[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:12:02 +0100
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Interesting precedent...
In message <199706031657_MC2-17C8-7B31@compuserve.com>, Andy Bush
>Hi chaps
> I don't believe that the idea of not going equipped makes any sense
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
>that being prepared as all good scots are, can be a crime.
>Andy Bush
>From Alan Kind
Indeed. When I go out on my mountain bike I take tools sufficient for
back country repair. Similarly, my 2CV, not being a gizmo-infested
scrot-box, carries "proper" tools. If I was out in a 4WD I should be
prudent to carry sufficienmt stuff to deal with the problems I may
reasonably expect from experience to find on a public road.
--
Alan kind
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 07:29:07 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Stockton Ride, Kimbolton
Adrian,
re
> I spoke today to Andy Turner at HWCC regarding the Stockton Ride, he
informed me that =
> new gates have now been installed which are wide enough for vehicle's
although no work =
> has been done on the lane i.e. cutting back vegetation. Doubtful they
ever would anyway.
> =
> Apparently some of the locals are a bit dismayed that the CC went ahead=
with fitting =
> new gates before any PI, however AT doesn't think a PI will now be
required, unless =
> there's a lot of complaints from the already p*ssed off local residents=
;-)
> =
> I asked him what my rights were in using the Stockton Ride to which he
said he could see =
> no problem with me driving the lane as although its a footpath on the
definitive map its =
> without prejudice to higher rights i.e. vehicle's. So AT is quite happy=
for vehicles to us the =
> lane
Sorry for the delay in replying to this posting properly. I have been awa=
y
for several days. I have tried to speak to AT today, he will be in later=
=2E =
I drove past last night and they have replaced the 5ft gates with 10 foot=
ones, (at least at the north end), AND it has a red "Public Byway" signs =
on
it. No 4w vehicles have been along there yet.
I may drive it today after speaking with AT. I think they decided the
outcome was likely to be BOAT at a PI, therefore they had to remove their=
illegal gates or they would look idiots at PI. I feel that AT would lik=
e
some use of it now to make the outcome for a BOAT more likely. But I wou=
ld
ask anyone using it to do so slowly with only two or max three vehicles i=
n
one group, and ONLY in dry conditions to avoid any damage (unlikely). Th=
is
is our best chance of avoiding a PI which is highly undesirable.
I have been invited to a (my) lynching party, called a Parish Meeting "t=
o
give a statement of my position and discuss the proposal to upgrade "Ride=
Lane Kimbolton" at Kimbolton Parish Hall at 7.30 this evening. Any
support would be most welcome.
Chris
01 568 780 810
PS just spoken to AT. The evidence is quite strong. Confirmed they can no=
t
attend today to put their case, and he hopes there will be no PI.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:02:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Interesting precedent...
Hi Andy
Hope it was a good w/e.
In my limited knowledge (not being a habitual felon, don't you know) the
business of Going Equipped applies to burglars and such, who deliberately set
out to break the law. And not just any law, the specific breaking & entering
sort. I would not consider the ornery BoyScout wiv a ferking great blade
strapped to 'is leg, to be Going Equipped, even though he had no particular
reason to carry it. So, the average Landy (Landie?) clttered up with jump
leads, jacks, wirecutters, socket sets, crowbars, etc - no problem. After all
the 101 comes with a pick-axe and crowbar etc as standard strapped to the
bonnet. I suspect that mens rea comes into this one, but as you know, I aint
no expert.
Cheers, tim
PS I have started my collection aiming to join the ARC. I have a 101 pickaxe
head, and am saving up for the rest. Tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:24:40 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Interesting precedent...
Andy said
> criminals obstruct the lanes, we would be irresponsible to fail to take=
> reasonable precautions against a common hazard.
I have held this view for a while.
In a part of the country where 10 - 20% of the green lanes are obstructed=
I
feel that a bowsaw and chainsaw at least, are normal accompaniments. I
would however never go out to deal with a particular obstruction without
permission. But if I was not aware of an obstruction, or I was, had
reported it, and would have reasonably expected it to be cleared, I woul=
d
abate it, if in my power to do so. The more types of obstructions I
encounter, the better prepared I have to be for the "normal" obstructions=
I
encounter.
Also with messages like these openly expressed and discussed via the RoW
list one could know if "the belief was honestly held", where appropriat=
e,
that upholding the right to assert ones right of unhindered passage, if =
it
is under immediate threat, should be a complete answer to a "without
lawful excuse" charge of criminal damage. CDA71 5 (3)
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 20:42:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: LARA appeals for help & dosh
The problems with reclassification of RUPPs have now become fundamental.
Several inspectors have not taken our user on board because of Robinson v
Adair, and now one (Norton Malreward, nr Bristol) has spelt out his decision
very clearly. In my considered view, no further RUPPs can be won on any basis
involving our user evidence, unless we can overturn this decision. Either we
do nothing and go down here and everywhere, then, or we go down fighting with
a good chance of success.
Please let me know what you think - and let me know how much you and your
club is able to put into a fighting fund to appeal this case.
More details later.
This is the relevant bit of what the Inspector says, before he goes on to
change the route to Bridleway -
< 169. I agree with the objectors that use by motor vehicles without lawful
authority over any road being a footpath or bridleway, since the Road Traffic
Act 1930, would have been an offence, and applying the principles established
in Robinson v. Adair, should not be taken into account for the purposes of
establishing whether vehicles rights have accrued under the Highways Acts or
at common law. I do not accept the supporters' arguments that no offence has
been committed because use by motor vehicles was on part of a "road" (used as
a public path). Section 14 of the Act reads
Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a
person drives a motor vehicle
(a) on to or upon any common land moorland or land of any other description,
not being land forming part of a road,
(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
he is guilty of an offence.
170. Unless at the time the driver of the motor vehicle used the road in
question it was a BOAT, such use must have been on a road being a footpath or
bridleway, and consequently is caught by the Act and cannot be constitutive
of public rights, but may be evidence of rights (if any) that had accrued
prior to 1930. There is little or no evidence of pre 1930 use by wheeled
vehicles, and as this is now 67 years ago, this is hardly surprising. Fresh
evidence has been brought before the inquiry (Paragraph 129) which casts
doubt on the evidence of pre 1930 use by motor vehicles sufficient to have
established public vehicular rights at common law. I do not consider there is
any evidence as to user by motor or other wheeled vehicles which can
constitute the acquisition by the public of any vehicular rights.
171. The previous inspector was satisfied that vehicular use had taken place
over a number of years and this together with the documentary evidence led to
him suppose, that on the balance of probabilities, the way should be
reclassified as a BOAT. As I have now discounted the evidence of vehicular
use, the case for a BOAT must now stand or fall on the documentary evidence
alone. >
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 5 lines 281 [forwarded 30 whitespace 61]
Output: lines 280 [content 148 forwarded 22 (cut 8) whitespace 58]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970605 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]