UKC

Went for a walk today - just up Harter Fell Haweswater as was feeling a bit under the weather. Not only did we have 4 guys on motorbikes trying to get up the pass - which specifically says no motorised vehicles - we saw a whole load of Landrovers trying to drive up the pass; churning the path up; reeking the air full of diesel etc.

One of the Landrovers had a Surrey Landrover sticker on it - whilst another was from some off-road 4*4 website company.

I intend to write to the local paper (The Cumberland and Westmorland Herald Cumberland and Westmorland Herald) at www.cwherald.com, as I live in Penrith, and will also be writing to the national park to see who authorised this (they had the code to unlock the padlocks on the gates) etc. I would hope all those who were a) affected by these 'people' (term used loosely) and/or b) care about the Lakes and other areas would do the same to try and prevent this kind of thing ever happening again.

Thanks

Simon

In reply to Simon Ash: I thought you could use it with a permit - that might explain them having codes for padlocks.

They should ban grumpy people from the fells too.

In reply to mrchewy:

He is under the weather?

I've been grumpy all week.

In reply to Simon Ash:

Vehicles can apply to the National Park for a permit for Gatesgarth, which is open to motorbikes and 4x4s once a month - see http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/outdoors/green_roads/green_road_gat...

You should make your views known to the National Park

Steve

In reply to gammarus: Must have changed then - thanks for that. I have e-mailed LDNP but not too hopeful....

In reply to Simon Ash:

Whatever happened to tolerance!

In reply to timjones:

It was crushed under the wheels of a land rover!

In reply to Simon Ash:

Sounds like a great pass system.

Can people begrudge use for only 12 days a year? And they are weather dependent.

Perhaps a Pass system could be adopted for The Causeway in the Peak, rather than an outright ban.

And I hope you adhere to your own code of conduct and never drive over Hardnott or Kirkstone. Plenty of cyclists who must be sick of the reek of petrol & diesel from all the cars.

In reply to ChrisJD:

You appear to be attributing things to the OP that he hasn't said. Is there a reason for that?

In reply to ChrisJD: It's complicated isn't it? Differentiating between tarmacced roads and unsurfaced routes that were never intended for motorised traffic is awfully difficult.

In reply to The New NickB:

For these reasons from the OP:

>reeking the air full of diesel etc.

>affected by these 'people' (term used loosely)

I'm assuming that his use of the phrase < 'people' (term used loosely) > with people in inverted commas means he thinks they are sub-human?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

One hill user was complaining at another legitimate user about the 'reeking' diesel.

I was curious whether the OP gave any consideration to other users (such as cyclists) when using mountain passes in his car. Whether they are tarmacked is irrelevant - still in the mountains, still impacting on someone using the hill?

In reply to ChrisJD: Tarmacced or not isn't irrelevant, tarmacced for motorised vehicles, unsurfaced for walkers, bikers, horses, it's not a complicated concept.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Oh so you are one of those are you. So in your mind, mountain bikers, walkers and horses have no place on tarmac roads.

Yeah, right.

In reply to Timmd:
Did Jimmy Savile feel grumpy?

In reply to ChrisJD: Silly boy, I'm excluding motorised vehicles from unsurfaced routes, I'm not excluding anyone from tarmacced routes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Not silly at all - we can only go on the words you post.

In reply to ChrisJD: I hope I've cleared up your befuddlement.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Fortunately you have no power to enforce such an arbitrary judgement

In reply to timjones: I'm perfectly happy to let the various public consultations run their course. Although it would be better if I did have the power.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Thankfully, for the rest of us, you don't.

So you begrudge motor vehicles having one-way access to the Gatesgarth Pass for 12 days a year (one day a month)?

In reply to ChrisJD: Not so much begrudge, more that I'd rather they weren't there. And that the antisocial drivers find another way to get their jollies without ripping up routes that were never intended for motorised vehicles. Really, I don't know what you find so hard to understand.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Clearly, I think the same about you

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'm with you. I'm a roadie and get enough diesel smoke as it is. If i get the chance to take my MTB over Mastiles lane for example I expect it to be smoke free.

Not hard to understand at all.

E.

In reply to Enty: Mastiles became so much more pleasant as soon as the tro took effect, I think you might enjoy the descent to Kilnsey.

In reply to Enty:

I find it very hard to understand this intolerance that some people exhibit towards the very limited access that motorised traffic has. I'd sooner not have MTBs hooning around on the routes that I walk but we just have to get on with it learn to co-exist.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Isn;t it spoilt by knobs on MTBs "enjoying" the descent to Kilnsey

In reply to timjones:


+1


And as a mountain biker I'd rather not have walkers getting the way. But hey, you know what I don't begrudge them having access

And I don't mind 4x4 and dirt bikers having access to some off-road routes.

Just to be clear: I just don't mind sharing.

It's really not hard to understand.

In reply to timjones: No."/!;

In reply to ChrisJD: That's fine, all opinions are welcome. Tell me, when you're pootling along on your bike and you lose traction what do you do? Do you get off and push or do you put your foot down and dig until you've ripped your way down to something solid?

In reply to mypyrex:


Only if she was a minor

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't pootle, lose traction or get off

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Clearly not in your world, if you could have your way

In reply to ChrisJD: Yes, but as you've pointed out, I don't have my way so I'm happy to let the consultation run its course.
No answer about the ripping up rights of way question?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Of course there is a need for maintenance, just as there are with many walking routes.

Just as there is with maintaining tarmac roads: by using oil based products and huge quantities of roadstone from quarries. 200 million tonnes of rock material extracted each year in England & Wales alone, much of which is used for roads: now THAT'S erosion.

There is no free lunch.

But I'm happy to tolerate contributing to the costs associated with maintaining the footpath & bridleway network, off-road tracks used by 4x4 and dirt bikes and the tarmac roads used by cars etc. I'm so bloody generous it hurts.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Chris and Tim are obviously struggling to differntiate between engines and human power.

As as hiker/runner/walker I have no problem at all when a group of MTB'ers come past. Having to round up the kids and step to the side when a tw*t in a 4X4 comes past is different.

E

In reply to ChrisJD:


Hey dude - That's the best straw man I've heard on here this year. From the damage done by 4X4 tyres on public rights of way to quarrying??

E

In reply to ChrisJD: Do you want to bring China's coal power stations into the debate too?

In reply to Enty:

Once again, I'll repeat: I just don't mind sharing some routes with 4x4s

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You can if you want. Just don't invoke Godwins, or all is lost

In reply to Enty:

Well the link is always made of '4x4 off road = bad' because of the damage to trails; and that motor vehicles should stay on the road, as if that caused 'no damage'.

In reply to ChrisJD: When you see trail bikers or 4x4s leaving a whale tail of tarmac let me know.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

As if, the run over to Settle is a shit run purely due to fat bell ends in Mark 2 Discos, with "One life (f*ck it for others) live it" stickers.

A Disco is not a pack pony - don't use ancient access law to justify the fact you are too fat and rippled necked to walk what you are driving.

I recall the run up from Ingleton, that cuts across the top of the falls path, full of 4X4s being overtaken by bikers and walkers, and they had all the shit on the roof and snorkel exhausts. Sad sad wankers.

and I own a S3 Landy. They are for mucky fields and snow, not 14th century rights of way.

In reply to John Rushby: I'm not sure whether that's aimed at me really. Alcohol's great isn't it?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Mastilles is still used by 4x4 drivers.

That's my point.

In reply to John Rushby: Not as many as used to use it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Agree - it is better - but it's not far from my hovel, and sadly, I see muppets usually at night, doing the warrior bit.

In reply to Enty:

We know the difference, we just don't share your prejudices!

In reply to gammarus:


they seem a fairly strict set of requirements, presumably if the path was significantly ripped or churned up the authorities would stop it ?

In reply to John Rushby:

Every time 4x4 use comes up, it can generate more vitriol about the 'type' of people doing the off-road use, rather than the actual use.

It makes for ugly reading.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

One day a month. That seems a great compromise.



Oh, sorry, a compromise wasn't what was being looked for.....

In reply to ChrisJD:

Ugly but true.

In my mind there is a clear set of difference between human/animal power and cars, all of which make the later less suitable for use on shared access, non metalled roads on our mountains or fells:
1. Noise - nothing spoils a nice day out in the countryside like a bunch of trail bike engines revving intermittently all the bloody time. This simply isn't comparable to anything walkers could generate short of them all packing ghetto-blasters and MC hammer.
2. Damage to the landscape - horses can chew a path up pretty badly in the winter, as can mountain bikes. But you come back a few months later and you'd not know it. The same can't be said for a trail bike or car that's sat there spinning a wheel and gouging a bloody big hole in the landscape, and even in good conditions these cause a lot more impact.
3. Safety. A car or trail bike is a much more lethal implement than a walker or a rider and their bike, combining increased mass/momentum, increased speed etc. They should be segregated from foot traffic - near misses with some pie eater on a trail bike really aren't fun.
4. Environment - face it, reckless use of fossil fuels is a really bad thing, and whilst off roading isn't using much of it, it's a poster child for a reckless waste of a precious resource with harmful effects.

If a 4x4 driver decides that despite all this, some laws dating back to before cars even existed mean they have a right to tear up shared paths in the countryside, that speaks volumes about their ugly personality.

There are plenty of dedicated off-road facilities where people can tear up the countryside with 4x4s, so why they should be allowed onto unsurfaced green lanes is beyond me. If I was the dictator I would bring an end to almost all BOATs and other tracks for 4x4s and encourage the construction of more dedicated 4x4 off road playgrounds, considering the following points:
1. Safety will be greatly increased for everyone
2. The facilities can be made much more fun for the drivers, as:
2a. You have the leeway to engineer all sorts of obstacles and challenges that don't exist on BOATs
2b. You don't have to worry about preserving a sensitive eco-system as you can just repair things at the end of the week.
3. The 4x4 drivers aren't exactly poor and can afford a fee for a playground just like many other people with activities that need a degree of management to safeguard the landscape.

*simples*

In reply to thesaunter:

^^^ This.

Surely the ultimate solution is to reappraise what is appropriate use for these ancient rights of way. Are they really roads anymore? No.

And whilst we're at it ban the nobs on jetskis ruining the tranquillity of our beautiful coast.

In reply to pasbury:


First they came for the 4x4's.......

In reply to woolsack: And then they came for the trail bikers. And then...well actually that was it, job done.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Come on... lets go the whole hog while we're at it and add;
Jet skis
Tourist 'wilderness' heli flights
Clay pigeon shooting near pulic access land
Quad biking
Landrover Safari adventures
Those powered parapent things which buzz around in the sky
Mini drone helicopters
oh yeah, and mountain bikers where they aren't allowed





That should do it

In reply to MattDTC:

You forgot

- Climbers where they aren't allowed
- Walkers where they aren't allowed
- All runners (for being too fit)
- Three Peak Challenge charity type events
- All other outdoor running, walking, biking events/comps
- All 'Bob Grahamn' type events
- Munro, Corbett, Nuttall etc baggers
- Dogs anywhere
- Children anywhere
- Common people who don't appreacaite teh outdoors in quite the same way
- Anybody else who you don't like or approve of
- etc, etc

Bring your wedge

In reply to ChrisJD: You missed out straw men from your list.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

We burnt all those

In reply to ChrisJD:

You seem to be intentionally missing the point.

"Thin end of the wedge" applies to something where you have a continuous spectrum along which a point can move (e.g. organised runs -> runners -> walkers.)

Where as here we have a step change between "biological power" and "internal combustion engine". That is not a spectrum. These are two things that can be categorically separated, as can the consequences of their use on shared paths in fragile landscapes.

In reply to thesaunter:

The point is simple: one group of users not liking how another group uses the countryside and wanting them to stop.

If we adopt your approach of "biological power" versus "internal combustion engine", then surely the logical end point is to close all tarmac roads through these areas and return these places to wilderness only accessible under biological power from the edage of the area.

And what about biological versus machine assisted. Are mountain bikes unacceptable as they use a mechanical advantage?

What I find so strange is that people are happy enough to drive along remote mountain roads, park as close as they can to their objective, and give no thought as to the visual impact of that road with all the cars parked along it, the number of vehicles it brings into the mountains, the resources it takes to maintain that road AND then they have the cheek to go ballistic when someone else dares to drive up another section of road that just happens to be unsurfaced and scream out 'you are ruining my day'. It just makes no sense.

In reply to ChrisJD: Calm down dear, it only appears to be you going ballistic.

In reply to woolsack:

Do you think we could persuade UKC to limit enraged 4x4 posts to one day per month. That would also be a great compromise, don't you think?

In reply to M0nkey:

+1

If only we could

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Nice try, 0/10

In reply to M0nkey: nooooo this is such good entertainment

In reply to ChrisJD:

It doesn't "just happen to be unsurfaced." It's not surfaced because it's not a part of the modern road network. Surfaced roads are surfaced because motorists pay a crapload of money for their maintenance - offsetting the damage their cars do to them, and preventing worsening erosion and wider damage to the local environment (excluding CO2 > global environment here...). The same is just not the case for BOATs etc; the motorist pays nothing for their cost or upkeep, yet gets to trash a surface that is perhaps only 5% as resilient as a road.

Consider also the vast and almost all pervasive noise pollution of the road network. Scholarly research is coming out with more evidence that this noise pollution is a major factor in reduced health in urban environments. People don't go walking or cycling on busy roads for enjoyment - the hills are one of the last refuges from the noise and air pollution of motoring. Can you see why people value the hills as a break from this? Yes people drive to the hills, practical considerations abound after all.

As for your bike argument; I could be tempted to ignore it but I would point out that I have nothing against mechanical advantage (which one could extend to people with longer legs.) I thought that it was clear from my last post, but I will spell it out.

It's about *power*. A person on foot or pedal bike has access to a similar level of power. A person on a horse has perhaps 3x as much power.

A motorbike or a car has ~20x - 400x as much power. To a first approximation it's the power that causes the damage to the environment and the noise pollution that gets on everyone else's tits so much.

Ultimately one group has the right to seek to stop another group in a democracy, and roughly speaking the victory comes down to the size of the two groups. And the number of walkers, cyclists, fell runners and horse riders quietly enjoying our outdoors at much less environmental damage vastly outnumber the greenlaners. So it really would be in the interest of the latter to work towards finding productive ways of enjoying their hobby rather than antagonising people into getting it banned. And I maintain that the way to do this is to get themselves a better playground than BOATs.

In reply to thesaunter:

Would now be a bad time to mention that road upkeep comes out of general taxation, and has done since the 30's or 40's?

In reply to thesaunter:


Er, no. Motorists (and others) pay a crapload of money for the maintenance of the entire road network, which includes BOATs.

In reply to thesaunter:


You are wrong: many of these rights of way (e.g the Causeway in the Peak) ARE part of the road network and are maintained by county councils as part of their road upkeeping duties.

In reply to deepsoup:

Snap!

In reply to RankAmateur: Perhaps we could put tolls on BOATS for motor vehicles? With maintenance being met out of the tolls. How much is it costing to repair Stanage Causeway?

In reply to RankAmateur:

Yes and no. All tax (income, fuel, road) goes into the government, and the government pays for roads. There's not really any assignment of one to the other if you look at is as a black box, but your average motorist pays more! Either way it's a tangent from my point.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Out of interest, if you could wave your magic wand, how would you 'manage' the mixing pot of different recreational users, roads/bridleways/paths, and our 'natural' places such as the Peak and the Lakes?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Blimey, a compromise idea from Sir Chasm!

I think the one-way pass system on limited days per year would also be a good template for a compromise on the Causeway & Roych in the Peak.

For me this is all about finding a middle ground of balancing everyone's use of the countryside (none of which comes free), rather than going for the 'easy' ban it all option.

In reply to ChrisJD:

I said "modern road network" which is a rather fluid definition that I am using to mean surfaces intended for use by modern motor vehicles and engineered to suitable standards, whose primary purpose is transport and not recreation.

Consider the nurburg ring in germany - this is intended for recreation and not transport. As such it is separately taxed to pay of upkeep ( tolls ). It's also Tarmac and not fragile moorland...

In reply to thesaunter:

What about the Peak tarmac roads at weekends that are used solely used for recreation - nobody 'needs' to park at Stanage Popular end do they?

Are these outside of your definition of the modern road network and should be closed? They are certainly not needed for transportation.

In reply to ChrisJD: I'm glad you agree. Of course I would set the tolls at a suitable level.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Transportation *to* recreation. As I said before there has to be pragmatism to this.

Driving normal family cars up a Tarmac road to a carpark is much less disruptive than a barely silenced trail bike intermittently gunning it across moorland.

In reply to MattDTC:

Good question.

I like the Pass/Permit idea for high use areas. Another option would be only allowing users of recognised (local?) clubs - a sort of licence to drive the routes, with the clubs banning driver who overtly abuse the trails and/or system etc.

One problem in the Peak has been that rights of way have been removed, which then causes more use of the more limited network leading, which in turns leads to pressure to strict use.

I'd even consider closing some existing tarmac roads across the edges, or making them one way or no through traffic. That shouldn't be too contentious as the anti-4x4 groups keep saying they want peace & tranquillity!

None of this will stop illegal use - and that's a big problem as both legal and illegal get lumped together (but I don't know what percentage of legal drivers also do illegal stuff, they may be one and the same).

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Were you thinking, by any chance, £10,000 per go?

In reply to ChrisJD: Sounds reasonable.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Cheques payable to Sir Chasm?

In reply to ChrisJD:


This is something I often wondered about. In terms of destroying 'peace and tranquility' our use of these 'normal' roads across the Peak/Lakes has a far greater impact than the few 4x4 routes.

Not so sure it would be a popular idea though - we all suckers for convenience.

In reply to ChrisJD: No, as I said, money goes to repair the damage caused.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Do you want me to send over a sense of humour, you seem to have misplaced yours.

In reply to ChrisJD: Keep it, I don't think you've enough to spare.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Oh, you've found it!

In reply to gammarus:

Just as well you didn't take them to task when you saw them Simon, you would have made a right tit of yourself.