Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Hi yes thank you Rappey, thets the Flow Lane showing dwellings, stores and barns with the Public Footpath leading down towards the River Teign I see i as leading onto the Crown Lands ?
Do we need a LOUD VOICE similar to that of The Ramblers Association ?
- Thread starter Capt Popeye
- Start date
Rappey
Well-known member
I would certainly agree with you that the footpath leads a tiny amount over the high water mark and therefore onto crown land.
There is a large beach somewhere on the east coast that has a byway running below the high water mark, meaning it can be driven on (when the tide is out)
There is a large beach somewhere on the east coast that has a byway running below the high water mark, meaning it can be driven on (when the tide is out)
Strikeliner
Member
I had occasion to call the Ramblers association once. The guy who answered just went on and on and on......................
Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Yea, thats the Ramblers for you, eh ?
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
I also once called them - my aunt, who had died, had been involved with them for a very long time, and I wanted to find out if she'd been involved in the early protests like the Kinder Scout mass trespass. They were very helpful, but could only say that she'd been a member from before the date that their computer records began. As my aunt was a) a formidable lady and b) certainly old enough to have been involved, it's something I'd still like to know! One artefact I inherited from her was a nutcracker bowl and mallet made from the wood of a yew tree in Bretton Park where she used to meet fellow ramblers.
RJJ
Well-known member
The difference being that footpaths are and always were rights-of-way for people on foot; bridlepaths were for horseback; byways were for horse and cart. Their existence in all cases goes back centuries, to a time when the "rights" embedded enabled people to walk to work and farmers to bring their produce to market.It was the Nerc act in2006 that lost us off roaders so many byways, now restricted byways, spured on by the tramplers association members..
Various parishes had a choice of keeping a byway or changing it to a restricted byway, as a result we have a 14 mile long one where there is a full byway in the central part but each end is a restricted one making it impossible to get to it anyway.
I believe "trespassers will be prosecuted" is not legal as you cant be prosecuted for wandering across private land unless causing criminal damage. the police cant do anything unless the land owner wants to take you to court, then its possibly civil.
Land owners and game wardens have no legal right to touch you or detain you unless warranted to do so ?
Ramblers that try to obstruct you on a byway are obstructing a public highway.. (a good roosting from the rear wheels usually sorts them out) The list goes on...
As for the LOUD voice to protect our boating interests, as already mentioned the rya seem to do a fairly good job at that.
The desire of motorbikers and 4x4 owners to charge around the countryside for fun at no expense is a different matter. They can cause significant damage and there's no obvious pot of money to repair it. I can quite see why Ramblers are in opposition for their own members' benefit; furthermore to the extent they want to reach accommodation with landowners and the general public, why the RA would rather be associated with restricting 4x4 access.
There are places where you can pay to drive your 4x4, right? and make as much mud as you want?
Rappey
Well-known member
Ramblers already have many more pathways than they can use and wanting more and removing the few remaining vehicular rights altogether is just selfish, but from history we see thats how they are.
Bru
Well-known member
It is not just vehicular rights although that has been their prime target until now
The RA has also frequently opposed, indeed in my experience usually opposes, corrections to the definitive map correcting the omission or mis-categorisation of bridleways and carriageways (even on Restricted Byway status allowing only horse drawn carriages)
I have also been present when a senior RA figure openly stated that their long term goal was (and i would assume still is) to see all PRoW restricted to walkers only
RJJ
Well-known member
Perhaps they also care about the preservation of the countryside? For their own "selfish" benefit, sure (as opposed to the equally selfish benefit of 4*4 drivers). But maybe also for the benefit of peace and quiet, carbon emissions, wildlife, and those who are obliged to pay to maintain all the various rights-of-way.
Hallberg-Rassy
Active member
OK, back on topic, do we need a LOUD VOICE similar to what the Ramblers Association once had back in their early days?
Yes, absolutely.
(Sadly, due to a lack of need and widespread abuse, I've come to agree with them re quad, 4x4 drivers etc so, in maritime terms, that would probably apply to their equivalent, jetskiers too.)
Yes, absolutely.
(Sadly, due to a lack of need and widespread abuse, I've come to agree with them re quad, 4x4 drivers etc so, in maritime terms, that would probably apply to their equivalent, jetskiers too.)
You've got to be joking. That's like saying we don't need the Independent Police Complaints Commission, because we've got the Freemasons.
Last edited:
