Apologies if you’ve already acted on this, as I know it’s reached a big audience on FB and had some media coverage, but we really need as many people as possible to act on this.

Maybe you were one of the 4,000-odd people who responded to the original Trails for Wales campaign two years ago? If so then you are to thank for the Welsh Government responding with a very forward-thinking set of proposals to relax access rules.

In a nutshell, they are considering allowing cycling (and horse riding) on the vast majority of footpaths – by largely doing away with the distinction between FPs and bridleways and having “single status” tracks instead.

There’s a good chance of this happening, but it will absolutely depend on the WG getting a big positive response to the consultation (open until end of Sep). Cycling UK have created an excellent email response form which allows you to customise your reply (encouraged).

I’ve put a bit more info on the OpenMTB website: http://openmtb.org.uk/news/trails-for-wales/

Or if you’re in a hurry just go straight to the Cycling UK response form: https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/13078/action/1?ea.tracking.id=OpenMTB

I’ve signed already. Thanks for posting this.

Done. Meant to do it when it appeared on Facebook but just forgot 😳

Thanks for the kick up the arse!

I’ve just responded too.

Great to see a load of positive individual responses appearing under that article on the OpenMTB website. It does feel like change is in the air…

If you want some background, or to respond yourself to the Welsh government consultation (it is about more than just rights on trails), here are some links:

The Welsh government’s consultation

Cycling UK (previously the CTC)’s full response to the consultation (the thing you will be supporting by sending a letter).

Intersting approach taken in the response, tackling cheeky trail use head on and noting that it happens, using Pen-y-Fan as an example and Strava data as evidence. I guess that would all get dragged into the debate anyhow.

Can I assume that you would all welcome an increase, or even a return to previous access rights for motorcycles etc. Same principle but with more historical justification that was ignored by the grinning idiot and his mates.

I don’t get most of that @mattsccm, you will have to enlarge upon it.

It says “vast majority of footpaths”, so I imagine then it is likely to be footpaths that are pretty much ridable with a horse, wide and less contentious.

Will that still mean the cheeky ones we find a challenge to ride are still left as footpaths ?

Who decides which will / won’t be “single status”, someone who is in favour or mtb’ing or someone who is anti ?

Intersting approach taken in the response, tackling cheeky trail use head on and noting that it happens, using Pen-y-Fan as an example and Strava data as evidence. I guess that would all get dragged into the debate anyhow.

The Cycling UK response is a great bit of work by Kieran Foster (I don’t know if he’d want me to reveal his STW username but he is a regular here).

I also like the way it draws attention to the danger cyclists face riding on the road and the low level of trail conflict that we demonstrated with our survey last year.

It doesn’t say it outright, but effectively asks “do you want cyclists getting killed on the roads or sharing the trails?”

I’d happily see motorcycles allowed on newly named single status trails….after all that’s the very definition of single status surely!?

There is so much confusion out there currently, when I lived in the middle of the Surrey hills there were bridleways for horses…but holier than though cyclists seemed to think that because their hobby is healthy and non polluting that they could use them too (which legally they can but the clue is in the name, expect to encounter horses!)…there were footpaths that horse riders regularly used and churned up because their attitude seemed to be based on some outdated belief system that owning a horse makes you some kind of aristocrat entitled to do as you please…and then there were the byways that were open to all traffic but walkers would get very angry about it if they came across an off road motorbike or 4×4 using ‘their’ footpath….it was bonkers.

Just make it all single use/access, it will sort itself out because some trails will be unrideable to bikes but walkers will cope, some will be fine to cycle down but too narrow for a 4×4 to drive along and a decent MX or horse rider should be able to get along pretty much anything although overhanging trees and height clearance will naturally sift out the horse riders from inappropriate trails too.

Simple, fixed.

Next topic….

Trimix – I’m not involved directly in the consultation process but I believe the details are still to be worked out.

The point has been made that simple criteria such as the width of a particular trail won’t really work – and isn’t reflected in the current network anyway.

We’d hope that only very exceptional trails would be excluded.

Surely single-use trails wold reduce the number of trails available to any group, unless more trails were brought into existence? Tweaking rights of way on existing tracks is one thing, creating whole new ones a whole different level of difficult.

Cheers Stace

I keep a login for this stuff to try and firewall it from my usual ‘hearty discussion’ that some think amounts to trolling 😉

To tackle a couple of points:

It says “vast majority of footpaths”, so I imagine then it is likely to be footpaths that are pretty much ridable with a horse, wide and less contentious.
Will that still mean the cheeky ones we find a challenge to ride are still left as footpaths ?
Who decides which will / won’t be “single status”, someone who is in favour or mtb’ing or someone who is anti ?

That’s for the WG to decide to some extent

We felt it was unrealistic to go in with ‘every single public footpath’ simply because there are so many routes that simply aren’t suitable, including narrow, walled urban public footpaths that were realistically not ever going to be suitable for bikes. The ‘totalitarian’ and over simplified language of calling for *all* footpaths was overweighting the argument and killling the debate befor it even started. More moderate language has seen a real leap forward, in that we are now on entirely the same page as the BHS, and even the Ramblers agree that many more footpaths should be opened to cyclists, just not all.

How to move that forward is where it’s more difficult. Ramblers want it done on a case by case basis, with ‘criteria’ judging which can and can’t be upgraded. We think that this is not only impractical over thousands of miles of routes, but since part of the logic here was the administrative savings to be made by the WG of simplifying the system, would be self defeating. We and BHS believe it should be a blanket right of access, but with isolated action taken to restrict if and where a real problem is identified or encountered. We think that’s pragmatic and reasonable, and hope that the WG agree.
Regards who decides, we think to some extent we need to trust the local authority staff, in conjunction with LAF’s, possibly a similar process thatcurrently applied to access land restrictions etc, which work well. Most positive news is the fact that discussions are going on in the background between user groups to try and reach consensus on these issues.

Regards motorbikes etc. The simple answer is that this consultation hasn’t covered the issue. The earlier one did touch on it, and we said that we would oppose any proposal for a blanket ban, as these things should be settled on suitability and sustainability. I’m involved in a separate consultation in England at the moment where we have said the same, although we have called in both for UUCR’s to be brought into the Definitive maps, either as their own class, or as BOAT and RB, according to suitability.

Can I assume that you would all welcome an increase, or even a return to previous access rights for motorcycles etc.

Nope

I live in wales I ride footpaths all the time, I’m all for open access but it’s been open access for me for the last 15 years of riding bikes. There’s a time and a place to ride footpaths.

A lot of regularly ridden trails are not on any kind of right of way, particularly in forested areas and on former industrial land (often the same thing).

Timidwheeler.
Why?
OpenMTBkie. My point was that this is very one sided. So many people cheered when m/c access was stopped on traditional, sustainable and suitable routes yet the same people in many cases are demanding the very opposite for cycles. Any soft surface could be said to be unsustainable for cycles as they do damage and leave marks. That to my mind is not sustainable.

What puzzles and upsets me is the greed. So many people wanting more all the time yet they haven’t finished what they have.
Its also a principle thing. People want more for their own interest but less for anyone else. The Ramblers are good examples. I would also assume that any organisation wanting to use open land in other ways will also be supported.

Great stuff, and well done to all those who have put in the hard work to get this far. If this happens it will be a brilliant thing. I’ve ridden plenty of footpaths in mid Wales, as so many are very rarely used and good for riding, so chance of conflict is minimal.

Maybe with lots more network open, the actual impact would be for horse riders and mtbers to be more evenly spread across public access routes, and that’s probably a good thing for more popular tracks that are shared with 4x4s, mtbs and horses.

Don’t put this off folks!

Signed.

The proposals in the discussion document are a bit half-hearted, certainly not the full Scottish model. Probably it was considered politically unhelpful to go the full access route (the farming lobby in Wales is quite strong and there were Assembly elections around the time this was being put together).

If you live in Wales, I would consider writing to your AM about it and also reminding them when the issue comes around to be debated in the Assembly. I think some extra political welly will be needed to shift the position

So assuming it goes ahead, what will happen if I’m caught riding on a footpath that isn’t one of the Single Status ones ?

I don’t intend to ride on footpaths that are ‘unsuitable’ for cheeky riding, but that’s somewhat subjective.

Also, how will we know which footpaths are not deemed suitable, will online OS maps change, will they go round sticking up signs ?

how will we know which footpaths are not deemed suitable, will online OS maps change, will they go round sticking up signs ?

A single digital map for all RoWs

Proposal 19:

https://consultations.gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultation_doc_files/170728-sustainable-management-natural-resources-consultation-document-en.pdf

The proposals in the discussion document are a bit half-hearted, certainly not the full Scottish model. Probably it was considered politically unhelpful to go the full access route (the farming lobby in Wales is quite strong and there were Assembly elections around the time this was being put together).

Bang on the money IMO, but it isn’t just the farming lobby, some of the “conservation NGO’s” are very hostile, (though largely trotting out the same arguments they used against CROW to be fair)

If you live in Wales, I would consider writing to your AM about it and also reminding them when the issue comes around to be debated in the Assembly. I think some extra political welly will be needed to shift the position

This!!!! Speak to your AM, it really will matter, especially anyone out there who is in the bike trade or bike tourism industry

So assuming it goes ahead, what will happen if I’m caught riding on a footpath that isn’t one of the Single Status ones ?
I don’t intend to ride on footpaths that are ‘unsuitable’ for cheeky riding, but that’s somewhat subjective.
Also, how will we know which footpaths are not deemed suitable, will online OS maps change, will they go round sticking up signs ?

There’s a lot of work to be done on the statutory code, that should settle most of these things. I don’t want to sound all ‘Brexit’ but it’s too early to have a clear picture on some issues, we have had round table meetings with numerous stakeholders and it’s clear that areas like national parks have big concerns about the camping issue, others different issues, canoeists have a lot of opposition and the Cavers have made some really strong points, so much so that we have specifically endorsed them in our response. I met RA, BHS and others yesterday, RA is maintaining a position of ‘case by case upgrades’
I think your point about ‘subjective’ is fair. the thing is, how do you write guidelines/criteria that are anything but subjective? Factions within The RA want exactly that, a ‘minimum width’ and/or ‘appropriate surface’ criteria, but it’s obvious to all of us that there are plenty of 3 metre wide surfaced public footpaths that would be completely unsuitable for shared use on a bank holiday weekend, but fine the rest of the time, and plenty of rocky, narrow FP that would be entirely suitable to ride all year round, so criteria like that just don’t work, the reality is that ‘this is all about “common sense” restrictions but we also all know how remarkably uncommon common sense can be.

Ps. I hope you all feel that this form of ‘dispatches from the front lines’ is helpful? I’m very conscious that we are doing a lot of this ‘on your behalf’ but if I wasn’t there, there’s always a fear that other groups might be dominating the discussion and MTB wouldn’t get a fair hearing (other organisations were invited but haven’t attended), Cycling UK fortunately backed me to attend having offered me a role as National off-road advisor after the work I did on the first consultation, and I’ve been tied in with open MTB since the start (and indeed back to IMBA-UK days)

There’s most definitely broad consensus from all the user groups that ‘more access for cyclists and horses’ is long overdue, but, and I say this very constructively, the opinions of the staff/office holders aren’t always consistent with the public positions that they have to take on behalf of their memberships.

To confirm, family consent was sought and obtained ref. dedication to Mike Hall, I had known mike for many years, and given he supported the first push for Trails for Wales I thought it was deserved

Outside Wales, I have NE and DEFRA down for a meeting in September, discussing, largely, ideas for post Brexit funding and how this can be used to improve access, I am in regular touch with NE about access issues, and there’s a lot of other stuff going on behind the scenes with C-UK regards work with county councils, national parks and aonb’s etc. Some really good grass roots advocacy going on, if anyone really wants to get up to their guts in making things better than email me via offroad@cyclinguk.org and I am sure we can find a role for you (and to everyone else, do please consider joining, as this stuff does cost money and resources, and it really is beginning to make a difference)

So chivvying one’s local bike shops to get stuck in might be an idea.

Oh god, yes.

To paraphrase BIll Clintons campaign plan “Its the economy, stupid (and don’t forget healthcare)”

The arguments that have weight with the politicians are things like improved rural tourism and healthy lifestyles – opening up more of Wales for access for cycling ‘from the door’ is a huge opportunity to promote both of those things, Bike shops talking about how mountain biking in Wales affects them will make the politicians listen

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Trails equals sales

‘case by case upgrades’

Oh please God, no. Years of bureaucratic grind, at huge expense.

We suspect, hope, pray, everything we have being crossed, that the WG will see it precisely that way – that the administrative burden of such a process would be impossible. An anonymous spokesperson stated “if that worked it would have already happened”

I’ve signed. Hope England gets better access at some point

Signed.

Also echo Stu’s comment above.

It’s more than overdue that we have a similar review in England.

Great work from those involved.
I’ve signed & told my riding group.

signed and many thankyous to those fighting for this

Thanks for coming back on the points I raised. You sound like you’re doing a great job and if you can pull it off you deserve a pint from all the Cheeky riders on STW.

Good luck and I admire your attempt.

(Personally I’d have left sleeping dogs lie, but that’s because I fear the compromise and couldn’t put up with idiots)

It would be a backward step if this led to more trailbike and 4×4 access.

No-one could argue that motorised access isn’t massively more intrusive than horse, pedal and foot could they? My vote is for more places of tranquility in an ever more noisy island.

I’ve signed & told my riding group.

Marvellous.

I should have said, please do share this in your clubs and groups and encourage everyone you know to respond.

As with the survey we did last year, we really need to get beyond the hardcore MTB crowd and generate as broad a response as possible.

Bump for the back-to-school crowd.