I think the only good thing about this pretty poor programme is that it highlights that access and ROW classifications are based on an entirely flawed system that serves to create or deepen antagonism and conflict rather than promote sustainable and responsible shared use.
[Possibly controversial point RE 'redsocks'] Having been involved with local access issues in the past, I do think that 'the ramblers' (as if they are some kind of monolith) come in for some unfair treatment on here. I know that several local heads of ramblers associations are pretty keen (and half decent) mtbers that are supportive of other 'user groups', but as in all walks of life, memorable idiots tend to tarnish impressions. Also, for all their apparent political clout, the ramblers associations actually represent a tiny proportion of people that use ROW and access on foot - just like most people out biking are not members of CTC, IMBA or anything else, and the TRF, Byways trust and similar 4x4 groups actually have little direct influence on the majority of vehicle users. To see all walkers as representing some kind of militant organisation that refuse to tolerate anything other than pedestrians is, in my experience, misguided [/awaits allegations of being a closet rambler].
Regardless of whether vehicles can only use 2% of the ROW network, or more, or less, (I've asked before whether this is 2% by designation or 2% of the actual length of ROW) the real issue that creates conflict (as with bridleway/ footpath designations and biking) is that the distribution of these is inequitable and the reasons for designation are unclear or problematic to the general public.
Cyclists quite rightly complain that the distribution of bridleways to footpaths is not remotely even country-wide, and that classification of ROW bears little relation to their suitability for use by differing groups. Similarly, for motorised users some areas have absolutely no legal routes (even where sustainable possibilities may exist) and other areas have seen a large % of reclassifications to formally allow vehicular use – meaning here that the proportion of routes available to users who don't wish to share with motorised traffic has been reduced substantially. Therefore, whilst some motorised users are forced to travel many miles to ride/drive, others have few options to get away from motorised traffic (which is important to some) without having to leave their own area. Inevitably this situation is leaves a lot of people feeling unfairly treated.
This goes back to my original point – the ROW and access legislation in the UK (usual caveats apply but even Scotland to a limited degree) is not fit for purpose. The current approach, rooted in arbitrary, contested and often improperly defined historical precedent should be entirely rethought. A system based on an ideal of responsibilities and shared access, whereby classification of routes is made with the current and future use in mind in order to fairly promote a diverse range of possibilities of access/ use is the most obvious way that the kind of messy disputes seen in the programme could be avoided. Why is that so hard?
We had a nice (if loud) chat and i went on my way.
But I also don't agree with this:
