Legally ride a closed lane

[Crossrutted]

I thought "OP" meant "original poster" ??

ie in this thread, that's Marionette.

Happy to be corrected.

[DavidS]

I meant 'original post' but 'original poster' would also do.

[boboneleg]

dare i ask whats an OP

OP = original poster

[mikeXTZ]

I have been looking at an "up to date" OS map lately, and it shows at least two byways in my area which were downgraded at least 5 years ago......

[Hugh]

Greetings,

Purchasing an OS Map does show various routes and some form of categorisation but they are out of date for legal reasons of ROW before they even come off the press

The Highway Authority and National Park online data is often not up to date because they are so short of staff and money that they do not seem to have time once the Committees have made their decisions and filled out the legal paperwork

Signage lags a long way further behind in the scale of things, yes the Authorities are quick to erect signs as soon as they can following a TRO but do not replace them if they go missing and forget to take them down when they are no longer required. Some Authorities are perfectly happy to allow unofficial horse riding signs to be put on show along BOATs, etc, but will not allow recreational motorists the same courtesy to mark the routes that they use.

I am not having a 'pop' at the Troops who work for these organisations but the Higher Management and Committees need to get their heads out of the politically correct clouds, stop taking sides with "awfully nice" people, and take a long good look to the reality of the situation they are causing. It is a vicious circle to keep applying TROs to routes, that methodology only has a negative effect upon the legitimate recreational motoring folks whilst those with anti social tendencies will go where they like when it suits them It is only ever the motoring groups that offer to meet and discuss with all users the network of routes and how they might best be considered for accommodating the various users. Strange also that the Authorities fail to publicise in their literature the good works completed by volunteer motorcyclist working parties, perfect recent example being Three Shires Head repaired this month by the High Peak TRF Group.

If you want to know the legality of a lane in the context of practical up to date advice then get involved with your local TRF or GLASS Group as the reps normally have good working relationships with the local HA, National Park and the Police too. As a member of the national TRF or GLASS you can request a 'key' to access Trailwise, which is funded and maintained by GLASS, being updated far more quickly than any other online service, way faster than the Authorities.

Rant over sorry I should have said at the beginning of my post - just read the penultimate paragraph

TTFN

Hugh.

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

I often wonder if a lane is legal or not (obviously, all the time)
but what I mean is .. there are a lot of lanes that are said to be tro'd
but WHO has tro'd them, and what is their legal base for doing so?
just because the council or parks authority SAY the lane is closed or restricted,
or even if they draw it on a nice clean map, as such,
where did the authority come from and is it correct?

for instance, the BBNPA say the sarn and gap are restricted byways and closed to all vehicular traffic, but there are exceptions and local users, as well as the wardens themselves trundling up and down them in hot pursuits ..
wher has the authority come from ... yes, the parks have powers and authorities, but this sort of thing is under the power of the secretary of state .. and I bet he or she (whoever it is?) doesn't know what the fock is going on there.

the police don't really know, they just follow up complaints, and they are by the bbnpa ..

so .. I often wonder what the reality really is ..
what authority have these individuals and organisations got, for banning a legal road bike, riding sensibly, on what was always considered to be legal routes!!

Hello everyone, and greetings from my lovely new home in Cornwall (where I have the right to ride/drive on a lane that's classified as a Footpath, he he!)

I think there's a bit of confusion here.

The 'Upper Sarn' is a dual-status route, which is to say it was originally recorded as a RUPP on the Definitive Map and Statement and as an Unclassified County Road on the List of Streets.

At some point in the dim and distant past (before NERC) there MAY have been an attempt to do a Definitive Map Modification Order to get it reclassified as a Byway Open to All Traffic under the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1979, but this was not pursued as it was thought that vehicular rights could not be removed as it was a UCR.

Then came NERC, and routes with dual UCR and RUPP status were, perversely, deemed to have lost their vehicular rights.

But there is a clause in NERC which included a reference period in which if the majority of use had been vehicular use, then the vehicular rights were saved. Had this not been the case, many minor roads would have become closed to vehicles. Strangely, it included the period in which the 'countryside was closed' thanks to Foot & Mouth.

During this period, there was no pedestrian bridge over the infamous Sarn ford.

This fact has been used to argue that vehicular rights were saved on the Upper Sarn because pedestrians couldn't/wouldn't cross the river in any great number. But the situation is complicated because wherever the Sarn route crosses a road, it has to be treated as a separate case.

So that's why the Sarn's status is ambiguous.

What isn't ambiguous is the status of the official-looking 'no vehicles' sign. This can only be used to indicate a TRO. There is no TRO on the Upper Sarn, although there is one on the Lower Sarn, which is a BOAT.

While it is an endorsable offence to drive past a 'no vehicles' sign, it's also an illegal obstruction to erect a sign which suggests that there is a TRO in force where none exists. To get a TRO on the Upper Sarn, the authorities would have to acknowledge that vehicular rights exist, then go through the whole consultation process, which they have never, to my knowledge, done. I got my then AM, who was then the Welsh Government's Finance Minister, to take this case up on my behalf with the BBNP, and they kind of admitted that the sign was for 'information only', but refused to remove it.

There is also no exemption plate on the sign...'BBNP vehicles only' or 'Farm Access Only', which means that if you as a motorcyclist commit an offence passing the sign, then so to do the BBNP vehicles and the farmer in his tractor (the route goes through the farmyard, and the farmer always gave me a cheery wave or a good morning).

But the dubious legality of the sign is no defence if you are charged with 'riding on a restricted byway'. The TRF have successfully got one set of prosecutions dropped some years ago after a bit of a tussle, but I understand that they have since withdrawn their advice that they are confident of doing the same again. Why I don't know, but if any TRF member is interested they can email the directors for an explanation.

[garyboy]

thanks for clearing that up, Richard

... er .... ? ..
(me 'ed 'urts)
.. where am I?


edit ... my olt brain will work through slowly ...
upper sarn ...
.. the signs are illegal, but it is illegal to pass such a sign,
and bbnpa refuse to remove them,
but pass them regularly themselves,
.. there is no tro on it,
if there was it would mean its legal,
it has dual citizenship, I mean status
vehicular rights were lost ..
no .. pause that clause ..
vehicular rights were saved by the nerds.. er nerc.
(.. must consult the RS script again)
brain very scrambled now,
I have my foot in my mouth, its a disease,
it is definitely a restricted airway, .. er byway,
I think,
but I dare not cross a road, coz I will change citizenship,
and the TRF will not fight for my country (rights),
especially as I am no longer a member,
and in a sorry state.
and me 'ed still 'urts
I wish the TRF directors would explain
perhaps I should email them?
o ... I forgot,
I am not a member now,
fuck it, I am having a sarnie

[garyboy]

well here is another one .. passed this today, near llanbister

20171025_155931 by gary boy, on Flickr

[garyboy]

20171025_141752 by gary boy, on Flickr

[GFJ1]

well here is another one .. passed this today, near llanbister

20171025_155931 by gary boy, on Flickr

Moelfre city? Done that one a few times, but less so now they have been digging up the north end planting windmills.

Is it still legally open?