BWD >> participation in mtbing is effectively self-limiting in the same way that participation in climbing and mountaineering is, the majority of people don’t want to be tired, wet, muddy, risk their personal safety even at a low level etc.

Sounds like you are imposing your own elitist view on what MTB constitutes – if i tried to draw a direct line between provision of public footpaths/rambling as a limiting/driving factor on participation in climbing, mountaineering or fell running then you would laugh at me. However they are of course related, as although there may not be a direct causative connection, walking/rambling acts as an important gateway activity towards the other, more ‘enthusiast’ levels of the sport.

Consequently, if you look at cycling in the same way with, for example, data from the Scottish outdoor recreation survey:

you can see the importance of access to ‘tracks and paths’ for leisure/recreational cycling in general, rather than the more enthusiast levels of the sport that you appear to be discussing in your post. I suggest that the survey somewhat relied on people self identifying their activity as ‘cycling on paths and tracks’ rather than ‘mountain biking’ – where on earth one starts and the other stops I don’t know, its very subjective.

I have argued for some time that the French “VTT” title better reflects the reality of UK off-oad cycling/MTB than the american ‘mountain biking’ phrase that we have ended up with, as even phrases like ‘off-road’ are debatable (is a tarmac surfaced railway line ‘off-road’? how about a gravel one?) to me, as a simple guideline, our sport starts wherever the tarmac stops, and as such the provision of a great many more ‘paths and tracks’ through increasing cycle access to footpaths for the non-enthusiasts (who other surveys suggest suggest are significantly put off cycling by the lack of traffic free routes) plays an important role, whether you want to accept that its all the same thing, or whether ‘track and path’ cycling is just an important gateway activity to ‘MTB’

There is one fact – open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries.

I was gonna say, I think Scotland’s experience could be the key here.

I suspect that if you’re experiencing lack of respect from others then you’re in some way inviting that, but being ‘legitimate’ doesn’t confer respect, it’s the way you act.

I was thinking about the other countryside users/landowners who already have a problem with MTBers in general – rather than with me in particular.

Sounds like you are imposing your own elitist view on what MTB constitutes – if i tried to draw a direct line between provision of public footpaths/rambling as a limiting/driving factor on participation in climbing, mountaineering or fell running then you would laugh at me. However they are of course related, as although there may not be a direct causative connection, walking/rambling acts as an important gateway activity towards the other, more ‘enthusiast’ levels of the sport.

I guess all that hinges on whether there’s a genuine shortage of rideable – legal and otherwise – tracks and that’s probably going to vary from place to place. Not sure I’m being eliitist btw, just using MTB in the context of a mostly mountain biking and – estate car driving – forum.

There is one fact – open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries.

Where there’s a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn’t necessarily means it’s be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

Interestingly it’s not just in the UK, just been reading this piece regarding the US – http://bikepackersmagazine.com/trail-associations-bikepacking/

BWD – did you not know that Scotland and Scandinavia are identical in all respects to England and Wales.

People can’t respect what is already available to them imo – the below was decorating the Garburn Pass the other day. Nice – Open MTBs new FB page photo?

[url=https://flic.kr/p/AadRGQ]P1000510[/url] by jamesanderson2010, on Flickr

BadlyWiredDog – Member

Where there’s a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border

People always say this but by definition, the areas in Scotland which have the most local population, also have the most pressure on their local access. We have the pentland hills literally within edinburgh city limits- the 7th biggest city in the UK- and that works just fine.

Ironically, open access spreads people more widely and in many cases reduces impact and contention. I reckon the perception the English have of a crowded island is mostly because you’re only allowed to use a tiny fraction of it.

People focus on a couple of specific areas that have problems, like Loch Lomond shores, and just forget what that means- they’re exceptions.

hinges on whether there’s a genuine shortage of rideable – legal and otherwise – tracks and that’s probably going to vary from place to place

theres a couple of potential questions there, no ‘shortage of rideable tracks for those enthusiasts who don’t mind trespassing’ does not necessarily mean there isn’t a ‘shortage of rideable tracks that appeal and are used by the non-enthusiast’, the people who would potentially benefit most from the health outcomes of getting out and enjoying the countryside, or equally the people who feed the sport (both as and industry/bike sales and through the gateway effect)

Essentially Its very possible that the mountain bikers of the future never find the sport because they never venture beyond the ‘no bikes sign’ on the footpath at the end of their road.

