(...Previous)

iar vehicles citing them as the problem, because farmer Bloggs had used the track for years without problems.  With each side in the "right" who is likely to compromise?  The answer no one and discussions would probably break down.  As the scale escalates County Councils and national representatives become involved making local discussions far more complicated.  Ramblers and others opposed to vehicular access on rights of way always cite damage to tracks as being caused by recreational vehicles.  Walkers damage the countryside, a fact forgotten when accusing the vehicle users.  A Countryside Commission report in 1991 claimed that a 43 mile stretch of the Pennine Way would cost £600,000 to repair some 30 eroded areas caused by thousands of hikers.  This does not include the other 200 miles that make up the Pennine Way, used by approximately 6000 walkers per year.  (Elson, July 1991, p64)
Actual surveys done to investigate vehicular "damage" are few and far between and those that have been done are often inconclusive.
          "Much of the evidence on erosion caused by motor vehicles (and mountain bikes) is purely anecdotal."  (Butterfield, 1998)
Research done by Berkshire County Council prompted by the Green Lane Environmental Action Movement (GLEAM) found that:

  • Surface damage by 4WD vehicles was not regarded as a problem by 82% of Highway Authorities, the Department of Environment of the Rights of Way Review Committee (1992).

  • The 18% of Highway Authorities who did report damage to byways said it was mainly due to tractors and horses.

(Bush, 1995, p129.)

    Thus once again proving that the publicity surrounding damage caused by 4WD vehicles is almost always hype.  In 1996 LARA and the CLA jointly set up a scheme called "Rapid Response" including a hotline to report problems and disturbances on rights of way and to deal with those problems outside of the usual framework. In little over 2 yrs few reports have come in and those that have were for problem black spots with people trying to get a different angle on an already known problem.  Virtually none were to report damage/disturbances from vehicles, suggesting the problems might not be as severe as is publicised by "anti" greenlaning groups.  By LARA's own admission they could have better advertised it, but those that complain most about recreational vehicles on rights of way are from "anti" off road groups. As such they are unlikely to ask an organisation associated with the users they are trying to remove for help in solving a problem.  Firstly because that would be far too co-operative and if they helped removed the problems what would they complain about.
Vehicle users are the only user group, which pays directly for the tracks they use by payment of road taxes, fuel taxes and insurance.  This is something those against vehicles often forget when they use rights of way, contributing nothing directly to their maintenance.  Arguments against 4WD recreational users are often because they are direct targets, with no thinking for any other factors but the removal of these "menaces" from the countryside.  The Deputy Chairman of the Ramblers' Association replying to an earlier letter from Mr Wyatt the Chairman of the Green Lane Association (GLASS) concerning vehicles on rights of way wrote,

          "We do not, however, wish to restrict byway use by walkers, horse riders, horse-drawn carriages, cyclists, invalid carriage users or those using vehicles to gain access to property."  (Ross, February 98, p46.)
The Ramblers clearly only want to ban recreational vehicle users, as they don't see problems with any of the other user groups.  Mr Wyatt's response was,

(Continued ...)