Life in the National Parks – on now

CG:
I think rather than them not using it, it’s more a case that they should treat it as any other road.
We wouldn’t see them getting away with campaigning against cars using paved roads they might like to walk along, so why should they have extra rights because there’s no tarmac there?

I think it’s absolutely wrong to take ‘fear’ into account when this sort of change is being campaigned for.
When out walking the dog I can get pretty fearful when I see an elderly driver approaching. Does that mean I should have a right to have elderly drivers banned from all the roads I walk the dog because of my ‘fear’?

And note, it’s technically not motocross, but enduro and trail bikes. You can road register a motocross bike, just as you could make a couple of changes to a downhill bike to ride trails; but you’d need about as many changes to the motocross bike as you would to the downhill bike for it to be good for that respective use – making it generally a waste of time.

There has been an increase in enduro bikes sold I’m pretty sure, but there has been an increase in popularity in (organised off road event) enduros.
There’s now quite a lot less trail bikes available new than 20 years ago say, but then your average green laner probably won’t be buying new as a 20 year old bike will do the job just fine – and it’s going to get muddy and scratched up anyway.

As CG says, if the track is convenient to use then it is irrelevant that they have a myriad of other paths to choose from, unless one follows the same route. I don’t care what percentage of trails are used by green laners as long as they don’t run me over or make the trail impassable!

I think rather than them not using it, it’s more a case that they should treat it as any other road.
We wouldn’t see them getting away with campaigning against cars using paved roads they might like to walk along, so why should they have extra rights because there’s no tarmac there?

Very fair point 🙂

Geebus, don’t walkers come first in the pecking order on a boat though?

its not a BOAT – its on the List of Streets – therefore, in law, its an (unclassified) road (ie. not an A B or C road, but a road nonetheless)

A quick google suggests it’s no different to anywhere else.
Which of course means to some degree people have priority – if you hit the old person walking in the middle of the road, you’re the one that’ll get done.

The best I could find was from a wararkshire country council PDF:

Motorised users are also reminded to pay particular due care and attention because other users, for example walkers, equestrians or
cyclists may be in the ‘middle of the road’.

The wording suggests nothing legal and merely a common sense warning (ie use of the word ‘reminded’, etc).

C-G

I doubt the majority of villagers are in genuine fear of using greenlanes.

I reckon Great Longstone must have at least 400 residents – only a handfull turned up to the meeting and it looked as though only around 40 turned up for the “take back the tracks” protest.

This suggests that those claiming to be in fear of using greenlanes are simply NIMBY extremists that want to ban activities that they don’t take part in. The NIMBY villagers wishing to ban vehicles from the lane are probably a tiny minority of the population of the village. Let’s hope so anyway – it would be truly scary if entire villages were populated with people as intolerant and selfish as those featured in the programme

a myriad of other routes

Sorry for being pedantic, but it’s actually ‘there are myriad other routes’. Myriad effectively means ‘lots of’.

In relation to the campaign, the only reason I see that the residents aren’t also targeting mountain bikers is that they have a total misunderstanding of what we like on a trail; as demonstrated by her insistence that the seemingly smooth, wide path was dangerous for cyclists.

The minute she’s buzzed by a fast, full suss equipped rider on there is the minute she would expand her target I reckon.

at some point someone is going to get hurt and by their stood in the middle of the track waiving their arms about actions I suspect it’ll be one of the walkers and it’ll most likely be their own fault. this’ll give all the NIMBY groups all the ammo they need to shut the park to off road vehicles. that will be a sad day for public access rights country wide.

I’m tempted to join the off road vehicle group despite not having a car or bike just to show my support.

I think more importantly podge, it would add some reason to the argument.

you join the off roaders, I’ll join the green lane group and we’ll bring them together.

cg – I think you’re right about PR offensive – BUT it has to be across ALL types of users, and I’d have to say that I think that especially in the ramblers camp that opinions are so entrenched that there is no real point in talking to someone who won’t listen.

I also feel you’re avoiding the harsh reality (in England/Wales) that vehicles pre crow/2006ish etc had about 5% of access to the ‘all path’ total and this is now down to about 2%, biking horses are about 22%ish% and the ramblers get it ALL 100%+ (yes + – all paths, some open access, and the oncoming coastal path plus nature reserves etc etc). You’re suggesting that the villagers have a right to get what they want yet you seem to be happy for another set of users wants to be completely ignored. I think sharing and give and take is appropriate, I appreciate lots of people don’t like vehicles but a society whereby minority interests that others don’t like are crushed doesn’t seem that appealling to me. I’m afraid I don’t see much sharing or give from the ramblers (but they were happy to take the 3% of vehicle access away when they got the chance) and I repeat my concern that in comparision to other offroad users (including mtb) they are incredibly well funded and represented.

Duggan – but if a trail in their village is a BOAT, how can you not expect them to use it? Surely they have the right to use that track and not be in fear of an accident/injury?

Now, as regards BOATS, I don’t know how all that works ie designation can change etc. What would be interesting to know is the percentage growth of MXers being sold. Is this on the increase like mtb’s are/were?

Who says they can’t use it? They are free to use it as much as anybody else. There was footage of them using it throughout the whole programme. The problem is that they seem to think they have a right to use it exclusively.

And you still haven’t addressed this, as qusamc said about 2 pages ago:

they should only be frightened on 2% of tracks, is it beyond them to stick to the tiny, microscopic 98% (+ plus open access etc) of tracks where they will be left in peace ? or isn’t 98% enough for them (in the bigger picture of course)

Pook – the “myriad” versus “a myriad” argument is the pedant’s dream but strictly speaking myriad is both noun and adjective and was used first as a noun in English. Both “a myriad” and “myriad” are acceptable.

The Green Lane Alliance and that other despicable body GLEAM, will not rest until motor vehicles are banned from these last few remaining legal routes and then you should have no doubt about it they will come after the cyclists. We would do well to support responsible vehicular usage rather than hide in the shadows hoping that once they’ve killed them off they wont notice us. We are talking about a tiny minority of lanes which the 4×4 and trail bikers can still use after the deceitful NERC Act, the ramblers et al have 100% of all routes and the Right to Roam. They are poked along by the politically motivated and a number of MP’s and estate owners (such as Richard Benyon the DEFRA Minister) who use these eager and selfish NIMBY’s for their own ends.

Remember that the last Government commissioned a Faber Maunsell report to assess the actual damage done by recreational vehicular use of green lanes and, because the report showed that it was negligible and that most damage was from agricultural and commercial vehicles and poor maintenance leading to water erosion AND that walkers damage on footpaths was worse, the report was thrown out! The tax payer paid millions of pounds for that report as we also pay to have the most used footpaths in the Peaks, Dales, Brecon Beacons and Lake District shored up each year using stone flown in by army helicopters – you would have thought that the noise and disruption of those things was a bit worse than a land rover and a trail bike once or twice a week.

I think the only good thing about this pretty poor programme is that it highlights that access and ROW classifications are based on an entirely flawed system that serves to create or deepen antagonism and conflict rather than promote sustainable and responsible shared use.

[Possibly controversial point RE ‘redsocks’] Having been involved with local access issues in the past, I do think that ‘the ramblers’ (as if they are some kind of monolith) come in for some unfair treatment on here. I know that several local heads of ramblers associations are pretty keen (and half decent) mtbers that are supportive of other ‘user groups’, but as in all walks of life, memorable idiots tend to tarnish impressions. Also, for all their apparent political clout, the ramblers associations actually represent a tiny proportion of people that use ROW and access on foot – just like most people out biking are not members of CTC, IMBA or anything else, and the TRF, Byways trust and similar 4×4 groups actually have little direct influence on the majority of vehicle users. To see all walkers as representing some kind of militant organisation that refuse to tolerate anything other than pedestrians is, in my experience, misguided [/awaits allegations of being a closet rambler].

Regardless of whether vehicles can only use 2% of the ROW network, or more, or less, (I’ve asked before whether this is 2% by designation or 2% of the actual length of ROW) the real issue that creates conflict (as with bridleway/ footpath designations and biking) is that the distribution of these is inequitable and the reasons for designation are unclear or problematic to the general public.