In addition to the pure ‘shortage of trails’ there is the issue of trail connectivity, which remains one of the biggest challenges with the existing bridleway network. from a tourism point of view (since it was mentioned earlier) we can point to examples like the Pennine Bridleway – many of those trails already existed, it was the linking them together that has made it into a tourist facility. we could also look at routes like the Ridgeway, where some years ago the national trails manager stated “although unsurfaced, the Ridgeway west of the Thames offers the potential to be one of the longest and finest off-road recreational opportunities for cyclists and equestrians in the country” – however due to the poor connectivity, whereby sections of this route remain footpath, it cannot be advertised or promoted as such.

There are definitely strong indicators that developing/increasing the provision of traffic free routes would be likely to lead to more people cycling, and people who already do cycling more – for example one (English county based ) survey I have access to shows the key role of traffic free routes: so its my strong contention that more paths where people can ride is *the* factor that is likely to lead to more people riding (Would mention here to just look at those figures compared with issues like access to affordable bikes where we throw shed loads of cash into hire schemes etc. to try and increase cycling)

on the other point:

Where there’s a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn’t necessarily means it’s be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

Agree, it won’t necessarily work, however the population density argument is somewhat of a red herring, (edit, as Northwind says) the population density of the central belt of Scotland is as high as the post-industrial areas of the English landscape, and despite being subject to the same access laws as the much more desolate areas of Scotland, there have not been significant problems with bikes and the review of the land reform act clearly stated that on the whole it was working well (most of the problems identified in the review were with digs, camping and other low level anti-social behaviour on the urban fringe, cycling came out of the review virtually unmentioned)

BadlyWiredDog – Member
“There is one fact – open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries.”
…Where there’s a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn’t necessarily means it’s be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

Maybe I have more faith in English standards of decency than you. 🙂

Simply relying on the notion that where the legal network falls short there will be a natural levelling supplied by cheeky trails does not compute in the real world and some agreement / tolerance of landowners will be needed if legal access is not established. Like Ninfan points out it is necessary to increase and develop the population of riders which, despite some groans from those preferring the exclusivity, is necessary to show the economic value multipliers that both the Cycle trade and Tourism industry to invest in growth by creating more to consume.

its not just the timid and uncertain riders and guidebook writers who need certainty of rights I was recently approached by a small landowner in an area of exceedingly poor rights of way access who, with the down turn in faming was developing buildings for holiday lets across the land and whilst able to increase access for renters was not so keen to make the extra access public. However they were more concerned that their future clients, who would mostly be horse and cycle riders, would not end up simply tramping all over their neighbours land where there was no right or agreement for them to do so because of the ill feeling it would cause.

A nearby shooting estate have already singled out an increase in illegal riding has arisen following the development of a promoted legal MTB route through the area, short of access, as being the main reasons why they claim to be an overload of illegal riding occurring on their land. At a terse meeting with their Farming Union rep and and arsey country practise solicitor they demanded we immediately provided an armful of ‘no cycling allowed’ signs on these routes to compensate them. This request was declined as the responsibility to define the extent of access falls to the landowner in case law. That led the solicitor to remind me should his client to accidentally leave a box of tacks, open on his quad as he rode up these routes which might accidentally spill that might have the same effect just as another of his clients, faced with a similar situation, now accidentally dunks the spinning head of a hedge cutter in hawthorn, blackthorn and gorse alongside paths that suffered un-consented use by mtb riders, and which had a fairly immediate desired effect. Many Country Solicitors and their Land Agent chums even today think protection of land from the public is an over-riding priority for their profession and there are probably some here who would pat them on the backs for saying so if it keeps the hordes out but not them.

This kind of nonsense if going on all the time, The Countryside Alliance in Wales has provided a lot of lobbying not just to stop increased access but to secure more effective powers for landowners to stop unauthorised access irrespective of what benefits it may bring to wider society or local economy.

Without some legal certainty there will be significant areas of land in some areas of this country where any informal access suitable for a wide range of users has the permanence of tumbleweed other than for a handful of riders prepared to square up to a landowner when challenged

Sharing trail knowledge is great.

