MP & ex farmer seeks to make all by-ways private drives for farmers

Lifted from Dorset Echo

MP seeks byways ban for vehicles
by Peter Hawkins


Thursday 18 March 2004

MOTOR vehicles could soon be banned from all byways if a bill proposed by a
Dorset MP is passed.

MP Robert Walter wants to close a legal loophole that allows off-road
vehicles to use unsurfaced roads in the countryside.

The Conservative MP will introduce a bill to the House of Commons on March
24 under the 'ten minute rule' procedure that allows MPs to propose
legislation individually.

Mr Walter said: "Those of us who are walkers, hikers or horse riders are
continually horrified at the desecration and damage caused to some of our
byways by the inappropriate and unsustainable use of those byways by
recreational motor vehicles.

These unsurfaced roads are known as 'by-ways open to all traffic' (BOATS) or
'green lanes' and the law allows motor vehicles such as 4x4s, motorbikes and
quad-bikes to use them.

Mr Walter added: "None of Dorset's byways are designated and there are a
number of applications for BOATS on the basis that old vehicles like horse
and carts have used the road. At the moment the county council does not have
the power to say it will be open to traffic without engines, it has to
accept all vehicles."

The bill he will propose after Prime Minister's question time is based on a
proposal from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which
has just finished a consultation exercise on the subject.

It will enable councils to ban vehicles with engines but allow exceptions
for farmers or those who need the roads to access houses.

Mr Walter said that recreational use of off-road vehicles was fine 'in the
right places' but not on tracks used by walkers and riders.

The Green Lane Assoc-iation is a national group dedicated to protecting
vehicle rights and safe driving.

Spokesman Julian Poulter said: "Less than four per cent of the rights of way
network is accessible to vehicles and there is no evidence of widespread and
systematic damage to their infra-structure."

In news:[email protected],
Citizen Smith <[email protected]> fumbled, fiddled and
fingered:
> Lifted from Dorset Echo
>
> MP seeks byways ban for vehicles
> by Peter Hawkins
>
>
> Thursday 18 March 2004
>
> MOTOR vehicles could soon be banned from all byways if a bill
> proposed by a Dorset MP is passed.
>
> MP Robert Walter wants to close a legal loophole that allows off-road
> vehicles to use unsurfaced roads in the countryside.
>
> The Conservative MP will introduce a bill to the House of Commons on
> March 24 under the 'ten minute rule' procedure that allows MPs to
> propose legislation individually.
>
> Mr Walter said: "Those of us who are walkers, hikers or horse riders
> are continually horrified at the desecration and damage caused to
> some of our byways by the inappropriate and unsustainable use of
> those byways by recreational motor vehicles.
>
> These unsurfaced roads are known as 'by-ways open to all traffic'
> (BOATS) or 'green lanes' and the law allows motor vehicles such as
> 4x4s, motorbikes and quad-bikes to use them.
>
> Mr Walter added: "None of Dorset's byways are designated and there
> are a number of applications for BOATS on the basis that old vehicles
> like horse and carts have used the road. At the moment the county
> council does not have the power to say it will be open to traffic
> without engines, it has to accept all vehicles."
>
> The bill he will propose after Prime Minister's question time is
> based on a proposal from the Department for Environment, Food and
> Rural Affairs which has just finished a consultation exercise on the
> subject.
>
> It will enable councils to ban vehicles with engines but allow
> exceptions for farmers or those who need the roads to access houses.
>
> Mr Walter said that recreational use of off-road vehicles was fine
> 'in the right places' but not on tracks used by walkers and riders.
>
> The Green Lane Assoc-iation is a national group dedicated to
> protecting vehicle rights and safe driving.
>
> Spokesman Julian Poulter said: "Less than four per cent of the rights
> of way network is accessible to vehicles and there is no evidence of
> widespread and systematic damage to their infra-structure."

Oooo just what we need ... more restrictive legislation.

Welcome to the UK in the new millenia.


--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

K100RS SE
F650
(not forgetting the SK90PY)

Lifted From - Register of Members' Interests

WALTER, Robert (North Dorset)

1. Remunerated directorships
Silver Apex Films Ltd.

8. Land and Property
Residential investment property in London.
Farmland in Devon.


Slight conflict of interest here maybe?

