It is very interesting to read the various posts on here and if I may comment, since it was I who started the original thread.
First off I am not a legal expert and therefore I only provide comment and not reference, why? In these days of civil litigation somebody could try to make a legal claim and get the adviser in to trouble, it is probably because of this point that the TRF does not offer comment in the Public Domain. If you are a member of the TRF then write to their Technical Director and I am sure that he will reply to you privately, if you are not a Member then perhaps you might wish to consider joining and help protect the network of lanes.
A few questions have been raised mainly about signage, not a simple one to answer but here are a few points that I would ask you to consider;
1. the PDNPA is not responsible for the erection of nor maintenance of road signs
2. I can advise you that so far as I understand the PDNPA followed all of the legal aspects of initiating the TRO, they published the completion of their TRO and they list them on their website (eventually); http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking- ... strictions
3. the local Highway Authority is the only authority responsible for road signage, not the Police and not the National Park; in this instance there are two Highway Authorities; Derbyshire CC and Staffordshire CC
4. I was given to understand that the correct road signs were erected at Washgate following the Public Notice from the PDNPA but they have apparently been removed by person/s unknown. Signage is expensive and has to be prioritised so there could be a delay for initial signage following a closure or repeat signage following damage or removal. Incidentally signage was also put up on Hollinsclough but that too has gone missing
5. ignorance of the law is not necessarily an excuse, please see also my next comment
6. the clause "reasonable" is often used in legal cases, this is too wide for discussion here but I would hasten to claim that in this instance the original questioner has "reasonable' knowledge of the closure!
7. one rider obviously does know that there is a TRO because they have read and commented on the Post - reasonable knowledge
8. as has already been noted by another, the anti motorist groups read and record the posts on sites such as this which is another reason why the TRF does not publish comment. I am willing to post my opinions because I am not a TRF Director, I do not represent the TRF and my opinions often differ to theirs.
9. it might be at the discretion of the Police Officer on the day if you were caught riding the route as to whether or not they give you a verbal warning or formal caution, bear in mind also that the Officer most probably will wish to check your paperwork and the condition of your motorcycle
10. by all means do the 'crime' if you wish, that it is up to you, but don't come back on here complaining if you get fined, bike confiscated, etc
11. my advice is offered to you as a friend, you must interpret and action as you choose
12. if other users of the lanes abuse them then it is those people who should be brought to task and not necessarily the Authorities
13. if folk do not obey the formal rules of a TRO then again, as has already been said, why should they trust people like me who argue against permanent or seasonal closures?
14. advice for trail riding can often been sourced by popping along and contacting (better still joining) your local TRF Group
Please don't be offended, I am only trying to get over some of the complexities of the situation.
Please, do join the TRF, follow their Code Of Conduct and it might just help to keep more lanes open for future use.
TTFN
Hugh.
Ps Sorry, but I forgot to mention that Monksdale was a result of classification and not a TRO, hopefully pdf attached. Hugh.
