Conference terri::cars_uk

    According to the highway code, no motor vehicles or pedal cyclists may:
    
    	- wilfully drive on a footpath by the side of any road made or set
    	  apart for the use of foot passengers (England and Wales)
    
    	- drive along a footway or footpath (Scotland)
    
    Whether 'motor vehicles' covers invalid carriages and so on, I don't
    know.
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    

Why do I need to know?

I live next to some very nice woodland, crossed by a footpath and a bridle path. 
Both are being destroyed by kids on motorbikes. My personal opinion is that
the sooner they meet a tree across the path, the better, but I'm interested
in what the law has to say.

Jc

	Motorbikes are not allowed on bridlepaths. If you like I'll
	ride my horse down it next time they're there, he'll kick the
	**** out of them and their bikes, and they'll be liable for any
	vets or farriers fees.

	Seriously though, next time they turn up, call the police.

	Jonathan.

    There are two types of rights of way for vehicular traffic that may be
    confused with footpaths/bridleways:
    
    Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) and Roads Used as Public Paths
    (RUPPs).
    
    It is illegal to drive on any other type of footpath including the
    pavement and as .3 points out, if you are bothered by people doing this
    then call the police.
    
    An Ordanance Survey map will show rights of way at the time of survey
    but your local highways authority will hold what is termed as the
    definitive map showing the status of ights of way.
    
    Incidentally, it is also illegal to willfully obstruct a right of way
    so if you are bothered by, say, motorcycles, you cannot in law erect a
    fence to stop them.
    
    

�    It is illegal to drive on any other type of footpath including the
�    pavement and as .3 points out, if you are bothered by people doing this
�    then call the police.
    
    Not only 'if you are bothered' - phone anyway.
    
    This sort of activity ends up giving ALL off-road recreation
    'a bad name' and is 'ammunition' for the arguments against
    use of vehicles on 'green lanes' (unofficial term).
    
    The AWDC and others (LARA ?) spend a lot of time and effort
    (and money ?) in defending the rights of vehicle owners (both
    car and bike) to travel on non-surfaced roads.  There are plenty
    of articles in the press which describe 'hooligans tearing up
    the countryside'.  It is events such as you have witnessed that
    lead to these articles.  Unfortunately, any law-abiding activities
    of a similar nature are put at risk by these ignorant persons.
    
�    Incidentally, it is also illegal to willfully obstruct a right of way
�    so if you are bothered by, say, motorcycles, you cannot in law erect a
�    fence to stop them.
    
    But if you were the land-ownder (or acting for said person), is it
    not legal to put up a fence across a footpath, providing that allowance
    is made for pedestrian traffic - gate/stile/whatever ?
    (certainly not applicable to bridleways or higher-class rights of way)
    
    J.R.

	� These swine may cause an end to 'green-laning'...

	Good. What the hell is the point of covering the countryside
	with revolting strips of tarmac purely for cars, only to have
	people insisting on driving the damn things on the few
	remaining non-tarmac'ed lanes. Off roaders should reserve their
	activities for their own land.

	Jonathan.

    I encountered an idiot on a motorbike when I was out riding on a bridle
    path last weekend. Fortunately, someone got his number. I was too busy
    trying to control my horse!
    
    
    GRRRR!
    
    
    Lisa.
    

>	Motorbikes are not allowed on bridlepaths. If you like I'll
>	ride my horse down it next time they're there, he'll kick the
>	**** out of them and their bikes, and they'll be liable for any

I see, picking on defenceless foxes isn't enough for you these days !!! ;-)

>	Seriously though, next time they turn up, call the police.

What they're doing is illegal, the trouble will be getting a police officer to
show enough interest to get there in time. However, depending on their ages, try
contacting their parents yourself. You may well find it'll do the trick.

M.

�	remaining non-tarmac'ed lanes. Off roaders should reserve their
�	activities for their own land.
    
    So should the fell-walkers be restricted to their own back gardens ?
    
    Sure seems a lot of 'rathole' feelings in this conference today !
    
    J.R.

	Re .9

	I think you're missing the point, but I'm not surprised.
	Just wait until I'm PM, you'll need a special off-road
	license to leave the tarmac, and it will only be issued to
	those who can prove that they *have* to drive off normal
	roads.

	Jonathan.

    
    Re .10
    
    What is the point then? I can see the similarity between off road
    cars and fell-walkers.
    
    Mark

There should be a special tax on all off road vehicles to compensate for the
damage they cause, in fact, why stop at vehicles, let's include horses as well!

/Dave.

    
    But car owners already pay road tax, horse riders don't pay that when
    they come on the road!
    
    Mark

	Re .11

	Well my point is that (IMHO) driving vehicles off the surfaces
	provided for them is undesirable. I can't see the point in
	destroying the countryside by providing these surfaces for cars
	(tarmac'ed roads) and then STILL having to put up with them
	tearing around the rest of the (relatively) unspoilt countryside.

	Cars are horrible environment destroying noise polluting mobile
	resource eating eyesores, and I don't want them interfering with
	my enjoyment of nature.

	I must admit that I'm not sure if fell-walkers are much better,
	but I don't think they use as much petrol ;-)

	Jonathan.

    
	� I must admit that I'm not sure if fell-walkers are much better,
	� but I don't think they use as much petrol ;-)
    
    	Maybe not, but they don't get to the fells on foot do they?
    
    	Oh, and when was the last time you stepped in a heap of Land Rover
        manure? (Still it's not much good on your roses! :^))
    
    	Mark
     

	� Roads ARE for cars, not horses!

	Actually, roads were originally for horses and horse drawn
	vehicles. They were around before cars you see...

	Jonathan.

    
    Maybe once (I don't remember that far back! :^)), but only bridleways 
    are primarily for horses these days.
    
    Mark

    It may have escaped some peoples attention, but the RUPP's *are* roads,
    its just that they are not tarmaced. The amount of remaining 'Green
    Lane' in this country is virtually negligible, and I don't see why
    anyone who wants to commune with nature can't find a piece of National
    Park or some such which will probably not be within a hundred miles of
    one.
    I must admit I was somewhat dismayed last time I was doing the Long
    Drag up in the Brecons, to see some idiots on 4wd 'bikes' up near the
    summit of Pen-Y-Fan, about 2 miles from the green lane where they
    should have been, and I felt like calling in an air strike, let alone a
    Chinook, but then that would waste even more Tax Payers money than I
    was already doing, wouldn't it.
    
    The reason that I quit the Ramblers Assoc. was in protest at them
    spending Sport Council money lobbying to have the sport of another
    member association abolished.
    
    Having said all that, it wouldn't bother me personally if green lanes
    are abolished, because my bike never leaves the tarmac (I hope), but I
    do object to silly b*gg*rs who have to get something stopped just
    because somebody else is enjoying themselves.
    
    And the sooner EF91 gets resurrected, and this lot go home, the better
    ;-)
    Am�d�n

As horses can not be controlled with any degree of certainty, they should not
be allowed to use the same highways as those occupied by vehicles driving at
speed. I therefore withdraw my suggestion of a tax on horses and now suggest a
ban from roads of all animals.

/Dave.

	� but I
	� do object to silly b*gg*rs who have to get something stopped just
	� because somebody else is enjoying themselves.

	Even if such enjoyment ruins everything for everyone else?
	You're probably the type who winds his stereo up to number 11 at
	4am then gets upset when people bang on the wall.

	There is such a thing as consideration for others. Driving cars
	off-road is inconsiderate, destructive, and unnecessary.

	Jonathan.

	Re .19

	� suggest a ban from roads of all animals.

	Well the term "animals" could be said to include most drivers,
	especially off-roaders.

	Jonathan.

re.21:

Maybe but what I had in mind were horses.

/Dave.

�	I think you're missing the point, but I'm not surprised.
    
    If you cannot see the similarity between 'enjoyment' of both
    off-road vehicles on a legal right of way and the wishes of
    fell-walkers (just for example) to 'leg it' about the countryside,
    then perhaps it is you who is 'missing the point'.
    