Hardly surprising he feels that only farmers vehicles should be the only
vehicles allowed to continue damaging our neglected footpaths, bridleways
and by-ways!!!

My feeling is that farmers must be stopped from using footpaths and
bridleways on their land that are not designated as having vehicular rights
and if a ban is to be imposed on members of the public in 4x4s (or cars as
in my case) using by-ways then it should cover farmers and landowners as
well. The bloody mess they create is clearly evident along farm tracks which
are designated footpaths or bridleways (not by-ways) and are on their land
or they have the landowners permission to use a vehicle over them!

These lot just want more of our ROW network re-classified so they have more
of it to use as their private driveways! It won't improve the conditions for
walkers underfoot one tiny bit.

In article <[email protected]>, Citizen Smith
<[email protected]> writes
>
>Slight conflict of interest here maybe?
>
>Hardly surprising he feels that only farmers vehicles should be the only
>vehicles allowed to continue damaging our neglected footpaths, bridleways
>and by-ways!!!

We have been here before. Do you have some alternative suggestion as to
how farmers should access their land if they don't already have private
rights?
>
>My feeling is that farmers must be stopped from using footpaths and
>bridleways on their land that are not designated as having vehicular rights
>and if a ban is to be imposed on members of the public in 4x4s (or cars as
>in my case) using by-ways then it should cover farmers and landowners as
>well. The bloody mess they create is clearly evident along farm tracks which
>are designated footpaths or bridleways (not by-ways) and are on their land
>or they have the landowners permission to use a vehicle over them!

It would be unusual for farm vehicles to use a footpath. With regard to
the 68" centre ruts in my bridleways, er.. touché!
>
>These lot just want more of our ROW network re-classified so they have more
>of it to use as their private driveways! It won't improve the conditions for
>walkers underfoot one tiny bit.

Hardly. There might be an interest in discouraging vehicular access to
farmland for the purpose of poaching. Deer seem to be the current
target.

regards
>
>

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Citizen
> Smith <[email protected]> writes
>>
>> Slight conflict of interest here maybe?
>>
>> Hardly surprising he feels that only farmers vehicles should be the
>> only vehicles allowed to continue damaging our neglected footpaths,
>> bridleways and by-ways!!!
>
> We have been here before. Do you have some alternative suggestion as
> to how farmers should access their land if they don't already have
> private rights?
>>
I don't think anyone minds farmers using byways open to all traffic, hence
the name. It's turning them into farmers only tracks that is the problem.

>> My feeling is that farmers must be stopped from using footpaths and
>> bridleways on their land that are not designated as having vehicular
>> rights and if a ban is to be imposed on members of the public in
>> 4x4s (or cars as in my case) using by-ways then it should cover
>> farmers and landowners as well. The bloody mess they create is
>> clearly evident along farm tracks which are designated footpaths or
>> bridleways (not by-ways) and are on their land or they have the
>> landowners permission to use a vehicle over them!
>
> It would be unusual for farm vehicles to use a footpath. With regard
> to the 68" centre ruts in my bridleways, er.. touché!
>>
But sadly not unusual round here for them to plough up any footpath that
crosses an arable field.

>> These lot just want more of our ROW network re-classified so they
>> have more of it to use as their private driveways! It won't improve
>> the conditions for walkers underfoot one tiny bit.
>
> Hardly. There might be an interest in discouraging vehicular access to
> farmland for the purpose of poaching. Deer seem to be the current
> target.
>
Must admit I've never met any poachers who bother to check the legal status
of the track they are driving on before poaching myself.

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

In article <[email protected]>, Exit
<[email protected]> writes
>>>
>I don't think anyone minds farmers using byways open to all traffic, hence
>the name. It's turning them into farmers only tracks that is the problem.

Umm. From bits in the agricultural press, I thought that the proposed
legislation concerned newly claimed vehicular rights rather than changes
to existing.

The tone seemed to be that proof that a route had been used historically
by horses and carts should not lead to a right for access by modern
motor vehicles. IMBW

snip

> The bloody mess they create is
>>> clearly evident along farm tracks which are designated footpaths or
>>> bridleways (not by-ways) and are on their land or they have the
>>> landowners permission to use a vehicle over them!
>>
>> It would be unusual for farm vehicles to use a footpath. With regard
>> to the 68" centre ruts in my bridleways, er.. touché!
>>>
>But sadly not unusual round here for them to plough up any footpath that
>crosses an arable field.

