Black Tuesday

[dottythe90]

Perhaps I have been mis-informed then.

Chris

I hope you haven't and that DEFRA is wrong

[GBMUD]

I hope you haven't and that DEFRA is wrong

We know that DEFRA is wrong, we just need to convince them of that!

Chris

[dottythe90]

We know that DEFRA is wrong, we just need to convince them of that!

Chris

Look into my eyes, my eyes, and when I snap my fingers, NERC never existed :)

[GBMUD]

I emailed DEFRA yesterday hopeing for a definitive answer. They said

Dear Mr Watts

Sections 47-51 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduce a new category of right of way called 'restricted byway'. This means that all ways shown on local authorities' definitive maps and statements as Roads Used as Public Paths (RUPPs) will immediately become restricted byways. Restricted byways will have a right of way on foot, on horseback or leading a horse, and for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles.

The Government is using this new category of right of way to give effect to provisions in Part 6 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act that will curtail claims for mechanically propelled vehicle rights. This is achieved by enabling rights acquired by non-mechanically propelled vehicles to be recorded as restricted byways rather than byways open to all traffic. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act has the effect of extinguishing any unrecorded public rights for mechanically propelled vehicles.

The regulations necessary to implement the restricted byway provisions were brought into force on the 2 May 2006.

Regards

Paula Reading

Rights of Way Policy

...which upset me. At least I now know the truth.

Thanks

Chris

[geoffbeaumont]

I emailed DEFRA yesterday hopeing for a definitive answer. They said

...which upset me. At least I now know the truth.

Thanks

Chris

How do you propel anything in a way which isn't, ultimately, mechanical...? For instance, a human walking certainly falls under definitions 3, 5 and 6.

Wonder if we could use this clause to get the bobble hats banned from restricted byways too - or at least banned from taking pushchairs on them?

[steve_a]

Chatting about NERC today in the office with another lr owner and I wondered if what we need to do is carry out some kind of distruptive action.

We wondered about going to car parks that are used by walkers and filling them with 4x4 vehicles. Not blocking in, but basically parking close enough that it will be nigh on impossible for them to get thier cars out without 'damaging' one of the 4x4 parked next to it.

Since it is dodgy to protest by driving the RUPPS and other rights of ways since they can confiscate vehicles this strikes me as a very interesting way of protesting.

if the countryside is to be car free... let it be car free

Keep this up long enough and perhaps the RA might start to change tack and allow better access rights.

The passive nature that access groups have followed till now seem to have failed us, so perhaps a more aggressive and in thier face method might be more effective in ensuring we get the right to use our vehicles as we originally intended.

until a fuss is caused and someone has a hard time nobody will care about lack of access for 4x4 IMHO

[Mo Murphy]

Keep this up long enough and perhaps the RA might start to change tack and allow better access rights.

Steve, the RA don't grant access rights, the government does that (and taketh away)

Since the nerc bill has now removed our rights to drive RUPPS, how will getting in RA's face persuade the government to repeal the nerc bill ?

Unfortunately Steve, your post is 5 years too late, the right to drive RUPPs is gone for good and no amount of blocking up ramblers car parks is going to change a thing, alas.

Best thing to do is to get out and drive the byways before Bliar's metropolitan liberal elite remove your right to do that as well !

Good Luck

Mo