    I know there are BIG differences in the two activities, but both
    of them are based on the RIGHTS of the General Public (which are
    the rights you would like to remove - although I am sure you would
    complain somewhat if your rights were curtailed in this way).
    
    
�	Just wait until I'm PM, you'll need a special off-road
�	license to leave the tarmac, and it will only be issued to
�	those who can prove that they *have* to drive off normal
�	roads.

    A 'special license' would be a good idea if it were to be granted
    (free of charge) to those persons who are willing to show that they
    are able to drive off-road (whether for work or not) in a sensible
    manner.  What would then happen to those who 'break the rules' ?
    (the same as at present, they give the others a bad name, and
    usually get away with it).
    
    Mr.Smart entered in his reply some of the details as to where
    vehicles may, or may not, go 'off-road'.  Unfortunately, I doubt
    that he can be bothered to enter the full, lengthy description
    of 'green-laning' (nor can I), but it does not involve tearing
    up the countryside to any great degree.  It is obvious that _some_
    damage will/might arise when vehicles travel on unsealed surfaces,
    but there are 'restriction orders' enforced on lanes which suffer
    from any over-use, to allow the ground to recover.
    
    As to the damage caused by fell-walkers, I believe that there has
    been a lot of concern in the past over the great numbers of people
    that travel certain routes/hills and are causing damage there.
    I am not trying to knock fell-walkers or the like, but they are
    also quite capable of causing damage too.
    
    Another point regarding damage caused by off-roaders, they do at
    least make arrangements to keep clear these rights of way, so can
    claim to help other r-o-w users (eg, Horse Riders).  I'm not so sure
    that other organisations go to this sort of trouble...
    
    There are figures available listing the mileage available in the UK
    (well, England and Wales - Scotland have different rules) for use
    by the different 'forms of transport' - foot,horse,motor-vehicle.
    Of this, the motorised section has the least and does not deserve
    to be 'picked on' so much.  Unfortunately, people such as those
    referred to in .0 attract the 'wrong sort of attention' (whether
    on motorcycles or all-wheel-drive vehicles).
    
    If you really wanted to 'discuss' these issues (not just to have a
    simple argument) I would like you to call Liz Hurley, who is the
    All-Wheel-Drive-Club rights-of-way person.  She would be able to
    explain things both for and against vehicular access on r-o-w's.
    
    Somehow, I doubt that you would want to listen to reason.
    
    J.R.

�    And the sooner EF91 gets resurrected, and this lot go home, the better

re.22:

> Maybe but what I had in mind were horses.

well, IMHO the horses I have met on roads have been under considerably more
control than a considerable number of vehicles on the roads...

I suspect that you are not being entirely objective in this matter :-)

In fact there should be a very heavy tax on horses that use the roads. Horses
do more damage to the road surface than any normal road vehicle (exclude tanks)
This is do to to the fact that horses produce a greater lbs per sqr inch 
pressure than any rubber tyre. Couple that with the fact that most horseshoes
are made of metal, you have quite a nasty, damaging combination.

Move that combination to a dirt or mud track, that damage can be unbelievable.
Usally far in excess of the damage done 4WD vehicles.

I have seen quite an interesting comparison between horse and vehicle. A green
lane used by both horse and 4WD. A bridle path crosses the lane. The amount of
damage at this point was far more than any along the green lane. The bridle
path which we then had to walk, along had a 300% to 400% increase in damage
than the green lane that we had just left.

A but further down ther bridle was a foot path, again we had to follow it. It 
had a signpost saying Footpath only, no vehicles or horses. In fact you 
wouldn't be able to get a 4WD vehicle down it, but a motorcycle would fit.
This foot path had no signs of vehicle use, but was completely chewed up into 
a mud bath by horses hooves. I know they were horses, the prints were very
distinctive.

Peoples feet, just by walking, can sometimes do more damage then 4WD.

Simon.

�	Even if such enjoyment ruins everything for everyone else?
�	There is such a thing as consideration for others. Driving cars
�	off-road is inconsiderate, destructive, and unnecessary.
    
    It is possible to drive 'off-road' (by that, I mean driving on
    a road with an unsealed surface) and do it with consideration.
    
    Unless you come up with any sensible comments, I won't bother
    to make any further replies on the subject.  I do not 'agree to differ',
    as I feel you are only stating these 'views' with the aim of being
    controversial.  Just looking for attention ?
    
    Care to point out any interests which you hold, for which you can claim
    that your enjoyment of them is never 'inconsiderate' ?  If so, why not
    also enter a pointer to the conference you wish to be slagged off in...
    
    J.R.
    
� <<< Note 1413.20 by ROCKY::QUICK "It's no good, Melchett, I'm still bored" >>>
    
    				    It's no good, Melchett, he's still boring

	� She would be able to
	� explain things both for and against vehicular access on r-o-w's.

	I do not need these arguments explained, I am quite capable
	of assessing facts and making decisions myself, and do not need
	to listen to a load of biased propaganda from someone who belongs
	to an organisation dedicated to destroying the rural peace of
	the English countryside.

	There seems to be little point in continuing this discussion,
	as it is obvious that the average landrover-driving neanderthal
	could never even begin to understand why cars should stay on
	roads, in the same way that a glue-sniffing vandal cannot
	comprehend why it is wrong to deface a work of art.

	The petrol will run out one day, and I'll be laughing...

	Jonathan.

    Two points come to mind......
    
    1) Walkers have done almost irrepairable damage to sections of the
    Pennine Way. Logic suggests they should be banned.
    
    2) Re: .-1 and Petrol running out. That may be so, but there may also
    be other fuels. Logic also suggests: one day food will run out and
    then no one will be laughing.
    
    JK (Who finds these slanging matches depressingly predictable.)
    

>>
    
	to an organisation dedicated to destroying the rural peace of
	the English countryside.
>>
    
       I think you will find a great deal of interest in conserving the
    English countryside from a large proportion of the people who take
    their vehicles 'off road'.  All the 4wd organisations I know of take
    great pains to emphasis a responsible code of behaviour.
    
    I would like to agree with the points made by "Rut the Nut", and feel
    that you are dismissing all activities except the one you have a
    particular interest in, and are refusing to discuss the pros and cons
    of any use of the countryside.
    
  >>	The petrol will run out one day, and I'll be laughing...
    
    Don't you rely on any petroleum products.......
    
    
 >> average landrover-driving neanderthal
    
    I object, and refuse to even defend such silly comments
    
    Elaine (I suppose I also come in for abuse since I also ride a
            motorbike, which is another favorite for "one inconsiderate
            idiot = all inconsiderate idiots" )
       
    
    
    
    

    
    Petrol will run out one day, but unless someone greatly increases the
    life expectancy of humans none of us will be around to laugh about it.
    
    Mark
    
    PS Isn't this getting a bit too heated even for CARS_UK?
    
    

    Yes I agree.
    
    You wanna discuss the rights/wrongs of the world at large, go look
    at EF91 - if its available.
    
    In the broad sense you wanna talk cars, you stay here.
    
    OK ??
    
    Rich
    

     >>    In the broad sense you wanna talk cars, you stay here.
    
    Sure, the replies (mine included) have gotten away from the
    original subject - vehicles on rights-of-way.
    
    Perhaps SOAPBOX (available ?) would be more appropriate for the
    remaining 'slagging-off'...  I won't bother any more, it is a
    [motoring] subject that I feel strong on, but I've had my say.
    
    J.R.

	It's a motoring subject I feel *very* strongly about too,
	but I'll say no more.

	Jonathan.

    
    Having watched the hunt charge round on Exmoor a couple of weekends
    ago, I'm of the opinion that the Paris - Dakar rally run over the
    same route would have caused less damage to the countryside - and
    certainly been less hazardous to the health of foxes in the area.
    

Jonathan,
	During your Geneva days didn't you drive a Porsche, and haven't you
currently got a 4WD vehicle (Range Rover, or some such?). Colleagues of mine
remember you fondly - particularly your abilities in the areas of party-ing, 
timekeeping and driving!

   	From your comments - 'The petrol will run out one day, and I'll be 

laughing..." and  "Cars are horrible environment destroying noise polluting 
mobile resource eating eyesores..." it looks as though you no longer have a 
car. I'd be interested to know how you came so dramatically full-circle in 
your appraisal of the motor-car - Hollesley is a long way to ride each day to
work!

Cheers

Steve :-)

	

When the petrol (vehicle fuel) runs out, there will be no transport. With no
transport consumption of local food will be the only viable option. Normal
foods will become scarce, therefore demanding that local farm animals be used
for food. This includes horses. This means that your horse will be eaten.
Therefore you will have no transport except by foot, and bicycle.

This "landrover-driving neanderthal" will enjoy tucking into the cooked 
(hopefully) carcass of your, currently, self-preserving lunch-box.

How about you (J.Q.) Elaine, and myself go for a rid on the Ridgeway. Lets do
a comparison: vehicles / horses. I have also seen the damage done to :

A.	A field to grass
B.	A field of wheat

by a hunt, that decided they had right of way to closed fields because the fox
had decided to go there.

Now then, I am sure that you are a considerate horse rider (like the majority
of 4WD off-roaders in this conference) and don't cause excesive damage to the 
country side. A last point, I won't refer to horse riders as bigoted 
pre-historic trespassers, if you, good sir, stop refering to those of us who
own Landrovers as "landrover-driving neanderthal".

Kindest regards,
Simon.

PS. A RangeRover is only a tarted up LandRover for those who think they own 
    country side.   :-)

Re.36:

>and haven't you currently got a 4WD vehicle (Range Rover, or some such?)

The JJQ philosophy includes, "if you haven't tried it then don't knock it".

/Dave :-)

	Re .36

	Damn. Sussed.

	Re .37

	� I am sure that you are a considerate horse rider

	Only to other riders and pedestrians, unless I'm on a road.

	Re .38

	???

	As far as the general subject of off-roading goes, you're all
	missing the point and that, I think, is because you're incapable
	of understanding it. It's not to do with rights, it's not even
	that much to do with damage, it's to do with keeping remaining
	areas of unspoilt countryside free of intrusion from noisy,
	smelly lumps of metal tearing around to give some kind of macho
	kick to the occupants. Like I said, since so much of the country
	has been ruined by the provision of roads for vehicles to drive
	on, why can't you stick to them instead of inflicting your
	unwelcome presence on the few peaceful and un-tarmac'ed bits left?

	Jonathan.

	(Incidentally I haven't off-roaded the three Range-Rovers I've
	owned, except to drive up the unmade-up track to my house).

    I don't believe i just read the last reply:
    
    You don't seem to grasp what the group of 4x4's are saying here:
    
    They only used 'legal' and already created tracks. So where's the
    problem? Your driveway is a legal and already created track, and you
    drive along it. It's your property, and you have the right to drive
    along it. The 'green lanes' are public property and everyone has the
    right to access it. They are only doing the same.
    
    There's always going to be the stupid c&$#s who break rules. This is
    where the problem starts. In the States they are already cracking down
    on 4x4ing due to this kind of problem, and they have set up a group who
    "TREAD LIGHTLY" - which means that they will conserve the countryside
    and still enjoy their hobby. If you go horse riding you must appreciate
    the countryside? So do 4x4's, except they do it a different way.
    
    Don't attack the whole group just because there are some rotten apples.
    I'm sure that there are idiots with horses, and when someone comes
    along and says "BAN the horses" you, and other considerate riders will
    feel really pi$$ed off.
    
    It's a matter of enjoying what you do, and leaving things how you found
    them. There's no need to get bitchy between horse riders and 4x4's. If
    you really want to bring this subject up, then i suggest you do it in
    GENRAL::4WD. I'm sure that there you will find intelligent 4x4er's who
    "TREAD LIGHTLY".
    
    Regards,
    
    				Lewis.

    Jonathan,
    	(excuse me, just turning down the volume on the hi-fi, that's
    better) How did you know that I am the sort of person who gets up at
    4am and puts the hifi on to annoy the neighbours who kept me awake
    until 2am ?
    It doesn't surprise me to hear that you have owned 3 Range Rovers and
    never been off-road with them, the mentality about fits. (well, you
    started the personal abuse).
    You are probably also the type of person who waves madly at me from
    horseback when I approach on my motorcycle on the road. I am afraid
    that such arrogant behaviour, assuming that I am too stupid to slow
    down, causes a knee-jerk reaction from me, much to the startlement of
    the horses, after all it is possible to train a horse to be
    controllable with motorcycles/tanks/rioters around, and anyone who
    takes an untrained animal on the road deserves everything they get.
    Am�d�n
    

�    It doesn't surprise me to hear that you have owned 3 Range Rovers and
�    never been off-road with them, the mentality about fits. (well, you
    
    Ditto
    
�    takes an untrained animal on the road deserves everything they get.
    
    And anyone who makes stupid comments in notes files deserves all the
    'unpleasant' responses that they may get.
    
    
    J.R.

	Re .40, .41

	Hey kiddo, my horse isn't untrained, and is totally safe and
	controlled in the presence of vehicles when on the road. Even
	to the extent of not turning a hair the other day when an artic
	driving on a country road had to cut in really close to us to
	avoid squashing some idiot would-be Randy Mamola doing about
	mach 6 in the other direction through a set of blind bends. And
	before anyone asks, I have �2million of public liability insurance.

	As far as owning RangeRovers and not taking them offroad goes,
	I use them for towing. And the 'mentality' that you refer to
	(presumably of buying 4wd vehicles for posing purposes) is to my
	mind a good deal better than the mentality of someone who buys
	a 4wd vehicle and then finds excuses to take it off road when
	they don't have to.

	And listen, you might "not believe you read" .39, neither do I
	as your reply quite clearly indicates you didn't. I am not
	referring to people who abuse rules or legal rights of way, I am
	referring to the whole concept of off-roading, well behaved or
	otherwise, in a country the size of the UK where undeveloped land
	is at a premium and should be left alone by motorised vehicles.

	Jonathan.

	� And anyone who makes stupid comments in notes files deserves all the
	� 'unpleasant' responses that they may get.
    	� J.R.

	Been into VMSNOTES lately?

    
    Well, I had a really long and rambling note half typed when the comms
    went down.
    
    So...
    
    I don't see anything wrong with taking a 4WD vehicle down unmade roads
    (that isn't off road is it?). So, ok, Jonathon doesn't think that
    anyone should be allowed to drive 4WD vehicles down unmade roads. Why
    do you, Jonathon, think you have any more right to use these public 
    rights of way than anyone else? A lot of people think the riding
    community do a lot of damage (not to mention what many people think
    of perverts who enjoy seeing animals rip other animals to bits.) to
    the environment (I, too, have seen badly damaged FOOTpaths torn up by
    horses).
    
    If there are members of the 4WD driving community who are damaging
    bridleways or other places that they have no right to be, or are
    commiting an offence then, sure, call the Police (enough complainants
    should get some action). However, it seems you object to people having
    a good time unless it's in the way you enjoy yourself, which sounds a 
    rather selfish attitude.
    
    Mark
    
    PS I'm sure there are a huge number of cars around which would make 
    suitable tow-cars but which don't consume anything like as much
    precious fuel as a Range Rover. I suspect that, like many, you fell
    into the trap of buying the sort of vehicle aimed at you, regardless
    of what your real needs were. (Of course this can only be based on 
    your comments here, so I stand to be corrected :^))
    

 RE:<<< Note 1413.43 by ROCKY::QUICK "It's no good, Melchett, I'm still bored" >>>


 �	Re .40, .41
 �
 �	Hey kiddo, my horse isn't untrained, and is totally safe and
    
    
    	Hey, let's wait a minute. I didn't say your horse was a danger, in
    fact i pointed out that you sound a resposible rider, despite the facts
    i'm reading in this topic.
    
    RE: Mentality.
    
    This point is really becoming a bit bitchy.
    
�	referring to people who abuse rules or legal rights of way, I am
�	referring to the whole concept of off-roading, well behaved or
�	otherwise, in a country the size of the UK where undeveloped land
�	is at a premium and should be left alone by motorised vehicles.
    
    As pointed out earlier, a horse normally churns up ground more than a
    4x4... unless it's muddy, but that's another story... ;-)
    
    As i have said, the 2 SPORTS (yes they are both recognised SPORTS!) can
    easily do damage to the countryside therefore you can put them in one
    category.. ban one and you should ban the other.
    
    AND LISTEN, you might not believe you're reading this, but some idiot on
    a horse can do far more damamge than a considerate 4x4er.
    
    Regards,
    
    				Lewis.
    

    
    
    Why is it that some people in this note seem to regard the destruction
    of the countryside by horses as acceptable behaviour and the
    destruction by vehicles as unacceptable?

    Seems stupid to me.

    

�	Been into VMSNOTES lately?
    
    No thanks, it seems to be a waste of time - due to the unhelpful
    responses given by certain of the contributors to that conference.
    
    Work-related notes files are intended to give help and information on
    their particular subjects.  This conference (CARS_UK) is intended
    for 'discussion' of, hopefully, motoring-related subjects.
    
    You have stated your views, being against use of ANY vehicles on a
    non-sealed surface anywhere in this country - especially in any
    form of recreation, but you have not taken any notice of the replies
    you have received on this subject.  I see you also have not tried to
    defend your recreational activities, not a motoring subject I know,
    but your comments are not too close to the subject anyway (only a
    simple repetition of your particular views).
    
    This should not simply be a case of replies alternately 'slagging off'
    4x4 owner/drivers, motorcyclists, horse riders, Ramblers, or noters.
    
    So, come on, give it a rest.  I think we all have said our piece on
    what we feel is 'correct', any further replies should only really
    'discuss' the current, legal, use of rights-of-ways, or to raise any
    questions on their use - not to simply disagree with the law as it is.
    
    J.R.

	I am wasting my time. I am *not* talking about the physical
	destruction of the countryside, I am talking about the
	destruction of the atmosphere or ambience of countryside
	free from tarmac'ed roads and other development. If you
	can't see the point I'm trying to make then there's no hope.

	Re towing, I may or may not have bought the vehicle "aimed"
	at me, but having towed large trailers with a variety of
	different vehicles, I am of the opinion that the physical
	size and weight of the towing vehicle contributes a hell of
	a lot to the safety of the towed vehicle. And when the towed
	vehicle contains my horse, I want it to be as safe as possible.
	I have yet to find a better towing vehicle than a Range Rover,
	and I certainly don't consider a normal saloon, 4wd or otherwise,
	suitable for towing a trailer containing perhaps 1� tons of
	livestock.

	Jonathan.

    
    Re .49
    
    As I say I can only go by what you tell us. Certainly if you are 
    towing very heavy trailers something like a Range Rover may well
    be a sensible choice.
    
    I don't think you are wasting your time, you just weren't making
    your point very clearly. Comments about Neanderthals in 4x4 vehicles
    was not a very rational way to put forward a discussion about the 
    desirability of 4x4 vehicles in remote rural areas, but maybe THAT
    is a subject that can be discussed without resorting to name-calling.
    
    Whereabouts do you live? (I'm sure you've put it in somewhere, but 
    save me looking.) Are you in a very remote rural area and are you
    plagued by dozens of noisy, fast moving 4x4s? Personally, if I see 
    a 4x4 in the country I tend to assume it's actually a local resident
    going about his business. In my travels I've never witnessed dozens
    of 4x4s racing about (well, only once! :^)), but I wouldn't describe 
    my locality as rural, although compared to some noters' it probably
    is.
    
    Mark

Re: .13

>    But car owners already pay road tax, horse riders don't pay that when
>    they come on the road!
    
GARBAGE!!!!  To put a vehicle on a public road you must pay a tax called
Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).  There is no such thing as "Road Tax".

jb

    
    Well, whatever you want to call it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
    
    Mark

    Perhaps some of you off-roaders could enlighten me: what is your
    purpose in driving along green country lanes?  Is it to get somewhere that
    you can't get to on metalled roads - like a nice place for a picnic, to
    see the view, or to walk the dog?  If so, fine.  Otherwise, I don't see
    the point.
    
    Notice I'm not taking sides - just interested to find out.  Mind you, I
    have to say that I find my enjoyment of the countryside more enhanced
    by the sound of a horse clip-clopping along than that of a diesel
    engine.
    
    Jeff.

I agree 100% with J.Q. on the towing details. 

[ never thought I would here myself saying that :-) ]

Now the next stage is to remove all the motor ways that have scarified the 
countryside. Great swathes of rural England have been destroyed  by M-ways. 
Now thats Off-Roading!

Whilst on that subject, Reading's Newtown area is fighting to stop just that 
happening. The aim being to stop the Cross Town Route. This is being done by
trying to get a piece of land classified as a village green. This area is known
as Broken Brow.

If you, or know of a local resident, (since 1970) has been using this area for
lawful recreation since then, please mail me.

On May Day bank holiday, there is going to be a May fair. The site is towards
Sonning, from the Kennet Mouth. It is behind the Collage Boat House (what used
to be the Dreadnought public house), near the new roundabout at the end of the 
A329(M).

Regards,
Simon  - the Landrover_Neaderthal

	Re .49

	I live in Hollesley, Suffolk in an extremely isolated situation
	on the edge of unspoilt heathland, and yes, I have in the past
	been plagued by off-roaders, both cars and bikes. The problem
	of these people destroying the peace of the area has led to
	all RUPPS and a lot of BOATS being downgraded to bridleways,
	quite rightly in my opinion. The track to my house is now a
	bridleway, and the only reason I'm allowed to drive on it is
	that a right of access is provided for in my deeds. Needless
	to say if I see any horses on it I pull over and turn my engine
	off. All the off-roaders I have come across driving on these
	tracks have been aggressive and abusive, and have refused to
	accept that what they're doing by driving on bridleways is legally
	wrong, as well as the whole concept of off-roading being (IMHO)
	morally wrong. None have yet seen fit to argue while I've been
	on horseback for some reason, but have cleared off when told.
	Strangely enough, those I encounter who drive off-road because
	they *have* to, farmers, forestry workers, (most) gamekeepers,
	council employees, etc are not only considerate and polite, but
	spend no more time off-road than they actually need to to do
	their jobs. Pity the rest of the motoring community can't perceive
	off-road driving as something to be done out of necessity rather
	than for pleasure. Why can't you all take up formula ford or
	something?

	Jonathan.

Phew - Didn't expect to come back to such a Rathole :-)

Well, in .2 I said I was interested to hear what the "law" had to say. Seems
enough of us were upset by the noise of a couple of bikes making more dBs
than the TOTAL of the days traffic (I live on a quiet lane - these ****ers
were LOUD). Plod duely arrived, and the "law" had a few things to say to
them. Seems the riding without helmets, insurance, number plates etc was more
interesting than the off-road activities as such, but its been quiet since...

Jc

re 								Needless
	to say if I see any horses on it I pull over and turn my engine
	off.

And I thought I was the only one to do this. I also do it if I come across a 
group of walkers (off road) if they are walking towards me.

When I am off road, I usally go so slow to reduce the amount of damage to both
the ground _and_ my Landrover.


By the way Jonathon, when you are Hunting and the fox goes across private
land, do any of the hunt go and ask permission before you follow the fox in
ALL CASES?

As an aside, what is the current mortality rate of horses in a hunt these days,
through broken legs etc.

Simon

�    Perhaps some of you off-roaders could enlighten me: what is your
�    purpose in driving along green country lanes?  Is it to get somewhere that
�    you can't get to on metalled roads - like a nice place for a picnic, to
�    see the view, or to walk the dog?  If so, fine.  Otherwise, I don't see
�    the point.
    
    Well, my purpose in driving along 'green country lanes' could probably
    be 'because it is there'.  Not a good, or original, answer.
    
    I take these routes because it is the act of driving 'off-road'
    that I enjoy.  This can include enjoyment of 'seeing the view'
    whilst driving - you don't only see the view at your journey's end.
    
    In your case, you say you don't see the point.  Fair enough, you
    are not the sort that gets enjoyment from driving in this sort
    of terrain.  I, and many others, do enjoy it.
    
    If there is an unsurfaced right-of-way which crosses, for example,
    Salisbury Plain, I would quite enjoy driving my 4x4 vehicle along
    the length of that road.  If I were to do so on foot, or maybe on
    a bicycle, I would not get to cover the same distance with the same
    ease (yeah, that means I'm lazy).  That means I would not see so much
    of the terrain.
    
    The other reason for driving a 4x4 vehicle on these roads is that
    you are usually unable to do the same in a 'normal' 4x2 vehicle.
    Being able to travel to/through more remote areas is the reason
    for purchasing a 4-wheel-drive vehicle (towing is another reason).
    
    I can certainly see the difference in 'aesthetic qualities' for
    persons 'in the countryside' when comparing a horse 'clip-clopping'
    by with a motor vehicle (diesel or petrol).  The vehicle will lose
    out in that comparison, but so long as the driver(s) are being
    reasonable in exercising their right, it will not be a great
    disruption to the 'peace' in the countryside (perhaps not noticed
    on Salisbury Plain, with Tanks, Land Rovers, Guns and Chinooks
    all over the place ;-).
    
    The other use of a 4x4 is on private land, where various events are
    held to test both vehicle and driver.  I intend to 'get into' this
    in the very near future as a competitor instead of a spectator, but
    will still like the opportunity to drive on 'green lanes'.
    
    J.R.
    
    
    PS - In general, when I state 'off-road', I mean driving on what are
    	 commonly known as 'green lanes'.  These are public rights-of-way,
    	 as has been described before, but they are usually not green !
    	 These may be used by both Horse and Vehicular traffic, without any
    	 need for conflict.
    
    
    PPS to JQ - I did 'mis-state' your views in may earlier reply.  You
    		basically think that because we live in a small country
    		with relatively dense population, we should not expect to
    		have vehicles for use as a form of enjoyment, whether on
    		or off of sealed-surface roadways.  Of course, I disagree.

  Now this *isn't* really motoring, but...

  � By the way Jonathon, when you are Hunting and the fox goes across private
  � land, do any of the hunt go and ask permission before you follow the fox in
  � ALL CASES?

  It is up to the Master and Secretary to obtain permission to hunt on any
  land they would not normally have access to *before* the hunt. It is up
  to the Master, Field Master, and Hunstman to ensure *during* the hunt
  that no trespass is committed by followers OR hounds. Any hunt that that
  doesn't abide by these rules can, and should, be sued for trespass and
  damage to property. Foxes or hares frequently leave the hunt's country or
  go onto private land, and are accordingly given best.

  � As an aside, what is the current mortality rate of horses in a hunt these
  � days, through broken legs etc.

  Very low, although I have no idea of the figures.

  Jonathan.

    Well, plenty of replies while I typed in my last one...
    
�	their jobs. Pity the rest of the motoring community can't perceive
�	off-road driving as something to be done out of necessity rather
�	than for pleasure. Why can't you all take up formula ford or
�	something?
    
    Bit of a stupid comparison here Jonathan.
    
    	Formula Ford is for RACING.
    
    	Driving on green lanes IS NOT RACING.
    
    I am sure you can appreciate the difference.
    
    I do accept that some 'hooligans' will attempt to race each other
    when off-road (and on it), but that is not what you are _particularly_
    complaining about.
    
    Another thing on the above 'comparison', you are not allowed to use
    you 'daily transport' in a Formula Ford race.
    
�	off. All the off-roaders I have come across driving on these
�	tracks have been aggressive and abusive, and have refused to
�	accept that what they're doing by driving on bridleways is legally
�	wrong, as well as the whole concept of off-roading being (IMHO)
�	morally wrong. None have yet seen fit to argue while I've been
�	on horseback for some reason, but have cleared off when told.
    
    Perhaps your attitude to the off-roaders you meet 'triggers' them
    into being aggressive and abusive ?
    
    If they are on a bridleway (as you have stated) then they are in the
    wrong, and they are certainly wrong to argue the point.  If they then
    'clear off' when told, maybe they have realised their error ?
    (but ignorance, and arrogance, is no excuse)
    
    
    To repeat (again), 4x4-type clubs tend to have a 'code of practice'
    which, if followed, would perhaps reduce the sort of feelings you
    have about off-roaders.  Of course, this would have no effect on
    what you describe as a 'moral wrong', but if more people took care
    to drive only in the correct places and the correct manner, things
    would be better for all.
    
    J.R.

    >>
	than for pleasure. Why can't you all take up formula ford or
	something?
    >>
        Because a load of people who are trying to preserve 'the peace and
    quiet of the countryside where _they_ live' are trying to get race
    circuits closed! a case of NIMBY?  apart from which, people who are
    used to sitting in 4wd Land/Range Rovers get scared when they sit in a
    little car with only 3" between them and the tarmac :-)
    
    Apart from that, to answer Jeff's question about why people want to
    drive 'off road' - there are several different sports - all of which
    test the driver's ability to manoever and control their vehicle. Some
    are done on private land - such as trials, vehicle recover, competition
    safaris etc. and yes, some damage is done to the vegetation _BUT_ these
    venues are usually annual, and come a week or so after the event, there
    is very little evidence of anything having happened. (In fact there are
    some quite rare flower species which will only grow in freshly churned
    soils... :-) how's that for a rathole? )
    
    'Green laneing' combines the skills of navigation with the challenge
    and fun of driving on what is often difficult terrain, (and yes, they
    probably have a good picnic when they get there!) 
    
    
    

Dear Mr Horsey-Bore,

What a perfectly terrible way to conduct ones self in a Notesfile with all this
silly talk of switching off ones engine,well trained horses and their mythical
safe behaviour in the prescence of human company. Its poppy-cock !!

Mark my words old boy,they are nothing but a damned nuisance and should stay in
their bally fields where they bally-well belong. I was out on the moors the
other evening and damn near shot one of my poor beaters as this dreadful horse
my companion was riding just  rose up into the air, at the sound of
indiscriminate gunfire,and damn near trampled me to death as I unloaded both
barrels into a nearby Grouse nest. As it was I luckily got away with a slightly
muddy Burberry.

As for off-road vehicles... Good lord man it is the only effective way one can
hunt in this day and age,even if one chews up the odd piece of countryside and
upsets one or two peasants. Modern game animals are just  too fast and smart
these days. The only way to deal with the likes of Deer, for example,is to
plough through the forest in the old Range Rover,firing as one goes. Admittedly
this is a somewhat crude method;but mark my words,its bally effective. All this
pussy footing around after foxes on horseback is balderdash !!

The wife and I saw a film the other day called "they shoot horses don't they".
What a perfectly splendid idea ! However, it is such a pity that the film was
about silly old dancing.

Regards

Major Hector P. Rantes - DSO and bar none (diseased).

