Ramblers shared use policy

Following a few recent exchanges between Dave of Cheeky trails and the Ramblers, I emailed the ramblers independently to encourage them to talk to cycling groups about the issues around shared use, arguing the similarities between the two groups and the potential for better coexistence. Something of a generic reply, but the included this experpt from their policy on shared use.

I post it as i don’t think its something which has been seen before (certainly I don’t think its been on other recent threads around the topic). And also as i think it reinforces the need to be good trail sharers when we encounter others on the trail, and maybe this [in my opinion] very conservative view can be challenged, and the Ramblers can be convinced of the need for a more progressive view.

* The Ramblers recognises that cyclists, like walkers, are
vulnerable road users, but notes that if cyclists and walkers are in
conflict, walkers are the more vulnerable.
* The Ramblers accepts that provision of additional facilities for
cyclists may also mean improved facilities for walkers.
* The Ramblers is concerned that shared-use-related engineering
works should be undertaken so as to minimise the effect that cycling
facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside, the
character of existing ways and facilities for walkers.
* The Ramblers is of the view that each proposal will need to be
judged on its merits, though considers it likely that it will oppose
many proposals for converting existing pedestrian-only facilities into
dual-use paths.

Thing which is missing for me, is any empathy for others still fighting the access fight, and a few implicit assumption within the wording. Fair enough in that they are a walking group. A shame as they just celebrated the beginning of the process by which they won their argument (kinder).

I think what’s missing is an understanding that often footpaths and bridleways are indistinguishable on the ground and that no ‘engineering’ is required to turn a footpath into a bridleway.

Indeed, the word facilities’ implies construction, and ‘engineering’ while it could be used to refer to debate and campaigning work, implies destructive activities.

effect that cycling facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside,

This implies more than just someone changing the sign…

the Ramblers can be convinced of the need for a more progressive view.

Hahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaahahahhahahahhahahaaaahhhhhaaah

Ohhh you were serious?

I engaged with them a bit via twitter around the Kinder celebrations. At best their response is generic, but doesn’t go all the way towards embracing two wheeled freedom.

I guess it’s down to a couple of things: (1) the overriding feeling of cycling being a conflict activity when it comes to walking and (2) the fact that, although the Ramblers are an effective political lobbying group, access to the land was a more overtly “of the people” political movement than it is today.

OK, they may never be in favour, but I reckon the grounds for their opposition can be countered pretty convincingly.

Interesting. Yes, it is a very conservative view, exactly what you’d expect from The Ramblers.

if cyclists and walkers are in conflict, walkers are the more vulnerable

I dispute this assertion. Apart from the obvious (direct full on collision due to cyclist’s loss of control, which I suspect is an extremely rare occurrence) in most cases of “conflict” the cyclist will come off worse because they’re a) trying to negotiate a safe path round someone who isn’t paying attention or is even actively trying to get in the way and b) higher up and going faster than a walker so will hit the ground harder. On more than one occasion I’ve seen riders fall off on techy descents because a walker flat-out refused to move. I’ve never ever seen a rider crash into a walker or even get close. This perception that The Ramblers have of their members and their ilk as delicate flowers incapable of doing wrong is extremely irritating and frequently inaccurate.

to minimise the effect that cycling facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside

What an odd thing to say. Do they think we want everything tarmac-ing or something?

Silly old sods.

out of interest anyone ever been in ‘conflict’ with walkers?

The most I’ve encountered has been a heated exchange of words. (being generous and assuming the old man was merely turning round and not trying to put his walking stick through my front wheel)

EDIT: ah, tackled above…

Yeah walking groups walking 4 abreast trampling everything in sight clearly doesn’t really damage the natural surroundings…

I always find amusing the Ramblers attitude to legitimate use of the countryside by others given that they are an organisation founded on breaking the law. Goose and gander?

to minimise the effect that cycling walkers’ facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside

The Ramblers is concerned that shared-use-related engineering
works should be undertaken so as to minimise the effect that cycling
facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside, the
character of existing ways and facilities for walkers

recent feedback on work to put in a concessionary bridlepath was that “it looks like a motorway” – 4m wide track replacing a 1m wide path -not actually a very sensitive location but i think if poorly done walkers feel they are losing out to cyclists – its a bit like cycle lanes – poorly done its just a facility that creates potential for conflict

wow needs some berms though !

Ramblers have morphed from a gutsy bunch of countryside lovers making things good for its members to a red-faced gibbering monolith only concerned with making things worse for others.

They remind me of American evangelists, fantasising that the presence of homosexuals/non-walkers will cause earthquakes and floods, and any and all rights for these ‘others’ must be resisted.

