[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 05:41:47 -0500
Subject: DMMO on obstructed BOAT
A DMMO was submitted 5/11/90, when the gates were erected at Upper Lye.
Committee made resolution to propose BOAT order.
Put on hold by someone. Now RoW office claim SIX year delay is regrettable
but not unusual for Hereford & Worcester, "current position is that a
report has been submitted to the Dir of the Env for his consideration. I
am not in a position to divulge contents of the report until it has
recieived formal approval from members."
While Suffolk can go for a declaration, seems Hereford grasp the
opportunity to say "we cant make an order, we will not assert and protect,
even though we have replied to a s56 that it's a highway. Sod s130, and
we won't tell you what we are doing about it till we have (not) done it"
If anyone feels like sending Pringle a letter, fax or email asking what is
going on, you had the address yesterday! Bastards =:-0
Now where did I put my ombudsman forms......
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 05:41:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
Geof
> My point is that we are talking about our rights as enshrined in law.
The
> RoW Depts are there to ensure that these rights are upheld. Mr. Powys
> should be removed from office if he is expressing opinions and making
> decisions that run contrary to these rights. Remember, the authorities
I am waiting for some ideas how to, when it is the highways director,
they seem to want to hang onto their job for some reason.
> have a *DUTY* under law to maintain these byways. It's time we stopped
> letting them off the hook, every byway that gets closed is lost forever,
> it won't be long before we have none left.
Gleam and west berkshire conspiring to arrange this!
> Then we should be as strong as it takes to over-come said lying, devious,
> bullshitters. We are currently acting weakly, and it ain't working.
True. Who is going to take the lead ?
I said:-
Remember VR (proper, agreed user VR, not this make believe evil WB
imitation) should be tried first, can be flexible, - one way, numbers in
convoy, don't use when wet, speed, weight, width..... (What you are
probably doing already anyway, but it is a reminder to tramplers and
cowboys that clubs do not regard that as the norm.)
If you can't devise a VR that allows ALL normal local use to take place,
then there must be a big problem.
You said:-
> Like the VR that's just been slapped onto 35 miles of the Ridgeway? This
> *stinks*,
> VRs are not the answer.
> it won't be long before we have none left.
and
> I am *vehemently* opposed to any VR that isn't a short-term measure as a
> package of work on a road. Just slapping a VR onto a road and doing
> nothing else helps no-one.
I say:-
Do you prefer:
User-type TROs, ie Monks Trod, Rihw Constable (brown Tr) - 2w only, or
Part time TROs ie Gap, Sarn Helen (S of Mountain Centre) - 4 weeks spring 6
weeks Autumn, or
Permanent TROs ie Stapely Hill, and (as proposed) at Roman Rd Hereford, &
Devils Spittleful?
They are the only other options on offer, like it or not.
Have you got any method of preventing unecessary TROs? No one has found a
way yet that does not utilise a small degree of engineering expertise and a
time related visit!
A survey of all known TROs was distributed a short while ago - half were
unecessary.
Personally I prefer no VR, TROs, speed limits, parking restriction, laws,
income tax, VAT or anything else.
But if VR that does not effect any **'normal'** use is the best on offer,
I for one will live with it.
Other's comments?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:42:33 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Green Lane Day
Anyone near Worcester need something to do on Green Lane Day?
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:18:41 -0000
Subject: Re: OareboroughHill again.
Here here.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:33:22 -0000
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
Geoff
It is apparent from your prose that you are from the same planet as Spock.
Here on earth we lack the clear cut logic you Vulcans posses. We are human
and considerably frail by comparison. In this case there are the good
humans who use the RoW network of the County and there are some bad humans
that have the power to remove our statute give right to use.
I am not going into the details in front of the nation but there are things
in the pipeline that will have a national effect, and that effect could
well be in favour of glimmer. My request for restraint following MDs
national appeal for faxes of objection is based on intimate local knowledge
of the situation, background and the lane. MD does not know the lane and
has attended no Hants RoW Panel meetings - especially the one at which this
matter was discussed.
The lane is semi urban and has no network value, no aesthetic value, no
views, no challenge and was a Definitive footpath until the authority made
an order to upgrade to BOAT on discovered evidence. The 4x4 users made no
contribution during consultation, did not attend the Public Inquiry,
attended no meetings at which officers/members/users discussed the matter.
So why the f*** do you need to stir the pot now - against the advice of
local users, and in all probability, against the interests of 4x4 users?
Can I assume that by the time you respond to this you will have used the
route, read the report on the DMMO and committee papers, read the
submissions to Inquiry and the Inspectors decision letter. In the mean
time might I respectfully suggest you expend you energies and militancy on
resolving the problems with rights of way in your area and refrain from
stirring up trouble in areas you do not use, and from which you can duck
the negative backlash.
As stated there is a need for an active 4x4 representative in Hampshire and
MD, I believe, has been granted office by the AWDC. He is a needed and
valued contributor but on this one matter I feel his enthusiasm has the
better of him.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:22:11 EST
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
In a message dated 9.3.99 07:57:24 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< <<<How will
they fare if the road is classified as a bridleway?>>>
No worries still legal 'for access only' >>
This can only be true (I think) if the locals have each established an
easement. This is a right across property A in favour of the owner of property
B, and unless such a right exists and can be proved with evidence, any use of
a bridleway with vehicles is trespass, and with motors is illegal. There is no
general right (as I understand the law) to get a motor vehicle to a landlocked
property. The council can do nothing to put this right unless they own the
land of the bridleway, or can persuade the landowner to come up with
easements. They should not spend public money doing this, it is not a public
matter.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:21:57 EST
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
In a message dated 9.3.99 02:27:51 GMT Standard Time, geoff@cix.co.uk writes:
<< There should be no need for any representative. It's not like we're
asking for new roads, or new rights, all we want is to be allowed to drive
roads that have been established for hundreds of years as such. Hell, we
don't really even want the councils to maintain the roads, we can do that
ourselves if need be. >>
I hesitate to dive in here, but I am afraid that there is a misunderstanding
behind the above statement.
If a sector of users, and particularly a sector which is not regarded by many
as 'legitimate', ignores the management process, they will be managed none-
the-less. And this will be in ignorance, and in defiance, of their rights and
their needs.
In a fair world there would be no need at all for liaison committees, but they
exist. It is not a fair world, our backs are against the wall. Come to the
CoCo meeting on Thursday and listen to the bigotry, if you are not convinced.
Others use liaison meetings etc to do us down, so if we are not there, guess
what always happens? We get done down.
The argument is sometimes put (esp in my experience by AWDC interests) that
there is no point in going to meetings, doing research, submitting evidence,
etc, if another user group (often the TRF) is already active. This is palpably
unfair and divisive. No wonder some TRF members will not share their maps with
4x4 users. Then there are moans from 4x4 users about TROs which exclude 4x4
users but not motorcyclists. Well, you get what you pay for, and in politics
you pay by taking part.
And in legal terms, you have no right to 'maintain the road' yourselves, you
ned the HA to agree. Otherwise you are trespassing, and could be liable for
paying for a 'proper job' to be done.
Please do not shoot the messenger, just file this under 'Home Truths' and take
heed.
Cheers, tim Stevens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 09:42:38 EST
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
In a message dated 9.3.99 13:11:25 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< As stated there is a need for an active 4x4 representative in Hampshire and
MD, I believe, has been granted office by the AWDC. He is a needed and valued
contributor but on this one matter I feel his enthusiasm has the
better of him. >>
If it turns out that Mike has not, in fact, been 'granted office' for
Hampshire by the AWDC, I am sure that we will be told.
Is the AWDC the only group in Hampshire able to represent non-motorcycle
motorists? What about the ARC groups, GLASS, MSA clubs, etc?
I am concerned, in discussions like this, that too often one enthusiast has a
go at another enthusiast for being too enthusiastic. This helps nobody. I
could do with a Dave Tilbury and a Mike Dyer in every county, and where are
they? The only ones I have got are having a go at each other in public.
Perhaps we should all try to remember this - better a sometimes-loose cannon
than a roomful of damp squibs, surely?
Cheers, tim Stevens, LARA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:37:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> And hants know that for every one lost I will claim one - and I will make
> that claim where it hurts.
And I claim 3 back from the abyss, s56 goes in on the TROd lane and three
other appalling OOR lanes that they have neglected.
;-)
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 10:37:42 -0500
Subject: Re: OareboroughHill again.
> prosecuting under s59 as extraordinary traffic? >>
> On the basis, I suppose, that anyone using a Suzuki more than 10 miles
from
> home is very extraordinary indeed.
> On the basis, I suppose, that anyone using a Suzuki more than 10 miles
They should be prosecuted for even thinking of buying it! Better off with
two bikes strapped together!
;-)
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 18:11:41 -0000
Subject: NGLD Insurance
I spoke with the CC today about our planned NGLD clearance.
They are putting it to a meeting at their head office in the next
couple of days, but provisionally were quite happy about the
prospect.
The only thing is... it looks like they will insist on £5,000,000 public
liability insurance. This is my first time at trying to organise any
clearance, so what is the normal insurance position? Effectively I
am an individual, not a representitive of any club or organisation.
It looks like without some form of official cover, we may be stuck.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:04:01 -0000
Subject: Re: R.O.W.
Andy,
> Hi, Interested in the Green Lane Clearance - I'm trying to arrange som near
> Colton (North east of Rugeley).
Ah ha, wouldn't happen to be the BOAT around SK07 20? Drivable
last time I was there - but a few scratches were obtained (on the
roof I seem to remember)!
> I am going to a clearance weekend in Shropshire on the 27/28th March and a
> repair event (with camping and laning - organised by Ray Clayton) on the
> 30th April to the 3rd May.
> Please send me the dates of yours.
Oh dear, ours is on 28th March too!
> I live in Stafford and have found the records to be confused down
> at the ref. Library.
Not as confused as some librarians.
> I'm trying to research what BOATS there still are,
I reasonable number, I do have a list. I shall have to dig it out. I do
have a web site under construction, but unfortunately its up to
15MB and rising. It is not publicly accessable at the moment, but
as soon as I can find the time it will get published.
There is a sample at
http://www.dataIP.freeserve.co.uk/RoW/index.html
(note, it is case sensitive), but not all of the links go anywhere yet.
> what RUPP's there are which we could steer towards BOAT status
According to the CC there are NO RUPPs left in Staffs.
> and whether the downgrading that has been done (on which lanes??)
> has been done legally
I think a lot was done on 'suitability' under the 68 act - I think that
these can be overturned if that was the only reason. Others on the
list with much more knowledge will tell you if this is the case.
> my partner is a barrister and wants to get more au-fait with ROW
> legislation.
This is the best bit, could be very useful.
I have a few "bridleways" I would love to open up. Both are on the
1836 1st Edition OS, one was a 'white' on the 1953 OS and both
are on the tithe maps - fair game I say. One I have driven, the other
has a 4 foot (yes measured at 4 foot) gate and it is down on the
DM as a bridleway. Look at.... Catalogue of Routes, Routes
Presently Being Researched, Barkers Lane, Gayton near Weston.
(on the web site link shown above).
We will have to meet up and discuss a few issues.
Regards,
Mark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 19:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Luvvies
TS says, presumably whilst adorned in smoking jacket and fresh from having
his beard waxed...
<<<<< that anyone using a Suzuki more than 10 miles from
home is very extraordinary indeed.
Tim>>>>
I suppose we'll be getting nowt out of him but 'Ah! Showbusiness! The roar
of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd' every day for the next six
weeks........
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 19:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
OI! DT! NO!
<<<<< Whilst I think it valid that local users/user
reps make their feelings know MD's invite to the nation to bombard the
authority with objections is not currently helpful. >>>>
Not my intention, pal, and to quote (or thereabouts) Colin Piper 'The more
support that vehicular users can show then the strongerb their case will
be'. Not his excat words but we DID have a long conversation during which
this point was brought out....
Oh and I think you'll find it is CJM who has the hottest fax machine....:-)
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:12:59 -0000
Subject: Re: Letter to Trafford
><<<<<<< of what your Council would require ** by way** of application for
>it be added.>>>>>>>>>
Nice to see someone is on the ball.
Even if it isn't me :-(
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:16:25 -0000
Subject: Re: Copy of: virus
>End of text as received, but note the file HP1.exe HAS NOT BEEN sent to row
>the list. If you get anything like this DO NOT OPEN the .exe file. Delete
>it immediately, otherwise in months to come, you will not know what it is,
>run it to find out, and if it is a virus, it will have done it's worst.
>There are some sick people arround, besides gloom and mudpluggers.
Alternatively have a second machine that you don't mind periodically
formatting the hard drive when things go wrong!
Or there is always the other option - try it on someone else's machine
first.
Like Manchester University Computing Centre - if they cannot sort any mess
made by a virus then no-one can!!!
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:31:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Where's the GLASS website these days ?
>Just been checking the links on the TRF website, quite a few not working or
>changed location. Could not find the official GLASS site, is there one ? I
>found a few regional sites, but not the main one.
>Can anyone help?
I have recently changes ISP (to freeserve) and am having to re-write nearly
all the pages as Freeserve does not support server side extensions which are
used on the GLASS pages. However, the pages should still be available
on the Easynet site even though I have not paid them anything for three
months.
Try following the link from my home page (links page)
http://www.bod1.freeserve.co.uk
If it does not work then get back to me please.
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:17:49 -0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
>My policy is that if they are carrying big guns, then that generally gives
>them the authority :-))
"Power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
As one famous Chinese leader once said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:08:08 -0500
Subject: Green Lane Day
> Anyone near Worcester need something to do on Green Lane Day?
I thought all your lanes had been cleared now, by some enthusiastic chap at
CC with a bee in his bonnet about vehicular RoW You're too late. There's
only about 1/2 doz in Worcestershire anyway.....
I was wondering about
U75223, SO 3342 or
U75235, SO2741or
U71402. SO5026
I note all three are on the ‘keepsafe’ list.
Others in Herefordshire that might be possible are
71210 5220
71229 5317 (locked gate as well, not seen al of it)
72002 5430
74419 3727, but could not be made passable
74404 3229
74403 3130 " ?
75018 3033 " ?
A bit further away is SO 1056 & 1156 The first I have not seen all of it,
but is fenced, the later is quite a small clearance effort required.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 15:08:11 -0500
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
> a bridleway with vehicles is trespass, and with motors is illegal. There
is no
> general right (as I understand the law) to get a motor vehicle to a
landlocked
> property. The council can do nothing to put this right unless they own
the
> land of the bridleway, or can persuade the landowner to come up with
> easements. They should not spend public money doing this, it is not a
public
> matter.
> easements. They should not spend public money doing this, it is not a
So each and every motorised visitor to Brampton Bryan Village Hall should
have an easement to their Village hall, public funds have of course been
pumped into it. Would they have got PP without vehicular access?
I believe there is no statutory right to non-motorised vehicle or any
access at all, other than on foot to a landlocked property.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 20:10 GMT
Subject: Re: RoW Management - was part of :Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
<<<The argument is sometimes put (esp in my experience by AWDC interests)
thatthere is no point in going to meetings, doing research, submitting
evidence,etc, if another user group (often the TRF) is already active. >>>
Not in my book Tim - the more the merrier, or else why did Berkshire RA
split into 7 separate groups so that EACH ONE could have a say at the old
BCC RoW Forum?73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 20:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Apologies from me...
Tim says
<<<The only ones I have got are having a go at each other in public.>>>
for my part in this, I apologise....and I hope to be able to change the
situation re: 4x4 Hants interests from within.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 20:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Hang on there David : Was part of Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
David is now well out of line
<<<<<<<<<<< My request for restraint following MDs
national appeal for faxes of objection is based on intimate local knowledge
of the situation, background and the lane>>>>>>>
My words were //////..a TRO is threatened, please spend yer 26p
on a stamp to object, I have submitted the following, but plaese do change
the odd word here and there........///// (050399) so where did I mention
fax? and an appeal to this list is hardly any different to CJMs asking for
support in his corner of the world....
<<<<<. MD///////////and
has attended no Hants RoW Panel meetings>>>>>>
Yes I bloody well have, and if YOU remember DT I sat next to you, I
arrived at the PROMULGATED time and found it had been moved ahead by 5
hours.
<<<< - especially the one at which this matter was discussed.>>>
So this gives you exclusive rights to fight for access in Hants? No ,no,
mea culpa, it only seems to give you exclusive rights to bitch about a
situation which an organisation WHICH I ONLY REJOINED A YEAR AGO has
allowed to slide into oblivion.
<<<<<<<<<<<The lane is semi urban and has no network value, no aesthetic
value, noviews, no challenge and was a Definitive footpath until the
authority madean order to upgrade to BOAT on discovered evidence. >>>>>>
So we allow it to become unused through neglect now that we have it? Not
in my book. Use it or lose it.
<<<So why the f*** do you need to stir the pot now ->>>
i hardly think that Colin Piper would have offered me the advice he did if
he thought I would 'stir the effin pot'
<<<< against the advice of
local users, and in all probability, against the interests of 4x4 users?>>>
So why dont you go the whole hog, ask HCC to give YOU exclusive rights to
represent all motorised RoW users in Hants...in fact, why dont we now
solemly undertake to never go near Hants again in our nasty 4x4s, dirty
smelly things, chewing up the countryside, making work for you, horrible
people, I bet they're cruel to their animals as well.
.........and I thought we were on the same side.......silly me.
<<<<Can I assume that by the time you respond to this you will have used
theroute,>>>
Even tho' this si addressed to geoff, I'll say here that we set out today
to actually do it (hey a hundred-mile round trip, a breeze) but time as
always was the enemy :-( ............... and I end up wasting half an
'effin' evening defending myself against shit like this???? FFS.
<<<<<<<<<<<<In the mean
time might I respectfully suggest you expend you energies and militancy on
resolving the problems with rights of way in your area and refrain from
stirring up trouble in areas you do not use, and from which you can duck
the negative backlash.>>>>>>>>.
as I said...I thought we were on the same side.......silly me.
<<<<<<<As stated there is a need for an active 4x4 representative in
Hampshire andMD, I believe, has been granted office by the AWDC. He is a
needed andvalued contributor but on this one matter I feel his enthusiasm
has thebetter of him.>>>>>
Perhaps from now on I should wait for orders from On High??????
Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix) NO SMILEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 20:11 GMT
Subject: Re: NGLD Insurance
<<<The only thing is... it looks like they will insist on £5,000,000
public liability insurance. This is my first time at trying to organise
any clearance, so what is the normal insurance position? Effectively I
am an individual, not a representitive of any club or organisation. >>>>
Hand tools only= no power tools = where is the need for PL.
Leisure activity = own time= not work time= no NEED for liability
insurance.
You hit a Joe Public with your Landy your 3rd party insurance is liable.
See Rob Smith or mail TimLara about this.
Next problem?
<<<<<<<<It looks like without some form of official cover, we may be
stuck.>>>>
Never say never.........
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 20:53 GMT
Subject: Re: AWDC E Berks Rep.
E. Berkshire has a new AWDC Rep, thats me, I hope to be able to
raise/restore the profile of the AWDC in this area, we all know what the
problems are in Berkshire, let me know of any fresh ones.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Codrai" <dave@codrai.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:45:22 -0000
Subject: Re: Suzuki SJ's
>> On the basis, I suppose, that anyone using a Suzuki more than 10 miles
>They should be prosecuted for even thinking of buying it! Better off with
>two bikes strapped together!
Take the mick all you want but for about 18 months I had a 109" for towing
and other work related stuff and a SJ 410 for off road use, with very little
modification, e.g. the right tyres, they will go places Land Rover drivers
can only dream of, even 90's, on road they equal Series vehicles for speed
but have interesting extra's like comfortable seats, heaters that work,
stereo's that can be heard etc, if I had to go back to leaf springs,
horrible thought, and the only criteria was off road ability I would buy
another SJ.
Dave
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: winchesterld@cix.compulink.co.uk (Rodney Sabine)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 21:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> Councillors are invariably against higher rights and often any rights.
> Councillors are nearly always behind TROs. They 'ASK' the officers to
> apply them. They can make officer's lives very difficult if they do no
> comply. You have to be a lying, devious, bullshitter that can duck,
> dive, pass the blame, and grab all the glory going, if you are to be a
> successful councillor.
Not all councillors, thank you. Councillors measure local issues by the
volume of mail/calls they receive. Two letters is a problem, 4 letters is
a major crisis.
A concerted effort on one or two key councillors can make a hell of a
difference. All councillors have other councillors (often in their own
party) who hate them. They would be happy to listen to a different view.
> So treat officers with great respect, but do give them the ammunition to
> help you,
> ie solutions to problems, (VR where helpful- and VR does not have to
> prevent use) reports of obstructions etc.
I agree - officers are very often piggy in the middle. They react best to
courteous polite inquiries , and respect for their professionalism.
> Call then on the fone, you will get lots more background info, if they
> know
> who you are, and you make the right noises. The same might apply to
> councillors, and pigs fly.
Councillors react best to a clear A4 letter with pictures. As a councillor
I get about a metre stack of mail a year but I still read all the letters
I get.
Councillors only know what people tell them. They don't know if people
tell them the truth or lies. That's why GLEAM can be successful.
Rodney Sabine, Alresford, Hampshire
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 22:01:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
Does anyone have any NGRs for the affected bit of Dere Street? I might go and
have a look on the way up the week after next.
Can anybody confirm the correct spelling? Is it Dere or Deer?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 22:01:25 +0000
Subject: Monks Trod
Can anyone confirm whether or not the TRO on Monks Trod applies to
motorcycles as well as cars?
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:36:13 EST
Subject: Re: Suzuki SJ's
In a message dated 9.3.99 20:57:25 GMT Standard Time,
dave@codrai.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< but have interesting extra's like comfortable seats, heaters that work,
stereo's that can be heard etc, >>
One out of three is not bad, I suppose, for under 1000 notes. At least it
shares the LR characteristic of leaking in the rain...
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:36:20 EST
Subject: Re: Monks Trod
In a message dated 9.3.99 22:00:25 GMT Standard Time, howard.neal@which.net
writes:
<< Can anyone confirm whether or not the TRO on Monks Trod applies to
motorcycles as well as cars?
>>
The TRO signs at the end of the route say something totally unhelpful like
< Except authorised vehicles >
So, I think, from memory, that motorbikes are authorised, but I suspect that
getting _any_ conviction to stick, especially at a weekend when there is no
way to find out what is authorised or not, would be difficult.
But the meaningless signs are also in Welsh so that's all right then.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[spamkill: [Ss][Aa][Ll][Ee][Ss]@ input: %s] Return-Path:
<sales@farvis.co.uk>
[spamkill: [Ss][Aa][Ll][Ee][Ss]@ input: %s] Message-ID:
<01BE6A80.A3F73D40.sales@farvis.co.uk>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 0:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> I am waiting for some ideas how to, when it is the
> highways director, they seem to want to hang onto their job for some
> reason.
What we need is an expert on the machinations and complexities of local
government. Presumably there must be an ombudsman or equivalent who is
obliged to investigate complaints from the general public?
> True. Who is going to take the lead ?
Ah, therein lies the rub, of course. I don't know.
> Remember VR (proper, agreed user VR, not this make believe evil WB
> imitation) should be tried first, can be flexible, - one way, numbers in
> convoy, don't use when wet, speed, weight, width..... (What you are
Well, I have no problem with VRs that don't stop the lanes being driven,
things like directional and convoy size restrictions - they are just
common sense, by and large. But when we start getting restrictions like
that on the Ridgeway, which effectively bans all motor vehicles from a 35
mile stretch, thereby neatly buggering up access to pretty much all
surrounding lanes, then I begin to see red.
> They are the only other options on offer, like it or not.
You don't accept the third option, which is that the local authorities
should carry out any repair work (repair work that, remember, they have a
legal duty to carry out) to make the lane drivable?
> Have you got any method of preventing unecessary TROs? No one has found
I'm at the beginning of the learning curve, there are others here who know
a lot more than I do about the subject. AIUI, however, we have a right to
drive these byways, the local authorities have a duty to keep them clear
to a certain width, and in reasonable repair.
So, to my simplistic understanding, TROs should be the exception rather
than the rule. We just need to find a way of ensuring that this actually
happens.
> way yet that does not utilise a small degree of engineering expertise
> and a
> time related visit!
I am happy to devote some of my spare time to repairing byways, as are
most true 4x4 enthusiasts that I know. The only backup we need from the
local authorities is their blessing to do the work, and perhaps the odd
lorry-load of chippings. The question is, are most LAs aware that this is
the case?
