/ 4x4 go slow protests in the Peak District

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Alex Ekins - on 26 Sep 2012
Spotted this in the Sheffield Star-

"CAMPAIGNERS protesting about closure of Peak District bridleways including Long Causeway to motorbikes and 4x4 vehicles are holding ‘go slow’ protests on roads around the national park on October 21, November 25 and December 30."

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/news-in-brief-motorcycle-protest-at-peak-closures-1-4961992
Sir Chasm - on 26 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: That's an excellent idea, I'm sure it'll make people sympathetic to off-roaders.
redsulike - on 26 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: Bearing in mind half of them are not road legal it should be easy pickings for the police.
Alex@home - on 26 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

it's ok - they're all sundays so it won't make much difference
woolsack - on 26 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: Be good if the journos could get their facts right, Long Causeway is a BOAT, byway open to all traffic not a bridleway
cuppatea on 26 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins) Be good if the journos could get their facts right, Long Causeway is a BOAT, byway open to all traffic not a bridleway

Well said, and subject to rules of the road, mot tax insurance etc.

Freedoms are gradually being eroded. Would the greenlaners have supported the kinder trespass?

EeeByGum - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins) Be good if the journos could get their facts right, Long Causeway is a BOAT, byway open to all traffic not a bridleway

And that helps the discussion in exactly what way?
lfenbo - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: thats good it will keep them off the green lanes for the day ;-)
scarface - on 27 Sep 2012
I have to say i have been passed on several occasions by the 4x4 drivers, who pass slowly and say hello.

The motorbikes however come past at stupid speeds, scattering gravel, no exhausts and spewing blue smoke. I'm afraid they are a menace.

Rights of way and erosion are another discussion but the motorcyclists put the fear of God into people.
cuppatea on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

At the risk of lighting the blue touch paper, "greenlaners" are on the whole a respectable bunch and adhere to a code of conduct

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=green+lane+association&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=...

and are fairly aware that their chosen pastime is under threat.

see
http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=221&Itemid=442

BOATS are still legally drivable
RUPPS (roads used as public paths) are not, since the NERC act.

Chris the Tall - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:
I had to misfortune to be overtaken by a convoy of 50 motorbikes going over the stanage causeway a month ago

Talk about "How to make friends and influence people". Well from the looks on the faces of all the walkers, they seemed to be doing the latter rather more than the former

May I draw peoples attention to this

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=520752
ollieollie - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: its a bit like the recent beer drinking and weed smoking in cheddar gorge thread, the countryside is for everyone to use!! the problems arise when people do it the wrong way. i think people are to quick to jump on the miserable old git band wagon! good luck to the campaigners
DJonsight - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: This seems to be going on a lot. The last few times I've been to the Peak on a weekend there were "go slow" protests on most roads.
Sir Chasm - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to ollieollie: Hear hear! Everyone should be able to rip up rights of way.
jwa - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to DJonsight:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins) This seems to be going on a lot. The last few times I've been to the Peak on a weekend there were "go slow" protests on most roads.

I wonder what they're all protesting about.

woolsack - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: They *are* rights of way. There are hundreds of 4x4 and biker groups out repairing and maintaining them all year round so let's not paint everyone with the same brush
Ava Adore - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to jwa:
> (In reply to DJonsight)
> [...]
>
> I wonder what they're all protesting about.

Probably having to get up on a Sunday morning
EeeByGum - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) They *are* rights of way. There are hundreds of 4x4 and biker groups out repairing and maintaining them all year round so let's not paint everyone with the same brush

So why are there no 4x4 and biker groups filling in the 3-5ft deep gouge on the Stanage Causeway? Or would that make it a bit too dull for the average 4x4er?

I often wonder what the 4x4ers would make of it if someone were to go there late one night with a gang of several hundred workers and just tarmac the whole thing for a laugh?
Neil Williams - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

Because it is not a bridleway. Saying that it is gives the impression that the nasty car drivers are doing something illegal, which they aren't, though whether it's right or not is more debatable (I have an open mind on it personally).

Saying it's a bridleway is like calling a normal dual carriageway a motorway when trying to promote banning cyclists from it, for instance. These things should deal in facts and be debated rationally, not emotional language.

Neil
ollieollie - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: Right of way- you said it. no your right! while we're at it shall we de construct roads because they're man made
Sir Chasm - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack: I know they're rights of way, that's why I called them rights of way. The consultation is over whether the right should be restricted to non-motorised traffic, in the same way that vehicles are prohibited from other rights of way such as footpaths.
EeeByGum - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Neil Williams: Right - but I don't think most people know the technicalities of either. It is just a word to most and complicated by pages like this:

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/consultations/tro-consultation-2012

Our proposal is to make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to exclude motor vehicles from:

1. Long Causeway, a 3.6km route between Sheffield and Hathersage which crosses Stanage Edge, and
2. The Roych, a 3.5km stretch of the Pennine Bridleway near Chapel-en-le-Frith.


If the officials can't get it right what chance to the rest of us stand?
deepsoup - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to jwa:
> I wonder what they're all protesting about.

The 'regular' go slow protesters?
They want bigger parcel shelves for their tweedy hats. :O)
M0nkey - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to ollieollie) Hear hear! Everyone should be able to rip up rights of way.

When this gets debated on UKC every few months, i always think there are a lot of intolerant views expressed. There are a lot of irresponsible climbers who place bolts, pegs, leave rubbish, polish holds, leave chalk trails up cliffs, leave turds on footpaths, bring their dogs into areas they shouldn't etc etc. Just because there are irresponsible climbers isn't a good argument for banning climbing.

Likewise, just because there are some irresponsible green-laners, I don't think that gives justification for banning green-laning.

The other popular argument is that the green laners unjustifiably interfere with the right of others to enjoy the hills. I'm not persuaded by that argument either. If the mere sight of some tyre tracks on a path/road, or the occasional sound of a motorised vehicle fill you with apopleptic rage, such that you can't get on with your day in the hills, I think that is probably because of a personal problem you have, rather than a reflection of the unjustifiability of the actions of the green laners.

Sorry SirChasm, this isn't directed at you specifically, I just quoted your post as an example of the type of arguments which get rolled out in these debates because I wanted to respond to them. Hope you don't mind.
Sir Chasm - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to M0nkey: My dear chap, I don't mind at all. I await the outcome of the consultation with interest.
Bulls Crack - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Neil Williams) Right - but I don't think most people know the technicalities of either. It is just a word to most and complicated by pages like this:
>
> http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/consultations/tro-consultation-2012
>
> Our proposal is to make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to exclude motor vehicles from:
>
> 1. Long Causeway, a 3.6km route between Sheffield and Hathersage which crosses Stanage Edge, and
> 2. The Roych, a 3.5km stretch of the Pennine Bridleway near Chapel-en-le-Frith.
>
> If the officials can't get it right what chance to the rest of us stand?

They haven't got it wrong. The Roych is an unclassified highway that happens to have a section of the Pennine Bridleway running over it - it almost certainly has higher rights than bridleway ones.
EeeByGum - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> They haven't got it wrong. The Roych is an unclassified highway that happens to have a section of the Pennine Bridleway running over it - it almost certainly has higher rights than bridleway ones.

Right - but however you describe it with regard to the law, we are all basically talking about off-road vehicles driving along tracks in the countryside.
Paul F - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to ollieollie) Hear hear! Everyone should be able to rip up rights of way.

and everyone can help maintain and repair rights of way too.

http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1114&Itemid=1288
redsulike - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to cuppatea: It is not particularly well said, it is pedantic, a technicality, exactly the kind of tactic used by vehicle users to drive along routes that were never intentioned for them in the wildest imaginations of anyone at the time they were designated.
An analogy might be the sickest kind of lawyer using the technicalities of the law to have a case against his client dismissed because of some slight irregularity in proceedure despite the fact that his guilt is otherwise undeniable.
We shouldn't talk about freedom in those terms, it de-means it, wash your mouth out.
Paul F - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to redsulike:
> (In reply to cuppatea) It is not particularly well said, it is pedantic, a technicality, exactly the kind of tactic used along routes that were never intentioned for them in the wildest imaginations of anyone at the time they were designated.

Like drytooling ;0)
ads.ukclimbing.com
54ms - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to scarface:
> I have to say i have been passed on several occasions by the 4x4 drivers, who pass slowly and say hello.
>
> The motorbikes however come past at stupid speeds, scattering gravel, no exhausts and spewing blue smoke. I'm afraid they are a menace.
>
> Rights of way and erosion are another discussion but the motorcyclists put the fear of God into people.

On the plus side when I busted up my ankle at high neb years ago, they stopped, picked me up and drove me to the car.
redsulike - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Paul F: No argument here. :)
cuppatea on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Paul F:

Or bolting routes :D


I shall bite no more.
cuppatea on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

OK I will. It's not pedantic, it's either a BOAT or a RUPP or a footpath or a motorway or whatever or it isn't. Each of those examples has a strict set of laws governing the types of transportation/vehicles permitted on them.

Having had a finger in many outdoor pies over the years it should no longer surprise me that we sit by while freedoms are eroded.

The Ramblers gawd bless their little cotton red socks and bobbley hats seem much more organised and protective of their rights.
ollieollie - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins: next there will be moaning about farmers driving about on their land
redsulike - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to cuppatea: At the risk of this becoming a pantomime exchange, it is pedantic, it is semantic. You and others are using the outdated letter of the law to circumvent the spirit of the law. Like the small print in a rip-off contract you represent the worst of the legal system intended to protect society.
Wheel clampers- legal;
Company directors going bust and setting up new companies abandoning their creditors - legal.
Telephone cold calling-legal,
Companies sharing your personal information with other companies- legal. 4x4 on a BOAT or a RUPP-legal.
Like a dog turd on the pavement they reduce the quality of life of those who are unlucky enough to encounter you on an otherwise pleasant walk.
cuppatea on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

So I'm a greenlaning representative of the law eh? Maybe I just like an argument :p
robw007 - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

Now the 4x4 ers are no longer messing with the causeway can someone sort a decent route through for mountain bikers - its a nails descent at the moment!!
EdTheDuck - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to redsulike:

I love such narrow minded responses...

Your analogies are awful, why don't you go to a Trail Riders Fellowship meeting before posting such shite.

I love the outdoors, I'm passionate about making them available for everyone.

As with any sport / hobby / lifestyle there are always people who make poor decisions and / or don't follow what's regarded as appropriate behaviour, posts like yours do nothing to improve or alter the situation.

Get a life, enjoy your hobbies and help other people enjoy there's!

Sir Chasm - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to EdTheDuck: If you're passionate about making the causeway available for all I assume you're campaigning to have it tarmacced for wheelchair users.
EdTheDuck - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:



I'm not talking about a specific place, I'm saying that everyone should be able to enjoy some form of the outdoors relevant to their hobby / sport / lifestyle in a responsible way.

You don't have to Tarmac paths for wheelchair users, have a look at Beacon Fell in Lancashire, they do a great job of getting disabled people out in 'Trampers'

http://www.forestofbowland.com/access-for-all
woolsack - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to EdTheDuck:
>
> You don't have to Tarmac paths for wheelchair users, have a look at Beacon Fell in Lancashire, they do a great job of getting disabled people out in 'Trampers'
>
> http://www.forestofbowland.com/access-for-all

Hell, those things have got motors in them, get them banned immediately!
Sir Chasm - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to EdTheDuck: Tough, if you've got a destructive, antisocial hobby don't expect everyone else to put up with it, pay a farmer to tear up one of his fields or use trail centres.
woolsack - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: pay a farmer to tear up one of his fields or use trail centres.

How long before you and your fascists call for these to be banned?
EdTheDuck - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Again;

'I love such narrow minded responses...'

I'm off to bed now, go read up before you post again,

Ed
Sir Chasm - on 27 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack: I'm suggesting it, why would I call for it to be banned?
redsulike - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to EdTheDuck: Hi Ed, my analogies are fine, you just don't like them. And if you are a trail rider I would have no problem if on private land, either yours or land you pay to use, you enloy your activity. However, 4x4 and other vehicles on land accessible by the public detracts from the enjoyment of other members of the public in their chosen activity.
The nub of your argument is that you have the right to enjoy your activity even though it spoils it for others. Currently you do. But you are using an outdated law in a way it was never intended to exercise that right. That loophole is slowly being closed and a good thing too.
Here's another analogy, its a bit like the freedom to smoke which apart from the health hazards spoils the enjoyment of sharing a public space with others. You probably wont like that either but fortunately the vast majority of people think the smoking ban is a good thing... and the same is coming for trail riders and 4x4 drivers.
It has nothing to do either with trail riders who see themselves as responsible, with all the right kit and road legal machines. You don't belong there, choose how passionate you say are, you spoil it for everyone else, and you do not have the freedom to do that.
deepsoup - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to redsulike:
> the vast majority of people think the smoking ban is a good thing... and the same is coming for trail riders and 4x4 drivers.