    
    As the original enquirer asked 'what vehicles can use a footpath?' the
    answer is (more or less) none, the same being true of a bridleway.
    I don't know whether the people on Jonathon's bridleway are unaware that
    they are on a bridleway (If it was recently reassigned surely it will
    appear on maps as an unsurfaced road still) or whether they are just
    plain stupid. Also, if the former, I don't know how Jonathon informs
    them of their mistake. As seen here a poor choice of phrase can quickly
    raise tempers, and if I were referred to as a Neanderthal by some twit
    in a Range Rover (exactly how I might view the situation if I had may
    an innocent mistake) my temper would probably raise too. No doubt there
    are idiots amongst the 4WD community, but it's unfair to assume they're
    all the same in the same way as it is unfair to assume that all people
    who ride horses are bloody-thirsty, peasant whipping retards from
    public school (yeah, I know, a stupid statement, but from the middle
    ground no more stupid than assuming someone is well down the
    evolutionary scale simply because they drive a Land Rover!).
    
    Jonathon, have you contacted the Police (it worked for the original
    noter)? What do they say/do?
    
    Personally, I can't see anything wrong with people using roads which
    are open to them. If a road is unsuitable for vehicles then they should
    be downgraded, but if not then you can't really turf people off them 
    simply because of a prejudice. Where do you draw the line? Ok, it's
    unsurfaced roads now, but how long before it's single lane roads?
    
    Mark
    
    PS Like the previous note which questioned why anyone would want to
    drive down these lanes, I wonder what the appeal is. Presumably there
    is no great challenge in driving a 4WD vehicle slowly down a good
    condition unsurfaced road, but I can see that it could make
    accessibilty to remote spots much easier (Presumably something Jonathon 
    would disagree with). Still, on the whole, I'd support anybody's right
    to use the public right of way.

	� all people
	� who ride horses are bloody-thirsty, peasant whipping retards from
	� public school 

	Actually, I went to a grammar school ;-)

	Jonathan.

    
    Well, there you are then! :^)
    
    Mark

�    they are on a bridleway (If it was recently reassigned surely it will
�    appear on maps as an unsurfaced road still) or whether they are just
    
    This may appear to be the case, but the indication of a right-of-way
    on an Ordnance Survey map is not proof of its existence, particularly
    when so many RUPP's have been downgraded in status.
    
    The terminology was entered earlier, but basically you used to be
    permitted to drive on an RUPP (Road Used As Public Path - note the
    word Road comes first).  In recent years, councils have been reclassifying
    these routes according to use and condition.  They often 'go down' to
    being a bridleway - no vehicles, only horses, pedestrians and cyclists.
    In other cases, the term BOAT is applied (Byway Open To All Traffic,
    not the word All) and vehicular access is still legal.
    
    
    If you (one ?) wishes to drive on what is thought to be a legal
    route, it is wise to check this out beforehand.  This is done by
    comparing details with the official records held in the offices of
    the County Council.  Luckily, clubs appoint unfortunate souls to
    deal in these matters, so any changes in status are usually notified
    via these contacts.
    
    Locally, by-laws may result in the enforcement of TRO's (Traffic
    Regulation Orders) to restrict vehicle access to these roads.
    These should be indicated with signs displayed at their junctions.
    
    J.R.

	Didn't someone mention in another topic that all RUPPs
	are being reclassified and the classification RUPP will
	soon cease to exist? There ought to be some requirement
	for councils to provide and maintain clear signs indicating
	the current status of any thoroughfare (if that's the right
	term).

	Jonathan.

    
    Re .66
    
    Exactly my point. A reasonable off-roader will apologise and leave a 
    bridleway which he believed to be a BOAT or a RUPP when his error is
    pointed out to him. Presumably a reasonable horse-rider would do the 
    same on a footpath.
    
    Re .67
    
    An excellent suggestion.
    
    Mark

�	Didn't someone mention in another topic that all RUPPs
�	are being reclassified and the classification RUPP will
�	soon cease to exist?
    
    That is what I believe is happening, just that the definition
    of the word 'soon' doesn't match up to reality.
    
�	                     There ought to be some requirement
�	for councils to provide and maintain clear signs indicating
�	the current status of any thoroughfare (if that's the right term).
    
    A sensible comment !
    
    If this were done for all non-surfaced thoroughfares (sounds like a
    good enough term to use) at least it would avoid the sort of problems
    that you have had in your particular circumstances.  Any disagreement
    would easily be sorted out with a trip to the next 'junction' on the
    route in question.
    
    Maintaining these signs would be (is) the responsibility of the
    local council.  They may choose to save (your) money and make no
    effort to providing this information.
    
    J.R.

	I would like to award this topic a gold achievement star.

	It has reached the grand sum of sixty-nine replies, when
	the last time we all had this discussion, 8 months ago,
	we only got to sixty-five (topic 1172).

	Jonathan.

    Yes... but it's the same replies just re-posted !
    
    ...and it's 71  :-)
    
    Now... where's my horse ?
    
    
    Ross

�    Yes... but it's the same replies just re-posted !
    
	Not in my case.  I have put my tuppence-worth (times 12) in here.
    	I didn't enter into the previous 'discussion'.
    	JQ entered 15 replies before, 18 (or more) into the latest version.    
    
    	I just hope that some of the facts are understood correctly.
    
    	As for personal views, they won't change on anyone's side.
    
�    ...and it's 71  :-)
    
    	And still increasing...

...and of course, thinking BOATS were for the water, I didn't find it
in my origional search of the titles...

Jc

�...and of course, thinking BOATS were for the water, I didn't find it
    
    You never know, we may get the same series of notes again in a few
    months, as a search of the titles using the string 'footpath'
    would not help any...    ;-)
    
    J.R.

Re: .72


Ah, but didn't you know that in Lambourn horses outnumber vehicles and have
by popular (residents of Lambourn) consent, been given right of way over
anything ! 

...so they don't have to be "fit" for the road...drive there at your own risk 
etc  :-)

I thought there was some ancient law that gives horses right of way over cars
on all public roads?

    Best conference I have read for ages, I feel the hate tended to 
    tail off in the last dozen answers, but all in all well dne !!!
    
    P.S. One good thing about horses is they taste nice! 
    
    Simon.

    Just for .75, I've modified the title. Anything else that should go in
    there?....
    Richard

    
    Re .78
    
    I have to disagree that horses taste nice. The one I had was horrible!
    :^)
    
    Mark

And after I'd fixed the spelling and added the keywords, too!

Jc ;-)

	I'm not sure if I understand the point .72 is trying to make,
	what exactly are you complaining about?

	Jonathan.

	Why has no-one mentioned mountain bikes running up and
	  the hillsides ???



	( Duck and go for coffee  :-) :-) )

    I don't know, have a couple of days away from the box and the world
    goes crazy?

    Why do I own a Land Rover - why we choose any vehicle?  because it
    suits my needs.  I tow, I enjoy off road meetings and motor sport.  I
    am a member of the All Wheel Drive Club (see note 1337) which promotes
    a non countryside damaging green lane policy.  If you re-read my
    original reply you will note that I spoke about the Definative Map held
    by the council as to where you can and can't go with a vehicle.  In
    fact the AWDC places voluntary restrictions on certain areas to
    conserve lanes.  The Ridgeway was a recent example as well as getting
    together work parties to help repair some of the damage caused by
    horses, walkers, etc.

    Which brings me onto the next point - horses!  We own two, now both
    retired.  If I encounter horses on a RUPP or BOAT I always stop. If
    there is a chance that the vehicle may spook the horse because the lane
    is narrow, etc. then I would switch off the engine.  If I encounter
    horses on the roads I always slow down and give a wide berth and I
    would expect the rider to acknowledge my courtesy in stead of looking
    at me as if I were trash!

    Where do I live?  On the Hampshire/Wiltshire borders on a BOAT! 

    I take extreme exception to being described as a "landrover driving
    neanderthal"  by Mr Quick.  I think a pulic apology in this conference
    is called for.  Mr Quick assumes that he has a monopoly on living in
    the country and towing horse boxes and this gives him some sort of
    divine right to slag of others who disagree with him.  As for his
    comments about Formula Ford, I am an ex RAC competion licence holder
    for national and speed events, a member of the BARC, the TR register
    and the holder of a class 1 HGV licence.  So I think I've given it all
    a fair shot!

    I accept that we all are different and like to do different things.  We
    should persue our interests in a way that we do not get up other
    peoples noses and all live in (relative) harmony.

    End of sermon.

    Alan
    

    � I take extreme exception to being described as a "landrover driving
    � neanderthal"  by Mr Quick.  I think a pulic apology in this conference
    � is called for.

    I don't, so you you won't get one.

Alan,

Could you please explain to me how horses retire ?

To my knowledge they receive little,or no,formal education and never obtain
gainful employment - thus rendering them ineligible to "retire" from a
proffession in the accepted sense. 

However, they spend most  of their lives being sat on. Is this what you mean ?
If so then I believe the phrase you are looking for is  "resting from the
rigours of being sat on by the landed (or Landrovered) gentry."

Rgds

Confused of Hickstead

�  <<< Note 1413.84 by TRUCKS::SMART "When you're in a hole, stop digging!" >>>
�                       -< Land Rover owner bites back! >-
�
�    I don't know, have a couple of days away from the box and the world
�    goes crazy?
    
    I did wonder why you hadn't made any replies...
    
    As another recent reply mentioned, the 'hate' had eased off near
    the end (is it ?) of this discussion.  I hope that is correct.
    
    J.R.

    > I would expect the rider to acknowledge my courtesy in stead of looking
    > at me as if I were trash!
    
    I've never come across anything but a cheery wave of thanks when I've
    met horses on the road and done the appropriate thing.  But then these
    are normal horseriders, not hunting types, fortunately.
    
    Jeff.

	Re .88

	I'm not rising to that comment, definitely definitely not...

	I *always* acknowledge drivers who slow down/pull over or
	whatever when I'm riding on roads. Usually by touching my
	cap and smiling gratefully at them, although I do have
	other greetings for less considerate motorists ;-)

	Jonathan.

>>>I *always* acknowledge drivers who slow down/pull over or
>>>whatever when I'm riding on roads. 


What ? Even when you're huntin' ?

It's been my experience with the New Forest huntin', shootin' and fishin'
fraternity that they send some poor serf ahead on foot to stand in the
middle of the road waving a whip at the traffic to make sure the way is 
clear for them to charge across.  They get _most_ surly if you're enough of
a peasant to object to sitting around and waiting on them for 15 minutes.

I feel really sorry for that guy, trying to hold up a main road, especially 
if the fox, deer or whatever has been unsporting enough to try and hide
in sombody's garden... in the middle of Lyndhurst, say....  


Ian 

	Re .90

	I had no idea that the fishin' community charged across roads
	while engaged in their sport, strange fish you must have in the
	New Forest!

	Jonathan.

    
    Well, you see the fish swim under the road bridges and the huntsmen
    have to chase them, but the arch under the bridge is too low for them 
    to get through! :^)
    
    Mark

    A few notes back it was mentioned that this sort of debate should be
    discussed in EF91 or other such conferences.

    Well I've finally got something done about it, so you can take this and
    any other subject that may require great debate to EF91 if you wish.

    - Roy

Actually, I think it may help if we just stop it here.

There are clearly very widely diverse views, which have been thoroughly aired,
and which aren't going to converge.

Can't we leave it at that, and go back to talking about cars ?


Ian

    One thing most people have missed is that you should slow down
    for the horse, not the rider. Horses are given no alternative but
    to go where they are ridden and would not choose to travel along 
    roads populated by cars, trucks etc.
    
    So next time you see a horse and rider slow down for the HORSE and
    forget the (sometimes) arrogant a**ehole on its back.
    
    BTW How does a horse give a cheery wave ?
    
    Simon.
    
    
    N.B. Nice to see the venom again
    

	Re the topic

	We may have been ratholing a bit, but this *was* a motoring
	topic, concerned with byways, off-roading, and even towing,
	until certain people started to attempt to drag hunting into
	it. The motoring related notes were quite valid IMHO, even
	if some were a little heated. I'd just like to say that I
	(for one) did not feel at all upset by the little bit of name
	calling that went on, in fact I was quite impressed by the
	originality and fluency of Mr Saxby's phrase! Can't we move
	the anti-hunting/anti-horse (except where really relates to
	motoring) stuff to EF as suggested and stick to BOATS etc?

	Cheers,

	Jonathan.

    
    I'd agree with Mr Quick,
    
    Whatever you think of hunting, it doesn't really affect driving.
    
    Mark
    
    PS Although I once knew someone who had a horse land on top of their
    car during a hunt... :^)

�    PS Although I once knew someone who had a horse land on top of their
�    car during a hunt... :^)
    
    Using a car for a hunt ?

    
    Re .98
    
    No, actually I made it up for light relief! :^)
    
    Although, I'm sure there was a case reported of a horse landing on a
    car and having to be destroyed (The horse, not the car, that'd already
    been done!).
    
    Mark

	.100 and I claim my prize...

	Actually people do use cars for hunting. Lazy people with no
	nerve who can't stand a bit of wind and rain and a few fences
	sit in their Landrovers etc watching the action (usually me
	falling off) through binoculars. I've never seen these people
	leave made-up roads for some reason, even when there are BOATS
	they could drive down to get closer.

	Jonathan.

	�	Actually people do use cars for hunting. 
    
    	Also vert popular with Arab princes, etc. I've seen some very
    	outlandish 4WD vehicles converted for this purpose (Apparently
    	the Lamborghini LM002 sells well to these people too.).
    
    	I wonder how many are now being used to hunt Kurds?
    
    	Mark
    

    I'm baling out of this rat hole topic ..... be sure that I will carry
    on green laning, looking after the aged horses, walking my dogs and
    living peacefully in the country.
    
    My Land Rover, wife, friends and myself will continue to exercise our
    legal rights of way (especially in Suffolk  ;-)
    
    I wonder where Colonel Philpott was for this topic .......
    
    See you all in another note!  How about one on speed limits?   ;-)
    
    Alan

    Re .99
    
    There was a case as you surmised.
    
    Back in 1986-ish, a human being was driving a motor vehicle down one of
    the main roads in Newmarket. The car was a Midget and the top was down
    (it was a sunny day). There was a whole string of rather jittery race
    horses being exercised (or more probaly to exercise on the gallops) so
    I'll correct myself before some smarta**e corrects me) being rode along
    the road outside the DEC office. The traffic was giving all these
    animals quite a wide berth and one of them spooked, started to run amok
    and eventually jumped on this by now stationary MG and driver. The
    driver was killed and the horse had to be put down. 
    
    The next day the local rag had a whole front page spread about how much
    this horse was worth and what a loss to the racing community it was
    blah, blah, blah......
    
    On page 4 was a single column inch that reported that this incident had
    gotten a HUMAN BEING killed.
    
    Shows you where the priorities in Newmarket are, doesn't it.

	Geez, I don't have time to read all of this, but it does sound
	as if it's a choice between the lesser of two evils, or should
	that be the evil of two lessers.

	-John

    
    I'm rather sad to see the lack of tolerance displayed in this note,
    albeit masked by jovial (?) name-calling. Generally, I've found
    equestrians to be polite and appreciative of motorists who show
    some common sense and patience. No morals, no lessons; I just hope
    I can enjoy an evening blat in a Caterham (now there's a car that
    makes you aware of horses!), and still be mindful that I don't own
    the road - a horse or cyclist could be around the next bend.
    
    Bill.

�    Although, I'm sure there was a case reported of a horse landing on a
�    car and having to be destroyed (The horse, not the car, that'd already
    
    I know someone who had a mini written off by a horse.
    
    I think both 'forms of transport' were destroyed.
    
    In that case, the driver survived.
    
    J.R.

    
    	The Countryside is for all our enjoyment and providing we leave it
    as we found it then "everyone" should have access.
    
    	I find Hunting distasteful but I also find it distasteful seeing
    squashed animals on our roads.
    
    	Sorry I'll stop there otherwise this will fall down the Fox oops!
    Rat hole.
    
