[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 20:40:24 +0000
Subject: Powys & Shrops RUPPS
Hi all, and Rob,
I might know something about one or two of the RUPPs on the easterly two
sheets if you want to post the list. As for researching them, I will do
'em all,... when I win the lottery!
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 07:18:49 EST
Subject: Re: dunlops New Year's Lies
In a message dated 01 : 01 : 99 11:07 GMT, you write:
<< Perhaps a challenge to Mr. D. to prove that 105 - which is, after all, a
very precise figure - motorcycles invaded the privacy should be issued >>
Do not worry too much, there are many organised events with more than 105
entrants all passing down the same lane on the same day. Whether that is
reasonable or not is a different matter.
Some organisers seem completely out of touch with public opinion, and the
effects of big events on local feelings.
The idea that using the Queen's Highway is 'invading privacy' is worth a
challenge, though. The invasion is illusory because the privacy is imaginary.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 07:25:14 EST
Subject: A new threat to laning, too
Wearing a different hat, I have written this for the BMF (a LARA-member mainly
Tarmac m/c group of 140,000 members). The content applies (roughly) to all
vehicular RoW interests. - Tim Stevens
A New Threat to Motorcycling
Just when we thought that the government are beginning to accept the powered
two wheeler as sensible transport with legitimate needs, another threat to
what we enjoy creeps over the horizon.
BMF members are used to getting on with what they do without much involvement
with quangos like the Rural Development Commission or Countryside Commission
(soon to be combined in one Countryside Agency). Riding a motorcycle on the
Queen's Highway might be a bit unconventional, but as long as your machine is
properly quiet, and you stick to tarmac, the quangos have not interfered much.
We all know that the Countryside Commission (known to habitués as CoCo) does
not exactly approve of riding off tarmac - the Trail Riders Fellowship (a BMF
national club) and our other colleagues around the LARA table are geared up to
counter that threat - but CoCo have not poked their nose very far into the
business of more conventional road use. Until now. The new threat lurks under
the innocuous title of 'Quiet Roads', and it is not alone, it sits alongside
another initiative called 'Greenways' which serves to amplify the effect.
Quiet Roads are what we all want, aren't they? You might think so. What better
than our own strips of tarmac, winding through the countryside, with no other
traffic, no danger, with nothing to disturb the tranquil scene? This is almost
exactly what CoCo are proposing, but with one difference. Guess what? CoCo
propose what they euphemistically call 'traffic management' which means that
for you and me, all the fun will be taken out. No longer the grey ribbon of
your dreams, then, but a series of restrictions, road humps, bollards, and
misleading signposts, all designed to keep you and me out. Never mind the fact
that motoring enthusiasts have for many years learned to go the back way and
avoid the hold-ups, we are now all to be forced onto the A roads and motorways
'where we belong'. The idea is sold as a way to eliminate the 'rat run' - an
expressive term adopted by CoCo in all innocence, and not, of course, to
demonise anyone. The very idea. Once the traffic management is in place, the
minor roads will become havens for walkers, cyclists, and equestrians. Won't
that be nice for them? But not for us, of course.
Greenways are not intended to affect motorcycling at all, in principle - they
consist of routes like bridleways, cycletracks, and converted old railway
lines, linked together so that walkers and cyclists (and equestrians)can make
journeys which avoid ordinary roads. Not only can the avoid the fumes and the
danger and noise (it says here) they will be able to avoid the jams, too, and
so, people will be able to walk, or cycle, to the office, and to the fitness
centres, theatres, museums, whole-food shops, and vegetarian bistros, as well
as making long trips from home into the countryside. Never mind if it all
sounds a bit trendy-wendy, such routes exist, and they are not going to go
away. CoCo has produced leaflets showing clearly how nice the countryside
would be with special routes free from nasty motors, from city centre to deep
country. Any resemblance to a chocolate box scene is entirely coincidental, of
course - you should not imagine for one moment that Commissioners' opinions
are formed solely by reading Country Life and The Field.
But Greenways are not intended to run along vehicular routes, so why do they
serve as a threat? Well, look at the real situation on the ground, in your own
familiar area. Do the old railway lines, and cycletracks run in the right
places? Sometimes they do, of course, or no-one would have taken the idea on
board, but not always. Even where a line seems to have run on a very useful
route, a lot has happened since Mr Beeching abandoned the Victorian railway
network in the 1960s. Cuttings have been filled in, viaducts demolished, and
housing estates built across many otherwise interesting old lines. One or two
have even become tarmac roads. So, there will be gaps in the new 'Greenway'
routes, and guess what will be used to fill these gaps? Most often, the
obstructing development has taken place where pressure on land is greatest,
and any quite new route would involve compulsory purchase and huge bills. So
the only alternative is to run the 'Greenway' along an existing road. And of
course, the very idea of motorists sharing such a route with walking and
cycling families and 'green commuters', well, you can imagine what the answer
to that is going to be, I am sure. Like it or not, the linking sections of
tarmac will become 'Quiet Roads', never mind the effect this will have in
putting new gaps into the network we need and enjoy.
Two further factors need to be considered - why is all this seen to be
necessary, and what is the Countryside Commission's attitude to removing our
facilities?