As they are fully entitled to do; subject to timely and suitable re-
marking out. It is illegal to plough a field edge bridleway or footpath.
>
>>> These lot just want more of our ROW network re-classified so they
>>> have more of it to use as their private driveways! It won't improve
>>> the conditions for walkers underfoot one tiny bit.
>>
>> Hardly. There might be an interest in discouraging vehicular access to
>> farmland for the purpose of poaching. Deer seem to be the current
>> target.
>>
>Must admit I've never met any poachers who bother to check the legal status
>of the track they are driving on before poaching myself.

Not a daily occurrence certainly but you must have noticed the spread of
blocked field access points emanating from urban/ruralboundaries. Logs
in gates, ditches and other obstacles where vehicles could conceivably
get off the road. 4x4 ownership is not restricted to the honest members
of this group.

One problem perceived by farmers and landowners is that the new access
rights to open country may lead to obstruction by parked vehicles as new
users seek to enjoy this freedom. On rising land hard surfaced roads
often lead to the sort of tracks we are discussing.

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Exit
> <[email protected]> writes
>>>>
>> I don't think anyone minds farmers using byways open to all traffic,
>> hence the name. It's turning them into farmers only tracks that is
>> the problem.
>
> Umm. From bits in the agricultural press, I thought that the proposed
> legislation concerned newly claimed vehicular rights rather than
> changes to existing.
>
> The tone seemed to be that proof that a route had been used
> historically by horses and carts should not lead to a right for
> access by modern motor vehicles. IMBW
>
I've never heard of a 'newly claimed ROW' from a vehicular point of view. I
was always under the impression on the times I've been out with local county
ROW to reinstate lanes that all that was needed was evidence of 10 years
continuous use. The reason for lanes being reclaimed by the rights of way
officer were that private individuals had taken it upon themself to ignore
the law and in some way impede the use of the queens highway. In one case
this was because a guy with a nice cottage had extended his garden across an
infrequently used lane, but generally it was because some farmers seem to
think there is a difference between a legal highway with tarmac and one
without. There is not.

> snip
>
>> The bloody mess they create is
>>>> clearly evident along farm tracks which are designated footpaths or
>>>> bridleways (not by-ways) and are on their land or they have the
>>>> landowners permission to use a vehicle over them!
>>>
>>> It would be unusual for farm vehicles to use a footpath. With regard
>>> to the 68" centre ruts in my bridleways, er.. touché!
>>>>
>> But sadly not unusual round here for them to plough up any footpath
>> that crosses an arable field.
>
> As they are fully entitled to do; subject to timely and suitable re-
> marking out. It is illegal to plough a field edge bridleway or
> footpath.
>>
Quite, but I do not see how forcing walkers to walk on a ploughed field is
any worse than making them walk on a rutted road.

>>>> These lot just want more of our ROW network re-classified so they
>>>> have more of it to use as their private driveways! It won't improve
>>>> the conditions for walkers underfoot one tiny bit.
>>>
>>> Hardly. There might be an interest in discouraging vehicular access
>>> to farmland for the purpose of poaching. Deer seem to be the current
>>> target.
>>>
>> Must admit I've never met any poachers who bother to check the legal
>> status of the track they are driving on before poaching myself.
>
> Not a daily occurrence certainly but you must have noticed the spread
> of blocked field access points emanating from urban/ruralboundaries.
> Logs in gates, ditches and other obstacles where vehicles could
> conceivably get off the road. 4x4 ownership is not restricted to the
> honest members of this group.
>
Indeed and being a farmer does not automatically make you law abiding, as
the illegal obstructions you describe demonstrate. The law does not allow
farmers to break one law to try to prevent another one. Use of tarmaced
roads is not only restricted to the law abiding, but if your house was
burgled, would you propose making the road outside your house pedestrians
only?

