Conference terri::cars_uk

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.30                        AA or RAC?                           30 of 47
BRABAM::PHILPOTT "Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott"  10 lines  26-JUL-1990 15:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA: corporately opposed to the use of public hichways by cars

RAC: sponsor motor vehicular access to the countryside.

---

Boyttom line - you'd have to pay me a vast sum of money before I'd pay
anything into the Anti-Automobile association.

/. Ian .\

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.31                        AA or RAC?                           31 of 47
NEARLY::GOODENOUGH                                    5 lines  27-JUL-1990 11:06
                  -< Ah, you're thinking of Al Anon, right? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > AA: corporately opposed to the use of public highways by cars
    
    Eh?  This is rather a strange statement.
    
    Jeff.

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.32                        AA or RAC?                           32 of 47
BRABAM::PHILPOTT "Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott"  21 lines  27-JUL-1990 14:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No:

The AA are on record as saying that they favour BOATS (Byeways open to all 
traffic - sometimes called "green lanes", but indubitably roads) being closed to
cars at the whim of walkers and hikers.

When I queried this as precluding access to the countryside to the disabled
their corporate PR manager told me that they favoured the greater good of
the greater number, and if that meant the disabled were denied access, then
so be it.

So they (as a corporation) are opposed to the [continued] use of [some] 
legitimate highways by cars... Bear in mind that some of the oldest roads in 
Britain such as the Ridgeway, are in fact classified as BOATS - and the AA
supported the partial closure of the Ridgeway to vehicular traffic.

How long before they favour the closure of B- and C- category roads in the 
interest of minimising the polution of the countryside?

/. Ian .\

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.33                        AA or RAC?                           33 of 47
NEARLY::GOODENOUGH                                   13 lines  27-JUL-1990 16:05
                            -< Reprieve for the M4 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's a little clearer.  The M4 is a public highway.  I didn't
    understand why the AA should be in favour of banning cars from the M4.
    
    Have you seen the damage that these cowboys in 4WD off-road vehicles
    have done to byways in recent years?  It seems to be a trendy thing to
    do these days - which spoils it for the small number of people who have
    been using these tracks for years without a problem (simply because of
    their small numbers).
    
    I don't see how you can ban some people from using byways and not
    others.
    
    Jeff.

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.34                        AA or RAC?                           34 of 47
NEARLY::GOODENOUGH                                    8 lines  27-JUL-1990 16:10
                                 -< Addendum >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > I don't see how you can ban some people from using byways and not
    > others.
    
    (Quoting my own note) - I just re-read your reference to the disabled.
    I can now see how you *can* ban some people - only allow those with a
    legitimate need for access (such as the disabled).
    
    Jeff.

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.35                        AA or RAC?                           35 of 47
BRABAM::PHILPOTT "Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott"  22 lines  27-JUL-1990 16:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re .33:

I have seen damage: most of it caused by "giant" 4wd tractors. Bigger, heavier
and with a much higher ground pressure than anything available to the typical
member of the public. The sight of a big tractor churning through the mud is a 
sight to bring tears to the eyes of any ecologically aware person.

People complain of ATVs (trikes and quadrunners) yet in most cases they are 
banned from byeways, since the byeways are highways and as such can only be
used by registered, insured and taxed vehicles, and you can only register an
ATV if you are a farmer or forestry worker...

In a typical period I see 10-12 heavy duty tractors on the byways for every
"4wd cowboy" - to make it worse the planned limited closure of the Ridgeway
(for example) doesn't apply to the farmers - the main cause of damage...

Incidentally the RAC favours limiting access to those with a disabled persons
badge where there is an overwhelming case for restricting vehicular access. The 
AA favour total closure...

/. Ian .\

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.36                        AA or RAC?                           36 of 47
NEARLY::GOODENOUGH                                    6 lines  27-JUL-1990 17:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continuing the rathole... I am going on TV news items where the damage
    to certain byways was purely caused by the I've-got-a-new-toy cowboys.
    
    Maybe they were off to make some more corn circles ...
    
    Jeff.

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.37                        AA or RAC?                           37 of 47
SHAPES::KINGHORNJ "Mine's a pint of Wallop"          21 lines  27-JUL-1990 17:22
                            -< Ridgeway Vandalism >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seen on the Ridgeway last year:
    
    A 4WD macho man hacking away the vegetation 'cos his nice new shiny
    
    Range-Rover was well over to the left of the track out of the 2ft deep
    
    ruts and he didn't wan't the nasty bushes to scratch his status symbol!
    
