What do people think?

Nissan 4x4 Owners Club Forum

Help Support Nissan 4x4 Owners Club Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's best to remember that "mud thrown, is ground lost"


The history of CRAG is a good one, I can say the same of GLASS, TRF, AWDC and many others.
I've been a member of GLASS and was for many years, have spoken at their AGM as a guest and work in concert with their reps as required. There has been far too much parochial infighting although a little inter-marque rivalry is always fun :)
I'm not going to go into the reasons why there are two organisations, other than to say that they both compliment each other.

CRAG has a network similar to GLASS, our reps are called regional team leaders, with the emphasis on 'team'. Our RTL's cover similar areas although we do try not to duplicate the excellent GLASS coverage, pointless, the two organisations work together on many projects, actual lane works, planning, letters of objection etc.
More can be done, but then more can always be done.

Back to the subjct in hand, I know what's meant by legal framework, letters of objection etc, it's probably best to clarify a few points,

Everyone has a different skill set.
Everyone is different.
Not everyone wants to write a letter
Not everyone wants to repair a lane

But

In here and on other sites and in other similar groups,

We all have a love of laning,
We all believe that we have an amazing heritage that should be preserved for our children's children.
Most of us think that shutting the lanes for little or no reason is wrong.

So rather than argueing about semantics, lets discuss the idea.

We can all do something, if not letter writing, then something else which positively helps our common cause.
For MPV users to gather together for one day in three hundred and sixty five isn't a mad idea, I'd like to see the idea discussed reasonably and with passion.
So go ahead, get passionate................
 
trouble is though dave... since i joined here i have done nothing but get passionate about this subject....

believe me i have ruffled some feathers along the way . and not intentionally either or in malice . a lot of people have had enough of it all

it usually ends in a big row and a division. which i suspect happened in crag and glass.

the point is we need to find some common ground, to discuss a game plan that we can all work with, and work together as one or at least united.
somewhere all the information can be banked or shared
 
That's not quite how it happened with the glass/crag split, but I take your meaning, its the general apathy which is the main killer.
I know you're passionate about laning, that's a great thing to see and long may that continue.
What many people fail to see, or even choose not to see, is that sites like this and hundreds if not thousands of others will be surplus to requirements when and if the government close the rights of way to us.
There will be little point in modifying vehicles for use on lanes although there's a debate about that too, lets not go there..............
The aftermarket will suffer badly, our own highly respected Terranosaurus would suffer a loss of business in that respect, so jobs in a real sense, are at risk.
If we as a community fail to create a common voice, then we're stuffed!

We should be doing something, the idea I put up for discussion is simply that, an idea, there must be others?

The best place for the info to be shared is where everyone can get access to it, CRAG has a public part to its forum, that can be used, or this site could develop a similar place..........
 
we could easily develop a place like that here, zippy was starting a lanes map too.
so its possible.

the trouble i find is not sharing the info, not having access to info , mixed views on things, ei ill protest till the cows come home , others do things there way, both are doing something and neither are wrong... i don't get upset if my idea is crap ill look at other ideas and try to blend them to get the best of everything.

sometime people do get upset if you dis agree with there idea or views , that's when it falls down. and toys get thrown out of the cot

if you don't ask you wont learn , if nothing else ill always ask a question sometimes really dumb questions. but only cos i don't get something and want to understand.

so this is a mixing bowl... trow your ideas in and lets see what we can cook up together... the other Dave is back now , im sure he will advise, once he has got used to flushing toilets again:augie
 
