UKH

I have many hobbies. Too many. High on the list are mountaineering, climbing, camping and walking.

However, I've just bought a 22 year old Range Rover with the idea of revisiting an old hobby I haven't participated in for years. I.e. Green Laning.

I assume this term is familiar with hill walkers, but if not, it's driving a car or motorbike on unpaved paths or trails that have fallen into disrepair. These can range from countryside roads to old public roads that are no longer covered in tarmac. It usually requires your vehicle to be MOT's, insured, taxed and the driver to have a valid driving license.

Now, I have many hill walker friends that despise people Green Laning and strongly believe it should be banned, unless you're there for access reasons. Their concerns are valid. Aggressive driving or wet conditions can damage the paths, there's noise pollution for fellow countryside users and a risk of collision, particularly if a mountain bike is coming the opposite direction at speed and the Green Laner isn't paying attention.

On the flip side, I don't believe it's right for one group of countryside users to dictate to another group how the countryside should be enjoyed. Different people will want to enjoy the countryside in different ways and it's down to all countryside users to be respectful to others.

So, I'm interested to know, with the above for's and against' s for people participating in Green Laning, what does the UKC Hillwalker Community feel about it? Keen to know if you have strong views or not. 

I've added a poll out of interest.

I guess I should have unticked that button that allows others to add their own poll options.

I assume this is a troll.

On the offchance that it isn't, I'd be happy to see "greenlaning" banned.

For me, in the 21st century, I draw the general recreation distinction between motorised and non-motorised. I'm pretty happy to see the latter pretty much anywhere (though ofc I'm sure you can create an unacceptable scenario with a few minute's thought), I don't want to see the former pretty much anywhere (though, again, I guess you can create an acceptable scenario if you try hard enough). If people want to make 4x4 assault courses on their private land then I guess they can (assuming they get the planning consent) but I wouldn't be particularly happy about it.

Also, I love the way you try to infer that taking a 4x4 along disintegrating ancient roads isn't going to damage them as long as you driver carefully [eyeroll].

Only if 5th option was one of your original ones.

Any reason why you think this? I think my query is a perfectly valid one. Anyway, hope this goes far enough to demonstrate I'm not making it up.

https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/fitting-a-second-hand-lpg-kit-what-d...

A lot of it comes down to conditions. If it's dry and you drive carefully the impact is minimal.

The huge pools of oil, random bits of metal debris and smashed up rocks that used to adorn the causeway at Stanage, before it was banned to 4x4s says that's bollox

There are some by me but mostly used by motorbikes....I've seen some terrible damage in other areas by 4*4's which isn't good at all. The trouble here is that the motorcyclists sometimes go on bridleways, maybe by mistake. 

I tend to think though that if you want to use a 4 by 4 for thrills you should go to a designated place....a bit like going for a track day with a sporty type of car. I went to one up near Huddersfield somewhere many years ago for some off road driving instruction.....it was very good and we'll set up...

I've been to these before but it's not really of any interest to me now. Mainly, because they tend to be quite vicious and I want to keep my car in good condition and you don't get anywhere.

The idea of Green Laning is you would cover say 100 miles over two days and camp somewhere in-between. It's not really a thrill seeking hobby. More of a lazy exploration one, but would bring back great memories of when I drove and old Range Rover to Mongolia (and back again). Mongolia was great, spent about 30 days driving around the gobi desert. Being delicate is the aim of the game as you can't afford to break anything. Drive like your car is made out of glass.

There's nothing I like more than inhaling a massive lungful of diesel fumes while working hard cycling or walking up a hill.

I consider greenlaners in the same category as people who go out to raz their crap cars around just for the sake of it. Burning fuel and polluting the environment for no good reason.

I haven't voted as I don't really feel that any of the options fit what I feel and don't want to be shoehorned into the nearest answer, to give a vote to an answer that I'm not in favour of.

Respect for each other in the outdoors, do what you enjoy, where you are entitled to enjoy it, and National Parks (where relevant to this) are supposed to be for everyone's quiet enjoyment (although that may come up against quiet recreation...)

I think this is a little unfair. I deliberately left the Co2 emission bit out of my post. It's burning fuel for recreational purposes. And we all do it.

• If you drive to the countryside (which most users will have to).
• If you catch a flight you'll blow a lifetime of greenlaning out of the water. 
• I read somewhere that going on 10 websites and scrolling on each for 5 minutes results in the same CO2 as driving a typical car 50 miles. No idea how accurate that is.

I've only come across green-laners a couple of times and they were considerate and polite, and driving carefully. But that's not the point. We live on a small crowded island with precious few areas left where we can escape the continuous noise and pollution from motor vehicles. Every activity we do has some impact on others, so we can't ban everything, but we need to weigh up the gain to the participants against the pain for the bystanders. Green laning has an appalling ratio in this regard. One person in a car has a great day, and hundreds of people they pass have their quiet enjoyment spoiled.

