What do people think?

[Terranosaurus]

The fifteen metre/yard rule is for parking purposes and no other - driving up a river is not for the purposes of parking.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.66)

34. Prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle -
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a Footpath, Bridleway or restricted byway, he is guilty of an offence.


(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, a way shown in a definitive map and statement as a Footpath, Bridleway or restricted byway is, without prejudice to section 56(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to be taken to be a way of the kind shown, unless (subject to section 34A of this Act) the contrary is proved.

(3) It is not an offence under this section to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.

(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.

(5) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the operation of -
(a) section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public over commons and waste lands), or
(b) any byelaws applying to any land,
or affects the law of trespass to land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a vehicle on any land.

(6) Subsection (2) above and section 34A of this Act do not extend to Scotland

(7) In this section -

“definitive map and statement” has the same meaning as in Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
“mechanically propelled vehicle” does not include a vehicle falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 189(1) of this Act; and
“restricted byway” means a way over which the public have restricted byway rights within the meaning of Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way, but no other rights of way.

 

[lacroupade]

The fifteen metre/yard rule is for parking purposes and no other - driving up a river is not for the purposes of parking.

Understand that Terra, just wanted to clarify the issue. Its like being a copper, unless you understand the criminal mind you can't really deal with it! LOL

But whats going through my head here is the issue of defining the track....for example, there are at least two places on Strata where you drive for short sections on what appear to be watercourses. They obviously aren't because there are no alternative routes whatsoever. There are several other sections where significant distances are almost permanently underwater. You only have to look at some of the vid I posted on PBucket to see that.

This means that someone who was either dumb or crafty could easily claim (legitimately or otherwise) that the route of the track was unclear (and there is ZERO signposting ANYWHERE), so how were they to know whether they were driving on a river bed or a section of flooded track, especially when BOTH are the same dimensions and in many cases on that route, look alike.

So just like the alleged Sarn S59s that had to be retracted, had I been in the position of those landys, I could have legitimately asked the police to point out definitively exactly where the actual track was. My guess was that all they could say was, "well it must be that thing over there because it looks like a track", as opposed to "we've got it GPS mapped to the nearest three feet and we know you're not on it". Result = exit one s59.

My point with all this waffle is that there are still too many loopholes to help with protection, whether it be absence of route signing or ill-informed enforcement. We can help tackle the first of these, which should reduce the options for the second....

I still think what is required is one of the organisations that has the necessary equipment and insurance (interested to know whats involved with the latter) to call for some activity. That could involve a recce trip along the entire route to work out where, for example, tree-planting was appropriate and where the most immediate requirements for signage exist, followed by planning and execution of same.

And I am certain that we could easily scare up, say, sufficient funds for 100 trees - I'd certainly be happy to put my hand in my pocket.

But it just needs one of the orgs with the experience to kick it off - and this time DON'T LEAVE US OUT just because we don't own a bloody LR or aren't in a specific club.....

 

[Deleted account DD]

I get that Dave but then surely it comes down to who's river it is?

I mean if somebody drove down MY river that can't be a S59 can it surely, its just common trespass?

What is the 15-metre rule (I thinks thats what it is) supposed to apply to, is it where all the land is owned by the local authority/highways?

If you recall earlier I mentioned that for a vast chunk of traffic law the main proof is that the offence occurred.

Some would say thats its achilles heel and the 15 yard rule is a point in case.

Before any tickets or summons are issued the person doing so needs to ask a few decent questions (either of themselves or the suspect) to confirm their suspicion or corroborate their knowledge as far as is practicable.

In the case of the 15yard rule as an example you must try to find out why the driver exceeded 15yards off the road. A decent example would be if someone drove around an incident using the footpath/grass verge. If the circumstances were that this was the safest and best course of action, so long as they got back on the road at first opportunity I cant see the problem. Technically the offence is complete as they were not parking up. The fact of the matter is they have an almost bomb proof defence or mitigation and it would be a cruel example of the species who ticketed them.

To take that further where the track you mention appears to become a rivery type thing, if an y reasonable person of reasonable judgement would deem it a continuation of the track (and I havent seen it soI dont know) they have a defence.

As far as the harrasment alarm and distress elemetns of an offence committed they just need to have happened. With some nuances they can occur on private or public areas and cops can act.

Therefore a bather or fisherman harrased in the river can make an actionable complaint and a cop made aware of it can act on that irrespective of the owner of the land as well as the driving offences disclosed if the driver doesnt have prior permission.

Many individuals have fallen foul and looked like numpties at court through folloing the literal definitions.

Coming back to this threads theme. If you educate before enforcement first of all you will stop some of them, you'll look decent but ultimately your removing many of their potential defences.

Ignorance of the law is not acceptable at court as a defence :thumb2

 

[Deleted account DD]

Anyhow, is anyone on here going to cough to having a S59 first warnng

I'll bet theres somone reading has :thumb2

 

[extreme-4x4]

one has not reached that status ...... yet:nenau
but giving it my best shot :augie:lol:lol:lol:lol



but id fight it if i did get one. wouldn't you ?:thumbs

 

[Terranosaurus]

If you are really serious about this then I suggest you move the discussion over to one of the big multi marque forums and see what support you can muster there. Difflock or Mudclub would be the obvious ones to try.

