[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:26:27 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: UCRs on def map?
Hi Freedom Fighters,
Tim, is this the normal way to ask for the neck of the Highways boss? ;-)
Dear Jeff,
Your admitted past secrecy on UCRs has materially contributed to the
Obstructed (Roman Road),
Washed out (Rabbit Lane),
Overgrown (Burnt Hengoed),
Undergrown (Cwm Thomas),
Tipped (Pateshall),
Ponded (Quebb),
Bridleway gated (Browns Lane),
Fenced (Bush Fm),
Ploughed (Trumpet),
Cropped, (Erwood), and
Unused (Pateshall)
UCRs.
Having failed so abjectly in your duties under S130 of the 1980 Highways
Act, and more specifically: "The local authority must at all times act
with the object of protecting the highway and of preventing or removing any
obstruction, and, more broadly speaking, of promoting the interests of
those who enjoy the highway or should be enjoying the right of way and the
county council must likewise operate against the interests of those who
seek to interrupt such enjoyment of the highway."
Lord Justice Lane, R v Surrey CC ex parte Send Parish Council, 1979
May I suggest you relinquish your post immediately.
Failing this, might I respectfully suggest you stop medalling with, and the
downgrading of unsurfaced UCRs, pass the management of these to Andy Turner
to show as "additional information" on the definitive map as U/S UCRs, and
to maintain to bridleway standard, UCR (10ft) width, whilst you
concentrate on what you do exceptionally well, that is: to maintain an
efficient transport system within the county.
Yours hopefully,
Chris.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:26:33 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Tractors & mud
Dale said
> There is little that we can do to stop the people that the mud attracts.
The only
> real solution is to repair it to a very high standard. Surrey have done
this to a
> number of lanes, and lo and behold vehicular use drops off.
It is sad that they repair to a high standard. Apart from using Oodles of
Dosh and giving Antis Ammo, what is the repair done with? so often "repairs
to a high standard" look attrocious (ie. concrete or rubble) and take away
much of the character of the lanes. But each is different - we can not
generalise.
> I do though think that companies like the FC could provide 'mud runs'
> (possibly for a small fee) before replanting, that might provide an
alternative
> to these people.
Why? They often cause them. How ever true FC build superb(ly) boring
roads. For a small fee the CC could rent a couple of acres beside a green
lane through a forest for a couple of hundred quid a year, and let the sad
beggers play. A snip at ten times the price if it saves having to repair
lanes instead. a drop in the ocean of the leisure budget for an important
sector of the community. Or perhaps part of the local rubbish tip, or
sewage works.
> A very tricky problem - after all, we all like a bit of mud, and just
> (possibly for a small fee) before replanting, that might provide an
where do you
> draw the line?
> (possibly for a small fee) before replanting, that might provide an
Aaaargh! we have found the hidden closet mud plugga amongst us at last have
we? Speak for yourself. I am just as happy without mud. If it is in the
way I will take it, but never look for it. You grow out of it in time.
with some it is at age 3, others at 23 or 53, but there's hope yet Dale ;-)
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 10:37 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: == No Subject ==
In my final say I pointed out to the Inspector that the user groups all
have a code of conduct where by numbers are limited and the aim is not to
be visually intrusive. "It is gratifying to see how succesful these
policies have been in this area - the users being both silent and
invisible". The Inspector laughed and we got our BOATS.
Now that I like :-)
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Tractors & mud
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 22:11:50 +0100
Damage. It usually starts with some sort of agriculatural/forestry work and
then exacerbated by recreational users getting themsleves into trouble;
then winching and all that. This is what we all worry about. We must keep
our own house in order. Some trail riders get p!$$&d off being accused of
causing damage to lanes when it is patently not caused by m/cs. I am all
for VR and temporary TROs if that is whats needed to protect excessive
damage until some surface drainage/repairs can be undertaken. Permanent
TROs and s116 are the real threats.
What do you all think?
SteveN
TRF
----------
> From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
> To: RoW Mailing List. <RoW@playground.sun.com>
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
> CC to Andy Turner H&WCC
> > > Herriard 9 - in Hampshire - was like the Somme as the result of
timber
> > > extraction (about half a dozen 4x4 County tractord) and consequently
> was
> > > 'driven' every weekend by 4x4s from London, Basingstoke etc.
> > > My "adopted" road, known generally as Dead Man's Hill, has become a
> > > magnet for these sad puppies. Most seem to drive Fronteras and
Nissan
> > > Patrols.
> > This is very sad mentality. I am sorry to say that I have seen this
[ truncated by list-digester (was 18 lines)]
> BOAT, with absolutely no foundation at all.
> Anyone using the countryside has to be prepared for a spot of mud here
and
> there, but the magnet of the challenge is a fact, and we have to accept
is
> not tolerated on PROW by even reasonable people, it is magnified in
> occurance 10,000 fold, in peoples mind. Therefore, all though probably
not
> caused by 99% of users effects us all.
> I have asked our CC if they know of the off-road school sites in the
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> CCs could, and I think should charge these people in the worst documented
> cases for repairs. Responsible mags should report it, and show it is
not
> condoned.
> VR called for by users might be an answer, but somehow I feel it would
[ truncated by list-digester (was 9 lines)]
> Users could suggest temporary TRO to avoid a permanent TRO.
> Or users could suggest some routes are dedicated to the sad people,
provide
> a fair-weather path round it, and let them play. (comments please)
> Or they could be repaired to a *minimum* standard to take the temptation
> away, paid for by the timber extractors etc where possible. But we
> ignore VR.
should
> all press for traditional stones not scrapings !
> If they can have skateboard parks to get them off the shopping precinct,
[ truncated by list-digester (was 9 lines)]
> should not have been. Recently it has been much more responsible. The
> continued popular mag front covers showing off-road event dramatic pics
on
> the newsagents stand is giving the antis just the ammunition they need -
> joe public does not stop to think of the difference between a competitive
> event on a paid for site, and a GL. Thats what they think they will get.
> WYSIWYG - not.
> Chris
> event on a paid for site, and a GL. Thats what they think they will get.
> play in? A public amenity.
> > > magnet for these sad puppies. Most seem to drive Fronteras and
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:46:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: CLA success
>C'mon Chris, name names!
>Names, what really say who?.
>Ok then, Julian Salmon at Hoddle Fm. Nr Evenjobb
>Lane ref 2365
>Gate was at SO235 644
>Reported it to Dr. Alan Woods, CLA, 0171 235 0511
Chris and all,
Chris,if this is the UCR through Hoddell Farm you've got
the GR slightly wrong, and it's Powys Highways Number ref is U1125. They were
going to stop it up in '91 ( between the farm and Ackwood Lane, U1176 ) but
withdrew the application (along with 3 others) rather than be embarassed by
the fact that they had failed to advertise properly, or consult users. At the
time it was obstructed by a mobile hen coop and a fence - which I understand
the CC had removed afterwards
Regards
Charlie.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:55:42 +0100 (BST)
From: John Upham <J.E.Upham@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Road Rallying on Whites etc
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII" ]
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 6 lines 0 [forwarded 93 whitespace 69]
Output: lines 283 [content 145 forwarded 59 (cut 34) whitespace 46]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970414 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]