Some of you may have seen a small item in this week's newspapers referring to Alun Michael "getting tough with vehicles on rights of way". This refers to the issue of a DEFRA Consultation document entitled "Use of mechanically propelled vehicles on Rights of Way". This has potentially serious implications for our sport on the few off-road tracks which are currently recorded on the Definitive Maps as RUPPS but which users believe should be recorded as BOATS. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please see the rights of way section of my website at http://www.wheelspin.org.uk. I have the consultation document and will be responding on behalf of ACTC after talking to our friends at LARA, the TRF, and the Byways and Bridleways Trust Council. I'll keep you all posted as and when appropriate.
Andrew
Thank you for picking this up Andrew. Its been trying TRF colleagues minds since its publication last week. We don't have far to look for the main protagonists - see the following extracts from a response to a "rant" to the RA a while back. They certainly have the supporter numbers and the ears of MPs plus they got through that amazing bit of "Access" legislation - unbelievable but believe it. Its a shame that the RA wants us off the 2-3% of the Public Rights of Way we are entitled to use. As a keen walker myself, I feel very badly let down by the degree of selfishness shown - sorry to get political! If you read the second paragraph (which is included as a DEFRA Proposal) then the only way you will get to ride on a RUPP (on a wheled vehicle) when its downgraded to a Restricted Byway is on a horse and cart........... Happy Xmas! Brian "The RA consists of nearly 140,000 members and 77,000 affiliated supporters and groups and one of our charitable aims is to protect the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside, including public rights of way. Representatives of our members meet every year to debate policy and in April 2003 those members voted overwhelmingly for a campaign for legislation to be introduced so that unsurfaced byways open to all traffic be available to users on foot, horseback, pedal cycle and horse and carriage only, in order that these users can quietly enjoy the public rights of way network away from recreational motorised vehicles. We are not campaigning for a ban on recreational motor vehicles, we are campaigning for a ban on their use on rights of way which came into existence before the motor car was invented, and have never been designed to support such use. There are many sites dedicated to off-roading where this activity can be enjoyed."
ReplyDeleteMORE INFORMATION FROM LARA: RECREATIONAL MOTORING FACES ITS BIGGEST THREAT EVER
ReplyDeleteAfter 100 years, during which time the highways and byways of England and Wales have been explored and enjoyed by generations of drivers and motorcyclists, a proposal just put out to consultation by the Department of Environment, Farming & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) looks set to change the face of recreational motoring for ever.
The proposed legislation could affect any type of motor sport which uses minor public roads, and it severely threatens some of the UK's oldest automobile competitions, including famous classic trials organised by bodies like the Motor Cycling Club (whose Edinburgh Trial, for example, celebrates its centenary in June 2004).
The change is part of the fallout from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which introduced the right to roam for hikers across thousands of square miles of private land - and is largely driven by a vocal and influential minority which wants motor vehicles out of their countryside - full stop.
Illegal motoring is a very real problem in places - but in seeking to combat it effectively, the countryside minister Alun Michael appears to be proposing changes which will hit the law-abiding, while probably doing little to deter the cowboys.
Bill Troughear, chairman of the Land Access & Recreation Association (LARA) says: There is a very real danger that motorcyclists and drivers will lose access to minor tarmac and stone-surfaced roads, thus closing down access to large areas of the countryside.
The motoring organisations do not condone irresponsible and aggressive behaviour in the countryside. Our ancient highways are not scrambles practice tracks, nor a battleground to be conquered. If people want to go fast, or to drive into situations where a winch is a necessity, they should enter competitions held on appropriate terrain. Unfortunately, our planning rules are biased against the provision of such sites, so this does not help in diverting inappropriate highway use to more appropriate activity sites.
It is grossly unfair to propose an ill-thought change in legislation that damages our centuries-old highway law, takes away the rights of ordinary people enjoying an arcane, but historic, pastime, does little to tackle the root causes of the problems, and gives yet more exclusive territory to ramblers, who already enjoy more access than they can ever possibly want.
In England and Wales, there are around 120,000 miles of footpaths and bridleways where motorists cannot go. There are around 6,000 miles of minor, unsealed vehicular roads, much of which is also enjoyed by walkers, cyclists and riders. Walkers now have or will soon have thousands of square miles of open access countryside as well, plus they can wander at will on urban commons and through Forestry Commission plantations. Ramblers already have exclusive rights to most of the British countryside: now they want the rest, too.
LARA will be co-ordinating a response to the proposals, and advising club members how to approach their MPs. The closing date for responses is 19 March 2004. Copies of the consultation paper are available on both the LARA and DEFRA websites. For more details, please contact the LARA Motor Recreation Development Officer at mrdo@laragb.org or visit <span
This message has been deleted by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the comprehensive view on how this latest threat will affect classic trialling in particular, please see this page on my website: www.knightlybrown.net/sectionbegins/rights/sbrightsnews.htm Andrew Brown
ReplyDeleteThis message has been deleted by the author.
ReplyDeleteLatest news, including details of LARA workshops and a 'skeleton letter' to send to your MP, available at: www.knightlybrown.net/sectionbegins/rights/sbrightsnews.htm Andrew
ReplyDeleteThe TRF have now produced a really good 'Action Pack' as the attached file. Andrew
ReplyDeleteAttachment: action-pack.pdf
On the Today programme this morning there was an item on this proposal. They had a biker from the Trail Bikes Association (or whatever it is called). He corrected the correspondent who erroneously described the bike as a Scramble bike and pointed out that the track was a road and that the bike was taxed, insured and MOT'd for road use. The rambler in the item claimed that the track was not designed for motorised vehicles but for horses and carts. It is well known that ancient roads were not designed at all apart from the Romans and later turnpike trusts which lead us into the modern era. There are plenty of examples of well used roads which were unmetalled until relatively recently, such as Porlock; well after the start of the mechanical age. Chroniclers have noted how bad the roads became in the horse and cart era and maintenance was the least possible. Even now it is arguable that horses cause more damage to unsurfaced roads than triallers. This seemed to be the case at Meadowly on the Clee Trial where the wheel tracks up the edges of the road were much firmer that the horse trafficked central quagmire.
ReplyDeleteA revised 'skeleton letter' (with a classic trials slant) to send to your MP will be available from my website within the next seven days. If you have not written already, please wait until this new letter is available, then SEND IT! Andrew
ReplyDeleteQuite a balanced article for the Daily Telegraph! Follow the link. Brian www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2004/02/06/emndef07.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2004/02/06/ixmot.html
ReplyDeleteBrian - On a completely different subject how are your plans for 4 wheel trialling,. It was a shame we didn't get to give you a clap receiving your triple. have you actully got it yet. Can you let me have a picture of you with it. Michael
ReplyDeleteHi Michael & Co I got my Edinburgh Gold a week or so ago but no Triple. I know it sounds childish but I was really disappointed not to have been able to pick it up at the club dinner - I am dying to put it on the mantlepiece - sad bloke that I am, its got to be my best ever non-family type achievement! Ref the 4 wheel trialling , that has not been forgotten but a new family car and Trish's bad back have led to that going on the backburner for a while..... Mind you, it seems that I am still young at 50+ and have at least another 20 years to have a go at that discipline! Best wishes Brian
ReplyDeleteI've now posted a 'Five Point Action Plan' for all who wish to defend our sport at: www.knightlybrown.net/sectionbegins/rights/sbrightsnews.htm PLEASE ACT NOW - THIS IS IMPORTANT! Andrew
ReplyDeleteAre you thoroughly confused by everything you've read? You are not alone so I've produced, with assistance from Alan Foster of the MCC, a one-page overview for you to print, read, and circulate to anyone who wants a simple statement about what to do and why. This is available from: www.knightlybrown.net/sectionbegins/rights/sbrightsnews.htm PLEASE ACT NOW - THIS IS IMPORTANT! Andrew
ReplyDeleteAn excellent summary Andrew! I have sent letters to my MP, Alun Michael and DEFRA plus a few axtra to our Devon Local Access Forum etc. Now to get all my friends and relatives to do something. You can bet your boots that the Ramblers will be VERY well organised and will probably manage 50,000 responses supporting the Proposals and suggesting the Minister should go farther by banning us from ALL unsurfaced roads in the countryside. We have GOT to try and match these vast numbers of reponses or else we will be sunk... Brian
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the Ramblers will be very organised Brian. Having fought for so long and so successfully to extend their access rights to the countryside they are obviously now turning their considerable lobbying power to restricting the rights of others they don't like the look of - how hypocritical is that? Motor vehicle users are the first obvious target. As a regular mountain biker as well as a trials driver I can tell you that my other hobby is next on thier list. Never mind what their website says about wanting to share the countryside with cyclists and horse riders, my experiences tell me they hate the sight of anyone but another rambler, anywhere off-road. I took part in a very well organised mountain bike event at the weekend in the Chilterns. We were all provided with maps and the route was effectively marked so that we would not end up on footpaths etc. What was the ramblers response? 1) Verbal abuse when we rode past a couple taking their dogs out for a s*** on agricultural land 2) Approximately 20 illegal obstructions - branches, logs, fence posts, you name it - laid across a downhill section of bridleway. These were all positioned on the day of the event - the organiser had ridden the course and marked it out the day before. The moral of my story - it's not just a rant honest! - is that any friends or relatives uncertain as to whether to support us in writing letters to MPs etc should consider what activities they enjoy which the Ramblers et al will try and ban next.