That said, if getting a route changed to shared use ends up with a 4 meter wide tarmac road then let’s just leave the access rights as they are and keep the cheeky singletrack as singletrack.

Sounds a good idea to link up with the ramblers and have a common policy on access. As it is really the big landowners and the like that control access not the ramblers. We should just have open access like Scotland and Scandinavia. (I live in Sweden and it makes me so cheeky going back to the UK.)

I may have been down the above track. Look kind of familiar. The track up on the other side in a gale doing a scramble was exciting to say the least.

I think the Ramblers are a votey organization, bit like the CTC. Why don’t we get all the mountain bikers to join and force the issues by bringing it up in AGM’s etc?

On more than one occasion I’ve seen riders fall off on techy descents because a walker flat-out refused to move. I’ve never ever seen a rider crash into a walker or even get close

yes this but I see morei nconsiderate bike riding than walking , not slowing down or giving way for example.
neither groups are angels and larger groups tend to be worse.
They have no interest in our cause only in protecting their own. As noted many paths are already adequate for cycling anyway and the walking has already done the damage. I fully support the right to roam whatever you roam on. they just support their right to roam and , therefore, I see little point in dialogue tbh.

Ramblers?

Its interesting that they’re so set in their ways and (small c) conservative, given their roots in radical left wing politics.

Hypocritical f’ing lefties 😉

In all seriousness, the Kinder trespass had little to do with the Ramblers, the national council of ramblers federations (which became the RA) opposed the trespass – Kinder was organised by the British workers sports federation, which was mainly commies and leftie agitators… a little fact that the Ramblers don’t shout about in their history books!

You’ve got to ask yourself the question: More access to the countryside for cyclists, what’s in it for ramblers?

Who was it in Scotland that really pushed for the totally open access policy?

Nick – Member

You’ve got to ask yourself the question: More access to the countryside for cyclists, what’s in it for ramblers?

‘fewer’ cyclists – so less conflict.

(by ‘fewer’ i mean that cyclists will be spread out over a bigger network)

except that ramblers could argue that they don’t have to worry about bikes when they are walking on footpaths….

they do round here 😉

I wonder what British Cycling has to say on the matter.

We need to lobby them to lobby more.

GEDA – Member

Who was it in Scotland that really pushed for the totally open access policy?
Its never really been restricted. The LRA merely codified existing practice to a large extent.

I think the Ramblers are a votey organization, bit like the CTC. Why don’t we get all the mountain bikers to join and force the issues by bringing it up in AGM’s etc?

Could be interesting, get enough cyclists to join and vote in Rob Warner as president?

We had a similar idea with the local Parish Council

Council – “the woods are leased and managed by the FC”
FC – “the woods are leased form the council with the requirment (by the counicl) that access is restricted to existing ROW.

I moved away before anything got done, but the idea was raised that we as a cyling club could turn up to the PC and just vote through something that granted cyclists access.

I wonder what British Cycling has to say on the matter.

If it doesn’t involve road biking probably sweet FA.

CTC would be the better target for lobbying by far.

GEDA – Member
Who was it in Scotland that really pushed for the totally open access policy?

It didn’t really work like that.

The access policy in Scotland was very confused, with no real law outlining what was, and wasn’t, allowed.
The Scottish Government decided that something had to be done about that and included access rights in a wider Land Reform Bill which had as much to do with the right-to-buy for crofters. Part of their reasoning was (and this is being repeated in Wales) that encouraging folk into the countryside for exercise was a good thing for the nations health and would actually save money spent on health care.
The original draft bill included lots of restrictions (e.g. no access at night, no wild camping) and was clearly on the side of the landowner/land-manager.
Foot and Mouth came along. While all the non-proliferation policies were in place, the various countryside user groups (walkers, cyclists etc.) played by the rules. Many land owners/managers were caught flouting the rules, moving animals about and trying to “close” land that should have been open.
When the Bill came around again, it was re-drafted to be more in favour of the leisure users as the feeling was that they had been shown to be “responsible”.

I come from a farm but still think that you should be able to walk, bike, and ride a horse where you like as long as you are not damaging people property or going to close to houses. We have a problem with people camping on our land (A national trust farm) they come from Newcastle with caravans, burn their ill gotten gains to get the metal and leave a right mess but we can’t get the unclassified road downgraded as some stupid motoring organisations want to keep it as a road. The fields an SSI and a really beautiful spot as well. It was funny a few years ago when it all flooded when they were there and you could only see the top of their tent.

I still think that nothing is going to change unless lots of groups start calling for open access together. The ramblers are the best bet as the horsey lot are in cahoots with the land owners.

