[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 05:54:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Wiltshire user
Hi Don
Do you hold any user records for:
ST950257 to 962248
Thanks
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 12 May 97 12:38:31 UT
From: "JULIAN WATT" <JULIAN_WATT@msn.com>
Subject: Darlington Report
One section contained the following statement :
We
understand that the Department of the Environment believes it inappropriate
to extend the definition of 'ancient monument' to include hedgerows and
green lanes because
"an ancient monument should be a building or structure made or inhabited by
man; we do not consider that green lanes are man-made in quite the same way
nor that ancient monument powers would be apt for preserving them or
controlling them". *
* Department of the Environment (Ancient Monuments Directorate):
Letter to the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society:
August 1977
Is this still the view of the DOE, in CAMBS we have a 10 mile length of Roman
Road TRO'd to prevent damage to an ancient monument?
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:37:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Robinson v Adair
This case was about whether you can use an illegal act to gain a legal
advantage. The legal principle is that you cannot, and RvA confirmed this in
relation to the illegal use of a route which does not help to confirm
'presumed dedication'. It does not add to the law, but confirms it in RoW
terms at a time when we did not need such a reminder (but GLEAM leapt at it,
of course).
I await with interest the application of the same rule to a blocked RoW which
is taken to magistrates under s 116. Clearly a blockage is illegal, and
therefore the landowner should not be able to get the advantage of land no
longer open to vehicles in this way. If the HA apply, they have not done
their duty to clear the obstruction, so they should not get the advantage
either.
Hope this helps. Please remember that RvA must be read in the original to get
the full flavour, but this should help. I cannot call to mind the exact
reference for it; perhaps someone else can?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: RACMSA RLOs
In a message dated 8-5-97 13:25:45, you write about Route Liaison Officers
Perhaps I could usefully add that they are concerned with events authorised
by the RACMSA under the Motor Vehicles Competitions & Trials Regs 1969, ie
all competitions for motors with more than 12 entrants and which use the
highway.
The liaison they do is very useful, and smooths the way for many events
entirely successfully. There is a tendency beginning to use the advance
warning of events to gear-up local opposition and silly tricks like walking
slowly along the roads in question during the event, and this is making the
RACMSA re-consider the value of such open liaison. So the action of the antis
is serving to defeat the sensible actions of the responsible, and of course
having no effect on the hooligans who have wound the antis up.
Although the RACMSA authorises all motoring events without favour, I am not
sure that the liaison officer does anything for events not run by RACMSA
clubs. Perhaps one or two of you competition organisers can add info?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:03:46 +0100 (BST)
From: John Upham <J.E.Upham@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: RACMSA RLOs
On Mon, 12 May 1997 TimLARA@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8-5-97 13:25:45, you write about Route Liaison Officers
> Perhaps I could usefully add that they are concerned with events authorised
[ truncated by list-digester (was 16 lines)]
> sure that the liaison officer does anything for events not run by RACMSA
> clubs. Perhaps one or two of you competition organisers can add info?
Thank-you for providing the above clarifications. I agree about the
downside of pre-warning the opposition but the consequences of not
PRing are even more horrendous. In 170 miles of route (99% tarmac)
in Jan 1997 (http://www.blackwater.co.uk/hartmc/res_97/) we had around
6 anti persons. One was a nutter without doubt and is a danger to
himself as well as other members of that community. He even went to
the extent of painting road signs with whitewash assuming we use them
for navigation!
As far as I'm aware the RLOs do not get involved in non MSA events
officially as they are paid per event by the MSA and therefore there
would be n incentive. You may find individuals helpful and some
will have knowledge that maybe of benefit to you. I can only suggest
that you contact the CAS at the RACMSA (ask for Ian Davis) and see
what they say. Ian is a green lane person and is probably known
to some of you.
Hope that helps.
John
John Upham, Department of Construction Management,
University of Reading, Berks., RG6 6AW, UK.
Email: j.e.upham@reading.ac.uk,
WWW URL: http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~kcsupham/
Voice: +44 1734 875123 x7179, Fax: +44 1734 313856
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: Trail riding in USA
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 07:54:44 +0100
Dear all
Here is a copy of an email from the USA to show that we are not alone....
some useful web links too.
