This is a transcript of a letter from Richard Benyon MP, Environment Minister, to Ann Main MP (I can email a copy to anyone who wants to see the original)
It concerns the issue of banning horses from cycle paths. The minister clearly supports multi-use. Every part of his argument could equally apply to bikes on public footpaths and have I have emailed him to welcome his support for this. The letter is dated June 14th and reads as follows:

Dear Ann,
Thank you for your letter of 5 May enclosing an email from your constituent…
Past research has shown that user conflict on shared use routes is actually infrequent but exaggerated and that additional maintenance cost to ensure appropriate surfacing is minimal.
I would urge all local authorities to allow horse riders to use cycle trails, routes and any other ways where it is in their power to do so and to encourage that permission or dedication to happen where it is not in their power. Unless there are good and specific reasons not o allow horse riders to use such routes, local authorities should take steps to accommodate them. Local authorities should be making the most of their off-road networks through integration of use. Multi user routes have been shown to be readily adopted and well appreciated by local people. Where they are done well they bolster community cohesion and create a better understanding between users.

Horse riders are particularly vulnerable road users, and cycle routes can provide appropriate and important opportunities to avoid busy roads. There is potential for conflict in any situation where people share a public space, but the possibility of conflict is not reason enough to disregard ridden access; actual conflict could be resolved and misplaced concerns reduced over time.

It seems sensible that where a change of policy, (or the making explicit of the start of enforcement of an existing policy) might increase danger to horse riders, the local authority should consult those users and the relevant local access forum.

I am aware that Defra officials are discussing equestrian access to cycling routes, as well as shared use generally, with the Department for Transport. Also it is important that we understand why local authorities exclude horse riders, and my officials have written to St Albans Council to enquire why it perceives that shared use presents such a significant risk

Yours ever
Richard

My email to Richard Benyon reads:

Dear Richard Benyon MP
I read with interest your letter to Anne Main MP in which you urge local authorities to allow the use of cycle paths by equestrians. In it you say:
“User conflict on shared use routes is actually infrequent but exaggerated”
“Additional maintenance cost to ensure appropriate surfacing is minimal”
“Local authorities should make the most of their off-road networks through integration of use”
“Multi user routes have been shown to be readily adopted ands well appreciated by local people”
“The possibility of conflict is not reason enough to disregard ridden access”

These are all excellent arguments and I am delighted that for the first time it appears we have a Minister who would, for the same reasons, support the use of bicycles on the Public Footpath network. Since 1968 cyclists have been confined to Public Bridleways (and higher status routes). After 43 years’ probation, will you now accept that cyclists have demonstrated they can use the rights of way network responsibly and lift the restriction on cycling on Public Footpaths?

Best wishes
etc

Anybody else who would like to contact the minister to express support can do so at helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk

If you manage to start a petition I will gladly sign it.

errrr, no he doesn’t. He carefully ignores your last question and talks for the entirety of his letter about horse riders.

I would send it back and complain the you were not given a “substansive answer” to the question you asked at the end of your letter

Couple of friends had a run in with a horse rider a few weeks ago. I arrived on the scene to find the girl on the horse shouting obscenities. It wasn’t on a cycle path but out on top of a hill at a trig point. My friends are vets so know how to behave around horses and we had given her lots of room (to the point of stopping to let her past earlier).

It got me thinking about right of way and responsibility. I love riding horses so am not anti-horse but I think there has to be a pecking order which can also be applied to bikes on footpaths:

on cyclepaths/bridleways etc – walkers and cyclists should take responsibility for giving reasonable room and consideration to spook horses. But horse riders should ultimately realise they are the ones on the potentially dangerous animals. If there horse is not suitable for being in such a situation then don’t take it there and then shout at people. Likewise if the rider is nervous/inexperienced.

On footpaths I don’t see bikes being a problem as long as the riders take ultimate responsibility by making sure they can stop before any blind bend, slowing down as needed or stopping and pulling of the path into the bushes when needed. And again walkers etc need to wake up and stop being dozy twits and give some room when they can.

errrr, no he doesn’t. He carefully ignores your last question and talks for the entirety of his letter about horse riders.

Err, that’s cos the original letter was from a horse rider asking if they could use cycle tracks, not from the OP asking if he could ride his bike on footpaths.

Do pay attention, old chap

i’m far less concerned about ‘gaining access’ to footpaths ( we already have access we can exercise, we just don’t have the right to be there, and can be asked to leave by the landowner or their representative ), than horses potentially being given access to trails built for cycling.
who in their right mind would want to meet a horse at a trail centre, or have cycle trail surfaced such that they could sustain horse traffic?

big_n_daft, I think that Neil is writing in response to Richard Benyon’s comments about horse riding on cycle paths, rather than that being a reply to Neil’s letter. In his letter Neil is trying to point out to Benyon that everything he has said about horses on cycle paths could apply to bikes on footpaths too. We’ll have to wait for a reply from Benyon before we know whether he accepts this or not.

EDIT: Beaten to it by nbt!

ChrisL and bbt – quite right. Del – I don’t think the minister is seriously talking about allowing horses down the Glentress black route. He’s talking about, for example, old rail lines and the like, and in particular local authority managed tracks.
My point is – everything he says about multi-user routes applies equally to bikes and he should apply his own logic to the issue of allowing bikes on Public Footpaths. Surely everyone on here would welcome that?

Shared use with horses would be a lot less of a problem if fat female horse riders wouldn’t insist on riding two abreast when the trail can’t support it.

And if they actually paid attention to the fact that the horse is making quick glances behind because he/she knows that someone is trailing behind at a safe distance, instead of lolloping along gossiping whilst forcing you to watch their acres of fat arse moving from side to side across the saddles, then they could actually work out where to let you pass before your heart rate drops too far.

I wouldn’t mind so much if they were actually exercising the horse, instead of just being out for a social.

👿

You would honestly be pleased for horse riders to have access to cycle routes? are you mad. A, horses are spooked by cyclists, so you would have to give way. B, have you seen the damage horses do to a trail surface. C, i think you will find this minister is only concerned about the rights of hooray horsey types, and couldn’t give a monkeys about a few bike nerds.

according to the local (obese) ranger on Chobham common, bikes do more damage than horses.

It is funny because if you look at the (sandy) common from an elevated point, it is like Michael Bentine’s Potty Time watching the horses go along the bridleways. Plus they keep having to dump loads of earth on the bridleways to build them back up after the horses have dug deep furrows in them.

B, have you seen the damage horses do to a trail surface.

Cycle routes and trails are two completely different things.

Strange, he sort of owns Englefield Estate, where horses are welcome by permit, and bikes are not welcome atall. Why not try a letter to him like:

I would urge all esate owners to allow cycle riders to use horse trails, routes and any other ways where it is in their power to do so and to encourage that permission or dedication to happen where it is not in their power. Unless there are good and specific reasons not to allow cycle riders to use such routes, estate owner should take steps to accommodate them. Estate owners should be making the most of their off-road networks through integration of use. Multi user routes have been shown to be readily adopted and well appreciated by local people. Where they are done well they bolster community cohesion and create a better understanding between users.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/richard_benyon/newbury
“The majority of property in these estates is held in family trusts in the trusteeship of Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited , the trustee of various family trusts in all of which either I or members of my wider family have beneficial interests..”

It’s an interesting point and despite the horsey bias to the ministers letter, its not a particularly big leap from dedicating cycle paths as multi-user paths to allowing bikes onto public footpaths. Although IIRC most CP’s are MUP’s now anyway as when a CP is built next to or on an existing highway, they become a non-vehicular part of it … or something like that.

The OP highlights in his email to the minister some of the points the Ramblers / etc would use to object to bikes on footpaths. I wonder though if the secretary of state for transport and not environment would be best to do this? If I remember I’ll have a look into this more tomorrow.

I’ve had a look into the relevant act and I forgot that a legal order needs to be made to convert each footpath (walking only) to a cycle path (walking and biking – no horses!). This means that it goes through a complicated and lengthy process, and section 3(2) specifically mentions the requirement to obtain consent for the conversion of any path across agricultural land, meaning landowners could veto any conversion of rural paths 🙁 although I think this doesn’t mean access land or enclosed footpaths.

From what I gather the Act wasn’t passed with the intention of widespread conversion of paths to cycle tracks, but again, if you remove the order making provision from the Act and define what ‘crosses any agricultural land’ means, its a pretty good way than a formal upgrade to bridleway status.