I think you'll find it's already illegal to drive a 4x4 inside a pub.
Sir Chasm - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to deepsoup: I don't think it's illegal, it's at the landlord's discretion.
woolsack - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to redsulike: You make it sound as if 4x4's and trail bikes are driving on all the footpaths and bridleways. They're not. They are driving on roads that don't have tarmac on. There is only a minimal percentage of all of the UK's unsurfaced paths, bridleways and roads anyway that vehicular access is allowed on already, I forget the percentage, probably sub 5%? Why should your 'rights' be any more right than theirs?

It's always quite laughable that you bring up Stanage Causeway. The only visible scarring I can see there on satellite views is done by walkers and climbers. Maybe that traffic should be restricted so that the surface can recover?
winhill - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

The debate about Rights of Way only obfuscates the issue and sacrifices particular, individual issues under a cloud of generalisation.

Thin end of the wedge arguments similarly undermine our ability to make case by case judgements based on better criteria.

With regards to historically important ancient trackways, especially The Causeway and The Ridgeway a better approach would be to have them listed as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, along their entire length, with individuals or groups applying for managed access for anything beyond walking.
Sir Chasm - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack: Have you seen what the thread is about? Of course the causeway has been brought up.
pauldr - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to robw007:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins)
>
> Now the 4x4 ers are no longer messing with the causeway can someone sort a decent route through for mountain bikers - its a nails descent at the moment!!

Thats what makes it fun mate..

Oh can anyone point me in the right direction of a good 4x4 track to try just got one and want somewhere to try it lol

Sir Chasm - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to pauldr: Tesco's car parks and outside schools seem to be popular.
steve456 on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack:
> It's always quite laughable that you bring up Stanage Causeway. The only visible scarring I can see there on satellite views is done by walkers and climbers.

By not actually going, you've apparently missed the tyre track mudbath, the tyre tracks around the mudbath (stretching the mudbath), the really nasty resurface the peak authority had to put down, the decline over suprisingly few years from a block causway to a sandbowl at the steep section, fuel floating in every puddle, and oil streaks everywhere.

With the exception of driving to the side of the causeway, that's all objective destruction from law-abiding, rule-following 4x4 drivers. Lastly there's a great big bloody hole in the road now so the causeway was closed to vehicular traffic.

Not that that has ever stopped some of them who seem to be of the attitude that if a roadblock can be dragged out of the way it's fair game. The top of houndkirk looks like it's covered in mini anti-tank blocks (which I suppose it is,) after signs, fences and even these blocks kept being torn down to allow romping around the open moorland summit (after removing number plates).

Whilst the operative word in that paragraph was 'some', the 4x4 community just shrugs and points at bad apples and individuals doing their own thing. Climbers caught chipping for example, or otherwise threatening access would be publically bollocked.On the whole, we don't need razor-wire or barricades to make us stick to the paths. Whether climbers or 4x4 drivers like it, we're communities and as such are tarred with whatever the worst of us do. Climbers shitting at eagle tor? Climbers banned. It's the way it works. If a community ignores repeated concerns then access is lost.
EeeByGum - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to woolsack:
> Why should your 'rights' be any more right than theirs?
Society is continuously putting one lot of rights in front of the other. Smokers no longer have the right to smoke where they like. Dog walkers no longer have right to have their dogs shit all over the pavement. Anti-social behaviour is very much frowned on these days. Perhaps some might consider off-roading in the countryside to be anti-social?

> It's always quite laughable that you bring up Stanage Causeway. The only visible scarring I can see there on satellite views is done by walkers and climbers. Maybe that traffic should be restricted so that the surface can recover?

Hmmm - are you sure this mess was created by walkers?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockingtheboatgl/5640690782/in/set-72157625954170897
EdTheDuck - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to redsulike:

Another finely put together response showing your very well balanced and well thought out view – ‘You don't belong there…’

I’m not a Trail Rider but I do respect their right to responsibly use the extremely limited number of trails they have access to, I also respect the Trail Riders Fellowship, take a look at their mission statement, clearly they want banning from everywhere in the UK with such a narrow minded view;



‘Preserving historic, public rights of way for the benefit of all user groups.

Working to ensure local councils and highways authorities carry out their statutory rights of way duties.

Campaigning for the fair and equitable treatment of all countryside user groups.’

http://www.trf.org.uk/




Anyway, let me know if there is anything else I or anyone else shouldn’t do, I’ll be sure to listen to you…get a grip!
Chris the Tall - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to EdTheDuck:

http://www.trf.org.uk/

Noticed there code of conduct includes the following

>>>>
Ride quietly.

Machines must be effectively silenced. Use the throttle with discretion, as
noise does offend. Green lanes are subject to the same laws as surfaced
roads.

>>>

This is one of my big issues with trail riders, and I don't think I have ever met one use bike was "effectively silenced" - you can generally hear them a mile off.
redsulike - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to EdTheDuck:
> (In reply to redsulike)
>

> ‘Preserving historic, public rights of way for the benefit of all user groups.
>
> Working to ensure local councils and highways authorities carry out their statutory rights of way duties.
>
> Campaigning for the fair and equitable treatment of all countryside user groups.’
>
> http://www.trf.org.uk/
>

A bit like paedophiles holding a coffee morning in support of Childline.
Sir Chasm - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to Chris the Tall: You just haven't heard the quiet ones.
ads.ukclimbing.com
EdTheDuck - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Hi Chris,

I agree, noise is a big challenge, EU Regulation and Emission Laws have driven many of the older two stroke bikes out of production with the vast majority of new Trail Bikes being four stroke which of course tend to have an exhaust note that travels further.

This could perhaps be addressed through the British Standard Institution or the MOT scheme?

I’m sure many trail riders would accept tighter regulation on this front to keep other trail users happy. You do have similar problems from other road users at certain crags as well though, not just trail bikes, Giggleswick South is a good example on a Sunday morning when all of the sports bikes head to Kirby Lonsdale.

I suppose though that if you didn’t want to be disturbed you wouldn’t climb at Giggleswick South and you wouldn’t walk on a ‘Green Lane’…

It is a challenge though.

Ed
EdTheDuck - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to redsulike:

I know…Imagine that, a group wanting to support something it believes in, well that’s not quite true as they also maintain trails for other users but still I’m a little worried.

I’ve heard rumours that another group, the BMC (?), are campaigning for access to land as well…whatever next?

I'm staying away from your coffee mornings though..
Bulls Crack - on 28 Sep 2012
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins)
>
> The debate about Rights of Way only obfuscates the issue and sacrifices particular, individual issues under a cloud of generalisation.
>
Except that RoW law also allows you to manage them after a fashion via TRO's, - experimental, seasonal etc
ChrisJD on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

I live, work and pay my taxes in Hope Valley (for over 18 years now), climb and mountain bike in the area and I really have zero problem sharing a few of the rights of way with 4x4s and dirt bikers.

Clint86 - on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to ChrisJD: 4 by 4's should also be banned from dropping children off at school.
Bulls Crack - on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to ChrisJD:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins)
>
> I live, work and pay my taxes in Hope Valley (for over 18 years now), climb and mountain bike in the area and I really have zero problem sharing a few of the rights of way with 4x4s and dirt bikers.

How completely and utterly reasonable of you. You should be ashamed.
woolsack - on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

>
> Hmmm - are you sure this mess was created by walkers?
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockingtheboatgl/5640690782/in/set-72157625954170897

I know that this goes against the grain on UKC, I agree with you. Those pictures change my opinion on whether there should be a TRO in place on the Causeway. That has deteriorated a great deal since I last saw it. It's trashed now.

The whole point of greenlaning should be treading lightly, evidently that isn't the case there.
ChrisJD on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> You should be ashamed.

LOL

Yeah, right

In reply to ChrisJD:
> (In reply to Alex Ekins)
>
> I live, work and pay my taxes in Hope Valley (for over 18 years now), climb and mountain bike in the area and I really have zero problem sharing a few of the rights of way with 4x4s and dirt bikers.

Well that seems fair as apparently Derbyshire CC will have to pick up the £250,000 bill to repair the Long Causeway. Wonder if they have anything else they could have spent it on instead though?


Chris
Rick Graham on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs

Why does it need fixing?

Plenty of bedrock to limit the damage.

