[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 10:16:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: User required - Hampshire
'Mornin'
A claim has been lodged with HCC by a Christchurch man for a number of lanes
across Burton Common:-
SZ190959 to 197964 = Prostitute Lane
SZ190959 to 193945 = Continues both N&S as UCR
SZ173947 to 190955 = Hill Lane
SZ181941 to 193950 = Guss Lane (continuation of Ambury Lane)
Where these cross into Dorset that County acknowledge VR. The evidence is
contradictory in part. User goes back to the 40's (insufficient in volume)
the estate claim to have been turning vehicles off the Common in the 30's -
note that I believe the 'off the common' to be different to 'the highway'.
County recommend Guss lane and the southern part of 'continues bothe N&S' as
byway. rest refused.
A long shot I know but any user?
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:50:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Frequently misunderstood questions
If someone would like to compile a few questions, I will have a go at
answers. Not that I know it all, its just that I like to think I do. For
sure, you will get something nearer the truth from me that from one or two
'shining' examples.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 97 19:12 GMT0
From: halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
Subject: Re: Open or closed list?
Ooops. Sorry - the content somehow got omitted :)
Anyhow - this is what it was supposed to say. Not particularly as a
response to this particular message, but a general polemic against secrecy
as a tactic...
> I would suggest that only those routes which are already
> well known and of a build quality able to handle moderate
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> (and even copied the OS map in one or two cases) I find they
> are far more cagey nowadays in giving away locations or names
> willy nilly - though it sometimes still happens.
As a sometimes TRF member and trail rider, I have never been comfortable
with this approach. AFAICS the best way to protect lanes is not to go into
a huddle of self-selecting cognoscenti, but to publicise them to anyone
who wants to know. All legal RoW should ideally be officially marked on
the OS anyway.
Or to put it another way: whose lanes are they?
I know the argument runs that irresponsible use damages "our" interests -
and so it does. But those irresponsible elements will just go ride/drive
anywhere illegal anyhow, causing more antagonism and a perception that all
offroaders are as careless about the law. I have no time for them -
unsurprisingly as I've had my trail bike stolen and wrecked by them
riding illegally on local parkland. So I especially resist the notion
that we should accept any blame for their actions : they are our enemy as
much as that of ramblers and landowners etc.
I am very unhappy with the Patrician position, so beloved of our political
leaders, that people are idiot children who cannot be trusted to make
sensible decisions, therefore they should be denied the information that
might enable them to decide wisely. Of course, they might not - but that's
a risk implicit in democracy.
The present position is that some routes are legal, for anyone who cares
to use them. Illegal behaviour on those routes is no more our
responsibility, than hooliganism on tarmacced roads is the responsibility
of the law-abiding user.
Where there are more subtle considerations, of sustainable use vs. damage
and erosion, then is it really so stupid to say exactly what and where the
problems are?
Sure there's prudence to codes of conduct and education, but there's a
contradiction at the heart of keeping their existence secret in my view.
Do organisations really want them open, or just open for themselves? That
is how it looks to riders and drivers on the outside of the clubs - and
many are. The result is a divide-and-rule split that undermines all
notions of voluntary restraint, with both lots feeling the others are the
problem. Which makes it all the easier for TPTB, landowners etc.
So the issue of misuse and damage has to be kept separate from the
principle of access, IMV. The first is a problem with solutions and scope
for co-operation; the latter must be non-negotiable.
They are our lanes, the peoples' lanes; no way should they be kept secret
in pursuit of a political rapprochement with a bunch of selfish arseholes
whose attitude to the law is contingent on their priorities. They have no
interest in lawfulness when it comes to gates or barbed wire across RoW.
So : personally, I think any appeasement of such groups is bad policy.
TRO's and lanes lost due to obstruction and ploughing-out and groundless
reclassification are the thin end of a much bigger wedge that affects
everyones' access to the countryside. Going on tiptoe is not going to stop
it - indeed my feeling is that we are heading toward a choice between
organised direct-action or sitting indoors watching TV documentaries about
how the countryside was lost. We are probably going to lose anyhow, so why
let them take the piss as well?
Tony Sleep
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: Re: Frequently misunderstood questions
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 15:02:36 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>
> If someone would like to compile a few questions, I will have a go at
> answers. Not that I know it all, its just that I like to think I do. For
> sure, you will get something nearer the truth from me that from one or two
> 'shining' examples.
Well, more likely, how these things work is someone starts out by saving
what flys by on the list that is valuable (eg. answers a common question),
then collects all these into one place and pushes it back out.
And speaking of stuff flying by on the list, it is archived and available
at either:
http://Land-Rover.Team.Net/RoW/
or by sending an e-mail to majordomo@land-rover.team.net
with the text index row
Cheers,
Bill Caloccia wpc@Caloccia.Net
http://www.Caloccia.Net/wpc/
R
http://www.Land-Rover.Team.Net/
R 1 3 2wd H D
+--|--| o | L 3 Land Rovers First
2 4 4wd L | 2 because
'63 SIIa RHD 88" H 1 Land Rovers Last
793-PTA '90 RR County
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 18:40:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Open or closed list reply to halftone
The only half valid excuse for 'keeping the info to ourselves' is that it is
expensive to find out where the routes really are, and we need members to
join to help support this work. But, there is a fallacy in this:
If we made info readily available, the search would only need to be done
once. Most of our precious time is spent finding out about lanes somebody
else knows about already. So in fact, much of the expense is due to the fact
that we kee things secret. And the rest of the expense is because counties
try and shut lanes because they are not used, and shut other lanes because
they are over-used.
PS was halftone not in one of the Norse sagas, along with ever-ready and
red-neck the red?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 18:40:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Frequently misunderstood questions
When is a Public Inquiry closed? asks Tilbo:
It is closed when the Inspector says so, at the end of the evidence and
summing up, and just before the Inspector says 'Mr Harding, you were better
than Perry Mason' and before any site visit. The trouble is, it is not
definitively closed, but only closed without prejudice ! If further evidence
is submitted by any party, the normal procedure is that the DoE looks at it
(or the Inspector does? possibly both if it looks useful), and if it is
likely to make a difference then the Inquiry is notionally re-opened by post,
& the new stuff is copied round to all those to whom the DoE thinks it should
go, ie, it seems, all those who spoke at the Inquiry. This is so that they
have a chance to counter any claims with alternative evidence, or put
alternative submissions, etc (natural justice, it says here). When the
replies are in, the Inquiry is re-closed, and the Inspector gets back to
work, tossing his dice and/or chicken entrails. Recently, we have heard of
lengthy late submissions by somebody called Masters, which were not
circulated in this way. One deduction from this is that the DoE did not
detect in them the worth of a row of beans. Another is that there is no
justice in this world, and the whole system is a devious ploy to keep you and
me from enjoying the Queen's Highway.
Comments please, accompanied with my usual fee if you do not agree with it
all.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 07 Mar 97 21:53:17 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Open or closed list reply to halftone
Tim
> Most of our precious time is spent finding out about lanes somebody
> else knows about already.
So it follows if info on lanes was available, and we did not duplicate effort,
all trapesing down to trawl through the def maps and plague those nice chaps
down at the highways for their UCR's we could release some productive time to
sort out the obstructions, the out of repairs, the wrongly classifieds, the
countless unclaimed I.A. Public Carriage Roads etc etc.
But would it work like that?
If people don't do the basic, easy stuff first, will they miss out on lesson 1
of where to go next?
(Learning by experience is tough. Life sets the exams, then teaches you the
lessons.)
But why waste the time of, and put the wind up the HA's when they are getting an
explosion of people wanting to see their maps? (I recall Bob Lloyd H&W saying
last week "I remember the time when only Charlie Morriss used to look at my
maps, now everybodys coming up here" Bob Kinghorn, Powys, has said the same.)
This fact can not be lost on those seeking to "downgrade" (review in their
terminology, 116 in ours).
Perhaps the lists should contain confirmed routes, and "research needed" tracks
to show where to start from.
And what better way than in chunks as on those very conveniently sized 200 sq
kms per pathfinder?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 07 Mar 97 21:53:18 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: PI's
Tim quilled:
>Recently, we have heard of
> lengthy late submissions by somebody called Masters,
Is that that Mrs Master Baiting you again?
> the normal procedure is that the DoE looks at it
> (or the Inspector does? possibly both if it looks useful)
I.E. if either one on their own could not think of a convincing reason to only
make it a footpath.
The PI is closed before it is begun. Their tiny little anti-vehicle ears,
anti-vehicle eyes, anti-vehicle minds were never "open" to start with.
Does a subsequent modification application have a higher chance of success if
one only has to "allege or reasonably alleged to subsist" rather than some
notional B of P?
What I fancy doing is getting one of these "batten detectors" from B&Q (the
electronic gizmos that allow you to find where the wooden battens are behind a
plasterboard wall), and do a profile across a lane. If you find two firm tracks
at the sides, rather than one in the centre, in your expert opinion, (well you
must be an expert if your mad enough to do this), it must have carried wheeled
traffic rather than just be a bridle road! Sufficient evidence to reopen an
upgrade application/PI? (Glatton here I come, Ho Ho Ho!)
C
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 07 Mar 97 21:53:21 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Green Lanes
Peter,
What status do the "green Lanes" have that are being re-classified?
As I understand it *only* RUPPS need to be reclassified.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 97 07:55 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: Open vs closed listing...
IMHO, as open as possible...in the case of someone asking to subscribe
who is totally unknown to all, would it be possible to ask for a
'reference' from someone who would establish the bony fidos?
:-) Mick Dyer...who btw is no longer the HBRO RoW laddie, but as keen as
ever in a private capacity...
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 10 lines 409 [forwarded 25 whitespace 97]
Output: lines 384 [content 210 forwarded 16 (cut 9) whitespace 96]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970308 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]