Have horses not got fields they can walk about in? If the fields aren’t big enough they should be kept in bigger fields.

I’m getting a bit annoyed about the number of horses out and about that are clearly not under control. If they can’t be passed safely by cars and cyclists they should not be on roads.

Seems to be every time I’m out at the moment I’ll pass a horse and half the time they react badly. I am really nervous around them just now as I’ve seen so many looking out of control so have been taking extra care around them. I always slow or stop to an appropriate speed and try to make it obvious I’m there without making sounds that may frighten them. Worst one was on the road along from Innerleithen where the cyclists had all stopped and the horse was trying to back up and kick them.

Sorry for the sideways rant but I really don’t think mixing horses and cycle paths is a good idea.

Mixing horses and cycle paths is a terrible idea. What we need is a campaign that moves car drivers to giving cyclists the same passing space as they currently give to horses.

I’m getting a bit annoyed about the number of horses out and about that are clearly not under control. If they can’t be passed safely by cars and cyclists they should not be on roads.

If you put your foot down and pass them real quick there is little chance they can damage your car in that short space of time…

I think you are making a huge leap of imagination if you think that the letter tacitly approves bikes on footpaths. It sounds to me that the MP is actually looking to usurp bikes rights to exclusive use of cycle paths thus reducing our powers and turning routes that we could previously ride quickly and safely into a horse slalom. Don’t forget the power the horse lobby has over MP’s, it would be more tactically astute to lobby with them to get more footpaths upgraded to Bridleways or above as a sort of Trojan Horse, pardon the pun, to get our access increased.

It sounds to me that the MP is actually looking to usurp bikes rights to exclusive use of cycle paths

Bikes don’t have exclusive use of cycle paths.

schnor – interesting, but it seems unnecessary. All that needs to be done is an amendment to the 1968 Act that alloweed cyclists onto Bridleways, so that it allows cycle access to all PROWs. Not sure of the procedure in these matters but that’s justy the mechanics of it.

I didn’t want this thread to degenerate into a rant about horses – we all know they’re a bit of a PITA – I just thought that the arguments he put forward for promoting multi-use of trails could equally be used to demolish all those tiresome arguments about why bikes should be kept of Public Footpaths.

Good digging qusamc – I’ll certainly send what you wrote to the Minister if I get an unsatisfactory response!

IMHO, you maybe should use the fact that bridleways are 21% (ish) of total trails, and ramblers are really doing better than 100% (ie all paths + open access plus TBD coastal path access) and that getting 21% raised a lot would seem fair based on a lot of the other arguments they used.I’d also suggest caution mainly as I think they are in it SOLELY to benefit horse riders………………..

Wow! After a reminder and 2 months I get a reply. Not from the minister of course. Any suggestions on how to pursue this?

Dear Mr The Wheel (my edit)

Thank you for your email of 6 July to Richard Benyon about your wish to see cyclists accepted onto public footpaths. I have been asked to reply and I apologise for the delay in doing so.

There are no plans to amend legislation to provide a public right to cycle on footpaths, but as you are aware, the Government encourages local groups to work together to improve their networks and Defra believes local authorities should be positive about working with local riders and cyclists to improve off-road access.

It is open to local highway authorities to seek permissions and dedications, and also to carry positive policies through into relevant management schemes.

Each authority’s ‘Rights of Way Improvement Plan’ will have presented its strategic view of its rights of way networks, with users such as horse riders and cyclist particularly in mind. By working proactively with user groups and local people, authorities might find innovative ways of increasing and improving local access to off-road routes and the outdoors.

Cycling and riding organisations appear to have similar and shared interests in the access network and Defra believes they are engaging with each other at a national level in order to help progress their shared aims. Effective joint working at a local level may also be important.

Yours sincerely

Julie Tucker
Customer Contact Unit
Defra

In a nutshell the minister talked about something slighty outside his brief, the powers that be didn’t like it, he’s obviously been told to refer any future queries via DEFRA, who in turn suggest – amongst the usual civil service speak – getting in touch with the local PRoW department

It’s like the serpent eating its own tail 😮

Better start signing this then!

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3508

Yup, signed that! I suppose the next question to the minister is:
You have no plans to provide a public right to cycle on footpaths because….?