    The farmers do NEED access to their crops, fields etc and yes the
    
    tractors do their share of damage but their is really no NEED for
    
    for the Range-Rover to be there in the first place - If you want to see
    
    the Ridgeway properly WALK it! 
    
    BTW I've never seen any disabled people driving on the Ridgeway maybe there
    
    isn't as much demand as you think or maybe they value their cars too
    
    much.

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.38                        AA or RAC?                           38 of 47
BRABAM::PHILPOTT "Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott"  39 lines  30-JUL-1990 14:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am registered disabled.

I drive the ridgeway... if you haven't seen me ... TOUGH

Tractors etc have tyres that are *DESIGNED* to damage the environment (the 
heavy spade like tread is designed to shift mud and topsoil to allow grip 
much as a road tyre shifts water). And just as we have said elsewhere about 
trucks, the heavier vehicle (and tractors are heavier) does much more damage 
to the ground than a lighter one...

However all of this is irrelevant, ... I still find it <enter expletive> for
a *MOTORING* organisation like the AA to support the abrogation of our
rights as motorists to drive some of the oldest roads in Britain.

A Range Rover driver has no more right to cut his own track than a walker has
to arbitrarily walk through a corn field: a right of way is a right to traverse
a specific path - not the land just to one side of it, or an arbitrary new
path because the right of way is hard to cross...

Last year the ministry conducted a survey of the use of the Ridgeway (Britain's 
oldest road) and came up with the following:

	agricultural machine movements:	74%
	motor bikes			14%
	4wd [private] cars		 6%
	other commercial traffic	 5%
	miscellany			 1%

I wouldn't be allowed to drive on the highway with studded tyres - they 
might damage the roadway - so why are farmers allowed to drive on public
roads - and BOATs are public roads - using tyres designed to erode the soft
top soil from the land?

In terms of tyre design, axle weight and volume of use farmers are massively 
guilty of being the "non-green" road users, yet it is the occasional 
recreational 4wd user that carries the blame. Something is wrong here...

/. Ian .\

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.39                        AA or RAC?                           39 of 47
IOSG::MITCHELL "Elaine"                              12 lines  30-JUL-1990 15:17
                   -< Most of the damage done by a minority >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    We've just cancelled our AA membership because of their attitude to
    green lanes. The RAC support 'sensible' use of these highways, and
    produce a series of guidelines - in the spirit of the country code, for
    anyone wishing to take their 4WD vehicle on these routes. 
    
    As in many things, it is the selfish and unthoughtful behaviour of the
    few which attracts bad publicity for the majority.
    
    Elaine
    
    

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.40                        AA or RAC?                           40 of 47
IOSG::MARSHALL "Harry Palmer"                         6 lines  30-JUL-1990 15:25
                            -< Lost of Reading... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you get to the Ridgeway from Reading?

Where is there a convenient place to park (eg near a pub ;-) for walking a few
miles along it?

Scott

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.41                        AA or RAC?                           41 of 47
BRABAM::PHILPOTT "Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott"  19 lines  30-JUL-1990 15:50
                                -< Ridgeway... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Reading: go North to Streetley, and follow the signs to the golf course
(roughly north from the traffic lights, left and left again) and park at the
end of the black top, then walk...

The section from Streetley to the A34 is driveable - I've even seen a Ford 
Escort up there on good dry conditions, but I wouldn't recomend it. There is a 
few inches of soil over limestone, so despite comments it doesn't erode (here)
very much. The section from the A34 to the M4 past the white horse is badly
eroded (cowboys I'm afraid...) and I wouldn't recomend you drive it either 
alone or in a two wheel drive vehicle...

It's a very pleasant walk and the views are superb.

Alternatively park in Goring (over the river) and follow the foot path signs
to South Stoke via the Leatherne Bottle pub along the Thames... (this section 
isn't a BOAT - you can't drive it). Beyond South Stoke the path continues 
across Oxfordshire...

/. Ian .\

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.42                        AA or RAC?                           42 of 47
OVAL::KERRELLD "Dave Kerrell CVACT"                   5 lines  31-JUL-1990 15:53
                   -< rathole continues but do green lanes? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What legal status do "Green Lanes" have? I ask because I heard that 
Hertfordshire CC Highways Dept. are to "abandon" one at Bennington. 
I think they mean they no longer intend to maintain it.

