Interesting…

https://www.autocar.co.uk/opinion/tester%E2%80%99s-notes/matt-prior-4×4-law-and-order-lake-district

What strikes me the most:

There are 2038 miles of unsealed public roads in the Lake District, and motor vehicles have rights on only 75 of them

Cheers!
I.

There are 2038 miles of unsealed public roads in the Lake District, and motor vehicles have rights on only 75 of them

That sounds wrong, And unless there really is a massive network of unsealed roads I’m not considering, is actually the figure including bridleways and footpaths.

There are 3,203 km of rights of way in the Lake District National Park. Footpaths, bridleways, byways and permitted paths are all rights of way, and can be used by different users.

From:https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/visiting/things-to-do/rowupdates

Journalist in Autocar says “motor vehicles have rights”.

Ahhh brilliant classification of Rights of Way in England.

Once you think you get it, someone, somewhere proves you so, so wrong 🙂

As the LDNPA said, “these aren’t farmers’ roads or quarry roads, as sometimes described. They’re public through roads that happen to be used by farmers (and earlier quarrying, mining or packhorse traffic)”.

Think it refers to the likes of:

Tilberthwaite Road and High Oxen Fell Road

But could be wrong…

Cheers!
I.

Much as I dislike Kankku etc, I’m glad the court case got kicked out. 4x4s and trail bikes are allowed to use a tiny amount of the ROW network. They can be a nuisance, but I’m sure we can be perceived that way as well.

If GLEAM insist on pursuing the idea that the motor vehicle is wrecking the quiet enjoyment of the fells, I’m happy to extend that argument to quite a few ‘sealed’ roads. How about making Great Langdale traffic free? Or making Hard Knott and Wrynose access only?

Most of the people moaning about 4x4s are happy to queue their vehicles along tiny lanes into these valleys so they can start their wholesome walk.

I think we need to be very careful about any groups getting their access rights restricted, to be honest. First they came for the 4×4 drivers and we said nothing, etc

And where surfaces had been improved to ease farming access, some mountain bikers now said they preferred the road when it wasn’t so “boring”.

Its a good job they didn’t ask gravel riders! 😂

“To me, all that seems irreconcilable is some people’s ability to tolerate others going about their lawful business and hobbies.”

This quote is very good. As someone who canoes I have seen this with a tiny minority of fishing folk.

Journalist in Autocar says “motor vehicles have rights”.

No, This is reportage after the effect, not a campaigning piece. You should have said: Journalist in Autocar makes clear bad arguments bought by a campaign group trying to ban a legal activity as laid out by a judge settling the case.

As others have have already said, trying to ban certain activities because they don’t fit in with your perspective of “enjoying the countryside” should be seen as a bad idea, I’m glad this judgement went this way.

Difference is… You can’t easily lift a motorbike over a stile.

I think we need to be very careful about any groups getting their access rights restricted, to be honest. First they came for the 4×4 drivers and we said nothing, etc

At the same time I can’t help feeling MTBerists and Gravel-bikerers do not want to be seen as being “aligned” with miscellaneous petrol heads.

Access issues for pedal powered (and increasingly leccy assisted pedal powered) could do without being conflated with 4×4 and motorcycle land access. They are very different modes of transport/sport/hobby.

I’d rather we were seen as being closer to ramblers or horse riders for the purposes of land access. Advocates for a cycling “right to roam” in England are probably keen to present bikes as being as low impact as possible.

TBF this ruling is only a reinforcment of an investigation and its findings, the outcome of which wasn’t unfettered access but a decision to allow continued motor vehicle access with monitoring of a limited bit of unpaved road and the surrounding environment, leaving the option for LDNPA to review and change access rights at a later date…

And I’m sure the likes of ‘GLEAM’ will move on to the next candidates for exclusion, which could well be framed as thoughtless IT managers smashing their way through sensitive natural habittats on knobbly tyred death traps. The defence against that is not “well you let land rovers trundle over a fraction of the un paved roads round here” …

A very similar case in the Peaks led to me finally giving up on CTC. I had been sounded out to take over from Colin Palmer representing MTB access at Westminster. Any gains for MTBs having been down to him, despite BC and CTC. He coined “ORPA” allowing councils to not make decisions on their usage category so enabling the routes to be given to OS, several hundred miles of them….
CTC were not sorting my expenses package and then strongly took the side of GLEAM in a pretty much identical situation. We shouldn’t have got involved as it queered our pitch in any future situations should we need support to gang up on the Ramblers. I’m not sure CTC ever got round to replacing Colin…..

I think the simple test is “leave no trace”. What motorbike riders and drivers doesn’t seem to acknowledge is the **** mess that they leave often behind and that someone else at their expense has to fix it after them. I can think of lots of decent trails, byways and RUUPs that have become impassable because of the ruts and erosion. If the bikers and 4×4 drivers would like to contribute to the costs (not councils and farmers) then they can cough-up for the privilege

*pedant* RUPPS since 2006 are now classified ‘restricted byways’ ie no mechanically-propelled vehicles

(Is that an eMTB access-rights discussion I hear buzzing towards us?)

*pedant* RUPPS since 2006 are now classified ‘restricted byways’ ie no mechanically-propelled vehicles

(Is that an eMTB access-rights discussion I hear buzzing towards us?)

Would be one of my concerns.
According to GLEAMs “our aims” page. They advocate for bicycle access to unpaved roads too…
So they’re ‘allies’ for now at least.

I’m sure pedelecs, especially those that can be switched to bellend mode, could challenge any support for bicycle access from GLEAM though.

But It’s worth remembering they’re only a pressure group, their input is not necessarily taken up by decision makers.

I think the simple test is “leave no trace”. What mountain bike riders don’t seem to acknowledge is the **** mess that they leave often behind and that someone else at their expense has to fix it after them. I can think of lots of decent trails, bridleways,byways and RUUPs that have become impassable because of the ruts and erosion. If the bikers would like to contribute to the costs (not councils and farmers) then they can cough-up for the privilege

CTFY…

Do you see the problem with your PoV?

I think the simple test is “leave no trace”

Same could be said for horse riders and to a lesser extent mountain bikers, and many many ramblers seem to think the levate (NB not walkers / hiker in general just the red sock variety).

I think the simple test is “leave no trace”. What motorbike riders and drivers doesn’t seem to acknowledge is the **** mess that they leave often behind and that someone else at their expense has to fix it after them. I can think of lots of decent trails, byways and RUUPs that have become impassable because of the ruts and erosion. If the bikers and 4×4 drivers would like to contribute to the costs (not councils and farmers) then they can cough-up for the privilege

I rode the c2c track and the last section to Ravenscar by the pub on the main road to Scarborough was chewed up and had 3 foot deep puddles. It was unrideable, we had to push around it. Didn’t really bother me as I probably won’t ride it again but if it was on my doorstep and on my local trails I’d be extremely pissed off.

So, I can understand why locals get annoyed and want to stop it.

One of the issues about leaving no trace has been the limiting of access 4×4 and motorcycles have suffered over the years. When I did a lot of “Green-laneing” there was lots of choice. So the small number of us got spread out wide. Now with much less choice everyone is stuck to the same few miles. This just makes the problem worse.

Is a shame. A lot of the stuff we used to ride 20 years ago was often un-ridable due to farm traffic – which in our opinion was fine. Stuff gets muddy in the winter. Back then Id never see another motorbike out on the trails. Id go months or years in fact before meeting anyone. Then access got more limited and it just made the issue worse, or concentrated it into a tiny area.

Back then we still only had a few % available to us to use compared to Bridleways and Footpaths, but without a well supported voice and an easily excited opposition with massive support, its been pretty much smothered out of existence.

I worked for Powys council for four years surveying all the unsealed vehicle legal routes. I got 100k of routes out of archives and returned to public use. Culling of routes causes “honeypotting” as described above. And don’t ever use the damage route argument. Horseriders cut up tracks worse than any other user especially in the dry and yet that reasoning is never used against them. The best way to deal with vehicular damage to soft tracks is repair them. Failing that have seasonal bans so heavy vehicles don’t use them in winter. ‘Course that doesn’t work if the main culprit is tractors, as it often is……

Difference is… You can’t easily lift a motorbike over a stile.

So you just smash it down, well that’s what they do around here. Then just rag your bike over the peat to your heart’s content. Or over the MTB trails.