[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 9:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> a dry
> rut (if it's muddy it looks like it's causing damage). Of course,
> you'll be
> hard pushed to find a dry rut this time of year. The alternative is to
Oddly, I managed to get the Disco bellied out in a dry rut just a week or
two back. Unfortunately, for these purposes, it turned out that we had
strayed somewhat from the actual BOAT, although fortunately the farmer
whose yard we ended up in was most friendly, pointing out where we'd gone
wrong. I do wish they'd sign-post BOATs, though :-)
> get a
> wheel on an axle casing not on the vehicle, or similar, and use it as a
> visual guide to show where the axle would be if it were on a vehicle, it
> would be more obvious to the viewer of the photo than a picture of a LR
> in a
> rut.
I have a spare Rangie axle casing currently doing nothing, if it helps? I
think there's a front hub assembly in the junk pile, too, and I have spare
wheels for the Disco.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> Muddy lane is yours.
I don't recall volunteering for the task. I would rather expend my
energies closer to home, thanks, on those tasks that must be followed up
on a lane by lane basis.
> s116. No probs. I went to the court and told the magistrates that the
> lane was needed and was used and they thanked me and stopped it up.
All of which, surely, proves what I am saying - fighting on a lane by lane
basis, whilst necessary, should be only one part of our strategy, we need
a more aggressive, all-encompassing approach to try and push the general
spirit of laning. Encouraging new people into laning, tackling obviously
anti-vehicle RoW officers however we can, working with all other RoW
organisations (yes, even the RA, if we can!).
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> No Geoff - driving the lanes just gives you the excuses to write the
> letters
> and do the research. Nothing better than a day sitting in the PRO
> looking over all those wonderful old documents :-)
Can't fault that - as I think I mentioned earlier, I've just been given a
couple of excellent old maps of our area, one a 1948 edition O/S 1:50,000,
and another with no evidence of date, printed on cloth, which actually
pre-dates our village. Should help in any disputes over lanes in the
area.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> d. they are a vital resource to horse riders (for whom the existing
> bridleway network is inadequate),
That's an interesting quote. I thought Bridleways were something like 20%
of the RoW network? So how come our 3% is seen as adequate, whereas their
20% is inadequate?
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> 96. Option (c) is the preference of the Ramblers' Association, who
> would like to see all byways reclassified as "Car-free roads", and
> therefore closed to motorised recreational use.
Interesting to see that motorcycles have, once again, slipped through the
cracks.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:05:08 EST
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
In a message dated 13.3.99 02:07:45 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< For completeness, there
appears to be no active m/c rep in the Stockport area but both Paul and I do
speak up for their needs when needed. >>
It isd one of the principles behind LARA operations that anyone speaks up for
all others if he/she possibly can. We know we are thin on the ground, and we
try to ensure that we all sing to the same hymn sheet. There are areas where
motorcyclists speak up for 4x4 (eg Shropshire, Warks) whenever they find
themselves unsupported. As long as we all understand this it becomes an
advantage not a problem
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:05:13 EST
Subject: Re: Local Access Forums
In a message dated 13.3.99 02:07:47 GMT Standard Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< I am led to believe that these (LAFs) will go hand in hand with the new
Regional Rural Development Panels - do we know anything more about these
links? >>
Not yet, I don't, because the RDA (Rural Development Agency) was not regarded
as fundamental to motoring activities. However, we are not unaware of them.
Now that RDA and CoCo are to combine as CA, there may be a need to link RRDPs
with Access, but I think (=guess) that Local Access Forums will be county
(=HA) based rather than Regional. A county based forum can have council reps
on it who will be directly involved, rather than only for their bit. And it
seems that the maps of Open Country - one job for the LAFs - will be kept at
county level, alongside the DM&S, and LoS (but if we are not careful, in yet
another different office/building).
However, you might be right, and it woiuld help if you could let us know how
reliable is your information. Might 'hand in hand' merely mean 'set up at the
same time by the same Act' ?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:18:16 -0500
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> delicate situation right now. Do you have further info as to the Hants
> responses? Send direct may ease the load on the list. I would be
> interested to know the signature on the Hants response - as I'm sure
would
> another list 'listener'.
