[ First Message Last | Table of Contents | <- Digest -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
| msg | Sender | lines | Subject |
| 1 | Brian Lewis [brian@limb. | 22 | UCRs and RUPP Reclassification and Vehicular RoW |
| 2 | Brian Lewis [brian@limb. | 22 | UCRs and RUPP Reclassification and Vehicular RoW |
| 3 | Chris Marsden [Byway@com | 39 | Re: BOATs to bridles |
| Majordomo | About the digest |
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:44:22 +0000 From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk> Subject: UCRs and RUPP Reclassification and Vehicular RoW Hi All I have had a letter from the DoE with regaurds to vehicular rights on UCRs, If any one has a FAX I will send a copy to them. It sets out the point of view of the DoE in their words it is not an authritative interpretation of the law, only a court of law are empowered to do that. So to summerise, 'UCRs IN GENERAL DO HAVE VEHICULAR RIGHTS OF WAY', and the DoE see it as 'NOT APPROPRIATE TO RECORD A UCR AS A BOAT AND PLACE IT ON THE DEFINATIVE MAP', and the 'CLASSIFICATION OF UCR IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF A BOAT BECAUSE THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY IF IT IS A BOAT, NAMELY THAT THEY ARE USED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS A FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY ARE SO USED. Bye for now Brian ------------------------------[ <- Message 2 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970329 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 17:40:22 +0000 From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk> Subject: UCRs and RUPP Reclassification and Vehicular RoW Hi All I have had a letter from the DoE with regaurds to vehicular rights on UCRs, If any one has a FAX I will send a copy to them. It sets out the point of view of the DoE in their words it is not an authritative interpretation of the law, only a court of law are empowered to do that. So to summerise, 'UCRs IN GENERAL DO HAVE VEHICULAR RIGHTS OF WAY', and the DoE see it as 'NOT APPROPRIATE TO RECORD A UCR AS A BOAT AND PLACE IT ON THE DEFINATIVE MAP', and the 'CLASSIFICATION OF UCR IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF A BOAT BECAUSE THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY IF IT IS A BOAT, NAMELY THAT THEY ARE USED FOR THE SAME REASONS AS A FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY ARE SO USED. Bye for now Brian ------------------------------[ <- Message 3 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970329 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 19:07:13 -0500 From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: BOATs to bridles Steve, Tim, How did Shere go? I was unable to attend, and said so, and why it should not be put down to Bridleway in a very detailed letter to the Inspector (and also asked him to move it to a Sat!). Was gleam represented? Also had a call from Tarlton at Surrey as I said a month ago. It is a great shame there are not more people involved with RoW, but I feel there has been a lot of interest and more requests for information in the past few weeks than ever before, I am sure we are heading the right way. I do not think it is easy for folks to start in this field, it is not until one experiences the lies deceit and ambivolance of most HAs that gets people involved. This is certainly the effect of H&WCCs ill-conceived plans to downgrade. It is inevitable there will be differences between horses, TRF and 4wd etc on occasions, but there is so much to be gained from BDS CTC BHS etc in working together in ensuring that additional ways appear on, or stay on the map that we should work as closely as we possibly can. If we are talking together on RoW then perceived differences can be sorted more easily. One reason for TRF being more active than AWDC or Glass is that TRF have been around longer than the green laneing side of AWDC and of Glass. Lets get the RoW officers for all clubs in each county talking, sharing the load and then fighting jointly where there is strength in numbers. Is there a feeling that minimum clearance work to enable 4fwds to pass is going to reduce the challenge to 2 wheels? I would think the net effect is a benefit. All users are needed. Certainly bikes are the only vehicles that can save badly washed out lanes from the 116. Chris ------------------------------[ <- Message 4 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970329 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST Input: messages 3 lines 122 [forwarded 0 whitespace 27] Output: lines 146 [content 64 forwarded 0 (cut 0) whitespace 27][ First Message | Table of Contents | <- Digest 970329 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]