You might as well buy a Jetski.

Even if you're being careful, 2 tons of vehicle down a muddy lane creates deep ruts. You end up with holes filled with water, each side, and a raised central section. All the foot and bike traffic is then concentrated on the central section, which turns to mud. So what was a nice track with some muddy bits, becomes a linier mud bath. Crap for anyone walking running or cycling. Unlike with a bike or runner, you can't go around someone, so you'll expect  them to move out of your way. Again, this shows a lack of respect.

Where in the UK are you going to do 100 miles off road? You might be able to do it on some forestry tracks in Scotland, but the majority of that 100 miles route will bring you into close contact with other people in the outdoors. Whilst you may be a careful and diligent driver, your actions normalise the activity. I've seen people who think they are rally (and motocross) drivers razzing around on the moors by me. The more vehicles out there the more people will think this is acceptable.

I am probably opening myself up to a public lynching admitting this on a climbing / walking forum, but I do green laning myself. 

There is a big difference between 'green laning' and 'off roading'  (See GLASS website).  Green laning is exploring established rights of way which have generally not been adopted into metalled roads. Green laning is not tearing up the country side or causing a general pain with big trucks and big wheels - that is off roading, and there are special places set up to allow people to do that.  In exactly the same way there are special places set up for mountain bikers who want to push themselves. 

Yes there are people who do cause issues, in the same way there are some walkers who drop litter and some climbers who damage rock outcrops - responsible green laners (most of us) do not condone this behavior and get frustrated by the impact other people have on what we do.  In exactly the same way responsible walkers / climbers (most of us) do no condone things that go against the countryside code. 

For me its another outdoor hobby, I class it no differently to walking, cycling or climbing.  For others who are less able, its the only way they can explore the country side.  

There are  far less (and less by the day) green lanes than there are hiking paths or cycle paths and so with my hiking hat on, if I am walking down a green lane then I expect to see vehicles.  Providing they are acting responsibly and abiding by the law then I see no harm in it.  I would choose not to walk down a black rated mountain bike trail even if it was open access land for obvious reasons, I would probably also choose not to walk down what may be a popular green lane (even though most are generally quiet even at peak times) for the same reasons.

With my green lane hat on I recognise that vehicles are in the spotlight at the moment, and we should do our best to encourage and work in harmony with others who enjoy the outdoors.  So I am always curtious - for example I would stop and turn off my vehicle so walkers can pass etc. and I also belong to the Green Lane Association (GLASS) who do a lot to maintain green lanes. 

As for damage, I will agree that a vehicle driving off road has the potential to cause damage.  However, in my experience, all the green lanes I have driven have a hard base and so the damage is minimal.  Those green lanes which are on soft ground normally have a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) only allowing vehicles to pass in certain conditions i.e. between May and September.

I would also say that hiking and climbing has environmental damage too.  I was reading a thread a few weeks ago about the holds on popular gritstone routes being smoothed from over use.  I have walked along numerous footpaths where over use has caused the footpath to erode below ground level and I am sure we are all familial with those 'snake like' scars across the landscape where people divert from the foot path and others follow. 

Lynch me if you want, but I do not think green laning is any different from any other outdoor hobby providing it is done responsibly and with respect for other outdoor users. 

Us 'green laners' are all a friendly bunch, so next time you see one of us out and about ask us to stop (if we havent already!) and ask us about what we do.  Also if any of you would like to come green laning to experience it I am more than happy to show you / let you have a go! 

That's a very reasonable post. But for me, one of the biggest issues is the engines. It's the noise and fumes intruding into the space I go to get away from this. For this reason, I think I'd be bit more accepting of EVs. Are electric vehicles a thing amongst green-laners? 

Thank you, there are some really strong and emotional arguments for both sides.  As I am both a green laner and hiker / climber I have always tried to stay fairly balanced. 

I actually agree with you regarding the noise and fumes, my defense would be that its only a short period of time that a vehicle passes for, but its still an issue and something that needs addressing.

We are actually looking at converting our 4x4 into an EV at the moment which is quite exciting, its an old 'classic' landrover and I personally think the only way to keep the classic cars alive is to modernise them.  The plan is using a electric motor and battey pack out of a written off Nissan Juke. 

Its certainly doable and there are quite a few people who have already done it already and the idea is gaining traction very quickly so hopefully the more people who want it the more accessible it will become for everyone else.  

There are some dedicated electric 4x4s out there, but for the most part they have not fed down int our hobby yet.  Hopfully over the next year or two we will see more of them. 

youtube.com/watch?v=_jKRlmHFXlQ&

In some ways I don't like the idea as it's very intrusive and high impact (noise, smell, erosion, pollution, etc) compared to the same number of people walking or cycling in the hills for example. But on the other hand I can see why it would be enjoyable, there are a relatively small number of places it is allowed, and personally I've very rarely seen greenlaners, so at least in my personal experience it's not been a big problem. I'm conscious that at the end of the day every activity has some impact, and I don't want to be too puritanical about people doing things they enjoy when they are legal and kept within reasonable bounds.  

If every time I went for a walk I was passed by several big noisy smelly 4x4s I would probably feel differently about it though. Tbf scrambler bikes may be a bigger issue than 4x4s because they can be noisier, come in bigger groups, and from watching them skid up loose surfaces still quite capable of causing significant surface erosion. 

If you have details on another site, do share. I'd be very interested.

My long term plan with my P38 is an EV conversion, but the cost of the batteries, motor and AC controller is too high for me at the moment. When scrap yards are littered with EVs and many of the systems have been cracked for DIY I think I'll take the plunge.

I think that's fair. If I had never green laned, and never intended to do it I would probably feel the same way.

If I'm completely honest I don't really like seeing people out green laning. It's not a strong dislike, I wouldn't particularly say it affects my enjoyment of the day in a significant way.

But, I'm very wary of attempts to ban a particular outdoor activity and I'm generally supportive of maintaining access rights for green laning. The arguments against are based around two factors:

1. What some consider to be a disproportionate negative impact on others' enjoyment of the outdoors, which is very subjective.

2. Disproportionate damage to rights of way. This is based on a somewhat arbitrary threshold of what is acceptable. Funnily enough everyone's threshold is finely calibrated to just include activities they partake in, and exclude activities they dislike. A couple of years ago there was a campaign by the Friends of the Lake District and Ramblers and some other groups to ban green laning in the Lakes. Iirc the park authority pointed out that if erosion is a concern, the logical conclusion would be to ban all users.

I do a wide variety of outdoor activities, and there are people who would like to see some of these banned, e.g. mountain biking in particular is very unpopular with some outdoor users. If green laning was banned, what would be next?

First they came for the green laners, but I did not speak out, because I was not a green laner... (sorry for the slightly melodramatic mis-quote there)

It's a purely recreational use where the primary enjoyment seems to me to come from getting a vehicle over difficult terrain.  I can understand the attraction, however for me it isn't "enjoying the countryside" any more than driving through Winnats Pass or Langdale is. 

These vehicular rights of way are historical anomalies which don't serve any transportation needs (or they would have been tarmaced).  Ideally the right of way should be downgraded, but this is a lengthy process which few local authorities have an appetite for.

I am generally inclined to be tolerant of other recreational uses, walkers and climbers don't have a monopoly of the countryside.  However I feel this one is inappropriate in these settings because it impacts disproportionately on other's enjoyment because of noise, fumes and damage to surfaces.   

I used to do it in N. Wales when I lived in Liverpool. You might rejoin tarmac for a mile every now and again, then back down another Green Lane. 

What used to happen just under the crag on Stanage causeway was always going to be a major flash point. It took a long time for the 4x4s to negotiate that section and quite a few got stuck for a while: many vehicles were illegal on emissions given the smoke belching from exhausts, the noise was a real pain,  oil occasionally got spilt (albeit I never saw a sump break leaving a huge puddle, it was clearly possible),  and it was very popular with mountain bikers and walkers as well. It must have been a major attractor for the irresponsible minority in your pursuit.

. 

Great joke!

I think it's a very bad idea to start deciding how others should use the countryside. 

People saying 'Climvers are dangerous risk takers who damage that flora and fauna, put pressure on emergency services and poo under crags so should be banned' is entirely feasible. 

Carefully what we wish for people. 

I'm no fan of green laning (and didn't listen to the sound) but that looked a fun weekend with very carefully driven vehicles.

That very scene was my first encounter with them. Up to that point it had been a perfect, almost timeless, clear calm day with the symphony of birdsong. We'd beat the bank holiday crowds and hadn't seen a soul all day. Up trundled 6 of these monsters, who then spent and hour and a half getting stuck every few metres, winching each other out etc. I'm certainly pleased to hear that's changed at that particular location.

Well that looked a pointless lot of noise, pollution and erosion.

Guess it depends on the flight and how often you envision going greenlaning in a lifetime, but that sounds like a wild exaggeration to me. There are various ways of comparing the environmental impact of driving and flying but no reasonable comparisons make flying enough orders of magnitude worse than driving for a single flight to outweigh a lifetime of regular extra driving.

You might well have read it but it sounds like rubbish. And to be fair, lots of similar stats are thrown around. They're generally based on poor and outdated stats. It's just not economically feasible that all these free websites are generating enough ad revenue to compensate for using that much resource per visitor. Presumably the estimates also include things we are paying for, like the energy the device you're browsing on uses and the infrastructure of your ISP, but none of those are all that pricey per hour.

I almost clicked the link to watch, but then I remembered that I had to spend an hour licking my big toe.

