Every day's a school day....
I'll donate a few quid as I if the landowner wins then it could set a precedent that other landowners could use to exclude walkers in other parts of Scotland. We do not want the same unsatisfactory access laws as down South.
We need to stop this bickering between walkers and cyclists.
Land access up here in Scotland is - in general - amazing! And it needs defending by everyone who enjoys being able to access the outdoors irrespective of whether they're on a bike, on foot, in a canoe etc etc!
I want my kids to experience at least the same levels of access to the outdoors as I do.
A worthy cause if I lived in or visited Scotland, as I don’t it doesn’t get a donation from me.
an organisation who’s stated policy is to restrict my access to the countryside because of the method I choose to do that?
Ramblnazis 😆
I don’t know how many different ways I need to say that the Ramblers as an organisation are not on our side.
In England! In Scotland they are!
cool, then why haven't the Ramblers, having seen how successful shared paths can be, changed their position on access in England?
nickc
Full Membercool, then why haven’t the Ramblers, having seen how successful shared paths can be, changed their position on access in England?
Because their approach in England is flawed does not preclude supporting them for an important access battle in SCotland. @nickc feel free not to contribute.
Anyone who walks or cycles in SCotland please help if you can.
Thanks, I hope any money that cyclists in Scotland give to Ramblers don't end up supporting campaigns against cyclists in England enjoying the same rights you have up there.
In England! In Scotland they are!
Yep, despite being the same UK wide organisation that happens to have regional offices. Duplicitous barstewards aren't they?
It's not just England where the RA are anti shared access with cyclists. They actively campaigned against it in Wales. The only reason they put on their cycle friendly face in Scotland is because proper access laws up there are a done deal (which is great, and I AM envious). But to be fair it's a little much to expect those of us south of the border to just be pragmatic and donate to them on the OP issue when they are actively hostile to improved cycling access in England and Wales. I genuinely hope the Ardnamurchan campaign succeeds, it seems a crap state of affairs, but I won't give money to an organisation that take such a hostile, entitled and selfish view of countryside access issues in a significant part of the UK. BTW, I am also a keen hill walker and would support them if they dropped this ludicrous anti cycling stance (yeah, yeah - not in Scotland, we get it).
Edit:
Thanks, I hope any money that cyclists in Scotland give to Ramblers don’t end up supporting campaigns against cyclists in England enjoying the same rights you have up there.
Bang on the money.
Hmm. Linked from website in the article above 'ramblers Scotland': www.ramblers.org.uk
Is the ramblers response to the Dartmoor national park consultation : https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/latest-news/2021/october/dartmoor-national-park-consulting-on-new-rules.aspx
Their full response is available as a download on that page. Surprise! No comments made on the rights of cyclists on Dartmoor that are already more restrictive than those 'enjoyed' even in England and Wales.
TL; DR the ramblers couldn't give a stuff about our access even if they don't actively oppose it.
the ramblers couldn’t give a stuff about our access even if they don’t actively oppose it.
In the Welsh consultation they did actively oppose better cycling access.
I hope any money that cyclists in Scotland give to Ramblers don’t end up supporting campaigns against cyclists in England
Maybe it's possible to donate specifically to the fund for this case, not to the organisation as a whole.
Presumably those concerned about the Ramblers ability to represent the interests of cyclists in this case are members of a body that does represent cycling, such as Cycling U.K., and have written to them encouraging them to consider joining the action?
Maybe it’s possible to donate specifically to the fund for this case, not to the organisation as a whole.
Look at it this way, Imagine your local Tory party are pinky-promising to rebuild the primary school which you'd like as it'd mean you wouldn't have to drive to the next town over each morning. But you know that along with that benefit, they'll also cut the funding for the single-mum nursery places, close the "English as a second language" course that the Polish and Romanian folks are benefiting so much from and shut the skate park, so you don't vote Tory because while you might be better off, they'll screw over hundreds of other people, right?
Same with the Ramblers in Scotland, you might be OK if you live there, but your fellow cyclists south of the border are being hammered by them every opportunity they can get.
Solidarity...(or something)
NickC have you considered joining the ramblers? It sounds like you'll fit right in*.
The English ramblers that is, the Scottish ones aren't so full of many bastards.
yes nickc - solidarity is important and in Scotland the ramblers and cyclists are the same side
so solidarity means supporting them!
so solidarity means supporting them!
Yeah, do you know for sure that money you give to Ramblers in Scotland isn't being used to fund campaigns south of the border to make sure we don't get the same rights that you enjoy? Wouldn't that be ironic?
the Scottish ones aren’t so full of many bastards
If you think for a second that the Ramblers in Scotland wouldn't jump at the chance to go back to how it was and they didn't have to share access with cyclists. I have, as they say; some magic beans....And even if that isn't the case, and they're content and surprised at how well it's all worked out; why in England and Wales do they continue to oppose it? The right thing to have done in Scotland as a cyclist in my opinion is to have said "We'd love to give you our money, but we'll hold off until you stand up for the rights of cyclists south of the border, like you do here".
