[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 04:47:27 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Malvern Car parking
Which believe it or not does have something to do with Rights of Way, but not a
lot if you are a Malvern Hills Conservator.
Let me explain.
One of the roads proposed to be closed by a 116, is a road through an old
quarry. U61405 The road was dug away, just the top 50 -100 ft or so, nothing
serious, no 116 or anything, then they put a causeway back where the road was,
and stones at one end, and stone built bollards at the other. M/Bikes still use
it, evidence on the ground, and from Gloucester TRF. SO 761380 to 765 382 (yes
it is short)
There is sign saying No Wheeled Vehicles Penalty 20-00 GBP. (What are non
wheeled vehicles - sleds?- or vandalised hot hatches?)
Part of their car park is also the County Road, as per the LoS, for which they
are charging 1-00. Should this money be paid to the CC as owners of the surface
of the road? Is it legal for L/O to charge for parking on the highway?
The request for this section to be 116'd came from the MH Conservators, as they
were experiencing problems. (?) Is a 116 the correct procedure for the benefit
of a landowner? If they have to put bollards there to stop vehicles, is that not
acceptance of a prima facia "need" for the road?
Has anyone used a road or know anything of the status of the road from SO763 403
past Dale Hall to 773 384 ?
Also 790 393 to 800 386. Not on map but on LoS? Muddy, summer only route. 25 ft
sunken at one point, flat the rest. Any ideas why some roads are "Lost" off
the County Road Map? My view is it is the first step to Highway Euthenasia, or
privatisation by stealth, but I am sure I am wrong - they would'nt do such a
thing, would they?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:59:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Gleam, open?
Who ever said that gleam was an 'open' group?
A TRF member joined. The TRF has always cared for green lanes, and its code
of conduct which reinforces this is backed by its constitution. But when the
upstanding people on the gleam committee found out about his membership of
both, he was expelled forthwith.
No, open they aint. So there is another reason why we should be.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:59:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Widths of gates, Old Hall etc
It is worth remembering when the current width of a lane simply does not
allow for a 10 foot gateway, that it is possible to put the gate in at an
angle. This complies with the law, helps to confirm rather than deny
vehicular status, and also makes it a bit less likely that undergrowth will
prevent opening (as the first motion will be into the lane and away from the
brambles, not parallel with the bank).
Another possibility is to remind the authority that the proper way to
'authorise' a narrow gate on a vehiclualr route could be to recoprd the gate
as a 'condition' on the Definitive Statement. But only if it is a Byway, of
course. Either way, new condition or new BOAT, there will have to be proper
advertising and chance for objections, perhaps even a six-day Public Inquiry
with two adjournments, but we cannot avoid that. We do not make the rules,
only try to follow them. So should everyone else.
If everyone followed the rules, there would be much less conflict, etc. And,
if the rules turn oyt to be silly, as some are, then everyone following them
would have brought this out by now. But Counties only do what suits them, so
we flounder on in the dark, lumbering against one nonsense after another. And
they do it all with our money...
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:59:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Charges for parking on RoW
Yes, they can charge for parking, but only by going through the official
processes. That is what Parking Meters are all about, little bits of highway
that you are allowed to park on in return for a fee.
I suspect that many so called off-street parking areas have also become
highway by now, or at least the routes through them, as they have been used
by vehicles as of right for 20 years or more. But that is another story.
Traffic management schemes also sort out parking slots between the pinch
points etc, sometimes for 'residents' only.
I suspect that none of the proper channels have been followed here. Let me
know.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: H&W
From: gerald.tan@bbc.co.uk (Gerald Tan)
Date: 10 Mar 97 10:34:10 GMT
Chris
I wrote to H&WCC sometime ago about the gates at Stockton Ride, but have
heard no further.
Do you know if anything has happened?
Regards, Gerald.
______________________________________
Gerald Tan
Internet email: gerald.tan@bbc.co.uk
______________________________________
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 13:49 GMT0
From: halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
Subject: Re: Open or closed list reply to halftone
> The only half valid excuse for 'keeping the info to ourselves' is that
> it is
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> because
> they are over-used.
Yes. AFAICS there's a good argument for *all* access orgs (including the
bastard RA) to co-operate and set up a national database of all RoW. This
would have to employ full-time officers, and cost real money, but I can't
believe it's impossible. And it's collated records would have to be open
to anyone - though they could charge for that, to raise funds. A sort of
Provisional Ordnance Survey :)
I think if this doesn't happen, with the way that patterns of use and land
ownership are changing, local initiatives are always going to be
fleabites, and we will end up coralled in trail-parks, and the walkers
confined to LDP's etc, within 10-20 years.
> PS was halftone not in one of the Norse sagas, along with ever-ready and
> red-neck the red?