Plus in in Scotland a bike has always been considered a natural accompaniment to walkers as they were often used by hill walkers to get to the the start of further out hill walks from rural train stations

The Ramblers is concerned that shared-use-related engineering
works should be undertaken so as to minimise the effect that cycling
facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside, the
character of existing ways and facilities for walkers.

Trouble is, they are right in some respects. Whats good for the average STWer and what’s good for the majority of cyclists are different things, and once you start making things official you have to consider being inclusive and with the “wrong” (uninformed, unimaginative) people in charge, you end up with wide smooth paths that everyone can ride on, not rocky, fun singletrack.

It’s the look on people’s face when they discover I ride bikes and they say “I went to Holland once, you’d love it, all flat and proper cycle paths everywhere!” To which I reply “Sounds boring, I like riding up & down hills”

trb – Member
once you start making things official you have to consider being inclusive and with the “wrong” (uninformed, unimaginative) people in charge, you end up with wide smooth paths that everyone can ride on, not rocky, fun singletrack.

Ever been to Scotland? If you had, you’d find lots of fun singletrack which is available for use by cyclists.

Ever been to Scotland? If you had, you’d find lots of fun singletrack which is available for use by cyclists.

There’s a difference between “available for use by cyclists” and “intended for cyclists”. And the aim of any reform woudn’t be to get mountainbikers more access (as we’re already there and being active), it would be to get more people using the countryside, which means more ‘cyclists’, which measn more Chappel Gate style trail sanitisation so that (for example) my missus has equal access to the Peak district on a bike as a STW Gnarrr-Core-Warrior.

ride a horse where you like

Please god no. I had the misfortune to attempt a local bridleway home last night. The underlying soil structure is clay and during the recent rainy season the local horse riders have churned it to ****. Puddles skirted round so that they expand to full width of the right of way because my 500kg beastie will catch cold if it’s feet get wet! The wet clay is churned to a depth of 300mm plus in places. Those bits that have dried out are now like riding over extra large cobbles where the hoof prints have set. It’s not like the local lanes aren’t quiet enough for a safe hack when the ground is soft.

Allowing them on footpaths would be a disaster as the brainy bit of the partnership appears to be doing the carrying.

“Who was it in Scotland that really pushed for the totally open access policy?”

The late John Taylor (who lived in Dumfriesshire and started the KM Rally) was very much instrumental in this.

Tbh I can’t see any chance of the Ramblers coming on-side with any liberalisation of current trail access, they already have what their membership wants for the most part so there is little incentive to compromise.

Open Access like Scotland on the other hand would be something we could work with them on although I don’t expect to see any progress on that in the near term.

It’s never going to happen.

Can you imagine the resistance to open access in the national parks, where already the pressure on the landscape from boots causes either huge erosion or cost to prevent erosion? (not saying bike cause more erosion, but that’s another argument/objection you would have to overturn).

Yes you could have restriction in place for specific areas (like they do in Scotland), but the admin overhead and potential confusion, plus absolutely no way to enforce it means the access laws in England are here to stay imo. Just ignore them and carry on.

Might be a better chance of doing something in Wales, where they might see the potential economic benefits.

Sadly Nick that is exactly my thinking when it comes to England, and the problem we may have in Wales is that most of the access discussions appear to be about intra-urban and commuter cycling or ‘family cycling’ activities in the countryside which doesn’t really help us.

Myself I don’t support open access as in “you can ride anywhere you like”, and think access to footpaths would be sufficient.

Much of the Access Land in England is moorland, and so anything that’s not a path would be balls to ride on anyway. Same for fields, unless there is an established path they’re horrific and energy sapping and I avoid whenever possible.

I think anything where shared access can be shown to work is a step forward as one thing we really lack atm is evidence. So much of the argument is anecdotal or presumption.

unklehomered – Member
Myself I don’t support open access as in “you can ride anywhere you like”, and think access to footpaths would be sufficient.

Much of the Access Land in England is moorland, and so anything that’s not a path would be balls to ride on anyway. Same for fields, unless there is an established path they’re horrific and energy sapping and I avoid whenever possible.But that’s the same anywhere. Just because you can ride anywhere doesn’t mean you do.

I have to say that I’m surprised by the rather lacklustre response to the idea of open access for cyclists which this thread is displaying. I guess that is the reason it has never (and will never) happen.

druidh I rushed that a bit cos i’ve got somat under the grill. I think that total open access would be a considerably bigger push than lifting of footpath restrictions with very little actual comparative benefit. And there may even be a risk of illicit trail building under such provision. This is partly playing devils advocate, and partly from experience of illicit trailbuilding issues of FE land.

However there is an argument for campaigning for it as an opening salvo to then be argued down to footpaths.

I put the lacklustre down to the feeling that access laws will never change. I’m more optimistic, plus my MP recently confirmed an access review for England is in the pipeline.