[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Glenn.Jones@barclays.co.uk
Subject: Re Coding Row Details
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:16:21 +0000
Following, is an article I wrote last year for Green Lanes, the
GLASS magazine. I reprint it here (and apologise for the
length) as further input to any eventual coding that may be
(universally) applied to legally driveable tracks.
I am also unsubscribing from this list tomorrow, as I will be
in the French Alps for the best part of two weeks. And since my
connection to this list is rather tenous, I will resubscribe in
April, when my machine at home is online. Good luck with
things until then, this list is just what is needed to counter
the Antis.
Glenn
SUGGESTION FOR A GRADING SYSTEM FOR DRIVEABLE TRACKS
Have you ever wondered if an unfamiliar track is safe to drive?
Maybe a friend of a friend recommends it as a "really good bit
of driving". Ever wondered what he really means, what he
drives, what his ability is? They all effect his judgement on
what is a really good drive. Ever been in the situation where
you have had to abandon a track because some drivers/vehicles
were not up to it, or the time taken to negotiate the track was
frustratingly too long because it was "too interesting" for
some vehicles/drivers and a recovery was instigated?
If it was possible to have a simple piece of information that
adequately described the specific track, then all drivers would
know what to expect. To arrive at this "simple piece of
information", I have talked to several people who have
experience of grading systems used by climbers. cavers,
mountain bikers and skiers. I propose that a grading system for
driving vehicular tracks is based on the best aspects of those
systems, but modified to a three digit code.
For example, The Wayfarer track in North Wales would be
classified as grade 1/1/3, each digit indicating a specific
element of the drivability of the track, namely:
First digit - technical ability required to drive the track
Second digit - possibility of sustaining vehicular damage
Third digit - indication of scenic value
The grading system would assume that the track is being driven
in average conditions with good AT or MT tyres and there would
be a warning if bad weather would significantly change the
grading. For example:
Strata Florida: Grade 1/1/3 - becomes impassable after heavy
rain.
The first digit (how easy is it to drive) would represent one
of the following six conditions:
1 - An easy track to drive with no difficult sections
2 - An easy track to drive with some interesting sections
3 - A moderately difficult track which contains sections of bog
or side slopes which should not prevent progress
4 - Track contains side slopes/gullies/bogs/rocky sections
which demand care or skill to complete
5 - Track contains sections of side slopes/gullies/bogs/rocky
sections which make progress very difficult
6 - Track contains sections which are impossible to drive
Body damage
1 - No body damage likely to occur
2 - Some scratching caused by branches/foliage which should be
repairable with Colourmagic
3 - Some scratching which will not polish out
4 - Risk of incurring dents to body work
5 - Do not drive this track if you are not prepared to accept
damage to your vehicle
Scenic value
1 - No scenic value
2 - Average scenic value
3 - Very good scenic value
Obviously, applying the grading system will be subjective,
depending on who is judging the grade. I suggest that the GLASS
survey forms are amended to request a grade from the person
filling in the form. The more people who drive the track, and
therefore complete survey forms, together with the grade,
should eventually prove a consensus for the grade for that
track.
Further examples would be:
Allt Y Baddi: Grade 4/2/2 - becomes very difficult if wet/icy
Soar Y Mynydd: Grade 4/5/3 - becomes very difficult if wet/icy.
Making a mistake at the eastern end could be lethal
The Gap Road: Grade 4/4/3 - track is very easy to drive apart
from one section at southern end
Anglers Retreat: Grade 5/3/3 - bog sections are difficult and
will become impossible after rain
Stanage Edge: Grade 4/1/3 - bog sections will be difficult
following rain
A track near Nant Y Moch: Grade 1/3/1 - track is heavily
overgrown
Another track near Nant Y Moch: Grade 6/5/3 - three bog
sections, the first two are just passable, although the return
is very difficult. The third bog is impassable
Cam Fell: Grade 3/1/3 - becomes interesting in wet weather. The
ford at the southern end can become impassable after a lot of
rain.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 11:20 GMT0
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: Grading tracks
Glenn makes some very valid and useful points to the grading of routes,
but he fails to remember that not everyone drives 4wd vehicles. M/cycles
have different abilities to 4wd.
I like the idea of grading the likelihood of "body" damage for
motorcyclists as opposed to the bike:-)
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:54:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lane Grading Systems
Two thoughts:
1. Any scheme must recognise that there are other users out there who also
need advice. What use is it to the horse rider to know that a Landrover might
get scratched? At the very least, do not, ever, use terms like 'impossible'.
Show me a road which you think is impossible nd I will show you a driver who
can manage it no problem at all. If you really want to know what is possible,
go to a round of the motorcycle trials championship. They ride machines which
may not be registered, but could be without problems, (only needing a horn
and speedo). So, at the verty least, please qualify any statements regarding
what is possible etc by adding the vehicle you have in mind.
This sort of grading, incidentally, is fundamental to the Hierarchy of Routes
Initiative being worked out in the Lake District. In this, motorcycle and car
drivers are co-operating to assess the sustainability of routes for
recreational motoring. I suggest that any developments elsewhere should be
done with the idea of taking on board the HOTR ideas, sooner or later.
It should be possible to indicate motorcycle criteria by a second figure, eg
31 means interesting for a car but easy for a bike. Or if using letters (see
below) Capitals for Cars, lower case for bikes (as they are smaller). This
will make the system a bit more elaborate, but if you do not take at least
bikes on board they will perhaps invent their own scheme...
2. It would make any three-digit code easier to recognise, identify, &
remember if the middle one was a letter not a number. eg 1/3/4 would become
1c4. This is not mistakable for a date, or anything else connected with RoW
use (is it?).
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:54:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Claims of bias within LARA
Recently a claim was made that when considering management of green lanes,
for instance by Voluntary Restraint, and responding to Highway Authority
consultation about TRO proposals, there was evidence of a bias within LARA in
favour of motorcycles.
Concern was also raised that members of the LARA team had not reported to the
police actions by motorcyclists that were clearly illegal.
This raises several concerns:
1. Protocol: I am concerned that these matters were not brought directly to
the attention of those 'responsible', but raised at club meetings where LARA
was not directly represented. This is exactly what happens when somebody gets
worked up about vehicles on green lanes. It seems they always raise the
matter with the parish council, or the police, or their MP, etc, and we do
not get to hear about it until everyone has heard one side of the tale, and
not ours, and got into a right state in consequence. This makes any problem
take much longer to resolve. Should our own internal problems really be
managed in the same way?
2. Evidence: I have seen the evidence on which the original claim was based,
and I am confident that none of the seven examples given show any
pro-motorcycle bias at all. (One shows a particular concern that the
interests of 4x4 users should be represented at a meeting where the local TRF
would be present already). This list includes actions which did not occur
until after the complaint was raised, and actions by those not directly
involved in LARA in any way. If it is felt useful, I can put the whole list
in this forum.
3. Solidarity: My concern has always been to defend the interests of all
motorists. Where it seems that a ban on everything is likely, but a
compromise is still possible, I will endeavour to ensure that the minimum
restriction is applied. This can mean that I seek the exclusion of
motorcycles from any TRO, for instance, where a ban on all vehicles is on the
cards. I do not believe that a stance of 'Don't ban some of us, ban all of
us' would be reasonable, but I would like to hear the views of others. In
particular, would motorcyclists within LARA readily go along with actions
that ensured that they would always be affected by problems in which they
were not involved?
4. Reporting illegal actions: Should LARA members or LARA officers act to
report illegal activity by motorists? There may be good grounds for reporting
illegal obstructions to the highway, as this can be evidence of need, useful
to defend against closure. But should this also extend to any illegality by
motorists, and perhaps by LARA members? I believe that
i. this would be unhelpful, as it would reduce the co-operation we need from
all who use the countryside with motors, and
ii. it could take up all the time available to LARA officers. Any such
'report everything' policy would have to be applied rigorously if bias was to
be avoided.
