UKC

The Government has announced that there will soon be legal restrictions against the use of off-road vehicles like motorbikes, 4x4s and quad bikes to protect rights of way. Last year Jeremy Clarkson caused a rumpus when he drove a 4x4 up Ben Tongue in Sutherland in a new Land Rover Discovery for the BBC2 show Top Gear, reportedly churning up fragile peat bogs and heather as he went. This new initiative, announced by Alun Michael, should go some way to protecting remote areas from irresponsible use. A total ban on off-road vehicles is not practical since many are used by farmers.

UKC News - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to UKC News: hmmm, it will all go wrong somewhere its the goverment, just take them off the roads soon get rid of those that aint being used for a proper 4x4 fashion

In reply to iain abernethy:

Have you ever had anything to do with bodies such as LARA or the Trail Rider's Fellowship? They are very reasonable and realistic, far more so than the like of the Ramblers' Association or other so-called representative bodies. Seems like a sledge hammer to crack a nut to me.

In reply to UKC News: This is a poor piece of legislation, there are many people who enjoy going off road in their vehicles, and I myself use to ride a trail bike along green lanes. More people who drive off road and are not farmers do so along green lanes, which by law are public rights of way and you, have to be road legal to do this. The majority of off road club like the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF) help keep these lanes and byway clear, if there is a blockage they will clear it or arrange for it to be cleared benefiting all who you that right of way.

With reference to Jeremy Clarkson, he had the land owners permission to drive up the mountain and it you watch that particular clip from Top Gear, there was not a lot of damage, in reality there is more damage done to the environment by ramblers walking across these area each year than TV presenters driving up a mountain, but it's more acceptable for ramblers to do this as it them that are bitching about 4x4’s.

Basically this is a bit of electioneering by Labour to get the popular vote… again! I’m sure many of you would agree that there are far more important things for this Government to be concerned about other than driving off road.

In reply to UKC News: Now all we have to do is curb the use of the On-road 4x4 drivers and the world will be a better place.

In reply to UKC News:

Just like before the last election. New labour release loads of new little ideas that sound catchy and make the headlines. Easy fodder for the news and they've got the ability to do something about it unlike the pesky conservatives who aren't in power. All nanny state rubbish that no one else would dream of suggesting. The 24hr drinking rules were the same and fox hunting too. I'll give it a month or so before they promise to increase the numbers of doctors and nurses again.
Pete

In reply to Richard Smith:

>The majority of off road club like the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF) help keep these lanes and byway clear..

Hmmm, in one way yes, but I'm personally fed up with the state that the bridleways and green lanes around and near my house.

>I’m sure many of you would agree that there are far more important things for this Government to be concerned about other than driving off road.

I agree, but I also wish that the Trial bike riders and 4x4 vehicle users would exercise some restraint during the winter months rather than turning them all into knee deep mud filled trenches.

In reply to Richard Smith:

It would be easy for each side of this argument to raise example and counter example to support their respective points of view. However the legal road status of green lanes comes from a time when it was not envisaged that there would be significant numbers of people owning motorised vehicles capable of negotiating them. It is time that the legislation was brought up to date. Whether the proposed bill is the right way....

My own view on the use of green lanes by non-agricultural vehicles is that it should be restricted, certainly in national parks, but that planning permission be given to areas for 4x4 usage.

Bob

The JC thing was deliberately contentious so as to raise viewing figures/awareness of Top Gear. (Sorry that was the cynic in me making an appearance)

In reply to Richard Smith: I'm sure 80% of 4x4 / scrambler's are OK, pretty sensible about not trashing the place and chewing up the countryside - it is possible to drive with minimum impact. However, the other 20% make a right mess and F**k things up. We get about 5 -10 scrambler bikes past us most weekends from different clubs - they're pretty good, listen to the farmer if he asks them to avoid places and idle past the house to minimise noise. Go for a walk afterwards and there's a bit of chewed up ground, but not much. However, sometime last week, some dickhead decided to go straight up the hill, rather than up the track and chewed a great big scar, which will result in the farmer telling the scramblers to piss off (the council changed the tracks from RUPP's to bridleways last year, so he can, he just turns a blind eye to the fact at the moment). Same goes for 4x4's - I've watched six landies take different routes around a boggy bit of ground, get stuck and cause a right mess, rather than following the obvious track. These six vehicles caused more shit than 5 years worth of the local farmers driving there. When asked why they didn't follow the track, the answer was "It's more fun getting stuck, innit!".
Educate / get rid of the 20% of morons who have no respect for the countryside they're travelling through and only think of the petrol head side of things and 4x4's will get better press.
If you boil it down to a "mess/person" equation, then 4x4's ARE the worst culprits (even when driven carefully), so unless the 4x4 lobby get out of this headspace of saying "Ramblers / Horses / Mountain Bikers make more mess than we do" and get some hippy tree hugging front on, they will be legislated against as there are way more Ramblers/Horsey people/MTB'rs and they don't appreciate being reminded of the mess they leave behind. Yes, it is pandering to the popular vote, I agree, but they would do that, wouldn't they!
Cheers
Deri

In reply to Derbyshire Ben:


Now you're being daft. Not a chance.

The legislation is also an excuse to rant about the authoritarian government that New Labour is, and to get the Countryside Alliance on their side with some made up statistics (eg 59% say turn green lanes into churned up muddy swamps - vote Conservative)

In reply to Bob:

The proportion of the Rights of Way network which is availble for use by motorised vehicles is tiny and as such is much more of a percieved problem than a real one. I think you'll find that may off-roaders would be happy to give up some Rights of Way in return for other areas.

In reply to Bob:

Sensible suggestions.

In my understanding of things, Green Lanes are in effect broad bridleways, originally intended for horse drawn traffic, for driving livestock, or for access to agricultural land. They were never intended to be motorised recreational areas.

There are a number of these lanes, which are also signposted as public bridleways in the West Pennines where a wary eye has to be kept open for speeding trail bikes and quads, who treat them as unofficial race tracks.

I dont have a problem with offroaders, unless they cause a problem to others who have as many, or possibly more rights to be there.

I agree that there should be designated areas for offroad recreational driving / riding. The freedom to roam act does not permit unfettered vehicular access to the countryside -- however by the very nature of things it is virtually impossible to enforce.

Why should those with the mechanical and financial musclepower be able to get their own way, and spoil the countryside for so many others?

In reply to UKC News: well, they would be fcuked getting ours back on the road!

In reply to Alan Stark:

I think you'll find that the off-road lobby is one of the least powerful in terms of financial and numerical muscle. If you want an example of a lobby group who have a disprortionate amount of influence, given that they are barely even representative of their own members, let alone walkers in general, then look no further than the Ramblers' Association.

In reply to Alan Stark:

We have a green lane, I think it is designated as a Bridleway Open to All Traffic (BOAT), running past our house. It is only very rarely used by trail bikes so no real problem - half a dozen bikes once every 6 - 8 weeks is not really a nuisance.

On a slightly different note, green lanes are marked on vehicular GPS maps as roads. Imagine our surprise a couple of months ago when a Berlingo van driver tried to use the lane to get to his next delivery. Having driven down 600m or so of boggy lane, he finally came to a halt when he beached on the edge of the ford across the beck! His explanation? "The GPS told me to come this way"!

Bob

I think bundling all off-roaders together is a ridiculous idea. Like everything (dare I suggest crag access, for example?) there are people who follow the 'rules' and people who don't. And it's that minority that bugger things up for the rest. People can legislate all they like - it won't stop the current idiots from doing just the same thing. And the 'good' majority will suffer for it.
I have friends who go off roading (on motorbikes) - they stick to designated rights of way and still come back with tales of falling off and hurting bits - they don't NEED to go ploughing up some field to get their kicks.
They told me the other week they got chased off a track they were allowed to be on by a farmer in a tractor who came back later and tried to run them off the road (this was a PUBLIC road - not even the 'green lane' bit) - now who's in the wrong?

In reply to Craig_M:

I wasn't talking about the financial muscle of the lobby group.

It's more to do with the 'virtual penis' attitude of many of the off roaders. -- 'Ive got a bigger, one than you, so I'm better - and to hell with you anyway, are how are you going to stop me!)

I agree regarding the disproportionate power the 'Ramblers' lobby appears to have. Full of 'do good' but nimby attitudes, they have the same doubtful benefit as the so called 'Friends' of the Lake District

In reply to Alan Stark:


Quote from your post above: "Why should those with the mechanical and financial musclepower be able to get their own way, and spoil the countryside for so many others?"

Forgive me if I misunderstood your point. TN makes a very good point above, there are good and bad off-roaders, just the same as you get the occasional wanker at the crag. It doesn't mean they're all idiots.

In reply to Craig_M:

Agreed.

It's the irresponsible ones that give the whole group a bad name.

I could say the same for some climbers and walkers I have had the displeasure of knowing in the past.

In reply to Richard Smith:
>The majority of off road club like the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF) help keep these lanes and byway clear, if there is a blockage they will clear it or arrange for it to be cleared benefiting all who you that right of way.

Doesn't help me - I can step over a fallen tree. The only people they are helping are themselves.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:


- And horse riders, cyclists and those less able bodied than you.

In reply to Craig_M:

Those less able bodied than me are going to have a big problem getting through the thick mud left behind by the packs of trail bikes that have been through some of the tracks around me.

I am a MTBer and I'd rather lift my bike over a tree than deal with the mud left behind by the trail bikes.

Horses can perfectly easily step over logs too.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

You do like your sweeping generalisations don't you? If you don't like the state of tracks after off roaders have been on them, then go somewhere else. You have that choice, they don't. As for horses being able to easily step over logs, have you ever ridden a horse? Not everyone who does is expert and agile. Everyone who uses a trail has an impact on it, as a mountain biker you should be aware of that.

In reply to UKC News: In all the comments I haven't notice any mention of the NOISE that these machines make.

Whilst recently in the Moelwyns there was a pack of trail bikes riding all over the place. What impact would these machines have had on wild life?
Not to mention:---
You work all week, then try and look for some peace and quiet to de-stress at the weekend and these selfish individuals impinge their will on everyone in ear shot.

A walker or climber consciously tries not to make an impact on the environment.

Machines inevitably have much greater consequences both long and short term.

In reply to stonedonkey:


That might be how YOU de-stress but surely everyone has a right to an alternative. Do you demand the whole countryside for yourself? Is there not enough to share?
Walkers are guilty of braiding paths, leaving litter, damaging fences and walls etc. Not ALL walkers of course, but then not ALL off-roaders are guilty of environmental damage either.

And don't climbers damage the environment? Cleaning holds, chipping, bolting? Not ALL climbers of course. . .

In reply to UKC News: Joined up government at work, this is the same mob who will seek to allow any ancient rights of way to be used by motorised vehicles.

In reply to UKC News: Good. Maybe the ban could be extended to SUV's that litter our roads and destroy our environment. I loath these things; the stink, the noise and the mess they create. I also happen to like snow and a stable climate and peace and quiet and other things like that.
Can't say that i really care about the 'rights' of off-roaders anymore than they care about greenhouse gases and the peace of open spaces and the right of people to enjoy nature as intended. Does this mean that if we see off-roaders messing up something nice we can stick an ice axe in the radiator as a kind of citizens arrest and reminder of the global warming they are contributing to - hence my largely redundant axe in their radiator, a kind of dry-tooling in the age of global warming.

In reply to Dr U Idh:

but then not ALL off-roaders are guilty of environmental damage either.

I'm not against off roaders using the track up to stanage pole,as i've seen it become smooth and unrutted after a long period of heavy rain,you couldn't tell it had been used by off roaders in the past,so i think it recovers quite quickly.But off roaders do probably cause more damadge than mountain bikers and walkers by being in motorised 4x4s and on trail bikes which use petrol. Sorry that seems a bit point scoring,it isn't intended as such.

It's good to see that ignorant NIMBYism is alive and well.

In reply to Cary Grant:

No, you'll be causing far more pollution with the glycol from the radiator than by simply letting them get on with it.

In reply to Cary Grant:

I'm assuming from your little rant that you never drive to the crag, or anywhere else that is not an absolutely essential journey? Also, I'm assuming that you never fly anywhere to go on holiday, or buy any products which use potentially environmentally damaging packaging, or contribute to landfill? If that's the case, then I salute you. If not, then maybe you should re-assess your ill thought out hypocrisy.

In reply to Craig_M:

Funny that - I was thinking just the same thing, but worded it so much more politely that I was about to....

The hypocrisy of some of you lot amazes me.

Here are we, climbers and walkers who demand a right to go anywhere we please and climb on every bit of rock, yet when another minority group use legitimate rights of way, you get on your high horse and demand it be stopped.

You are prepared to drive on rights of way that are covered in a tarmac oil product, formed on a roadstone base quarried out of the hills, yet you squawk on about a few ruts, mud and localised erosion: have you seen what oil extraction/refining and quarrying do to the environment. Or are you blind and just a bunch of whinging nimbys?

We need to be tolerant of others who do things that might piss off us a bit. If we cannot be tolerant of others, how can we expect society to tolerate what we want to do out there in the hills.

Start banning off-roaders, then we are on a slippery slope to mountain bikers, horse riders, climbing on “fragile” crag ecosystems.

In reply to Craig_M:


What an odd remark! It's true, of course, that some may be intelligent... but it does seem a rather odd place to do it.

Which crag are you thinking of?

In reply to ChrisJD:


No we don't, and if we did, climbing would end up banned in large areas, as has happened in Germany. Bird bans, for example, are largely respected by climbers.

If the off-roaders round here showed some restraint in the wet winter months, I'd say live and let live. Unfortunately they don't.

In reply to ChrisJD:


I agree, fox hunting for example

In reply to ChrisJD:

I agree it seems New Labour can only go so long before they look for something new to ban, not to restrict us you understand but to give us more choice to make the correct decision.

Yes off roaders may piss some people off, I am sure fox hunters do aswell, as do smokers, people who buy fireworks etc. What some people seem to forget is that climbers probably piss some people off aswell. It makes my blood boil to watch our current massively over authoritarian government in wasting more taxes being tyrannical towards a minority group, who for the most part are completely respectful to the countryside. And while I think of it, I find it strange that a government who preaches (forces by law to be more accurate) tolerance of minority groups of people (homosexuals, ethnic minorities etc) shows no tolerance itself towards the public who choose to get off their arse and do something slightly different with their life.

In reply to Richard Horn: a goverment that

>>>shows no tolerance itself towards the public who choose to get off their arse and do something slightly different with their life.

yeah like ge a job pay taxes etc

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:


As is the restriction to a very small minority of the Rights of Way network by off-roaders.
Off-roaders aren't asking, and never have asked, for unlimited access to the countryside. How would you like your climbing to be resticted to 1% of the crags in the country? or your mountain biking to the same amount of the Rights of Way network? Get some perspective.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd: As a 4x4 green lane user, I suggest a voluntary code: if the ground conditions are wet and boggy, and by driving that road, damage is caused then that lane should be avoided until conditions allow for motorised non damaging use. I know that some people insist that the only way to be non damaging is not to drive it all, but the countryside is there for all of us. I know for a fact that groups such as Trail Riders and GLASS have voluntary work parties to maintain the green lanes, as the local councils (who should be maintaining) don't or won't. There is also evidence that if motorised vehicles did not use these green lanes, that they would not be used by anyone at all, and hence would be lost altogether.

In reply to UKC News: walked along mastiles lane, nr malham on saturday. it is so much better now it's been closed to motorised traffic. didnt have to divert half way across the moors to get round muddy bogs at the muddy bits. on sunday, nearly got run over by 3 4x4s with their families in the back going up a bridleway. idiots.

In reply to Craig_M:

Why should I have to? These are tracks half a mile from my home, which I use all the time. It is the convoys of 4x4s and trail bikes that turn up at weekends from miles away.

>You have that choice, they don't.

Come off it. Their lives wouldn't stop if they didn't churn up a few lanes in the winter months. They are doing it for fun, not livelihood.


Yes, actually.

>Not everyone who does is expert and agile. Everyone who uses a trail has an impact on it, as a mountain biker you should be aware of that.

I am aware of it, and I restrict where I go in wet weather precisely to avoid damaging paths.

In reply to Nick Bird:

If everyone did that, I don't think we'd have a problem.

>There is also evidence that if motorised vehicles did not use these green lanes, that they would not be used by anyone at all, and hence would be lost altogether.

That certainly wouldn't be true round here. There are plenty of other walkers, cyclists, horse riders, game keepers on quad bikes and the odd tractor all using the tracks.

Funny, incidentally, how the agricultural vehicles don't do much damage. That is because they know they need to come back tomorrow, so they are careful.