Just had a very interesting conversation with one of my colleagues from CRAG, it would appear that the right of way to the visitors centre which forms the latter part of the Sarn Helen is TRO'd.
That means that every vehicle going to the visitor centre is committing an offence under Section 59 of the 1998 Road Traffic Act (amended).
The police recently issued a ruck of S59 report and enforcement notices, however, a number of the people served queried and requested more information like, what is the status of the road as in the metalled track to the visitor centre............... As a result, the S59's were set aside. in totem.
This happened because the council refused or were unable to define the status of the right of way. If that part is TRO'd, the whole lane is subject as well, if the metalled road has vehicular rights, then the whole lane has as well.
It's down to the council to make a determination which they're unwilling to do.
What's needed is for a few volunteers to sit at the visitors centre with camera, notepad and reporting sheets and pass the details of every car which goes to the visitors centre, that would overload the entire system as there would be a hundred or so reports for the police to go through, they'd have to determine the legal status of the lane, that would force the council one way or the other..... it'd take a few months but the right result would happen as they can't close the metalled road, they have to treat the lane in its entireity................
Easier than getting lots of 4x4's in to annoy the population of Rhyader too........
 
im free for this most days....

show me the ropes i can get 2 people there every day with cameras and the whole kit

but would the police have to serve section 59's on my evidence ?

i should imagine you could get a lot of the councils own vehicles served with section 59's and as they would all be owned by powys council they too would be served with s 59's repeatedly

i think there are laws for company owned vehicles though.... for example no one person is responsible for the actions taken by who is driving it.

ie. the courts cant ban the council or a company from driving for receiving loads of s59's

we need the other Dave really for advise
 
extreme-4x4 said:
im free for this most days....

show me the ropes i can get 2 people there every day with cameras and the whole kit

but would the police have to serve section 59's on my evidence ?

i should imagine you could get a lot of the councils own vehicles served with section 59's and as they would all be owned by powys council they too would be served with s 59's repeatedly

i think there are laws for company owned vehicles though.... for example no one person is responsible for the actions taken by who is driving it.

ie. the courts cant ban the council or a company from driving for receiving loads of s59's

we need the other Dave really for advise
Click to expand...

This sounds like a good idea, but what I'd like absolute clarification on is exactly what the level of police interest is in reality. Its my understanding that they ONLY get involved following a request from the county council, and to a much lesser degree (of which I have direct experience) in response to complaints from the public. In other words when you collect this evidence, do you present it to the council, the police or both? Maybe Daved could do some digging for us?

But it sounds a very good place to start!
 
extreme-4x4 said:
im free for this most days....

show me the ropes i can get 2 people there every day with cameras and the whole kit

but would the police have to serve section 59's on my evidence ?

i should imagine you could get a lot of the councils own vehicles served with section 59's and as they would all be owned by powys council they too would be served with s 59's repeatedly

i think there are laws for company owned vehicles though.... for example no one person is responsible for the actions taken by who is driving it.

ie. the courts cant ban the council or a company from driving for receiving loads of s59's

we need the other Dave really for advise
Click to expand...

I'd have said unlikely Colin; since the council effectively owns the highway, whether TRO'd or not, they can send what vehicles they like up it without penalty. But if there is regular use, it would help contradict any assertion that the route had minimal vehicular traffic prior to being TRO'd....
 
ocelot said:
Cheers guys, some interesting thoughts,
As for evidence, there are a number of lanes throughout Wales and Shropshire which have been repaired, some considerable repairs at that, other lanes, especially in Shropshire, have been opened up....... or should I say, re-opened.

This thread is in the light of the recent partial victory in the law courts over North Yorks National Park, where four TRO's were set aside. Eight were originally in place.
http://www.laragb.org/press-rel/YDNPA-TROs-quashed.pdf

That's the link detailing the court action.

But, and this is a BIG, but.............

49 people have viewed this thread, only four have contributed, does this mean that most are fence sitters? I'm not having a go here at anyone, but there needs to be a common will here to actually do someting, lane repairs, clearances, whatever positive!

Great idea re the memebership....... I'll send that out via email and see what they think!
Click to expand...

i would love to tag along and help, but unfortuately it's to far to travel, but you have my support.
 
