Closure or Constraint???

Intro |  Favourite Sites  |  What's New  | Concern  | ROW in Britain
Conflicts and Tensions  | Recreation Vs Conservation  |  Closure or Constraint  | Solutions | Conduct | References

    In 1996 the Department of Transport and Environment issued a consultation document entitled "Vehicles on Byways".  This was in response to concern about vehicles on byways and pressure from "anti" off road lobby groups.  The aim of the document was to gather information to see if, as was being suggested by those opposed to the off road fraternity there was a case to legislate against vehicles and ban them from byways except for access.  Several questions were posed and consultees invited to give comments.  Some of the questions were:

  • Is the current practice of using TRO's to control byway use satisfactory, or is further action such as a blanket ban, required?

  • How would a blanket ban be enforced?

  • What would be the likely resource implications be of removing vehicles and creating new definitions of highways, and the impact for the Year 2000 Reclassification target?

  • What type of vehicles should be banned from byways?

The document had the off road fraternity astonished, fearing they may lose their legal right to drive rights of way.  The further use of TRO's or voluntary restraints may lead to unnecessary closures by Local Authorities but would still allow at least some access to rights of way.  The implications of such a ban would be enormous.
            "A national ban would be a Herculean legislative task; building a sledgehammer to crack a peanut".  (Bush, 1996, p43.)
The government recognised that enforcing such a ban would be difficult and stated:
            "It would therefore be important that any change in the existing legislative position was accepted by those who use byways.  So that there was a high basic level of compliance."

And that if such a ban were to come into effect supporters said that the ban

              "…would enjoy such support and the majority of drivers would be prepared to comply with the restriction."    (DOT &DOE, 1996, p3.)
This is a bizarre statement would off roader's really support legislation to make their sport illegal on rights of way, I doubt it.  Obviously those against vehicles on byways had an effect on the writing of the consultation document.

    It would be virtually impossible to police such a ban given the nature and locations of the rights of way in question.  Barriers to stop vehicles would be extremely costly and banning the sport, would disband an organised group into many parts.  Illegal off roaders may then go into the countryside with no restraint or care as they were not supposed to be there, and could hardly damage the sport as it was outlawed anyway.  In addition there would be no single body to control them, as at the moment LARA for example is the body to negotiate with.  The costs of amending definitive maps, signposting and administration would be large, however savings may be made concerning the reclassification of RUPP's for the Year 2000 target.  There would be no need for lengthy inquiries to prove vehicular rights of way existed and could be simply classified for one category of user.  On the other hand, the voluntary help from vehicle user groups would cease and repairs and

(Continued ...)