Don't like the adverts? Click here to remove them
Derbyshire CC looking for input (survey)
- Thread starter mike54
- Start date
Think that was me - try this
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/counci..._motorised_vehicle_use_in_the_countryside.asp
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/counci..._motorised_vehicle_use_in_the_countryside.asp
Done, had to point out that assuming it is vehicles that should be excluded by TRO where there is danger or conflict is discriminatory, why not exclude the other user group!
The one element that the ramblers always hit on is the issue of erosion. You only have to look at the "fix the fells" campaign in the lakes to see that actually, any track used by any user group is susceptible to water erosion because the track/path/lane becomes a natural water path. It really pisses me off that the ramblers use this against vehicles and bikes when they are as much to blame as anyone else, so I agree, a TRO should mean a closed route for all until such time it gets back to how it should be or is repaired by the council, since ultimately they have an obligation to maintain the lanes, tarmac or otherwise.
The bottom line is that ramblers just don't want vehicles and bikes on "their" track, and the so called arguments of erosion or similar are just a diversion from that. It's an identical argument to the fishermen/canoeists one which has been raging for many years.
The bottom line is that ramblers just don't want vehicles and bikes on "their" track, and the so called arguments of erosion or similar are just a diversion from that. It's an identical argument to the fishermen/canoeists one which has been raging for many years.
Done, with lots of even and rational points to make. Such as the use of the term 'off roader' when these are byways open to ALL. And are not off road.
People not liking something is not sufficient grounds to ban it - or we wouldn't have to suffer X factor would we?
Chris
People not liking something is not sufficient grounds to ban it - or we wouldn't have to suffer X factor would we?
Chris
Don't like the adverts? Click here to remove them
I agree with what you said Mike but the thing I was pointing out is that they also sometimes say it's dangerous / causes conflict to/with other users if vehicles use a particular multi-user road and one of the statements on that survey covered that point. My comment was that where there's conflict it is discriminatory to only consider banning vehicles, why not ban the other users (ok I mean ramblers) INSTEAD and then there'd be no conflict / danger 
I did stat by posing the question about what was meant by conflict. I proposed that what to some my be mild annoyance may, to others, be a life-consuming anguish. 
Also that these are by definition roads and that pedestrians, to an extent, are secondary users. Country lanes are 'dangerous' for pedestrians but we don't put TROs on them. And they have cars travelling at speed.
On a lane (what ever the designation) speeds rarely exceed much more than a mild jog. Are pedestrians really in fear of their lives when approached by a vehicle? Or it is their belligerent attitude that is the problem. I shall stand here until he hits me - Oh fook, he nearly hit me!
What some see as a huge issue, rarely is to others. 'In a survey 5 out of 5 people who expressed and opinion were furious one way or the other' - survey sample 133 people closely involved. the other 68 million people said WTF?
Pistol shooting got the chop simply because it was easy. Not because there was a real case. Both sides ranted. In all there must be been 30 000 people for or against. The Govt hardly had a majority view, but those involved who asked neutral people generally were met with indifference. As with fox hunting. Non one cares what anyone else does as long as it's nothing to do with them. it's the NIMBY principle I guess.
The key is rational well thought out responses to the right people and councils have a mandate to consider everyone as users. They HAVE to be fair. However, if you read that survey again as an anti, I think that you'll find that it doesn't lend itself quite so well to being answered rationally. Try it. Are you in favour of annual inspections of the roads - as a laner, yes I am - why would I say no?. As an anti - why would I put no? Actually I answered less than fully agree. Making the point that the inspections should fit the road characteristics and making them annual could prove financially burdensome.
Will it make any difference? Well I don't shoot pistols any more and I had to eat the horse.
Chris
Also that these are by definition roads and that pedestrians, to an extent, are secondary users. Country lanes are 'dangerous' for pedestrians but we don't put TROs on them. And they have cars travelling at speed.
On a lane (what ever the designation) speeds rarely exceed much more than a mild jog. Are pedestrians really in fear of their lives when approached by a vehicle? Or it is their belligerent attitude that is the problem. I shall stand here until he hits me - Oh fook, he nearly hit me!
What some see as a huge issue, rarely is to others. 'In a survey 5 out of 5 people who expressed and opinion were furious one way or the other' - survey sample 133 people closely involved. the other 68 million people said WTF?
Pistol shooting got the chop simply because it was easy. Not because there was a real case. Both sides ranted. In all there must be been 30 000 people for or against. The Govt hardly had a majority view, but those involved who asked neutral people generally were met with indifference. As with fox hunting. Non one cares what anyone else does as long as it's nothing to do with them. it's the NIMBY principle I guess.
The key is rational well thought out responses to the right people and councils have a mandate to consider everyone as users. They HAVE to be fair. However, if you read that survey again as an anti, I think that you'll find that it doesn't lend itself quite so well to being answered rationally. Try it. Are you in favour of annual inspections of the roads - as a laner, yes I am - why would I say no?. As an anti - why would I put no? Actually I answered less than fully agree. Making the point that the inspections should fit the road characteristics and making them annual could prove financially burdensome.
Will it make any difference? Well I don't shoot pistols any more and I had to eat the horse.
Chris
As far as I'm concerned the issue is the weight behind the ramblers and their "environmental" argument, which we all know is not a valid one. GLASS seems to do little in terms of challenging council decisions and the legal angle - for example the debacle of The Walna Scar Road is a case in point, as far as I am aware, GLASS did nothing at all, and the number of ramblers meant they could easily fund a high court challenge which they did, and won. They even refused to refer to it by its correct name, and insisted on calling it "Walna Scar Pass" because it suited their purpose. That was undoubtedly the best green lane in the UK and they managed to close it for no reason whatsoever apart from they don't want vehicles on it and it was seen as a flagship lane. Sadly the council made some mistakes during the consultation period prior to it being re-opened, hence the high court challenge was a formality as the mistakes meant the re-opening was not in full compliance with the law.
The rights and wrongs of the situation don't really come into it, the issue is the perception of it. I lay the blame firmly at the foot of the previous goverment for this perception of four wheel drive vehicles. In spinning the reason for the raising of road tax, they managed to successfully demonise us all, and that remains (apart from when a ramblers car gets stuck in the snow, then we're their best friends, if only for 10 minutes)
The rights and wrongs of the situation don't really come into it, the issue is the perception of it. I lay the blame firmly at the foot of the previous goverment for this perception of four wheel drive vehicles. In spinning the reason for the raising of road tax, they managed to successfully demonise us all, and that remains (apart from when a ramblers car gets stuck in the snow, then we're their best friends, if only for 10 minutes)