I’m no expert at all on the matters raised but I personally (and I stress personally) believe in standing up for your rights. <o></o>
<o></o>
The problem is how to do that “nicely”.<o></o>
<o></o>
As posted earlier and I heartily agree , you have to be very very careful involving the press. <o></o>
<o></o>
I’ve no doubt everyone contemplating this anticipate a fully lawful protest. Two problems with that, one they’re either impotent and you end up in the “we can stand here as long as you can” scenario.<o></o><o></o>

Or secondly, and worse, human nature takes over and wants to see something happen. If you have just one gob shite on board you’re heading towards disaster. Public order legislation may be enforced. <o></o>
<o></o>
Journos also want a story. <o></o>
<o></o>
With option one, they haven’t really got a good story and will go home and at best you’ll get 3 lines page 25 on Wednesday morning below Mrs Slocomb’s pussies blister after the piece on pectin in apricot jam. I would suggest the majority of the population range from not wanting vehicles on those paths through to don’t know and don’t care.<o>
</o><o></o>
Second option they get one hell of a story when militant, petulant ,non green track wreckers heckle police and block the bridleway for horses and walkers because they can’t get on to it. May or may not be 100% true but perception is all and that’s how it could come across.<o></o><o></o>

I reckon the best bet is to have a rising tide campaign. Not protest, campaign. Raise the profile. I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere on here and its great but all the elements need joining together that’s all. <o></o>
<o></o>
My ideas would include:<o></o>
<o></o>
Send loads of letters everywhere, then when you’ve received none or derisive responses you’ve tried but they’re unhelpful and ignoring you. Keep copies. Its long term.<o></o><o></o>

Do repair and maintenance, preferably on a multi agency basis, particularly with local authorities or organisations that maintain them. Then it’s a case of actions speaking louder than words. Again long term.<o></o>
<o></o>
Invite a journo out for a day’s drive. Invite the local Police traffic dept inspector out, invite the local planning officer out……….the list is almost endless. A refusal would possibly help as much as an acceptance as it would with any of the above.<o></o>
<o></o>
Once you have an evidenced existence as a decent responsible sociable group of individuals or collective of groups you’ll have credibility to make your voices heard. You’ve got a fully padded out life story in your favour as a basis.<o></o>
<o></o>
As a (single) cause group I would have thought you will probably have a very limited lifespan if any at all. Stop the inter group bickering.<o></o>

What I’ve suggested seems very dull compared to locking yourself to a gate and waving banners but I reckon in the long term far more effective and should keep you well on the right side of legal and moral boundaries.<o></o>
<o></o>
I’d stress these are the ramblings of a recovering cider soaked holiday maker and very much his personal thoughts, not aimed at inciting anyone ;)



<o>
</o>
 
One last bit I forgot to put in..........

Don't run the campaign by using negatives of any other group. eg I get hacked off by mountain bikers. I reckon they subtly do a massive amount of damage the way the tyres cut in to soft ground.

But if I read an article by 4x4 greenlaners pointing that out I wouldnt even bother about the technicalities, I'd just think that if they were relying on negatives of other people to support their campaign they couldnt have too many positives about themselves.

A certain trade union group lost major battles in the past by just simply saying they were the best because the others were no good . It grates on human nature. :thumb2
 
so if we monitored the vehicles using the sarn visitor centre and took photo evidence, that the vehicles driving to the visitor centre were actually driving on a closed byway (allegedly)

if we gave that evidence to the police would they have to issue them with section 59's or or seek clarification from the council as to the legal position of the sarn
 
Your first point of contact , and a good way of gaining credibility, would be via the organisation who owns the land where the problem is.

If they have final say over access to their land and where people go they are the ones who are potentialy the aggrieved party. Let them report to the police and offer to back up their complaint with your evidence. S59 is an option but not always the best one, civil actions are often very (and more) effective.

Be very wary of keeping planned surveillance of an area. You could fall foul of all sorts of rules. Spontaneous or reactive photographing of an offence you have observed however is ok so long as you do report it and not just add it to the album.

You would not be a grass or nark, you would be simply informing the organisation that their rules are being bent and you wish to stand up against the minority who get the majority wrongly tarred. You and your organisation would be clearly seen as protectors of what they want to use. ie you aint going to trash it after youve taken all this care and tried to stop others. You are a form of responsible care or countryside stewardship.

