I understand enough to say that ancient ways which were once access roads cant tolerate the damage that motorised wheeled vehicles do to an unpaved track. It is a fact, and not an opinion, to say that this is unsustainable.

It is evident that these ways become rutted, muddy bogs when subject to modern vehicles. Because it is an ancient route does not give you the right to destroy it , believing that you have "the right" to do so.

I direct you to the French situation, where bikes and now quads have done immense damage to ancient paths.

On the contrary, it is not a fact but merely your oft stated opinion. If the local authorities were to carry out their duties fully and properly in maintaining all of the legal highways, especially the BOATs then they would be capable of sustaining vehicular traffic.
It is no different to the lack of maintenance of potholes in the surfaced highways - perhaps a legal case against the local highways authority, based on an accident on a BOAT, would "shake their tree".

However, vested interests, lobby groups and the like run both the local authorities and organisations such as the ramblers. In the meantime, biking groups are generally seen as those that can be safely ignored by the politicians.

I detect a note of irritation in your first line. Can't help you there...

However it is an evident fact, in front of your eyes, that an earth track, in a wet country, cant take the kind of abuse that motorised wheels do to it. It wasnt designed for that 1000 years ago.

And who are the vested interest groups and lobbies that "run" the councils?

I regret that these tracks cant support your bike or 4X4 churning it into mud. Earth+moisture + wheels = mud and ruts.

Sometimes it's clear to see the difficulty Galileo had.

Sorry to disagree but a lot of these "earth tracks" were once very well engineered roads, coping with very heavy horse-drawn trunk traffic. When the adjacent fields were cultivated, any stones or rocks were used to pave the farm tracks and roads. Drainage ditches & culverts were dug and fords paved.

If a larger network of lanes were accessible and maintained, the very low frequency of traffic would be easily sustainable. Traffic counters have been placed on various lanes in England and the vehicular use is very light. This was raised in a Government funded report that was very quickly ignored when the outcome wasn't what the Government wanted.

Most of the lanes could be repaired with a few tons of scalpings and the clearing out of overgrown ditches.

Gregorius, Your understanding & explaination of the situation is spot on.

Hi Big
Dont be sorry to disagree! You make some interesting points - one in particular supports what I say. You refer to the stones from the fields being used to pave the way -quite right. The ways needed paving, because of the mud. The Romans paved their roads, which were better than the existing British ones. Also, the farmers no longer do local piecemeal repairs, so the way/route has no maintenance.

So my point still stands -these routes cant take modern traffic. Bikes are specially destructive to them, unfortunately.

But they could with a bit of maintainance.

If we could just get past the politics, apply some common sense and find a few quid for repairs, then all users could enjoy these ancient routes and all live happily ever after.

The FACT is that Motorised transport DOES indeed cause damage to dirt tracks which were originally designed/intended to be used by pedestrians and horses. A modern large and powerful trail bike can cause immense damage very quickly, almost as much as a 4 wheel drive motor car can. Surely this can't be denied...

I think what most people object to is the idiots who power through muddy areas and create large ploughed furrows! Personally I have no objection to green-laning on two wheels providing riders use a bit of common sense and ensure they liberally use the throttle where the dirt is lose and likely to get churned up badly...

If this spoils your fun then tuff... so be it.

In my offroad days I always tried to minimise damage like this by careful use of the throttle. There are plenty of alternatives out there for riders who wish to pelt about all day on full throttle churning up the countryside. If it was down to me these idiots would be given a shovel and made to fill in the damage they create (together with a huge fine). Of course it's no good making rules if you don't intend to properly enforce them.

They would easily sustain such traffic, and far more, if they were maintained correctly, as per earlier posts.
As has been pointed out, the real traffic wear originates from heavier vehicles, as it does on the surfaced highways.
I have made my earlier observations after a number of years of employment in highway and bridge design and construction, with quite a bit of exposure to both the practical elements of the engineering and the politicking involved in Local Government.
The fact remains that the green lanes (BOATs) have been neglected by most Local Authorities, often as a deliberate policy of saving money - there are no votes in green lanes. Once the National Parks join in on this process, the day is usually lost for vehicular traffic on BOATs.
It used to be much the same for footpaths across a great deal of the UK, until the Ramblers Assoc (RA) learnt how to lobby effectively; bikers don't know how to do this, and the little that is done is directed toward the surfaced roads.

Better get the begging bowls out then.... but who do you think will want to pay for YOUR damage?

Motor Vehicles should stick to the Queen's highway which was designed for this use. Motor vehicles do NOT belong on public bridalways or footpaths etc...

The situation would never have got out of hand the way it so clearly has if motorcylclists had the commonsense to adapt their riding style to the circumstances and to the terrain. I think I'm right in saying that most people who object to trail riders and green-laners do so because their activities are -

1. Too loud
2. Cause large Furrows on tracks ect..

The first reason is easily rectified - get rid of that hidious exhaust system without a baffle and replace it with a standard (legal) exhaust. The only way to stop furrows from being formed is by careful control of the twistgrip. It's not exactly rocket science is it? But is is clearly beyond some muppits who spoil it for the rest of us...

I gave up on offroad stuff years ago because I could see the way it was going. My advice to anyone wanting to get involved in gree-laning is to join a proper offroad club and use their facilities. You can damage their land as you please without santimonious old sods like us giving you a hard time...

It's a great shame things have deteriorated like this because not only is offroading good fun - it has been proven that offroad riders (in general) make much better motorcyclists.