As regards the need for a new approach to getting to work and to play, there
is no doubt that there is serious congestion in some places at some times of
day, and that country lanes are being used much more than they were. The
causes for this are many, and they include the growth in mobility in general,
now seen as more of a problem than a benefit. It was recently said with some
truth that 'Motors were no problem until the poor got them'. On top of this,
the privatisation of bus services, and the spread of supermarkets, have made
it more necessary for country dwellers to have cars. Further pressure comes
from the view that the roads are too busy, so children must be driven to
school, which increases the traffic, and so it goes on. It used to be a stigma
if your children didn't go to school, then if they walked there barefoot, but
now the scorn of the influential middle classes falls on those whose children
walk anywhere at all. How else can mum show the world that they can afford a
second car? Many but not all of the effects are outside the Commission's
influence (but can you remember them suggesting that buses should not be
privatised, or that village shops should be subsidised?) One factor firmly in
their control, though, is the state of the existing network of public paths -
150,00 Km of footpaths and bridleways - which should be able to provide much
of the off-road network that 'Greenways' seeks to promote. But they will not
serve, for the simple reason that the network is in such a parlous state. Half
the routes are obstructed or impassable, and half the rest are ploughed out or
planted over. CoCo's own surveys have shown this to be the sad truth. So there
is some truth in the claim that 'Greenways' is simply a ploy to find some
useful routes in place of what should be there already. Who has had the job of
looking after the network since 1968? And who promised that it would all be
wonderful by the end of the century? CoCo, of course. But never mind that,
what does this failure to meet its promise say about other ideas from the same
source? Might they too turn out to be pie-in-the-sky? And is that really a
proper basis on which your rights and mine should be taken away?
But there is worse. A few weeks ago, CoCo arranged a series of meetings with
all sorts of groups, to discuss how best to put these wonderful new ideas of
'Greenways and Quiet Roads' into effect. They announced, proudly, that they
were consulting 'all the Governing Bodies of Sport and other interested
organisations'. But did this include anyone with a motoring interest in
countryside access? Not one. They said it was nothing to do with us. It wasn't
just a matter of not wanting us there, it was more than that, they actually
told us that we would not be welcome.
As you can imagine, LARA is concerned about this, and in particular the MSA,
the ACU, and the TRF, all claiming to be governing bodies as well as
'interested parties'. The threat to motorsport, and to green laning, is
particularly obvious, from an organisation that has already tried to introduce
bans on countryside motoring. You might like to offer your help as a BMF
members, in the spirit of solidarity with other BMF and LARA members, if for
no other reason. But as a motorcyclist, even if your wheels never leave the
tarmac, you will be affected, too.
So what can you do about it? You might write to the new Countryside Agency,
asking them if they will include the needs of motorcyclists in their future
policies (as the government have, in their transport policies). You could also
ask your MP to explain how the Countryside Commission, a government quango
paid for by your taxes, has decided not merely to ignore the needs of
motorcyclists for countryside access, but to propose reductions in our
facilities while refusing to talk to any of us.
Whatever you write, do send a copy to the Minister for the Environment,
Transport, and the Regions, and perhaps another to the Minister for Sport.
Useful Addresses -
The Minister for the Environment, Transport, & the Regions
The House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
The Minister for Sport
Same address
The MP for ................................ (your own constituency)
Same address
The Countryside Agency
John Dower House
Crescent Place
Cheltenham
GL50 3RA
LARA
PO Box 20
Market Drayton
TF9 1WR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 18:17:14 -0000
Subject: RE: Bod
You could try - bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk
Its the latest one I've got, and it has worked recently, and its free!!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:19:21 -0000
Subject: Re: XL500
<<01926 is the code for Warwick which is some distance from Winchester.>>
Try 01962 then - for those that have no access to area codes.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 19:03:57 -0000
Subject: RE: Powys & Shrops RUPPS
Thanks Mike
Your timescale and mine are about the same, list of RUPPs will be sent
directly to you.
I sort of pick off the odd one when time permits - currently looking for
'old' (say 1970 ish) OS maps of Staffordshire to see what RUPPs were
reclassified as BW/FP - then the fun will start :-)
Good hunting!
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 19:04:00 -0000
Subject: RE: A new threat to laning, too
Strange silly fact -local to me they 'woke up' the sleeping policeman after
the bus company complained about damage to its - the ramps were of such a
profile that they scraped the rear of a laden bus as it climbed up, then as
it descended from these lumps. Also in Germany there is some anecdotal
evidence that there is actually greater pollution in areas where such
measures are in place than there was before. (One can but presume its to do
with people travelling in lower gears, accelerating and braking more often).
I wander if CoCo has thought this sort of advice through properly?
As for preventing 'rat -runs', today I was glad I know the back roads, the
M6 was a many mile long car park, in which I would have burnt a couple of
gallons of fuel - even with a diesel, going nowhere. I left the M-way and
took to the back roads, average speed just under 30mph and home using about
a gallon of fuel. Which is better for the environment at large, me doing 30
mph, and one gallon of fuel an hour, or me doing 5 mph for four hours and
half a gallon of fuel and hour? (One of my neighbours saw me leave the
M-way, and it took him over four hours to get home!)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@mail.which.net
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:32:17 +0000
Subject: GLEAM Newbury (ROW & GLASS)
If anyone is interested in going along to heckle, Mr Gardiner of GLEAM
is giving a talk to the West Berks chapter of the Ramblers Association.
I think you have to be a member to attend. I might be able to persuade
my mole to go.
This is from their Spring '99 programme.
Fri 5th Feb 8.OOpm MENCAP centre, Enborne Road Newbury
The problems of four wheel drives on byways will not have escaped your
notice on your walks around the area and other parts of the country. It
is now a major national problem, particularly in view of the Countryside
Commission's latest suggestion that all these rights of way should be
lumped together instead of being dealt with on an individual basis. This
would then give a legal right to any vehicle to use the track, whether
the surface is suitable or not. We welcome David Gardiner who is a
founder member of GLEAM which was set up specifically to look at the
problems and fight for our byways. Please come and listen to him and see
his photographs of the horrors that are happening under our very noses.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (dub-img-10.compuserve.com [149.174.206.140])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-10.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id SAA17122
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 9 lines 0 [forwarded 22 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 370 [content 299 forwarded 22 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990103 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]