URGENT - 1 day to object - TRO - Ascot

[stevent]

Dear All

I recently became aware from one of our members about a TRO which is proposed on a Unclassified County Road in Ascot. Whilst this isn't on our usual routes I am aware that fellow trail riders have used this route before and it will be a loss to our network.

The deadline to object is 23:59 on 29 October 2014. I've just put in my objection making all of the necessary arguments, I am now asking that as many people who may be affected also object (i.e. all of us, as trail riders). It is dead easy to do so, you just need to do this super fast.

1. Compose an email to: [email protected]
2. Include your full name and address
3. Include reference: Y/PN 1702-07
4. State explicitly that you are motorcyclist and object to the making of the THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD (VARIOUS ROADS, ASCOT) (PROHIBITON OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 2014
5. Give reasons, which could be as simple as "I object for the same reasons outlined by Mr Steven Taylor which were provided to you on 27 October 2014"
6. Ask that your objection is acknowledged.
7. That's it, press send, before 23:59 on 29 October 2014.

Now for those who want more detail, the route is here: http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=492900 ... &A=Y&Z=120
I've attached the official documents to this post.
Here is the correspondence I've had with the RBWM Council:

From: ST
To: Ashley Waite <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2014, 21:27
Subject: Ref Y/PN 1702-07: THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD (VARIOUS ROADS, ASCOT) (PROHIBITON OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 2014


Ref Y/PN 1702-07

Dear Ashley

Thank for setting out the reasons so thoroughly.

I wish to raise an objection to the making of a TRO as proposed. I request that TRO be made with an exclusion for motorcycle.

You will be aware that the use of the powers that you are drawing on, namely Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 must be balanced against your duties under (i) Section 122 of the same act, which requires that you to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and (ii) Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 ("Protection of public rights") which requires that you assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority.

The need to perform this 'balancing act' was established in the case Wilson & Anor v Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority [2009] EWHC 1425 (Admin) (19 June 2009) which can be viewed here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1425.html

I have studied the reasons set out and it is clear that the predominate issue is in relation to heavy vehicular use. You have also noted quad and 4x4 vehicle use as contributing to he loose surface breaking apart. There is no specific reference to motorcycles at all in your reasons and so I conclude that no specific consideration has been given to motorcycles. My view is that the reasons you have stated do not justify the prohibiting of motorcycles and are therefore any TRO which prohibits motorcycles is excessive. I have addressed the reasons in greater deal, attached below.

Alternative and less restrictive alternatives would be to impose a weight and/or width limit or to limit based on number of wheels. Such an alternative would be in line with best practice, as followed by neighbouring county councils such as Surrey County Council and Hampshire County Council, and for which there are numerous examples, the latest being the TRO made by HCC on the Hook 1 and Winchfield 14 byways open to all traffic. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/publicnotices/ ... ceUID=3195

I object to this Traffic Regulation Order as it threatens motorcycle trail-riding as a legitimate and historic past-time and this has not been given any consideration. Trail riding is a recreational activity in the same way rambling, horse riding or mountain biking is. It involves exploring and riding on public roads and being fully road legal and having completed a series of tests and having paid vehicle tax (unlike for other legal users of byways). Trail riding also tests your ability at map reading and much of the pleasure of the hobby is the careful planning of a route from one point to another, using as many unsurfaced roads as possible. Experience at riding on such ‘Green Roads’ also pays dividends in improving overall riding ability and in turn reducing the risk of experiencing an accident. Various codes of conduct exist which I and other trail riders always comply with, which include stopping for horses, stopping or slowing for pedestrians, keeping to a safe speed and riding quietly. For example, I often stop and remove my helmet for horses, am courteous and usually get a welcome reply. Walkers, horse riders and cyclists have so many routes they can use, it is very sad and unjust that these routes will be closed to motorised vehicles in this way.

I would be grateful if you would: confirm receipt of my objection; outline the next steps in the decision making process including whether there are any further opportunities to make further representations and who makes the decision; and finally let me know what your final intention or recommendation will be - whether you intend to proceed to make the TRO as proposed or whether you will take account of the objections I have raised.

Yours sincerely

Steven P Taylor


Detailed comments in relation to the making of the Traffic Regulation Order

1. In relation to "Use of the lane by vehicles at the same time as use by pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders put the latter at risk of harm" there does not appear to be any evidence provided of any harm caused, for example any accidents on these routes. Does any such evidence exist? A degree of risk exists on all rights of way but vehicles are not prohibited on other nearby routes. Is there any rational or evidence based reason for excluding motorcycles but not cycles (which might also travel at speed along the route)?

2. In relation to fly-tipping, I do not believe this is a legitimate reason for closing a route and instead efforts should be made to bring the perpetrators to justice rather than remove rights from law-abiding citizens.

3. In relation to 'the structure of the lane is not designed to handle heavy vehicular traffic', first, motorcycles are not heavy vehicles as they typically weigh between 100 and 200kg (much less than a horse) and I argue would not be cause unsustainable damage to these routes. Second, it is the responsibility of the highways authority to maintain the route (Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980) and this should typically be to a standard to sustain expected traffic. There is no evidence presented in relation to any damage caused by motorcycle use. Evidence is available that horses cause considerable damage to some surfaces and so the exclusion of motorcycles but not horses is irrational.