> One problem perceived by farmers and landowners is that the new access
> rights to open country may lead to obstruction by parked vehicles as
> new users seek to enjoy this freedom. On rising land hard surfaced
> roads often lead to the sort of tracks we are discussing.
>
> regards

As I say, I have never heard of establishing new vehicular rights of way -
in my 15 years of laning i have only ever heard of protecting established
rights of way and going out with repair parties to maintain them at my own
cost. If you have any evidence of people trying to establish new vehicular
rights, please post them as I would be fascinated to see them.

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

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

> As I say, I have never heard of establishing new vehicular rights of way -
> in my 15 years of laning i have only ever heard of protecting established
> rights of way and going out with repair parties to maintain them at my own
> cost. If you have any evidence of people trying to establish new vehicular
> rights, please post them as I would be fascinated to see them.

It's not possible to establish a *new* vehicular right of way, unless some
public spirited landowner were to take it into his head to dedicate some
previously private (use) track across his land as a public road. Not
likely, in my opinion unless some overwhelming commercial interest demanded
that (though I cannot imagine what it might be).

It is possible, however, to have existing vehicular rights of way recorded
on a Definitive Map as a BOAT (Byway Open to All Traffic) providing that
there is sufficient evidence to do so. Maybe that is what Tim meant.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

In article <[email protected]>, Exit
<[email protected]> writes
>> The tone seemed to be that proof that a route had been used
>> historically by horses and carts should not lead to a right for
>> access by modern motor vehicles. IMBW
>>
>I've never heard of a 'newly claimed ROW' from a vehicular point of view. I
>was always under the impression on the times I've been out with local county
>ROW to reinstate lanes that all that was needed was evidence of 10 years
>continuous use. The reason for lanes being reclaimed by the rights of way
>officer were that private individuals had taken it upon themself to ignore
>the law and in some way impede the use of the queens highway. In one case
>this was because a guy with a nice cottage had extended his garden across an
>infrequently used lane, but generally it was because some farmers seem to
>think there is a difference between a legal highway with tarmac and one
>without. There is not.

I am quite likely mixing bits of information from different sources.

The CLA stance concerns the re-classification of RUPPs to restricted By-
ways.

Elsewhere ISTR a private members bill concerning claimed/existing
vehicular rights due to use by horse and cart historically. Whether this
was to remove rights or to prevent them being claimed is beyond my
knowledge.

FYI my BOAT is open, not rutted and regularly accessed by considerate
4x4 drivers

oops over snipped

>Indeed and being a farmer does not automatically make you law abiding, as
>the illegal obstructions you describe demonstrate.

But they are not illegal unless the Highway Authority considers them a
hazard or they obstruct a public right of way.

>
>As I say, I have never heard of establishing new vehicular rights of way -
>in my 15 years of laning i have only ever heard of protecting established
>rights of way and going out with repair parties to maintain them at my own
>cost. If you have any evidence of people trying to establish new vehicular
>rights, please post them as I would be fascinated to see them.

No references but I believe people spend time researching the Land
Inclosure Acts looking for public access rights.

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Exit
> <[email protected]> writes
>>> The tone seemed to be that proof that a route had been used
>>> historically by horses and carts should not lead to a right for
>>> access by modern motor vehicles. IMBW
>>>
>> I've never heard of a 'newly claimed ROW' from a vehicular point of
>> view. I was always under the impression on the times I've been out
>> with local county ROW to reinstate lanes that all that was needed
>> was evidence of 10 years continuous use. The reason for lanes being
>> reclaimed by the rights of way officer were that private individuals
>> had taken it upon themself to ignore the law and in some way impede
>> the use of the queens highway. In one case this was because a guy
>> with a nice cottage had extended his garden across an infrequently
>> used lane, but generally it was because some farmers seem to think
>> there is a difference between a legal highway with tarmac and one
>> without. There is not.
>
> I am quite likely mixing bits of information from different sources.
>
> The CLA stance concerns the re-classification of RUPPs to restricted
> By- ways.
>
Yes, they want to turn roads into 'not' roads to suit their own selfish
purpose I'm afraid.

> Elsewhere ISTR a private members bill concerning claimed/existing
> vehicular rights due to use by horse and cart historically. Whether
> this was to remove rights or to prevent them being claimed is beyond
> my knowledge.
>
Correct and the original footpath rights were established by people wearing
doublet and hose, not kagools and walking boots, so perhaps we should remove
all ROW while we're modernising? ;-)

> FYI my BOAT is open, not rutted and regularly accessed by considerate
> 4x4 drivers
>
YOUR BOAT? Now you really do sound like a farmer! ;-)

> oops over snipped
>
>> Indeed and being a farmer does not automatically make you law
>> abiding, as the illegal obstructions you describe demonstrate.
>
> But they are not illegal unless the Highway Authority considers them a
> hazard or they obstruct a public right of way.
>
I am only referring to ones on ROW - if it's not a ROW the farmer can build
what he likes AFAIAC.

>>
>> As I say, I have never heard of establishing new vehicular rights of
>> way - in my 15 years of laning i have only ever heard of protecting
>> established rights of way and going out with repair parties to
>> maintain them at my own cost. If you have any evidence of people
>> trying to establish new vehicular rights, please post them as I
>> would be fascinated to see them.
>
> No references but I believe people spend time researching the Land
> Inclosure Acts looking for public access rights.
>
Sounds like walkers to me - your local council ROW officer would explain it
is pretty much impossible to establish a vehicular ROW that way. Sounds like
more CLA scaremongering to me.
--
Julian
---------
= Pretentious Sig required =

> Must admit I've never met any poachers who bother to check the legal
status
> of the track they are driving on before poaching myself.
>
You've been poached? Glad to see you escaped before they managed to get you
in the pot!

SimonJ wrote:
>> Must admit I've never met any poachers who bother to check the legal
>> status of the track they are driving on before poaching myself.
>>
> You've been poached? Glad to see you escaped before they managed to
> get you in the pot!

It wasn't too bad really, bit like a very hot jacuzzi. . . . .

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

good job hope it works
only takes half a dozen 4X4 to ruin a footpath.
whats wrong with walking you lard buckets?
bad enough you cretins parking landcrusiers outside my house to pick up
your sickly sprog because its its too hard too walk a mile home it so
important to have 4 X4 drive to go to sainsburys.
BIG CAR little dick
"Citizen Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lifted from Dorset Echo
>
> MP seeks byways ban for vehicles
> by Peter Hawkins
>
>
> Thursday 18 March 2004
>
> MOTOR vehicles could soon be banned from all byways if a bill proposed by
a
> Dorset MP is passed.
>
> MP Robert Walter wants to close a legal loophole that allows off-road
> vehicles to use unsurfaced roads in the countryside.
>
> The Conservative MP will introduce a bill to the House of Commons on March
> 24 under the 'ten minute rule' procedure that allows MPs to propose
> legislation individually.
>
> Mr Walter said: "Those of us who are walkers, hikers or horse riders are
> continually horrified at the desecration and damage caused to some of our
> byways by the inappropriate and unsustainable use of those byways by
> recreational motor vehicles.
>
> These unsurfaced roads are known as 'by-ways open to all traffic' (BOATS)
or
> 'green lanes' and the law allows motor vehicles such as 4x4s, motorbikes
and
> quad-bikes to use them.
>
> Mr Walter added: "None of Dorset's byways are designated and there are a
> number of applications for BOATS on the basis that old vehicles like horse
> and carts have used the road. At the moment the county council does not
have
> the power to say it will be open to traffic without engines, it has to
> accept all vehicles."
>
> The bill he will propose after Prime Minister's question time is based on
a
> proposal from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which
> has just finished a consultation exercise on the subject.
>
> It will enable councils to ban vehicles with engines but allow exceptions
> for farmers or those who need the roads to access houses.
>
> Mr Walter said that recreational use of off-road vehicles was fine 'in the
> right places' but not on tracks used by walkers and riders.
>
> The Green Lane Assoc-iation is a national group dedicated to protecting
> vehicle rights and safe driving.
>
> Spokesman Julian Poulter said: "Less than four per cent of the rights of
way
> network is accessible to vehicles and there is no evidence of widespread
and
> systematic damage to their infra-structure."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

martin woodhead ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> good job hope it works
> only takes half a dozen 4X4 to ruin a footpath.
> whats wrong with walking you lard buckets?
> bad enough you cretins parking landcrusiers outside my house to pick
> up
> your sickly sprog because its its too hard too walk a mile home it so
> important to have 4 X4 drive to go to sainsburys.
> BIG CAR little dick

Ah, not just a troll, but a top-posting illiterate troll. I thought the
schools had gone back already?

Has it not occurred to you that most of us who use 4x4s for what they are
intended are just as contemptuous of the school-run soft-roaders as you
are? Even more contemptuous of the illegal pondlife that actually do the
damage?

Besides, is having over 95% of the byways in this country exclusively for
non-motorised use not enough for you? Ever heard the phrase "live and let
live"?

Oh - and if you bother to do a bit of basic research, you'll find that most
of the surface damage is actually done by agricultural machinery (a lot
more weight, and heavily cleated tyres) or horses (sharp percussive impact
on a very small ground area), not by 4x4s travelling responsibly.

It's OK, though, we won't fit under your bridge.

good job hope it works
only takes half a dozen 4X4 to ruin a footpath.
whats wrong with walking you lard buckets?
bad enough you cretins parking landcrusiers outside my house to pick up
your sickly sprog because its its too hard too walk a mile home it so
important to have 4 X4 drive to go to sainsburys.
BIG CAR little dick
"Citizen Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lifted from Dorset Echo
>
> MP seeks byways ban for vehicles
> by Peter Hawkins
>
>
> Thursday 18 March 2004
>
> MOTOR vehicles could soon be banned from all byways if a bill proposed by
a
> Dorset MP is passed.
>
> MP Robert Walter wants to close a legal loophole that allows off-road
> vehicles to use unsurfaced roads in the countryside.
>
> The Conservative MP will introduce a bill to the House of Commons on March
> 24 under the 'ten minute rule' procedure that allows MPs to propose
> legislation individually.
>
> Mr Walter said: "Those of us who are walkers, hikers or horse riders are
> continually horrified at the desecration and damage caused to some of our
> byways by the inappropriate and unsustainable use of those byways by
> recreational motor vehicles.
>
> These unsurfaced roads are known as 'by-ways open to all traffic' (BOATS)
or
> 'green lanes' and the law allows motor vehicles such as 4x4s, motorbikes
and
> quad-bikes to use them.
>
> Mr Walter added: "None of Dorset's byways are designated and there are a
> number of applications for BOATS on the basis that old vehicles like horse
> and carts have used the road. At the moment the county council does not
have
> the power to say it will be open to traffic without engines, it has to
> accept all vehicles."
>
> The bill he will propose after Prime Minister's question time is based on
a
> proposal from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which
> has just finished a consultation exercise on the subject.
>
> It will enable councils to ban vehicles with engines but allow exceptions
> for farmers or those who need the roads to access houses.
>
> Mr Walter said that recreational use of off-road vehicles was fine 'in the
> right places' but not on tracks used by walkers and riders.
>
> The Green Lane Assoc-iation is a national group dedicated to protecting
> vehicle rights and safe driving.
>
> Spokesman Julian Poulter said: "Less than four per cent of the rights of
way
> network is accessible to vehicles and there is no evidence of widespread
and
> systematic damage to their infra-structure."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

martin woodhead ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> good job hope it works
> only takes half a dozen 4X4 to ruin a footpath.
> whats wrong with walking you lard buckets?
> bad enough you cretins parking landcrusiers outside my house to pick
> up
> your sickly sprog because its its too hard too walk a mile home it so
> important to have 4 X4 drive to go to sainsburys.
> BIG CAR little dick

Ah, not just a troll, but a top-posting illiterate troll. I thought the
schools had gone back already?

Has it not occurred to you that most of us who use 4x4s for what they are
intended are just as contemptuous of the school-run soft-roaders as you
are? Even more contemptuous of the illegal pondlife that actually do the
damage?

Besides, is having over 95% of the byways in this country exclusively for
non-motorised use not enough for you? Ever heard the phrase "live and let
live"?

Oh - and if you bother to do a bit of basic research, you'll find that most
of the surface damage is actually done by agricultural machinery (a lot
more weight, and heavily cleated tyres) or horses (sharp percussive impact
on a very small ground area), not by 4x4s travelling responsibly.

It's OK, though, we won't fit under your bridge.