Looked like good fun. Some tricky routes.

 > One person in a car has a great day, and hundreds of people they pass have their quiet enjoyment spoiled.

Exactly.

There's loads of motor sports people can choose to do, and loads of outdoor activities. These guys insist on combining the two in a country where it's just not appropriate. They may express themselves politely as someone has on this thread but under that it's basically sod what anyone else thinks.

Nah! No damage whatsoever... This was an ancient trackway in Southern Snowdonia.

That's rubbish.

From

https://myhappyfootprint.com/carbon-footprint-internet/

5 mins on a website 24g, so for 10 websites : 0.24Kg CO2

and from https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=4

50 miles in a Discovery: ~ 20kg CO2

I know you said you had no idea but you still posted it without checking!

The jist of the argument is also rubbish. Yes many of us do have to drive to our activities, but we can choose to lift share, and choose the most efficient vehicle. The vehicles used for green laning will always be inefficient, both on the journey there, and more so while off tarmac roads.

You are Jeremy Clarkson, and I claim my £5.

Green laning issue aside, you're doing exactly what I dream of doing if I ever win the lottery: old Landy converted to run as an EV. Great idea.

It's an appallingly selfish and destructive thing to do. Please reconsider.

In reply to leon 1:

He didn't say that was the only other thing he'd do. 

youtube.com/watch?v=r58pumX8AGs&

youtube.com/watch?v=AhREPq57cv4&

With the second one go to 16 min in.

It also relies on these greenlaners never taking a flight.

Excellent point. I do take take flights (although this year, France so pretty short)

Accordi g to a quick Google there are estimated to be 140,000 miles of footpaths in the UK.

A tiny fraction of them are open to green laneing.

Can we not just live and let live.

People site the noise, have you heard the noise at a popular crag on a weekend, TAKE, SAFE, WATCH ME,  the clank of metal work, the erosion caused at the base of crags.

I used to be a 4x4 owner but I never took to the green lanes, I preferred hitting it hard on come and play days, you know your having fun when your land-rover is on its side or one time it's roof. 

I'd say at the moment, for most, EV's are just too cost prohibitive in the Green Laning world. You only need to spend £1k on something like an old Discovery to get up and running, and this is what many will do.

New 4x4's that are EVs are either ridiculously expensive (and typically not for sale yet), or not really meant for roughing it on a bumpy branchy stoney tracks.

Conversions at the moment really start at £10k as a shoe-string DIY job, but to do it properly you can easily spend £20k+.

I think give it 10 years and it will be a different story.

No argument from me. I was really just interested to know if my hill walking mates were typical or not. If I ignore the owl, troll and genital vote options it's roughly 1/3rd will tolerate it, and 2/3rd that won't. Better than I expected to be honest.

I sheared a radius arm bracket of my front axle on a classic range rover at one of these sites a long time ago. Steering felt a bit vague on the way home. I thought maybe my tracking was out or something. I was horrified to realise what I had been driving.

Could be more problematic from a erosion/general damage viewpoint though bearing in mind they come with a fairly hefty weight penalty.

I always think that people who want to green lane should either get a job driving a JCB/get a job on a farm or join the reserves to do it usefully rather than just "consuming" in a way that is entirely ignorant of climate change

They also have more torque generally so might be a lot easier to accidentally wheel spin.

I guess an EV off road vehicle will quieter and less polluting, but would be significantly heavier than an ICE equivalent, so potentially more damaging to the lane substrate.

You spent most of the thread making everybody wish you'd stay on the roads and leave green lanes alone. Is this an attempt to reverse opinions and make us wish you'd stay off the road?

Just teaching people to be careful of what they wish for.

If the OP was actually Hammond (it wouldn't be Clarkson surely?) and for the grand tour: they'd probably dramatically helicopter the 4x4s. That'd help the carbon footprint

That's nothing, after a good session I was driving my Serise 2a home and a loug banging started. It was still running okay so I carried on. My passenger stuck his head out of the window and insisted I stop immediately. There are 5 studs that hold the steel wheels on, my left front wheel had torn in a spiral pattern from the stud holes so only 1 nut was still attached to the axle but it was on the end of a strip of steel that was about 6 inch long, the banging was the wheel flapping about on the other end of the steel strip. The steering was so poor on the old Serise land rovers that I didn't notice. 

Unfortunately we don't live like that.  You cannot take motorbikes across the hills or moors.  Nor can you simply shoot or fish wherever you wish.  Taking motor bikes on bridleways isn't allowed, not are horses allowed on footpaths.  There are lots of things you can and cannot do in the countryside.

As for 'off roading', its nearly always legal provided you are NOT doing it on Bridleways which are often wide enough for vehicles to use - but many NPs and highways departments have put legal enforcements notices which prohibit motor vehicles and motor bikes from using 'green lanes', normally because of the noise and the mess they make which in turn makes pedestrian use difficult and/or unpleasant.