Steve
> > Mark
> > Just read your item in the rec.motorcycles.dirt Newsgroup. We have
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
> similar
> > problems in the UK. However unlike the USA there are no massive off
road
> > recreational areas. We ride unsurfaced roads that have historical
> carriage
> > rights. i.e. pre 1832. Guess that would eliminate most of what you
could
> > use over there. There are about 5000 to 10,000 miles of these green
> lanes.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 22 lines)]
> Stephen,
> Good to hear from you my friend. Although we are very far apart we share
a
> common interest... Off-Road motorcycles. It's sad to hear that you also
are
> struckin' with these nut cases that have no concept of reality. You also
> keep up the good work!
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> Ride-Net http://www.off-road.com/dirtbike/ride-net.html
> mhobbs@linkline.com
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 21:15:20 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: N. Yorks UCRs
In message <970509171415_-1030599983@emout10.mail.aol.com>,
Charlietrf@aol.com writes
>While digging through a file of old press-cutting, looking for sommat else, I
>came across an old " On The Trail " page from Trials and Motocross News
[ truncated by list-digester (was 18 lines)]
>long before it was written - would that be true?
> Charlie Morriss
Hi Charlie
It would appear that this attitude all started with the Yorkshire Dales
Nation Park, In 1988 they set out and did a survay of some 36 'green
Lanes' (missleading term) in the Yorkshire Dales, the trouble is that
about 10 of them were bridleways and should not have had vehicles on
them any way so any damage was by the farmers. but they survayed them
anyway. All this was written in such a way as to give a grim picture of
the situation, plus it made lots of work for the YDNP!!!well at least
the ROW dept.
They got a contract, or somthing like that to establish which of the
routes were in fact vehicular, they are still doing it (lots of cash
spent!!!) and do not think they will finish until 2005 or so (wish I
could write a contract like that). and so the council don't have to
maintain them as UCR lets make them into BOATs if they are found to be
Vehicular. (now you can see were that letter came from about classifing
UCRs as BOATs by the Department of the Environment, I asked them to
comment). If they are BOATs then they do not require them to be
maintained to the same level as if they are UCRs, but here comes the big
CRUNCH... they now become under the control of the YDNP!!!! who in lots
of articles have said that unsurfaced roads are NOT suitable for moden
day vehicles!!! and by use of volintary restraints, (may be for a while)
and then by TROs, stop us from using these BOATs. I can let anyone have
copies of all these articles which prove this attitude.
The next little trick is if you want to close a road with out a TRO then
give the farmer some money and make the field that the ucr goes through
an access area.. and question the route of the UCR in that field, so
when, not if, the farmer closes the access you have lost your UCR
because you cannot go on a route if you do not know were it is,(simple)
thats what they think!!!! I am working on this one at the moment, they
also put up signs to say NO VEHICLES in part of the wording.
In order to make these UCRs into BOATs the reason given is that they
have confirmed the Vhicular rights over them (not difficlt since they
are UCRs anyway) and are used mainly by wlkers and riders as shown by
survays (I think), now to keep all the Vehicles of these UCRs lets get
the North Yorkshire County Council (ie Mr Allen Burns, Maintainence
Manager) to send out a statment to anyone that asks about using them as
follows 'WITH THE BENIFIT OF LEGAL ADVICE, IT IS THE VIEW THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, VEHICULAR RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST ON
UNMADE GREEN LANES BUT ARE HIGHWAYS MAINTAINABLE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WITH
AT LEAST PEDESTRIAN RIGHTS OVER THEM.' now go on then use the roads if
you dare!!!!!! (the nearest thing to a threatening letter as you can
get). So the survay says mainly used by walkers and riders and now you
have your BOAT controlled by the YDNP with a lot less repairs charge to
the NYCC!!!
Sorry for the slelling and typing but this subject get me upset.
I would greatfully accept any help and comments.
Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:03:02 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Robinson v Adair
> I await with interest the application of the same rule to a blocked RoW
which
> is taken to magistrates under s 116. Clearly a blockage is illegal, and
> therefore the landowner should not be able to get the advantage of land
no
> longer open to vehicles in this way. If the HA apply, they have not done
> their duty to clear the obstruction, so they should not get the advantage
> either.
This is precisly what happened at Burwarton 116 where they had an illegally
barrier RUPP. They got the 116 as there was infufficient demand for the
road. I firmly believe that without at very least 1/2 doz people saying
they do need to use it, they will get it closed, even thoughit can be
proved to be illegally blocked. 20 or 50 might be a safer number.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:02:58 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dartington Report
Steve,
> The conclusions were very good. A waste of good effort. I think
> it should be "revisited" and updated.
I have today put the results into a spreadsheet. From that I calculated the
lengths of UCRs, Unsurfaced roads, F/Ps&BDs, and population density, all
per 200 km sq. (Pathfinder map size, or the area within an 8 km radius)
for each county.