BASICALLY GUYS, WE'VE GOT OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS... :(

You think?

How about the profile of the average mini-moto user tearing around the local council estate, or the average chav MX wannabee on his big brother's old CR125, Or the thousands of ramblers who having since retired have nothing better to do than complain and moan to their tweeded old school chums 'in high places' about not being able to walk in peace along country roads without being disturbed by those damnably noisy and smokey bloody motorcycles..

I for one ALWAYS stop the bike if I see anyone approaching, be they on horseback or on foot, I ALWAYS take the time to smile, wave and have a chat and behave in a decent and considerate way towards them. In all the time I've been using green lanes I've never encountered any other user who has expressed any negative feeling towards me sharing that particular piece of road-space. I would also imagine most TRF members or committed green-laners would behave the same way. Sadly though, people who have lobbying power or the ability to influence decisions rarely 'see' anything but the hooligan element and legislate accordingly. Now that I'm approaching 50 I'm more than a little p!ssed off to be tarred with that same brush.

Motorised recreation in the countryside has always been seen as a bit of a bete-noir but it can only get worse I'm afraid...

Greg

I think Caminando and especially Kentfallen have completely missed the point (and do wonder why Kentfallen has a Daihatsu Terios and an XT600E if you never travel off tarmac?!)

The routes in question are UNSURFACED HIGHWAYS, not footpaths or 'bridleways' or whatever else the misguided press typically refer to them as.

Noone here is advocating using green lanes for winch practice or enduro training - the fundamental pleasure in utilising this network of old roads by motorised vehicle is to travel - and that ought to be evident to anyone subscribing to a 'travelling' forum surely?

I shouldn't have to repeat the clear and concise responses that HenryUK, edteamslr and Big Yellow tractor have already offered... suffice to say that while some 'green lanes' in the UK do indeed cross or flank soft ground, the vast majority of these old roads have a firm rock or stone bed, and are more than capable of sustaining the modest amount of traffic that uses them.

In the few 'problem areas' that have arisen, the local authorities already have a structure in place to close these lanes (temporarily I might add!) while repairs or natural recovery takes place. Typically a seasonal restriction (traffic regulation order), or limited to two-wheeled vehicles for example is (or at least was) the pro-active approach to keeping these lanes open.

What is fundamental, is that these routes are available for ALL users - just because you choose not to use your vehicle on these lanes, doesn't mean they should be closed to those who wish to. The only reason for closing a lane is if it needs repair, or cannot sustain traffic - be it wheeled, hoofed or footed.

That is the crux of the (NERC) legislation mentioned in the first post by Dazzerrtw - it was rushed in as a blanket law that does not allow the condition and the 'suitability' of the lanes to considered on an individual basis - the net result being that the shrinking network is now, in places, becoming overused, and typically highlighted in the hysterical media.

Of course if you purposely reduce the number of available lanes, then clearly those that remain will see an increase in traffic, and the potential for damage increases. A cynic might consider this was the Government's objective all along.

However, what we are talking about here is the systematic and predudical removal of our rights to enjoy a recreation different to one another. You wouldn't see a sign that says " No gays, no blacks, no women" in this country, but it seems "No motor vehicles" is now perfectly acceptable?

xxx

I think you will find many many XT owners use the thing to get around town. Nothing beats it... the virtues of a big trail bike in traffic are well known. As for my Terrios, my other half uses it offroad on her fathers farm... What's the point you're trying to make here by questioning my motives? I'm just as dedicated to riding as you are...

Simply that such machines are ideal for exploring and traveling unserfaced roads, and were designed with this in mind. Might I refer you to your previous (and rather general) quote:

"Motor Vehicles should stick to the Queen's highway which was designed for this use."

If you only ever use them on-road, then there are far better alternatives (certainly regarding handling performance and economy) for day to day driving?

However, what I really take issue with is your ignorance in the following sentence:

"Motor vehicles do NOT belong on public bridalways or footpaths etc..."

Which is typical of the misunderstanding (and misinformation) directed at the general public at large by groups with a vested interest that have no desire to share what is in fact a public resource with others...

I repeat that noone here is advocating using motorcycles (or 4 wheeled vehicles) on footpaths or bridleways, only those routes that have the historical use of vehicular traffic, and more recently motorised vehicles (which have now been around for well over 100 years as you are no doubt aware).

To simply blanket ban vehicles without any sustainability assessment and particularly discriminate against one user group in preference to (the wishes of) another is bad law - and indeed may yet be proven to be illegal under human rights legislation.

I reitterate: just because you yourself may not wish to travel unsurfaced roads using your motor vehicle/s, should not dictate what other people may or may not enjoy as recreation - and legislation (that was highlighted by Dazzerrtw's initial post) that removes that right FOR ALL OF US means one day you may no longer have the option...

Of course if you are happy to spend your leisure time walking a few miles from your parked car, playing golf, or traipsing round a shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon that's fine... and I'm sure the Government would like nothing more than for all of us to sit in our homes buying more needless stuff on-line, when not busting our arses at work of course...

But please consider that in the future, perhaps you might wish to take your family or an elderly relative for a picnic or to camp on top of a Welsh mountain for example?

xxx

Ah ha Human Rights! Tony and Cheries wonderful legacy... I'm off...

If non-tarmac roads can't cope with vehicles, how come so many of the world's roads are, erm...non-tarmac?

Matt :)