In reply to ceri:

I think the off-roaders should start a counter movement to ban walkers from county roads, BOATS, and RUPPS. How much better it would be if they didn't have to deal with people on the tracks.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

Don't bring farmers into it.. Most of the ones I've had dealings with would ban ANYONE coming onto their land, rights of way or not.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

It may be a good idea to restrict access to certain tracks to organised events to control the damage done. Places like Mastiles lane get so churned up that nobody can use them apart from tractors and then the council HAS to repair them at great cost. The council is also supposed to waymark footpaths but does not have the money spare to do it apart from the odd one or two.

The person who said the council should repair the tracks so 4*4 vehicles can use them is a divvi of the lowest intellect. In fact they could do so, and neglect to maintain the side roads in residential areas or reduce the amount spent on education or health by the same amount.
The users who churn them up should pay, as they have to do to use forest tracks on rallies, a few pounds a mile per vehicle in most cases.
I wonder if they would be willing to pay £30 a vehicle to traverse 5 miles of green lane as a fee for usage? One farm with campsite on has a 5mph speed limit on the track to reduce damage yet spends about £2000 a year in repairing the mile of track with hardcore. The way to go?

In reply to sutty:

He is far from a divvi (not that I know him),: if the track is a county road, it has the same legal status as the tarmac roads you and me use every day; this means that the council is DUTY bound to keep them in good working order. Whether they do or not is NOT the issue - the legal status is.

This goes back to my other posting: the majority of us are happy to use roads such as the A57, the Ringinglow Road, Curbar Gap that cross main Peak Distrcit escarpment, yet some people scream, shout and throw a wobbler when a few 4x4s use the long causeway across Stanage and then moan about the "intrusion" into the wilderness. Someone explain the objective differece in these roads - three of these just happen to be covered in tarmac, but all four have the same legal status.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Surely you would admit that a group of 4x4's going along a wet green lane will damage it much more than driving along a tarmac road? and that it is not very reasonable to expect local councils to keep such tracks in good repair?

If the track is metalled or over rocks then driving along it will do little harm but if they are really just grass lanes across moorland then regular use of them in the wet, for the fun of churning through, is only going to get everyone banned.

I suspect that in a small, densely populated country it is going to get harder and harder to find places to enjoy cross country driving. Even in France, with a third of the population density to Britain, restrictions get tighter every year. Unfortunately the future is likely to be a sharing system between different user-groups, just putting one's head in the mud and carrying on as "we've always done" is unlikely to work for long.

In reply to UKC News: Once upon a time these bye-ways & green lanes were used by people to get from a to b they were never planned for pratts to go out at weekends to prove how hard they are by churning mud, ban the bloody lot.Most green lanes around me are impassable for much of the year because of them & if they are unusable due to their rather pointless hobby which depends on making a mess
why don't they go & buy themselves a field & not ruin it for the rest of us, any long term damage damage caused by climbing is totally insigifnant in comparison.

In reply to ChrisJD:
The Long Causeway is a perfect example, it used to be a pleasant, reasonably surfaced track across the moors, now it is battered beyond recognition - I guess once it becomes unpassable (pretty soon looking at it last week) the idoits will go somewhere else for their fun!

Chris

To the last few posters.

You really can't see it can you.

Everything you have written reeks of nimbism and hypocrisy. You only want the countryside used in the manner YOU want it to be used and are prepared to rule out all other uses and users.

You fall into the traps very nicely and because you are so blinkered fail to understand what you are really saying.

In the scale of things, the environmental damage done by 4x4s is tiny / infinitesimal. Yet all you do is moan about the damage. And then one of you has the cheek to say driving on a metalled road causes less damage! - what about oil production/refining to make the bitumen; what about the quarrying to make roadstone. Have you seen the size of the quarries in the Peak District ! (not that I’m against them, as I live in a village where they are a big employer).

Open your eyes.

To me, we should be standing up and defending their right to continue to use these tracks. If we don't, who will stand up for us when people want to ban what we do out there.

We must resist this push to turn the countryside into a museum that can't ever be used.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Hmm -

Scenario 1: 4x4s destroy a green lane, making it impassable for themselves and everyone else

Scenario 2: 4x4s are banned from unmetalled green lanes, horse riders, moutain bikers and walkers can all continue to use them.

I'd suggest the second scenario is preferable, and this has nothing to do with nimbyism or class envy - it's about allowing the most people to enjoy the countryside in the most number of ways. 4x4s being driven inappropriately along tracks that were never intended for them is incompatible with other uses of green lanes.

Would you allow someone to go out with a JCB and dig great big holes in spots of public land, on the grounds that opposing that would be stopping someone enjoying what they want to do? Or how about dynamiting crags, because they enjoyed that? And if it's right to oppose one of these uses of coutnryside, why is it wrong to oppose the vandalism of green lanes?

In reply to UKC News: Rather a museum than knee deep mud that I can't walk or run on

In reply to ChrisJD:

This last post is really rather daft, driving along a metalled road does no damage, just infinitessimal wear that will require attention after many years of heavy use. Quarries are used and planned in a controlled way, I fear your "passion" has rather blinkered you, not those you take to be your opponents.

On top of this you have not even understood what I said, I like driving on rough tracks, not in a 4x4 generally, I don't think they are very economical nor suitable for my normal use so I haven't got one, but I'm not against them. In fact I am looking out for an old one for towing and launching a boat. What I'm saying is that if rough road enthusiasts don't use a bit of common sense and limit there use of green roads to acceptable limits they will certainly find themselves banned altogether.

For real mud churning in countries like Britain, Germany and Belgium such absolute freedoms are at the limit of what is compatible with such dense population and should probably be limited to areas reserved for the purpose. The intelligent approach for associations concerned would be to follow this direction - Salisbury plain for example, when the army isn't churning it up, you could - rather than fighting an unwinnable rearguard action for complete and unhindered access to all green lanes. Compromise?

In reply to UKC News:

I just think this Country is becoming unfair; if the 'bob haircut long earring brigade do gooders' don't like it, it becomes the law. I say tuff; the rest of society has a right to do what they like to do and not what the do gooders want them to do. It's due to them that this Country is third rate and not where it should be at the top!

Nuts to the all!!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

To prove the point that having surfaced roads DOES do damage:

UK Primary Aggregates Production in tonnes per year

Sand and gravel - tonnes
1998......98,315,000
1999.....100,953,000
2000.....101,622,000
2002.....101,397,000
2002......94,424,000

Crushed rock - tonnes
1998....131,716,000
1999....132,598,000
2000....130,307,000
2001....133,759,000
2002....126,568,000

BGS 2003:
"National Parks and AONBs cover 23.8% of the land area of England and 23.4% of Wales. In England and Wales 9.7% and 8.2%,of total crushed were supplied from National Parks and AONBs".

"Of total UK aggregate production, 38% was used as concreting aggregate, 27% as roadstone (coated and uncoated), and 15% as constructional fill."

That’s a whole lot of damage to National Parks and AONBs. If you want to "protect" the environment, go and moan about to the users of aggregates (that’ll be me and you then)..

By the way: I'm not a 4x4 off-roader.

I am a climber and a mountain biker and I'm more than happy to share the countryside with all legitimate and responsible off-road users who follow guidelines such as used by such as LARA or the Trail Rider's Fellowship. I will be at the head of the queue to put down people who don't play by the rules and give the do-gooders an excuse to stop us having FUN (be it climbing, winter climbing, walking, 4x4, dirt bikes). I live in the heart of the Peak District and there is a problem with illegal dirt biking, but I will not subscribe to a ban of legitimate and responsible off-roaders.

In reply to Richard Smith: good call - you have my support!

if you wanna go hunting on horses, come on down!

In reply to ChrisJD:

Thankyou for the figures but what I said was :


ie. the car on the metalled road does not damage said metalled road, as opposed to a 4x4 driving along a soft, wet grass road, which often does damage said soft, wet grass road.

Your statistics will be archived, all the same, for future reference.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Mate, there is only so long that you can bang your head against the brick wall of unthinking stupidity before you get a headache. You won't change the opinions of the NIMBYs and those without the capacity for rational thought. However, you'll see quite a remarkable shift in attitude if they ever get banned from their local crag.

In reply to Craig_M:

In my first post I mentioned the way that I thought this thread would progress. Sad to say it has.

I also mentioned that the legal status of green lanes was created at a time when recreational use of 4x4s was not even on the horizon. Laws change to reflect current circumstance, if the 4x4 community cannot keep their house (lane) in order then there will be calls for changes to legislation.

Mastiles Lane above Malham is a case in point - it was 50m wide in places and a real mess, due entirely to recreational use, yet there was no effort by 4x4 drivers to repair this damage. In fact they often appeared to go out of their way to cause more damage. The damage is being repaired by the national park/Craven council at taxpayers' cost.

If you claim a right then along with that right comes responsibility. You cannot have one without the other.

Bob

In reply to Bob:

I agree with almost everything you said there. However, using specific cases like Mastiles Lane as a case for severely restricting the activities of off-roaders is disingenuous. Just because it has happened there, doesn't mean it has happened everywhere. I'm sure that people can cite other cases, but the fact is that it is potentially misleading anecdotal evidence. There is no robust evidence that has been collected on the overall impact of off-roaders (if anyone knows of any, I stand to be corrected) and therefore banning off-roaders is a knee-jerk reaction without rational thought and evidence backing it up.

In reply to Bob:


By the way, you could use that same argument for banning mountain bikers.

In reply to Craig_M:

I was using the Mastiles instance to support the "if the 4x4 community cannot keep their house (lane) in order" line of reasoning that would lead to a ban.

I think (hope) that you would agree that users of the countryside should not leave facilities in a state that would reduce the pleasure of others.

Bob

In reply to Craig_M:

I think there is a case in Cumbria at the moment where the council is attempting to ban MTB use of a bridleway. I cannot remember on what grounds - not damage I am fairly sure - it was in the biking mags a few months back.

Anyway, bikes are classed with horses as far as bridleways are concerned, they were around when the legislation was drawn up.

Bob

In reply to Bob:

I do agree and so do the likes of LARA and the TRF. They get just as pissed off (if not more so) with irresponsible use as anyone. Doesn't this suggest to you that the way forward is education, rather than banning?

In reply to Craig_M:

We've all seen the damage that can occur to footpaths due to thousands for boots over an extended period of time, and how often have we inadvertently widened a track in our effort to circumvent a particularly boggy bit.

A couple of badly driven 4WD's can do as much damage in a afternoon, and render the way virtually unuseable to others. It's human nature to seek the easy way, and if that means cutting across previously unspoiled ground -- if they've got the vehicle to do it in - They Do It without thinking of the consequences just because they can.

The offroad organisations in the main do a great job in promoting good practice, but with the proliferation of 4wd's the majority of owners do not know of their existence, and generally dont give a stuff anyway.

('Ive got a go anywhere vehicle, and I'm gonna do just that!)

If they are coing to persist in that kind of attitude , they deserve to be jumped on hard (in a legal way of course) -- it's just a sad thing that many responsible folks will suffer because of the actions of idiots.

In reply to Craig_M:

Keeping lawyers out of matters is always a good idea

Do LARA and the TRF have reporting procedures for the public to report the numbers of irresponsible users? After all they have to use public roads to get to the green lanes so will have to have a licence plate. Given that the lanes are also public highways then they should be visible when driving on those as well no doubt.

Bob

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is a spurious agrument. Just because you can't see the damage done to give you the luxury of being able to drive along a smooth tarmac road does not mean damage does not take place. Unless you are an Ostrich, that is.

I am prepared to accept the very localised "damage" done by responsible legitimate off-roaders as a price for open access, which I (as a climber and mountain biker) take full advanatage of. I might not like some of the localised eyesore, but I must accept it and be tolerant of how other people want to use the countryside (as long as they obey the law and follow guidelines laid down by their organisations). The issue is that they have a right to be there, in the same way we have a right to drive down surfaced roads.

In reply to Bob:


Yes they are, but mountain bikes, which can get into much wilder places than an ordinary bike, weren't around. Also recreational off-road cyclists weren't around in anything like the numbers they are now. In fact the whole Rights of Way system is an anachronism which is in need of an overhaul. However, it's what we all have to work with and taking away one part of the community's already very small piece if the pie is a very dangerous precedent to set.
By the way, it's nice to have a reasoned and rational debate with someone who is actually putting some thought into it.

In reply to Bob:

To be honest, I don't know if LARA and TRF have those reporting procedures in place. However, you are correct in the other point, that as green lanes are public highways, the vehicles have to be road legal.

In reply to Craig_M:


It's not with statements like this that you are likely to win hearts and minds either... what's a 'NIMBY' by the way, or is it just an insult?

This line of "reasoned debate" seems to fit in quite well with the image that many have of 4x4 drivers though and it does them no service.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
a 'NIMBY' by the way, or is it just an insult?

Not In My Back Yard

In reply to Craig_M:

A slight aside:

My roots are in the Lakeland hill farming community. My father was perhaps ahead of his time as he didn't really mind people using "his" land for their enjoyment so long as they didn't impact upon his day to day work. His argument was that he was lucky to live in a beautiful part of the world rather than a back to back terrace in Bradford or wherever so why shouldn't people also enjoy the country in a responsible manner.

I have probably taken on a bit of that "laissez faire" attitude. OK accidents happen, a gate comes off its hinges, a bit of wall falls down, but if everyone is sensible and responsible about it then things just carry on.

Oh, have you seen where cyclo-cross bikes get to? Puts a lot of mountain bikers to shame and they were around when the legislation came into effect.

As for reforming the rights of way system, I agree, but there are so many vested interests these days from "get off my land" farmers and land owners to the Ramblers Association that it would be doomed to failure from the start.

Bob

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

NIMBY is an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. I'm fully prepared to have a reasoned debate with people who are capable of it. Those who refuse to think, or who resort to thoughtless rants are not worth a reasoned response. This is probably why you get insulted so much. For what it's worth, I'm not an off-roader, I just think they deserve to be given a fair crack of the whip.

In reply to Craig_M:

Luckily I have thick skull and a very small brain.

And I spend a lot of time dealing with local authorities and the Environment Agency, so I'm pretty immune. The more people dig their heals in, the more I push.

In reply to Bob:

I suspect our attitudes towards the issue are not that far removed, just coming from a slightly different angle.
Yes, cyclo-crossers have been around for a long time, but not in large numbers like mountain bikers. Also cyclo-cross tends to be mainly organised events, which is a different issue.
As for Rights of Way reform, I fear you're probably right. However, I recently worked on one of Rights of Way Improvement Plans exemplar projects. One of the major recommendations was that it should not be restricted to Rights of Way and should be a Countryside Access Improvement Plan. Whether this is taken forward or not remains to be seen. Most people seemed to agree that a usable network of routes is far more important than recording historical Rights of Way for their own sake.

In reply to Craig_M:

The only ranting on this thread seems to be coming from those in favour of the totally free use of vehicles on green lanes. Most of those against have complained about the damage done by irresponsible drivers... it hardly justifies your excessive and abusive remarks.

In reply to Richard Smith:

"I say tuff; the rest of society has a right to do what they like to do"

Really ? Thats a new one. I have the right to set light to your house, now, If I want to, do I ?

In reply to Craig_M:

If you think about how our network of paths, roads etc came about then things make sense.

Originally everything was a path because that is how people got from steading to steading, village to village. As trade increased so some paths became wider to enable animals to be taken to market. The smaller paths remained as paths. So now the network was of green lanes and paths.

As things became more industrialised then some lanes got more use - usually the ones that were driest or easiest to move along. As time went on, these roads became surfaced. So now the network is of roads, green lanes and paths.

Finally through in some legislation that differentiates between paths fit for horses and paths fit for people and you have the current UK highways and byeways system.

It could be argued that if I wanted to walk to a neighbours house then I could take a direct line across the fields as that is within the spirit of ancient rights to have a means of access to neighbouring dwellings. Actually we have a network of paths and bridleways that means I don't but you get the point.

Now, what did the Romans ever do for us?

Bob

In reply to Bob:

Funnily enough, I am aware of the origins of the Rights of Way network and it really just reinforces the point about it being anachronistic and in need of a re-think.

As for the Romans, they should have left a peace-kepping force behind to get bogged down in civil unrest and general messyness instead of just pulling out and leaving us in the dark ages............

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, go back and read the thread with unblinkered eyes. No-one is suggesting a free-for-all. No-one is trying to justify irresponsible use. The ranting is almost without exception against 4x4s. If you think it's been abusive then you must have very thin skin and have lead a very sheltered life.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Come on Bruce, don't be so sensitive. It's a forum, people are ofen abusive, it comes with the territory.

In reply to Craig_M: Craig - the ranting (there has been remarkably little of it for this forum!) has been about innapropriate use of 4x4's - which you and Chris JD seem to have reacted to as if it was all 4x4's. The anecdotal evidence is relevant as it is UK wide and basic common sense tells you that a 4x4 is going to create greater damage than a set of walking boots or a mountain bike tyre, so the damage per user equation is what it should boil down to.
There's little NIMBY'ism about it- I'd be as concerned about 4x4's chewing up the hills in Scotland or the Lakes / Peaks / Oxfordshire as in Wales. Unfortunately we live in a small, overpopulated island and we cannot "do as we please" because of the impact on other people and the environment. This should be driven by a moral judgement of what is or isn't acceptable and it's impact on the environment, but this seems to be going out the window to be replaced by a "I can do what I like and F**k the consequences" attitude in all walks of life, the result of which is government placing more constraints on us all.
Cheers
Deri

In reply to ChrisJD:

It is of course quite true that I am a very sensitive soul and my life has been very sheltered.... but having said that, well I've already said what I have to say anyway.

Ah yes, except that when I return to Britain I sometimes revisit the places I used to go in the 70's. In nearly all cases access is much more restricted. Places like Cornwall or Wales where you used to be able to drive up a lane and plonk your tent down for the night, something that was quite appreciable if it was 3 in the morning, pooring with rain and you'd been driving all night, are now all fenced off. Gates are locked and many tracks blocked with large boulders. This is due to the spirit of the times and perhaps also to the sloppy behaviour of climbers of the past.

The same will happen for motorised access to green lanes and tracks unless a bit of common sense and self restraint is used.

Hardly an "blinkered" or "ranting" post, is it? and most of the others have been on this level.

In reply to Deri Jones:

Have you actually read our posts?

The thrust of my argument (I'm not a 4x4 off roader), as detailed in a previous post is:

"I am prepared to accept the very localised "damage" done by responsible legitimate off-roaders as a price for open access, which I (as a climber and mountain biker) take full advantage of. I might not like some of the localised eyesore, but I must accept it and be tolerant of how other people want to use the countryside (as long as they obey the law and follow guidelines laid down by their organisations). The issue is that they have a right to be there, in the same way we have a right to drive down surfaced roads."

The initial thrust of this thread and posts was "ban all 4x4s off-road".

All my postings have been about tolerance of others, confronting the ideas that "damage" is limited to off-roaders, making sure we respect the law/legal-rights, behaving responsibly and within guidelines.

I have never advocated a "I can do what I like and F**k the consequences" attitude.

If you are going to make a confrontational post - get your facts in order.

In reply to Deri Jones:

Fair points, but I think you have mistaken mine and Chris's pleas for a bit of forethought before bringing about bans, with trying to justify bad behaviour. As I've said before, approximatelt 1% of the total Rights of Way network is available to (legal) motorised use. In this context, is a little tolerance of others' chosen pastime too much to ask? You have to look at the reasoning behind the proposal and ask yourself where it could lead. If you don't like where it could lead, then don't start down that road.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Couldn't agree more

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think you'll find that's probably largely due to the "new age" traveler phenomenon of the early 90s and the subsequent legislation brought in to deal with them.

In reply to Bob:

I'd like to see lockable bollards on green lanes that get trashed during wet periods. Give local farmers a key to keep them happy but it should stop the problem without restricting less damaging users.

I think 4x4 green lane access otherwise should be as wide as possible irrespective of the idots that will always breach guidelines...just the same as climbing or MTBs. Where the situation is clearly not working change the guidelines or the access arrangements (again as with climbing). The aggressive attitude of some climbers and ramblers Ive seen at the causeway on Stanage to some very careful 4x4 users and even MTB's was bizzarre to me.

In reply to Craig_M:

Yes, for Cornwall at least this is certainly true, but it comes down to much the same thing. When it was just the odd long haired hippy climbing types (like us) who came for a day or two and more or less cleared up our mess, it was tolerated, when it was buses and caravans which churned the place up and stayed for long periods the locals took action and progressively blocked off access.

With 4x4's it could be the same, it's all a question of degree... plus an increasingly militant anti-motor-vehicle movement, both in the general public and climbing and rambling circles (not to mention on UKC forums!).

In reply to Offwidth:

Perhaps the answer is that green lanes should be restricted to none powered vehicles unless needed for access. if that had happened when we were rallying in the 60s a lot of rallies would not have gone ahead but a lot more farmers would have been prepared to give permisssion for use of their tracks.
we were organised, and did cut up the odd track but it could only be used four times a year by anyone. Perhaps that is what 4*4 drivers will have to accept in the future.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Indeed. It's a sad reflection on our society that a) some people want rights without regard to responsibilities and neither know nor care how their actions impact on others; and b) that people have become so intolerant of others that their immediate reaction is to want a ban when someone else's activities impinge on their own.

In reply to Craig_M:

Looks like this thread is spluttering to an end with everyone agreeing with each other!



One thing I'm convinced of is that this generation and perhaps our children, are living through a period in which we have the greatest possibility for moving about ever, and that pretty soon this will draw to an end.

I doubt that our children's children will be able to wake up at 5 in the morning, not be able to get back to sleep again and, on the spur of the moment, jump into their car or onto motor bike and zoom off for a morning's climbing. All this without planning or permission and be back in time for lunch.

I don't know if it's anti-social to behave like this but I for one intend to make the most of it while I still can!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>I doubt that our children's children will be able to wake up at 5 in the morning, not be able to get back to sleep again and, on the spur of the moment, jump into their car or onto motor bike and zoom off for a morning's climbing. All this without planning or permission and be back in time for lunch

Look at the restrictions in American national parks for a taste of things to come. Also look at the restrictions on driving up the Goyt vallay and at Ladybower for what has already happened in this country.

In years to come you will have to get a parking permit for going up langdale and borrowdale before entering as they get fullish even at off peak times on good days.

Get a good day at this time of year and Grassington carpark is full even midweek.

In reply to sutty:

All of which raises the issue of what we want from our rural areas - free access for all, or preservation of the wilderness. Sadly, the two are incompatible. Ladybower in the summer is horrible - true, it doesn't take much to get away from the crowds if you're prepared to walk a bit, but the congestion on the road really detracts from the experience (or at least it did the last time I went a few years ago, and with that memory, I doubt I'd choose to go back now).

Compare and contrast with some of the restricted areas in US National Parks. I spent 10 weeks doing assorted NPs in Utah, Arizona, Wyoming and California a couple of years ago. The downside was that access is limited in some places - try visiting The Wave, near Paige in Arizona and there are only 10 permits per day. The upside is that if you're sufficiently fortunate to get a permit, as I was, the experience is, I think, much enhanced compared with how it would be if it there were no restrictions. And probably more importantly, the wilderness is preserved as a wilderness - there's virtually no human impact, and certainly no massive scars of eroded footpaths and churned-up tracks.

I've no idea what the solution is. I don't like the idea of access restrictions and bans, but I don't see how many of the rural areas in England can cope with the growing numbers of visitors (and I say England deliberately, as I don't think the same problems exist in Wales and Scotland). If there is unrestricted access, I can't help but think our lungs in the countryside are going to get unhealthily clogged.

In reply to tony:

It's a conumdrum which has puzzled those charged with managing the countryside for many years. It doesn't look like getting any easier to solve. I don't think there are any right or wrong answers to be found, only compromises.

In reply to UKC News: somewhere in the pipe line the goverment will segragate whats right and whats wrong.
does it have the means to carry it through

In reply to tony:

Comparing US national parks and those in the UK is a bit misleading. Those in the US were essentially wilderness areas prior to their designation as NPs. In the UK on the other hand, areas such as the Lake District were, and are, lived and worked in. The only area in the UK that would be comparable to the US style parks would be the Cairngorms.

Added to that, is the fact that the US has a population density of approximately 10% that of the UK and you can see the pressures that NPs face in the UK.

Bob

In reply to UKC News:

I've read with interest the views of both sides as expressed in this forum. Since there has been some criticism of the RA (of which I am not a member) I thought I should look at their view. There is a document at
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/campaigns/footpaths/Ridgeway1.htm
which gives a somewhat unbiased view. It makes interesting reading for both sides.

As a personal view I find it extraordinary that any climber would agree with any activity that has as its result, whether intended or not, high environmental impact. Aren't we all supposed to be taking great care to limit our environmental impact in whatever means we can and to encourage others to have a greater respect for the world around them? Instead some people seem to take great pleasure in activities that can and often do have an impact on the local environment.

