GLASS in the news

On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:01:47 +0100, Ian Rawlings wrote:

> The Rambler's Association manifesto used to state that they would
> like to ban horse-riding on bridleways too because they churn up the
> surface..

They certainly do, think of the ground pressure of 2 tonnes of horse
on those hard, comparativly,little hooves. Not to mention the
exhaust... Oh dear, a townie rambler walking in the countryside
getting their boots muddy and covered in ****. Sorry, get a life.

> Having said that at least one horse-riding association (can't
> remember the name, association of british riders?) is aware of
> the dangers and stated on their website that they don't support the
> banning of 4x4 use as most damage is caused by farming ...

Well on the tracks and roads around here that is certainly true.
Almost all the "off road" traffic is tractors or 4x4 but the purpose
of farming. Doesn't stop people complaining about getting muddy cars
in the winter though, some even winged about the salt! At this
altitude once it gets into winter proper the gritters are going round
two or three times a day...

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:57:13 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>They certainly do, think of the ground pressure of 2 tonnes of horse
>on those hard, comparativly,little hooves.

So I wonder whatever became of the research demonstrating that 2
walkers in hiking boots cause more surface impact damage, puddling and
as a consequence, greater erosion of soft terrain...

Buried deep in the depths of DEFRA Towers no doubt. Now why would
they do that?

On 2005-05-19, Dave Liquorice <[email protected]> wrote:

> They certainly do, think of the ground pressure of 2 tonnes of horse
> on those hard, comparativly,little hooves. Not to mention the
> exhaust... Oh dear, a townie rambler walking in the countryside
> getting their boots muddy and covered in ****. Sorry, get a life.

Indeed, some of them seem to want the countryside to be one big
footpath, smooth and unbroken. I went down a RUPP recently that was
blocked at the start by a car belonging to a nearby resident, I asked
who's car it was. The woman said that she didn't like 4x4s going down
there because they've caused ruts at the end. I lived near that lane
and it was never used by 4x4s due to fallen trees on the first section
that had been there a long time (cleared by me). When you get to the
middle you have massive ruts coming out of a field, travelling along
the lane for a while, then veering off into another field while the
lane carries on completely rut-free. Just how unobservant can people
possibly be?

> Doesn't stop people complaining about getting muddy cars in the
> winter though, some even winged about the salt! At this altitude
> once it gets into winter proper the gritters are going round two or
> three times a day...

I'm not keen on salt myself but there seems to be little alternative
short of requiring people to fit studded tyres which aren't practical
here as they need to be removed when the ice goes away. We don't get
enough of it for long enough to justify that. Trying to educate
people to drive carefully on icy roads won't work either being as we
can't even educate people to respect each other's point of view.

Hey that's people for you ;-)

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

In message <[email protected]>, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> writes
>On 2005-05-18, LR90 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And if you enjoy walking in the countryside, as I do, then please
>> recognise that there is a lot of it out there, more than enough to
>> go round for everyone, and please think on, when will it be you turn
>> to have something you like doing banned? simply because someone
>> else doesn't like it.
>
>The Rambler's Association manifesto used to state that they would like
>to ban horse-riding on bridleways too because they churn up the
>surface.. I can't find any references to that any more on their
>website, but if they win the off-roading battle it'll be the horse
>riders next. I think they'll have a harder battle with that one
>though so perhaps they've dropped the idea as unwinnable. Given that
>horse-riding and 4x4 driving are two side of the same coin in my view
>(a male/female difference), it's a shame the horse riders don't like
>us either! Having said that at least one horse-riding association
>(can't remember the name, association of british riders?) is aware of
>the dangers and stated on their website that they don't support the
>banning of 4x4 use as most damage is caused by farming and they don't
>think that banning users from the countryside is a path they want to
>tread. Some good sense there then.
>
Most damage is actually done by walkers - not on an individual basis but
because large numbers of them insist on walking in the same place. If
you don't believe me just go to any of our famous beauty spots and
you'll find it has been necessary to tarmac or otherwise hard surface
the paths due to the erosion cause by walkers.

So another question for the Yorks NP - What was the expenditure in the
last financial year (or last 5 years if you wish) for repairs or
reconstruction work on paths or tracks a) used solely by walkers b) used
by recreational 4x4 vehicles or motor cycles? What are the corresponding
budgets for 2005-2006?
(OK so that's 2 questions)
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message <[email protected]>
Mother <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:57:13 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >They certainly do, think of the ground pressure of 2 tonnes of horse
> >on those hard, comparativly,little hooves.
>

A 2 ton horse? Whilst horses do chew the ground up, a 2 ton one
would be twice the size of the very biggest Shire! Nearer 0.5 tons
for an "average" large riding horse.

> So I wonder whatever became of the research demonstrating that 2
> walkers in hiking boots cause more surface impact damage, puddling and
> as a consequence, greater erosion of soft terrain...
>
> Buried deep in the depths of DEFRA Towers no doubt. Now why would
> they do that?

No buried - see Kinder Scout!

