"Richlands IS ILEEGAL EVERYONE. Documents in this rubble somewhere"

Jeff B said:
You are the last person i would want to learn morals or ethics from sir. Your ego is bigger than life, may not want to go there..
Click to expand...
well thought i would try anyways..everyone deserves a shot though
 
ponder on this too Jeff...someday you might assume and imply to the wrong person that they are "un trustworthy" for no reason at all and that person might not be as polite and forgetful as me...dude they could be someone with some serious anger/hatred/evil/betrayed spirits haunting them in which then would really not turn out too well for you cause i know they wouldn't shoot back a "mentoring speech" but what they would be shooting .......let you figure out the rest. just trying to help you understand how people receive things that you might not "mean" to be rude/offensive but it happens and for your own good and safety it is better to be mindful of how you say things and how they might receive something!!
 
IMG_134974158365928.jpeg
 
John, I think you have taken this a little to far. Jeff was just asking a question, not making a statement about you. You said several times that this place was legal to ride on, but offered no prof of this other than a bit of "trust me attitude " so the question was very simply and respectful asked "why should we trust you" or why should we trust what your saying. I think a better more humbling response for you could have been....."that is what I have been told, but I really don't know let me dig in to this and I will repost with something more concrete " could Jeff have asked this in a better way? Maybe, but when you go to the store and the man behind the counter is in your opinion a bit rude, do you fire back at him? Or just give him the money, smile and tell him have a good day and you will be praying for him. now if Jeff would have said " your FOS I don't trust you! You have lied before "
Then I would COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND you back fires to him, and I feel like that is what you feel like he basically said. BUT HE DIDN'T!
 
Moron.jpg
 
Look at the big picture here: anyone with a computer that types in "Richland Road" on their search engine is probably gonna pull up this thread. Its not just on this forum that people have to read this crap, its everywhere!
 
John Fuller said:
dude i'm done. you've made your statement..good job. let it go. you won!!! later
Click to expand...
Apparently not.People always get mad and say they are "done" but keep on posting.:shaking: I dont live in NC,or know where Richlands is,BUT even I know that its not a legal place to ride.Illegal ridin is a touchy subject on this board and many others since they don't have many good places to go.With the closing of Tellico bein partly because of people not stayin on the trails,talk of illegal ridin gets put to an end pretty quick.
 
XJsavage said:
Look at the big picture here: anyone with a computer that types in "Richland Road" on their search engine is probably gonna pull up this thread. Its not just on this forum that people have to read this crap, its everywhere!
Click to expand...
Can't be true, theres a new thread about Richland every month, and its always the same questions.
 
To try and add some more legality to this thread:


19A NCAC 02C .0102 MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY ROADS
The minimum standards for secondary roads are as follows:
(1) The Department of Transportation shall require a right of way width of 50 feet for secondary roads added to the system. The right‑of‑way width may be such as to provide for expected future improvement and maintenance needs of a particular road. A minimum of 50 feet in width for connecting roads and a minimum of 45 feet in width for dead end roads is required. Construction or maintenance easements beyond the right‑of‑way may be required, if necessary.
(2) The DOT may authorize rights of way for secondary roads that are less than the minimum required width upon a determination by the Manager of Secondary Roads, and with the approval of the Board of Transportation, that the minimum required right of way width is not feasible, based upon reasonable engineering principles and costs, or creates unnecessary hardships, and safety is not sacrificed.
(3) For unpaved roads, a minimum travelway width of at least 20 feet is required. Where feasible, road widths of 32 feet including side ditches shall be required. Where not feasible, the requirement may be reduced to a width applicable to the situation, if safety will not be sacrificed.
(4) Unpaved roads may be stabilized based upon the level of service that the roads render for acceptable use in all except extreme weather conditions.
(5) Any secondary road may have drainage established that is adequate to maintain the road in a manner that is justifiable based upon the service that the road renders.
Click to expand...

Based on this info, it would lead that at best you have 50 ft of width. You can drive on the road all day, but the second you deviate off, its not different than doing donuts in someones from yard.
 
paradisePWoffrd said:
To try and add some more legality to this thread:




Based on this info, it would lead that at best you have 50 ft of width. You can drive on the road all day, but the second you deviate off, its not different than doing donuts in someones from yard.
Click to expand...

Dude - get this useful, practical, objective info out of this thread. You're cluttering it.
 
And its spelled illegal BTW. Sorry to be cpt obvious.
 
I just liked that the "authoritative Richland Road information thread" was just a collection of links that pointed back here.

NC4x4 FTW.

Oh, and some of the nerds may have noticed that those links were very old and pointed to locations that don't actually exist anymore, but our server resolved them and redirected them just fine. :D
 
shawn said:
I just liked that the "authoritative Richland Road information thread" was just a collection of links that pointed back here.

NC4x4 FTW.

Oh, and some of the nerds may have noticed that those links were very old and pointed to locations that don't actually exist anymore, but our server resolved them and redirected them just fine. :D
Click to expand...

Noticed both, and could feel the vacuum created by the in-rush of air from your head swelling from all the way up here.
 
Penley? Rock house? Lol they have street signs.
 
a couple things:
1) all of this could be answered with a simple GIS search of the area
2) I have personally been sobriety checked by the sheriff down there years ago- actively patrolling the 'road' at the hillclimbs (with photos)- so yeah, theres that.
3) trespassing is what gets things closed. I don't care of the Pope is wheeling the hillclimbs/mud holes, its not legal- that is clearly established. the rest is up for debate until I research #1 fully, my dad is a NCDOT man (specialty is Right of Way) and can clear this up once and for all
4) why is the resident asshat back on the board after being banned??
5) it is my understanding that he has kids? HOLY CRAP. Good GOD, I hope they aren't home schooled.
 
Back
Top