I watched this, and I have to say my opinions are mixed.
I was pleasantly surprised at the reasonably impartial way that the documentary was filmed. I fully expected a bias programme on the side of the ramblers.
With regards to the editing, I quite enjoyed the sort of idiocy it showed of some of the actions and words of both parties and the upbeat comedy that the BBC somehow injects into documentaries of this ilk.
Initially I was unsure whether I fully agreed with the motorists, being referred to always as 'off-roaders', since the whole point about the debate is that the byways are legal roads, of sorts, and so the motorists are infact, arguably, no more off roaders than the walkers or horse-riders.
It made me laugh that one of the old lady ramblers took such exception to the fact that she had to step up out of a tire rut onto the bank to allow a trail bike to pass. I'm no expert and I'm certainly not knowledgable on the law; however, I was taught the green cross code as a child, and that when walking where there is traffic, you should always walk on the side of oncoming traffic. Whether trail bike riders generally try to keep to the left when greenlaning, I am unsure of. Assuming that they do when possible, to avoid collisions with oncoming traffic (pedestrian or otherwise), then the lady, (or more, gaggle of ramblers) stood on the left hand side of the track, have only themselves to blame for their near miss. Infact, the manner in which they were heading up the byway like the O.K. Corral, 4 or 5 abreast, struck me as irresponsible.
To make the issue worse, the old idiot in the bobble hat called the police afterwards, reporting what exactly? That somebody stood on a byway open to motorized vehicles, had to move out the way for a motorcyclist.
It only showed the ramblers to be a nuisance, and in a much more negative light. Wether the police bothered investigating their complaint further, is their business. However if they did, I have to say that I think it's a shame that people (regardless of their view on greenlane usage), use the police as a complaints committee for such small issues. I think the old man seemed to be making something out of nothing.
I also noticed how the old man stood in the middle of the lane as bikes went past him (on either side), and I have to say that I thought it was innapproriate of the motorcyclists to not dismount and exchange pleasantries with the rambler and camera crew. Instead they just ignorantly drove on. It did show motorists in a bad light, and quite fairly so. However I think he was wrong to shout and try to stop a motorcyclist, and also for the authoritatarian manner in which he spoke to the rider. When he gestured with his thumb over his shoulder, and mumbled something along the lines of "right that's it, move on, off you go" I thought it rude of him to order the motorcyclist to ride on. A small issue I know but simple discourtesy which shows his whole organization in a bad light because of the lack of respect he showed.
Infact I came away from the documentary feeling that much of the motivation for the green lane alliance pursueing this issue so intently, is partly down to boredom and needing to feel a part of something. The sort of 'let's set up an organization or society to keep us busy and because we enjoy a good debate' mentality. Hence why the alliance was mostly made up of people of older age. Whether my suspicion is true or not, is up for debate. I am definitely no socioligist.
A motorcyclist towards the end made a sensible point about the lane which recieved a TRO. He explained that several walkers would make more of an impact on the terrain, than one motorcyclist. Pointing out a clear flaw in TROs being used to stop damage to the BOATs.
Granted, it will reduce damage overall, but the whole point of the Peak district association(?), is to provide access for all people to the peak district national park. I think that a fair argument in favor of motorists on byways, is that it does provide access for disabled users to see certain areas of the countryside they wouldn't be able to otherwise get to. I'm not sure if it's ethical to argue that though, as how many of us (on this forum), take disabled people greenlaning with us? I imagine not that many.
The ex TA Officer who seemed to be heading up the 4x4 organization in his freelander, did make me laugh. Seemed like polite and reasonable guy, but I'm not sure about how articulate he was at putting across their points as we didn't get to see very much of him speaking. To be fair, I was pleased to see the manner in which the 4x4 group carried themself during the whole ordeal. There wasn't a sniff of righteousness about them which was quite the opposite to the feeling that the ramblers gave me.
As I've mentioned I have no idea about the laws on these things, but when the policeman was speaking to the bike and quad riders, about the condition of their vehicles, it reminded me of something I heard a while ago, which is that, because of their desihn (ie an off road vehicle), they are subject to different requirements to ensure they are road legal. I believe that one of these is that they are not infact required to have indicators, and possibly are allowed to have a slightly smaller number plate?
All in all, I thought the program presented the debate in a fair, neutral, and entertaining way, so it ticked all the boxes for me. Hopefully viewers will make their own minds up as to the which side of the fence they sit on this issue.
Personally, I can see it from both sides of the coin, being both a keen outdoor enthusiast, (walking, climbing etc.), and also a 4x4 driver.
I tried to watch the program with an open mind, and let it try to convince me one way, or another.
With regard to who is in the right or wrong, the answer is always unclear, however with regard to the law, the answer is simple. Both parties are within the law, but I think that ramblers find it quite easy to demonise 4x4 drivers, by encouraging the prejudicial view that we're all gung-ho, jeremy clarkson-esque types without a care for the enviorement, and who tar all ramblers and hikers with the tree hugger, eco-enviro, brush. This, as we are well aware is a myth, and we do just as much to cover our tracks, and look after the countryside as most walkers would.
Ultimately it's down to National Park governing bodies, and Local councils, to decide how to manage the lanes in their areas, but an interesting and very poignant statistic is something along the lines of, motorists are allowed to use a mere 2% of rights of way, wheras pedestrians are free to use to 100%.
If part of a governing bodies mission statement, is to provide access to their National Park for all people, then I believe they are failing by using TROs as an easy solution instead of repairing damaged lanes, and enforcing stiffer guidlines for the use of BOATs.
I'm aware that all that I've just said has been done to death, several times before, but I really felt after watching it that I needed to get my two penneth in.