>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

On or around Thu, 19 May 2005 11:00:08 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>A 2 ton horse? Whilst horses do chew the ground up, a 2 ton one
>would be twice the size of the very biggest Shire! Nearer 0.5 tons
>for an "average" large riding horse.
>

mind, the ground pressure thing still applies.

try walking on soft ground in tracks made by a 3-ton farm tractor. Your
boots leave imprints...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'

On 2005-05-19, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> try walking on soft ground in tracks made by a 3-ton farm tractor.
> Your boots leave imprints...

Not sure that really tells you anything (if you're trying to imply
that it demonstrates that a person exerts more ground pressure than
the tractor -- which is almost certainly true), as the ground will
always spring back a little after it's been moshed by any vehicle.
The real test would be who sinks the furthest on similar virgin
ground.

Interesting statistic; ground pressure of a human foot: between
2kg/cm^2 to 15kg/cm^2. 62-tonne Challenger battle tank: 0.96kg/cm^2
;-)

BTW where do you get a 3-tonne tractor these day, I thought they were
all 6-tonne behemoths! Even the JCB Fasttrac is 7 tonnes. 7 tonnes
of tractor on super-aggressive tyres tootling along green lanes a few
times a day, but it's 4x4 users who get the blame...

Maybe we should all fit tracks like the challenger!

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:23:51 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Interesting statistic; ground pressure of a human foot: between
>2kg/cm^2 to 15kg/cm^2. 62-tonne Challenger battle tank: 0.96kg/cm^2

It's also about the impact pressure - a heel of a walking boot, sharp
wedge type thing, hitting soft ground is the focus for the overall
weight of the walker - with all the pressure focussed into the one,
small point.

The foot then rolls, causing an impression, before the toe pushes off,
again with the full force and weight of the body concentrated into an
even smaller point of pressure.

Mother wrote:

> On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:23:51 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Interesting statistic; ground pressure of a human foot: between
>>2kg/cm^2 to 15kg/cm^2. 62-tonne Challenger battle tank: 0.96kg/cm^2
>
> It's also about the impact pressure - a heel of a walking boot, sharp
> wedge type thing, hitting soft ground is the focus for the overall
> weight of the walker - with all the pressure focussed into the one,
> small point.
>
> The foot then rolls, causing an impression, before the toe pushes off,
> again with the full force and weight of the body concentrated into an
> even smaller point of pressure.

Oh - you can't apply *logic* to a situation like this - it needs to be
nothing like visceral reaction otherwise the entire cause is lost don't you
know?

I mean - it's obvious that a 2 tonne land rover will do more damage to the
land than a 15 stone walker - has to be - bigger thing. And it puts out
more carbon dioxide. And it's nasty. And messy. And doesn't wear a bobble
hat.

I wonder how much CO2 2 tonnes of ramblers put out - more than a 2 tonne
landie?

I've got a sudden urge to find the agency who did the disco dancing Citroen
advert and get them to do something similar with a 110 except having it
morph into something with big boots, a backpack, walking stick and a bobble
hat before marching off over the moors.

P.
--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel

In news:[email protected],
Paul S. Brown <[email protected]> blithered:
> Mother wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 08:23:51 +0100, Ian Rawlings
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting statistic; ground pressure of a human foot: between
>>> 2kg/cm^2 to 15kg/cm^2. 62-tonne Challenger battle tank: 0.96kg/cm^2
>>
>> It's also about the impact pressure - a heel of a walking boot, sharp
>> wedge type thing, hitting soft ground is the focus for the overall
>> weight of the walker - with all the pressure focussed into the one,
>> small point.
>>
>> The foot then rolls, causing an impression, before the toe pushes
>> off, again with the full force and weight of the body concentrated
>> into an even smaller point of pressure.
>
> Oh - you can't apply *logic* to a situation like this - it needs to be
> nothing like visceral reaction otherwise the entire cause is lost
> don't you know?
>
> I mean - it's obvious that a 2 tonne land rover will do more damage
> to the land than a 15 stone walker - has to be - bigger thing. And it
> puts out more carbon dioxide. And it's nasty. And messy. And doesn't
> wear a bobble hat.
>
> I wonder how much CO2 2 tonnes of ramblers put out - more than a 2
> tonne landie?

Certainly considerable more BS!

>
> I've got a sudden urge to find the agency who did the disco dancing
> Citroen advert and get them to do something similar with a 110 except
> having it morph into something with big boots, a backpack, walking
> stick and a bobble hat before marching off over the moors.
>
> P.



--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

On 2005-05-20, Paul S. Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

> I wonder how much CO2 2 tonnes of ramblers put out - more than a 2
> tonne landie?

Depends on what wood you use for the kindling..

> I've got a sudden urge to find the agency who did the disco dancing
> Citroen advert and get them to do something similar with a 110
> except having it morph into something with big boots, a backpack,
> walking stick and a bobble hat before marching off over the moors.

Don't forget that it needs an ample supply of old maps, tissues, sweet
wrappers and transparent resealable sandwich bags to drop in order to
find its way home again.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert