[Closed] Off-Road Access Survey (Open MTB&Cycling UK)

Done, let's hope some good comes of this.

Done, but the Data Protection bit is very poor. I've provided the information for the purpose of adding to the survey; if I want information about joining BC I'll ask for it. Why does everybody want to keep using my data for marketing, when I've supplied it for a different purpose? I assume the data will be anonymized, but they don't say. They've also taken the email address for Data Protection off the survey (but it's been quoted in an earlier post).

Done.

Why oh why oh why are these sort of surveys always so incredibly tedious to fill in? I got about half way through and lost the will to live.

Greybeard - You can opt out of getting marketing info from Cycling UK, and the only other reasons you might be contacted are if you've expressed an interest in advocacy/trail-building.

thecaptain - You should have seen how many questions we left out! I know it takes a while, but it is for a good cause and we think we've struck a reasonable balance.

[quote=thecaptain ]Why oh why oh why are these sort of surveys always so incredibly tedious to fill in? I got about half way through and lost the will to live.
+1

I filled this in last week and was disappointed to see that they are still telling people its illegal to ride footpaths.

If the governing body / leading advocacy group cant or don't want to get it right then what is the point?

keithb - Member
So the bank holiday caught then by surprise?

On reading the press release, it mentions that the survey was developed by openmtb, so it looks like ctc has jumped on at the last minute and are trying to take credit for someone else's work/ideas.

CTC used to have an off road access officer that led on these posts of things, but they only seem to have got involved once someone else has done the leg work.

(Grumpy ctc member)

CTC / CUK are OpenMTB, or at least provide some resources and guidance.

at least provide some resources and guidance.

This, rather than being the same.

I don't remember the word "illegal" being used, are you sure about that?

We are very grateful to those of you who have had the patience to get to the end of the survey.

If anyone is finding it a challenge, just think - it's only the same time you might spend reading a thread on here about how roadies are miserable, or what tyres for Glentress, etc

This one

If you ride on footpaths and undesignated trails, please explain why (select as many as applicable)

Regard law as outdated

and this one

Does the existing Public Rights of Way (PROW) network make it difficult to put together a “legal” route?

OK, they don't say illegal but they suggest it. I've spoken to some of the OpenMTB people about this issue before, it seems they would prefer to endorse false truths than actually address the issue of educating the masses of both cyclist and the public in general.

I might drop you an email direct if you don't mind as largely I support OpenMTB and would prefer to not detract from its work on a public forum.

don't say illegal but they suggest it

I thought that the inverted commas suggested pretty much the opposite

Greybeard - You can opt out of getting marketing info from Cycling UK

Done but very little applicable to Scotland.

Greybeard - thanks for taking the time to email them (and I do mean that)

surroundedbyhills - you have a good point and it's something that we really struggled with, but I hope plenty of Scots will complete it because we're keen to see how riders' experiences compare north and south of the border.

Well there may not be much applying to scotland, but it is a survey about off road access in England and Wales... So I wouldn't expect much coverage of scottish issues...

chakaping - I'm curious as to who you are and who you represent. you keep referring to "we" implying that you are involved in some way, but you haven't stated in what capacity? It makes me suspicious when potential "vested interests" don't declare there interest/involvement in an issue, and go on as if they are just another member of the public. From your posts it almost feels like you are oficially promoting this through the forum without declaring it. Given the CTC as a national organisation has effectively been taken away from its membership by the governing body, it raises the hackles somewhat..

Though it could be me being a suspicious/pessimistic sod...

Hi Keith, I'm a volunteer with OpenMTB and I organised the survey. I'm not even a member of Cycling UK (yet, though I will join when my BC lapses).

I haven't been avoiding stating this, it's just that someone beat me to posting it on here. My only vested interest is that I'd like to see better access for bikes in England & Wales.

There has been a lot of input from Cycling UK and from people in various MTB advocacy roles.

On Scotland - A lot of the Qs on health, spending and attitudes will be relevant there - and those results could be just as useful there as elsewhere in future.

Tin foil hat for keithb.

I'll get the wife to fill this in later too as her results will be a little tamer than mine.

I don't think a tin foil hat is in order, just for people who are promoting something in a professional capacity (even as a volunteer) should declare the basis of their involvement, for the sake of openess, honesty and transparency.

I've seen many organisations go thorugh fundamental change that was promised to be "in the best interests", only to find shortly down the track the only interests actually served are those vested interests...

For example, my current employer is closing an office and relocating to much larger premises in central Birmingham. A single line in all the information distributed states that it will "look for it to become a national hub". given the lease is up in 5 years on the head office in Milton Keynes, and the bulk of our network is in birmingham, what do you think this actually means? But no-one in management is willing to actually say anything to confirm/deny speculation.

Done. Please share the shinola out of this everyone. It's not going to be very informative if the only people who complete it are the forum regulars. 😈

Done, shared

@v666 I imagine the point of the strava question is to gauge what proportion/demographic of cyclists use strava, so when you see a popular segment somewhere you know who it does and doesn't represent for campaigning purposes.

Intuitively we all know what sort of person is on strava but if you're campaigning you need to put that into numbers.

Keithb - have you seen this?

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/2016-09-07/“copy-scotland”-benefit-rural-economy

Shared at work. Someone reported issues with the priority combo boxes while using Safari?

I find it strange that CUK or ctc gets no mention in the rushup thread on here, and aren't mentioned by PDMTB on their website as being involved.

Basically as far as I could tell, including by communicating directly with ctc, they weren't really interested, and didn't have anything to offer. So what's changed at ctc hq? Why the sudden interest in off road access after a near 10 year hiatus?

I hope something good does come from this and my suspicions prove unwarranted, but I think CUK will drop the issue as soon as something else more interesting comes along, and it'll be sidelined for another 10 years.

As I recall it, it was alrgely sidelined last time because it turned out that most MTB'ers would rather whinge about things than actually work to make things better.

How many MTB'ers have used their 20 years of use to claim new ROW? How many have joined their local bridleways association and attempted to research lost ways? How many responded to statutory consultations on their local authority ROWIP to seek increased access? How many have written to their MP to explain what is wrong with the current system.

Ramblers do this shit all the time,

Why would a cycling organisation take an interest in it if MTB'ers don't take an interest in it themselves?