We monitor, as closely as we can, whatever sources of information about off-roader thinking that we can find. ... Every weekend, they defiantly use every route that is not definitely closed to them (and some that are) and proudly post details and pictures of their exploits on the web. They either do not know, or do not care, about the tide of public opinion that is running against them.

The important thing now is to send in reports of all illegal vehicular use to the police, with copies to the Park or AONB authorities and to us. The police are now taking reports from the public much more seriously. Using just evidence conscientiously and scrupulously supplied by ordinary citizens, the police are now regularly issuing what are known as Section 59 notices to offenders. These put offenders on notice that they are liable to have their vehicles confiscated if further offences are recorded during the subsequent 12 months. The public and the Park authorities are becoming more savvy in their understanding of what is legal and what is not, and police action is now much more common.

Click to expand...

floyd fan said:

This is one reason why you need to be carefull what pictures and write ups you post on an open forum. Its taken from a GLEAM newsletter.



Be aware, be very aware you ARE bieng watched.

Click to expand...

Interpretation
1. This new legislation can be a very powerful tool for controlling 4x4s and trail bikes that have been observed causing severe damage or adding to severe damage that has already been caused to public rights of way, thereby driving without reasonable consideration for other users, and causing annoyance to members of the public.
2. To implement the legislation, the observation does not necessarily have to be by a constable in uniform. To have at least one constable posted on a public right of way to make such observations would be an unsustainable drain on scarce police resources, and he would have to have at least one member of the public present to register alarm, distress or annoyance. For a constable to issue warnings is not so difficult, but to seize several vehicles and remove them from a remote rural location is a much more difficult and expensive operation.
3. The observation could perfectly well be done by a member of the public (or, better, by two corroborating but unrelated members of the public), provided they can supply the police with definitive evidence of the offending vehicle(s). This would consist of details of date, time, location, direction of travel, description of the vehicle(s) (make, colour, registration number) and if possible the driver, backed up if possible by a photograph. It is probably best for one person to take photographs, and for the other to record details of the vehicle(s), as it is almost impossible for one person to do everything. This evidence should then be supplied to the police, together with a signed statement registering the alarm, distress or annoyance of the observers, and a request for a warning to be issued or the vehicle(s) seized under s.59(2).
4. One type of vehicle that it will not be possible for observers fully to record is unregistered trail bikes with no number plates. Instead, these may be observed before or after their off-roading activities, being unloaded or loaded into a van or pickup, or onto a trailer towed by a normal road vehicle. It may be possible to record the description and registration number of the carrying or towing vehicle, and hence for the police to identify the owner of the trail bike.
5. If the police can identify such unregistered trail bikes, they can not only issue a warning or seize the vehicle for driving without reasonable consideration and for causing annoyance, but can also charge the rider with driving a motor vehicle on a public highway unlicensed and probably uninsured.
6. When a warning is issued or a vehicle seized, the police would record the vehicle and driver concerned on the Police National Computer system. There will be no difficulty in maintaining a 12-month Black List of vehicles and drivers for this purpose, available to all police forces across the country. If a constable stops an offending vehicle, or if members of the public produce definitive evidence of offending vehicles, the police can quickly and easily find out if the vehicle or its driver has received a prior warning (possibly from another police force), or if the vehicle has been seized and released, and take action accordingly.
7. If a constable seizes a vehicle in a remote rural location, he will need to have the means laid on for removing it to a secure location, possibly using a firm of vehicle removal contractors. If several seized vehicles are involved, this may pose a serious logistical problem. The constable cannot merely lock the vehicle and take the keys, leaving the vehicle where it is, because the police are responsible for its safety. If the vehicle were vandalised, the police would be responsible for the damage, and would have to pay compensation to the owner.
8. There should be no problem in holding seized vehicles in a secure location, as this is regularly done by the Traffic Division of any police force.
9. If a vehicle is seized in a remote rural location, the police have no obligation to transport the driver or passengers to any convenient location. They have to make their own way home, if necessary on foot.
10. If the police receive definitive evidence from members of the public, and identify the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle, this has the advantage that they can act in their own time, even if it is done by a different police force. They will know in advance which vehicles have to be seized, and which merely require a warning. The location from which a vehicle has to be seized and removed will probably not be remote rural, and will probably be closer to the secure location to which the vehicle will be taken.
11. One great advantage of this new legislation is that the issuing of warnings and the subsequent seizure and removal of motor vehicles is entirely a matter for the police. There is no prosecution, and hence the Crown Prosecution Service and the Magistrates’ Courts do not enter into it. The only circumstance in which a Magistrates’ Court might be involved is in s.59(6), when a person ordered to stop under s.59(3)(a) fails to do so, and is then guilty of an offence.

David Gardiner

Click to expand...