No?
No
Once again you simply fail to understand the issues here as highlit by this piece of nonsense
If you think for a second that the Ramblers in Scotland wouldn’t jump at the chance to go back to how it was and they didn’t have to share access with cyclists
To go back to how it was: pre land reform act we actually had more rights but less clearly defined. Bikes and walkers have open access for centuries
Walkers and cyclists have common objectives and huge overlap between the groups here. Bikes have always been used for access to the hills
Please - don't let your parochial, blinkered and frankly wrong views lead you to make pronouncements on issues you don't understand
Please – don’t let your parochial, blinkered and frankly wrong views lead you to make pronouncements on issues you don’t understand
Thanks for your support in making the Ramblers change their views on access rights in England.
Same with the Ramblers in Scotland, you might be OK if you live there,
Access rights in Scotland aren't just for locals - we happily extend them to visitors from England, or indeed anywhere, too!
but your fellow cyclists south of the border are being hammered by them every opportunity they can get.
if that is true, have you paused for a moment to wonder why that might be the case if this is true:
they’re content and surprised at how well it’s all worked out; why in England and Wales do they continue to oppose it?
It could be that the English membership of the RA has different views from the Scottish membership (just as say the English membership of the Labour or Tory party may have different views from the Scots to use your analogy), but it could also be that there's a very different demographic - you have 10x the population in only double the area so that's a rather different number of people packed onto the same paths, which may be less workable with different speeds of user etc.
I don't actually think its an odd position for the RA to take that their no 1 priority is access for people on foot. Now if they are going as far as opposing other methods of transport then I'd be asking myself why. And I think the answer to that probably lies in a proportion of the cycling community who ride at speeds or in manners that startle or frighten ramblers, or get confrontational when ramblers ask them to moderate their riding. I can understand why RA members south of the border might be hesitant to welcome cyclists onto paths they are currently not permitted on. I don't think ebikes and full suspension have done anything to make your desire for access easier - they've just increased the number of people and range of places where conflict can arise.
To go back to your analogy with the tory party - if Douglas Ross correctly calls out the SNP on some aspect of their government, should the people of Scotland just ignore it because "he's just a tory and we know what they are like" or can we be nuanced enough to say "Douglas you've got this one point right, but don't assume I'll support you on anything else". Because those are the people who actually carry real influence - the ones who blindly support or block everything because of who is asking actually achieve little.
I think @poly explains the situation well. It only takes a few speedy nobbers to colour the view of many to suppose all bikers are like that. Sadly I sometimes think that way too and I am a biker. BUT. I'm also a walker and bikers do sometimes piss me off approaching at speed and without warning. As bikers we need to look at our own behaviour.
I'll go a bit further. I'm not totally convinced that a blanket change to allow riding on all footpaths is that desirable but there is a case for upgrading the status of many (most?).
I suspect part of the acceptance of cycling on all paths in Scotland is (along with the historical background of access to remote areas) is that most of the relevant routes in the highlands are estate tracks and/or much less used than say your average Peak District footpath.
Are they people who are so against supporting this fully committed and actively pushing for the equivalent cycling groups to argue against the Ramblers view in England?
If not, I'd suggest they stop moaning either way because if they aren't part of the solution to improve things then they are part of the problem which just helps to encourage more campaigning against...
Otherwise, enjoy the moaning but it isn't doing anything to improve things.
most of the relevant routes in the highlands are estate tracks and/or much less used than say your average Peak District footpath.
The same access laws also apply in the Pentland Hills and on the outskirts of Glasgow though, so they can work even when considering accessibility by a large population.
As regards the argument that this thread has become, I'd have thought that anyone interested in improving the lot of mountain bikers in England and Wales would want to refer to Scotland as an example of what could be achieved and that they might therefore have an (albeit long-term) interest in controlling the excesses of landowners in general. However, the next time I see any sort of petition or other campaign for improved access rights in Wales and/or England, I'll stay away from expressing my support as, you know, it's nothing to do with me.
Please can we have some input from Welsh residents/ nationals on this.
Or the ramblers could understand why they don't enjoy our support in Scotland when they're actively opposing us in the rest of the UK? As an organisation they might recognise that cyclists and ramblers have more in common but I'm not holding my breath.
'Support this action in Scotland because you want the ramblers to support you in England and Wales' and 'the ramblers in Scotland are totally different to those in England and Wales' right-o.
Fwiw cuk have chipped in on the dnp thing. Thank you for your support.
As TJ has already said, cyclists and walkers have had the same access rights to rural paths in Scotland since waaay before the LRA. It just wasn’t widely known. One benefit since the LRA is I’ve found myself explaining access rights, when challenged for riding my bike on a ‘footpath’, to far fewer self-righteous people who feel compelled to tell me how they think I shouldn’t be there. (I even had one chap have a pop at me and say I should ‘stick to bridleways’ – that was a hilarious encounter when I told him he was in the wrong country).
Anyway, to get back on point with the OP, the landowner in this case is behaving outrageously and it’s not just the one path the walkers were reported on that have locked gates – it’s tracks all over his estate. Basically he thinks he’s above the law and needs to be brought to heel and other landowners, who may be tempted to behave similarly, enlightened. I for one totally support Ramblers Scotland and have donated. Even if you don’t like the RA in other parts of the UK, that is under a different legal system and a separate issue and ultimately, in this case, surely as off-road cyclists we can go by the ancient proverb of ‘the enemy of your enemy is your friend…’
+1 on getting things back on track, as it were.
This land owner is out of order on wider issues across the estate, this one it seems both a totemic issue and is a case of 'I will make changes, and because I made changes, I can choose to end access/make access far more difficult'. That is not on and yes we should push back on a united front against them.
any update on this case?
Court case delayed at start of year to allow negotiation.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman/20220112/281835762057375
But perhaps if no agreement reached by now court case still pending
I reported a locked gate across a bridle way a couple of months ago and reported to RW Office. Heard nothing after 3 weeks so went back and cut the lock which hasn’t reappeared. Chap may be a millionaire but cost of locks will soon mount up.
Hadn't heard of this case or seen the thread. Living in southern England it's borderline interest for me but I still fervently hope that the landowner loses; preferably expensively.
I think both sides of the "debate" here had a point - I'd rather that one or more cycling organisations had offered the RA some cash and requested/suggested something specific in terms of recognition across the UK in return*. Cyclists could've donated to that and at least been visible
*If they turned that down then I'd have said "**** 'em" too (I doubt they really need the money; surely they're minted ?)
Access in Scotland is clearly equal for all non-motorised users, so cyclists supporting the RA in this case makes sense.
When I am working to enable access I am doing it for all users.
The organisations also talk to each other. Ramblers is a large organisation and Scotways isn't - so deferring to the RA makes sense.
Note: Came across this book and have ordered myself a copy:
Scotways Guide to The Law of Access to Land in Scotland
https://scotways.com/product/law-guide-2018/
Bit parochial though, SC. The counterpoint is that RA is a UK organisation, Scottish offshoot notwithstanding and that it'd be better to put some even tiny conditions on their receipt of the support of the wider cycling lobby. Just clicking on a donations page doesn't even identify you as a biker supporting their cause - you're just a cash-source. If that's all you "want", then fine
... but unless Scottish bikers don't care about UK-wide access rights (and the fact that RA appears actively to oppose or at very best, fail to promote) then they ought to see their privileged situation for what it is
(no, I admit I'm not an active trail-access advocate ... unless ignoring stupid rules (in a very narrow and specific way) counts)
[Sorryish - I know people were trying to get back to the point before this reappeared. I don't have a massive axe to grind here but ^ that is how I see things as a "southerner"]
I live in Scotland but would also like the same type of access laws in the rest of the UK even though I don't ride there often.
The amount of private and no access signs when I was Cornwall recently was a real eye opener and quite unsettling.
Don't know much about the ramblers association so can't add much other than "my enemies enemy is my friend" means to an end and all that.
I pointed out on here some years ago that MTB was the next target for the Ramblers, they have successfully lobbied for the removal of vehicular rights on most byways.
They dont like Mountain Bikes and the rise of the electric MTB had galvanised them.
They are well organised, well established and politically well supported.
They will erode your access.
*englandshire
“The Ramblers’ opposes proposals for cycling to be allowed as a matter of course on footpaths in England. While we will work with other user groups to improve the path network for the benefit of all, we will resist changes which are detrimental to the interests of walkers. Changing the status of a footpath or footway to bridleway or cycle track must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with decisions based on an objective consideration of a range of factors.”
From Open mtb - England has about 146,000km of footpath, 32,000km of bridleway, 6,000km of restricted byway and 3,700km of byways open to all traffic. Footpaths therefore form about 78% of the Right of Way network, with only the remaining 22% open to bikes (and horses).
So ramblers get 100% plus ‘track’ access whilst bikes are limited to about 22% ‘track’ access (bridleways, restricted byway and byways), isn’t sharing nice.
*100% plus, in englandshire you can walk on all path types plus you have walking access on open access land which you can’t cycle on.
They will erode your access.
NOt in Scotland. this is about access in Scotland and there is no conflict between ramblers and cyclists in Scotland.
But it's asking for donations to the Ramblers association who are anti-cycling in England/Wales. You can't uncouple the two
Yes you can. Its perfectly right that the ramblers should be taking this case on and that the cycling folk support them - because its nothing to do with what is happening in England. Numerous scots based posters have explained this.
But there's no separate money 'just' for Scotland. The money the Ramblers raise in Scotland goes into their single funding pot which is [partly] used to restrict access in Wales and England for cyclists
The Chief Executive of the Ramblers is paid north of £120K, I hope they've made a sizable contribution.
Its like saying you shouldn't support the labour party in England because Scottish labour do deals with the tories in Scotland.
This has been explained to you by scots posters. Perhaps you could listen and try to understand?