> responses? Send direct may ease the load on the list. I would be
No name of respondent, So i could not say it is mills
Hampshire Ways
1. Substantial response, focusing on vehicular rights. By implication,
supportive of most of the Commission's proposals, but opposition to those
for reclassifying RUPPs and UCKs means they cannot support package as a
whole.
ii Specific comments as follows:
· opposed to statutory reclassification of remaining RUPPs as byways,
for similar reasons to those of GLEAM (see above).
· Also opposed to statutory reclassification of UCRs as byways. There
is no alternative to individual reclassification, despite its
time-consuming nature.
· Legislation is needed to distinguish between motorised and
non.motorised vehicles. The latter could then be permitted to use
bridleways.
· Support proposals at paras 31-39 for resolving objections, except
for that of placing duty on HAs to determine applications and objections.
Consider that HAs could not be seen to be impartial, so determination
should be by an independent third party, perhaps assisted by mediators.
_________________
so they obviously linked it to gleam. And were vry dismissive of any group
that did not accept the whole package.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:18:12 -0500
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> Is this a publicly available document, if so do you have a contact
> address/phone No/e-mail where I can apply for a copy.
My second copy came in post today. Thats doing the rounds. All who sent an
individual response should get a copy, and it should be on CoCo web site
soon.
01 242 521381
http://www.countryside.gov.uk
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:18:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Green Lane Saved by LARA Volunteers
> > I wonder if anyone is aware of all the UCRs in Warks?
> Hi Chris,
> Is this a rhetorical question?
> Regards,
> Howard
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> Regards,
> Howard
Does that mean rude?
No. But the map they gave me has some lines that hardly seem to be proper
roads, it might be worth checking a few out.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:18:15 -0500
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> be extremely concerned about the new chair of Countryside Agency - I have
> contact with him through family connections and can tell you he is very
anti
As he was described in Times on 8/3/99 as a serial path blocker, he is
(was?) anti everything, when president of CLA.
Right man for the job. :-)
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:18:17 -0500
Subject: HA80 s56
> Bolton MBC admitted FP26 as being a publicly maintainable highway and
> asked in the same letter in what way I consider it out of repair.
> I sent details on 11th February, and as a month has now passed and I
> have heard nothing, I think now is the time to progress the matter.
No I have not taken one further, but I know a man that has, Peter Newman,
Castle Books Kington, OSS.
Is it on DM?
Is it worth it?
Is it OOR rather than obstructed. ie how?
Is it also obstructed, might Westley be the fly in th ointment?
Have you given them a reminder, recorded delivery or take it in a demand a
receipt. Also ask to speak to Monitoring officer dirct - ring first?
Have you checked if the signatory is authorised to sign?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:18:06 -0500
Subject: Re: EDM 24, Byways
> Thank you for this helpful information. Jackie
The above is the full un expurgated memo from Jackie Ballard. I thinks she
means it ! (?)
The message sent was:-
JACKIE BALLARD MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SWIA OAA
Tel. 0171 219 6247
Fax 0171 219 3962
11/3/99
Dear Ms Ballard,
I have been forwarded a copy of your letter, to my friend Tom Murkin in
connection with the EDM24. I am very saddened by the mis-information
circulated by an anti-access organisation run by David Gardiner the Deputy
Lord Lieutenant of the County of Berkshire.
He has personally run a campaign that has been dismissed as biassed,
selfish and unwarranted by various independent reports. He is ignoring
very practical, sensible and fair advice issued by the DETR, despite FIVE
of the contributors to Making the Best of Byways are members of Gleam! He
and almost every other member have byways on their land or very close by,
and wish to stop all access; it has nothing to do with protection of the
environment.
I enclose the text of an article from the Independent, and my response to
the Press Complaints Commission who are currently investigating my
complaint. Some of the extracts from Making the Best of Byways may be of
interest. Please remember this is the Government's independent
investigation, after totally dismissing gleams calls for a complete ban on
use of lanes by vehicles. Whilst the motion calls for better access to
Off-Road sites, which is to be wholeheartedly welcomed, any competitive
element should only be run off-highways. I would ask you to please either
make a modified EDM or withdraw your name from it, after reading Making the
Best of Byways. If you would like to know more about the work of the
various user groups working hard to control any irresponsible use, and
promote co-operation I would be pleased to explain what is being done.
