Surrey TRF

[andy]

Copy of email from TRF

TRF action & advice on the legality of routes post-NERC.

1. After 2 May 2006, members of the public wishing to drive mechanically
propelled vehicles (MPV) on unsealed public roads are at greater risk of
inadvertently breaking the law. The implementation of the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) means that the
law is now clearer, with a harder edge beyond which both prosecution
and conviction are more likely. On some routes, 'slumbering vehicular
rights' still remain, but the exercise of those rights is both harder to
understand and harder to assert. Members should assume that the
government will advise highway authorities and the police to be more
assertive about 'illegal off-road motoring'. If any 'illegal' use is just that -
illegal - then the person doing the driving has committed an offence
and runs the risk of punishment, which might be a fine, or seizure (or
the threat of seizure) of the vehicle.

2. The TRF Executive advises TRF Members that:

You have a right to drive on BOATs shown in the definitive map.

You have a right to drive on unclassified (county) roads (shown in the
list of streets on 2 May 2006) where these have vehicular rights, but not
on 'dual status' unclassified (county) roads, where the road also
appears on the definitive map as a footpath, bridleway or restricted
byway.

Former roads used as public paths (RUPP) have lost their MPV rights.
3. Not all unclassified (county) roads have vehicular rights. There are a
few routes recorded on the highway authorities' lists of streets that are
plainly, or probably, not vehicular. These are generally obviously so: for
example, flights of steps in towns, church paths, and ginnels.

4. It is not an express offence under s.34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to
drive on unclassified (county) roads. It is an offence to drive on a
footpath, bridleway or restricted byway. If an unclassified (county) road
is not shown in the definitive map as a footpath, bridleway or restricted
byway, then to convict under s.34 the prosecution must prove that the
route is only a footpath or bridleway.

5. Some routes that appear to have had their MPV rights removed by
NERC are subject to definitive map modification order applications
(DMMOA), which were submitted before the 'cut-off date' imposed by
the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The cut-off
date in England is 20 January 2005 and in Wales is 19 May 2005.
These DMMO applications will be processed to completion. TRF
members may wish to keep using these 'claims' in the many years that
will pass until the applications are determined and the resulting orders
are confirmed (or not). Members are advised that the simple fact that a
'claim' is lodged does not of itself guarantee protection from prosecution
or conviction.

6. The simple fact of a 'claim' being lodged does not, of itself, prove the
existence of public MPV rights, but it does allow the evidence of these
rights to be brought forward if a person is charged with driving on the
route contrary to s.34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The TRF advises
members wishing to use a route subject to a 'claim' to contact the TRF
group in whose area that route lies, for advice on the strength of the
evidence, before using the route. The existence of a 'claim' is no
warranty that defensible public MPV rights exist, but where there is
good evidence of such rights, and a member has made prudent checks
before using a route, the TRF Executive will consider a request for legal
assistance on its merits and within the spirit of the TRF's constitution.
Members are reminded that they can use the statutory 'online register
of definitive map modification order applications', made and maintained
by every order-making authority, to view and assess the evidence on
any 'claim' for themselves.

7. This advice is liable to change as the post-NERC situation develops
through 2006 and beyond. Members are advised to check the TRF
website regularly for up-to-date advice.

http://www.trf.org.uk


ADK. 21 May 2006.

----------------------------------------------------------

Personally I find this too complex and messy - why cant it be as simple as you can ride here but not here - surely that was the aim of the whole NERC bil?

I think that number plates off is by far the simplest solution.......

Sorry to be so anarchistic but I am seriously f*cked off with all this.
_________________
Andy