Yeah, it's  sh*t. If you want to play at being soldiers, join the military; if you can't/won't, it should be as inaccessible as flying jet aircraft.

It's obtrusive to other users, damaging to the environment, and at the end of the day ... a bit pathetic. If you want a wilderness experience... put on your boots and go!

Oh dear. Pretty nast being a front wheel. You can consider a rear wheel as optional and you can limp home on three wheels like a lame donkey when needs must.

No surprise that UKC hates greenlaners.  Seems many here think they're mostly drugged up Kevins in their modified Saxos, whereas most greenlaners (in my years of experience doing it in the UK) are harmless Arnolds pottering about at walking pace in their old Landies.

So, vote from me that greenlaning is great, although it should remain restricted to proper greenlane tracks, where it is legal (which is it on certain tracks... just as mountian biking and walking are).

Yep. That aligns directly with my own experience (one trip with a relative who did a bit) of greenlaning. Very careful to stick to places they were allowed, in conditions where they would not be tearing things up, in a fifty-year old landrover, in very small numbers. Arnold is about it. The disabled guys were thrilled at getting to bits of the countryside they could not otherwise have seen. 

They were pretty despondent about the trail bikers and Stanage-style folks and d1ckwads trashing the country and bringing their activity into disrepute. 

Just like I'm pretty despondent about the dirty camping in Glen Nevis and the Three Peakers spreading their sh1t and bringing my activities into disrepute. And the state of the Corrour bothy and the path up to it last time I went - people going there ought to know and act better than sh1tting everywhere within 2km and tearing up the paths. Those aren't the flip-flop first time brigade, no excuse. 

Plenty of hate on this thread. Pity really, I doubt greenlaning is the problem so much as the things that people think are greenlaning but probably aren't. 

Y

It should be renamed "Brown Laning".

That's the end result of 4wd traffic

As Green Laning is another outdoor pursuit, similar to climbing, running and cycling, I propose there is a new UKC forum dedicated to the noble pursuit of off road driving and motorcycling.

Hopefully, that will increase the number of UKC users and provide a more balanced user group. At the moment it seems UKC is primarily made up of those who enjoy a quiet, undisturbed natural environment and appreciate any undamaged historical and cultural artefacts.

I look forward to long, reasoned discussions in the new "Off Roading" forum.

SD.

I walked a few miles of one with an off-road buggy at the weekend in the Surrey Hills. I live in a polluted, traffic-heavy area of London and Surrey is a convenient escape at the weekend.

No Land Rovers, but several scrambler bikes.

To be fair to them they were very considerate and polite, we were wearing bright clothes so they saw us from a distance and slowed down and thanked us for moving over (mainly I was trying to stop the dog losing her shit at the noise of the engines, which is horrible close up). But it really wasn't nice walking the rest of the way in a cloud of fumes, which is what I tend to be trying to escape.

I asked my missus if she'd like to try brown laning, and now she isn't speaking to me. She must really hate off-roaders.

I can't speak for the rest of the country but round here (south east) there are probably 100 footpaths and bridleways for each green lane.

They are really not hard to avoid.

But don't get me started about bikes on footpaths

I’ve never seen a ‘greenlaner’ in Scotland but because of the right to roam laws here (which exclude motorised vehicles) you would need the landowner’s permission.  Thankfully it appears most landowners are not obliging with consenting to having large loud vehicles eroding their land and disturbing wildlife.

Except for their own vehicles of course. But they generally bulldoze massive new private roads for those, so zero danger of churning up the countryside, it's all pristine. And bothering the wildlife (with guns) is precisely the point, so no worries on that score either

Certainly wasn’t trying to claim that things are wild utopia - but noting that adding more vehicles and noise pollution is certainly not a welcome addition! 

doesn't sound right to me- far too little difference. your first link says 0.2g/search

I don't think you can make this argument - someone taking a motor vehicle into remote countryside is already dictating to all other groups how the countryside should be enjoyed, namely, with a load of background engine noise.

In practice I agree with what a few others have said - I don't have a fundamental issue with the status quo, I wouldn't shout loudly for a blanket ban but I've got no problem with restrictions on routes like Stanage Causeway where a few people in motor vehicles can annoy literally hundreds of people who just wanted to come out for a walk or a climb or a picnic, or where the track surface is particularly at risk. On the flip side, we got passed by a convoy of 4x4s somewhere near the Elan Valley, and although you literally could hear them for miles, I didn't have much of a problem with it because there really just aren't that many people around there.

I believe more often than not, tracks where you can legally green lane are not the same places you would choose to go for your walk. You might walk your dog down one if you happen to live right next to it, but other than that, when I think of all the places I enjoy walking, you certainly can't drive in those locations.