Cyclists quite rightly complain that the distribution of bridleways to footpaths is not remotely even country-wide, and that classification of ROW bears little relation to their suitability for use by differing groups. Similarly, for motorised users some areas have absolutely no legal routes (even where sustainable possibilities may exist) and other areas have seen a large % of reclassifications to formally allow vehicular use – meaning here that the proportion of routes available to users who don’t wish to share with motorised traffic has been reduced substantially. Therefore, whilst some motorised users are forced to travel many miles to ride/drive, others have few options to get away from motorised traffic (which is important to some) without having to leave their own area. Inevitably this situation is leaves a lot of people feeling unfairly treated.

This goes back to my original point – the ROW and access legislation in the UK (usual caveats apply but even Scotland to a limited degree) is not fit for purpose. The current approach, rooted in arbitrary, contested and often improperly defined historical precedent should be entirely rethought. A system based on an ideal of responsibilities and shared access, whereby classification of routes is made with the current and future use in mind in order to fairly promote a diverse range of possibilities of access/ use is the most obvious way that the kind of messy disputes seen in the programme could be avoided. Why is that so hard?

I think the problem here is a combination of NIMBYism that may be fuelled by some instances bad behaviour on behalf of the off-roaders.

I should say that I’m not agreeing with the protestors. Haven’t even seen the program 😀 But I also don’t agree with this:

is it beyond them to stick to the tiny, microscopic 98% (+ plus open access etc) of tracks where they will be left in peace ? or isn’t 98% enough for them (in the bigger picture of course)

To me that sounds similar to “you shouldn’t be riding on this footpath, there’s more than enough bridleways for you to use.”

The post by bajsyckel seems to sum up the problem quite well.

Not quite richpenny – it’s not saying don’t use the byways, just that if you don’t want to share, then go for the other 98%.
I’d much prefer to walk the dog down roads with no motorvehicles, but I know I have to go to a footpath if I want that.

Despite what bajsyckel says, so far I haven’t found anywhere that has byways but not other rights way, but plenty of places that do have other rights of way and no byways.
Ironically, I suspect in some of the cases the ramblers like the byways because they’re not overgrown and have a decently wide space to walk down – which of course they’d probably lose if motor-vehicles weren’t allowed!

I should say that I’m not agreeing with the protestors. Haven’t even seen the program But I also don’t agree with this:

is it beyond them to stick to the tiny, microscopic 98% (+ plus open access etc) of tracks where they will be left in peace ? or isn’t 98% enough for them (in the bigger picture of course)

To me that sounds similar to “you shouldn’t be riding on this footpath, there’s more than enough bridleways for you to use.”

The post by bajsyckel seems to sum up the problem quite well.

If mtbers had 98% access I would happily give up the remaining 2%

“Why is that so hard? ” (* 2% length I think is the answer 2300 out of 118000 miles)

I think part of the issue is that to downgrade is very easy and requires only reclassification, however to upgrade (footpath to bridleway, bridleway to BOAT etc) has some fundamental cost issues – in that a footpath can have stiles etc, a bridleway must have horse gates etc (no stiles in other words) and a BOAT has to have proper ‘road’ type gates etc (no stiles, horse gates etc and I suspect(??) that there may be width definitions etc. There is a potential massive cost associated.

As a complete aside re Coastal access I could understand land owners whingeing when it appears that the path (which I was guessing would be 3 to 6ft wide) actually has to have overspill areas etc and appears to have to be a lot wider (*yes I am not entirely clear on my facts so apologies for any misinformation given in this sentence).

Gusamc – that wasn’t quite what I was getting at, indeed I appreciate the limitations of the current system. What I was trying to get at, was that use of access/ROW seems to work (to the limited extent that it does) in spite of, rather than because of the legislation and management currently in place. This isn’t a knock to ROW staff, many of whom are hard working and very understanding, but in many cases they simply are forced to work within frameworks that are unfit for contemporary and future purpose.

Why don’t we acknowledge that the current system is anachronistic, unjust and does few favours to anyone, other than the few with the knowledge and ability to manipulate the system towards their own ends? Furthermore, to wider publics (who are the overwhelming majority of people who benefit from access) access issues lack any sense of transparency, consistency or accountability. I honestly believe that these basic characteristics of the current system leads to a whole that is so significantly flawed that we should seriously consider whether it should in fact be replaced.

There were two simple answers to the mess the program showed, and they should have been forced on both groups.

1. Most of the green lanes were ridiculously narrow at points – such that there was no shared use possible – there were no passing points.

If you were in a 4wd there was nothing you could pull into to let the ramblers past. That for one is going to raise tensions.

The 4wd driver (ex TA) was right about trimming back the blackthorn bush – it clearly didn’t intrude on the byway like that when it was built.

The stupid rambler woman that asked where people could source the berries for their slow gin if it was trimmed back was pathetic. How about getting them from a couple of metres further away from the byway – she probably likes to drive down there and pick them from her open car window!

2. Some of the byways were ridiculously impassable (the horse that CG pointed out). They needed to be repaired with a robust surface.

Such a repair would possibly make it less attractive to the offroaders so maybe a less robust surface could be installed, or the original repaired, and then the offroaders could donate to a fund to keep it maintained to a passable state. Maybe a licensing scheme with a couple of wardens doing random checks and taking DNA samples of those offending because we know that most of the license plates these guys use are faked.

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

If the worst thing that can happen when you ride a footpath is that you get moaned at a bit (and to be honest, after many years of riding footpaths in the Lakes and beyond, this is the notable exception now rather than the rule in my experience), why not just ride footpaths and be done with the hand wringing and agonising over the whys and wherefors, rights and wrongs? Unless the land owner is there to object, what is the worst that can happen? Will you get arrested by the police? Unless you are causing criminal damage, the answer is no. The land owner could ask you to leave? Not a problem. Be polite and courteous and be happy to oblige.

The law as it stands is befuddled at best. Given the choice of enjoying the countryside and taking the path less travelled or sticking to a limited network of trails, the choice for me has always been an obvious one. I guess it boils down to the fact that I’m more intersted in riding responsibly and leaving no trace than worrying about what is a footpath and what is a bridleway. For me, that translates to trying to stick to trails that don’t get mashed up by me being there and sticking to clear tracks as opposed to going off path and widening existing ones or creating new ones.

Cheers

Sanny

CG.The sale of Enduro and trail bikes has dropped in the last 5 years.Like road motorbikes it is mainly middle aged and upwards buying them.There is hardly a trail bike on the market these days not like the old days DTs/Kes etc.A NEW enduro bike will cost from £5000 to £7000.Also alot of people have given up and go riding in France/spain etc far more freedom.

I’m more intersted in riding responsibly… than worrying about what is a footpath and what is a bridleway.

And therin lies one of the main problems. Disregard of the law (as it stands) is seen by many as being irresponsible, however sustainable the trail might actually be.

CG.The sale of Enduro and trail bikes has dropped in the last 5 years.Like road motorbikes it is mainly middle aged and upwards buying them.There is hardly a trail bike on the market these days not like the old days DTs/Kes etc.A NEW enduro bike will cost from £5000 to £7000.Also alot of people have given up and go riding in France/spain etc far more freedom.

Interesting stuff but CG only seems to be concerned about motocross bikes, even though it’s been explained many times she’s talking about completely the wrong sport. 🙄

To be fair, even on a motorbike forum I see a lot of people saying “I want a crosser to commute on”, when of course that’s a rather poor choice, while a trail bike, which is what they mean, isn’t a bad choice.

On that while googling about this subject, I found some county county council thing referring to pit bikes/fiddy’s/mini bikes as ‘minimotos’, which are of course entirely different and if a kid really manages to ride a minimoto down an average greenlane, should probably be getting a sponsored ride of some sort!

Getting into pedantic arguments about motocross, enduro, and trail bikes isn’t the issue though.
In the same way that Joe Public doesn’t differentiate between lycra’d up roadie, kid on BMX, granny on a shopping bike and a mountain biker out in the hills, they’re all “bloody cyclists”.

As that documentary showed, there is a significant proportion of people out there who are pig thick and/or don’t care about the difference. Motor vehicles are using “their” green lane, they don’t care what type of bike or car it is.

Blimey, I’m falling behind with this thread!

