Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 46 total)
  • Right to Roam – England
  • DT78
    Free Member

    So, I read that the welsh government is planning on copying the scottish right to roam. How long before we get the same rights in England then?

    eddie11
    Free Member

    How long till hell freezes over? Just after that. Possibly.

    br
    Free Member

    How long before we get the same rights in England then?

    When Hell freezes over?

    And is Wales a cert?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Northwind
    Full Member

    Even the people who’d benefit mostly seem to believe the tired old cobblers about population density etc so I can’t see it happening for a long long time. Lots of persuasion to do. (yes Scotland has lots of empty space, but astonishingly enough most of the people live in areas of high population density)

    Frankly a lot of people just seem to believe that English people can’t be trusted with it. I’ve met some of those English, they’re not that much less good than the Scots and Welsh so I reckon they’d do OK.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    I’m open to persuasion, but I’m not sure we need a full right to roam as I understand it to work in Scotland. Personally, I don’t want the right to roam everywhere – I don’t have a problem that some people own land that I can’t wander across, and I can see why a full right to roam would potentially cause problems with idiots damaging land/livestock/crops/rare habitats etc. I’m not aware there have been too many issues in Scotland with this, but I suspect we have a higher (should it be lower) class of idiot here south of the border.

    What I do want – and I think there was a petition linked to the magazine/site once upon a time – is the right to take a bike – or horse for that matter – on any existing public right of way, without putting any extra onus on the landowner to maintain the trail. Stiles/gates/poor surfaces would limit places bikes and horses would go anyway, but we’d have more trails to ride and no one to argue with us about it.

    DT78
    Free Member

    Agree – I’d settle for the same rights as walkers & horse riders.

    Who is lobbying for this? CTC?

    highclimber
    Free Member

    So, I read that the welsh government is planning on copying the scottish right to roam.

    link please.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I think there may be more pressure on many outdoor leisure locations in England than in Scotland.

    DT78
    Free Member
    highclimber
    Free Member

    Yeah, thanks, I read that back when it first was published and quickly decided that it won’t happen any time soon.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    In England we have access areas, for example in parts of the Surrey Hills. I am in favour of increased designation of such areas but a blanket right to roam over the whole country is a bad idea.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    Reclassification of rights of way based on conditions
    Start with access for all and work it back
    More voluntary avoidance/closures due to poor conditions (for all users)
    Maintain the same levels of access for working areas – farms etc. and allow for path diversions due to crops round the outside of fields
    If you increase the rights to use then also get a bit stricter on those that abuse the rights, dogs off lead, litter, trail/property damage.

    Every what mud tyre thread makes me cringe, generally if your slopping through that much mud maybe you should be riding somewhere else.

    zokes
    Free Member

    Every what mud tyre thread makes me cringe, generally if your slopping through that much mud maybe you should be riding somewhere else.

    I think you’ve gone native, Mike!

    I always wonder if Australians would ever ride mountain bikes if they obeyed the “don’t ride in the wet” signs but had British conditions.

    schnor
    Free Member

    Copied and pasted from the thread a few months ago. In short its not going to happen here in Wales 🙁 the ‘scottish style’ access was soley allowing bikes and horses onto CROW access land, not to copy the scottish model

    schnor – Member

    I had a meeting with Natural Resources Wales last week and asked one of the two main Access guys about this (sorry, forgot to update the thread). Apparently the new Head of Department ‘misspoke’, the first he heard about it was via google email alert when he was on holiday, which caused him some surprise.

    The statement was quietly withdrawn because NRW are in the middle of the 10 year access land review. As appeals are currently being held, it was decided not to change the objectives part way through the process due to “reputational risk”, I think the term was.

    I asked when the review is concluded if CROW would be amended to include access on bike and horse (as per my above post), but they didn’t know

    [edit]

    it was suggested there was work behind the scenes on access to waterways though, but the trial project didn’t go very well apparently, although I can’t really go into more details as it was on the QT

    johnellison
    Free Member

    Agree – I’d settle for the same rights as walkers & horse riders.

    We do have the same rights as horse riders.

    In England we have access areas, for example in parts of the Surrey Hills. I am in favour of increased designation of such areas but a blanket right to roam over the whole country is a bad idea.

    Access Areas are only available for access on foot, not by bike or horse.

    edward2000
    Free Member

    When Hell freezes over?

    There is a place in Norway called Hell, which regularly freezes over.

    peterfile
    Free Member

    I am in favour of increased designation of such areas but a blanket right to roam over the whole country is a bad idea.

    Why do think that? Works wonderfully in Scotland. When you get used to the Scottish system, the English one seems absurd.

    johnellison
    Free Member

    I am in favour of increased designation of such areas but a blanket right to roam over the whole country is a bad idea.

    Why do think that? Works wonderfully in Scotland. When you get used to the Scottish system, the English one seems absurd.

    Back to the old argument – population density.

    Scotland has a far lower density of population than England does, and there aren’t as many proper wilderness areas in England.

    I know that a lot of Scotland is managed estates, but even so there are huge areas where you are unlikely to come in to conflict with anyone. About the only area that you can say the same about in England is large parts of Northumberland.

    gwaelod
    Free Member

    The central Belt is pretty crowded…Glasgow/Edinburgh etc…but the right to roam thing still applies there.

    As a regular visitor to scotland it does all seem extremely simple and straightforward.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    johnellison – Member

    Scotland has a far lower density of population than England does

    But as I mentioned up the page, all the people live in the parts that have high population density so the pressures on the easily accessed areas are the same.

    It’s not the fact that we have empty areas that makes open access work- and you can tell this, because those areas are still pretty damn empty!

    surroundedbyhills
    Free Member

    Scotland has about 5M people – 2M live in the central belt – Glasgow/Edinburgh another 2M live in Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness.

    Lots of empty space north west and little arable land, any farming is with animals roaming the land. Everytime I venture out into the English countryside I alway note how busy it seems!

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I think it’s not the population density directly, it’s the pressure on outdoor areas. Take somewhere like Surrey Hills. Hugely busy in places because of the number of people living all around it. People are worried that there will be hundreds of people wandering all over farms every day.

    Not sure if they are right though. Some places would probably see problems though I feel. But with intelligent legislation it would be workable I think. Better to give right to roam by default then give exclusions for difficult places than the other way round IMO

    piemonster
    Full Member

    Why do think that? Works wonderfully in Scotland. When you get used to the Scottish system, the English one seems absurd.

    The English system is in general absurd compared to the Scottish.

    I would however have concerns for some areas, the Dark Peak in particular.

    Peat Bogs are not the toughest things in the world. That said, who the hell is going to ride through one without a decent path. Open access for all in some places would possibly need some monitoring and evaluation when it comes to the extreme end of usage.

    But let’s face it, the overwhelming majority of paths in England are underused, especially when you move away from the traditional hot spots. Where I used to live in Northamptonshire I rarely saw anyone on the ROW’s.

    If I was given the choice, I’d implement Right to Roam, but give Access Officers far more ability to restrict access when environmental or safety concerns arise.

    duckman
    Full Member

    It is a bit strange how things have worked so well up here. With the exception of the Loch Lomond camping ban(soon to be extended to a few other places I half hope/half fear) few people have taken the pee.(The self-styled Laird at Ledgowan is one example) I also think arguments about population density in Scotland fail to take into account the number of visitors. It is not just Scots out on the hills,E.G. my Dad did his Munros in the late 80’s. he would have been compleator approx 600. He only sent it in in 2001 as my brother was close,10 years meant he was 2605.I think the number of visitors we get probably increases traffic way above what the population % of the population who like walking and mtb’ing would be doing

    D0NK
    Full Member

    rights of way in england is stupid, less population density in scotland but as other say in the high density ares the same rules apply and seem to be working just fine. Peak may get hammered but sensitive areas could maybe be protected under seperate bylaws and I’m not sure right to roam is going to suddenly increase traffic any, it might even help. Some bloody stupid situations in the peak where mid winter bikes aren’t allowed on the nice firm well drained tracks and have to go down muddy shitey trails instead. Lots of people “embrace the muck” that goes with winter riding but I bet I know which trail most would go for given the option. Plenty of spots in the lakes (and locally for that matter – west pennines) where you’ll rarely see another person if you know where to go, only you can’t technically go to most of these places on wheels.

    DT78
    Free Member

    We do have the same rights as horse riders.

