Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, therefore arguing for it makes us utterley unreasonable, we have been repeating the same mantra for thirty years, and achieved nothing more than banging our head against a brick walll, because every time we discuss it we fail to recognise and admit that not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, so it just pours petrol on the fire and stokes up opposition
That's our absurd rights of way system for you. Plenty of bridleways aren't 'suitable for bikes' either, but people get hung up on the misconception that somehow designation of a track as a footpath or bridleway is related to its suitability for use rather than being a historical accident.
Anyway, my experience is that whatever the legalities, if you actually engage with other trail users so you're a a fellow human being rather than a faceless 'mountain biker', no-oine gives a stuff where you ride within reason.
I'm also quite happy with things as they are. The last thing I want is all my best local trails appearing in the latest V-Publishing guide - Dark Peak - The Unridden Trails - and being transformed into erosion scars by weekend warriors from Wolverhampton (no offence to anyone from Wolverhampton, I just wanted something beginning with 'W', Walsall would do just as well. Or Wrexham.
Anyway, do carry on... 😉
BWD, One of the challenges IMO is that while many/most of us grizzened outdoor users are perfectly happy, the real problems that it creates are for promoting and increasing participation at the grass roots level.
There are loads, and loads, and loads of routes out there being ridden by us lot, without any issues, that would be really popular to bring new people to the sport (increasing physical activity, health and wellbeing etc. - but more importantly creating a critical mass of more pople riding bikes off-road that would increase our lobbying powers for better access provision) but at the moment we cannot actively promote or sell o the wider community because they use a bit of footpath or undesignated trail,
about to ride off when he bloked my way.
Ouch.
We need to start being pragmatic and arguing for more access to the places that are suitable, e.g. Existing tracks ad paths on CROW land & upgrading shed loads of footpaths that are perfectly usable by bike, without distancing and excommunicating ourself with unreasonable requests, like demanding access to all footpaths.
I would argue that opening up all and closing by exception is better than piecemeal opening. There will be less to "close" than there will to "open" and therefore the burden is distributed properly and in keeping with deregulation policy.
In the case of your pictures a dog walker would stop my youngest using the path because passing is so tight and she won't tolerate that proximity to unknown dogs. Her rights are diminished by a "reasonable accompaniment" of another user. Why is the bicycle as a "reasonable accompaniment" any different
Damn, someone came up with my Kinder Mass Trespass argument - I had a very nice chat to a couple in the Peaks a while back whilst I was "confused" as to the exact status of the trail I was on.
It was all very friendly as I believe in the obnoxiously cheerful and friendly approach and we ended up parting on very good term after a very amicable chat and a "good luck with your protest" as I left
Plus England / Wales is very different to Scotland.
They're full of bellends who won't share strips of dirt in the countryside with other?
My ploy for if I'm ever caught on NT land by someone of consequence like a ranger is to point out that I'm a member and so I guess I sort of own the land.
Jambo that's 100,000 *ascents* - the Glen gets about 400,000 visitors each year.
http://www.outdoorcapital.co.uk/explore/ben-nevis
Anyway, aren't most of the visitors to Box Hill wearing Rapha?
Anyway, aren't most of the visitors to Box Hill wearing Rapha?
It's the law.
At the bottom there's the swinging body of someone caught ascending wearing DHB. It serves as a warning to the rest of the great unwashed.
I would argue that opening up all and closing by exception is better than piecemeal opening. There will be less to "close" than there will to "open" and therefore the burden is distributed properly and in keeping with deregulation policy.
It's like saying "ooh, I wouldn't start from here though" when someone asks for directions. We are where we are, and the issues and powers stacked against it mean that, much as it would be nice, it isn't going to happen that way.
In the case of your pictures a dog walker would stop my youngest using the path because passing is so tight and she won't tolerate that proximity to unknown dogs. Her rights are diminished by a "reasonable accompaniment" of another user. Why is the bicycle as a "reasonable accompaniment" any different
'Reasonable accompaniment' is probably one of the most misunderstood bits of rights of way law, repeatedly misinterpreted thanks to R v Mathias (1861) and pretty much irrelevant as it has long been surpassed by a wider 'reasonable use' test from DPP vs Jones
It's like saying "ooh, I wouldn't start from here though" when someone asks for directions. We are where we are, and the issues and powers stacked against it mean that, much as it would be nice, it isn't going to happen that way.
I can understand that you may be party to potential changes not in the public domain but but I struggle to see how it could work. how would the right to use be claimed? If it is as bureaucratic as the current process and unfunded as now then progress will be near zero.
If the proposal is the strip back the process and allow cycle use to count as the single basis of claim we'll still have an issue with "barriers" etc, also would a new PROW designation be required?
Ninfan, a separate left field question, on access land or Urban Common can clout archery be done without explicit landowner permission? Obviously not shooting at people or animals.
Genuine question btw
Ooh, that's definitely left-field big-n-daft
Urban commons, I would say it's an absolute yes
My reasoning for that would be that in SOS vs Billson, 1998, the law of what was permitted on s193 commons (e.g. Urban commons) was gone into in detail, and the judgement was that the law conferred the widest possible definition on the phrase 'air and exercise' and discussed horse riding as falling within that remit as it was a common form of taking air and exercise and was not specifically prohibited by S193(1)(a-d)
Given that clout archery has a significant history (IIRC it's discussed as being the precursor to golf, no?) and would therefore have been an established form of air and exercise at the time, then it undoubtedly falls within the remit of permitted activities, unless additional byelaws/restrictions have been created.
Regards access land...
CROW act 2000 schedule 2 lists restrictions on activities which cannot be exercised under the rights of access for open air recreation, the only ones that might apply are restrictions on hunting apparatus (which might apply to the bow, but in the context of what you are doing would not) restrictions on organised games (so you couldn't hole a big competition, bit an ad hoc group of friends should be ok) or the restriction activities which might intimidate others (common sense here)
So, crack on, you are 100% in the clear!
Wrexham starts with R.
ninfan & mragreeable - I've discussed the broader access thing with you both before and I kind of agree with you both here.
Yes the population density argument is absolutely a red herring, Scotland's central belt is comparable to much of England & Wales in that regard.
However Scotland got its access reform because there was a political will for it to happen - it fit with the devolved government's progressive approach.
The UK government has recently made it clear that it's not interested in adopting the same model, so an incremental approach may be more fruitful.
The problem then (as pointed out above) is that you lose the beautiful simplicity of the Scottish system and the suitability of different FPs for biking is horrifically subjective.
Per square mile the population density in Scotland is far lower than in the rest of the UK, for a start.
If you're going to compare England and Scotland you need to pretty much ignore the highlands and look at how access works in the central belt where the bulk of the population lives.
Given that clout archery has a significant history (IIRC it's discussed as being the precursor to golf, no?) and would therefore have been an established form of air and exercise at the time, then it undoubtedly falls within the remit of permitted activities, unless additional byelaws/restrictions have been created.
Clout as a form of archery competition has its own history, there was also roaming archery where archers travelling to muster would shoot as they walked with marks they picked as they went. Interestingly there used to be a law that archers killing people during archery practice were not prosecuted with recorded cases of people walking behind the village butts being killed and the archer "let off"
As for golf, not aware of a link to archery, it's blamed for the relative poorer quality of Scottish archers during the border wars with the archers of the north of England dominating most encounters such as Flodden, Dupplin Moor, Halidon Hill etc the used to be laws banning golf and forcing archery practice north of the border IIRC. Football being the distraction of the English
Having said that the best modern style Bowyers in the country are at Mellerstain
CROW act 2000 schedule 2 lists restrictions on activities which cannot be exercised under the rights of access for open air recreation, the only ones that might apply are restrictions on hunting apparatus (which might apply to the bow, but in the context of what you are doing would not)
Hunting with a bow is banned outright in the UK, so there couldn't be a restriction based on that as it is now a sport only as long as you aren't carrying broadheads with a deer tied to pole walking off the hill. Clout or roaming isn't hunting in any form
Wrexham starts with R.
Only if you say it out loud...