Excellent post there by bajsyckel. Yes that is what I was alluding to – rights of way needing to be revamped to deal with existing issues, ie more people using them and less land too.

Can I ask about the Green Lane Alliance and GLEAM – not familiar with either of those.

I’m sorry that some of you feel that I want to give elderly people special dispensation to do anything they want. Completely agree that some of them can be quite difficult/bloomin’ awkward but strongly feel that they should be able to enjoy the countryside without fear.

That is why I am looking at the bigger picture in the sense that mental wellbeing is obviously extremely important and if it means they can meet up with their friends for a pootle, then that’s great. Surely better than watching TV all day?

Duggan – you don’t get my point at all! If their local tracks are BOATS then why should they be ‘forced’ to go elsewhere for footpaths?

timmys – yeah well they all look the same to me. You know, just like CX’s and jump bikes. 😉

Perhaps we also need ‘Byway Patrol Officers’ to deal with Joe Public?

I’ll happily volunteer, if I can wear a uniform and be trained with a truncheon. 😀

Lets all go on a walk down some BOATs and really piss off the ramblers, maybe then in their stupidity they’ll campaign to halve walkers banned and motorised vehicles can use them free of arm waving NIMBYs.

This of course is a joke, I don’t condone any pissing offering.

Completely agree that some of them can be quite difficult/bloomin’ awkward but strongly feel that they should be able to enjoy the countryside without fear.

So where do you draw the line?
At what point does restricting other people’s freedom become acceptable for your goal?
What about the 87 year old bloke in the TRF group I rode with? Sure, he tended to potter along at the back, but what about his rights to enjoy byways with out the fear of (relative to him) ‘youngsters’ shouting abuse and telling him he shouldn’t be there.

Duggan – you don’t get my point at all! If their local tracks are BOATS then why should they be ‘forced’ to go elsewhere for footpaths?

Sigh.

Because their local track is a BOAT and not a footpath? Like my local track is a main road in South Manchester, but I don’t ask that all cars be banned and it’s reclassified so it can only be used for walking on.

I know they’re elderly but being as their main hobby is apparently walking maybe they can walk to their nearest footpath?

As usual the green laners are not depicted in the best light, you could show people from any activity who would make people see that group as a total set of w***ers. Most green laners are respectful and care for the tracks they use and the countryside, just as most mountain bikers and hikers, but there are exceptions in all groups. It really does show green laners in a unfair light…. Not impressed 🙁

i beleive that the press,councils are very much against the off road users ,as for the locals a lot just don’t want any one up there ,it’s there secret paradise ,i should know i lived there as a kid,on a more serious note there should be room for everyone the number of trail riders is now quite small, a lot have packed up ,fed up of harresement from the police who are normally waiting at petrol stations and keep you an hour looking for technical issues.who want’s the hassle?
as for me i love mountain biking , petrol powered ones as well and on the quiet i don’t mind an odd walk once in a while .
i think just once we should take a lesson from the french as if we don’t all stick together all the minority users will lose usage of green lane and byways and that would be a sad day.

“Maybe a licensing scheme with a couple of wardens doing random checks”

There already is a licensing scheme and you pay an annual vehicle excise duty for it. Remember we are talking about routes with legal status for use by motor vehicles therefore requiring full compliance just like surfaced road.

Having now watched it I feel a lot more sorry for the green laners. It will be interesting to see if chapel gate is reopened after it has recovered. Still not accepting Duggans view that the walkers should go elsewhere though. I think the suggestion offered was the best, that some of the narrow points be widened to make it safer for all.

I’m not suggesting that they ‘should go elsewhere’- it’s a lane that is designated to be shared, so they should share it.

If they don’t want to use it on this basis, than they have the option to go elsewhere and can choose to use almost 95% of the rest of the park’s tracks unlike the greenlaners or (for example) mtbers who are very restricted. And there’s plenty of these that they don’t have to share with any other users if that’s how they want it to be.

I totally agree that the narrow points of the lane should be widened as it is true that there was a problem with cars and walkers passing in the lane. It’s telling that the protestors rejected this out of hand though- because it’s a practical solution that would easily solve the problem but wouldn’t further their true agenda.