A bit of balance ...

OK, so we're being bombarded by bobblies wishing we weren't destroying 'their' lanes. Well, what about showing them some of their own destruction?

Went Derbyshire the other week, great laning, with a group from LZ and on our own .. but we also hike and walk all over too. So a couple of pics from Mam-Tor to Lose Hill, and some 'footpaths' around the area ... NOTE .. none of these have been driven, they are ALL footpaths, they aren't even cycle routes.

First few are Lathkill Dale. What's not shown here is that there are notices up at the stream and across from it asking people NOT to walk along the river bed due to disturbance of local Fauna, destroying habitat and food sources for Dippers and other birds. There are numerous routes through the stream bed, in some places it turns into a mud wallow .. at the time of taking the pics I never thought to use them in this way or would have taken more ..









The following are all on or just off Mam-Tor to Lose Hill ...

Look at how many off-piste tracks there are .. these are FOOTPATHS but in places the tracks are well over 20' wide, there are no tyre tracks, they're all boot tracks .. it's so bad in some places they've paved it with gorgeous old flagstones, but fercrissakes they don't even stay on the pathways!

How can the bobblies play hell at us when they don't keep their own houses in check???









Not content with widening the pathways, they also stray to the edges of 'lookout' points and create erodable surfaces, scrubbing grass and vegetation away, that can only get worse ... this is NOT done by 4x4's or MTB's, it's done by walkers.







This is the kind of evidence and argument that we need to support our defence that 4x4's and motor vehicles are NOT the only, or even the worst, way to destroy green lanes but that pressure from everybody does it. Keep green lanes free from walkers maybe, they have many more thousands of miles of footpaths than we have green lanes ..

i go over the great ridge every now and then it allways amazes me that there is a clear paved footpath in places that peeps avoid....it dunt make sense.
also the number of mountain bikes up there when it's clearly marked with no cycling signs.


foot fall is the biggest danger to the peaks IMHO

Very well put Paul. I've always said walkers cause as much if not more damage

I heard a peak park ranger catagorically say that ramblers cause more damage than vehicles. They go off piste easier, and think about how many thousands compared to hundreds (vehicles) travel a lane per year

To add to the "balance" of views it amazes me that nobody points out that the red sock brigade have 100% access to public rights of way whereas other user groups are severely restricted.

Where I live, the council website confirms there are 1056.2km of public rights of way, of these, 938.5km are footpaths, 106.5km are bridleways and 11.2km are BOATS. So, bobbles have access to just over 1000km of rights of way(100%), the horse riders are allowed to access 117.7km or 11% and that leaves the remaining 11.2km for motorised traffic which is just 1%.

In the neighbouring county, footpaths are 1091km, bridleways 183km and byways 26km, so in percentage terms we see 100% for bobbles, 14% for horsey types and 2% for motorised users which again illustrates the disproportionate nature of access.

I believe nationally, the figures are similar but what is laughable is that many footpaths are disused and given the disparity in user group access I simply fail to understand how folks can make a logical argument that motorised vehicles are destroying the countryside when access is so limited.

It is no surprise that because of the restrictions placed on motorised access to the countryside those rights of way that can be used do become damaged or perhaps more correctly, worn out. As byways are restricted or closed down, the remaining open ones become more heavily used. Surely it makes sense to open up new BOATS or allow restricted byways to revert to full byways to even out the useage?

What say you?

I understand the point of view but fail to see how it helps us.

Ramblers don't place restrictions, local authorities do. Pointing out the damage they do only gives ammunition to landowners to try and get footpaths closed as well.

We have a common enemy but spend all our time bitching about each other

blue beasty said:

I understand the point of view but fail to see how it helps us.

Ramblers don't place restrictions, local authorities do. Pointing out the damage they do only gives ammunition to landowners to try and get footpaths closed as well.

We have a common enemy but spend all our time bitching about each other

Click to expand...

Fair comment. My point was originally made due to Ramblers simply not entertaining any other point of view .. they simply don't want vehicles on country lanes, let alone Green lanes!

I've tried over many years (I used to green-lane on motorbikes and race Enduros well before we had a Landrover) to engage and talk with them, at public, council, private, whatever meetings and they simply don't see us as having anything in common .. they just want their 'rights to roam' but don't see why others also want to do it slightly differently.

Paul D said:

Fair comment. My point was originally made due to Ramblers simply not entertaining any other point of view .. they simply don't want vehicles on country lanes, let alone Green lanes!

I've tried over many years (I used to green-lane on motorbikes and race Enduros well before we had a Landrover) to engage and talk with them, at public, council, private, whatever meetings and they simply don't see us as having anything in common .. they just want their 'rights to roam' but don't see why others also want to do it slightly differently.

Click to expand...

I agree but we are by far the smallest and most vunerable group and to attack the ramblers is, to distort a phrase, to make the enemy of my enemy an enemy.

I know their arguements are often flawed and misinformed but surely there is a better way to counter them than to say 'Look they are as bad or worse than us...'?

The way I see it is we should focus on the positive things we do, jump up and down on those of us who abuse lanes and abuse other lane users and get more envolved with the organisations that are trying to give us a voice where it really matters........the offices of the local authorities.

I wish calling a **** a **** would help but it only hurts our case

blue beasty said:

I understand the point of view but fail to see how it helps us.

Ramblers don't place restrictions, local authorities do. Pointing out the damage they do only gives ammunition to landowners to try and get footpaths closed as well.

We have a common enemy but spend all our time bitching about each other

Click to expand...

As Paul said, fair comment. In some ways though that is exactly it! If all user groups stopped and gave the situation some thought, some semblance of balance might just emerge but ramblers use their political lobby to influence local authorities to discriminate against other user groups or at least that is as I understand it. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation but I can't help thinking the overall situation is unnecessarily out of balance and perhaps Pauls original point is that footfall is damaging and causes or significantly adds to erosion of the ground yet this is acceptable because it isn't being caused by horses or motor vehicles?

blue beasty said:

I agree but we are by far the smallest and most vunerable group and to attack the ramblers is, to distort a phrase, to make the enemy of my enemy an enemy.

I know their arguements are often flawed and misinformed but surely there is a better way to counter them than to say 'Look they are as bad or worse than us...'?

The way I see it is we should focus on the positive things we do, jump up and down on those of us who abuse lanes and abuse other lane users and get more envolved with the organisations that are trying to give us a voice where it really matters........the offices of the local authorities.

I wish calling a **** a **** would help but it only hurts our case

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I agree but as "we" are a minority the outlook isn't too bright so I guess do what can be done and suffer the rest.