UKC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/21/off-roading-national-park-countrys...

Who do you think will win ultimately? The pro 4x4 or the anti 4x4?
Was an interesting article in terms of how 4x4 freedom came about.

In reply to Flicka@work:
I expect the 4x4s will win as the law, sadly, is on their side. Old law admittedly but law just the same. Pity. Crucifixion is too good for these people.

In reply to Flicka@work:

Peak District parkland is not under threat from "the rise of 4x4's". To claim there is is to vastly overestimate the number of people who go green laning, vastly overestimate the proportion of the rights of way network which is open to motor vehicles, and vastly underestimate the number of agricultural vehicles using these lanes, which won't be affected by any closure.

The only way in which that article was interesting was as an illustration of the degree of mistruth which you can apparently get away with publishing in a national newspaper if you are rich and influential.

In reply to Flicka@work: I dropped this link (out of mischief) into the bike thread. My guess is that in the next couple of decades we'll see a gradual tightening of restriction and increase in restricted byways, forcing off road vehicle recreation onto paid for sites.

Personally I'm not sure whether that's a good thing or not.

In reply to toad:

If you think a gradual removal of rights of way in the countryside is a good thing (or any other gradual removal of liberties for spurious reasons), then I eagerly await the time it bites you on the arse when Hattersley and his ilk decide they don't like all these climbers damaging the landscape, dropping rocks on innocent walkers, shouting at each other, cluttering up villages with their cars while they go climbing, etc.

In reply to toad:
Even some of these are being closed down due to planning regs/NIMBY/enviro-fascists etc etc

In reply to Flicka@work: "So it must now be opened up to Land Rovers and Harley-Davidsons."

Come on now Woy, you know you've never seen a Harley on a green lane

In reply to wildchild:

The amount of usage may be overestimated, but the level of damage isn't:

http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs/image/70030325

Chris

PS Not many farm vehicle use that

In reply to Chris Craggs:

1) The eroded condition of the road is the result of the local authority failing to maintain it. Not the result of a *road* being used as intended - to travel along. Just the same as if a tarmac road was full of potholes.

2) Are you telling me that the state of that long thin strip of land is destroying the remaining 99.99% of the view? Because that's what Hattersley is saying. Does it jar more or less with the landscape than a tarmac road? Even if it was just a footpath, the grass would be stripped off, so from any significant distance it would be just as visible.

In reply to wildchild:

The 'road' was designed for use by horses, and was fine for a couple of hundred years. Something has changed in the past 10 years.

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

You're either arguing for it to be surfaced with tarmac, or for cars to be banned from all roads. Because pretty much every road was originally 'designed' for horses and carts.

The local authority has an obligation to maintain the roads in their area to deal with the traffic which passes over them. Something which they've obviously failed to do in this situation.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I look forward to this coming round and biting you lot in the arse when people start restricting access to crags. Well, I don't, because it will affect me too, but you know what I mean.

In reply to Chris Craggs:
>. Something has changed in the past 10 years.
>And I think that this is one of the issues that will lead to further restrictions. There are a lot more vehicles around than there used to be and they are often not being used by experienced/ responsible users - it's the quads and trail bikes that (in my experience) drew most complaints/concerns and these were the ones the coppers were most interested in stopping (and ironically, least able to!)

On the subject of maintenance, byways are maintained under the aegis of rights of way teams, in the main. These often have in house teams who can manage footpath/ gate repairs etc in house. Byways require highways engineering and therefore expensive external contractors, so byways are disproportionately expensive to repair. There's an interesting dichotomy as the people who are affected by byway damage as pedestrians and residents are often local, whilst the people causing damage are typically incomers and therefore do not have to bear the cost of repair through taxes (Stanage Causeway is slightly unusual in that respect).

As I said initially, I think don't care will be made to care in the next few political cycles.

In reply to toad:
>There's an interesting dichotomy as the people who are affected by byway damage as pedestrians and residents are often local, whilst the people causing damage are typically incomers and therefore do not have to bear the cost of repair through taxes


I don't think you can prove that to be true. Even if it was, there's a whole list of other things which are paid for by local taxation, but which provide a service available to the general population. It balances out.

In reply to wildchild: I don't have the figures as I'm not in that job anymore, but I was involved in negotiations leading to byway closures due to bike problems. Repair/ removal costs were staggering, mostly because it needed specialist contractors.

In reply to wildchild:

If the "road" was mantained to the level required for them to sustain the level of use by 4x4's and motorbikes in the most cost effective manor those tracks would either be tarmaced or graded as dirt roads.


It jars rather more than a tarmac road would, that would be a clean road with a defined edge not a broken and rapidly widening heap of rubble. That particular track was built at least as far back as 1700 and was a major pack horse and Waggon road taking rock, millstones and other goods from Hathersage to Sheffield. It stood up to the traffic well and into the 90's was in good condition and provided a well made rapid horse/bike/foot track across the moor. In the last 10 years it has been trashed by perhaps as few as 30 idiots driving 4x4's with an unladen weight probably 2-3 times the laden weight of the carts it was built for. If you want to drive over the moors to sheffield go via fox house and olwer bar.

Restricting 4x4's from those tracks isn't loosing a right of way it is protecting a right of way from destruction by traffic they were never meant to take just as you might put a weight limit on a country lane if 36 ton artic's start using it regularly as a short cut.

In reply to Flicka@work:

BAZOOKAS. The way forward.

In reply to wildchild:

No, most were put in for horses, carts and agricultural steam engines. These were then resurfaced and redesigned for bikes and then cars in the last century. The decision was made not to do that with some very old rights of way as they had been superseded by much more suitable routes. The A9 is a better road than the Larig Gru could ever be,the same with the M4 and the Ridgeway. A concious decision has been made not to turn these tracks into roads just respect that.

In reply to Postmanpat:


bit counter productive in terms of damage caused though.
one of these with a magnet and flightpath out to sea would work though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-64_Skycrane

In reply to davidwright:

So we agree, the local council should grade it?


Regarding the suggestion that it would jar less if it was tarmaced, LOL.