How it is shared matters.

Showing someone a trail, suggesting under what weather conditions it’s good to ride without damaging it, telling them what days and times it is best to avoid riding it to avoid the local moaners, all matters.

A heat map of trail use, paired with an incentive to take the shortest route, rather than the twisty route, is not a good way to spread trail knowledge… even if it is now the most common way.

Maybe I have more faith in English standards of decency than you. 🙂

Have you travelled on the tube recently or ventured inside the M25 while driving a car? 😉

Essentially Its very possible that the mountain bikers of the future never find the sport because they never venture beyond the ‘no bikes sign’ on the footpath at the end of their road.

I suppose that’s plausible, but equally plausibly there may be plenty of other reasons why people don’t take up cycling. I guess all I’m saying is that simply legalising footpaths won’t necessarily make a huge difference here and that it’s not the same as ‘More cycle routes particularly away from busy traffic’ although in some cases, of course, it will be.

And even if lots of people cycle for transport or family recreation on, say, gravel tracks or segregated roadways, that doesn’t necessarily mean more mountain bikers. Does Holland, for example, have proportionately more mountain bikers than the UK? I don’t know.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of more people taking up cycling – and potentially mountain biking – but I think it’s a different issue to the footpath thing though obviously there are overlaps.

For me anyway, mAx_hEadSet’s arguments are more compelling. And yes, I guess I am seeing it from the slightly narrow perspective of being a committed mountain biker, but then to be fair, this is primarily a mountain biking forum albeit with more general leanings, so I don’t think that’s entirely unreasonable.

BadlyWiredDog – Member
‘Maybe I have more faith in English standards of decency than you”.
Have you travelled on the tube recently or ventured inside the M25 while driving a car? …

Actually on the Tube I was impressed by how civil everyone was despite the overcrowding.

As for the M25, I thought the other drivers were fleeing a Zombie Apocalypse, so I forgave them.

I guess all I’m saying is that simply legalising footpaths won’t necessarily make a huge difference here and that it’s not the same as ‘More cycle routes particularly away from busy traffic’ although in some cases, of course, it will be.

‘won’t necessarily’ is a rather debate high hurdle to mount – however following the ‘gateway activity’ principle, then the probability is that it will – also, given the above points on connectivity, then even if it didn’t, it would significantly improve conditions for all existing off-road cyclists by allowing them to link together the existing bridleway network, so its a win for us regardless.

If however we do accept the data above on ‘what people say would make them more likely to cycle’ and then think about ways to achieve it, then the ‘bang for buck’ of permitting access to the tracks that already physically exist as part of the footpath network is unbeatable, especially compared with the current process and expense involved in creating any new routes or rights of access (bearing in mind here the fact that at the moment whether a legal right exists to cycle on a PRoW does not necessarily relate to any factors of safety, suitability or reasonableness).

And even if lots of people cycle for transport or family recreation on, say, gravel tracks or segregated roadways, that doesn’t necessarily mean more mountain bikers.

again, necessarily – however more people cycling can only be a good thing for society if we look at issues like health, obesity, wellbeing etc. – data mining is complex between surveys like MENE SPANS and WORS, but certainly seems to suggest a higher level of off-road cycling participation in Scotland, and shows the same trend across the board that off road/mountain biking retains a younger age profile than road cycling, more likely to be of working age, have kids – off-road also more likely to take place in the countryside and more likely to spend money on the trip (both if which i suspect we already knew, but it underlines the importance to the rural economy of expanding off-road rather than just road cycling.)

rocketman – Member

I wouldn’t broadcast anything around Cannock after some disappointing word-of-mouth experiences where good but fragile trails were completely destroyed literally in a matter of days

Much prefer to recreate them. The process is subtle – even though the trail has gone it takes a lot to eradicate the line the ground. I follow it as close as I can and soon someone else has had the same idea. Within a week or so the new line is rideable

After a while others will move timber and debris aside and the trail emerges. Not 100% as it was but pretty close

Then someone Stravas it and the process repeats itself Not sure who you are, but I’m a Cannock local and would echo your sentiments exactly.