Dave.

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.43                        AA or RAC?                           43 of 47
BRABAM::PHILPOTT "Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott"  32 lines  31-JUL-1990 16:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no such thing as a "green lane"

There is however a "Byeway open to all traffic" (BOAT) which the county council
*must* maintain. There have - since WWII - been a steady flow of such byeways
being downgraded to "roads used as footpaths" or bridlepaths usually to save 
money or to reduce the mandatory width hence freeing up land for the farmers...
However about 5000 miles still remain (the Newbury sheet of the 1:50000 Ordnance 
Survey shows quite an impressive number, not just the Ridgeway, which they 
incorrectly show at lower classifications - usually bridlepaths - in some sections, 
despite it being clearly shown on the ground by trail side signs to be a BOAT).
Some counties now have hardly any left (you won't find many in Oxfordshire on 
Lincolnshire for example) - in some cases they have been blatantly ploughed 
under by farmers. Walkers continue to walk them of course, but when people
complain about the obstruction to the vehicular access the county move like
greased lightening to downgrade them.

BOATS are "[unmetalled] County Unclassified Roads" in the jargon of the 
highways department.

The usual trick is for the council to survey the road after heavy rain and
declare it dangerous and introduce a roat traffic order to close it. It then 
never reopens... In some areas (eg parts of the Ridgeway) the All Wheel Drive
club (representing the four wheelers) and the Trailriders Association 
(representing the two wheelers) have been doing voluntary repair work. Notable
by their absence are the farmers...

Incidentally earlier this summer a farmer closed the Ridgeway by stringing 
barbed wire across it. This was reported by the Trailriders, but only cleared
after a race horse was injured on a morning gallop...

/. Ian .\

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.44                        AA or RAC?                           44 of 47
IOSG::MITCHELL "Elaine"                               9 lines  31-JUL-1990 17:14
                    -< Should we have a new topic, Mr Mod? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I was told that the Ordnance Survey sheets should _NOT_ be used as a
    reference for BOATS and that the only real place of reference are the
    local highways office (?). I will try to find the article written on
    the subject by the Staffs and Shropshire Landrover Assoc. I appologise
    for my use of 'green lane'  without the  " ' " :-)
    
    PS maybe we should start a new topic on the use of BOATs
    

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.45                        AA or RAC?                           45 of 47
FORTY2::QUICK "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."     12 lines  31-JUL-1990 17:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	� Walkers continue to walk them of course, but when people
	� complain about the obstruction to the vehicular access the county move like
	� greased lightening to downgrade them.

	Quite right too. Cars should NOT be allowed to drive off-road for fun.
	The English countryside is already being ruined by roads built specifically
	for cars, why the hell should the bits not already covered in tarmac be
	ruined by an inconsiderate few tearing it up in 4wd vehicles or on scramble
	bikes. Non-tarmac'ed byways should be reserved for people and horses.
	Especially horses.

	Jonathan (who drives a Range Rover because he *has* to).

            <<< MARVIN::DISK$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARS_UK.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< CARS_UK conference >-
================================================================================
Note 225.46                        AA or RAC?                           46 of 47
VANTEN::MITCHELLD "23=>42|skate=>Answer"              7 lines  31-JUL-1990 17:34
                  -< 4wd tractors not neccessarily 4wd cars >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>by an inconsiderate few tearing it up in 4wd vehicles or on scramble
>>bikes.

	Control works better than total ban

Btw 4wd user pay road fund licence shouldnt some of this 
excessive tax be used to maintain "green roads"

set note/note_id would have been neater.

Dave.

	� Control works better than total ban

	I don't see why... people will always pretend they're allowed to be
	somewhere they shouldn't be... the number of people I've come across
	on Forestry Commision land near where I live who claim to be "official"
	is incredible... ranging from picnic'ers who for some reason won't use
	the official areas to 4wd 'enthusiasts" chasing deer in their japanese
	countryside destroying atvs... they all incense me, and my favourite
	pastime is to get my horse to kick their cars, then send them the
	farriers fees for re-shoeing (which they *have* to pay).

	I agree with the point about the destruction done by farmers, I know
	many farmers in Suffolk, and they are some of the most "un-green" people
	around... they treat the land they own as nothing more than a means of
	making money. There are a few exceptions, those who have gone back to
	organic methods because they are concerned about the environment, but on
	the whole farmers are only concerned about farming, and care less about
	the appearance of the countryside than the average litter lout.