> expensive to find out where the routes really are, and we need members to
Tony Sleep
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 13:49 GMT0
From: halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
Subject: Re: Open or closed list?
> Again, I agree. However.... whether WE see them as seperate from
> ourselves or not is surely not the point. It is the perception of others
> that matters here (though caring what others think about what I do is
> basically
> against my nature, it has to apply).
Whilst I accept this happens, it is misperception - and what's more, most
often an opportunist expression of prejudice. Their agenda is to stop all
vehicular use (or in many cases, even access on foot). Of course, any
ammunition that assists them is welcomed by them and used by them; but the
point is that there's simply no way to give them what they want except by
capitulating.
It would be nice to believe otherwise, that they are reasonable people
amenable to reasonable debate and behaviour, and that we can all coexist
happily. But I really don't think this is often the case. One does not
seek closure of the M1 because the surface is deteriorating, it gets
fixed. And reasonable people do not place locked gates across public
roads. We have to retain a sense of what's right and fair, here, else
we're stuffed.
> Certainly we shouldn't accept
> the blame for the actions of those who will misuse lanes, or ride/drive
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> problems - even if only in overuse (30 or so lanes in a whole
> country....??)
It comes down to this : is it more of a risk to try and keep lanes secret,
so that few people use them, and they can be closed, or at least
overlooked, because nobody uses them - in which case they may as well not
exist? Or do you publicise them, and risk damage, provocation by overuse
and bad behaviour, and closure for those reasons? I'm interested in the
Corrieairack situation here, as that seems to illustrate perfectly that
landowners will act illegally if they can't get their way by the first
option. In either case, the result is that the route is unavailable to
those who want to, and have a legal right to use it.
The question then becomes : well WTF are we going to do about it?
Personally, I think that where the law shows itself to be unconcerned,
it's time for direct action. I would be prepared to participate in a
Corrieairack Liberation Movement :) provided it was non-violent.
> You're right, but the actions of the few, can and often do affect the
> interests
> of the many.
Ah, you're _really_ talking about landowners here you know :)
> I see little merit in giving the book of matches to the guy
> who's
> trying to burn down your house.
Ok, fair enough. Except there's a presumption here that anyone not in one
of the orgs (TRF, AWDC whatever) is an antisocial hooligan. This really is
not the case IME. Nearly all the people I've ridden with, over many years,
are neither TRF members nor louts - they simply don't want, or don't have
the time, to become involved in what "proper" membership of the TRF
entails. More importantly they perceive the TRF as a particular sort of
organisation - one dedicated to research and the legal opposition to
bureaucracy etc. They just want to ride occasionally, not become involved
in a social/ club. How can I put this? It's a bit, uh, anorakky.
I have been a member in the past out of a sense of solidarity, but I
(a)live in London (b) work stupid hours (c)have kids and very little
opportunity of riding - haven't managed to do it in the past 2 years - let
alone time for all the infrastructure stuff. Every issue of the TRF
bulletin berates its membership for not participating enough: it's hardly
surprising that large numbers of perfectly sensible riders don't belong.
So there's a split that weakens both member and non-member riders, but it
arises partly in the TRF's policies. Don't get me wrong : I am very glad
and grateful that people exist who have the ability and the time to fight
these battles, but it is a non-sequitur that non-members constitute a
problem. I also believe that there's something about motorcyclists, that
many are not great joiners of anything - I am certainly not.
> Hooliganism may not be our
> responsibility - except if we're the hooligan - but the consequences of
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
> thefts with misuse or illegal practices
> and a couple of years for forever, and you'll see my point.
I do, but this is simple Darwinism really. "For a couple of years" is the
operative phrase. Trailing is never going to be more than a tiny, minority
past-time - the demography of the country, the increasing demands of
work/families, the costs of bikes/cars all serve to cap the activity. With
local exceptions, I find it hard to believe that even if you publicised
every known lane in The Sun tomorrow, you'd see more than a short-lived
surge of interest.
> Corrieyairack Pass situation is coming
> to this point.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> should have been addressed. However there are rumblings from several
> people I know whom are ready to take direct action to remove the
> obstacles themselves....)
Well, correctly so, I think. I've ridden it once, and it was a wonderful
experience. Tell me the landowner's address and I'll go and weld his gates
shut, see how he likes it :(
I suppose I may share a little of the blame for the popularisation of
Corrieairack, since I & Roger Willis did the "Historic Trails" series of
features that appeared in MotorCycle International in 1990. I was the
photographer, and let me tell you that trail-riding with a rucksack of
cameras is penance enough for my attitudes that people are entitled to
know about these places :).
Worse, Roger has just taken over the editorship of MCI and we are planning
another series on a different theme, for later this year. Meanwhile I'd be
quite happy to participate in and/or publicise any direct action over
illegally obstructed lanes. Just about all of this country is in private
ownership now, and ISTM perfectly forseeable that unless we all wake up,
we will be unable to roam as all previous generations have.
Please feel free to email me privately on this or any other subject :)
Tony Sleep
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 13:49 GMT0
From: halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
Subject: Re: H&W review of UCRs
> Let him cost justify it without admitting the 116 is done on cost
> grounds.
> Chris
:-)) My God, I'd hate to play chess against you :-)
Tony Sleep
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 13:49 GMT0
From: halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
Subject: WTF is GLEAM?
Sorry if this is a naive or dense question, but I've been busy for the
last 2 years. So what is GLEAM, please, someone?
Tony Sleep
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 11:10:10 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Sorry couldnt help posting...
> Must say the RoW list is excellent, i have learnt more in the last two weeks
> about RoW and CC's than I have in the last three years.
Thanks Adrian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:44:29 +0000
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: UCR's on Def Map ?
In message <970309125736_100620.2156_BHL92-2@CompuServe.COM>, Chris
Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM> writes
>Have UCR's been put of the def map in any other counties?
>From Alan Kind
Yes. Northumberland took the decision about 5-6 years ago to put all
"green UCRs" on the definitive map. Not for vehicular users (who mostly
knew them anyway) but for riders, cyclists, etc, so they could see from
the OSvthe connections with bridleways. Especially important because of
the OS policy of taking "tracks" off the map, leaving many BR/FP hanging
in mid air.
NCC has been doing this parish by parish. Virtually no opposition (onlyu
one or two PIs) and all gone through to my knowledge. No problems since.
Must prove something.
Cumbria (the North Pennines bit) has gone a different route, but
labelling all "whites" with a very smart wooden sign "public by-road".
Nothing but praise has come their way. Picture of this sign in a past
B&B. Wiltshire at least issues a map of all their UCRs and reports no
consequent problems.
A
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:32:24 +0000
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 116 on UCR's
In message <970301223418_100620.2156_BHL101-1@CompuServe.COM>, Chris
Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM> writes
>Brian,
>My understanding, (someone please correct if wrong):-
[ truncated by list-digester (was 16 lines)]
>Hope this answers the question.
>Chris
Hi Chris
can you give a bit more details about the last bit, does this mean a 116
would still be needed to remove the RoW?
--
Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 17:22:57 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Challenging ride.
A UCR I walked today is somewhat obstructed. Three fences rubbish, an arboretum,
and a garden pond (lake) complete with bullrushes. Minor detours available.
It is however rideable (2W only) and some reasonable use with documentation
might help disuade the CC from Downgrading to FP, which is what they have
proposed.
The NGRs are SO 295 513 to 300 518.
If you want to incorporate into a route please email for further info.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 17:22:54 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: 116 on UCR's
Brian
> can you give a bit more details about the last bit, does this mean a 116
> would still be needed to remove the RoW?
Not sure I understand the question.
A UCR I believe is always vehicular, unless they have a TRO *and* signs in
place.
TRO is flexible and can stop what ever they want whenever they want, temp or
permanent. (2 types)
If they (CC) want to stop a UCR, there is only one way, that is to go before a
magistrate with a 116 application, and say it is unneccesary, either it is not
being used OR there is a better route available. And for peoples that like
unsurfaced roads, a tarmac rd is not the same.
A 116 can be to stop-up rights for Vehs, Vehs & horses, or everything.
However if it is unused for years, EVEN if due to illegal obstructions it IS
unnecessary. QED (Quite Easily Done- stuff your latin), so I said IF you see a
116 advertised (which it has to be) and then you say I have used it 50 times in
the last 4 weeks the beak will tell you to Naf off, you only used it cos you saw
it was about to be closed.
Also one person saying it is necessary is certainly not enough. whether it has
to be 5, or 20 is not clear. I think 50 should be quite enough. And how many of
those MUST be in court is anybodys guess. The more the safer.
See the Blue book. There are exceptions to what I've said but it is generally
the case, as I see it.
C
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 18:27:29 EST
From: Richard Brownlee <101360.3273@compuserve.com>
Subject: Green Lane Restoration Day
Hi All
I am sure you are all twiddling your thumbs wondering what you can do to help
your sport on the 23rd March (Green Lane Day). I have the solution - come and
help us clearing undergrowth, overgrowth etc on Beggars Lane, Dorking, Surrey.
All tools etc will be supplied by the Countryside Ranger. There will be a BBQ
at lunchtime (bring your own food), and rough camping (bonfire etc) the night
before for those of you who are keen to get started early :-) (bring your own
tent, food, beer etc).
Feel free to contact me for some more information.
Regards
Richard
AWDC Surrey RoW rep.
Hersham, Surrrey.
77 Range Rover - MOT this month - Gulp :-(
81 Range Rover- getting less and less complete - see above.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 17:22:46 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Victoria Laneing Society
The Second Monthly General meeting of the Victoria Laneing Society, RoW
subsection, (City Toffs division) meets in the Jugged Hare (we think) at 6.30
Tuesday 11/3/97. This is 5 mins walk from Victoria Station, along Vauxhall
Bridge Road, second pub on the left. Anyone willing to buy a round welcome.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 15:27:30 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re:National database.
Tony
> ....to co-operate and set up a national database of all RoW.
A database or Byways and UCRs is essential. Much discussion can follow on quite
how, but we do have many people with the technology, access to email and better
communications and the sense of injustice to do this for byways.
I would like to see more TRF chaps on the RoW List and hopefully some BDS CTC
and even BHS as they have so much to gain. It would be a shame if it was
predominently 4wd. (which it isnt)
Some info is common to other groups fighting for FP and BD status, but they do
not suffer the same unjustified opposition that Byways users do.
I do not feel it practical to set up databases of anything *other* than Byways
RUPPS & Green lane UCRs. That is what the def map is for.
The national % of RoW with Vehicular rights is only 2%. (CoCo). However
Worcestershire has Zero byways out of 4,677km , and Hereford has just 19km out
of 3,244km. (only 8 + 4 km of rupps)
And then they plan to downgrade all unsurfaced UCRs to bridleways. (or less)
If they succeed in one County, other CCs will try it. IE H&W followed Bucks.
Bucks have seen sense, but H&W are ploughing ahead.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:08:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: gleam, eh?
Gleam is an organisation dedicated to clearing motors off green lanes. They
do not put it so bluntly, but that is what it boils down to.
Most if not all committee members own property alongside green lanes, but
this is entirely coincidental to their natural abhorrence of what we enjoy.
They have learnt enough about the Publivc Inquiry system to be able to wind
up local opposition to fever pitch, on the basis that there will be great
queues of 4x4s & motorbikes racing round the village unless you villagers
take them (gleam activists) on to defend your interests. And there is always,
so far, someone willing to cough up on the basis of this hysteria. And some
inspectors are listening to it and we are losing RUPPs to Bridleway in
consequence.
All good sport, really, except that it gets in the way of co-operation which
is the only tool that has a chance of working in the true interests of
anyone.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 15:27:36 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Charges for parking on RoW
Tim said
> I suspect that none of the proper channels have been followed here. Let me
> know.
I sure they have not, like the 20-00 penalty to drive on a UCR.
However is it worth pursuing with all the other agro of them trying a 116?, What
do you want to know the outcome, or details of location, or reaction of CC?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 10 Mar 97 15:27:39 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: WTF is GLEAM?
Tony said
> So what is GLEAM, please, someone?
So who is going to explain about the nice Ms Still, JP, CC, and her band of
cronies dedicated to the Green Lane Environmental Action Movement.
And how is she going to protect our 1000+years of road heritage - by banning all
vehicles from 98% of all unsurfaced roads. The other 2% are solid stone or
concrete.
They are a real threat in so far as they are excellent at publicity stunts, have
many influential people, give free membership to MPs, and give the propaganda
away to anyone that will take it in CC's. They got the DOE to issue the
Vehicles on Byways consultation doc last year. If you or anyone wants a copy or
their reply, I think I can forward it to you, or if many want it, I will post
it on the list. It is SAD reading for SAD people by SAD people, but if you have
a strong constitution, and a stiff drink you can have a B good laugh.
They also have a roving band of professional PI saboteurs.
There are two essential qualifications to belong, you MUST live on a BOAT to be
a real member, and be able to lie fluently.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:09:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Highways for ever
Once a highway, always a highway. So, even if not used since the romans, and
no legal process has removed rights, then it is whatever it was then.
Not all highways departments or RoW departments will be keen to admit it, but
this one bit of law is the whole basis of laning.
Legal processes are Acts of Parliament, Quarter Sessions 'Ad Quod Damnum'
orders (ages ago) and stopping-up also called extinguishment at magistrates
court, (currently in HA80 s 116) which is directly descended from A Q D.
There are also 'Side Road Orders' when motorways and bypasses are built,
similar to stopping up.
Downgrading to bridleway etc does not taske away rights which do exist even
if evidence for them is not produced (but it does need to exist somewhere or
you are in difficulties when challenged).
Neither do TROs which might be called 'permanent' but can be revoked. Rights
are not (I don't think) even suspended by TROs, they simply become illegal to
exercise. (Most TROs do not, anyway, affect all the rights on a route, only
those for some vehicles, etc.)
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 21 lines 835 [forwarded 90 whitespace 211]
Output: lines 717 [content 405 forwarded 54 (cut 36) whitespace 197]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970311 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]