One of the issues is not about clique or exclusivity, but the trail itself – with the best will in the world, these trails won;t stand up to heavy or unsympathetic (yahoo but rear wheel skids and POW! turns) use. I’ve seen a number of ‘secret’ trails wrecked where traffic/fame builds to a point of unsustainability. I’ve also seen them wrecked by idiots straightlining them and people carving inexplicable and inexcusable (for anyone other than a rank novice) breaking ruts.

Our areas differ, but digga +1

We can discuss data, existing usages, etc for eternity, and not come to a conclusion.

It’s too complicated/confusing.

The answer is to cut the Gordian Knot, and simply look at what works elsewhere.

And that answer is open access.

Get that and everything else falls into place.

I couldn’t be arsed reading all this but the bits I have read are (as often the case) focusing on us, the enthusiast mountain biker.

There is an increasing number of people who own a mountain bike but are not enthusiasts. These people (sweeping generalisation) do not know how to read a map and do not care to learn because they do not know the written and un-written rules of countryside access, they also take no consideration of the ground conditions because mountain biking is inherently a sport where you expect to get mucky. They assume that they can go wherever whenever, this assumption is backed up by seeing tyre tracks on the ground.

What the non-cycling public see as a mountain biker is changing and its changing fast. With these changes come pros & cons. If we the enthusiast do not manage the cons then we will ultimately we will come off worse.

I don’t think I’d really give two hoots if we gained official access to footpaths as I tend to ride popular areas at unpopular times and prefer to gamble on a random track spotted from Google earth than on the same well worn loop. Any objections I have come across I have attempted to explain the situation and interact with people instead of being a smart arse or abusive.

I think enthusiasts will see very little change as they are already reading maps and riding footpaths and I think non-enthusiasts will venture comparatively small distances from existing routes.

I’ve kind of lost my train of thought now and forgot what my point was.

I’ve kind of lost my train of thought now and forgot what my point was.

I think it was about not really giving a stuff about footpath legalisation, probably… in a slightly selfish way. And there are other, ‘non-enthusiast’ people following you around because you leave tracks and they don’t know about legalities and ground conditions. And if you legalise footpath riding, they’ll still follow you round, so, erm, it won’t make any difference really.

Meanwhile in Scotland, folk spend all day filling out multiple choice survey questions with the result that open access is a raging success.

BadlyWiredDog – I think it was about not really giving a stuff about footpath legalisation, probably… in a slightly selfish way.

Kind of

And there are other, ‘non-enthusiast’ people following you around because you leave tracks and they don’t know about legalities and ground conditions. And if you legalise footpath riding, they’ll still follow you round, so, erm, it won’t make any difference really.

Sort of

Meanwhile in Scotland, folk spend all day filling out multiple choice survey questions with the result that open access is a raging success.

Not really

I think it was… I’d like to see better access even though it wont really make much difference to me and I think it’ll only make a small / localised difference overall.

BadlyWiredDog – I think it was about not really giving a stuff about footpath legalisation, probably… in a slightly selfish way.

One difference would be ‘track’ maintenance reqts – some people don’t have the phsyical ability to lift bikes(etc) over stiles/kissing gates etc etc which are allowed on footpaths, if there was a law change and that altered what sort of ‘gates’ could be used on footpaths I can see that helping certain people extend the set of paths they can use.

I think podge describes the great majority of mountain bikers sadly – I posted the picture above as I find it completely inconceivable that someone would behave in this manner and sling an old inner tube up a tree in a gem of a place like the Garburn Pass, I doubt whoever it was on their own so there was probably a group that thought this was acceptable behaviour and this is somewhere where access already exists.

I am a ‘country solicitor’ in mid Wales and have been out in the hills on foot and by bike (and I ride cheeky trails) for 30 plus years and was going to try and give some sort of balanced response but quite frankly I can’t be bothered anymore – there are always going to be grey areas on certain pieces of land and I can think of some places where there would be fantastic opportunities for adding to the cycle network of paths and trails but the tube up the tree reminds me that wider / open access is generally a bad thing for my clients and is to be opposed at all costs – why should our hobby make my clients’ ability to run what is already a very regulated business one iota more difficult.

towzer – One difference would be ‘track’ maintenance reqts – some people don’t have the phsyical ability to lift bikes(etc) over stiles/kissing gates etc etc which are allowed on footpaths, if there was a law change and that altered what sort of ‘gates’ could be used on footpaths I can see that helping certain people extend the set of paths they can use.

There is nothing in law that states that even though cycles have access to Bridleways that the land owner must make provisions for them. I cant see this changing and for public relations I don’t think it should. If someone came to me and said not only are those sodding hooligans on 2 wheels going to be given access to my land by law but I have to make sure I replace all my gates, stiles and other bits to accommodate them I’d be mighty cheesed off.

Nipper99 – I think podge describes the great majority of mountain bikers sadly – I posted the picture above as I find it completely inconceivable that someone would behave in this manner and sling an old inner tube up a tree in a gem of a place like the Garburn Pass, I doubt whoever it was on their own so there was probably a group that thought this was acceptable behaviour and this is somewhere where access already exists.

Unfortunately I think that tube could have easily been put there by a disgruntled walker to emphasise / influence their point. Neither side of the argument are squeaky clean. Your assumptions about them being in a group are odd, I ride mainly by myself and have been known to accidentally drop a water bottle or innertube, its alarmingly easily done.

why should our hobby make my clients’ ability to run what is already a very regulated business one iota more difficult.

Because its for the greater good. If something is wrong and has been wrong for a loooooooong time, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be corrected because it might cause a few people a few issues.

Oh and my earlier post wasn’t meant to be a harsh judgement on other mountain bikers, I just meant to point out that some people dont care, not through selfishness but because they really do not know any better.

BadlyWiredDog – Member
“There is one fact – open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries.”
…Where there’s a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn’t necessarily means it’s be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

I see this argument raised all the time, and once you start looking into it, there’s more than a whiff of bollocks about it.

The Edinburgh area has 1,786 people per km². Here are some photos from a mountain biking trip up the way the other week, using a route that’s been uploaded as a GPX and widely publicised.

Taken 25 miles away from the city:

16 miles away:

6 miles away:

The bottom line is, outside areas that are a short distance from car parks, and honeypots like the Lakes, people barely use the countryside for recreation any more. We saw far more people out walking on this trip than we have on comparable trips to Wales.

I see this argument raised all the time, and once you start looking into it, there’s more than a whiff of bollocks about it.

I think it’s reasonable to question whether just because something works in Scotland, it’ll work equally well elsewhere. I didn’t say it definitely wouldn’t work, I just wondered about it.

I’m not sure that your pics prove anything much at all btw. They’re the visual equivalent of giving an opinion and then writing FACT after it, fact… 😉

They’re not cherry picked, if that’s what you mean. I’ve got about a hundred photos from that trip and none of them has another trail user in them. We saw other people, sure, but nobody got in each other’s way.

Incidentally, the population density of Snowdonia is 47 people per km². The population density of Powys is 25 people per km². If you’re going to argue that open access won’t work in certain areas because the population is too dense, surely the reverse applies in sparsely populated areas?

I’m just saying nicely that putting up a bunch of pics of a quiet trail isn’t really objective proof of anything except that the particular trail you were using was quiet. I’m sure you could, for example, wander around the City of London early on a Sunday morning and take a bunch of pics showing deserted streets, but it’s not exactly definitive proof that London is a quiet city with no congestion issues.

Equally, I could stick up loads of pics from the Peak District showing either that it’s completely deserted because there are no people in the pics or that it’s completely overrun by hordes of ramblers. They’re just a moment in time aren’t they, not really proof of anything much except how things were through the viewfinder of that camera at a particular instant. And then there’s Photoshop… just saying 🙂

And as I said above, I think it’s worth considering that population density might be a factor in the effectiveness of open access, but equally there are going to be other things in the mix too – local culture, landowners etc.

There’s no way of proving that it will or won’t work south of the border with any certainty, the only way of doing that would be to introduce it, which I hope happens eventually. Anyway…

BadlyWiredDog – Member
I’m just saying nicely that putting up a bunch of pics of a quiet trail isn’t really objective proof of anything…

It’s pretty convincing if it’s next to a major city and you’re not dealing with an inveterate liar.

There’s no way of proving that it will or won’t work south of the border with any certainty…

It’s a fairly logical supposition.

I’m sure you’re right 🙂

epicyclo – It’s pretty convincing if it’s next to a major city and you’re not dealing with an inveterate liar.

I’m with BWD on this bit. The Peak is supposedly the 2nd most visited National Park in the world. On a sunny bank holiday weekend you could get pics of it looking like chaos but 10 minutes walk up a hill and you could get a pic looking like its empty.

Stanage is a perfect example, yes its a nice place with a nice view but the fact that it is surrounded by 5 car parks means it gets busy. Froggat edge is only a few miles away and only has 2 car parks. The location is just as nice and the views are just as good but its never as busy as Stanage.

I’d be interested to know how old people were in here before they realised they were dong wrong?

I used to bash around the tracks near my house and further a field with my dad and then with my school mates. It simply never occurred to us we were doing wrong. You didn’t ride some paths as they were rubbish or muddy or had too many stiles but not because they were footpaths. It was late teens before I got my head around OS maps and then came the baggage of knowing I was doing ‘wrong’.

As long as kids can’t read OS maps the future of mountain biking will be fine.

As long as kids can’t read OS maps the future of mountain biking will be fine.

That made me smile.

dong wrong

And so did that.

Serious answer though – I only found out when people I met on the trails told me I shouldn’t be there. That happened a lot!

I’ve been reading maps since I was about 8 thanks to the Cubs and a dad who was a Scout leader. I probably took up mountain biking at about the same time so I think I’ve always known but with that I’ve also always known its not illegal, only recently have I looked into its actual legal status.

thepodge – Member
,,,Stanage is a perfect example, yes its a nice place with a nice view but the fact that it is surrounded by 5 car parks means it gets busy. Froggat edge is only a few miles away and only has 2 car parks. The location is just as nice and the views are just as good but its never as busy as Stanage.

That’s a good illustration of what happens when you have restricted access, you get concentrated use.

There’s bugger all carparks at the trails I ride because they’re simply trails, not specific recreational tracks. Also I generally don’t need to use a car to get to somewhere I can ride because I can ride any trail from the edge of town. Truly open access is wonderful. 🙂

…and another thing. It’s not just newcomers.

Whilst everyone here may be riding cheeky, I know reasonably keen long-term mountainbikers (keen cyclists certainly) who don’t, not liking disapprobation and breaking rules, and so sticking to bridleways. Which is a shame.

Its got nothing to do with restricted access, they are both easy to get to on foot, by bike and by car but there is far less parking at Froggatt so far less people visit.

I was just trying to highlight that two very similar places with very similar access, both right next door to the same city that are just a few miles apart have two very different outcomes.

If you rode Froggatt and I rode Stanage we’d have conflicting anecdotal evidence.

I think if cyclist stopped using the term cheeky they might get taken more seriously.

As long as kids can’t read OS maps the future of mountain biking will be fine

I could read maps from an early age and between the ages of 16 and 30 was a proper bridleway square. I subsequently got stuck into real riding, hike-a-bike, nights etc and follow the cheeky rules, likewise I don’t ride the legal slop trails in winter despite it being my right. Frankly the access laws are nuts in England and the only problem is dickheads be they on foot, horse or bike (I’ll explicitly leave motorised out of it).

So I agree – ban the cubs and scouts (and dickheads).

There’s bugger all carparks at the trails I ride because they’re simply trails, not specific recreational tracks. Also I generally don’t need to use a car to get to somewhere I can ride because I can ride any trail from the edge of town. Truly open access is wonderful.

That’s amazing, there’s nothing like that south of the border. Even here on the edge of the Peak District National Park I have to drive to a carpark and then ride. Do you have roads up there as well and are you allowed to ride them using a bike without booking in advance?

BadlyWiredDog – Member

I’m just saying nicely that putting up a bunch of pics of a quiet trail isn’t really objective proof of anything except that the particular trail you were using was quiet. I’m sure you could, for example, wander around the City of London early on a Sunday morning and take a bunch of pics showing deserted streets, but it’s not exactly definitive proof that London is a quiet city with no congestion issues.

OK, it’s a crude illustration, but the point is that population density is a really poor predictor of how many other users you’re going to meet on the trails. And wider access means more freedom to choose less crowded trails.

There’s no way of proving that it will or won’t work south of the border with any certainty

Is there any country where it hasn’t worked? There have been some problems in Scotland, but I think they’re more to do with the right to wild camp than with open access.