4. In relation to "complaints regarding quad bike and 4x4 use of the lane at speed, which causes the loose material surface to break apart" there are two issues conflated here. Excessive speed is a police matter and I reiterate that efforts should be made to bring the perpetrators to justice rather than remove rights from law-abiding citizens. I'm not convinced that excessive speed contributes to the breaking apart of the surface.

5. In relation to the rural character of the tracks and amenity, this is an entirely subjective judgement and it is not clear whether any regard has been given to (i) the use of the route as a safer alternatives for motorcycle users; (ii) motorcycle users who seek to use rural routes due to their character; (iii) that motorcycling is both an urban and rural mode of travel; and (iv) that the route is an unclassified road with vehicular rights and is thus motorcycle use is thus in line with its character.

6. In relation to creating a safe off-road route, I argue that the route remains a ‘road’, I ask whether any assessment has been taken of the level of use by motorcycles at school start and end times, and I argue (in the absence of any other concrete evidence) that typical motorcycle use would unlikely to create any danger as there will be so few instances of motorcycle users passing the few children who are walked along the route on the way to school.

7. Finally in relation to using a surface that would be more sympathetic to this use and the surrounding environment rather than needing to cater for heavy vehicular use, I note that this does not justify prohibiting motorcycles which as noted weigh less than a horse, and typically do not cause unsustainable damage. Other highway authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire County Councils have experience which could be provided about surfacing which is sustains infrequent motorcycle use, if that experience is would be of use to RBWM.




From: Ashley Waite <[email protected]>
To: ST
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2014, 14:36
Subject: RE: Fwd: THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD (VARIOUS ROADS, ASCOT) (PROHIBITON OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 2014

Hi Steven

This has come about following a requests from residents and local Councillors.

The section of carriageway in question is single track, typically 3 metres wide. The lane is predominately used by people on foot, by cycle and on horseback. The track is generally loose surfaced loose surfaced or unmade predominately with narrow or non-existent verges. Use of the lane by vehicles at the same time as use by pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders put the latter at risk of harm.

The vehicular use of the lane is predominately responsible for the breakup of the road surface, causing very large potholes which fill with water for much of the year. The lane has suffered from use by very heavy vehicles – some of which have been used for flytipping. As well as the damage caused by flytipping, which poses a danger due to the sometimes sharp or hazardous materials dumped, this use causes additional problems with the lane because the heavy vehicles used to transport the rubbish breakup the surface. The structure of the lane is not designed to handle heavy vehicular traffic. In addition we have received complaints regarding quad bike and 4x4 use of the lane at speed, which causes the loose material surface to break apart.

The existing character of St. Georges Lane and Wells Lane are one of rural tracks adjacent to fields and a Site of Special Scientific Interest, in contrast to the more urban environment around it. Vehicle use of the lane, although no doubt helpful in times of heavy traffic in the area, is unsuitable having regard to the character of the lane and is having a detrimental effect on the lane as a result.

Restricting vehicular traffic along the lane would allow a convenient and safe route for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders from South Ascot to the High Street, improving the amenity of the area. Potentially this would create a safe off-road route for parents and pupils going to and from St. Georges School. In addition to this it would allow the Council to
.

The restriction would be by way of a Traffic Regulation Order enforced by the police, with physical barriers installed at three points along the lane. The design of the scheme has taken into account the need to maintain access for maintenance and emergency vehicles, and appropriate traffic signs would be in place to inform drivers of the restriction.


Regards
Ashley





From: ST
Sent: 15 October 2014 21:30
To: Ashley Waite
Subject: Re: Fwd: THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD (VARIOUS ROADS, ASCOT) (PROHIBITON OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 2014

Dear Ashley

I've been notified about the proposed closure of these routes.

I would be very grateful if you would provide some reasoning in addition to the Statement of Reasons, as to why rights to use these public rights of way are being removed. In what way are the routes dangerous?

Kind regards

Steven Taylor


Begin forwarded message:


From: Ashley Waite <[email protected]>

Subject: THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD (VARIOUS ROADS, ASCOT) (PROHIBITON OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 2014

Date: 14 October 2014 10:14:35 BST

To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

Dear whom it may concern


By way of formal notification I enclose herewith a copy of the draft Traffic Regulation Order, Notice, statement of reasons and Plan number PN-1702-07 relating to the above proposed Order.

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD (VARIOUS ROADS, ASCOT) (PROHIBITON OF MOTOR VEHICLES) ORDER 2014

In accordance with statutory procedures, the order will be advertised in the local press. If you have any comments to make, please respond in writing to the address given below or via email, to be received no later than 29th October 2014.
Please quote reference PN-1702-07

Regards
Ashley
Ashley Waite | BEng (Hons) | MCIHT| Traffic Engineer
Highway Services | Highways and Engineering | Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1RF
Tel: 01628 79 (6489) | Fax: 01628 796774

[stevent]

When you send in an objection please post to say you have, as its good to see how many, and we keep this on the top of the Forum albeit for 1 1/2 days only!

[langley beta]

Done, Ron

[GDAS]

Done

[kris]

done ... well done steven

[Fleegle]

Dung

[Corky78]

Done

[Lucien]

Done

[fallenmikethebike]

Done.

[Billy]

Done.

[Kilbs]

Done.

[kevpg]

Done.