5. If anyone has evidence which demonstrates a bias, please let me know.
I undertake to deal with any problem in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. (Would it help if I set out these principles in this forum?)
Any comments on these points would be helpful in establishing our future
policy on behalf of LARA members.
Tim Stevens - LARA Information Officer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Glenn.Jones@barclays.co.uk
Subject: Grading System
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 13:15:36 +0000
To all who spotted that the article on a proposed grading
system for legally driveable tracks was aimed at 4X4s - you are
of course correct. The article was written for Green Lanes, the
GLASS magazine, which is purely a 4X4 organisation. The purpose
of submitting it to this list was only for info. If it is under
consideration to define a grading system (or whatever it will
be called), for tracks, then the more options that are chucked
into the pot, hopefully, the better the ultimate system will
be. If any of the article can be found to be of use, good. If
not, just forget about it.
Cheers
Glenn
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Glenn.Jones@barclays.co.uk
Subject: Grading System
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 13:48:08 +0000
Tim wrote:
>At the very least, do not, ever, use terms like 'impossible'.
>Show me a road which you think is impossible nd I will show
>you a driver who can manage it no problem at all. If you
With respect, and in the context of the article (aimed at 4X4s
and legally driveable tracks), given the track concerned, the
term "impossible" is valid.
Glenn
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 16:26 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: Newsgroup
<<<<On a different note we really need a newsgroup. >>>
How about rec.treadlightly?????? Its obvious to those who know, less so
to those who dont need to.....
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 16:26 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: GLEAM
I found this GLEAM application form in my filing cabinet (wonder how that
got there ?;-) and have copied to the listing for the benefit of them
what might not have seen it before....
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:34:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: LARA response to HA80 s116
This is now ok for use elsewhere
Introduction
Public carriageways are protected by many laws applying only to them; unlike
footpaths or bridleways, they cannot lawfully be ploughed, and many
activities such as obstruction, digging ditches, and lighting fires on or
near them, are subject to particular constraints (HA 80 s131). These rules do
not all apply elsewhere, and this extra protection is useful for all classes
of user.
On the other hand, carriageways are the only ways along which any member of
the public may use all lawful means of transport. As highways, their
usefulness has varied from age to age, but just as old houses need to be
lived in, and mended from time to time, old roads need to be used regularly
and maintained occasionally. Parliament has recognised this factor, too, and
has accordingly set out in the Highways Act 1980 the duties and powers of the
highway authority, including the maintenance of the surface (ss41, 99, 100,
104), for obstructions to be removed (ss149, 150) and hedges cut back (ss136,
154), and for the rights of the public to use and enjoy them to be asserted
and protected (s130). These are all requirements of the Act under which the
rules for stopping up are also set out; this Act also includes the
requirement for a List of Streets maintainable at public expense to be kept,
and kept up to date, by the authority, to be available for public inspection
at County and District offices. Parliament thus gives the authority the job
of recording the rights of you and me to travel about, ensuring that those
rights can be exercised, and making it clear to us all exactly where these
rights apply.
This is not the end of the story. Parliament has also given particular
attention to recreational routes which in its own words are `used by the
public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so
used'. Carriageways which meet this description are required - under the 1981
Wildlife & Countryside Act s53 (2)(c)(ii) - to be recorded on the `Definitive
Map' and published so that we can all be aware of our rights without even
needing to visit the authority offices.
It is clear from this that Parliament regards information about these
facilities - rights of way - as particularly important for the public. This
is in addition to the importance shown by the protection entrusted to public
bodies, for the benefit of the public at large. It is therefore important,
should any attempt to remove public rights be contemplated, to examine
closely what benefits for the public might accrue from any extinguishment,
from the loss of historic public rights.
Extinguishment under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 requires that it
must appear to the court that the highway is unnecessary. We believe that
green roads are necessary for the following purposes:
The Needs in relation to Sustainability
The sustainability of all resources is the aim of Government, and for
recreation this is supported by the Sports Council, along with the
recognition in governmental and other documents that the cheapest and most
effective way to manage recreational resources is to involve users in that
management. Relevant quotations from government advice are given below.
