declaring it.

> If we don't get our act together soon - like yesterday - then our
> legal use of unsurfaced roads will disappear forever and we might just
> find it happens a damn sight sooner than we imagined. Ten years? I
> don't give us 5, let alone 10 :-((

I predicted about 8 years ago in a club magazine that VRoW would be
closed in the next ten years, so a couple of years to go and I might be
proved right :-(

The biggest threat is apathy I'm afraid. Most green lane users are sure
that somebody else will fight for them so they can continue to ignore
the issue until it's too late to do anything about it. Either that or
they are already resigned to defeat.

cheers

Dave W.
http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/

Andrew Kay <[email protected]> wrote:

> The antis include:

Oddly enough, there was a R4 program about the problems being caused to
wildlife populations by recreational use of the countryside. One ranger
commented that when they started their survey they fully expected that
the problems would be caused by vehicular use of green lanes. In stead
they discovered that other users, ramblers and horse riders in
particular were the major causes of the decline in the breeding
populations of birds.

Not only that, but whereas vehicle users read the notices and obey them,
horse riders in particular had attempted to physically assault rangers.
So why are we getting all the bad press?

--
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.

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

> I don't think that the cost is particularly high - the problem is that
> the benefits aren't tangible. Andrew's dismissal of all the affiliated
> clubs perhaps is indicative of their problem.

I certainly I didn't intend to "dismiss" affiliated clubs.

My comment was just a recognition that the majority of the membership of
many affiliated clubs such as AWDC that are included in the totals that
GLASS represent are actually "offroaders" rather than "green laners" - i.e.
they choose to use private offroad sites rather than explore the countryside
using public rights of way.

> The RA have a large membership but the vast majority of them haven't a
> clue about vehicular use and their claim to represent 130,000 members on
> this issue is far less credible than GLASS's claims.

RA do have 130,000 individual members - and that does mean that they have
many many times the financial resources of the combined pro-vehicular
organisations. They can afford to throw money at campaigninig in a way that
LARA & GLASS cannot. At the moment, GLASS cannot even afford to employ a
part time clerk. The membership income is just too small.

> Ask your average RA
> member why they think they have the right to withdraw rights from other
> user groups and they won't have a clue what you're on about.

This is much more serious than removing the rights of a few thousand people
to drive motor vehicles on unsurfaced rights of way. It is about
withdrawing *public* rights. These are the rights of nearly 60 million
people in England & Wales - and their sons & daughters in perpetuity to
access remote areas of countryside in a motor vehicle..

> The biggest threat is apathy I'm afraid. Most green lane users are sure
> that somebody else will fight for them so they can continue to ignore
> the issue until it's too late to do anything about it.

I heard yesterday that LARA are organising a number of emergency public
meetings to discuss the the recently published consultation document from
DEFRA concerning the "Use of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles on Rights of
Way". I understand that a provisional date has been set for a meeting in
Grassington at 1.00 pm on 11 January 2004. We need to get as many people
there as we can. I believe that there will be similar meetings in the
midlands & south too.

Keep an occasional eye on the GLASS website for details once they are firmed
up. Its worth a trip to http://www.glass-uk.org/ anyway if you haven't
been there recently. There are copies of the LARA, GLASS and BHS press
statements about the DEFRA consultation that you might find interesting

Cheers
Andrew Kay

I agree with all you say Andrew but I think you should also include the TRF
on the supporters side since they do a lot of work in this area.
Unfortunately I doubt that the numbers you estimate would change
significantly as a result.

Patrick


"Andrew Kay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> I've ignored the rest of your post, because I think you've raised a far
more
> important issue. Hope you don't mind - but it really wasn't going
anywhere,
> was it?
>
> > I think road books in mags are a terrible idea. If people are too lazy
to
> > investigate rights of way themselves or get taken along by knowledgeable
> > club members they shouldn't lane. It is handing out these routes to all
> and
> > sundry that is causing us to come closer and closer to a complete green
> lane
> > ban as it makes it very easy for the yob element to just go and play in
> the
> > mud
>
> Changes in legislation are required for a "complete green lane ban". It
is
> politicians who create or change legislation. Politicians at both
national
> and local level tend to be influenced by sustained & large scale
> campaigning. The simple fact is that those who are anti-laning are far
more
> effective because they are massively greater numerically and have
massively
> greater finiancial resources & organisation than those whose hobby is
green
> laning.
>
> The antis include:
>
> * The Ramblers Association, whose policies include a ban on the use of
motor
> vehicles on all unsurfaced routes in the countryside, have around 130,000
> individual members. The cyclist organisations are generally anti-vehicle.
> The British Horse Society (BHS) are at worst neutral - but only because
they
> recognise that they need the assistance of vehicular users to research
> routes.
>
> * Several small but very active anti-vehicle organisations who wield far
> more influence than they should - such as the YDGLA (Yorkshire Dales
Green
> Lane Alliance), FoTR (Friends of the Ridgway), GLEAM (Green Lane
> Environmental Action Movement), et al. Some of them claim Royalty as
> patrons & some have parliamentary stooges as vice-presidents.
>
> * Highways Authorities and National Parks seem to be increasingly
> anti-laning. Whilst the Institute of Rights of Way Officers (IRPOW) seem
> not to be, a mixture of high level lobbying and lack of resources for lane
> maintenance influence their actions. National Parks seem to me to be
> becoming oddities. Their original purpose was to facilitate access to the
> countryside by the public - but these days seem to be doing just the
> reverse. Maybe their boards have been infitrated by pseudo-environmental
> loonies.
>
> * It's commonly thought that landowners are fundamentally anti public
access
> using motor vehicles. In general that may be true, although there are
> exceptions. I'm pretty confident that the NFU and CLA are anti-laning.
>
> These four groupings - other users, anti-vehicle groups, Highway
Authorities
> & National Parks and the landowner lobby are fundamentally the anti-laning
> "opposition".
>
> So, what is the pro-laning lobby?
>
> * The Green Lane Association (GLASS) has about 800 members - most of whom
> are relatively inactive & only really joined to find out where they could
> legally drive. GLASS claim to represent more than 5000 people (via
> affiliated clubs such as the AWDC) - though most of the affiliates are
> practically more interested in thrashing around private offroad sites than
> in responsible green laning.
>
> * LARA? Tim Stevens (LARA motor development officer) is certainly a very
> effective advocate - but we cannot really count members represented by
LARA
> without also double-counting many of the GLASS affiliated members.
>
> * Total Offroad magazine is very clearly pro responsible green laning -
and
> their readership must be massively higher than the GLASS membership, even
if
> you count all the affiliates. This has to be positive.
>
> * There are lots of small local 4x4 clubs that are not members of GLASS -
> but then again, they are not very influential either.
>
> In toto, it's not very impressive - is it?
>
> It is this disparity between the pro & anti vehicle lobbies in membership,
> financial clout and organisation that is the reason for the inexorable
shift
> towards a total loss of the public's right to drive motor vehicles on
> unsurfaced routes in the countryside. I really do not think that it has
> *anything* to do with damage to lanes (because there is little evidence of
> that from any objective research) or even the yob element, but has
> everything to do with the fact that laning is a minority interest.
currently
> enjoyed by only a very small number of people. We are an easy target.
>
> To believe that not "handing out these routes to all and sundry" will have
> any beneficial effect is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.
>
> If we are to halt this inexorable shift, we need to promote green laning
to
> the public at large - not restrict it just to those prepared to research
> lanes or turn out on National Green Lane Day to wield a shovel or a pair
of
> loppers. Without a major increase in the numbers of people involved in &
> committed to defending green laning, I fear that David Lovejoy is right
when
> he says in TOR that: "Whether we like it or not, within the next decade
or
> so we will finally lose the green lane battle."
>
> Cheers
> Andrew Kay
>
>

Other meetings have been arranged for 3 January at Milton Heights near
Didcot and the evening of 16 January near Dorchester.

Patrick


[email protected]
"Andrew Kay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
SNIP
> I heard yesterday that LARA are organising a number of emergency public
> meetings to discuss the the recently published consultation document from
> DEFRA concerning the "Use of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles on Rights of
> Way". I understand that a provisional date has been set for a meeting in
> Grassington at 1.00 pm on 11 January 2004. We need to get as many people
> there as we can. I believe that there will be similar meetings in the
> midlands & south too.
>
> Keep an occasional eye on the GLASS website for details once they are
firmed
> up. Its worth a trip to http://www.glass-uk.org/ anyway if you haven't
> been there recently. There are copies of the LARA, GLASS and BHS press
> statements about the DEFRA consultation that you might find interesting
>
> Cheers
> Andrew Kay
>
>

"Patrick Manuel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I agree with all you say Andrew but I think you should also include the
TRF
> on the supporters side since they do a lot of work in this area.

Mea culpa.

Thanks, Patrick, you are of course completely correct. The TRF do indeed to
a lot of work in defending the lanes that those of us who use 4x4s benefit
from.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

In message <[email protected]>, Exit
<[email protected]> writes

>> So which Land Rovers have a towing limit for an overrun braked trailer
>> greater than the 3500kg for the LWB Trooper?
>>
>None, but SWB LR's have a higher towing limit than SWB Troopers and LR's can
>tow 4000kgs with a coupled braking system.

Mine can, It has a 'Plated' gtw of 8.5t

--
Graham Jones
110 Defender 300tdi

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:09:53 +0000 (UTC), Dave White
<[email protected]> wrote:

snipped
>>
>> GLASS and LARA have always worked well together and long may they do
>> so but if either of them want to really claim to represent the grass
>> roots (?) laner then they must reduce the price of affiliation to
>> something that more closely reflects the true cost and benefits.
>
>I don't think that the cost is particularly high - the problem is that
>the benefits aren't tangible. Andrew's dismissal of all the affiliated
>clubs perhaps is indicative of their problem.

SG: Having checked out the GLASS web site again I accept that
affiliate membership is not a lot of money but the point that I was
trying to make is that it doesn't really bear any relationship to real
costs or actual benefits to club members.

>
>The RA have a large membership but the vast majority of them haven't a
>clue about vehicular use and their claim to represent 130,000 members on
>this issue is far less credible than GLASS's claims. Ask your average RA
>member why they think they have the right to withdraw rights from other
>user groups and they won't have a clue what you're on about. My local
>councillor is a member because "they organise good walks", he didn't
>take kindly to my suggestion that his party may not be happy about him
>belonging to another political group without declaring it.
>

SG: There have been some interesting discussions on the RA forum
concerning vehicular rights. The majority of members didn't appear to
know how many miles of ROW were available to vehicle users - they
obviously thought it was more than it really is. This raises the
question of whether the RA hierarchy are being completely honest with
their won members?

>> If we don't get our act together soon - like yesterday - then our
>> legal use of unsurfaced roads will disappear forever and we might just
>> find it happens a damn sight sooner than we imagined. Ten years? I
>> don't give us 5, let alone 10 :-((
>
>I predicted about 8 years ago in a club magazine that VRoW would be
>closed in the next ten years, so a couple of years to go and I might be
>proved right :-(

SG: I don't think you'll be far off the mark. Our situation appears to
be getting worse all the time and, as you so rightly say, apathy is
our worst enemy.

>
>The biggest threat is apathy I'm afraid. Most green lane users are sure
>that somebody else will fight for them so they can continue to ignore
>the issue until it's too late to do anything about it. Either that or
>they are already resigned to defeat.
>
Regards
Steve G