	They do at least have a genuine reason for driving off road, which is
	not true of 4wd clubs. I don't btw believe in this "irresponsible
	minority" of 4wd drivers, they are *all* irresponsible, or they wouldn't
	be tearing around green lanes in the first place.

	Why do they do it, I wonder? The thrill of turning a grass track into a
	mud bath? The excitement of destroying the habitat of local wildlife?
	The sense of danger they get from using a couple of tons of iron to
	crush plants and small animals?

	Close all BOATS!

	Jonathan.

Is groups of horseriders two or three abreast on narrow roads making
it impossible for cars to pass.

If .-1 wants motor vehicles banned from BOATs, then how about banning horses
from roads?  How much road fund licence do horses/riders pay?

Perhaps I should drive into some of these horses, then send the owners a bill
for a new bumper?

I find your pleasure in damaging cars then charging the owners rather
distasteful.  Yes I agree some off-road users are irresponsible.  Having known a
few of them, I do not agree that all are.  I think a bit of "live and let live"
is called for: when every single road-going horse rider behaves perfectly, then
horse riders can criticise BOAT-going cars.

There are too many people who want rules changed so that they can do what they
want without interference from anyone doing anything different.  After x
thousand years of civilisation, when will people learn to be tolerant and
sharing?

Scott

Under what misguided laws does the motorist "have to pay" to have your horse
re-shoed after it has kicked that person's car?

I would have thought the horse rider should be jumped on for failing to control
the animal and causing criminal damage!

Scott

>>           <<< Note 1172.18 by OVAL::KERRELLD "Jeg elsker musa mi" >>>

>>set note/note_id would have been neater.

>>Dave.

    Feature not supported by conference!!
    
    Richard

    
    re .20, I agree with Scott. Yes, a 4WD meeting can cause damage, _but_ a
    one-day meeting, where routes/trials have been designed to limit
    damage, will in the long run do far less harm to the environment than
    the constant pollution from other sources. (Fertilizers destroying
    streams/ponds, - litter, from picnic-ers/walkers/farmers etc)
    Problems occur where the concentration of inconsiderate usage is 
    too great.
    
    As I said before there are irresponsible people in all recreations -
    the other day I was out in some woods near us, on a footpath/bridlepath, 
    which had several barriers erected in what looked like jumps for horses, 
    which we had to climb over, not to mention having to watch were we put 
    our feet!  

	Re. the last couple...

	I quite agree with the points about horses on roads, they basically
	should not be allowed. I don't ride my horse on roads except to cross
	them, and when I do I am insured for some ridiculous sum against
	possible damage to third parties. This insurance isn't currently
	compulsory for some reason, neither is it necessary to take any form
	of test before riding a horse on a road. The law should be changed
	in this respect.

	The mis-guided law whereby the car driver pays for the horse rider's
	expenses is basically one that states that the car owner is at fault
	for just being there in his vehicle, which he shouldn't be. Incidentally
	if you get too close to a horse on a normal road and it kicks your car,
	*you* are liable, not the horse rider (which is a bit stupid really).
	You can also be prosecuted for sounding your horn, revving your engine,
	or behaving in any other irresponsible way towards a horse and it's
	rider, but it's quite difficult to try and apply the law the other way
	round. Horse riders can be done for being drunk in charge of their
	mount though. I must admit that I'm amazed by some of the things I've
	seen in the Ascot area, for example one rider (without a hat) leading four
	riderless horses in addition to her mount on a road to exercise them...

	Sharing is one thing, but allowing cars to destroy open countryside for
	the sake of sharing is ridiculous. And destroy they do, even if they're
	staionary with their engines running. Roads are for cars. They should stay
	there. The concept of BOATs I think dates back quite a way as far as cars
	are concerned, to days when there were perhaps a tenth of the vehicles
	around that there are today, maybe less. It must be obvious that allowing
	the same access with todays traffic, especially with this trend for 4wd
	off-roading, is not environmentally responsible.

	Dobbin.

    Walkers can cause damage to BOATS too. Some of the most popular
    paths in the National Parks have had to have artificial 'pavements'
    laid down, in an attempt to halt wear.
    
    Chris

    1. Ban all motorised vehicles from all BOATS, footpaths tracks etc.
    ('all' includes farmers tractors).
    
    2. Jail landowners who obstruct/destroy public rights of way.
    
    3. I'd also like to see the police invoke a campaign against those
    many farmers who, using unlicenced tractors etc., coat vast stretches
    of country roads with thick layers of mud etc.
    