    This isn’t my experience in the New Forest.

    jfletch
    Free Member

    Does right to roam in Scotland extend to people riding horses?

    Because I can see that being a big issue in particular areas of England if you have people just riding horse arround willy nilly. Every footpath in the home counties would be a muddy mess for a start.

    binners
    Full Member

    You want the Right to Roam? In England? You are aware we’ve got a Tory government? Do you know all the people who own all the land tend to vote for? Actually…. they probably sit in the benches of the Lords on their behalf.

    Can we also petition them for the re-nationisation of everything too. They’d probably be slightly more receptive to that idea

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    I don’t think we need right to roam, just footpaths/bridleways to be reclassified as one available to all trail.

    As people above have said there are places people just don’t need to go.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    No, not all suitable access to suitable uses.

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    Fair point Mike.

    munrobiker
    Free Member

    If anything I think the population density thing makes the argument against rtr even less valid. I doubt the right to roam will increase the number of people hiking, horsing or biking. It will however spread the current users over a much wider network, reducing conflict by reducing the number of users on any one trail. It will also reduce erosion- in Scotland if a trail is muddy there will usually be a harder wearing alternative to use instead. If the harder wearing option is shut to cyclists and horses then the muddier one will just get trashed. Similarly, less users on any given trail will mean less erosion.

    I’ve given up on English access laws since I moved back down from Scotland. It centres around a selfishness and unwillingness to share that only the English can truly master. Just ride where you like and be nice to other users.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    No, not all suitable access to suitable uses.

    who decides? A committee? lots of bridleways are completely unsuitable for horses and there’s quite a few that are unsuitable for some bikers aswell, one man’s interesting downhill is another man’s long walk with an unusual accompaniment. Wouldn’t open to all with a few exceptional cases make a lot more sense?

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I’ve given up on English access laws since I moved back down from Scotland. It centres around a selfishness and unwillingness to share that only the English can truly master.

    Lol.. Not been to the USA then?

    br
    Free Member

    Does right to roam in Scotland extend to people riding horses?

    Pretty much anything with an engine; so bike, horse, foot, ski etc.

    We live in the Borders and it works great, but tbh it’s not like you meet many folk when out – but then again when I lived in The Chilterns we pretty much rode anywhere with no problems.

    bikebouy
    Free Member

    Never happen in Gurland, too many uninterested parties and infighting.

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    D0NK – Member – Quote
    No, not all suitable access to suitable uses.
    who decides? A committee? lots of bridleways are completely unsuitable for horses and there’s quite a few that are unsuitable for some bikers aswell, one man’s interesting downhill is another man’s long walk with an unusual accompaniment. Wouldn’t open to all with a few exceptional cases make a lot more sense?

    Suitable in terms of environmental sustainability, not routing people through bogs that never dry out etc. Nothing to do with technical content really, and yes I’d suggest a group of people representing most of the interest groups.

    redfordrider
    Free Member

    I think that any land owner in receipt of farm subsidies show be compelled to allow the public to have reasonable access . See Article

    mikewsmith
    Free Member

    redfordrider – Member – Quote
    I think that any land owner in receipt of farm subsidies show be compelled to allow the public to have reasonable access . See Article

    Sorry I got as far as george MoanBot

    What is reasonable access?
    Walking through fields while you drive potentially dangerous machinery around? Having to erect signs to keep the general public out of areas after crop spraying etc in every single field regardless of where it is?
    Not being able to have a secure farm yard and allowing anyone to roam around.
    Letting a bunch of idiots run their dogs round with no idea about the impact it has on the animals.

    There were several reports during the main Foot and Mouth outbreak from members of the public who saw sheep limping and chewing – that must be what foot and mouth disease is.

    Farms are workplaces, where activities go on that may not be safe unless you are dressed accordingly or aware of what is going on, allowing a full roaming right to everyone is dangerous.

    I will happily see subsidies abolished if strict standards are applied to the importing of food to ensure it meets all of the requirements of the EU standards on quality, traceability, welfare, drug control, chemical usage and the rest.

    scotroutes
    Full Member

    It’s already been said on this thread (many times) but it’s worth saying yet again…. all these supposed issues are also true in Scotland and yet it appears to work there!!!

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 46 total)

The topic ‘Right to Roam – England’ is closed to new replies.