> Personally I prefer no VR, TROs, speed limits, parking restriction,
> laws,
> income tax, VAT or anything else.
Really? I am happy with parking restrictions, the majority of laws, some
form of taxation, and all the other rules that make society tick over.
However, in this case, we are getting shat on from a great height, and I
say it's time to actively fight back.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 34 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 0:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> It is apparent from your prose that you are from the same planet as
> Spock. Here on earth we lack the clear cut logic you Vulcans posses.
> We are human
> and considerably frail by comparison.
Close, but no cigar. When talking about matters of law, logic is indeed
applicable, by and large. We have rights in law, the local
authorities have duties under law, these rights and duties are being
ignored. Ergo, something must be done.
What is currently being done is not, with the greatest of respect to your
good works and in my humble opinion, enough to stop the slow but steady
closure of lanes. So, logically, we must find something else to do.
I have already put in motion one train of thought that is being carried
through by others, that might do some good at a county level rather than
an individual lane level, for what it's worth.
> In this case there are the good
> humans who use the RoW network of the County and there are some bad
> humans
> that have the power to remove our statute give right to use.
They have no such power, AIUI. That the rules are being badly enforced by
the local authorities such that we *are* losing our rights to use the
lanes seems to me to be prima facia evidence that we are fighting the
fight the wrong way.
> The lane is semi urban and has no network value, no aesthetic value, no
I have no views on any single lane you are fighting for. For the time
being, the battle will need to continue to be fought on the level of
individual lanes, whilst we try and think of an alternative strategy.
> matter. So why the f*** do you need to stir the pot now - against the
> advice of
> local users, and in all probability, against the interests of 4x4 users?
See above. I truly believe that, unless something changes, we will lose
all lanes in the foreseeable future. The steady lane by lane erosion of
our rights will logically snowball, until there are few enough lanes left
that they will be closed in a single stroke. Therefore, I contend that we
need a new strategy, and one that fights the fight on the overall level,
not the level of individual lanes.
You may disagree with me, as is your right. However, I have my rights
too, and they are being trampled on.
> Can I assume that by the time you respond to this you will have used the
> route, read the report on the DMMO and committee papers, read the
> submissions to Inquiry and the Inspectors decision letter. In the mean
You can assume no such thing. If you want a hand with a particular lane
in your area, I am more than happy to help out, otherwise I shall leave
you to fight the fight whichever way you see fit.
> time might I respectfully suggest you expend you energies and militancy
> on
> resolving the problems with rights of way in your area and refrain from
> stirring up trouble in areas you do not use, and from which you can duck
> the negative backlash.
You do like making assumptions, don't you?
I am expending considerable energies resolving problems with RoW in my
home county of Carmarthenshire, as I learn more about the processes
involved so I shall become more efficient about doing so. Perhaps you
would like to give me some pointers, rather than sneering down from your
ivory tower?
As to which lanes I do or do not use, I spend considerable time, a handful
of days a month, laning in Berks, Hants, Wilts, and Surrey, as I work in
Reading and lodge in Swindon. On Sunday I gave up a days sleep (I am
working nights currently) to drive a selection of RUPPs in Berks that are
up for reclassification, to establish their status and condition for
communication to the council RoW officer.
> As stated there is a need for an active 4x4 representative in Hampshire
> and
> MD, I believe, has been granted office by the AWDC. He is a needed and
> valued contributor but on this one matter I feel his enthusiasm has the
> better of him.
He will do a fine job, I am sure. If we all had his dedication to the
cause, there would be no problem.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 35 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 00:29 GMT
Subject: Re: GLEAM attitude to TROs, the New Countryside Agency
Re: Gloom>
Here's a useful quote.
>From p59, Annex 2 - 'Summary of Comments from National Organisations whose
Views We Invited', in RoW in C21st - Conclusions and Recommendations.
(GLEAM) 'Currently, TROs often do not work in practice - even where HAs
are prepared to use them'.
So how come the most GLEAM-heavy CCs are the ones most TRO-happy? Shum
mishtake shurely?
Re: the Countryside Agency>
Will someone with a better (quieter? less loud??) view on RoW summarise
the position of the new body?
Will it be 'Business as usual'?
Will it be a whole new set of faces and values for motorised users to face?