After 40 years of climbing and walking around the world I feel rather sad at how people, some of whom climb, now behave when out in the countryside. I expect someone will now say I'm a sad old git and why can't they exercise their rights to do whatever they please.

In reply to UKC News:Why was the impact of road building brought up,4x4s do drive off road but they also use roads to get to the green lanes like MBTers and walkers do,i don't see what the impact of road building has to do with the effect of 4x4s on green lanes,it's not like 4x4s on green lanes are causing less damadge than walkers driving by road to get to the green lanes,it seems obvious,not that that's a critisisim(sp).

In reply to UKC News:It is interesting to learn about the impact of road building though.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to sutty:

<snip>
<Snip>

This was considered a few years ago..........until the Foot & Mouth epidemic, and the Countryside had to close down, I'm guessing that most of the people in these areas were happy to have us visiting again, I've not heard much about traffic restrictions just lately!

BTW the 4x4 owners around where I live, would never counternace getting mud on their vehicles, perish the thought!

In reply to astrecks:

Nothing much heard about the Green Key travel plan in Snowdonia recently.

So daft an idea? The shape of thing to vome I fear.

In reply to UKC News:

I have no problem with reponsible use of Green Lanes by 4x4s. A lot of 4x4 clubs maintain and have opened up such lanes which have fallen into disuse and become overgrown. It is iresponsible to drive off road in wet and soft conditions which damages the ground, unless you do it at a dedicated off road venue where you can get stuck and play in the mud to your hearts content.

On the question of Bye ways, I have seen 4x4 clubs giving up their weekends to maintain them, but have never seen horse riders doing this work. Horses cause a lot of damage to soft or wet ground.

In reply to ChrisJD: Hey that's pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

In reply to Timmd:

I brought road building into it because people were getting on their soap boxes shouting at all the "damage" caused by off-roaders not really taking into account all the "damage" we have to do to the environment to have the luxury of driving along a nice flat bitumenised surface (oil based - not exactly extracted without enviromental damage) built on a base of crushed rock. I produced some BGS stats to show just how much roadstone and oher aggragate is rippped out of national parks and ANOBs every year in England & Wales.

Just thought it was hypocritical for people to use that as a justifaction for banning 4x4s without taking an honest look at their own impact of using a vehicle on other rights of way.

Which causes more real damage: a ****ing big quarry and the oil industry, or off-roading.

We need to get our own house in order before we go at easy targets.

And to restate: I am not a 4x4 off-roader.

In reply to Anonymous:

>I find it extraordinary that any climber would agree with any activity that has as its result, whether intended or not, high environmental impact.

I would challenge whether, in the scheme of things, that 4x4 do cause "high environmental impact". They must be so far down the list of things to worry about. If people really care about the environment (as oppossed to being a bit pissed off with someone else using the countryside in a manner they don't like), then they should go after the activities that are really having an impact on our countryside; to name but a few:

Agriculture
Housebuilding & other developments
Quarrying
Mineral/resoucre extarction
Roadbuilding
Forestry

Need I go on?

In reply to ChrisJD:Fair enough,i was having a bit of a crabby day when i posted and i think that came across.
Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:

Tim, I know the feeling.....

In reply to ChrisJD:

I couldn't agree more that we must oppose the activities you list but all of them have an economic benefit (largely short term and questionable) and therefore it can be argued that they have a place in our current society. Apart from fun, recreational use of an off road vehicle has no benefit to society. Its plainly destructive to the local environment and can't really be justified.

Once upon a time it was perfectly acceptable to pour waste oil down a drain, let dogs shit on pavements, beat your wife, send kids up chimneys. Perhaps after banning smoking, animal experimentation will be banned. Society changes and deemed all these things unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Off road vehicle use is just another part of that change. If we keep chipping away at unacceptable behaviour then eventually we will live in a better world.

Or is your argument that because it is legal (at this time) just like all the list above it should be permitted to continue unchecked? Or is it that you want to use a vehicle off road and can't see what is wrong with it?

In reply to Anonymous:

You realy should read all of the posts before you chip in with a load of crap like this.

I'll repeat for the nth ****ing time:

I am not a 4x4 off-roader.

Read all the posts and then come back with a reply - if you can be arsed. I'm bored with dealing with tw*ts.

Perhaps total segregation, or fair shares for all, would solve this problem, ie. green lanes designated for motorised traffic only, bridleways for horses and cycles only, footpaths and open country for walkers, crags for climbers etc. etc.

I stongly suspect that it would be the walkers only, who would not want to live with that, as, in my opinion, they see themselves as the top of the pecking order. The fact being that they would have the least to loose and would then have to look for something else to complain about.

It would also be the responsibility of the birdwatchers to keep their birds off crags.

In reply to Baz47:


Now that's the funniest thing I've read on this thread.

You are a funny man.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I don't think your reaction to Anonymous is very reasonable. The points he makes are quite valid, just calling him a "tw*at" is not really the reasonable debate you say you are aiming at!

PS. I have read all the posts.

In reply to Baz47:

Walkers and horse riders too, provided they are capable of controlling their large beasts in a reasonable fashion and stick to bridleways that are wide enough for them, would be right in saying they cause the least environmental damage per person.

It is surely not totally unreasonable either to say that footapaths are best suited for people on foot?

Life in cities and even in the crowded countryside of Western Europe is more and more noisy and stressful, don't you think that keeping a part of the wilder areas as zones of peace and quiet is pretty well essential to the mental health of all of us?

Platitudes, I agree, but I don't see where they are wrong.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You're probably right. But got fed up with his closing statement. It was late and I just couldn't be bothered.

In reply to Baz47:

I suspect that motorised users would warmly welcome a "fair shares for all" approach, rather than the 1% of Rights of Way that they're currently limited to.
As for user conflict, see Ravenscroft, N & Rogers, G. A critical incident study of barriers to participation on the Cuckoo Trail, East Sussex. Managing Leisure 8, pp. 184-197 (October 2003). It suggests that there is in fact very little in the way of user conflict in statistical terms and the problem is more percieved than actual. There will also be another article, probably in the same journal, saying much the same thing but using a different methodology, once I've got round to writing it.
All that's required is a bit of tolerance and understanding on all sides.

In reply to Craig_M:


I'm puzzled why you think that paper supports the idea that 4x4s and other users happily mix. I quote from the paper:

"The specific setting selected for the research was the Cuckoo Trail in East Sussex, a former railway line converted to non-motorized shared use (predominantly walkers and cyclists)."

and:

"As a result of the CIT, it is apparent that the Cuckoo Trail is particularly well liked for its tranquil, car-free, rural environment."

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

I don't think I said anything about 4x4 users in relation to that paper did I? I was talking about other user conflict amongst cyclists, walkers and horse riders in relation to the post I was replying to.

In reply to Craig_M: The post you were replying to was fairly obviously a wind-up. This thread is "Government to act against off-roaders". In that context, citing a paper which is about walker/cyclist conflict and nothing to do with off-roaders, without mentioning that fact, seems a bit misleading to me.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

The last line of that post was obviously taking the piss, not the whole post. The poster mentioned segregating user groups including walkers, cyclists and horse riders, in the context of which, the paper I cited was perfectly relevant. Not every post on a thread needs to, or does relate directly to the title of the thread.

In reply to Craig_M:
It seems fairly obvious, from the past few years up until now, that a lot of people are not willing to compromise.

The section who have to compromise the most are the walkers, purely because they were the first and have to put up with all the in-commers, but people don't like change, especially if it is of no benefit to them.

I don't go off-roading by motorised transport but don't mind one bit if someone else does. The noise from a motorcycle in a wild place is no worse than the visual aspect of 20 ramblers passing me by whilst I am belaying and enjoying the scenery.

I think that segregation would suit the minority pastimes like 4x4 or M/Biking and if I wasn't allowed to walk on a green lane then the mud and ruts would be of no consequence.

The bit about the birds was tongue-in-cheek, but they and the "rare lichen" society can grate on the sensibilities.

In reply to Baz47:

This has happened to some extent (with Down-hilling MTBs) in summer in France in Morzine, Les Gets and other parts of the Portes de Solei where there are mountain bike-only downhill tracks.

There is also very little friction between walkers and bikers, with bikers using all the trails: the only complaints I've had in three trips out there have been from English walkers. Which is very telling.

The situation for mountain biking is also very differnt in Scotland with MTB and walkers sharing the same tracks.

And the situaltion (from what I understand - I could be wrong) very very differnt for 4x4s in Scotland: basically there is no off-roading due to the differnt laws/approach to access.

In reply to ChrisJD:
Are these downhill tracks in France purpose built or did they look like existing tracks that were commandered for biking?

Most of the downhill tracks in GB are that rocky you are likely to be overtaken by walkers.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Sorry, but this is untrue. The conflict, sometimes violent, between mountain bikers and walkers in France is often the subject of long and vitriolic exchanges on French news groups (fr.rec.montagne) for example.

In the Chamonix valley mountain bikes are banned on many tracks for safety reasons; it's not so much that there are special tracks made for them it's more that they are only permitted to use certain tracks - in terms of by-laws, that is, the rules are not always respected (France being France).

In Fontainebleau forest there are often conflicts too - bikes are only allowed on tracks above a certain width (3 or 4 metres, I think). They are banned on the blue walking paths, for example, but often the enthusiasts of this sport ignore these rules, the damage they cause to these paths, created over a century ago by Dencourt and Collinet to introduce walkers to the forest, is more and more evident.

But each group seems to think they are the only ones that count. Some climbers are as bad; despite the request that chalk should not be used on boulders at Fontainebleau which is now on the many ONF notices throughout the forest and which explains the need for different groups of users to respect the forest and their co-users, I still see many selfish oafs using the stuff - all nationalities.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce - I expected you at least to actually take in the words that I used:

Quote:

"This has happened to some extent (with Down-hilling MTBs) in summer in France in Morzine, Les Gets and other parts of the Portes de Solei where there are mountain bike-only downhill tracks"

I was talking about my direct experince of an area where there appears (in my three visits (totalling over 30 days of downhilling) to be a good relationship between users and there are dedicated tracks for downhill MTB (I used the example of MTB, in relation to segratgation which was the thread I was taking up).

So for you to jump on me for implying that France was all harmaony and accord, pisses me off a bit. I was pointing out that there is HOPE and it can work out.

In reply to Baz47:

These are purpose built full-on Down-Hill Courses paid for by the land owners/operators/local community.

Counting them in my head, there are at least eight World-Cup type runs. There are also maps showing all the other main tracks and paths (shared use). It all works great and you don't have to peddale uphill as all the uplift is on the chairlift system (which is great as our DH bikes weigh in excess of 45 pounds).

In reply to Baz47:

Wus! Come out with me laddie....

In reply to Baz47:

I'm not entirely convinced about the benefits of segregation. Yes, it has its place in specialised MTB runs and the like, but I suspect that carving up the entire Rights of Way network for specific user groups is neither possible in practise nor desirable. The issue of unwillingness to compromise is, I strongly suspect, more of a perceived problem than an actual one. The problem is that people's perceptions of other users groups tend to be largely shaped by the opinions and policies of pressure groups and "representative" bodies. Obviously, they have vested interests to get the best deals for themselves and their members which can come across as intransigence when in fact the rank and file walkers / cyclists / horse riders or whatever are quite prepared to share the available resources. Of course there are plenty of examples where this is not the case, but bear in mind the fact that you only ever hear of the occasions where there is conflict, you never hear of all the innumerable occasions where there is no conflict.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I'm sorry if this information "pisses you off", there is no reason why it should. I was just correcting the error of thinking that in France, I quote:


The "little friction" remark is untrue, the subject comes up regularly on forums, often quite violently, and also the implication that the only moaners are the "English walkers" (as opposed to Scottish walkers?)... which is also untrue as most (not all) of the posters on French forums are French.

The level of conflict and the number of accidents has resulted in various bodies - ONF (forests) and local councils taking steps to segregate and limit the activities.

I would say this is a pity, especially on rocky tracks where the safety aspect dominates the path damage one. Many calm riders accept that they should give priority to walkers puffing up, the problem comes mostly from the self-styled experts who feel the need to hurtle down paths with little respect for others. The result is they get everyone banned.


It's exactly the same discussion as the one above about use and mis-use of green roads by motorists.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Flipping heck Bruce - I was talking about one particluar area where my personal experience is as I've stated. Can't you just accept that?

In reply to ChrisJD:

Fair enough, I didn't understand that from your post as you talked about sharing "all trails" and also the line about Scotland where you claim "The situation for mountain biking is also very differnt in Scotland with MTB and walkers sharing the same tracks."

I hadn't realised that Scotland was now at Morzine, mind you it doesn't surprise me at all, the French have been angling at it for centuries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The Scotland line was going off at another tangent, drawing attention to the fact that Scotland doesn't have rights of way like England/Wales (i.e. it dosesn't have the hierarchy of footpaths/bridleways/RUPPS/County-Roads). From what I understand (tell me if I'm wrong) that walkers and MTBs have the same "rights of access" (whatever that means under Scottish law) to use well established tracks/access.

This then means that 4x4 have very few rights to drive off-raod in the same way as in England & Wales on certain types of "rights of way".

In reply to ChrisJD:

The new Scottish Outdoor Access Code does give equal access rights to walkers and cyclists (and horse-riders, amongst others), and does explicitly state that access rights are not extended to any form of motorised recreation or passage (except by people with a disability using a vehicle or vessel adapted for their use).

Access rights apply to 'most land and inland water in Scotland, including mountains, moorland, woods and forests, grassland, margins of fields in which crops are growing, paths and tracks, rivers and lochs, the coast and most parks and open spaces.' There's also a list of land to which access rights do not extend.

So there isn't the same scope in Scotland for 4X4s churning up paths and lanes. Still plenty of scope for forestry vehicles making a hell of a mess tho'...

In reply to tony:

Very good interpretation and summary of the SOAC as I understand it. Anyone interested can find more in depth info here:

http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/access/sr-soac.asp

In reply to Craig_M:

or even here: http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/

Although to be honest, it's not the best website ever designed.

It's early days yet, but the Scottish Access Code does seem to have all the right things in it, starting with 3 sound principles:
# Respect the interests of other people:
Be considerate, respect privacy and livelihoods, and the needs of those enjoying the outdoors.

# Care for the Environment:
Look after the places you visit and enjoy. Care for wildlife and historic sites.

# Take responsibility for your own actions:
The outdoors cannot be made risk-free for people exercising access rights; land managers should act with care for people’s safety.

In reply to tony:

Yes, I was quite impressed with the ethos behind it when I did some peripheral work on it for SNH.

In reply to tony:

If 4x4's are banned, then principle no.1 dosn't seem to be bearing up.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I did


Then its interesting that you defend them so loudly.


So are most walkers & climbers when they come to deal with people driving where they have no need to drive. If it means being a tw*t and taking a different view to the one you're expressing on this subject then I'll happily be a tw*t. Perhaps its the tw*ts of this world that are bored with you. Why is it that when people start to lose an argument they rapidly turn to abuse. People shouting tw*t at each other is the same mindset as the people who take pleasure in ripping up the small remaining bits of tranquil landscape in this country. This mindset is one of a lack of understanding, a lack of appreciation and a lack of humility.

Its fairly obvious to most users of the countryside that off road 4x4's create a disproportionate amount of damage to the rights of way they go on. Its bad enough in the area I live in that most horse riders don't use some green lanes anymore, the ground is badly rutted and some off roaders are aggressive to other users. As for walking the same lanes its best to pack wellies or just don't go there.
Whilst walking the Ridgeway some years back we were passed by 42 trailbikes in 4 miles of walking. What before had been a small track used by the odd walker and the local farmer was now a 40 foot wide mudbath, impossible to get around unless the walker crawled through the bushes at the side. In later years the local councils have dumped tons of hardcore on the Ridgeway to provide a surface for more motor use. They have tried to restrict motorised use but have failed. This pattern is repeated to a greater or lesser degree in other areas. How and why is this a defensible and mature behaviour?

Why is it that the activities of just a few people intent on wrecking a green lane should take precedence over the wishes of the quiet and considerate majority? Isn't there enough tarmac for the driver to drive on? Do they really have to drive everywhere? After all its never in doubt that their turbo charged 4x4 will be able to conquer the green lane they set their sights on.
In a world where macho man can do just what he pleases and damn the consequences is there anyone out there who perhaps asks themselves if they should be climbing that crag, walking the wilderness, taking that cheap flight, buying those new trainers. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

In reply to UKC News: At last. Ilive and work in the Rhondda Valleys in south wales. You shouls see the state of the hills and mountains. They are a disgrace, and all caused by the irresponsible riding of quads and scrambler bikes.

Of course this could be tackled in other ways, ASBO the lot of them, or injuct them to stay off the land. Also, it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act to ride on public land (that includes forestry commision land) with out a road legal bike, insurance, tax and a suitable licence. Summons them all and convict them.........

In reply to Anonymous: If the local council fail to do anything, I suggest you quote section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 98 at them. It places a duty on them to deal with anti-social behaviour. Ask them to identify these individuals and use ASBO's on them. Also ask the police the same question and ask them to use their powers to seize the bikes and issue summons offences. If pushed neither can refuse. I know as that is my job.

In reply to Anonymous:

You talk of "understanding" and "appreciation" but the rest of your post seems to be for an outright ban on motorised vehicles on green lanes.

If you don't understand the need for something, don't ban it, come up with an amicable (sp) solution and apply the "appreciation" part of your post.

In reply to Baz47:

Yes that's right. Why should a vehicle be on a green lane for recreational purposes? Why not drive on a tarmac road? Better still, try not to use a car for recreation. Use a car only when you have to.



There are 1000's of miles of tarmac roads out there for cars but fewer and fewer quiet and peaceful places for individuals to go without a car. Or shall we open the motorway network to walkers - there would be no takers I would say as we have created a motorised hell of many roads. Why extend that any further into areas where recreational vehicles have no place? Its the tyranny of the motor car - we are all responsible for it and we can all say no to it.

In reply to Jonnyandsassy:

The local council dept. is at their wits end trying to deal with the issue. They just cannot catch people. In the main by the time the police arrive the offenders have gone. And of course its "legal" to drive a car on on a byway. The reality is that many off roaders, esp. trailbikers don't care what the ride on, footpath, or byway.

In reply to Jonnyandsassy:

That's the problem - again, it's the minority who are screwing things up for the law abiding majority. All the people I know people who ride bikes off road (that's a fair few people!) that have fully road legal, paid up and insured bikes, who stick to designated rights of way and wouldn't dream of going onto other land and messing things up.
You're all getting on your high horses about this without considering, as I stated earlier, that no amount of legislation is going to stop this group of people doing what they do. You're preaching to the converted here!

Why do we climb up rocks? To get to the top? Well, how about walking round instead, instead of damaging the rock? People are ALWAYS going to do things that challenge them - it's human nature.
People are also always going to break the rules and not consider other people and the environment - that's also human nature to a few individuals.
Will you all stop tarring everyone with the same brush. They are NOT all criminals and arguments like this really aren't helping the image of those who behave properly.
Okay, flame away - I'm ready... <sigh>

In reply to Anonymous:

No, not 'many' - a small proportion of them...

In reply to Anonymous:

I really can't be bothered to go through all the arguments (yet again) to refute what you have said here. It (or should I say you) is not worth it. You are obviously a very angry person who will accept nothing less than hanging drawing and quartering of the 4x4 brigade.

It is very telling that you cannot accept the fact that someone who is not an off-roader would defend their right to use certain rights of way in a responsible manner: that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

And I stress RESPONSIBLE, so that you don't go off on a rant about the irresponsible or illegal users, though I doubt if we could agree on a definition of responsible as yours would be never to go off-road.

By the way, not only am I not an off-roader, I also live & work in the centre of a National Park and work in the environmental sector. Go and work that into your world view.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, I'm not an off roader either...

In reply to Jonnyandsassy:

Lived & worked in Cardiff for 3 years and did a fair bit of mountain biking and climbing up in the Valleys.

Couldn't help but notice all the ill effects of coal mining, industrialisation, quarrying and forestry. Not to mention the fly tipping and burnt out cars....and all the unnecessary road straightening on the A470 north of Merthyr and all the road works on the Heads of the Valleys Road. And you talk of damage?

When was the last time you complained to the council about that lot?

In reply to ChrisJD:

I don't want to get into a detailled argument again (please!) but I really do think that it doesn't help to muddle every issue in together. The rights and wrongs of industrialisation are one issue - quite how 60 miilion people would survive in such a small country without it could keep us going for hours - and the use of motor vehicles on green roads is another.

The rights and wrongs of each issue can only be considered seperately... if not you end up with a blanket argument like: "It's all very well you lot going on about ferret worrying (for example) when in Bosnia children are starving every day (for example).."

Doesn't exactly advance the debate, does it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think my point (common to a lot of my posts) is that, quite bluntly, there are a lot more important things to worry about if you are really concerned about environmental damage.

However, ff you are just pissed off with other users ruining YOUR day out or causing a limited eyesore, then that's fine if you couch it in those terms, just don't use "excessive environmental damage" as reason for a ban (as in real terms it is not the case) or use illegal use/irresponbile use as a reason for a blanket ban, as this would unfairly affect responsible users (its also my view such a ban would have little/no affect on the level of current illegal use and would probably prove counter productive).

In reply to ChrisJD:

So you wouldn't agree with the numerous posters, myself included, though I haven't said it on this thread yet, who have witnessed tracks rendered practically unuseable by vehicles? Or areas of soft ground turned into wide areas of bog as successive 4x4's churn through?

Personally I'm not particularly "pissed off" by this in Britain as I don't live there, but I can understand why others are. As someone who likes driving up tracks in an ordinary car to get away from the crowds (unable to churn things up as I would be quickly bogged down) I am concerend by the ever increasing restrictions put on access because of inconsiderate churners - whether they are striclty speaking within their rights or not.

I would agree that "there are a lot more important things to worry about" and often discuss such things on other threads.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think we are entirely in the same camp.

All through this I have said, I support responsible off-road use within guideleines laid down by the organisations representing the off-road fraternity.

Trouble is, what is accetable to me, would be horrendous, never-to-be-undone damage by many of the anti 4x4 brigade. I can say nothing that will placate them.

I've been mountain biking in the Peak District for over 10 years and tracks change on a monthly/weekly basis. A track that might "look" pretty bad one week, looks fresh as a daisy a few weeks later: they are in a state of flux and there are none that I know that have become totally unseable (there are some on the Pennine Bridleway that have had extensive work done on them - almost too much)

Much of the 4x4 damage caused by legitimate and responsible use is transient and over stated. I do fully accept there are areas where overuse does not allow recovery and I am for voluntary restictions on such rights of way (e.g. Totley Moss could probably do with a break from 4x4 use): this is an approach that is fully supported by the off-road organisations.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Soft ground and ruts are probably what off-roaders think of as ideal conditions. If they are not ideal for walking then walk somewhere else.

Reverse the situation and off-readers are probably thinking "I can't get down that green lane because of the amount of ramblers dawdling along it"

I keep saying "probably" because I don't go 4x4ing.

I thing the underlying problem here is lack of tolerence and understanding from people who want the outdoors made just suitable for themselves. There was once a debate on here from climbers who didn't like paragliders. There are always two sides to a debate and a lot of people don't accept that the other side has a point.

I must point out that my tolerence dosn't extent to motorcycles tearing along footpaths or through crops. This is obviously illegal.

In reply to Baz47:


I suppose they cause extensive rutting when they crash into soft ground? Can't see what other harm they do.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Something to do with flying low over Stanage and startling them.

Just goes to show that no pastime is immune from critics.

In reply to UKC News: Hhhhmmm Lots of differing views here!
Just read the whole lot in one go while reading around the web about the potential ban.

Now, I am a 4x4 user. AND I go off-roading, probably 2 or 3 times a year. I am also a walker and used to do some MTBing.

The best tracks for me and the others I drive with (it's a social thing too) are actually the hard tracks, as found in South Wales or on Exmoor. We're not gung-ho mud-pluggers out to change the colour of our vehicles! These tracks suffer little damage with moderate use.

A few years back, while driving up a narrow track on Exmoor I came across a lady up in the hedge, hanging on rather precariously. When I stopped to check if she was OK it transpired she had been nearly run down about ten minutes previously by one of the 'hairy-arse' brigade of 4x4 owner. When we drive we rarely see other users never mind have much grief - one of the reasons we go off-road in the winter months is because we don't want to be meeting hoards of other track users!

There are some very reasonable views on here which seem to come from those who understand the slippery-slope nature of such legislation.

Any area of life in which different users 'compete' for space will attract the same range of opinions - just ask any yachtsman about PWC's (jet-ski's) to find out!!!

It should not be a free-for-all but legitimate use should continue with steps taken against those who do indeed think they have a right to do what they want, whether it's off-roaders, MTB's on footpaths or any other illegal activity.

Lastly, no legislation will prevent the Clarkson factor - that was private land I believe, but i don't have a telly so didn't actually see any of the footage.

Have fun - ALL of you!