Sustainability cannot be achieved by closing resources, it requires that we
should be able to hand things down to our grandchildren so that they can use
them too. For sustainability to be achievable, green roads are needed. They
form networks for public use, as well as for wildlife, and we are, all of us,
stewards of that network. This is no fanciful conceit, but a vital strand of
the sustainability process. Once extinguished, rights of way are gone for
ever; nothing can bring them back. Just as we now step back from cutting down
old trees, demolishing old buildings, ploughing old meadows, because they
cannot be replaced, we should keep old highways.
Pressure for closure often arises from some temporary factor. A lack of
maintenance reduces use, and the authority becomes concerned lest repairs are
sought, for example. Temporary concerns should be resolved by temporary
measures, such as voluntary restraint, or TRO, or, even better for all,
timely repair.
This concern for sustainability implies a clash between what the government
wants - as agreed at the Rio Conference - and what the law allows (in the
Highways Act). That the view of government is inclined to a change in the law
is clear; consultations by the DoT & DoE recently completed (late 1996) on
Traffic Management Law proposed changes to the way this aspect of highway
management operates. It was suggested that extinguishment, particularly for
rights with a recreational value, should no longer be dealt with under the
s116 procedure but under a new version of s118; the criteria for
extinguishment should, they suggest, be more flexible and relevant than
`unnecessary' and any opposed decision should be put to an Inspector at a
Public Inquiry rather than to Magistrates Court.
A separate consultation by DoE at the same time with the title Vehicles on
Byways followed suggestions to the Minister that the use of motor vehicles on
unsurfaced roads should itself be subject to many more constraints than at
present. The government view was stated not to be in support of this change,
but the consultation sought the views and evidence of all concerned. An
announcement is expected shortly.
Whatever the outcome of these consultations, it is clear that the value and
use of green roads, and the process of extinguishment itself, are currently
under close scrutiny. With a decision on these consultations imminent, it is
the firm view of LARA members that any proposals applying HA 80 s116 to green
roads is untimely, and should at the very least be suspended pending a
ministerial announcement.
The Needs for Wildlife and Local History
Old roads are an important part of the landscape, a record of the way travel
and transport have developed. Green lanes are also a vital resource for
wildlife, and for conservation of countryside amenity. They are often the
oldest man-made features clearly recognisable in the landscape, and they have
survived for many centuries because of their use by the public, backed up by
the protection offered to them in law. Growing numbers of the public take
pleasure from such landscape features, for the history of which they are
part, or the wildlife they support, as evidenced by the range of societies,
publications and television programmes devoted to British wildlife, local
history, and field archaeology. If carriageway rights are removed from old
roads, the protection from ploughing is also removed, and therefore the
physical features which many value, and which are vital for the many species
of flora and fauna that they cherish - the hedges or walls as well as the
surface between - can be removed for ever.
This factor is specifically brought to the attention of authorities in DoE
Circular 2/93 (Annex B, s43):
Alternatively, it may be possible to show that vehicular rights are
unnecessary, in which case powers are available under section 116 of the
Highways Act 1980 to extinguish the vehicular rights whilst preserving the
bridleway and/or footpath rights. The disadvantage of the latter course is
that it may expose the way to ploughing with the result that its character
and appearance as a landscape feature may be irrevocably destroyed. Highway
authorities are asked to have regard to this possibility in deciding what
course of action, if any, is appropriate.
We draw particular attention to the final phrase - what course of action, if
any, is appropriate.
The Needs for Recreation
Exercise and fresh air have long been valued. The highway network is, for all
members of the public, a special resource in this regard. They may use it
without charge, and it is thus available, unlike almost all other facilities,
to all regardless of income or status. No-one needs to ask permission to use
it, and it is available at all times throughout the year. This unique
combination of features makes old roads of particular benefit to those who
work odd hours, the less able, and those with language, social, and other
problems. In this regard, carriageways are of special worth because:
i. as they may not be ploughed, they should be easier than footpaths to find
and to follow, even without maps or waymarks;
ii. as they should not have gates or stiles, those with mobility problems
find them easier to use;
iii. the extra width and the firmer surface compared with many footpaths or
bridleways are further benefits;
iv. they are the only ways open to all travellers, however they travel.
v. the use - often `out of season' - of green lanes by motorists can bring a
significant benefit to local businesses, particularly hotels, inns, guest
houses, and garages.
Government advice covers these points, too (2/93 s5):
Many rights of way are now used principally for recreational purposes and
constitute a valuable resource which is being enjoyed by a large and
increasing number of people. If the full recreational potential of public
rights of way is to be realised it is desirable that they are considered and
managed by local authorities as an integral part of the whole complex of
recreational facilities within a given area.
The Needs of the Highway Authority
The authorities have duties and powers relating to highways, but in addition,
with current constraints, they can have particular problems funding their
endeavours. Extinguishing highways, and particularly carriageways, can prove
to be counter-productive, resulting in a net financial loss for the authority
as well as a resource loss for the public.
Every year the authority is required to submit a statistical return to the
Department of Transport (Form R199b). This form has entries seeking (inter
alia) mileages of green lanes, unsurfaced roads, byways and back lanes. This
serves as the basis for the annual Treasury grant towards the maintenance of
all highways by the authority. There is therefore a direct benefit to the
authority in retaining as many routes as possible. Against this benefit must
be set the costs involved in carrying out their duties on the routes. Where
green roads are proposed for extinguishment, it is the experience of users
that the routes involved are already at the bottom of the list for any sort
of attention. Many will not have been maintained, and therefore will not have
involved a call on authority budgets, for 50 years or more - indeed the lack
of attention to this duty may have contributed to any lack of use by the
public. Left to themselves, these less-used routes will not be immune from
maintenance for ever, but the fact that over many years they have needed none
is evidence that future calls for expenditure are not likely to be high or
frequent. In particular, motorists are concerned not only to keep costs down,
but to avoid the suburbanisation resulting when routes are repaired to
inappropriate standards. To encourage minimal works, and avoid yet more
tarmac, users are keen to offer their own services, as detailed below.
Therefore such routes are very likely, overall, to continue to be a net
source of income rather than expenditure for authorities.
However, if there is one factor that will disturb this balance, it is the
publicity generated by the s116 process, and its effects. When users or
potential users discover that routes are to be extinguished for ever as a
result of them not having been used very much for a few years, the inevitable
result is that use will increase. There may be publicity for the routes in
the user press, to find previous users, and encourage use to defend against
the closure. Along with such activities, users will naturally want their use
anywhere else in the county to be noticed and recorded by the authority, and
an increase in complaints about obstruction, foundrousness, lack of signing,
and similar problems, is one of the inevitable consequences. The resulting
increase in spending by the authority - all at once - would not have occurred
had the spectre of stopping-up not been raised.
Additional adverse effects on authority expenditure are likely where
extinguishment is threatened:
i. Users in general, and vehicle users in particular, have a well founded
reputation for helping authorities with voluntary work, especially clearance
of under- and over-growth, collection of litter and rubbish, repair and
maintenance of drains and surfaces, and erection of signs. This work is
entirely voluntary and can lead to significant savings for authorities.
However, volunteers need to know that the resources they value are not under
threat. Where there is no regard for the reasonable needs of legitimate
users, co-operation will be less easily achieved.
ii. Where it becomes necessary to manage use of recreational routes, there
are two major options for authorities - Voluntary Restraint and Traffic
Regulation Order. Without going into detail, TROs cost around -4,000 each to
carry through; Voluntary Restraint - which is recommended by government and
which can be at least as effective as a TRO - involves only a few letters and
a phone call or two. In this case too, the difficulty of getting threatened
volunteers to continue to co-operate stands in the way of progress.