Will they have to take on the CoCo Concs and Recs as they stand, or do we
have the whole shooting match to do again?
I am asking for myself as well as for those who really dont have the time
to wade through the mass of paperwork on the subject.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 36 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 0:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> If a sector of users, and particularly a sector which is not regarded
> by many
> as 'legitimate', ignores the management process, they will be managed
> none-
> the-less. And this will be in ignorance, and in defiance, of their
> rights and
> their needs.
I'm not advocating ignoring the management process, in fact just the
opposite - I'm advocating actively using the management process for our
own good, rather than just awaiting closures and then fighting them.
> exist. It is not a fair world, our backs are against the wall. Come to
> the
> CoCo meeting on Thursday and listen to the bigotry, if you are not
> convinced.
I would love to come to the CoCo meeting, MD has already invited me, sadly
I am busy that day already.
I need no convincing of the bigotry that is out there, I spend a good
portion of my life driving lanes, and have undergone as much abuse, both
verbal and threatened physical, as the next laner. My point is that the
law is, in theory at least, on our side, and the fact that said laws are
not being upheld for us is something that needs addressing, any way we
can.
> The argument is sometimes put (esp in my experience by AWDC interests)
> that
> there is no point in going to meetings, doing research, submitting
> evidence,
Not my argument at all, I'm with you on this one - we need to work from
within. I have recently hatched a scheme that involves working from so
far within that we'll need ropes tied to our ankles, but more of that
later.
> And in legal terms, you have no right to 'maintain the road'
> yourselves, you
> ned the HA to agree. Otherwise you are trespassing, and could be liable
> for
> paying for a 'proper job' to be done.
Again, you misunderstand me - I was advocating working with the HA,
getting their permission, and simply supplying them with willing, free,
labour.
> Please do not shoot the messenger, just file this under 'Home Truths'
> and take
> heed.
Physician, heal thyself. Don't discard a message just because it comes
from an unexpected quarter. Is it possible that I might have a point
here?
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 37 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:00:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> However, in this case, we are getting shat on from a great height, and I
> say it's time to actively fight back.
Yes fight back, but be prepared for some decent people in RoW and the odd
councillor that thinks for himself/herself. Don't tar them all with the
same brush. Likewise MP's we need their support so lets not alienate them
unless they are so obviously nimby supporters......
There is no effective way of stopping TROs 116s or obstructions. But when
they fail to remove obstructions or try to 116, give them hell.
I am giving Hereford a hard time over Upper Lye, (It will be a great help
if someone can get an objection or three off to the email address I gave)
and Roman Road.
I am going to have another pop shot at Warwicks over Endalls impudent
letter.
But it is a lot of work. There is no easy way. But still its all good
fun.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 38 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:00:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Hang on there David : Was part of Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
Oh Ho Ho Ho. I do like a good Ding Dong, now and again, it really livens
things up. Keep it up lads.
But not too long.
We all loves yer both......
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 39 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:00:48 -0500
Subject: Monks Trod
> Can anyone confirm whether or not the TRO on Monks Trod applies to
> motorcycles as well as cars?
The actual TRO is for cars only, but the signs are for all vehicles.
Therefore there is some doubt as it is not correctly signed whether the TRO
is effective, (but I don't recommend it) HAchap did suggest they might give
that back so that anyone who wants to play can, instead of getting out on
some of the lost roads. I suggested not!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 40 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 5:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> Yes fight back, but be prepared for some decent people in RoW and the
> odd
> councillor that thinks for himself/herself. Don't tar them all with the
I think you may be reading a bit more into my messages than is actually
there. I am only advocating coming down hard on those that prove
themselves worthy of attention. Those who do their job properly, I have
no problem with.
> if someone can get an objection or three off to the email address I
> gave)
> and Roman Road.
Is it valid to object without ever having been near the lane in question?
> But it is a lot of work. There is no easy way. But still its all good
> fun.
Personally, I'd rather be out there driving the lanes than having to fight
for their continued existence. Still, whatever floats your boat, as they
say :-)
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 41 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 07:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Dere Street
*Dere*, definitely...
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 42 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 41 lines 1879 [forwarded 180 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1423 [content 1112 forwarded 180 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990310 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]