I also calculated the length of road per person, and the length of
unsurfaced road and F/Ps & Bds per person.
Unsurfaced roads ranges from 63 km per pathfinder in Dorset, through 15
in Cambs, to 1 in Northumberland. (How far you might have to go to get
a decent route)
Length per person ranges from 8.19 metres in Powys, to 3 centimetres in
Cheshire, (Sorry Mike!) or 5 cms in Staffordshire. (i.e. how much local
use, or pressure there might be.)
But they did point out how unreliable the figures were and there was no
agreed definition of a green lane.
(i.e. Cheshire claimed they had 29 km of "Unsurfaced roads and green lanes"
but they had 177km of RUPPS)
However this information could be a starting point for a survey. It would
need CoCo agreement, but the information could be distributed with a
questionnaire, to correct any inaccuracies if they wished, and assess the
problems that they perceive they have on those unsurfaced roads. (And
possibly disprove gleams 26 counties with some problems!) It would give
them some information to start with, thereby establishing some credibility,
and build up on what we have so far. I wonder if CoCo could be
persuaded to chip in with some of the postage costs!!!!!!
There may be other more recent and more accurate reports that I have not
yet seen.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:50:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Robinson v Adair, again
Burwarton was a case where it might have been possible to appeal on the
grounds that the applicant did not come to the court with clean hands. But -
i. It would have needed lots of money to pay for it all in case we lost,
ii. We would only have a case if the legal point had been argued to the
magistrates by a legal person (ie so the really had to believe it)
iii. no I know its not fair. Life isn't supposed to be fair, its supposed to
be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, and it is the business of the
establishment to keep it that way. Rights of Way were invented in a fit of
pique to get up the establishment's noses, but not too far or too often.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:51:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: N. Yorks UCRs
Brian has some useful info in amongst his last message - thanks Brian. But
one thing I think they (NYCC & YDNP) have got wrong is the claim that a BOAT
has a lower standard of maintenance than a UCR. My reasons are these -
i. Adding a BOAT to the definitive map does not change anything - WLCA 81
s54(7) says
'Nothing in this section or s53 shall ... oblige a HA to provide, on a BOAT,
a metalled carriageway ... suitable for the passage of vehicles.'
I think they have read this and thought
'Aha, BOATs don't need to be maintained for vehicles, what a let out, we want
BOATs.'
But they forget that it starts Nothing in this section ... so any other
enactment is not removed. So if they were UCRs and to be maintained publicly
for the normal traffic of the district, then they still are. Ditto RT roads,
still maintainable by the landowner.
ii. Nothing in law allows a UCR to be removed from the LoS on account of
reclassification (except extinguishment totally by s116, not threatened in
the Dales (yet)).
Perhaps you could ask them on what basis they say that BOATs should not be
maintained, when next you are talking to the nice people who are spending our
money to provide nice places for us.
I think the normal traffic of the dales is landrovers. But only if they have
a bag of weaning pellets and a black & white dog in the back.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 22:18:21 +0100
From: Geoff Jones <rallying@burnell.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: N. Yorks UCRs
In message <nNMykAAYp3dzEwIB@limb.demon.co.uk>, Brian Lewis
<brian@limb.demon.co.uk> writes
>It would appear that this attitude all started with the Yorkshire Dales
>Nation Park,
Now, why doesn't that surprise me?
>If they are BOATs then they do not require them to be
>maintained to the same level as if they are UCRs, but here comes the big
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
>day vehicles!!! and by use of volintary restraints, (may be for a while)
>and then by TROs, stop us from using these BOATs.
On organising a road rally recently, I had decided to use an unsurfaced
road as part of the route, in order to avoid passing quite a large
number of houses (and thus reduce the number of people we upset). The
road in question was shown to be a vehicular right of way on the NYCC
maps, so we saw no problem with this, especially since I had no problems
in my 2wd, rather low ground clearance car, and indeed a friend had been
down in a Mini minus an inch. However, very shortly before the event,
YDNP said that they didn't like this, as the road had a rocky surface,
and the RACMSA asked us to oblige and reroute, which we grudgingly did.
Yours
Unhappy organiser
Geoff
--
Geoff Jones
Competitions Secretary, Leeds University Union MC
Clerk of the Course, 1997 Northern Lights Road Rally
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 12 lines 554 [forwarded 96 whitespace 107]
Output: lines 464 [content 307 forwarded 42 (cut 54) whitespace 90]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970513 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]