Management by temporary means rather than permanent extinguishment also
avoids the need for expensive Creation Orders in future.
iii. Users who feel threatened are likely to search about for other ways in
which their resources can be protected. They will write to their MPs, for
instance, or their County or District Councillors, or the DoE; all will
generate extra work for an already stretched authority.
iv. There may also be submitted claims for Byways open to all traffic to be
added to the Definitive Map, or for footpath or bridleway designations to be
so modified. While this may be a commendable outcome in terms of public
information and the reduction of potential for conflict, the effect on
authority budgets of a `rush' of such extra work can be considerable.
v. In the search to `do something' when under threat, there may also be
applications under HA 80 s 56, to put right routes which are `out of repair'.
This is clearly justifiable in circumstances where lack of maintenance has
led to a reduction in use, opening the door to extinguishment, but it can
take control of maintenance budgets out of the hands of the authority
altogether.
vi. In cases where bridleway or footpath rights are reserved, there is a
further effect on authority funds. Following this s116 `legal event' the
route will be marked on the Definitive Map, and thus more users will know
about it. Again, we believe all routes should be publicised in this way, but
we are considering whether the authority will benefit financially from s116.
Any `new' use generated by publication in this way will require the routes to
be kept clear. Where vehicular rights are in place, not only can vehicle
users be helpful in clearance works, the use of vehicles itself, especially
of cars, can materially assist in keeping routes open for equestrian, bicycle
and pedestrian use, too.
DoE advice on the value of volunteers is contained in 2/93 ss 5, 6:
Authorities are therefore encouraged to draw up rights of way strategies
which will enable them to address overall needs, the work to be done, and the
most effective way of using all the resources at their disposal, including
the valuable help and assistance of the voluntary sector.
... liaison groups can also play a valuable role in helping to define
proposals and in ensuring that they represent the best possible balance
between, and confer the greatest mutual benefit to, all interests.
It is regretted by LARA members that this advice has not been universally
accepted, and we note that these less co-operative areas tend to be those
which are troubled by allegations of `problems' for which extinguishment is
seen as a `cure'.
There is a delicate balance to be preserved, between those on both `sides'
who insist on their rights to do what the law allows. No-one can hope to
manage any highway system where all users insist on using all routes `open to
all traffic', or force authorities to repair every last pot hole. Responsible
users recognise that the resources simply do not exist to sustain such
overbearing actions. LARA is dedicated to promoting this responsible attitude
among all motoring users, but we rely on similarly co-operative attitudes and
actions from the authorities themselves.
The Particular Needs of Vehicle Users
Responsible users, as has been indicated above, are thoroughly aware of the
need to look after the resources they need, and to spread the load, avoiding
over-use at all times and any use at all in difficult weather conditions, or
where particular problems await resolution. This is encouraged by their
Governing Bodies, and by the Sports Council and Countryside Commission, as
well as by LARA in its Code of Conduct. However, such sensible local
management cannot be expected to be applied in circumstances where a
reduction in use might lead to the extinguishment of rights.
When under threat, users' efforts will be concentrated directly on the
threat, and other helpful initiatives will suffer - and not just by reduction
in the free time available for them. In particular, local users are always
encouraged to draw into these processes all those other users who seem
normally to have no regard for authority, or rules, or codes of conduct.
Peer-group pressure can be the most effective tool available in such
educational processes, but it cannot work where there is no benefit seen to
accrue from working within constraints. The argument which goes:
Why should we follow your Code if they are trying to ban us anyway? is so
difficult to answer. Putting it bluntly,
When bans come in the door, help flies out the window.
In the experience of LARA, user attitudes are often a reflection of the
attitudes we face from those we deal with, especially those whom we rely on
to look after the resources we value. In this context, wherever there is
little done for recreational motorists, calls for extinguishments are seen as
offensively overbearing, high-handed, and irreversibly permanent. Any
authority that uses extinguishment as a management tool is invited to
consider whether it would welcome similarly overbearing attitudes from user
groups.