It's the same in England. Excluding private land you can only drive on BOATs 'Byway open to all traffic'. There aren't many of these so you have to plan your route carefully.

I assume it's the same in Scotland.

Sorry, I was really just scoring an easy point against estate (mis)management, didn't mean it to come across as a dig at you! Agree, it's a good thing that vehicle use in Scotland is an exclusive preserve of the toffs, at least that keeps the numbers down  

Maybe it is an upper estimate for being online. The first link also says 24g for 5 mins on a webpage, which is what I used. The point is it's nowhere near comparable.

Green-laning isn't defined by using out of repair routes. Many routes vehicles are legally allowed to use could be argued to be 'out of repair', but many may never have had a sealed or made-up surface in the first place. The determining factor is whether the route has extant vehicular rights that allow their use; otherwise it's illegal off-roading/tresspass! 

Nope. We don't have the concept of byways up here. The only places we can drive off road are specially converted quarries (and the like) and private land where the local landy club has waved a huge wad of cash under the landowner's nose. (this includes forestry scotland land)

As an occasional green laner, I can't think of any lane I've driven that would come close to many people out walking the hills. I'm thinking of tracks like the Cam High road and Stalling Busk lane out of Bainbridge. Or perhaps the Iron Keld lane near Tarn Hows which only had a few bikers and a couple of horseriders (who stopped for a pleasant chat) on it last time I was there.

(btw we had just about the same conversation on november 2019. )

I want to agree, can't bear recreational off roading............but so is the rest of us driving to the lakes/Scotland from wherever else for a walk/climb/bike ride or whatever else....

Round here the tracks are quite nice and heavily used by walkers since they join several areas up. They do suffer a lot from the 4x4 crew in winter. There are a couple I dont ride my mountain bike on in winter/wet conditions since they are sunken lanes which really concentrate the mud and damage and every year they end up in a really bad state.

Did make me laugh once when I overtook a convoy and then passed some ramblers further down who whinged about cyclists riding illegally. I did debate pointing out the track status but thought I would leave it as a pleasant surprise for them.

Never had much trouble with them though aside from that. The illegal motorbike lot keep to an old quarry and the legal ones are considerate. They would definitely benefit from switching to electric though both for the noise and smell.

it's alarming how high it is- some websites are>10g/page view it seems (eg11coffee)..

I never knew that. I imagine Scotland would be a wonderful place to explore with a 4x4. In the summer at least. And no midges could get through your hepa filter!

they find other ways in.. esp window seals (from recent experience)

Well said.  It's indeed a few (typically on scramblers) who spoil it for the many, and most people can't seem to get past that.

You might like to look here to learn more about access rights in Scotland:

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/

Whatever you do, don't assume that rights in Scotland are the same as they are in England. 

I wasn't going to respond to this because my point was that we all use energy for recreational purposes, and Green Laning over the course of a year will by no means be the highest, and the argument of "Burning fuel and polluting the environment for no good reason" can be pointed at almost anyone (probably everyone reading this).

But since so many are challenging the figures (I'm not defending them, they do seem high, but I do expect them to be alarmingly high) I thought I would do a quick top down check to see what I get.

• Global annual internet greenhouse gas emissions = 1.6 Billion tonnes
• https://escp.eu/news/reduce-your-digital-carbon-footprint-shape-greener-fut....
• Total number of internet users = 4.6 Billion
• https://news.mongabay.com/2021/07/the-true-environmental-cost-of-the-intern...

So that's 348kg per person per year, or 953g per day (average user).

A liter of fuel (petrol) emits 2.4kg per liter [https://www.carbonindependent.org/17.html] and a pretty efficient modern car can achieve 50mpg [no reference, sounds about right].

Wiggle the numbers around a bit and that means that the average person's internet usage equates to circa 4.4 miles per day.

Now you might say 4.4 miles is a lot less than 50, and you'd be right, but 4.4 is the average remember.

I'm pretty sure if you selected a particularly heavy user who uses the most energy intensive sites you could get that number a lot higher (10 times higher, probably). Throw in a bit of CO2 for powering your own machine etc and maybe with a pinch of exaggeration, 50 miles might just be possible. Whether you could achieve that with just 5 minutes on 10 websites is probably very unlikely however.

Now one could also argue that the 1.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse badness includes lots of business use so shouldn't be equally shared between all internet users, but it's all part of the same ecosystem that makes it all work. When facebook release their Co2 emissions per user, or click, I simply don't believe them. There's will be third party services that are critical for facebook to work that they will conveniently leave out. So I think a top down approach is probably more realistic approach and hopefully shed an alarming light on how much Co2 our internet habits can have.

Important Note: The average of 4.4 miles oper assumes you are not using google maps while driving 

Edit: Something I forgot to mention, I bet (I don't know but I assume) that every social media site fails to include advertising CO2 emissions which apparently is one of the biggest contributors excluding videos on social media.

somewhere a polar bear is crying....