Regarding your claimed knowledge of the road condition over several centuries, LOL.


So it's the weight that's the problem? Why do you mention motorbikes then. How about a ton of horse and rider?

In reply to davidwright:
>A concious decision has been made not to turn these tracks into roads just >respect that.

Legally, these 'tracks' are roads, why not just respect that?

In reply to toad:

I normally have quite a bit of respect for your posts but I did wonder what on earth you were on about with that link on the bike thread. The people on the bike thread were talking about going out for a spin on normal road bikes on tarmac roads.

In reply to teflonpete: It was one poster who'd raised it and I though he might be interested/apopleptic to see it, rather than a general response to the thread. Should have popped a hijack label on it

In reply to wildchild:

They have been dropped out of the road network. Most weren't even upgraded to carrage roads in the 1700's or 1800's. A decision was taken about 100 years ago that those routes weren't suitable for motor vehicles rather than extend by default rights over those tracks that were denied de facto rather than de jure the legal situation should catch up with the factual one.

In reply to wildchild:
I think there are two solutions to this

1) 4x4's and motorbikes are bared from these tracks

2) The roads are rebuilt to take 4x4 traffic thus removing their utility to the green laneing community


No its not weight that is the sole problem wheeled vehicles do more damage to the land than horses however we do restrict the kinds of vehicle allowed to use rights of way on a regular basis what I am suggesting is that the existance of a historic right to take a horse drawn waggon over a road should not imply the right to drive a 4x4 or ride a motorbike over it.

In reply to davidwright:

- They haven't been "dropped out of the road network". They are roads, and they are part of the road network.

- Your statement that "a decision was made" is ridiculous. Who made this decision? Where is it recorded?

The rights of way network was not planned a century ago by some wise politician. It's grown and routes have been improved according to the traffic which passes along them. So the A1 is now a multi-lane dual carriageway along most of its length, while the lane at Stanage is still a single track and loose-surface, because it hasn't had the traffic to justify anything else.

I'm all in favour of keeping it as a graded dirt road, rather than turning it into the M1, but I do think the local authority should fulfil their obligation to maintain it as such.

In reply to davidwright: Out of interest, have you seen this?

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/crow/researchrep-veh.pd...

It's getting a littleold,but it's got some useful context.

In reply to Flicka@work:

This whole problem has been caused by the NERC Act and Restricted Byways Regulations of 2006. These, at a stroke, made it illegal to drive motorised vehicles on most of the so-called green lanes in England and Wales, eg Roads Used As Public Paths. As a result more use has since been made of Byways Open To All Traffic as these can still be legally driven by vehicles which are road-legal. I believe that Stanage Causeway is a BOAT. A BOAT is a council maintained road. Some BOATs are tarmaced and some are not. County Councils have a legal duty to maintain all roads but most Councils ignore this requirement when it comes to BOATs, whether previously tarmaced or not.

NERC has left us with a rather confusing situation, but the root cause of many local difficulties was past ineptitude by county councils in not reclassifying RUPPs as required by successive Government legislation since 1963. If this had been done sensibly, then we could have had a situation where RUPPs with sustainable surfaces could have been reclassified as BOATs and those without such surfaces could have been appropriately downgraded to either footpaths, bridleways or restricted byways. This would have avoided, for example, the wholly inappropriate use of the RUPP between Taybont and Dolygaer in the Brecon Beacons by 4x4s and motor bikes prior to the 2006 Act.

Last year I had a very illuminating conversation with a guy employed in a senior position with the Countryside Council for Wales who also said he was an active member of the RA. He was extremely anti 4x4 and made a comment to the effect of that "once 'we'(?!) have managed to get rid of 4x4s from the countryside we'll need to take a closer look at mountain bikers and even horses using bridleways". When I asked why, his reply was that MTBers "pose a danger to walkers due to speed and wanton recklessness" and "horses frighten walkers and make as much mess on some bridleways as do 4x4s". He was *dead* serious! On the other hand, he had no constructive answer when I mentioned footpath erosion.

As Wildchild rightly maintains we are basically dealing with a 'rights' issue here. My fear too is that once you successfully 'ban' one group of users from the countryside, (and whether you agree to them being there in the first place is totally irrelevant), where might it stop? I'm sure that there are many people out there who are equally anti-climber, anti-MTBer, anti-horse rider etc.

I think that there's a very real danger here of being hypocritical (on UKC?!) How can one state that erosion on a BOAT is unacceptable while erosion of bridleways or footpaths by bikes and feet is acceptable, as is erosion at the base of crags. IMO all such erosion is unacceptable but it may be a price we have to pay in order to maintain our rights of free access to the countryside.

For further confusion see:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/countryside/prow/nerc06.htm

In reply to wildchild: Even as a keen and active user of legal unsurfaced roads on my road legal bike in and around Yorkshire and Derbyshire, and a member of the Trail Riders Fellowship and the BMC, and a subscriber to Trail Bike Magazine, even I'm bored to death with these constantly-recurring threads.

The simple fact is that some people will never accept vehicles on what they perceive to be "paths", whether they have vehicular status or not, because they disturb the peace and quiet of the "natural" countryside, or because of the "massive damage" caused.

Here's a question - what do you think Stanage, Millstone, Lawrencefield etc. looked and sounded like when they were quarried? How do you you think they transported the millstones out of the quarries? How peaceful, scenic, tranquil and rural do you think the crags were then?

However, as I've come to simply accept that no amount of discussion or argument will make the slightest difference, I won't be replying to any subsequent comments, as it's a waste of time. Plat nice, UKCers

In reply to Flicka@work:

The title of that article is lovely. I have visions of 4x4s rising, Dalek-like, to mass for attack

In reply to John Ww: or even "play" - f**k!

In reply to Dave Williams:
>IMO all such erosion is unacceptable but it may be a price we have to pay in order to maintain our rights of free access to the countryside.

To be honest, I'm almost at the stage of saying bollocks to the whole concept of 'free access' as I'm more and more convinced that it doesn't really work nor make sense in such a crowded country.

In reply to Flicka@work:

The idea by one of the posters that councils should maintain these tracks so that 4x4 vehicles can keep chewing then up - brilliant! I would rather they fixes some of the potholes in the roads round where I live!


Chris

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Then you're prepared to say bollocks to the whole idea of climbing outdoors? Unless of course you are rich enough to own several hundred acres of countryside?

The only reason it doesn't work is intolerance, which then gets dressed up in spurious arguments about 'erosion' or 'health and safety' or 'won't someone think of the kids' or 'terrorism'.

Stop whinging about people exercising their legal right to use the road network. Start complaining about the fact the local authority fails to maintain the road network, and suddenly there isn't a problem any more.

In reply to wildchild: Taking an entrenched position because it suits what we ourselves want is quite normal in all of us but davidwright's comments speak sense.

I love my motorbike and I have an attachment for it that probably goes beyond normal but I cant ride it for no reason. I commute on it, I go to the wall on it, go away for weekends on it and meet other bikers on it for social gatherings, its often my only transport and I ride in winter but I cant go to the Peak on a sunny Sunday and ride up and down with others for no other reason at all than for my own enjoyment and to successfully turn increasingly rare resources into greenhouse gasses. Its utterly selfish on so many levels.

There seems to be a similarity to these people who require an engine in the countryside for their enjoyment, regardless of if its a jet ski, quad bike, motorcycle or 4x4 and its that theyre all selfish.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

So the council should maintain the parts of the road network that you drive on (and contribute to wearing out), but not the bits that others drive on?

LOL.

In reply to toad:

Interesting to note that the relevant act goes back to 1835 type traffic, before cars were around.

Reading that vehicles of excessive weight that do damage to the road can be charged for the repair of some green lanes. Could get expensive for them, and if the council gave up on repairing it without re surfacing it with tarmac that would give the 4*4 a large bill, around £5000 a metre of damage.

In reply to Fawksey:

The only think you listed there which might be construed as 'essential' is commuting. Everything else you listed is recreational use of a motor vehicle. Which by your own argument makes you selfish, and I'd add makes you a hypocrite.

In reply to wildchild:


yup tarmac it and they will disappear. Seems a waste of resources though, ugly too but it does seem to be the only solution.

In reply to John Ww:

What has how noisy somewhere was a couple of centuries ago got to do with anything?


If humans have evolved to not like loud noises (excluding fireworks and things like that, where noises can be fun), and stress is increasingly causing mental and physical health problems, can you not see how some might see it as selfish that people drive in 4x4s and ride trail bikes were other people are trying to find peace and tranquility?

I'm not saying I do, i'm just asking whether you can or not.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to wildchild: I dont agree with what you construe as essential from my list. The way towns are planned these days with almost all access to anywhere being on out of town sites I am almost compelled to go anywhere by some form of motorised transport which means my bike. My bikes my only transport it is not a recreational toy. However I am certain at times that I am indeed selfish and a hypocrite.

Your arguements on here seem quite desperate and Im sure you realise that you need to defend your position because its increasingly under threat from a large number of people. You will lose your right one day Im certain of that and it will be because its unnecessary and anti social to the vast majority of people.

In reply to Timmd:

What does how 'scenic' you think somewhere was a couple of centuries ago, or what sort of traffic you think was using that area a couple of centuries ago have to do with anything? Buggered if I know, but it's pretty central to the arguments of a lot of the 'anti' lobby in this discussion.

In reply to wildchild:

If the local authority tarmaced the road, the off-roaders would lose their playground and would go elsewhere for their fun. Is that what you're advocating?

In reply to wildchild:

They have been dropped out of the road network by deciding not to surface them.


In this case I suspect Sheffield city corporation and/or Derbyshire county council. A decision can be an act of omission as well as one of commission. As an act of omission (i.e. something was NOT done) there may very well be no record as minutes tend to record acts of commission.

>

It was single track but historically it had a hard surface over parts of the track you can see the reminants of that in the photo chris posted it is very definatly a made road. BTW you can easeirly drive most 2 wheel drive road cars over a properly made and graded dirt track that has never been the case with the Stanage causeway. This road has never been made suitable for motorised traffic and thus it ought to be assumed that it should remain unsuitable for and unused by motorised traffic.


If you want that to happen start pushing for it but it won't be of any use for offroading afterwards it will be a road. personally I think the historical status quo should be maintained which means banning 4x4's and then undertaking remidial work.

In reply to Fawksey:

For your continued existence, it's essential that you go to work to earn money to buy food, and it's essential that you go to the shop and buy that food. That's it. And yes, this pretty much demands motorised transport for most people. That's a pretty miserable existence, so you also use your transport to get to the climbing wall or the crag, to visit your friends, and so on. Other people use their transport to go out and enjoy the countryside by exploring byways. It's all leisure activity, the only difference is that you *do* driving/riding to go climbing, and you don't *do* driving/riding to go green-laning, and that you seem to think this makes you superior.



As I've said before, how long will it be before these words appear on a ramblers forum, directed at a climber who is making 'desperate arguments' to maintain their access to a crag?

In reply to davidwright:

It is a road. It's just not surfaced. That is the law, deal with it.



You think that a horse and cart (the historical users of the road) could easily and comfortably go where a 2wd car couldn't?

You're now into contradicting yourself. It's been graded in the past, but the surface has deteriorated. But on the other hand it's never been graded. Huh?



It is a road. And yes, I think the council should grade it, as is there responsibility, and as you admit (while simultaneously denying) it has been in the past.

In reply to dissonance:

So we have:

Option A - Stop 4x4's and trail bikes using BOATs.
Option B - Turn every BOAT into a tarmac'd road at huge expense.

The nett effect in both cases will be to er..stop 4 x 4's and trail bikes using BOATs.

I know which is probably the most pragmatic solution.

In reply to wildchild:

It establishes what rights have historically existed over the use of a particular right of way.

My argument is simple that if a particular right of way has not been upgraded for the use of motorised traffic in the last 100 years it should be assumed that the right of way extends to animal drawn traffic only
unless it can be shown the right of way was regularly used by traction engines with out the explicit request or permission of the land owner, their tenants or agents.