    4. Ban all horses from public roads. In areas where these things
    are thick on the ground so too is the shit that they've deposited
    on the road, not to mention the traffic obstruction they cause.
    A horse on a metalled road is as ridiculous as a motor vehicle on
    a grass one.
    
    -John

    
    Drivers pay road tax which is used to produce Pro-poll-tax propoganda!
    
    Mark
    

    And we all pay our Poll Tax (well....) which is used to upkeep these
    BOATS.  Amongst other things.
    What sort of conditions constitute a BOAT anyway?  I know that if I saw
    one of these 4wd things tearing over some of my favourite fells inthe
    Lakes, I would resort to my trusty hammer, as I am very tempted to do
    with people who tackle them on scrambling whassits.
    
    Mikef

	Re .27...

	Well I hardly know where to start...

	� Point. Car owners pay road fund tax this is used to maintain the
	� roads and should include BOATS

	Should is debatable, but at the moment it doesn't. Keep off them.

	� cos they are not paying for their damage which they certainly cause
	� and the pollution they create. 	

	Horses do not create pollution. They leave fertiliser which if you ask
	any gardener actually promotes growth of flora. No doubt this is
	considered unnecessary as it merely gets in the way of cars. They do
	cause some damage, but no more than walkers as there are less of them.
	Perhaps all walkers should pay road tax as well. Most horse riders have
	to have permits to ride on forestry or council land, these permits costs
	money and the money is used to maintain the land on which they ride.

	� The rest...

	It is more dangerous to dismount and lead a horse across a road than it
	is to ride.
	Yes there should be compulsory headgear, profficiency tests, and standards
	of tack.
	Horses should not carry lights. They should never be ridden at night.
	Horse riders already have to obey the highway code.
	I'm not quite sure how you could test a horse for roadworthiness.
	I'm even less sure how you could fit one with an anti-pollution device,
	a large cork, perhaps?

	The whole point I was originally trying to make is that roads are created
	for cars, so why can't they stick to them and stop destroying what's left
	of the countryside? I'm quite prepared to never ride on a road again if it
	means that I will no longer be faced with cretins in cars, 4wd or otherwise,
	tearing around the forests and heaths I ride on.

	Jonathan.

    RE: the comments about farmers.
    
    In my experience they dont only destroy roads, in fact they build them
    wherever they can.
    
    About 5 years ago, wherever you went in wales (including Snowdonia) you
    would always spot a brand new very wide un-mettalled road going from
    nowhere to nowhere. It created havoc in the countryside, with
    Bulldozers making horrible scars everywhere.
    
    The scam was that the Farmer would get an 80% grant from the EEC to
    build the road for access to the land.  The contractor would
    dig a big hole and extract rubble and use it to make the road. the
    Farmer would charge the contractor for this 'quarry waste' and not only
    make up the 20% but even make a profit.  Hence the proliferation of
    roads. 
    
    Mind you, considering the number of inconsiderate tourists I've seen
    leaving gates open, dogs on the loose   etc. etc.    I sympathise with
    Farmers in some instances.
    
    Huw. (whose 2 Granfathers were peasant farmers)
    

    Ban all slower drivers than me. 
    
    Ban all who want to overtake me.
    
    Ban all vehicles of a colour I dont like.
    
    Ban horses, sheep, dogs, children, men women, mice or what.
    
    Or let us live and let live.
    
    I am quite happy for horses to be ridden on public roads, floating or
    otherwise, and for cars to be driven on the same roads. We should all
    be considerate to other road users, on wheels or otherwise, and we all
    (usually) accept rules designed to promote safety etc. So by all means
    insist on riders havig safety equipment, tack in good nick, even, if
    you must, a test of proficiency. And let the off-roaders use the BOATS
    with a similar set of safety and environment rules.
    
    But spare us the "ban everybody else" coments, PLEASE.
    
    Steve

	 Re .32

	Yes of course, let everyone do anything they please, who cares
	about the environment?

    re .32
    
    That is not my view as stated. Please re-read my note.
    
    Steve

.32 did say "set of safety and environment rules"...

Ban people who don't read notes before replying to them ;-)

Scott

	Oooops.... ok, so I didn't read it properly... my mistake.

	I don't see how cars off road *can* be made environmentally acceptable
	though. I for one don't even like carts (as in "horses and") on tracks
	as they do unnecessary damage, and they at least don't have internal
	combustion engines... they're usually limited to 1 or 2 hp as well...

	Jonathan.

    I think that certain/all animals still have priority over vehicles
    on some/most roads...
    
    Paul (not 100% sure about this...)

...Hedgehog's Revenge!

    
    re .33 This is silly, taken to it's logical conclusion, we should shoot
    the vast majority of the human race, and go back to cave dwelling, or
    on second thoughts, just shoot everyone..... everything involved in
    modern living causes environmental damage - why not ban everyone from
    the countryside - they all cause pollution. 
    
    The most important thing is to try to persuade people to use a bit of
    common sense about when and where they do things, and to let other
    people enjoy what they want to do.  
    
    Now what about golf courses........... all this keeping nature at
    bay.....

	Re .39

	Actually I think that's the ideal solution... ban everyone from
	the countryside, except, of course, those who live there (like me)...

	Jonathan (probably not serious).

    
    re .40 - what right have you to live in the countryside - no doubt
    blocking the view for anyone on one of the 'proper roads', who is trying
    to admire the scenery that they are not allowed to walk on? :-)
    
    
    

	You're right, I promise to lift my cottage up for anyone who asks
	to see the scenery underneath it...

	The track leading to my cottage is a footpath *and* bridleway btw,
	I wonder which has precedence? It's not a BOAT before anyone asks,
	and I only have vehicular access to get to and from my land, and I
	have to give way to horses and pedestrians, probably in that order.

	I know a gamekeeper who shoots "over the heads" of off-roaders, mind
	you he does the same to horse riders as well... he thinks that the
	countryside should be reserved exclusively for gamekeepers, pheasants,
	and the people who shoot the pheasants. A large number of the pheasant
	shooters are also 4wd club members, of course. Figures, really.

	Jonathan.

    And as for horses having to carry lights - they do, or at least the
    riders do, at night.  At least that's what it says in my copy of the
    Highway Code (1937 or thereabouts).
    
    Jeff.

.Back a few...


Where does the evidence spring from that proves walkers cause more damage 
than horses?

In my experience, one horse after heavy rain on a footpath cause four 
times as much damage (mud churning) as one human. I know you won't believe 
me Jonathan, so come round to my house after the next heavy rainfall and 
I'll show you a footpath being destroyed by horses.

Dave (another country dweller).

	Re .44

	The actual idea was that although one horse causes more damage than
	one human, there are more humans than horses so the walkers cause
	as much damage as the riders.

	It *was* only a theory...

    
    The 4wd club I belong to _is_ concerned about the damage which _can_ be 
    caused by vehicles, and urges all it's members to behave considerately.
    (By the way, non of the club members (as far as I know) go round
    shooting pheasants - but (rathole) from my experiences of the stupid
    birds I wish they would - several times I've nearly hit one, which was
    aparently on the grass verge and then suddenly tries to run into the
    wheels of my motorbike!)     

    
    Maybe Pheasants figure motorcyclists are the easiest prey for their
    revenge?
    
    Mark

    The last time I hit a pheasant, I took it home and eat it (it was intact).

    I've twice fallen of horses after they've been startled by pheasants
    flying out of nowhere and reared...

    Ban all pheasants! (except oven ready ones)

re .42:

shooting "over the heads" of anybody is an offensive known as "discharging
a firearm with intent to endanger". It carries a lifetime ban from owning
firearms, a fine of something like �5000 and a possible 10 year jail term.

The offending gamekeeper should probably get all three.

And you are guilty of criminally failing to report an offense by not reporting 
him to the cops incidentally...

---

On the subject of BOATS, I repeat that BOATS are roads, and the county
highways department is legally required to maintain them to a standard suitable
for safe passage by vehicular traffic. Where the money comes from I know not, 
but they have this legal duty which they must fulfil or be answerable in court.

And I, or any other car owner, has the right to be there...

If they don't have the money they have the right to institute legal procedings
to down grade the road. But until they do so it remains a road, and I have the 
right to drive it.

However BOATS *are* roads, which means that unregistered ATVs do not have the
right to be there - you need a licence plate, MOT if the vehicle is old enough, 
and insurance (which apparently horses don't need).

/. Ian .\

	Re .49

	The offending gamekeeper also shoots barn owls and kestrels,
	both of which actions I believe are illegal, and puts wires
	across bridleways to stop people riding on them, and blocks
	footpaths to stop people walking on them, and has been getting
	away with it for years. If I reported him I wouldn't feel safe
	riding in Tunstall forest knowing he was around with a 12-bore
	or maybe even a 22...

	As far as BOATS being roads is concerned, they may legally be
	so, but in my opinion shouldn't be for environmental reasons.
	They should all be downgraded. Cars should stick to metalled roads.

	There is no way I can be convinced that even a responsible off-roader
	doesn't damage the environment, what about exhaust emissions, apart
	from anything else? What about noise pollution? And all the off-roaders
	I seem to come across are anything but responsible. Maybe I'm just
	unlucky, but the next time some pr*t on a scramble bike rides circles
	round my horse revving his engine, I may well lose my sense of
	responsibility as well. The same goes for the next 4wd-er who won't
	give way on a forest track where he shouldn't be anyway.

	Privately owned horses don't currently legally need insurance, but
	most owners (myself included) have it... you'd have to be pretty silly
	to own such a valuable animal and not carry some sort cover, and all the
	policies I know of automatically insure against third party claims.
	Any form of riding establishment that rents out horses is legally
	bound to insure both clients and animals.

	Jonathan.

    Incidentally I don't care much for Horse Riders either. It's all that
    whining, gnashing and baying that goes on. Don't know how the poor
    animals put up with it all the time.
    
    Pheasants are OK though.
    
    -John

	And the smell too...

	Dobbin.

re .-2:

Johnathon, you have my sympathy with some of your points. As for the gamekeeper
I suggest you have a quiet word with the local county police force firearms
officer...

Gamekeepers have been doing this and worse for centuries. It was one of the
major problems during the period of the mass trespasses in the pre-WWII era
when ramblers rights were being defined.

I do not support any illegal road or track use. I have no time for those who 
roar around disturbing the peace and tranquility just for the hell of it. But
since what they are doing is illegal I don't see the need for further 
legislation.

Downgrading however isn't the answer: farm and forestry vehicles (the majority
of the legal current use) would continue to use the tracks anyway. Most
"green lanes" have very few four wheeled vehicles on them - the Ridgeway, one 
of the "busiest" - has only 20 movements a week on average of four wheeled 
vehicles, other than agricultural/industrial traffic.

Damage? well yes, but there *are* specialised off road vehicles (the British
made RTV pickup or Supacat work platform for example) that use "TredLite" tyres
at 2-3 psi that apply far less ground pressure than a walker or horse, and which
consequently can work on boggy land where a man a-foot would be in deep
trouble and a horse might disappear without trace. Unfortunately current
vehicle regulations (mainly type approval regs) prohibit private individuals
from registering (and hence using on a BOAT) such vehicles.

Finally before you globally downgrade all unmetalled unclassified roads (except 
I presume the numerous gravel surfaced roads that abound in some areas, and 
without which many villages would be cut off), consider the plight of the
disabled drivers: I am far from severely disabled (though I do have a badge).
Because of a leg injury I can walk perhaps a kilometre on level ground, I 
certainly couldn't walk the Ridgeway from Streetley to the tops of the downs.
I have congenital spondilosis which means that I get excruciating back pains
when riding - be it a horse or a bike - so without a vehicle I am denied
access to the countryside. I get tired of the "able bodied Mafia" attititude
that if you aren't fit you should stay home and vegetate. And before you say
lets have access only for the disabled on the newly downgraded roads, consider 
that to do so would require major legislation, and great care to avoid 
inadvertantly giving access to pathways that are not suitable for traffic.

However all of this is irrelevant: it is quite dangerous to go "green laning"
alone, for what if you should get stuck. An able-bodied driver alone would
have great difficulty in extricating himself from trouble, and if the lanes
are only open to the disabled then they cannot take along an able bodied buddy
or get a tow vehicle in if retrieval is needed. Worse if the lanes are only
open to the disabled then they will be used even less than they are today,
maintained even less than they are today by the county highways department,
and generally rapidly become undriveable. 

/. Ian .\

    
    I agree with Ian, trying to give access to only one group of people
    would be a legislators nightmare - they seem to have enough trouble
    deciding who is disabled enough to get a disabled sticker for the car!
    