If you follow the link in your source, the 1.6 billion tons value includes the manufacture of all internet-related devices as well as actual usage. So it's not really relevant to calculating the additional impact of an extra hour of browsing, as in your original example.

How about your greenlaning vehicle? Isn't that what we're discussing here?

Well the site I read (which I annoyingly can't find now) wasn't comparing the Internet to my car. It was probably a very efficient car to make the numbers scarier. For my car, you can probably half it, and then take a bit more off for good measure. 

I think you are missing my point. The use of the internet is quite clearly a major CO2 emitter. We can argue about how the numbers should be calculated all day long, but the point remains that anybody signing into the internet to criticise people for having hobbies that emit CO2 is being very hypocritical. 

Do you know where this is? Is it a BOAT or private land? It may have been illegal usage or simply the land owner.

If it's a BOAT then yes this is what happens when you Green Lane in saturated conditions. But Green Lanes I have been on are far better maintained than this so I suspect it isn't one.

It is a BOAT. From Rhyd yr Onnen to Cwm Maethlon. 

No they're not. Virtually all activities release CO2 to some degree, bicycles have a footprint from their initial manufacture, vegetarian food is still largely reliant on diesel powered tractors, the electricity that powers electric trains is largely made from gas and so on but to suggest equivalence between all activities because of this is bonkers. Per minute,  Internet usage produces orders of magnitude less pollution than green laning and can be made sustainable, green laning can't. If everybody who currently uses the Internet took up green laning as a hobby it really wouldn't be very long till London was underwater 

To answer the question in your OP:

Yes, it’s a disgrace. It trashes the countryside, causes additional air and noise pollution and is as good a show of contempt for the environment and others who enjoy it as you can get.

The damage to the Lake District is a significant concern. https://www.savethelakedistrict.com/ Thanks to Rog Wilko for this thread https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/hill_talk/4x4_devastation_of_little_langd...

I understand your point but I don't accept that the numbers don't matter. By your logic, nobody is entitled to an opinion on environmental matters because everybody has done something that's damaging to the environment on some scale and I can't judge somebody for embezzling a million quid because I once took a pen home from work.

Counting the entire yearly impact of both manufacturing and running internet devices as equivalent to a hobby is ludicrous. Vast amounts of that impact, as you admitted yourself, comes from business use. And me cutting back on my use of UKC won't reduce the manufacturing impact of the devices I use (and getting rid of those devices would be a radical option in the modern world).

We shouldn't divorce ourselves from the impact our digital technology habits have on the environment. But poorly-evidenced and misleading comparisons to much more damaging habits won't make people reduce their internet use, they'll be used as excuses to not bother reducing the genuinely significantly harmful activities. Which, after all, is exactly the reason you're bringing them up here.

If people do genuinely want to reduce the carbon footprint of their digital activities, buying well-supported and repairable devices then not replacing them for a long time would be much more beneficial than occasionally reducing the hours they spend using them.

I' m all for keeping the toffs numbers down,  Dan. My crofter neighbour has a home built  argo but  I wouldn' t classify him as a toff!

This thread has been way too polite and respectful. Driving motor vehicles off-road is for ****s. No exceptions. That’s just how it is.

jcm

There’re plenty of 4x4 courses in old quarries etc that are far cheaper than the options for privately flying jet aircraft.  I don’t see the problem in creating more contained 4x4 courses with proper technical driving in already ruined landscapes; not unlike UK sports climbs in old quarries.  Make the most of the damaged landscape.  Bonus points - some of them let you hire a tank or a half track.

Should be 10x to 100x cheaper than flying an ex military jet.  Long ago, I had been saving up for a trip to Thunder City in Cape Town to fly a Blackburn Buccaneer.  I’m pretty convinced that of all the jets ever made, that’s the one I was born several decades to late for.  It all fell apart about 13 years ago but one of them returned to flight this year….  

Of course you have...

Then you should apply the same approach to automotives... vehicle manufacture, roads, all associated activities.

I would want to check your figures but do accept that the using the internet has a significant carbon footprint, but far less than driving a car, particular a large 4x4 vehicle off tarmac.

That is basically an argument in favour of nobody doing anything to reduce carbon emissions eg someone who takes one short haul commercial flight a year has no right to criticise the rich flying frequently on private jets for leisure. If we take that approach we are doomed (well, future generations are).

True, but I'm not trying to argue one is more impactful than the other, only that they are both impactful.

If you do the two activates for the same amount of time, absolutely. But If I went Green Laning three times a year, how would that compare to a years worth of internet browsing? Of that I'm not so sure, and the answer wouldn't even matter, they both have a footprint, that was the point.

That's not my intention. By all means be aware of what you do and what impacts it has, and advise people accordingly so they can make the decisions they would want, and I know you didn't say it, but the argument of [it uses energy so you shouldn't do it] is a pointless argument that I wanted to push back on.

