[Closed] Ramblers shared use policy

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 [i]really[/i] 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 [s]cycling [/s] walkers' facilities will have on the natural beauty of the countryside

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

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

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?

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?

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 [i]good[/i] 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.

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.

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.

I'd love to be able to ride on footpaths as well as bridleways. As far as I'm concerned I wouldn't want them to be engineered for our use as well as walkers, surely half the fun is dealing with the challenges that nature has provided?

Yeah I get that, I suppose it does sound defeatist, so lets formulate the argument/benefits for allowing cycles on footpaths then.

1. More off-road routes available, potentially meaning that more journeys can be made avoiding roads
2. Encourage more people to cycle, fighting obesity
3. Spread out cyclists across the whole network, less conflict on busy bridleways
4. Economic benefits for areas where there are few bridleways, cyclist passing through spend money

Anymore?

Maybe we could start a thread specificly to crowdsource all the good reasons for allowing cycles on footpaths?

I don't know of any firm figures, but since the opening of the Way of the Roses the anecdotal opinion in my town is cyclists spend more than walkers in the destination towns. They don't bring their sandwiches and warm lemon drink with them. 😉

I believe the same goes for mtbers... for a start the hunger is more demanding.

Edit: Better riding on the doorstep may mean rather than spending money on petrol riders may spend money on post ride beer and food at local pubs.

From my experience of Sweden a lot of people in the UK think total freedom of access is a bad idea due to the number of people in the UK. But this is wrong it is really about the respect you have for the landscape, trails and the working countryside. I have never thought it would be a good idea to cycle across a farmers wheat field or near someone's house as it would be rubbish. I do clear sticks and branches away and pick out natural jumps drops and kickers when selecting the trails in the forest though. It is a bit of a cultural shift though. In the UK and even worse in Ireland and the USA people buy land and it is theirs to do as they want and you stop other people from doing what they want on it. The feeling here seems to be if you buy land its yours to do as you want but somebody else can use it if they are not stopping you do want you want with it.

So glad l live in scotland,to me ramblers are of no importance. Feel sorry for yo :wink:u lot south of the boarder 😉

I went to one of the Forestry Panel's discussion evenings re. the future of the forests. My discussion group was chaired by the (then) Ramblers' Chief Exec Tom Franklin, one of the panel members. I pointed out to him that there was no panel member who represented the interests of mountain bikers and asked if he would speak up on our behalf. He said, "No, I'll speak up for ramblers."
Not impressed.

Interesting that he said ramblers, not walkers.

Well I've decided to reply to their email as it was from the Campaigns Administrator (probably not as significant position as it sounds but hopefully more than just email monkey), I'll resist the urge to dissect their policy in detail and instead briefly make the following points.

• The policy is based on misconceptions that do not reflect the real world (what happens when cyclists meet walkers, and what cyclists want/need from shared access). This is a good thing as all their concerns can be reassured and with discussion a way forward found. 😉

• It’s a shame all outdoors access groups aren't represented by one single body as the ‘us and them’ standpoint implied by their choice of words distracts from more important things and again doesn’t reflect the world outside (ill try and find a more diplomatic way of putting that).

• Cycling off road is not a destructive or an aggressive sport, it’s basically just rambling on wheels, most off road cyclists also own walking boots, and the current access classifications are woefully inconsistent and inadequate.

Taking on everyone’s comments (big thanks btw) something just now struck me, this policy read like the writings of someone who has all the gear, but rarely actually goes outside walking in the real world :D. That encourages me that even if they never mellow their opposition, in calm reasoned debate they would end up looking out of touch and silly.

Nick I think that would be a good idea, I think Dave of the Magazine Access Things currently has an interview request in with the ramblers so such a list could be useful to him as well as for future purposes.

That could be a very interesting interview, would also be great if Trail or Country Walking did an interview with the Singletrack team in return, might really help build a better understanding.

I'll start the thread on why cycling on footpaths should be allowed then 🙂

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.

Agree.

[img] http://www.viz.co.uk/images/cj/cj_007.gi f" target="_blank">http://www.viz.co.uk/images/cj/cj_007.gi f"/> &sa=X&ei=qFe_T4nBIMbA0QXhrrisCg&ved=0CAoQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFtdFwMfSAqMv4nLB_VahwW24ojsA[/img]

Agree.

I'm not sure I do, we're not talking about redesignating footpaths as cyclepaths with the removal of styles and increased access that involves, merely lifting the ban on riding footpaths. This should be seen as seperate to the increase in cycle/accessible paths and other work done by groups like sustrans. The two compliment one another, but are fundamentally seperate. Other than a clause to prevent land owner increasing hinderences I see this as being what is already there stays, and involving no actual work on the ground. Lift your bike over the gate/style/etc, or ride elsewhere...

jwmlee - Member
Agree.

Look North.

Edit: Sorry to keep banging on about this but it's not like you have to go far to see where a policy of allowing bikes access to footpaths works and has not required that all footpaths are made suitable for all cyclists regardless of ability.

That could be a very interesting interview, would also be great if Trail or Country Walking did an interview with the Singletrack team in return, might really help build a better understanding.

Ramblers have their own publication, Walk Magazine which i get at work. In 2 yrs not seen one single complaint letter about bikes...

For anyone wanting to contribute some reasoning Nick's thread is here

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-cycling-should-be-allowed-on-footpaths-in-england-wales-and-ni

Other than a clause to prevent land owner increasing hinderences I see this as being what is already there stays, and involving no actual work on the ground. Lift your bike over the gate/style/etc, or ride elsewhere...

This. If you are able to get there, without any physical alteration of the path or its acces (unless some arse has put in anti-bike obstacles), you should be allowed.
Rambling with bikes, basically. It isnt about increasing path use, more allowing those who already use them to do so legally.

I'd like to see shared access.

However, we (cyclists) need to be more self policing and to actively promote responsible trail use.

The industy can help:
Some sort of guide given away with each new bike, outlining some broad
do's and don'ts.
Promote MTB'ing as a healthy way to explore the countryside rather than some sort of extreme sport.
Remember the '[url= http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/enjoying/countrysidecode/default.aspx ]Country(side) Code[/url]' ?
Well, let's start lobbying government to ACTIVELY promote this again - remember the TV adverts in the 70's and 80's?

But we also need to act individually:
Point out irresponsible behaviour - have a quiet word.
Take newbies out on a ride and lead by example.
Teach your kids about responsible trail use.
Pick up litter and encourage others to do the same.

I reckon most older MTB'ers were already outdoors people before they started riding.
Things have changed though, so we need to promote and encourage respect for the countryside as an integral part of our pastime.

Parkedtiger - where is that photo?

It's Sail/Crag Fell in the lakes, I think.

However, we (cyclists) need to be more self policing and to actively promote responsible trail use.

Very definetly. I wondered if we got to the stage where it looked like access was a possibilty then the main 5 magazines might agree to run double page spreads on the countryside code dos and don'ts.

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!

Yep, quite right. The real heirs to the Kinder Trespassers are the likes of Greenpeace and anti-capitalist demonstrators, the Ramblers are more about getting footpath restrictions lifted by working within the system.

To be fair, at the Kinder 80 launch, Kate Ashbrook, the new Ramblers President - it was Julia Bradbury before - said openly that the Ramblers Association at the time had openly opposed the Trespass, though they're quite happy to claim some reflected glamour 80 years later.

Anyway, I don't care what they do or say. What matters is what happens on the ground, in real life, where regardless of access legislation, you can, with care and consideration, ride most places without problems round here anyway. Aas far as I can see, the main victims of access legislation aren't mountain bikers per se, but buy guidebook writers and magazine route compilers... 😉

Very definetly. I wondered if we got to the stage where it looked like access was a possibilty then the main 5 magazines might agree to run double page spreads on the countryside code dos and don'ts.

Problem is, it doesn't fit in with the sales model of the majority of their advertisers - which appears to be selling excitement to the under 40's.

teamhurtmore - Member

Parkedtiger - where is that photo?

North Lakes - coming off the top of Sail down to the back of Causey Pike. [url= http://www.fixthefells.co.uk/ ]Fix the Fells[/url] use a variety of top notch, well thought out techniques to combat erosion. Honestly, you'd never know they'd been there 😯

Joking aside, in their never ending (already lost) battle against erosion from the rain, they've actually created some of the best technical descents we have around here. [i]Although, I'd not include the one in the picture in that category.[/i]

Mintimperial wrote

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

I think it's possibly reasonable to say that rambling allows you the liberty to 'pay less attention' in many situations however there's little distinction between paying less attention and stupidity. I am of the belief that bike riders need to pass walkers cautiously (read more slowly) irrespective of whether it's spoiling their favourite descent.

Those who actively get in the way do deserve to get run over much in the same way as if they actively got in the way of a farmer's tractor.

I am of the belief that bike riders need to pass walkers cautiously (read more slowly) irrespective of whether it's spoiling their favourite descent.

Absolutely agree. I am always careful to give walkers as much space as possible, to warn them of my approach, and to stop completely if necessary.

In the couple of cases I'm thinking of what happened is the first few individuals in a large group gave way in a friendly manner and encouraged the rider to pass (slowly and safely, naturally) and then one or two others further down the path didn't give way, either deliberately or involuntarily. The rider was effectively trapped into falling off due to a combination of technicality of the trail and lack of consideration from walkers. It wasn't that big a deal the times I've seen it happen, it's just a bit embarrassing and annoying for the rider. But it does demonstrate that we cyclists are sometimes more vulnerable to walkers' actions than walkers are to ours, and that walkers aren't always whiter-than-white angels when they're out and about - which appears to be the implication of what The Ramblers were saying.

One way to help change attitudes is to get involved in a walking/climbing club or group and promote cycling from within.
Get on the committee - make your voice heard.

I joined a Mountaineering Club about 6 years ago (because my partner was a member) and try and organise 2 or 3 beginner friendly rides a year.
Slowly, attitudes are changing, even amongst the older, previously sceptical members.

You might even enjoy the non cycling activities as well. 😀

Re the path in the picture

I rode that before it was done then after. I couldn't believe it when I saw it after it had been improved, so to speak. As a walker, trails like that bore the Sh!t out of me while as a mountain biker, there's no real sense of challenge or fun.

Has anyone taken the time to respond to the Welsh Consultation? I did as I always go on the principle that if you want to be heard, do something about it and not just pontificate on a forum (not meaning to have a go at anyone when I write this). It doesn't take long to fill in the form and you can be sure that there will be users vehemently opposed to it who will be filling it in. If we want our opinions to matter, we need to shout them out!

Rusty spanner and Druidh

Always good to read posts such as yours.

Scotland has proven that open access can work. Even in England in the honeypot areas, opening up access would arguably mean that pressures from bike erosion are less concentrated on a limited network of trails. I wonder how often walkers on rambling forums debate erosion with a sense of their impact on the environment?

Cheers

Sanny

Unk stupidly wrote

Ramblers have their own publication, Walk Magazine which i get at work. In 2 yrs not seen one single complaint letter about bikes...

And summer's edition just fell into the letter box

TWO letters, one from someone who had a walk spoiled by quad bikes, 4X4s and scramble bikes and decided to shove mountain bikes in with those. Another letter asking legal advice after their walk was "caught up in a cross-country cycle race" and the "had to keep stepping aside for competitors" what are our rights etc...

The responce was the usual cyclists shall yield for anyone but made no reference to the circumstances (race), I thought in order to hold a race on a public bridleway you had to apply for some form of licence and that would override the usual policy (not saying run people over, but, you know, its a race! why not just cheer for people etc.) 🙄

Both letters very short on detail and supporting info so came off as "other people spoiled our day with their fun" but that could just have been the editor cutting them down for space...

The Ramblers Association said:

* 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.

George Orwell said:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

🙄