    	Does anyone find people parking cars on pedestrian walkaways
    annoying?. OK, I don't mind the vehicle half on/off the path but when one
    has to take to the road with the kids and pushchair, it is but a pain.
    
    Dave.

    re .103
    
    What Dick fails to mention is the profesion of the human victim.  From
    memory it was either Estate Agent or Solicitor.  It is possible for a
    lot of people to loose or make a lot of money on a Racehorse.  You can
    only loose with Estate Agents and Solicitors ({include symbol for
    tongue in chheck}).
    
    There are now much fewer horses in Newmarket, due to doping
    allegations, recession and the Gulf.  The long strings of horses
    crossing roads are not so common.  the other day I was leaving the
    Digital office which is close to a horse crossing point (they have
    special non slip road surfaces, paid for by the Jockey Club) and a
    single horse and rider approached.  I stopped (its more than your life
    is worth to tangle with racehorses if you live/work/do business in
    Newmarket).  The horse and rider started to cross but a vehicle
    approaching from the other direction didn't realise that he was obliged
    to give way.  There was do doubt in my mind that the rider would continue
    to cross the road.  The motorist realised the situation and managed to
    stop just in time.  If you have cause to visit Newmarket beware.
    
    On another occasion I was walking to work after lunch and saw a
    riderless horse cantering up the middle of the road towards me.  I knew
    exactly what to do so (like a fool) I walked into the middle of the
    road and stood with my legs and arms appart (like an X) right in its
    path.  It stopped and I took hold of its reins.  So far so good.  Now
    what?  There was no sign of a rider, or anyone else for that matter. 
    There I am holding what could be several thousands or even millions of
    pounds worth of horse which is now my problem.  They don't have name
    tags like dogs so I just had to stand there until the rider or his one
    of his mates came along.  I'll look the other way next time....
    
    Rob
    
    
    

    As a moderator I've received a complaint about the way this topic has
    raised so many extreme views. I don't intend to take a heavy hand on
    this, I believe everyone has the right to express opinions,as long as
    the opinion is not insulting DIRECTLY to anyone else (e.g. insulting by
    name)

    However, I believe we are all now well aware of the different views:
    	on the one hand you have people who think the BOATS and RUPPS are
    	intended for all, and they should be entitled to take their 18 wheel
    	gruntmobile down them...

    	On the other you have those who believe this activity is contrary
    	to nature, and damaging to the countryside.

    We've also seen both sides of the argument about horse riders (the
    horses are all innocent):
    	Some have obviously had bad experiences, and therefore believe all
    	riders are bad
    	
    	Others have had good experiences or like to think they are
    	considerate riders and all other riders are like minded

    Some people seem to support fox hunting, some find it objectionable,
    but I think all the comments have been made.

    We also have very individual reasons for selecting our particular mode
    of transport. However we rationalise it, it's mainly an irrational
    decision that we then find reasons to support.


    SO.....
    Can we please get back to the normal friendly, light hearted,
    camaraderie that is normally enjoyed in this conference. All future
    relies to this topic should concentrate on the legality of who can use
    the BOATS/RUPPS etc, not the morality of who can use them. 
    
    Now shake hands and say sorry :-)
    
    Richard

    Sorry Dad

>>             <<< Note 1413.110 by MUNLEG::PAGE "Simon Smeg Head" >>>
>>                                  -< Oh Yawn >-

>>    Sorry Dad

    So you should be, and stand up straight when you talk to me........
    :-}
    Richard
    

Re: .107
    
>    	Does anyone find people parking cars on pedestrian walkaways
>    annoying?. OK, I don't mind the vehicle half on/off the path but when one
>    has to take to the road with the kids and pushchair, it is but a pain.
    
It's more than annoying.  It's illegal.

jb

    If you come across one of these parked cars on the pavement,
    obstructing people, a ring pull can ring can make a nice mark on the
    paintwork, or even a pram can dent a door.
    
    jb.

Parking on the pavement is *NOT* illegal.  The presence of a car (or other
motor vehicle) on the pavement is not in itself an offence.

However, driving on the pavement is an offence.  So if you drive your car up
onto the pavement to park you are breaking the law.  But if you stop your car
on the road, then push it onto the pavement, you are being perfectly legal.

If the car "blocks" the pavement you can be nicked for obstruction.  Not because
it's the pavement, but just becuase you are obstructing some part of the
highway.  I suppose it is difficult to decide how "blocked" the pavement needs
to be before it constitutes an offence...

    
    Parking on the pavement _IS_ illegal. I've been knicked for it before.
    
    Paul M

You must have been done for driving on the pavement or obstruction then.
There is no specific offence relating to a stationary vehicle on a pavement.
If you were told otherwise, then they're lying to one of us 'cos I got my
info from the plods too...

One other thing, if there are double yellow lines on the road (or other
parking restrictions) then they apply to the pavement too; maybe that's why
you were done...

    I agree with .117.
    
    Driving on the pavement or Obstruction are the offences.
    
    JK

    Until recently, I always conscienscioulsy avoided parking half-on the
    pavement (good, aren't I? ;-).
    
    Then I suffered a series of disasters at the hands (or, rather, various
    sticky-out metal and plastic bits) of my fellow motorists, many of whom
    don't seem able to hit the space between two lines of parked cars
    without knocking bits of one or other of them (usually mine!)
    
    Ninety quid for a new mirror, to replace the one that got smeared along
    a quiet street in Reading, gives one furiously to think.
    These days, if I have to park in a narrow street, I tend to tuck my
    nearside wheels up on the kerb _and_ fold my mirrors in..... Pavement
    side too, to avoid snagging any pedestrians, and to minimise the
    inconvenience.
    
    I _know_ it's wrong, but the insurnace people aren't going to buy me
    too many more mirrors !
    
    IanP

To all those who park on pavements, thankyou from all the blind people in this
world.

/Dave  :-|

    I think we are all forgiving people and don't mind the half off half on
    parking although as pointed out this is a hazzard to people with
    disabilities. What gets me going is the vehicle parked right over the
    path.
    
    I have heard cases of people trying to get permission to drive over
    a public footpath to park on their own property and being refused, when
    there you are, people mindlessly parking and being an obstruction,
    getting away with it.
    
    Yes I know , go and report them or knock on their door and tell them,
    if its outside their house, but wouldn't you have thought that they
    would think of others 1st.
    
    GRIPE over!. People being watz People iz. And wish I had the nerve to
    squirt Glue in their door locks!. I'd probably get done for Damageing
    property.
    
    Dave.
    

Parking on pavements is illegal in the old GLC area (one of their last acts). 
Some London boroughs have taken to painting broken white lines on pavements
where they will let you park!

Tony.

    A few weeks ago I encountered a vehicle parked right across a pavement,
    and although there were grass verges on either side of it, I felt
    somewhat peeved at having to circumnavigate particularly as it was
    raining and the verges were quite muddy (and my children were with me.
    in their sport shoes for indoor use).
    
    I encountered the same vehicle again a week later, parked in the same
    position, so I wrote a polite note asking them not to block the
    footpath and be more considerate,  and stuck it under the windscreen
    wiper.
    
    A week later, the vehicle was there again. This time I wrote a note
    explaining that it was getting very difficult to pass, particulary as I
    had a bunch of keys in my hand, and the grass was slippery and if I
    over balanced I might damage the paintwork of the vehicle.
    
    S/he was parked in the Car Park the next week....... It did make me
    feel better!
    
    JK

    Re .123
    
    I **LIKE** your style, John!

    ref.123
    
    Yes, but I'd never get around my estate for sticking notes under
    Windscreen Wipers. You are right though you can only but ask.
    
    Yesterday I sqweezed between a Thorny looking bush and a real Rust
    heap, risking either my neck on the main road or Tetinous from the
    car/bush, only to to find that someone had been there before me and
    bent the car aerial, Coat Hanger, over the path infront of me. Well it got
    caught on my coat and broke!. OH DEAR.
    
    Dave.