An example of argument you will hear is "I didnt do any harm its a silly rule" , well thats almost childish. The rules are the benchmark and placed there to do the most for the most. keeping everywhere safe and accesible. They set the line you dont cross because as an individual you are rarely qulaified to see the bigger picture when its not your field of expertise.
 
The TRO (or not) has already seen a fair few S59's sent out only to be rescinded by the police as the council refused or were unable to confirm or deny the existance of a TRO................

Confused.................

The police were,

But,

If we do this, then we're acting as concerned citizens..... surely :)

The police have to investigate a criminal act, which is what the 1988 road traffic act describes, as it is dealt with in a magistrates court.........

The council can put its own vehicles on the right of way for repair or evaluation subject to a works order, but not for travel from one place to another........... they would be subject to the law as well.

According to my contacts, definately doable :)
 
ocelot said:
The TRO (or not) has already seen a fair few S59's sent out only to be rescinded by the police as the council refused or were unable to confirm or deny the existance of a TRO................

Confused.................

The police were,

But,

If we do this, then we're acting as concerned citizens..... surely :)

The police have to investigate a criminal act, which is what the 1988 road traffic act describes, as it is dealt with in a magistrates court.........

The council can put its own vehicles on the right of way for repair or evaluation subject to a works order, but not for travel from one place to another........... they would be subject to the law as well.

According to my contacts, definately doable :)
Click to expand...


Of course its "do able" very little basic legislation isnt.

The question , in view of the work load police and other agencies have and the fact you need to self promote and educate, is will it generate a timely response and is it in the wider public interest to pursue and bring to court? who will it actually benifit long term?

When more people are affected by burglaries and muggings than who is unlawfully accessing what many will see as a small irrelevant track.......... possibly not.

If you follow in conjunction with other agencies a more tactful protracted and persistent approach you will reap better rewards.

I suspect your confusion gives an excellent example of what I mean (I may be wrong of course because I dont know the full circumstances) If Police sent out summons or whatever they could do it on suspicion of an alleged offence. If they seek corroboration from the aggrieved party (council in this case?) and they cannot supply it, any prosecution is potentialy doomed and even if succesful apeal and litigation by the convicted highly likely to be succesful. Its the world we live in :doh

If you think further into it , the Police persist and it all falls through those responsible will have a good laugh and just do it again because instead of a no result which this is, there will be a stated result in their favour.

As above you need to follow several steps to get a result , a rising tide, not jump in near the end or bemoan a group that cant produce.

As far as these drivers go:


  1. Educate/ask them
  2. If that fails..............tell them
  3. If that fails .............make them
No one agency can do all of that but if a multi agency group work together they most certainly can. Its not a weekend fix but it has the potential to work well.

Put simply stage one doesnt require any enforcers, stage two requires a level of persusive enforcement, stage 3 is hard but if the evidence is there from 1 & 2 youre all bomb proof and the 59's and civil actions are less likely to bounce.

:thumb2
 
The police have to investigate a criminal act, which is what the 1988 road traffic act describes, as it is dealt with in a magistrates court.........

Daved is that technically correct; I didn't think it was a criminal offence per se...certainly when I've been security vetted by the MoD, Road Traffic offences have been deemed not just out of scope but absolutely NOT a 'criminal' record.:nenau

Its why violation of an ROW thats been TRO'd is only of interest to the police if the council asks them to deal with it isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R1cho
new anti green laning petition
Replies
12
Views
4K
elty001
elty001
Muckypup
  • Sticky
Green lane code of conduct
2
Replies
21
Views
315
The Patrolman
The Patrolman
D
Sarn Helen meeting
Replies
4
Views
41
lacroupade
lacroupade
Terranosaurus
Sarn Helen
2
Replies
29
Views
209
extreme-4x4
extreme-4x4
ocelot
Article in the Guardian. please read
Replies
3
Views
80
Terranosaurus
Terranosaurus

Latest posts

Back
Top