Yours sincerely
Chris Marsden
Then the PCC complaint letter followed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 08:18:56 EST
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
In a message dated 13.3.99 11:58:30 GMT Standard Time, geoff@cix.co.uk writes:
<< That's an interesting quote. I thought Bridleways were something like 20%
of the RoW network? So how come our 3% is seen as adequate, whereas their
20% is inadequate? >>
Several reasons -
1. Horse riders keep saying so. As most officials are not prejudiced against
horseriders, they are listened to.
2. Motorists are not particularly at risk when mixing it with other road
traffic, but it is claimed that horseriders are. But, no-one is suggesting
that vulnerable motorcyclists should have better provision (see above under
prejudice)
3. Nobody is saying that riding horses is bad for the environment, but they
are, about cars. I have never seen a calculation of how many miles to the
gallon a horse does, although we all know there is a %age of every horses life
spent in or behind a motor vehicle.
Perhaps someone would care to sort out some figures for 3 ?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:01:59 -0000
Subject: Re: Easements and reclassification (was: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead
'Warren Lane')
This matter of easements is an interesting one. One schedule 14
application I made was rejected by the authority despite the fact that an
owner of a land-locked plot was granted an easement only as far as the
claimed route. The easement granted access over a track on foot, horse
back, cattle, carts wagons, traction engines and all manner of vehicles.
Why did the grant only go as far as the lane and not the current sealed
road?
This is a matter to be returned to.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:03:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> I have a spare Rangie axle casing currently doing nothing, if it helps? I
> think there's a front hub assembly in the junk pile, too, and I have spare
> wheels for the Disco
I can probably get hold of a spare tractor tyre if you want one. You would
have to come and pick it up though. Don't bring an SJ!
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:12:41 -0000
Subject: RE: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
I can but think that a five letter word comes into the picture. No prizes
for guessing which one I'm thinking about ;-)
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:12:39 -0000
Subject: RE: Useful quote: was RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
On their web site:
http://www.ccw.go.uk/english/pr/990126e.html
http://www.ccw.go.uk/english/pr/971114.txt
and a few others I haven't got at home...
91114 is the one with the bit about agri damage.
This site has a lot of papers on it, I only scan read a few, and probably
missed the most important ones....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:12:40 -0000
Subject: RE: Copies of letter are sent to this list (was: Re: Fax to HCC -
Countryfile)
I 'blagged' much of what I said form an example posted by that nice
Mr.Stevens, so decided to save band width, otherwise a copy would have been
on the list...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: Bod [mailto:bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk]
> Sent: 13 March 1999 00:57
> I do, however, feel that it is important that we post example letters to
the list because there are a lot of people on here that never, or seldom
write to any HA about anything.
> From: Bod [mailto:bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:10:07 -0000
Subject: Stoat Lane, Great Alne, Warks.
Checked the existence of the Vol Restr. notices again today, and found 1 of
4 had been uprooted and thrown over the hedge. If the B*****D who did this
is reading this list, please don't compound your ignorant behaviour by
throwing the signs around, just go your own way, waving two fingers -
metaphorically - at the rest of the world, as you continue to drive this
lane regardless. You have the right to drive it, but none of us may have
that right for too much longer if you do.
There is evidence of one motorcycle (trials type) tyre, and a four wheeled
vehicle, which I can only guess at being a land rover, both of which I
reckon have travelled there today.
The western end of the lanes has been obstructed by a substantial heap of
dumped leylandii branches - a practice common with the travellers in the
Redditch area - but the LR made a detour onto the ground at the side.
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:13:20 -0000
Subject: Grey Mill Lane, Little Alne, Warks.
Passing by this afternoon, so decided to stop and look. Came across Mr Mark,
relocating his fences and removing the gates which were once locked. Within
the next few days, I would expect that he will have finished his work, and
the lane will be entirely outside his fence line and plainly visible. He
confirmed the stopping up is a totally dead duck, now.
We had a lengthy chat, very amiable, and he told me that nobody had ever
driven a vehicle down this lane. I was able to correct him on this, and
assured him that we have copies of correspondence relating to this lane from
the 1980s when the West Mids TRF used to ride it as part of our local run.
We discussed the nature of the lane, which he tells me is as narrow as 4'6"
in
places, as deep as 7' in the river, has fences on the river side to prevent
livestock from entering(erected by Environmental Agency - central govt,
rather than local govt - and which we need to get the Warks CC to address
before we can use), has old tree trunks in the middle (as effective as any
bollard preventing 4wheels), etc. Assured him that the WM TRF usually run
their local only about 2-3 times p.a., and that we would normally pass by
within a couple of minutes, therefore our presence is minimal, and he said
this would be
no problem to him. I did not say anything to him about horse or foot use,
but I would imagine that would be more visible to him than any vehicular
use.
In my opinion, we would do well to be sensitive in our use of this lane once
it is finally opened up, particularly, I think no attempt should be made
until waters have subsided dramatically from the current levels, and it
should be walked first, including the 250 yard river traverse.
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:34:56 EST
Subject: Carmarthanshire. (was: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle)
Geoff,
In a message dated 10/03/99 00:10:18, you wrote:
<< I am expending considerable energies resolving problems with RoW in my
home county of Carmarthenshire, >>
Which bit of Carmarthanshire do you hail from? I have done some digging in the
Llandovery area (where my ex-wife and kids live) which you may be interested
in.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:32:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Local Access Forums
> In a message dated 13.3.99 02:07:47 GMT Standard Time,
> bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
> << I am led to believe that these (LAFs) will go hand in hand with the
new
> Regional Rural Development Panels - do we know anything more about
these
> links? >>
> Not yet, I don't, because the RDA (Rural Development Agency) was not
> << I am led to believe that these (LAFs) will go hand in hand with the
regarded
> as fundamental to motoring activities. However, we are not unaware of
them.
> Now that RDA and CoCo are to combine as CA, there may be a need to link
RRDPs
> with Access, but I think (=guess) that Local Access Forums will be county
> (=HA) based rather than Regional. A county based forum can have council
reps
> on it who will be directly involved, rather than only for their bit. And
it
> seems that the maps of Open Country - one job for the LAFs - will be kept
at
> county level, alongside the DM&S, and LoS (but if we are not careful, in
yet
> another different office/building).
> However, you might be right, and it woiuld help if you could let us know
> << I am led to believe that these (LAFs) will go hand in hand with the
how
> reliable is your information. Might 'hand in hand' merely mean 'set up at
the
> same time by the same Act' ?
> Cheers, tim
> << I am led to believe that these (LAFs) will go hand in hand with the
Will LAFs have any bearing on existing RoW forums, will they co-exist, are
they still needed? or replace or become them? The make-up required may be
different from that at present. (ie Tramplers arguing about Open
Countryside Access (para 52)
Rhetorical only.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:33:24 -0500
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> > 96. Option (c) is the preference of the Ramblers' Association, who
> > would like to see all byways reclassified as "Car-free roads", and
> > therefore closed to motorised recreational use.
> Interesting to see that motorcycles have, once again, slipped through the
> cracks.
> > would like to see all byways reclassified as "Car-free roads", and
I don't think that was intentional. They either include them now, or if
not try to ban later. Bikes and horse also follow except on a few
dedicated firm surface bridleways........
They are selfish. Tramplers, not walkers in general.
I liked the comment that the RA were negative about everything. He
disguised his frustration with some of the selfish responses very thinly.
The moderate replies from 'higher' status users I suspect was appreciated.
CRA gleam & RA were seen as extreme, other users being more ready to
compromise were, in my opinion more respected. If vehicle groups had taken
a "We have a right to drive" attitude, there would have been an even bigger
gap. It does of course mean we have less room to give further, but some
'entrenched' attitudes by some groups will have to change, or be imposed by
CoCo. That seems to be the message I get. Lets keep a sensible dialogue
going. We have RW's determination to see this through, substantially
unchanged.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:33:32 -0500
Subject: Copies of letter are sent to this list (was: Re: Fax to HCC -
Countryfile)
> complain (or praise, or comment). A badly written letter is
> infinitely better than no letter.
Agreed, if the letter is different, and brings up new poits lets all
benefit. If very similar to others, a 'me to' is useful to know what's
happening.