Or just plant a few trees and eat more sheep to let them grow.
subalpine - on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Rick Graham:
>
> Or just plant a few trees and eat more sheep to let them grow.

eh?

Rick Graham on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:

I think the way it works is that trees limit water erosion damage.
Sheep eat sapling trees and prevent them maturing.

Will probably get corrected by some smartarse soon.
ChrisJD on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> (In reply to ChrisJD)
> [...]
>
> Well that seems fair as apparently Derbyshire CC will have to pick up the £250,000 bill to repair the Long Causeway. Wonder if they have anything else they could have spent it on instead though?


That's such a useless line of argument - there are loads of things that I pay for through taxes that I don't actually 'use' or even agree with (but I don't moan, it's part of the deal that is democracy).

subalpine - on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Rick Graham: i get you- sounds reasonable. but eating sheep is why we have lost upland forests in the first place..
Rick Graham on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:
I agree but did I mention breeding?
Bulls Crack - on 29 Sep 2012
In reply to Rick Graham:
> In reply to Chris Craggs
>
> Why does it need fixing?
>
> Plenty of bedrock to limit the damage.
>
> Or just plant a few trees and eat more sheep to let them grow.

A fair point!
In reply to Rick Graham:
> In reply to Chris Craggs
>
> Why does it need fixing?
>
> Plenty of bedrock to limit the damage.
>

The section that is becoming severely eroded isn't bedrock, it is an embankment built to support the road. Apparently the damage to the surface is allowing water into the core and washing it away.

Chris
chris j on 30 Sep 2012
In reply to ChrisJD:
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> [...]
>
>
> That's such a useless line of argument - there are loads of things that I pay for through taxes that I don't actually 'use' or even agree with (but I don't moan, it's part of the deal that is democracy).

But you're missing out on your side of the deal then - you pay your taxes so you're entitled to moan at your various elected representatives about what the money gets spent on. 99% of the time you get roundly ignored but once in a while, mostly on something local, someone surprises you and listens.
ChrisJD on 30 Sep 2012
In reply to chris j:
> (In reply to ChrisJD)
> [...]
>
> But you're missing out on your side of the deal then - you pay your taxes so you're entitled to moan at your various elected representatives about what the money gets spent on. 99% of the time you get roundly ignored but once in a while, mostly on something local, someone surprises you and listens.

But it's my right to 'miss out' ;-)

And you have to accept that you don't always get what you want (Mick would be proud).



Mike Stretford - on 30 Sep 2012
In reply to ChrisJD:
> (In reply to chris j)
> [...]
>
> And you have to accept that you don't always get what you want

That's something the 'greenlaners' are getting faniliar with.

Gasmerchant - on 02 Oct 2012
FWIW

After CRoW, about 10% of the rights of way were available to motorised transport iirc. It's less now.

I used to go green laning with friends and enjoyed alot. We were all road legal, always slowed down for ramblers, stopped for horses and generally tried to be friendly, smile and be polite. Despite this there were occassions where we got abuse, particularly off ramblers (who remember have access to 100% of the rights of way). We used to stop off a village pubs, shops and petrol stations for lunch etc. We were as anti the loud and fast pikeys/yoof on motocross bikes as the ramblers.

I do enduro practice days, the odd race and a bit of motocross still - largely because it's easier and less hassle than green laning. I miss being able to explore the countryside with mates in a relaxed manner though. There is still a lot of pressure on MX/enduro venues - it's almost as if the nimby's want to ban bikes at all costs. They petition for more closures and thus create more pressure on the remaining lanes, which leads to more problems. I don't condone riding illegally, but can see why people might resort to doing it - which would make for a more noisy and dangerous situation out on the lanes than existed originally.
Sir Chasm - on 02 Oct 2012
In reply to Gasmerchant: You can still sit in your 4x4 and explore the countryside with your mates, there are lots of roads in the Peak.
ChrisJD on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

Perhaps a Pass scheme like this in the Lakes for Gatescarth Pass could be adaopted for the Stanage Causeway.

http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/outdoors/green_roads/green_road_gatescarth

Surely a compromise of limited access is better (and fairer to all users) than an outright ban.
simon c on 10 Oct 2012
In reply to Alex Ekins:

Peak Park are asking for views in public consultation before 2nd november


http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/consultations/tro-consultation-2012

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.