|
With such a large number of interested parties using or concerned with rights of way it is inevitable that there will be some conflicts between groups. However the scale of the onslaught against vehicles on rights of way has become immense. Some groups have earned themselves the slang name of "antis" within the off road fraternity, reflecting their stubborn views and inability to conduct objective talks concerning vehicles. The Ramblers' Association with its large membership is by far the most vociferous regarding vehicles, blaming them for damage to tracks, noise pollution and having no regard for other users. To those defending vehicles on rights of way it may seem as if the Ramblers' Association has become one of the most influential pressure groups around.
"We are the largest and most effective organisation in Britain representing walkers' interests." (Ramblers Association website, 1997)
In recent times a more co-ordinated approach between clubs, especially the Land Access Recreation Association (LARA) and the Association of Rover Clubs (ARC) has levelled the playing field somewhat for off roaders fighting for their right to use public rights of way. The Ramblers still boast however that
"With over 120,000 members we use our clout to make our voices in parliament and parish councils alike". (Ramblers Association website, 1997)
One of the biggest problems in dealing with the conflicts is the numbers of interested groups involved. The Ramblers' Association, The Countryside Landowners' Association (CLA), The Countryside Commission, The Land Access Recreational Association (LARA), County Councils, The National Farmers' Union (NFU) to name a few of at least twenty groups involved. All have views on vehicular access and it is seldom possible to solve any if all conflicts.
"This is a constantly shifting debate, in which there is no "right" or "wrong" answer - just different peoples' opinions, fought out against the background of a confused network of rights of way law in which constantly metamorphoses under the pressure of new precedents, appeals and changes in enforcement policy." (Ross, November 98, p81).
Take this entirely fictitious example: a BOAT running through a quiet village and into the countryside. One particularly wet winter day farmer Bloggs also the landowner decides to drive his tractor and muck spreader to the top field. He could drive along his field's headland, but drags the muck spreader along the Byway, as he doesn't want to churn up his field. The following weekend a group of three 4WD vehicles set out along the Byway. Consequently mud splashes up the sides of the vehicles and due to the mud some wheel spin is unavoidable. Halfway along the Byway the vehicle group comes across a group of walkers for whom they pull over. In passing the walkers comment on the mud splashed up the sides of the vehicles and the muddy state of the track. On their return the vehicles pass through the village and several residents see the mud splashed vehicles.
In a typical argument the ramblers would accuse the off roaders of churning up the track, causing noise and disturbing them. The vehicle users would argue their case saying the farmer caused the damage and that they were legitimately using the right of way. The farmer also would state that his legitimate right was to access his fields along the Byway. The residents may be "disturbed" by the unfamil
(Continued ...)
|
|
