Offroading and fighting a losing battle

[Hybrid_From_Hell]

The antis idea of compromise :

Nige

[bombx3]

The antis idea of compromise :

Nige

Tried that in the past but there attitude sucks (they think all land is for them) i go where i want to where is legal and if i meet them and they give me grief then i will thwack em(i realy do hate them i am not like this made me like it)

[Anderzander]

So.....

You have naked bbq's and you assault ramblers ??!?!!?

[Rich_P]

Right to Roam only applies to Open Access land.

Paul

What's "Open Access" land?

[ThreePointFive]

Something like a piece of common, a playingfield, moorland etc. Usually not where crops are being grown for example. It's based on historical evidence of a piece of ground having been used by someone other than the land owner for a period of something like 35 years. If you fence them to the existing rights of way before a submission of an application for another right of way is put in, it effectively means no more can be created outside of the boundary as there is no "right of way" to go elsewhere and crossing a boundary such a fence onto private ground is trespass, as little as that actually means in the law. That's what I picked up from my RoW work anyway, it was some years ago now so may be inaccurate.

If you can submit evidence that you've used a byway for the specified amount of time even in your vehicle, you could stop a BOAT (Byway Open To All Traffic) becoming a restricted byway (ie - no vehicular access) but I'm not sure it can reverse the restriction once it's changed status. The Trail Riders Federation put up a good fight even if apparently no one from the 4x4 community did around Somerset.

[disco_al]

isn't there a maximum width for a RoW through a field that they are not allowed to go across?

[Munster]

You could always apply for a TRO on the path claiming that walkers/cyclists in large groups are tearing it to bits with their aggressive shoe tread patterns irresponsibly using the path after it has been raining etc etc etc

[Munster]

or, since it is your land and the PROW is a footpath, you could invite 100 of your closest land rover driving friends to use the track on a daily basis churning it up so much that it becomes unwalkable, its your land right so even though the ROW is a footpath you and authorised people are allowed to drive it, man you could really go to town with big mud holes, ruts sloppy mud everywhere, not a dry patch in site.....

[ChrisV8]

The major problem we have is no one has the guts to TRO a footpath due to erosion, the TRF rep on the Lakes Access Forum has been asking for TRO's on some footpaths for ages, he just gets a blank stare !!!

As far as using routes on your own land, the Bobblies object to that as well, I lived in the Dales at Kettlewell and had the misfortune to have to use an access track along which the Dales Way runs, there were many occasions when I was told "you can't drive up here" by indignant Bobblies whose tiny minds cannot grasp the idea someone owns the land and has every right to drive, ride etc etc on their own land.

As far as I see the Dales will be closed to us very soon if the LARA High Court action does not overturn their TRO actions they are challenging.

[bombx3]

you have to maintain the land(i have a duty care)can be prosecuted for messing there footpath up..I have been arrested 4 times because of these ramblers one day about fifty turned up to exercise there rights so i sprayed them with pig **** 4000lts of it .It covered them the bowser was full ready to spread and i lost it with em so i gave them the lot

[Paul Humphreys]

you have to maintain the land(i have a duty care)can be prosecuted for messing there footpath up..I have been arrested 4 times because of these ramblers one day about fifty turned up to exercise there rights so i sprayed them with pig **** 4000lts of it .It covered them the bowser was full ready to spread and i lost it with em so i gave them the lot

But I bet it was worth it

Paul

[M&S]

you have to maintain the land(i have a duty care)can be prosecuted for messing there footpath up..I have been arrested 4 times because of these ramblers one day about fifty turned up to exercise there rights so i sprayed them with pig **** 4000lts of it .It covered them the bowser was full ready to spread and i lost it with em so i gave them the lot

Let me get this right...you hate walkers who have the right to use the footpath over your land

As a keen walker and mountain biker and green laner I get it from every side whenever I am out. I was even shot at by a farmer once despite sticking to the footpath

[bombx3]

Let me get this right...you hate walkers who have the right to use the footpath over your land

As a keen walker and mountain biker and green laner I get it from every side whenever I am out. I was even shot at by a farmer once despite sticking to the footpath

i dont mind walkers going along there bussiness along the desinated path but they must not tell me what to do with my land or tresspass on it.