The spelling or grammer is not that important, so long as you are polite
and firm, they will soon tell you if you are wrong (whether you are or
not), they need a certain level of feedback to know they are doing
something right. If no one says it's wrong, they think no one cares about
RoW. So complain, particularly about higher status RoW as they affect more
types of users etc, and point out how obstruction / problem affect all
users (when it does).
Chris
ps after yesterdays conversation with dir of Env, no further letters are
needed at the moment, the have made them realise at last they have a
problem that DOES need to be solved, it has only been going on for 9 years
5 months.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:32:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> All of which, surely, proves what I am saying - fighting on a lane by
lane
> basis, whilst necessary, should be only one part of our strategy, we need
> a more aggressive, all-encompassing approach to try and push the general
> spirit of laning. Encouraging new people into laning, tackling obviously
> anti-vehicle RoW officers however we can, working with all other RoW
> organisations (yes, even the RA, if we can!).
Agreed, but CoCo (CA) should be a good ally against 116's, on potential
leisure use. lets explore that to the full.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 18:33:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> wrong. I do wish they'd sign-post BOATs, though :-)
> > get a
> > wheel on an axle casing not on the vehicle, or similar, and use it as a
I doubt getting so technical will help as much as a Little and Large photo,
or of a big tractor up to it's axles in mud on a lane, or drawing an
obviusly heavy load along a green lane. (Ex green lane)
Don't forget the Blue book shows you how. Ask in the affirmative, "do you
have any objections if I ..... "
But it must be done with care and responsibility.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 7:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> I can probably get hold of a spare tractor tyre if you want one. You
> would
> have to come and pick it up though. Don't bring an SJ!
Thinking further, we had a couple of spare tractor tyres in the field last
time I looked. And there's a few tractors floating around normally, too,
should that prove of any use to anyone?
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 8:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Carmarthanshire. (was: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle)
> Which bit of Carmarthanshire do you hail from?
Llangynog (north of Bancyfelin, about half way between Carmarthen and St.
Clears).
> I have done some digging
> in the
> Llandovery area (where my ex-wife and kids live) which you may be
> interested
> in.
I've been researching some lanes up that way, and found them almost
universally blocked, so yes please, any additional information that you
have would be most welcome.
Are you still active in the area? Perhaps we could meet for a beer or
two?
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 8:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Tractor Damage to Lanes
> I doubt getting so technical will help as much as a Little and Large
> photo,
> or of a big tractor up to it's axles in mud on a lane, or drawing an
> obviusly heavy load along a green lane. (Ex green lane)
I suspect you are correct, but I merely mention the existence of the parts
should anyone require them at any stage.
> Don't forget the Blue book shows you how. Ask in the affirmative, "do
> you
> have any objections if I ..... "
> But it must be done with care and responsibility.
Which reminds me.
Where can I get hold of a copy of the Blue Book? And are there any other
standard texts that I should be reading?
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 8:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: RoW 21C Recommendations extracts
> I don't think that was intentional. They either include them now, or if
> not try to ban later. Bikes and horse also follow except on a few
> dedicated firm surface bridleways........
Oh, agreed - I was just interested to note that a pattern we have seen in
vehicle legislation generally is being repeated here.
> I liked the comment that the RA were negative about everything. He
Certainly nice to see.
> compromise were, in my opinion more respected. If vehicle groups had
> taken
> a "We have a right to drive" attitude, there would have been an even
> bigger
> gap. It does of course mean we have less room to give further, but
> some
> 'entrenched' attitudes by some groups will have to change, or be
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
> going. We have RW's determination to see this through, substantially
> unchanged.
Where sensible dialogue exists, I quite agree. I am by nature a
reasonable man, and happy to reach a compromise that everyone finds
acceptable.
However, there are areas where we have tried sensible dialogue, and been
rebuffed. In these cases, it's time to start wielding the bludgeon. In
my humble opinion, of course.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 8:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> Agreed, but CoCo (CA) should be a good ally against 116's, on potential
> leisure use. lets explore that to the full.
Absolutely! As I said elsewhere, I'm happy to be reasonable whilst all
others involved reciprocate.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 33 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 32 lines 1331 [forwarded 141 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 959 [content 711 forwarded 136 (cut 5) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990314 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]