Users in organisations such as LARA are well aware of the constraints facing
authorities, and being ourselves rate-payers and tax-payers, we wish to keep
down the costs to authorities of the resources we need. For this reason, we
offer assistance with maintenance and other works, and we agree to voluntary
restraint schemes and restrictions in codes of conduct. But it should always
be remembered that users are primarily interested in using the resources, not
having them made extinct. What vehicle (and other) users want is a reasonable
range of resources, sensibly managed, with the minumum of maintenance, the
minimum of fuss, and certainly not management that threatens to close routes
and which forces us to use up our holidays in inquiries. We need a range of
resources to allow us to manage our own use sensibly. In return for
reasonable co-operative management from authorities, we encourage our members
to use resources sensibly and sustain- ably, and to encourage others to do
the same. This co-operation extends to assistance with maintenance and repair
works, and operation of voluntary restraint wherever appropriate to manage
use in the most effective and economical way.
We need `little used lanes' so that there is somewhere to go when use of
lanes elsewhere might create problems - to allow us, for instance, to spread
the load. This is not simply to cope with possible over-use elsewhere, but to
deal with natural disasters like the Great Storm that blocked so many green
roads in the south of England for so long, and to deal with floods, and
outbreaks of diseases like foot-and-mouth, which can turn normal use patterns
into chaos. Where else can users go if little-used roads are extinguished?
We have set out above the ways in which we believe that little used green
roads are necessary. They are necessary for sustain- ability, for wildlife,
as an important part of the country scene, as a valued recreational resource
for all users, as an opportunity for flexible management measures, and a
source of income for the authority and local businesses.
A further note on timing
There are particular pressures on local volunteers whenever reclassification
of RUPPs or other modification of the Definitive Map is in hand. All the
spare time and energy of users can be taken up in searching for evidence and
witnesses, attending Public Inquiries, dealing with the Press and other
problems raised by the process of change. During this period, LARA members
are advised to avoid using green roads in the area, in order not to create
even more pressures and calls on time, or stir up opposition. When this
activity coincides with proposals for extinguishment in the same area, users
are faced with a dilemma. How can they cope with two urgent calls on their
time, one where use of green roads seems vital, and one where they are
advised to back off?
It seems to LARA that to make the best use of volunteers time, and to avoid
overloading authority staff, it is good practice to keep changes to the
Definitive Map, and extinguishments, totally separate. Inevitably, use
patterns are apt to change during the publicity generated when the Map is to
be modified, and it seems reasonable to suspend action to close routes until
any `Definitive' changes have worked through the system and settled back to
normal levels of activity. Should this advice be ignored, it is not clear how
authorities, or witnesses, will cope with the likelihood of Public Inquiry
and Extinguishment Hearing on the same day.
Tim Stevens
18.3.97
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 20:37 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: GLEAM...
I found this GLEAM application form in my filing cabinet (wonder how that
got there ?;-) and have copied to the listing for the benefit of them
what might not have seen it before....
BEGINS>>>>>
GLEAM, which stands for Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement, is an
unincorporated
non-profit making country-wide Associaton which seeks to ensure that
wherever necessary,
unsurfaced highways in the countryside carrying public rights of way
(other than those already
classified as footpaths or brideways) are preserved from damage caused by
motorised vehicles
of at kincts, in order to enhance opportunities for walkers, riders,
horse-drawn carriages and
pedal cyclists to use and enjoy them without causing damage themselves.
To this end GLEAM will seek to achieve:
1. Changes in existing legislation, such that Green Lanes, regardless of
their present
classification, do not carry permission for use by motorised vehicles
(other fan for access)
UNLESS specifically permitted, in part or whole, by the responsible
highway authority.
2. But pending the above, to urge the relevant Secretaries of State of
the day:
(a) To simplify the process of making Traffic Regulation Orders
(b) To make available additional funds to local government highway
authorities towards the
repair of already damaged Green Ianes.
(c) To urge local government highway authonties to use their existing
powers more rapidly and
effectively, so as to preserve the rights of the majority of users of
Green Lanes against the
depredations by a minority.
To further these aims, GLEAM will use the available means of publicity to
inform members of the
public, members of local authorities and Members of Parliament of the
present deficiencies in the
law with the object of enlisting their support.
In addition, GLEAM will develop an information base on Green Lane matters
to which members
will have access for a small handling charge.
If you would like to join GLEAM, please use fee slip below to apply for
membership.
Please make cheques payable to GLEAM
* | agree with the proposed aims of GLEAM.
* I would like to join GLEAM and enclose my subscription of £6.00.
* I enclose a stamped addressed envelope.
Name: liist any other interested household members) ..
........................
ENDS>>>>>>>>>>>
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:39:25 +0000
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LARA response to HA80 s116
In message <970318113400_806094288@emout10.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>This is now ok for use elsewhere
>Introduction
snip
>Public carriageways are protected by many laws applying only to them; unlike
>and Extinguishment Hearing on the same day.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
>Tim Stevens
>18.3.97
Thanks Tim, I will convert it to HTML and pop it on my web site
Regards
Mike Cattell, West Cheshire.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk
LandRover series 3, SWB, Diesel, 1975
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:12:16 -0500
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Lane Grading Systems
Tim said:
> 1. Any scheme must recognise that there are other users out there who
also
> need advice.
In the grading I posted on 15/3/97, I said I found it useful for *my* (4w)
purposes:-
<snip>
Skill/useability
1 Surfaced Road, a normal car should be able to use
2 A more robust and larger ground clearance vehicle can use with
negligible risk of damage to vehicle.
3 A Single 4WD should be able to complete with minimal risk
4 Scratches may occur, a new Discovery may baulk at this route.
5 Should not be attempted with a single vehicle.
6 High Lift Jack, and other recovery equipment may be required.
7 Passable at times, body damage could occur, advanced skills
required.
8 Impossible to Drive with any twin track Vehicle
9 Impossible to Drive with any Vehicle
Seasonal
A All Seasons, firm surface.
B May be slippery in Wet.
C Convoy of 2 or more vehicles recommended
D Damage may occur to route, so AVOID IN WET.
Heritage/Scenic
1 Of minimal scenic or Heritage value.
9 Of utmost importance to preserve.
I used 1-9 not to describe different types of lane but as a simple
progressive guide to how easy or otherwise a lane was. If it can be adapted
to make it useful for all vehicles (and even other users), I for one will
be pleased to adopt it for the sake of standardisation.
Is 1-6 already in common use? If so lets use that.
I have put the letter in the centre to make it more distinguishable as a
description code, as your point 2. The scenic was again 1-9 for ease.
> What use is it to the horse rider to know that a Landrover might
> get scratched?
(to laugh?)
The blue book suggests 2m high by 2m wide for f/p
3m h x 3m w for bridleways.
I am happy with 2m x 2m between solid objects. But if graded say 5 - 8
above, a horse rider would not expect an easy canter. A m/c may look for
7-8 only!
>At the very least, do not, ever, use terms like 'impossible'.
> Show me a road which you think is impossible nd I will show you a driver
who
> can manage it no problem at all.
I will show you several, I think I can guarantee they will have some
problem. But with enough determination even the Winchester or Newbury
Bypass can be built.
> I suggest that any developments elsewhere should be
> done with the idea of taking on board the HOTR ideas, sooner or later.
Please elaborate, theres no need to re-invent the wheel.
> Or if using letters (see
> below) Capitals for Cars, lower case for bikes (as they are smaller).
Not all users are capable of assessing what degree of difficulty other
users would encounter. I wouldn t. Also KISS or it will be too
cumbersome to be used?
Is it possible to have 1 set of descriptions to describe simply and
meaningfully to all users what they might encounter, and if to take your
(wealthy) maiden aunt out, without a convoy and recovery equipment?
(without dis-inheriting your inheritance)
> 2. It would make any three-digit code easier to recognise, identify, &
> remember if the middle one was a letter not a number. eg 1/3/4 would
become
> 1c4. This is not mistakable for a date, or anything else connected with
RoW
> use (is it?).
> remember if the middle one was a letter not a number. eg 1/3/4 would
4x4 ?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 12 lines 1008 [forwarded 35 whitespace 204]
Output: lines 964 [content 659 forwarded 33 (cut 2) whitespace 200]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970319 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]