[pongo]

Ah! - thanks for that V8bertha - so there is a precedent we could use. Could be decent PR, too - I'll check out those links, when I've a mo

cheers

Precedent? Some of us have been doing this for 30 years. I have spent many a happy hour doing lane clearances (picking up other peoples rubbish, including used nappies ...nice). 30 years of keeping records of every lane I drove (anyone remember doing the AWDC lane reports for Liz Hurley?). Various stalwarts have fought our case, the likes of Dave Tilbury (top chap - where are you now Dave?). Have we kept our lanes? Have we balderdash! We have, in fact, been right royally shafted.

I still go out laning when I can. I occasionally encounter the odd angry walker. Sometimes I ignore them, sometimes I "have a chat" with them.

But to get back to the point and your comment, don't go thinking you are doing anything new.

Been there, done that.

[tobes]

I am currently fencing along side a very wet/muddy bridleway (which I think has vehicle access to a house at the end), yesterday I saw a tesco delivery van go up the bridleway to access the house, shortly afterwards a couple of people came along moving large logs etc into the track to stop any vehicle going through. This morning I arrived at work nice and early just in time to see the same log moving people take a detour into the field, to avoid the mud that is in the bridleway the muddy bridleway is clearly caused by horses and foot traffic.

These people that complain do not see that they are equally capable of causing damage and of being in the wrong. There is a well worn track,even horse tracks, trampling through a hedge and about 10-15 metres into the field.

I ve even been told by the land owner that they once caught a couple of ladies in their 70's cutting through a newly installed wire fence 'because it blocked the track' they had come armed with wire cutters ....... the 'track' was a deer run that they had presumed was a footpath!

[Anderzander]

If you're the landowner prosecute them if you can - at least report them to the police.

Working through the system would be the best result I think.

[landmannnn]

i dont mind walkers going along there bussiness along the desinated path but they must not tell me what to do with my land or tresspass on it.

Whether you mind walkers on a designated path or not, it is irrelevant becasue they have a legal right to be there.

They have every right to tell you what to do with your land, just as you have every right to completely ignore them.

Totally agree they must not trespass though. The only problem is what you can do about it? In law you have the right to forcibly remove them but that really is not a great idea.

[bombx3]

Whether you mind walkers on a designated path or not, it is irrelevant becasue they have a legal right to be there.

They have every right to tell you what to do with your land, just as you have every right to completely ignore them.

Totally agree they must not trespass though. The only problem is what you can do about it? In law you have the right to forcibly remove them but that really is not a great idea.

so some nosey rambler poking his nose over the hedge can tell me what to do with my private land ,if so id break his nose ,i dont tell him what to do in his garden.seen one old guy cut the top rail of the style so his fat wife with a walking stick could get over,he should put her on a diet not destroy the style,they make there own rules as they feel fit .........exercisers

[Rich_P]

you have to maintain the land(i have a duty care)can be prosecuted for messing there footpath up..I have been arrested 4 times because of these ramblers one day about fifty turned up to exercise there rights so i sprayed them with pig **** 4000lts of it .It covered them the bowser was full ready to spread and i lost it with em so i gave them the lot

I love it! Splosh!

[forestgrump]

Karl Popper the philosopher asserted in 'The Open Society and its Enemies' that we are correct in refusing to tolerate intolerance. A good start in this debate.

John Rowls in his controversial book 'A Theory of Justice' discussed if the intolerant should have a right to complain when they themselves were not tolerated. He concludes, properly I think, that we are right to intolerate the intoleratant when their actions may endanger a tolerant society.

Ayn Ryand concludes that attempts to increase tolerance by applying different standards to different groups is ultimately self defeating.

Essential tenants of Liberty would suggest that a right given to one should be open to all ( in my view a good argument to end capital punishment ).

Notwithstanding all of the above.

Two tons of Land Rover will, ultimately, damage any surface not able to bear that kind of pressure. The problem therefore is if damage is to occur where is it acceptable, within what context and how much of that damage should be sustained.

I would argue a 4x4 on a hillside trail, country path, green lane is acceptable for:

a. the proper business of the land owner or farmer etc.

b. rescue or firefighting or similar

I don't think the countryside should be used as a recreation area for off road vehicles where damage may occur, FULL STOP, not at all or under any circumstances. If you love the countryside get out and walk.

There are many off road centres, country estates, sufficiently metalled roads where a 4x4 can be enjoyed without damaging anything or where a fee, proportionate to the damage likely to be endured and the consequent cost of repair and maintenance, can be paid.

However, I would also argue that were there is an establish right of access absolutely every possible alternative must be tested before closure is proposed. Informal groups maintaining paths, formal intervention by county councils, government assistance, even ( good marketing angle here ) the manufacturers of chelsea tractors digging into their own pockets to help fund repairs ( cancer wards sponsored by Bensen and Hedges anyone ? ). The point being where there is a right that right must be exercised and protected. Close the lanes and what comes next ?

So in a sound bite: 4x4 recreational users ( misguided though they may be ) should be tolerated and their past time respected provided that they clean up afterwards and don't scare the horses.

Fair ?

[bombx3]

Karl Popper the philosopher asserted in 'The Open Society and its Enemies' that we are correct in refusing to tolerate intolerance. A good start in this debate.

John Rowls in his controversial book 'A Theory of Justice' discussed if the intolerant should have a right to complain when they themselves were not tolerated. He concludes, properly I think, that we are right to intolerate the intoleratant when their actions may endanger a tolerant society.

Ayn Ryand concludes that attempts to increase tolerance by applying different standards to different groups is ultimately self defeating.

Essential tenants of Liberty would suggest that a right given to one should be open to all ( in my view a good argument to end capital punishment ).

Notwithstanding all of the above.

Two tons of Land Rover will, ultimately, damage any surface not able to bear that kind of pressure. The problem therefore is if damage is to occur where is it acceptable, within what context and how much of that damage should be sustained.

I would argue a 4x4 on a hillside trail, country path, green lane is acceptable for:

a. the proper business of the land owner or farmer etc.

b. rescue or firefighting or similar

I don't think the countryside should be used as a recreation area for off road vehicles where damage may occur, FULL STOP, not at all or under any circumstances. If you love the countryside get out and walk.

There are many off road centres, country estates, sufficiently metalled roads where a 4x4 can be enjoyed without damaging anything or where a fee, proportionate to the damage likely to be endured and the consequent cost of repair and maintenance, can be paid.

However, I would also argue that were there is an establish right of access absolutely every possible alternative must be tested before closure is proposed. Informal groups maintaining paths, formal intervention by county councils, government assistance, even ( good marketing angle here ) the manufacturers of chelsea tractors digging into their own pockets to help fund repairs ( cancer wards sponsored by Bensen and Hedges anyone ? ). The point being where there is a right that right must be exercised and protected. Close the lanes and what comes next ?

So in a sound bite: 4x4 recreational users ( misguided though they may be ) should be tolerated and their past time respected provided that they clean up afterwards and don't scare the horses.

Fair ?

[bombx3]

Sorry mate that lot was a bit to heavy for me ,i dont wana go to a pay site just laning thankyou if it says i can legaly drive it i will and if a rambler stops me then ****ing exerciser will be twated,,,If a rambler is walking along a offroad path they will even stop cyclists they want it all to them selfs i say cull them

[nicks90]

thats fair - government sponsored culling of bobblies!

they have bred too much and are causing a nuisance in the countryside, when badgers and deer do the same - rangers go out and sort the problem with a rifle. I think the same should be said of bobblies.

As for 4x4s in the countryside? Well we are a dying breed and therefore should qualify for EU grants to improve our vehicles and increase our numbers!!!!!!

[nicks90]

John Rowls in his controversial book 'A Theory of Justice' discussed if the intolerant should have a right to complain when they themselves were not tolerated. He concludes, properly I think, that we are right to intolerate the intoleratant when their actions may endanger a tolerant society.

John Rawls book has been shown time and time again to have fundamental flaws to his arguments.

His other book 'the end of history and the last man' was/is scarily accurate though.

Ee-by-gum..... takes me a back a few years! Not read any of that stuff since i finished my degree!

[Rich_P]

I don't think the countryside should be used as a recreation area for off road vehicles where damage may occur, FULL STOP, not at all or under any circumstances. If you love the countryside get out and walk.

What do you say for those who cannot get out there and walk courtesy of a disability, but the same disability doesn't prevent them from driving or operating a vehicle?

There is also the counter argument about the damage of what thousands of feet do to the terrain as well. I will say I'm not keen on mini-monster trucks that you see kitted out for pure off-road competition type things being used on greenlanes, but permitting that they're legal (i.e. taxed and MOTed blah blah blah) then I see no reason for them not to be there and just hope that no additional damage is done than lets say a bunch of standard 90s were to do if any.