Threat in Devon from GLEAM

[Big-Jer]

I havent really posted on this forum before and I know this isnt really about Landrovers but it does concern all RoW users, I dont know if anyone else is aware but there was a case recently where two Trail Riders were stopped by a "member of the public" their registration's taken and reported to the police for using a green lane. At the time the lane was (and still is) a legal RoW, despite this the Police visited the two Trail Riders and they were taken to court over it.

Please read this thread on a Trail Riders forum for all the details, it makes for scarey reading, http://www.trailbikemag.com/forum/viewtopi...asc&start=0 then also look at these guys, http://www.gleam-uk.org/ as they seem to be the ones pushing the prosecution through despite the fact the Trail Riders had done nothing wrong.

[smo]

Just looked at their website - bunch of anti's with their heads up their backsides, bring it on if they want to prosecute me for driving where i am legally allowed to, i'll take them to the cleaners.

[pat_pending]

I've linked the original piece to the GLASS members forum. Athough there were at least 2 members and 1 ex member taking part in the discussion, it's the first i've heard of it. Thanks.

[SteveG]

Seeing as the lane in question was a RUPP, I think your statement about it being legal to drive at time of incident and now needs to be altered.

All RUPP's became Restricted Byways automatically. If upgraded to a BOAT then it's a BOAT. If an application is pending it's still a Restricted Byway until such time.

The TRF and other organisations should be clear about this to their members for future use.

Also relying on ignorance or lack of understanding by local RoW would be no defence in court.

Steve

[Paul Humphreys]

Seeing as the lane in question was a RUPP, I think your statement about it being legal to drive at time of incident and now needs to be altered.

All RUPP's became Restricted Byways automatically. If upgraded to a BOAT then it's a BOAT. If an application is pending it's still a Restricted Byway until such time.

The TRF and other organisations should be clear about this to their members for future use.

Also relying on ignorance or lack of understanding by local RoW would be no defence in court.

Steve

Steve, the ROW in question is STILL legal to use, the riders had a letter from the ROW/Highways dept saying so.

If anyone reads the thread you will see my name in the list of people posting.

The lane was clamied under the rules set up under NERC bill, as it was claimed before the cut off date it is still legal to use untill the clame is decided. There are some RUPPS nor RB that can still be used by motor vecihles, but it is up up to the person who is using them to decide if they have a legal reason to do so.

Paul

[pongo]

It strikes me that these GLEAM people have a lot of clout; the right people in high places. Duke of Edinburgh as their patron for instance. These people are organised. We the users of MPVs, plainly, are not.

I note on their website that they were key advisors in drawing up NERC, and key advisors to DEFRA in writing and publishing the DEFRA guidance. Unless CRAG, GLASS, the TRF et al can work together, and we all join and pay subs to give them a fighting fund, then we are lost. I applaud the efforts of the stalwart members of these organisations, who work for our benefit.

Sadly, I remember filling in AWDC user records in the 80s. Little good seems to have come from it. I wonder if these are still available to the above organisations as user evidence. Is the AWDC still on the case? If so, please share the info to all who can use it to advantage.

We also need to really stop the morons; you know, the ones with no moral code, no sense of repsonsibility, no knowledge of the rights and wrongs, who go off piste and give these people all the ammunition they need.

All is not lost, but time and public opinion are against us.

[sean f]

Is it just me or do the ruts in the picture on the Gleam page look to deep with no central diff bottoming out marks to be from any normal 4x4?.

Looks like either a tractor or some form of logging kit to me, in which case nothing they do is going to stop that anyway as this is commericail traffic not "fun" drivers. Seen pictures like this before often blamed on 4x4's and bikes when even the most basic look shows they must have been made by some form of commercial vehicle.

[q-rover]

But they don't care about that, all is fair in love and war.

[treebloke]

We also need to really stop the morons; you know, the ones with no moral code, no sense of repsonsibility, no knowledge of the rights and wrongs, who go off piste and give these people all the ammunition they need.

All is not lost, but time and public opinion are against us.

NERC shafted us, to many good lanes which were totally sustainable are lost whearas some which are little more than mud runs are still open and all because the RoW have not done their job properly.

[Guest diesel_jim]

Is it just me or do the ruts in the picture on the Gleam page look to deep with no central diff bottoming out marks to be from any normal 4x4?.

Looks like either a tractor or some form of logging kit to me, in which case nothing they do is going to stop that anyway as this is commericail traffic not "fun" drivers. Seen pictures like this before often blamed on 4x4's and bikes when even the most basic look shows they must have been made by some form of commercial vehicle.

I thought that....the only pictures they show are of muddy quagmires, which just "happen" to have a 4x4 in the shot... not farmer palmer with his John deer and 15 ton muck spreader in tow

Maybe we should get some shots of rambliars dropping litter, or parking on the edge of RB's or the Ridgeway (actually, i took some pictures of their cars last year, parked on the edge of thr RW when the seasonal TRO was in order... took it to Swindon police station, and as usual, they wern't interested)

[Projectblue]

Gleam, don't talk to me about Gleam.

You will never meet a bunch of more contemptable, narrow minded liars in your life (unless you join BNP of course, but that's something else).

The website is their PR front. It doesn't have to be factual. I've never seen them put a pic and a genuinely factual statement up yet.

Gleam are behind every National Park move against vehicular rights especially the YDNP TRO's.

There are two ways to look at a RUPP that's under a DMMO request. 1) Drive it as you legally can, to ensure that they don't win. 2) Leave it alone until you are sure it's been approved (could take years) neither of the above is incorrect. It's down to the driver/rider.

I hope that the law prevails correctly and that the GLEAM lie is exposed. Sadly they have a lot of money and a lot of selfish, self righteous, supercilious, sanctamonious erm.... run out of s adjectives, but you get my drift.

[SteveG]

Steve, the ROW in question is STILL legal to use, the riders had a letter from the ROW/Highways dept saying so.

If anyone reads the thread you will see my name in the list of people posting.

The lane was clamied under the rules set up under NERC bill, as it was claimed before the cut off date it is still legal to use untill the clame is decided. There are some RUPPS nor RB that can still be used by motor vecihles, but it is up up to the person who is using them to decide if they have a legal reason to do so.

Paul

Hi Paul

Your last statement is not correct. Post NERC all RUPP's are now restricted byways, even if there is an application pending. If you drive it, you are personally responsible for proving that vehicular use is allowed. Just because a RUPP has an application pending doesn't mean it's legal to drive at all. We have had this discussion locally with Suffolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire Borough Council RoW's. There are varying interpretations by RoW depts and even within, but NERC wording is clear. Just because an application has been made it does not make a RUPP pre NERC, Restricted Byway now legal to drive until application is decided. Proof of legality is up to individual irrespective of whether an application is pending or not.

Given this Glass, Lara, TRF etc should be advising all drivers/riders of this.

Cheers

Steve

[SteveG]

Just looked it up on Glass..

Simplified Summary - Effect in England

all RUPPs have ceased to exist.

They are now all transformed to Restricted Byways (no exceptions - even if a BOAT order is outstanding).

NERC makes a big effect over most new RBs, dual-recorded Footpaths/Bridleways, and unrecorded roads; to extinguish MPV rights with immediate effect.

It is an offence under Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive an MPV over a new RB or a FP/BW.

As before, there is a defence of showing that public MPV rights exist - but that is now considerably harder to prove as most MPV rights will have been extinguished by NERC.

These changes do not affect BOATs or UCRs (shown as ORPA on OS maps).

How Joe Public might know all this I have no idea, most RBs will continue to be signposted 'RUPP', 'Right of Way', 'Cart Road', or not signed at all for some time.

As it is a de-facto offence to drive/ride a new RB with a motor, as it's always been for a FP or BW, the only advice can be NOT to do it.

Unless you have VERY good evidence both that MPV rights existed AND that they were protected from NERCs extinguishment effects.

[Paul Humphreys]

I should have worded it better.

The riders in question had a letter saying it was legal to use untill the ROW clame was sorted. This letter give them the legal right to ride it.

Yes all RUPPS are now RBs, you still use some, but it is up to the USER to prove that they have a legal right to do so. But the case of dual status row's is still not clear (it does my head in). There are a lot of people who only have a route to their house via a RB, then they have a legal right to use it. Also if you are the land owner you also have a legal right to drive a RB or anywhere you like on you land.

The biggest problem is where a RB runs over the to of a UCR. Now NERC state that you can not use the RB, but without preduitce (SP?) to higher rights. I see a lot of signs that "no access for unauthorised motor vehicles" but if you have a legal right to use it then your an authorised motor vehicles.

The fight is still going on, it takes a lot to understand and I do not clame to know it all. But I know enough to stay legal and I still drive RBs where I know I have a legal right to do so.

Paul

[disco_al]

if that bunch of tree hugging hippies want to ban all 4x4's from greenlanes, then can't we campaign to ban all horses from the public highway, and restrict them to using bridleways?

hat

coat

swift exit.......

[landroversforever]

discoAl, If that is what it would take to get back all the greenlanes... then i would be for it. as much as i dont mind horses!

I'm not going 'til i finish my pint

[Guest otchie1]

where two Trail Riders were stopped by a "member of the public" their registration's taken and reported to the police for using a green lane.

ah that'll be "Us? no mate he must've been mistaken...got a witness?" swiftly followed being it being thrown out of magistrate's court.

Why people ever talk to the Police without a solicitor is beyond me - they are asking you questions to gather evidence to decide what to charge you with, not to decide if they can let you off.