ReplyDeleteI had a look at the Ramblers website and came away having some sympathy for them. They don't like quads and trail bikes on footpaths - fair enough; and they don't much like 4x4s. They are mentioned with respect to the Ridgeway more than once. A big part of the problem seems to be convoys of 4x4s which repeatedly attack a section until it becomes a mud bath. They won't know that this can spoil our sections too. They probably haven't noticed that our bikes and 2 wheel drive cars on road tyres do not have a big impact nor that there are responsible trail riders and 4x4 drivers. They have just lumped everyone together using the excuse of vehicular noise. Maybe they will go after cycles when they remember that they only became popular in the late 19th century; not that long before cars appeared.
ReplyDeleteYou have done the two letters and the response to the DEFRA consultation, haven't you? If not, start here www.knightlybrown.net/sectionbegins/rights/sbrightsnews.htm and ACT NOW! Andrew PS - Well, I had to find some way of getting this item back up to the top of the list didn't I?
ReplyDeleteHad this message through from someone with "contacts": "Be warned! Phone call this evening. DEFRA has an overwhelming majority of responses to the consultation that call for a ZERO allowance of time for BOAT claims. So get those claims in NOW." I guess it also means that we need to get a lot more letters to DEFRA clearly objecting to the proposed one-year cut off point for BOAT claims using the usual sort of Tithe Map and Inclosure Award evidence - DEFRA Proposal 4. Its nasty weather here (near Exeter) this morning so my plan to go out and photograph some undamaged lanes to send to DEFRA etc has lost its appeal ..... Instead, I will be "assisting" my wife and other family members to write thir own responses to DEFRA to get the numbers up. You have done an excellent job in bringing the information (and the tools to respond) to many enthusiasts' attention Andrew - well done. I hope against hope that those horses you have led to water will now drink - if they haven't already had their fill ;o) BTW, anyone know of a "fax-on-the-web" site please?
ReplyDeleteSent off a reply today, together with one from Tom Beckerleg to the Minister and local MP, Liberal Rural Affairs spokesman Andrew George, also sent pic from local newspaper of me ascending Blue Hills and one of me going up Simms, I pointed out how the trials had benefited the local community in both cases. Told the local MP that I sailed at the PZ sailing club, his children had learned to sail there last year. Told him that I also like to go mountain biking, but we have many footpaths and not enough BOATS and Byways. John Lees
ReplyDeleteI suspect that many of you, by the time that you read this, will have been as horrified as I was to see the front cover of the 'Driving' section of today's Sunday Times - it's appalling. The pictures which accompany the article (about conflict between the Ramblers and 4x4 drivers on the Ridgeway) are also pretty bad, but the article itself is actually quite well, and fairly, written. So if you get any flak from 'anti' friends, ask them if they actually read the article or just looked at the pictures! What is not reported, because only a handful of people yet know, is that Alun Michael (Rural Affairs Minister) has now met with LARA and certain aspects of the situation are not as bleak for us (the responsible motorised users) as we had previously thought. More news when I have it. Andrew
ReplyDeleteIf you do not get the Sunday Times in paper form, you can read what Andrew is talking about at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2105-1060173,00.html
ReplyDeleteI think quite well and quite fairly written are perhaps a little generous Andrew. The scrambler-bikes-riding- straight-at-a-NP-warden story is lifted directly from the Ramblers website/magazine. Except if I recall correctly it was one rider from the group rather than the whole lot of them, not that that makes it any better.
ReplyDelete'Dangerously uneven in the summer'... err locally it gets so fast and flat in the summer that the council had to put signs up warning cyclists and horses to slow down where the Ridgeway is crossed by tarmac roads in case they career straight onto the road in front of traffic.
Also '70% of the Ridgeway surface now fails to reach the standards for a national trail'. This may be true but I can't see that it's all down to recreational motor users. How much of the Ridgeway National Path has vehicular status? Nowhere near that proportion in the area where I live - 1.5 miles from the Ridgeway near High Wycombe. North of High Wycombe there's hardly any sections with vehicular status apart from those bits where there is no trail and it gets routed along minor tarmaced roads etc.
On a lighter note, recently went for a walk which took in part of the Ridgeway. There is a long claggy chalky section which is always a nightmare in the winter and has been for as long as I can remember. It does not have vehicle rights but is used by agricultural folk, flytippers and the like. (BTW some of the tractors round here are so big and heavy they've abandoned wheels and started using tracks, like tanks...). Half way along a particularly boggy section we meet an old local man with a dog. 'Bloody disgrace isn't it? Of course you know who's to blame don't you?' he asks. "Who's that then?' I say expecting to have to eat some humble pie. 'DEFRA' he says ' last autumn this was perfectly flat and they've been churning it up all winter going back and forth to that so-called nature reserve they're building'.
In the Daily Telegraph on Monday 12th. Philip Johnston in his 'Home Front' column wrote a very good artical called 'Motorists have a right to roam, too.' Worth getting and reading it as it really supported us. Stuart Harrold
ReplyDeleteStuart - Thank you for alerting us to this. It is, indeed, a very good (for us) article and I've already e-mailed Philip Johnston to thank him on behalf of the ACTC. The article is available online but you'll have to go through a rather tedious registration process to be able to read it. Andrew
ReplyDeleteThere was an article in the Guardian on Saturday showing the usual picture of a quagmire on the Ridgeway. However, it only referred to objections against 4x4s and bikes which were said to be allowed onto BOATs etc due to a "loophole" in the legislation. Subsequently a Sue Rumfitt responded yesterday as a former president to the Institute of Public Rights of Ways Officers. She said that for the Ramblers to claim that the 1949Act "never intended these old routes to be used by 4x4s and motorbikes" is sheer hubris (good word - look it up). She goes on to state that walkers and horses also damage routes and in some places the environment. "To remove rights because they are inconvenient and offensive to some, rather than manage rights and and impose responsibilities, is not a precedent we should seek to set". Hear hear! If anyone wants a photocpy of her letter in full I would be glad to supply it.
ReplyDeleteAlso an interesting letter in the motoring section of the Sunday Times in response to last week's article. It's from someone on the Rights of Way Committee of Bucks County Council. He writes that there has been a huge increase in the number of claims posted on rights of way in the county in the last year - 22 as opposed to 6 or 7 in the last 5 years. Highways Department obviously doesn't have time or resources to do deal with all these claims. Whilst the main purpose of his letter is to draw attention to the administrative strain another Whitehall initiative will have on local authorities, his letter finishes in a very balanced manner: 'Our countryside is a precious resource that needs managing sensitively for the benefit of all users'.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading much info. with regard to the use of rights of way I have been prompted to put finger to keyboard to express a concern that there seems to be a devide between the various forms of powered transport. We all know that the ramblers are a massive group but what appers to be happening and can been seen from a number of replies on this site is that the motorcycles, trialers and 4x4's seem not to be united. I am a 4x4 driver of many years and fairly new to the trialing scene as a passenger, it seems that a number of trialers have negiative comments to make with reagrd to 4x4 usage and to be honest I really don't think this is the way to go, the one thing that we need with regard to use of the lanes is co-operation between all users, if we as drivers of powered vehicles were to unite and not be concerned if we have 2 wheels, 4 wheels or 4wd or even 4 legs as our frineds in the equine world have, then we may stand a much better chance against our 2 legged frineds its time to stop placing labels and trying to point the fingere at other users but get togeather for the good of all.
ReplyDeleteDarren raises an issue which is far too complex for me answer fully in this forum and which I shall try and address on my 'Wheelspin' website at some time in the not-too-distant future. But a few comments now anyway ... To the outsider, all off-road cars are '4x4s'. The relative invisibility of classic trialling over the years has counted both for us and against us. If we can put aside illegal use, the 'anti-vehicle' brigade has somewhat different reasons for being 'anti' the legal use of bikes and the legal use of 4x4s. As a slight over-generalisation, bikes do not cause as much surface damage as 4x4s. The TRF has also been very good, over the years, in promoting the responsible use of bikes off-tarmac whereas the AWDC and GLASS have an uphill struggle to combat some of the more aggressive and newer 4x4 clubs. And as a huge over-generalisation, but not a million miles away from the truth ... the main problem with bikes is illegal use, whereas the main problem with 4x4s is inappropriate or irresponsible (but not illegal) use. Andrew
ReplyDeleteLARA has now published its 'Solutions' paper which will be presented to DEFRA officials on Friday 11th June. Read more at: http://www.wheelspin.org.uk/rights/sbrightsnews.htm Andrew
ReplyDeleteThis is not strictly related to the DEFRA Consultation, but I've added it here to keep the 'thread' going ... The Countryside Agency have recently announced the start of the Lost Ways Project. This could prove quite significant to classic trialling and you can all read more http://www.wheelspin.org.uk/blog/2004_08_01_wheelspin_archive.html#109222024364205656 Andrew
ReplyDeleteAndrew - Have you seen http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1278574,00.html Michael
ReplyDeleteSee the latest news at: http://www.wheelspin.org.uk/blog/2004_08_01_wheelspin_archive.html#109342447233336501
ReplyDeleteSee the latest news at: http://www.wheelspin.org.uk/blog/2004_09_01_wheelspin_archive.html#109523951974106017
ReplyDelete