Brecon Beacons off-roaders prosecuted

Readers' comments (13)

• Anonymous | 10 May 2010 5:20 pm

  I'm glad that a few of the idiots who spoil the use of greenlanes for the responsible 4x4 drivers, other recreationalists and locals have been nicked.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 11 May 2010 7:12 am

  good but its a pity that owen dillon and his mates didnt put as much effort into catching drunk drivers which they seem to ignore

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Trail Riders Fellowship | 12 May 2010 11:39 am

  Your report neglects to mention that a number of riders threatend with prosecution for riding Sarn have been told no action will be taken against them after they pointed out that the route is in fact an Unclassified County Road, and not a restricted byway.
  Still, nothing like punishing the innocent and law abiding while dangerous criminals get ignored.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• billy scrivens | 12 May 2010 3:02 pm

  sarn helen has always been an unclassified county road the police are only acting on advice from a warden.. it costs nearly £5m a year to run the bbnp a good place for the credit crunch to strike

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Brecon Beacons National Park Authority | 17 May 2010 11:51 am

  We've read these comments with great interest however, we'd like to take this opportunity to advise everyone on the facts regarding the status of Sarn Helen.
  
  1. Sarn Helen is shown as a restricted byway on the Powys County Council Definitive Map and Statement (having formerly been shown as a Road Used as a Public Path). Section 56 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides that where the map shows a restricted byway, the public have a right of way on foot, a right of way on horseback or leading a horse together with a right of way for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. There is no right for a mechanically propelled vehicle;
  
  2. Sarn Helen is also shown on the Powys County Council List of Streets as a County Unclassified Road. Defra advise that the “inclusion of a route on the list of streets is not conclusive evidence of what rights it carries and there can be no presumption that any highway shown on the list of streets carries vehicular rights”;
  
  3. The Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 34 makes it an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle (without lawful authority) on a restricted byway;
  
  4. Any rights for mechanically propelled vehicles that may have existed prior to 2005 were extinguished by section 67 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006”
  
  

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• arthur williams | 19 May 2010 3:13 pm

  the comments on sarn helen are quite interesting
  i used to ride these lanes years ago and as long as you respected other users there was never a problem you stopped and chatted to walkers never a problem we spoke to the np wardens and got on realy well with them it was all ok
  now i walk the lanes a lot and there is a lot of respectable trail riders on them now olso i agree there is a lot of idiots out there on moto x bikes but its up to the police to get them and crush the bikes i am sure they would get the message pretty quick
  it would be great to turn the clock back 30 years when every body got on great .. walkers trail riders and np wardens

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Trail Riders Fellowship | 26 July 2010 6:41 pm

  When the TRF applied for a DMMO to confirm its vehicular status, they were informed in writing by the County Council that such an action was not needed as the route has full vehicular rights, so DEFRA's advice in this case is irrelevant!
  
  The TRF and various other groups have over the years put considerable effort into the physical maintenance of this route for the benefit of all (including walkers and NP 'rangers' on this understanding.
  
  Now can BBNPA please find something else to do!
  

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Sarn Helen Defence | 3 August 2010 8:10 am

  I would be very interested to see a copy of this alledged letter as it would help with the defence of other users of Sarn Helen in the future, please contact row@trf.org.uk

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Alf Jones | 3 August 2010 11:23 am

  Well said BBNP. Unfortunately quite wrong, but thats not the point. Yes it IS an RB, and yes it IS an Unclassified Road. Same as the access road to the visitor centre and thousands of other RBs and UCR dual status roads throughout the country.
  
  What makes the difference is the 'lawful authority' and whether the main use of the road was as a road or as a footpath. Here it is clear, but when dealing with visitors you don't wish (to have spending money visiting the area) it is easy to prosecute - if they plead guilty, it's a few quid profit, brownie points and justify your existence. If they plead not guilty and present the facts correctly, they WILL be acquitted. Rough Injustice.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Andy Nicholas | 3 August 2010 6:02 pm

  So as a law abiding trail-rider am I allowed to ride the trails formally RUPP's?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment