|
Clearly there are many conflicts over motor vehicles on rights of way, but it is unclear exactly where the conflicts are. Whilst organisations such as the Ramblers' Association cite damage as their main concern against motor vehicles, evidence to prove such accusations is extremely hard to find. The DoE's consultation document "Vehicles on Byways" proved this by not finding a case to legislate against such recreational vehicles. If the real reason for the opposition to offroaders is the state of the damaged and neglected rights of way network then the real conflict is not as it often seems in the media, i.e."anti" offroaders + Local Authorities Vs offroaders. The real conflict is offroaders + "anti" offroaders Vs Local Authorities who have failed to keep rights of way maintained to a sufficient level.
It can be argued that the failure to ensure proper maintenance and enforcement of legal responsibilities towards rights of way has encouraged/amplified the conflicts that exist over such routes. Damaged and muddy routes are attractive to "mudpluggers" seeking to get stuck and test their vehicles to the limit. Were such routes maintained properly the attraction for such people would no longer exist reducing the potential for conflict with responsible 4WD vehicle users. The conflict between ramblers and offroaders is particularly interesting. Considering that for every mile of right of way open to vehicular access there is around 60 miles open to ramblers, why should they be so concerned about vehicular routes? If ramblers are so annoyed with vehicles they can easily avoid them by using footpaths to which vehicles have no access. Perhaps the reason is that vehicular use has kept BOAT's and some RUPP's clear of undergrowth and wide enough for a vehicle making them easy to follow and relatively free from obstruction. If this is the case then the conflicts are once again being instigated by Local Authority failure to maintain footpaths to a sufficient level.
The reclassification of the rights of way network is important they are the most accessible way of enjoying the countryside for the majority of the population. With many people and interest groups concerned with countryside leisure activities the likelihood of conflict between user groups is high. It is therefore important that they know where they can legally go. Objections to RUPP's being classified as BOAT's receive much attention with long public inquiries increasing both the time and cost to reclassify RUPP's. Often offroaders have to prove vehicular rights using historical facts and fight the legal system to ensure their rights are upheld. If offroaders are proving that motor vehicle rights should exist on a RUPP that is proposed be reclassified as other than a BOAT, then offroaders are doing the Local Authority's job for them. This causes conflicts between the two parties and mistrust, which then makes communication and co-operation difficult.
There is obviously a problem with the way in which rights of way are being reclassified, how they are maintained and how conflicts are dealt with. The government obviously has noticed the conflicts as the DETR guide "Making The Best Of Byways" which was a result of consultation due to conflicts of "Vehicles on Byways" gives guidance to Local Authorities on rights of way. Among other things it seeks to simplify the reclassification process and the procedure for restricting abuse from motor vehicles. It also encourages co-operation with user groups in
(Continued...)
|
|