 

[Deleted account DD]

one has not reached that status ...... yet:nenau
but giving it my best shot :augie:lol:lol:lol:lol



but id fight it if i did get one. wouldn't you ?:thumbs

lmao , I'll fight anything :augie:lol:lol:lol:lol

 

[extreme-4x4]

If you are really serious about this then I suggest you move the discussion over to one of the big multi marque forums and see what support you can muster there. Difflock or Mudclub would be the obvious ones to try.

im not a member of any other forums.... if you like the idea, why dont you post it anywhere you think it will make a difference. anywhere you think it will attract other like minded people.... its only spreading the word

the only crucial thing is everyone comes together as one and not as loads of little groups doing little bits.... we could make a big blend of groups united as one and make a big difference

 

[Deleted account DD]

the only crucial thing is everyone comes together as one and not as loads of little groups doing little bits.... we could make a big blend of groups united as one and make a big difference

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Terranosaurus]

im not a member of any other forums.... if you like the idea, why dont you post it anywhere you think it will make a difference. anywhere you think it will attract other like minded people.... its only spreading the word

I'm with what you're saying but I don't know the lanes at all or the area etc so it would be much better posted by yourself or Lacroupade etc. and in all honesty I'm already promoting objections to the proposed TROs in NY Moors, trying to get obstructions on some Doncaster area lanes dealt with, and one in Leeds etc thats all on top of my business, 4x4 Response and other stuff, I really don't have the time to take on something like that 200 miles away.


The other forums I mentioned are free to join so why not join em and stick something up

http://www.mud-club.com

http://www.difflock.com

 

[Adz]

I'm with what you're saying but I don't know the lanes at all or the area etc so it would be much better posted by yourself or Lacroupade etc.

the others I mentioned are free to join so why not join em and stick something up

http://www.mud-club.com

http://www.difflock.com

Makes sense :thumb2

 

[extreme-4x4]

thats just it .... its not just our area, your areas will all suffer from overload as lanes get closed and people move on to other open lanes.

ok wales is as good a place as any to start up

but its got to have as many people on board as possible
its got to bridge vehicle makes and other club organizations ie class crag or owners groups

its got to be inclusive and something anyone can turn up and join in on

its got to be big to be heard and noticed

its got to be legal but fun at the same time

 

[Deleted account DD]

and its got to be realistic and manageable national may be a step too far too soon,


unless other areas do the same then you can set up a national coordinating committee affect govt policy and contemplate world domination on a weekday only basis :thumb2

 

[lacroupade]

Coming back to this threads theme. If you educate before enforcement first of all you will stop some of them, you'll look decent but ultimately your removing many of their potential defences.

Ignorance of the law is not acceptable at court as a defence :thumb2

Which are exactly why I wanted to understand the detail

Re Terra's about wider discussion, its a relevant thought, lets wait for Ocelot to get back and see what he suggests? Might be we do something fairly low-key to start with but what would not help is a direct approach by us to the council in isolation of other organisations. But since we've got at least one CRAG member on the team, that might be one avenue.

BTW Daved, the reason I had that little spout was because in this location that piece of river looks for all the world like yet another section of flooded track, same dimensions etc...and while most folk would assume the existing track is the right one to take, given the lack of signage, it could be a credible assumption to take the watercourse instead. I think that most people would know what they were doing, but I can also see there could be a get-out clause if your balls were big enough. Which is why you are spot-on...education is the key as it removes their excuses, and a clear instruction that says "where a clearly defined 'surfaced' track exists, that is assumed to be the right of way" would be step one....

 

[Deleted account DD]

BTW Daved, the reason I had that little spout was because in this location that piece of river looks for all the world like yet another section of flooded track, same dimensions etc...and while most folk would assume the existing track is the right one to take, given the lack of signage, it could be a credible assumption to take the watercourse instead. I think that most people would know what they were doing, but I can also see there could be a get-out clause if your balls were big enough. Which is why you are spot-on...education is the key as it removes their excuses, and a clear instruction that says "where a clearly defined 'surfaced' track exists, that is assumed to be the right of way" would be step one....

Been there (on foot) up on t'moors. farmer giles reckoned we were wrong, sat nav was wrong and OS maps were wrong and we were not on a public footpath....hmmmmm.

He graciously "allowed us to continue" when he realised he may just be losing the debate :lol:lol:lol

 

[lacroupade]

Been there (on foot) up on t'moors. farmer giles reckoned we were wrong, sat nav was wrong and OS maps were wrong and we were not on a public footpath....hmmmmm.

He graciously "allowed us to continue" when he realised he may just be losing the debate :lol:lol:lol

Mind you Heathcliffe*, with the stock problems they get you can understand some of them not liking visitors

*Or are you more of a Heartbeat type of guy, wiv a treader? :lol:lol