In reply to Flicka@work:

Option C: Maintain the bloody thing as it is.

The reason the road in question is in such a condition is that it hasn't had any maintenance for decades. Which is down to the council cutting corners. The poster above who was complaining about potholes should imagine what their road would be like if subject to such neglect.

It will be expensive to put that road back to the standard it should be now, but neglecting routine maintenance of *anything* always results in a big bill in the end.

In reply to wildchild:
>

I suspect it will be dealt with in due course, by having it changed. It is not appropriate to have hugely damaging, noisy vehicles churning up delicate moorland and historic roads.

In reply to MG:

You are entitled to that opinion. As is the person that thinks it is not appropriate to have a load of people driving hundreds of miles on tarmac roads to churn up the ground at the bottom of cliff faces, wear out the rock surface, and disturb animal and plant life by climbing up it.

In reply to wildchild:

You don't seriously think that's gong to happen, do you?

In reply to wildchild:

Which is why climbers obey bans due to birds, or geological features etc and why chipping is so frowned upon.

Mainly, though it is a question of proportionality. One 4X4 will leave ruts in a track or adjacent moorland when the track has too many boulders that will be there for years. It will also make a racket that will disturb people and wildlife for miles around. Even at Stanage popular on a sunny bank holiday the effects are short term and limited to the immediate vicinity.

In reply to wildchild:


I know they can. I have seen them do it. Much higher axle clearance, larger wheels and much lower travelling speeds. All you have to do is look at the roads built for them and you will see that.


It was graded for robust horse drawn traffic. It was never graded for motorised traffic. The surface was adequate for horse drawn traffic as late as the 1990's the surface hasn't like Chris's road deteriorated due to the action of time, weather and use, it stood 100's of years of that, it has been destroyed by the action of unsuitable traffic.



If they upgraded the road to be able to withstand the use it is currently getting its utility to those who wish to use it will be destroyed. You've put yourself in a catch 22 situation.

In reply to wildchild: "and that you seem to think this makes you superior" I suspect that it actually makes you feel inferior.

I dont think a robust defence of green laning can be made by comparing it to cragging and ramblers, neither does thae fact that youve said it before make it any more plausible either.

"Its the law deal with it" I bet thats not your tone when the law is changed.

In reply to wildchild:


It hasn't had any maintainence for 100's of years (not 10's I suspect the road was built and then no repair work was carried out) because when it was in regular use it didn't get damaged like that. The roman road on high street hasn't been "maintained" in about 1600-1900 years but is still in reasonable nick. It hasn't been maintained in the last 100 years because it had fallen out of use.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

The damage shown to Long Causeway sums it up. I'm amazed that people like wildchild and toad (who are clearly 4X4'ers or off road bikers themselves) have the balls to come on here and argue the toss when the damage is so obvious.

In reply to Pekkie:I Beg your pardon? Did you READ any of my posts?

In reply to wildchild:

can you elaborate on this? How do you mean "as it is". Should the council be aiming for x number of bumps per 100 metres to keep it fun for the offroading fraternity?
If they are going to bother maintaining it surely that would remove any fun for the offroaders even if not fully tarmaced (it would just mean it would cost more in ongoing repairs).

In reply to dissonance: i've no idea where Wildchild is going with maintenance, there's no obligation to maintain BOATs as anything other than as appropriate to their historical use, certainly there's no obligation to keep them vehicle worthy for off roading.

In reply to toad: do you know the situation on the ridgeway? i heard they banned in them the winter or something. if the ridgeway cant be protected then nothing can..

In reply to subalpine: my obvious answer is Which Ridgeway? - the Kerry Ridgeway is my personal fave, but in answer, no - There IS a seasonal ban, but I don't know any more.


PS Hijack - think this might make your sustainability sensors implode!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8584602.stm

/hijack

In reply to Pekkie:
Nothing wrong with the causeway.
Its great fun to ride down on a bike.
Anyway what more do you want a bloody tarmaced footpath up there?
Its no worse than a hell of a lot of footpaths around the peak for walking on

In reply to Flicka@work: The worst thing is that some of them have 'bull bars' across the front. Proper lethal to anyone on the wrong side of it.

In reply to toad: which ridgeway-lol
wrong thread- please post this on my carbon scam thread, together with your thoughts on the matter..

In reply to toad:

Hmm, I read them again and I seem to have done you a disservice. Apologies...

In reply to Graham T:
A trashed causeway might be fun to ride down on a bike (I assume you mean a push-bike?) if you like riding over potholes and boulders but it's still trashed to most people. And, no, we wouldn't want a tarmaced footpath - the orginal surface would do quite nicely.

In reply to Pekkie:
Yes I mean a push bike. Prbolem is that with any traffic (and I concede that 4x4 have made it worse) the surface will get fecked, when you have sandy grit underfoot the surface is going to get stuffed.
Other than that why do all paths need to be nice and smooth?
They are not in most places, off road means just that.

In reply to Pekkie:

no problem - I sat through a lot of dull meetings over a horrendous byway problem in Notts for a number of years, and the skins still a bit thin

In reply to toad:

Parliament and the courts have declared the motor cycle to be the present day equivalent of the horse – likewise the motor car to be the equivalent of the horse and cart.

Unclassified County Roads (UCRs) and Byways Open To All Traffic (BOATs) must be maintained in accordance with the Highways Act 1980 as part of the general highways network. Maintenance is to a standard appropriate with their use. For example, UCR’s or BOATs that are well used by vehicular traffic will usually have a layer of stone or hardcore provided as the running surface whilst at the other end of the spectrum little used UCR’s or BOATs may well be just grass tracks.

The Highways Act also places a duty on the highway authority to assert and protect the use and enjoyment of highways by those entitled to use them. The law requires that both UCRs and BOATs should continue to be managed on an individual basis with action taken according to their needs and in accordance with best practice guidance recently published both by the Government and DEFRA. This requires that all solutions should be looked at before the regulatory option of a Traffic Restriction Order (TRO) is considered.

The problem is that many Highway Authorities now have serious budgetary issues due to a decline in core funding from Central Government and as a result maintenance of UCRs and BOATs is and will understandably be of low priority.

There are other ways of managing these routes which are very successfully used elsewhere - seasonal restrictions, limits on group numbers, restricted permits, weight restrictions, proactive action by the police and Highway Authority. E.g. North Wales Police and Dyfed-Powys Police both have dedicated off-road police teams equipped with 4x4s and trail bikes who ensure compliance with the law by vehicles using byways - valid road tax, MOT, number plates, adherence to the defined route of the byway etc. Penalties for non-compliance are draconian.

The issues with the Causeway have been identified for some time and a have been discussed at length by the Stanage Forum, of which the BMC is a member. A voluntary agreement was arrived at in 2005-06 regarding use by 4x4s and trail bikes on the Causeway. Perhaps it's time to evaluate the success of that agreement?

One final point. Since NERC 2006, vehicles can now only legally access 1.4% of the whole UK RoW network. For instance, the figure for North Yorkshire is 53 miles out of a total network of 10,134 miles. I believe that the proportionally the figure for Derbyshire is far less than 1.4% and this could explain the honeypot effect for off roaders on the Causeway, mirroring the fact that Stanage Edge is a honeypot for climbers.

In reply to Flicka@work:

Is it just me, or would everyone else have predicted that any grown man who calls himself wildchild must be a prat?

And they'd have been right, as well, of course, as the gentleman's contributions to this thread make amply clear.

jcm

In reply to Flicka@work:
I haven't read this thread. But I am strongly of the opinion that 4x4a and motocross bikes should have to stay on the road when in the boundaries of a national park.

In reply to Si dH:

You haven't read this thread, so you're missing the point that the motorcycles and 4x4's which are being complained about *are* staying on a road.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Good argument, bravo.

In reply to Dave Williams:

>How can one state that erosion on a BOAT is unacceptable while erosion of bridleways or footpaths by bikes and feet is acceptable, as is erosion at the base of crags.

Easily. It's a question of degree, innit?

jcm

In reply to wildchild:

That's it! call them 'roads', then no-one can off-roading on them!

In reply to wildchild:

It's not an argument. Your contributions don't merit an argument in reply. It's an aesthetic observation.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Disregard my contributions then, but perhaps you might do Dave Williams the courtesy of answering the points he made. After all, he doesn't have a ridiculous screen name, so he must be worth talking to

In reply to Flicka@work:

I do not like the erosion caused, and reluctantly would like to see vehicles banned.

However there are several motorcycle trials which use these tracks as connections, or as in the case of Hollingsclough, as sections themselves. Hollingsclough was used in this years Bemrose trial and I expect it will be included in the Reliance Trial this year.

As an occassional motorcycle trials rider I would not want to see these long standing events lost. How this could be achieved I an not sure, but I fervently believe that unfettered access to all legitimate tracks will ultimately put these trials in danger.

The police were in attendance at this years Bemrose checking on the machines.

I was not impressed by the article in the Guardian, a very personal view. Not an even handed review of the situation.

In reply to wildchild: I dont think anyone denies that 4x4's have a legal right to be on what is a road.

My view is that the activity of using 4x4's there seems to have little or nothing to commend it and a lot of people who do use the area would enjoy it a lot more if it was stopped.

We get what we deserve and we deserved Windermere without its jet ski's.

In reply to John Gresty:


Roy Hattersley iirc lives underneath Longstone edge in one of the villages so has something of a vested interest

In reply to Removed User:

I know Roy Hattersley lives in the area, but there is a lot more to this in the Peak than Longstone Edge, or for that matter the Stanage Causeway. He could have made his case a lot more forcefully by considering the totallity rather than a 'not in my backyard' reaction.

In reply to John Gresty:

I don't disagree.

In reply to wildchild: 4 by 4's should be banned outright of course, with the exception of those needed for a purpose. Using them for the school run is as bizarre and mixed up as using them on a green lane.

In reply to wildchild: I think deep down you know that really.

In reply to Eeeerm:

Mind telling me the point or purpose served then by scampering around on rocks, trampling the wild flowers and disturbing the nesting birds? Be careful what you wish for

In reply to woolsack: Is that really a valid attempt at supporting using 4x4's for recreation that climbing tramples wild flowers and disturbs nesting birds?

But sir, sir! (shouts snot nosed kid in playground) look at them theyre trampling wild flowers and disturbing birds! Not really much in mitigation is it?

In reply to Fawksey: I wasn't attempting a comparison between 4x4's and climbing damage but merely pointing out that when you start hurling bans about, make sure your own case is fairly water tight. In the case of climbing, there are plenty of people who would quite like to screw up the access to certain crags as well as landowners liability issues

In reply to woolsack: Sorry. I guess in an ideal world I wouldnt want to ban anything just educate it out of people.

In reply to subalpine:

Some sections have been made restricted byway and other sections there is a ban from September to April. The worst damage is often during the winter when the surface doesn't dry out and gets churned up by the spinning wheels of over revved engines.

It's made a significant difference and the Ridgeway from Avebury to Ivinghoe Beacon is a delight now. Ridegway is along the line of the longer and older Icknield Way, built over 4000 years ago, don't thinks cars were around then

In reply to Fawksey: If any activity is banned or restricted, it's usually not about objective evidence, but public perception. Climbing has a reasonably popular profile - Fluffy Richard Hammond or hunky Bear Grills.

By the same token bird bans are important, but there are much more vulnerable species routinely displaced by climbing, but lower plants and invertebrates don't have the PR machine that the RSPB does, so birds get the bans.

Conversely, 4x4ers are forever The Fast Show taking the beast off road - a bit of a joke in the public eye, up until they start becoming a nuisance.

In reply to Fawksey:

That's a valid view, and you're welcome to hold it, but I hope you'll excuse me if I maintain that just because it's your view doesn't mean it should be law.

I do all manner of things (riding motorcycles, riding motorcycles on green lanes, climbing, windsurfing, power kiting, drinking real ale and listening to loud shouty rock music) which to the majority of citizens of the UK have little or nothing to commend them.

Similarly there's lots of things (watching football, reading the Daily Mail, being Roy Hattersley) which I struggle to see any point in.