    Vegitation has tremendous powers of recovey - just look how quickly
    your garden becomes a forest of weeds and brambles if left alone, or
    how quickly seldom-used paths have to be 're-opened' using more than
    just gentle persuasion! Yes I know a tree takes many years to grow -
    but if you have damaged the tree significantly - you're vehicle is not
    going to have come away unscathed!  
    
    What's so sacred about a few miles of bramble thicket anyway! (I'll
    duck and wait for the cries of outrage to start flying! :-)  ) 

	Re: the last two

	Yes, I take the point about access for the disabled, no-one should be
	prevented from enjoying the countryside, after all it's much easier to
	persuade people to preserve something when they appreciate what it is
	you're trying to preserve.

	Where providing legislation to provide vehicular access for limited groups
	only is concerned, I know it would be difficult, but I still think it would
	be better than allowing all and sundry to charge around in an unsupervised
	manner. Anyway it's the sort of thing that beurocrats (?) love.

	As far as the recovery of vegetation and non-importance of a few brambles
	goes, if it was just a few brambles I might agree, but it isn't. I don't
	actually have the figures for the numbers of species of plants and insects
	that have become extinct in the UK since the introduction of the motor car,
	but believe me it's quite significant. A large amount of this is due to urban
	and road development of course, but that's all the more reason to preserve
	the genuine countryside that is left.

	And as for off-roaders damaging trees, they don't usually damage them by
	accidentally driving into them as Elaine seems to be suggesting, they
	usually damage them by wrapping chains around them so they can winch
	themselves out of the mud bath they have created and then deliberately
	got stuck in... after all what's the point of spending ���s on a nice
	shiny new winch for your 4wd if you don't use it?

	Jonathan.

    
    I live close to several BOATS little used by motor vehicles. They are
    much used by horse-riders, who regularly act irresponsibly by charging
    along tracks irrespective of other BOAT users (children, walkers etc).
    
    On 2 occasions in the past 5 years we have seen fatal accidents in our
    road -- both created by horse-riders returning from BOATS riding in dusk 
    or dark without lights. Neither rider was prosecuted.
    
    BOATS are legal highways, available to all. Many have several hundred 
    years of usage, by all the kinds of traffic in use at the time. They
    are available for essential & non-essential use. Our rights of way
    should not be blocked by the selfish interest of minority groups in the
    '90's, but the historic status of BOATS should be preserved for future
    generations. 
    
    All that is required is tolerance & understanding between different
    user groups. 

    A lot of contributors have mentioned Road Fund License. Does anyone
    still pay this? I was under the impression that it had been replaced by
    Vehicle Excise Duty some time ago......
    
    Why mention this? Well because Excise Duty is a Tax and the monies
    collected are to be used at the Government's discretion. Funding the
    roads with this money is not obligatory for them.
    
    And as someone pointed out in a recent call for a Transport Strategy,
    asking for all Vehicle Excise Duty to be spent on roads is like asking
    for Excise Duty on Alcohol to fund drinking premises (now *theres* a
    rat-hole opportunity for you all!!).
    
    JK

	Ok then, off-roaders, what's a RUPP?

	Yes, I know it's a "road used as a public path" but what
	does that actually mean? Is it similar to a BOAT?

	Apparently the track past my cottage isn't a bridleway after
	all, but one of these RUPP things. Does this mean open warfare
	with the 4wd clubs? Can they drive up it? More to the point,
	can I ride on it?

	Worried of Hollesley.

A RUPP is a road (maintained by the county highways department) that has lost
its status as a carriageway.

In essence it is a footpath maintained by the highways department, as opposed 
to  the landowners whose land it crosses.

You shouldn't see any four wheelers on it.

/. Ian .\

I think so... I think pedestrians are allowed anywhere that has public
access. The question is, does a horse count as a pedestrian?

No a horse does not count as a pedestrian. horses are not allowed on footpaths.

/. Ian .\

Pedestrians are allowed on bridle paths....equines have right of way though.
It is the pedestrians fault if he/she/it gets trampled.

	So I can't ride a horse on a RUPP then?

	And presumably not drive on it either? Although in the deeds
	to my house it does provide a right of way along the track...
	doesn't actually state "vehicular" though.

The "BOAT", "RUPP", "Bridlepath", "Footpath" designations are *public* rights of
way. They state what you can do as a member of the public without the permission 
of the landowner.

However, if your deeds grant *you* a right of way, then it is general (you can 
drive a car over it) unless it is qualified (ie says "may drive a horse and 
carriage, or walk...")

/. Ian .\