[Closed] Right to Roam, open Access etc

One thing to note, is that while we've right-to-roam in Scotland there is no requirement on the landowner to ensure that any route is accessible, ie don't need gates that horses can get through, or stiles that walkers can get over etc.

This may help placate the landowners in England and Wales.

some sort of comprimes encompassing open hill/mountain/moor land. Access based on condition and suitability with consideration of other users, the more comlex but overall better solution.

you need to know who owns the land first and in England that isnt as easy as it sounds.

Plus most upland fells, moors etc are private for grouse so managed shite for the shooters to ponce about on.

The country is a managed playground not a single natural habitat anywhere.

The country is a managed playground not a single natural habitat anywhere.

We already have open access land / right to roam in England - you just can't cycle on it. It's great for walking, mind, so as long as that more fundamental consideration has been addressed, there's little chance of it being thrown open to bikes.

The footpath / bridleway structure, separating cycling and walking activities, is just too embedded in the English legal system now. A visionary Scot managed to equate the two things in Scottish case law a long time ago, the die was cast and it's equal access for both up there.

I quite liked the British Horse Society suggestion in their 'making way for horses' blue sky document:

[b]Proposal 5 Adopt a single status for footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways[/b]
[i]The quickest and easiest solution would be to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make
all paths recorded on the definitive map the one status, apart from byways open to all traffic and
unclassified roads. The terms ‘footpath’, ‘bridleway’ and ‘restricted byway’ would be replaced by
the term ‘public path’. The public would have the right to pass over all public paths on foot, on
horseback or leading or driving a horse, and on a bicycle. It would be up to the individual user to
decide whether a particular path was passable or not, and there would be many paths whose
accessibility would be limited by natural constraints.
Local authorities would have a duty to make all public paths usable by removing obstructions in
line with the Equality Act 2010, and this should be done within a specified ten-year period.
Use of public paths would be in accordance with a Public Path Code (see further Appendix 4).
To be all encompassing the term public path should include cycle routes.[/i]

However, the big issue is that there are thousands of miles of perfectly sustainable tracks on statutory and permissive access land that walkers, and in other places walkers and horses, already have access to - it would be easy to give a right to reasonable access to existing tracks and trails on access land, and make a huge difference.

ninfan - Member

Local authorities would have a duty to make all public paths usable by removing obstructions in line with the Equality Act 2010

does this mean they all need to be useable by wheelchairs and prams?
apart from this reservation, I like that idea. I've always thought just let us ride on paths and I'll happily carry my bike over a stile if I'm allowed to cycle that route.

One thing to note, is that while we've right-to-roam in Scotland there is no requirement on the landowner to ensure that any route is accessible, ie don't need gates that horses can get through, or stiles that walkers can get over etc.

This is maybe the biggest difference to the current way the FC and other landowners permit access. At the moment, if the FC open up an area for mountain biking then they are taking on some measure of liability and they have to maintain it.

If I grab my bike and take it up on a Scottish hill then the risk is mine and I might not find it in the same state it was last time.

There will be other concerns - right to roam isn't universally liked. It doesn't help that some people don't remember that the right to roam also comes with a responsibility not to be an eijit.

The FC seem to be growing ever more hostile toward MTB events
is this because of budget restrictions or is their something else afoot.....

[i]Local authorities would have a duty to make all public paths usable by removing obstructions in
line with the Equality Act 2010, and this should be done within a specified ten-year period.[/i]

and the budget for this? 😯

There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
Not suitable for horses, tough on bikes - should these be open to all? Who maintains it? What if the new path isn't as challenging as the old one?
Blanket yes/no is not a solution it's making it easy to decide and hard to maintain. Who pays for the upkeep as this lot would be a 4ft deep trench in places if managed wrong.

There are bridleways on land just like that though. you could argue that spreading out users decreases erosion...

No horses up there would **** it up completely, it's not suitable. You are highlighting the bigger problem, the current classification has nothing to do with use but only with history.

and when a dozy bunch go through and mash it all up who repairs it? Who stops the erosion or the further damage?

grumpysculler - Member

The FC seem to be growing ever more hostile toward MTB events
is this because of budget restrictions or is their something else afoot.....

Events are completely different and not covered by right to roam in Scotland, nor should they be IMHO.

But in Scotland with the land owners permission you can race down a path that would be a footpath in England. You can't do that in England even if you have rented the land.

But the Scottish path isn't legally designated as a footpath so the comparison is pointless.

The major threat to access at the moment are the austerity measures with councils funding being cut, either in real or effective figures, so that non-essential services get cut or put to one side. If a landowner decides to take advantage of this by neglecting to keep a path clear, or indeed deliberately blocking it, then it's unlikely to figure highly on a council's priorities.

Not that all landowners/farmers/tenants are so minded, there are many who have a live and let live attitude.

As someone noted earlier in the thread, the right to roam in Scotland doesn't give you the right to be an idiot.

@dave The land in the pictures is very susceptible to erosion and it takes very little use to kill off the vegetation.

There's a bridleway near us on land not dissimilar to that and it wouldn't be suitable for lots of use yet it leads on to a footpath that is on hard standing or flags and could cope with any number of bikes over it. Legally I can ride on the first and destroy it but not on the second even though I would leave hardly a mark. Completely arbitrary designation.

There's a section of the Pennine Bridleway up in the Dales that still hasn't been sorted out legally so although it gets regular use, at the moment it is still a permissive ROW rather than a legal one.

There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.

And theres also a great many that could, non?

The objections to the Scottish approach are nicely dealt with by reference to what has actually happened in Scotland - the work shows such problems as they've had don't seem to be down to cycling. Some walkers may object to sharing more paths with cyclists but they have had exclusive rights to almost four-fifths of rights of way, along with the huge (and welcome) increase via CRoW.
Whatever happens, many footpaths will remain beyond cyclists' reach, simply because they are unrideable. But that's no reason for the law, rather than the terrain, to prevent access.

[i]@dave The land in the pictures is very susceptible to erosion and it takes very little use to kill off the vegetation.[/i]

Large parts of Scotland are the same but have open access...

One of the criticisms of the proposed Right to Roam legislation was that people could walk anywhere so would disturb ground nesting birds (i.e. grouse). Have you ever tried walking across a grouse moor through knee high heather? After about 50 metres you are looking for the nearest track!

I suspect turning all footpaths in to bridleways (or removing the distinction) will be much the same: one or two will try a line but it will be so horrible that they'll turn back and continue on a traditional BW. These days with forums such as this, what is rideable/pleasant will soon become known about.

whitestone - Member

But the Scottish path isn't legally designated as a footpath so the comparison is pointless.

You were comparing the current situation in an incorrect manner not what might be if the law in England was changed. Therefore your comparison remains pointless.

whitestone - Member

You were comparing the current situation in an incorrect manner not what might be if the law in England was changed. Therefore your comparison remains pointless.

Well, technically you're both wrong, because you can race on a footpath - its bridleways that you can't 😉

Ohh a topic close to my heart.

Open Access for ALL IMO. So that means bikes/horses can use footpaths as well as current access rights. No motor vehicles and I'm adding in there e-bikes (sorry) but restrictions incl (not exhaustive) where footpaths go through gardens/farms then rider(s) must get off and push/walk, no access to land with animals on it or restrictive crops or land given over for fallow.
Forests clearly should be open to all too.. and moors and such.

Think that would good for a start.

Hate the fact that we've allowed this to disintegrate into a "partition" based country where some folk think they own what was here long before they were. You can all counter that with King John and handing over land to farmers etc. happy with that but what should have been put in place way back then was access for all.

It's a stupid mind numbingly situation we're in.

^^ hear hear

[i]There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.[/i]

[i]and when a dozy bunch go through and mash it all up who repairs it? Who stops the erosion or the further damage?[/i]

So you're using an example of existing erosion and path repair to argue for less access? You're saying no one should use that upland area as to do so causes erosion? Or is it okay to erode as long as you're on foot?

ninfan - Member
Well, technically you're both wrong, because you can race on a footpath - its bridleways that you can't

I think he's taking the p*ss at our little handbags at dawn 😀

http://imba.org.uk/public-rights-of-way/cycle-racing-on-bridleways/

If we have the right to roam and disturb ground nesting birds such as the grouse then that is a good thing as they are only reared to get shot.
Bikes are not a problem for ground nesting birds we have a negligible impact on them, dogs are the biggest problem.

mikewsmith

That looks like the Pennine Way on the Cheviot 'ridge', and boy is it hard on a bike...

@Dave Interesting - genuinely counter-intuitive.

A further search on the relevant schedule didn't give many hits but this one is, erm, peculiar - http://cycleracingnews.com/cycle-racing-on-bridleways-imba-uk/ It's either in some very odd legalese or has been written by someone using a thesaurus. (The two may not be dissimilar)As an example:

[i]This record gives a suitable answer for the cycle dashing problem, and cycle hustling elements have been completely joined in the proposition. They have been in this manner completely talked about in the period 1998/9 with Ministers Gus McDonald and Kate Huey,[/i]

Cheers for the email that will really help me out with a race venue I have.

Part of the challenge of our 'better' access laws in Scotland is the idiots who don't adhere to the 'responsible' bit. It manifests itself most commonly in places close to cities - see Lomond shores challenges etc, but also in more remote numptiness at times.

The challenge in England is the greater numbers (not proportion) of idiots. There is a corresponding greater number of the sites that would come under pressure, as the greater number of idiots are also closer to many of the sites than in Scotland.

I am not saying either situation is perfect - but I don't believe Scotland has put the resources it needs to into counteracting the idiots yet (we have the manifesto and laws needed IMO) and educating the next generation, and beyond.

See also the shit heap (at times literally) that is Glen Etive.

Having been waiting for this for nearly 18 months, I'm afraid I've been caught out unaware! It certainly doesn't look like it's changed much since the early internal consultations, which is good. I'm back in the office first thing Wednesday; I'll have a thorough read and report back here.

My initial thoughts are: -

[u]Good[/u]
More users across a larger path network = less erosion / conflict *
Simplifying RoW procedures

[u]Bad[/u]
I can tell you now I'm (as Access / PRoW officer for a Welsh council) not going to get any more money / staff to implement it (unless this will replace ROWIP's, which it *might*)
Not happy with the relatively short consultation period

One point re. ground nesting birds / endangered species, the CROW Act allows us to install (and if my late afternoon memory serves me correctly) signage with words to the effect of "ground nesting birds - please don't walk in the area behind these signs".

* One of my access land areas is directly next to a large MTB centre, and with the exception of the local gamekeeper complaining about them they're really not a problem

Dave - Moderator
There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.

and when a dozy bunch go through and mash it all up who repairs it? Who stops the erosion or the further damage?

So you're using an example of existing erosion and path repair to argue for less access? You're saying no one should use that upland area as to do so causes erosion? Or is it okay to erode as long as you're on foot?

What I'm saying is to make an area like this sustainable for use by bike or horse will take a large amount of time and money, who pays? Simply saying the black and white options are not the best. Usage base and condition based assessment would be my preferred method of classification.

The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.

Access in England is much more delicate due to the number of massive population centres that are close to some of the more delicate areas. In Scotland you can be 4-5hrs drive from a city and in near isolation, it's not that empty in England.

The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.

If you have the right to roam surely that doesn't imply right to passable terrain? It would of course depend on what/how this was implemented, but it wouldn't need to be a problem. As has been mentioned the law in Scotland has the caveat of not being an idiot, causing damage etc, this should stop people/horse/bikes/etc damaging boggy/soft terrain if there's not an existing path

As has been mentioned the law in Scotland has the caveat of not being an idiot, causing damage etc, this should stop people/horse/bikes/etc damaging boggy/soft terrain if there's not an existing pat

Wondered when the Welsh gov was going to get on with this been on the cards for about 3 years or so.

TBH in England I just pretend we have open access already.

The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.

By that logic you would have banned walkers instead of building boardwalks

Why does massive erosion by walkers (anyone remember what the top of kinder used to look like?) justify huge amounts of spending to repair and protect, but the mere risk of bikes causing it (even though, in fact, the evidence clearly points towards cyclists self-selecting the better, more sustainable tracks) result in sheer apoplexy that it could never work?

Amazingly enough, Scotland also has some major population centres, has there been a disaster on the urban fringe? Well, they've certianly had problems, but those they have had seem to stem from thieving and pissed up neds camping and lighting fires, rather than from mountain bikers and horseriders.

Unfortunatley, most of Mikewsmiths objections are exactly the same ones that we heard for years explaining why open access on foot could never work...

Amazingly enough, Scotland also has some major population centres, has there been a disaster on the urban fringe?

I commend you high opinion of people.

That, and the lazyness of people. The main problem we've had in Scotland is neds and other eejits camping near the roads of Loch Lomond rather than bikers and hikers creating new paths or causing undue erosion.

I suspect that if there's not a path somewhere most people will be too lazy to try and create one rather than follow the usual route.

[i]The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.[/i]

So you're saying it was unsuitable for walkers but the idiots kept using it?

Yep they did, idiots be idiots.
Part of the Pennine way - so obviously it should be fine to walk on why wouldn't you?

And as for comparisons with Scotland the population and usage is a little different
[img] [/img]
Yes it's a Strava heatmap but it does give an indication as to the level of use currently.