Mainly because you can't take a persons single activity and decide based on that whether it's worth while being done when measured against the common good. If we did that it would be a dangerous road of many pleasures in life being banned, I'm just not willing to flirt with such authoritarian ideas. I think a more holistic approach is better on that front. I may be biased as I know I would score pretty well. I don't eat meat, I buy almost everything second hand and repair it [mainly for money reasons] and I don't commute very far at all and mostly work from home. I'm also quite happy with the house being cold, but I have a family who disagree with me on that one. I don't take many flight, and rarely very far. I wear clothes until they fall apart as I get attached to them and never shop for fashion reasons. When it comes to the Range Rover I think I told the insurance company I do 4000 miles a year, which will a a gross exaggeration. Probably closer to 1000 a year. So I reject the air pollution argument as it really stems down to people perception of [4WD = Bad for Polar Bears].. 

But I do use the internet, hmmmmm!

I'd suggest that though the internet has a carbon footprint, some of that is offset from other areas of life. For example, if I send. snail mail to the other end of the country, there are a lot of vehicles involved in that journey. For an email, the servers burn power, which may or not be green*, but it displaces the need for vehicles. Similar story for online banking, versus driving to the bank.

*Many service providers use green power, as the companies that use their services have to produce a carbon report. Given the choice between two service providers, the one with the lowest foot print is likely to get the job.

In 2020 – for the fourth consecutive year – Google matched 100 percent of its annual electricity consumption with purchases of renewable energy

https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/cleanenergy/

OP: Sell your clunky old landy and use the money, fuel and insurance savings to get an ebike.

Absolutely not.

First, it's too lovely (zero clunks to speak of).

Second, I need a car anyway, might as well be one I like.

I do accept that. I also do (or don't do) most of the above, but my indulgence is driving to go climbing. I would say that is specific to you though, I'd be surprised if most green laners were's doing it on top of lots of driving, flights abroad ect.

To rephrase, I'd say less carbon intensive hobbies are 'low hanging fruit' when it comes to reducing emissions. And I mean by persuasion, dreadi's suggestion of the ebike for instance (in general not to you).

Yeah, I think it's replaced most peoples daily paper. The printing, paper, transportation  ect must have a big CO2 footprint.

This is probably just as controversial as the Green Laning topic, and probably needs to be (probably already is) it's own thread, but I think the lowest hanging fruit at the moment is personal electric mobility scooter thingies.

I'm about three miles from a train station so I'm much more likely to drive somewhere than cycle to the train station. Especially work, where you then need to shower etc. Also there's no parking for a reasonable price at the train station so that's out and I'm not leaving an e-bike at a station for it to be nicked to avoid a shower and you can't take them on a train at rush hour either. Foldable electric scooter however?

Legalising electric scooters would change that dynamic a lot and could have huge impacts on people travel choices and in terms of Co2, I would have thought massively for the better. It will probably put more pressure on the NHS however.

Totally agree, e scooters could be a game changer for all the reasons you give. We need to move away from cars, ICE or electric.

I find this a debatable point. It could be used to argue in favour of fox hunting with hounds, Zip wires, bolting on grit, etc.

I think it is down to all countryside users to be respectful of others AND the environment. It is inevitable that some activities will needs be require restriction by their very nature. Climbers should abide by bird bans for instance. One vehicle on a green lane is not going to cause much of a problem. Dozens of vehicles on green lanes will cause a problem. If this is the case then restirctions will enevitably follow.

I thought this 20 year old polluting piece of junk was only going to be used for Green laneing, but now it is your main vehicle, thats pretty bad. 

I'm guessing my car will be still on the road long after whatever you drive has been scrapped.

For a low mileage second family car it sounds perfect.

Based on your figures, I reckon the views and replies to this thread alone have burned through your entire lifetime CO2 allowance for green-laning. You have only yourself to blame.

Given that you asked for the opinions of people here*, and as an alternative to all your seemingly endless hair-splitting about carbon emissions, I have a suggestion:

Find someone under the age of (say) twenty who is engaged with the "outdoors" and describe to them your "green laning" and ask them if they think you should do it - whether it's a sensible use of the world they will inherit. And then do what they tell you.

(* I have a theory that there's a reason that you went to the trouble to do this.)

I am amazed by how few negative interactions with Green Laners I have had compared to so many on here when I live about 1km away from a green lane and it is a regular walk for me and the hound. The ones that have been exercising their right to drive down a public highway have all been polite and considerate. I am also surprised by how climbers have become considered so environmentally friendly when you look at how much irreparable damage we cause ourselves.

Hmm. I've been going to Stanage for 50+ years now, last time was just a week ago. Despite the huge numbers of people who use it, I was struck by how much better condition the ground was than it used to be... Grass had grown back, there was very little litter, pretty good really.