Can you ban everything that isn't done by a majority, and might upset someone, somewhere? I'd really rather you didn't.


On this, I thoroughly agree with you. We the country shout 'ban it' at anything we don't understand, which is why we have a statute book full of ill thought out legislation which fails to produce any sort of meaningful improvement, but gives the impression of *doing something*.

In reply to Fawksey:

So responsible trail riders (like the TRF) and the equivalent four-wheeled groups work to educate people to make sure their vehicles are safe and legal, they travel at a considerate speed, don't deviate from the trail, show courtesy to walkers, cyclists, etc, and work with local authorities to agree codes of conduct, like not using certain routes during times of the year when damage is likely.

And responsible climbers like yourself (and presumably the BMC) try to educate people not to drop rocks on ramblers, or disturb birds nests, or 'hog the crag', or leave litter, or whatever.

And there will still be those who ignore all this and cause damage to the environment, the reputation of their pastime, and potentially to other people. But hopefully they will be a shrinking minority, and people will acknowledge this rather than calling for a ban affecting many because of the actions of the few, who will ignore the ban anyway.

In reply to John Gresty:
Longstone Edge seems a strange choice of example. If tyre tracks on the grassland and pot holes a foot deep are the worst things he sees there, he's *really* not paying attention.

Anyway, for better or worse I've said my piece here, and I shall bother you no further.

In reply to wildchild:

acknowledge this rather than calling for a ban affecting many because of the actions of the few, who will ignore the ban anyway.

Now if you had have responded as well as that further back up the thread you might not have put as many people off

In reply to Pekkie:


Really doesn't look that bad to me. Its clearly far from impassible for walkers or bicycles and the erosion is at least limited to the roadway itself. Elsewhere in the Peak there are footpaths that are scarcely any better.

Houndkirk would be much more of a concern for me, because the 4x4 drivers frequently dont stay on the highway but thrash about on the moor instead.

In reply to wildchild:

Just been reading this after a day at work.

You appear to have posted virtually every 15 mins or so between 12pm to 8pm. Why weren't you out climbing in the sunshine today? It's been a great day after the early rain and it'd been nice to have been out in it.

I had to restrict myself to a post work extended mountain bike commute via some unmolested tracks

oh and as to this assertion about it being a road - it most certainly is not else it would be described as such.

As food for thought - I've attached some information from local rights of way officers that I know.

‘Green Lanes’ are not public highways In law there is no such thing as a ‘Green Lane’. Instead it is a phrase that is often used to describe a track or lane that has a grassy surface and which is usually bounded by
hedges. The grass and hedges giving the overall impression that the lane is ‘green’. As a phrase that simply describes certain landscape characteristics, it cannot be assumed that such routes are public highways because the phrase could equally be used to describe private land.

The public may drive on Byways Open to All Traffic (Byways),
providing vehicular rights have not be suspended by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO).

The absence of a tarmac surfaces means that it is not at all unusual for the surface of byways to be uneven or muddy. However, during wet weather routes can be particularly sensitive to rutting.

Routes which become heavily rutted, may be closed temporarily by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for public safety and or, to avoid further damage occurring, or to enable repairs to take place.

There is known demand for recreational motoring in the countryside using both the handful of byways open to all traffic which are recorded on the
Definitive Map. Recreational motoring on unsealed or unsurfaced byways and carriageways is a contentious issue from the perspective of other users of the rights of way network. Improvements that benefit walkers, cyclists, horse and carriage drivers and horse riders should “not unduly restrict
lawful motorised use of public vehicular rights of way. The needs of land management, recreational and other vehicles need to be considered alongside
the other users of these routes.

Most Rights of Way Improvement Plans takes the view that for all unsurfaced local rights of way, the relationship between supply and demand needs to be managed in an equitable way, to ensure their sustainability for future generations to enjoy, whether the route is a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic.

In reply to wildchild:

Dave Williams doesn't need answering. He's set out the law, and I expect he's right. This thread isn't about what is lawful. It's about what ought to be lawful in the future and what we think one day will be lawful.

Anyone who can't see that the Stanage Causeway used to be beautiful and is now a little less beautiful thanks to the selfish actions of, to put it loosely, wankers like you, doesn't need debating with; they want, as Mr Haszko so wisely observed, crucifying.

jcm

In reply to Flicka@work:

oh and if you wish to force the council to repair the damage

The County Council has a duty to maintain the surface of all byways appropriate to their main usage by the public. In terms of their physical characteristics on the ground they generally range as follows:

• Tarmac roadways
• Stoned access tracks
• Unsurfaced tracks
• Sunken green lanes
• Undefined routes across open land

With regard to the maintenance of all these routes Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 provides any member of the public with the power to serve notice on the Council to repair a surface of a highway and to refer the matter to a Magistrates court if the Council fail to act within a specified time to rectify the problem. The Court can then order the Council to carry out works within a court imposed timeframe
regardless of finance.

In reply to PaleMan:

You are, of course, totally correct in what you say. However, there is a way that Highway Authorities can easily circumvent the provisions of the 1980 Act.

They simply ignore their responsibilities and impose a *temporary* TRO for a 12 month period. This can be done even after the need for maintenance has been formally brought to their attention. They will justify the TRO by stating that it has been imposed either so that 'the byway can recover naturally'(!) or 'until such time as repair work can be carried out'. Because it's a temporary TRO, it's not subject to any of the consultative legalities of a permanent one. Then, after 11+ months they apply another temporary TRO for the next 12 months. This can, of course, go on for ever as there is no limitation on how many temporary TROs can be applied. No preventative safeguards were ever drafted in statutory legislation because such abuses of the system by highway authorities were never envisaged.

In reply to John Gresty:


As you would expect from a signed comment article.

In reply to Dave Williams:

As a response you can bring pressure to bear through the Local Access Forum (LAF) setup through the CROW etc. A bit in the local paper doesn't do any harm either.

In reply to wildchild:

Rubbish. If it was tarmacced they wouldn't use it.

In reply to IainRUK: I'm hearing " it's part of the road network " from WildMan Child but what I'm seeing is :

youtube.com/watch?v=Sqbb1XUnP4A&

In reply to lummox:


Tee, hee, hee ... Very good.

People who have old Land Rovers will find it doubly amusing because it's so near the truth - "Lucas, the Prince of Darkness" etc!!

In reply to Flicka@work:theres a fantastic sea arch, about 80 feet high off the east coast of Caithness.Problem is, the rock connecting the arch to the mainland is only about half a metre thick. if any off roaders wpould like to rise to the challenge, you can ave the grid ref.I'll bring my camera and post the pic on site. Should go down a treat.

I bought one of those space pens in kennedy space centre on holiday to Florida as a teenager! The thing never feckin worked!

In reply to Milesy:

Just wait till you can buy a used 4x4 for the price of a space pen and the days of 24 hour traffic jams on the causeway with jacked up neon lit discos... Get gripped!

In reply to woolsack:

I'm not convinced by the Pastor Niemoller arguments

"They came for the 4x4 drivers, but I wasn't a 4x4 driver so I did nothing"

It's a bit like saying "If you let them put speed limits on motorways, next thing you'll have speed limits for runners". There is a huge and easily distinguished difference between motorised and non-motorised recreation. And whilst the government want to encourage healthy, active recreation, there not a lot to be gained by having more people driving round for their kicks. National parks should mean somewhere special, where the landscape is preserved and recreation encouraged, not somewhere where a very small minority can do an inordordination amount of selfish damage.

Oh, and climbers do have a very good track record of respecting bird bans, assisting environmental projects and taking steps to reduce the impact they make - e.g. Stanage boulders. Have the 4x4 groups sought to repair the damage their use has created on and off the Causeway/HoundKirk ?

P.S. Heard a story a that Mountain Rescue was called out this winter to rescue a group who tried to cross Houndkirk in a 4x4 in the snow. How stupid do you have to be attempting that without the ability to walk back along your tracks for a mile ?

In reply to deepsoup:

Hattersley has also written in the Gaurdian about the quarrying on Longstone Edge

In reply to Chris the Tall:
>

True how often do you see climbers taking short cuts from the zig zag paths leading to and from crags?

Not the Peak but The Cromlech approach screes is a classic example of damage done by climbers.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Plenty of volunteer work parties go out to repair sections of bye ways all year round.If I could be arsed to post some links I would but you probably don't want to see those


How many times do MR go out to people in 4x4's relative to mercy missions to rescue climbers and walkers?

Did you also hear about all the stories of the vilanous nasty 4x4 drivers that volunteered their services and vehicles to ferry people to hospitals etc recently during the snow and ice when the ambulance services couldn't get out? No,didn't think so

I'm all for seeing the knobbers in oil high vis jackets and rigger boots kept under control but rather opposed to blanket bans that affect everyone, especially those that have a sensible and responsible attitude to minimising damage

In reply to Chris the Tall: I've deleted an earlier post as although it was related to UKB, I think it's better just to put the link up without comment

http://www.lro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46204&postdays=0&postorder...

Any UKC mod types might also want to take a look as there is a confused reference to contacting a UKB poster via an odd UKC address.

In reply to Trangia:
Every footpath is a work of human erosion (OK Sheep may bear some responsibility, but who put them there), but again it's a question of scale and rate of damage per person.

So again just because we allow someone to walk up a hill, doesn't mean we allow someone to drive up it. Or rather just because we ban the 4x4 because it causes damage, doesn't mean the walker will also be be banned because every passage of feet causes some (minute but cumulative) damage

In reply to woolsack:

On the contary, I would be interested to see evidence of volunteer repair work on Houndkirk or the Causeway, which is why I posed the question.

I believe however the work on Houndkirk was done by Sheffield City Council and has not been well recieved by mountain bikers - I have to admit that a) the only time I've been over there recently it's been deep in snow b) I was actually grateful for the 4x4 tracks !

I have to say I would like to 4x4s banned from the Causeway altogether - it's just no place for motor vehicles. With houndkirk my main problem has been the appalling damage caused by them going off the route, both along the edges to avoid the deep pools they create (and widening the track in the process) and more significantly, going massively off-piste and ripping up the hillside. I have no problem with responsible 4x4 use there, but there's an awful lot of evidence of irresponsible use

In reply to Chris the Tall: I don't know of specific volunteer work on Houndkirk or the Causeway but more about work on other BOATs. i.e. the responsible drivers do make the effort to protect their hobby. It's the morons who have to be controlled and that might be more and more of a challenge.

As they will be displaying a registration plate and most people carry phones with cameras, dob them into the police with some photographic evidence if they are behaving unreasonably?

That should give Sloper something useful to do prosecuting them!

In reply to Flicka@work: i dont wish to enter this argument much more than one reply as the past several threads of this nature have been like banging my head against a wall.

there are responisble laners in the uk, both on 4 wheels or 2, however i will freely admit that there are a minority who ruin it for the rest of us, in the same way that there is a minority of climbers who will disobey bans due to nesting etc, or chip crags.

but in the same vein there are a lot of us who are happy to make an attempt to police the lanes, i myself am going to a local lane next week to assess it as a complaint has been made about damage/blocking by a farmer. we also strive to help with the upkeep of lanes. i have been out in the middle of no where with a chainsaw and axe in my landy cutting back hedges and trees, on the asking of a local farmer as the lane was unpassable even to walkers. me and a friend restored the lane to a useable condition and were thanked by a few horse riders and walkers for making it a viable route again.

so please try and think of the fact that whilst there are a few selfish pricks out there who do not care,there are a lot of us who are making a large effort to report offenders, educate users who we see making mistakes, going off route etc, and repair the lanes for further use

cheers
dan

In reply to woolsack:



My mate is one of those. He was out near enough every night during the really bad weather in the Peak ferrying key personnel around. He also rescued many drivers.

In reply to:

Well in that case ChrisJD, since he's such a hero, and saved the lives of tens/scores of human lives, next time he's fÜcking up the Causeway in his well deserved free time, 'legally' destroying the fauna/flora in the process, I'll give him a wave.

In reply to John P:
I don't think there is any flora on the causeway itself and the fauna doesn't give a shit.

In reply to John P: Care to explain what fauna he might be legally destroying? The same fauna that you probably legally destroy on any B road at night? Any difference?

In reply to woolsack:

Err, just to the left and just to the right.

In reply to John P:

No profile, go figure.

In reply to Inspral?:

Figure what?

In reply to woolsack:

well, illegally disturbing, actually. Water Voles, a protected species under CROW from memory 6 months imprisonment and/or fine.

http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/news/58.html

In reply to toad: From your linky
"Police, Peak District National Park Rangers and representatives from Off Road user groups have teamed up to take steps to help protect a Water Vole habitat which had been damaged by irresponsible 4x4 drivers and motorbike riders.

It is after serious damage was caused by an off-road vehicle to both sides of the track along Long Causeway at Stanage, near to the village of Hathersage.

They visited the area on Sunday, November 22 2009 and put up a fence at two locations on Long Causeway, which had been damaged.

The team included PC Kevin Lowe and Peak District National Park Rangers Bill Gordon and Andy Carson, along with representatives from the Buxton and District Land Rover Club, Trail Riders Fellowship, Peak District Vehicle Users Group, Green lane Association, Peak and Dukeries Land Rover Club, and the Northern Monkey's Off Road and Green Lane Club.

Wood and tools for the fence were provided by the Peak District National Park Authority."

Responsible user groups all coming together- great!

In reply to woolsack: Yes, to repair damage. With these very vulnerable species, it's much better to prevent damage in the first place.

In reply to wildchild:

...that's exactly what the guy said, duh you're saying the same thing!! u2!!

In reply to Flicka@work: Judging by the 18 page thread on the pebble pullers forum, Sloper and a few of his other claret quaffers are going to carry out some direct action to block the causeway by digging a sizeable trench half way up the incline. This has got to be a worth a trip to the Peak in itself, as a spectator event: a solicitor getting his hands dirty with manual work, moving several tonnes of rock. Anyone any idea when this might take place? :0)

In reply to woolsack:

No idea but they're fooling themselves if they think it'll stop the bikes.

Do you have a link to the thread?

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10540.0.html

In reply to woolsack:

I think our learned freind might take umbrage at being described as a mere solictor.

In reply to Flicka@work:

Where has wildchild gone...... he is missing the point entirely.
4*4 vehicles shouldn't be driven around the countryside for recreational purposesdisturbing the peace. I don't care whether they want to spot some legal bollocks about it being a right of way and needing to be maintained etc etc.

If you own the land the fine, but if not you shouldn't be there.

In reply to Horse:

Absolutely. How about arsehole solicitor ?

Hope there's some Youtube footage of him having fisticuffs with some Simon and Lyndsay offroad a-holes ...

In reply to Flicka@work:

Listen folk.Cut the regulations, solicitors blah blah bullshit.The answer is here.

youtube.com/watch?v=nRvluzMy0ao&

In reply to lummox:

Got to agree, his language on there is at best unbelievably offensive, to the point one 4x4er has been banned after responding in kind to the barrage(after being perfectly reasonable for quite a number of posts). Doesn't sloper realise that this will cause even more animosity than there already is between the two groups. And to suggest digging a trench is wholly irresponsible, as i understand it he's a solicitor? Well imo he may be very well educated but he's not very bright!

In reply to PaleMan:

For the moment at least, I think it's perhaps a bit much personally, to expect the maintainence of the causeway to be increased when something it wasn't intended for uses it, and increases the wear there.

With the economy the way it is, perhaps 4x4s and trail bikes shoud be stopped from using the track upto Stanage Pole and along the top of Stanage and from using the causeway, if they increase the need for maintainence on them, and the money possibly isn't there, or if money is tight.

I can remember a hole made by a 4x4 in the mud had to be filled in with broken up rock or drystone wall bricks (it was the sort of hole which forms in mub when wheels spin on a 4x4 or on a car), which probably took up some paid time out of somebody's day, where they could have been doing something else which was usefull in the Peak District, like repairing stiles, or repairing something which had been vandalised, which happens occasionally.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to PaleMan: Usually i'm all for access to the countryside for different groups though, but the tracks around Stanage definately weren't intended for 4x4s and trail bikes, but for lots of feet and the odd horse drawn cart origionally.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:
>

Shoorley that's why we end up paying so much tax on the fuel we buy? To support maintenance of the road network. If we are going to have a level playing field then shouldn't the ramblers be dipping into their pocket to pay for fixing erosion of footpaths?

In reply to woolsack:

I'm not too sure what you mean, do you mean paying additionally on top of taxes which walkers pay anyway as tax payers? I'm not sure I agree with walkers having to pay aditionally to any taxes they pay, because we have a national obesity crisis, and because walking in the outdoors is good for things like stress and depression.


I'm not sure if i'm right, but I thought that we already do pay for the upkeep of the national parks in taxes which aren't related to the road network (i'm not paying tax at the moment, so excuse my ignorance)? I also thought that tax payers pay towards the road network to some degree whether they use it or not (with 'not' being not driving a car or riding a motor bike), and that fuel tax also went towards the road network (as well as into the government's pockets)?


Either way, there's a blue sign at the bottom of the track upto Stanage Pole saying unsutable for motor vehicles, and you get 4x4s and trail bikers driving up there for recreational use. Why should money which could go towards footpath maintanence, or repairing vandalism, or clearing up litter dumped on the track, which annoyingly happens, be spent on repairing a track which is used in a way which it isn't suitable for? If money is spent on repairing it, there's less for clearing up the rubbish which some ingrates leave there, and other usefull things.


If repairing the tracks after unsuitable use is payed for, and clearing up after ingrates and vandals is, there's less left for making the Peak District national park better generally.


I think i'm starting to repeat myself, so i'll stop.


Cheers
Tim

In reply to woolsack:By improved generally, i mean improving wildlife habitats and things like that, which I suppose may happen only after the essentials have been payed for, like keeping it a safe place and a place which people want to go to.

This is all speculation of course though.

Cheers
Tim