Nah. Not in my experience. Most of the Ramblers I know are cyclists too.
And this is the problem the way I see it. @scotroutes is probably right and they wouldn't activley try and force cyclist off the land/paths in Sctoland, unfortunatley the info on the Ramblers.org site is all encompassing. So even if the Scottish arm has different views they fall under the E&W stance as they cannot come out and actively support one set of rules as it shits all over their stance south of the border.
Really, we (E&W cyclists), should try and get someone from Scotland Ramblers to state that they support open access for all of Great Britain, as it is in Scotland cos that works, then jump all over it and get it on massive posters or something....
Some posters might be being argumentative but I'd hope you'd give me a bit more courtesy. I asked a very civil question and you're swatting me away. What is so specific about Scottish law and this case that means it has to be the RA?
The situation of what is being funded is unclear, but if your assertion that it's going to fund a legal case in Scotland about a Scottish access is right, can you cite that. Because the coulds, and the "Your donation will help us protect access rights for the people of Scotland, and our work to open up access to everyone, everywhere across Great Britain" bit on the netdonor page is not making me think that?
And even then
If the funds for this court case are shown to be seperate from general Ramblers.org funds then, as other have already stated, thats fine. But, if these funds are going into a shared pot, any one that donates is actively supporting their stance on open access in E&W
I'm not sold on that - even if vs Scotroutes has said there is NO excess, then anything they got towards this has freed up other funding which may then be used to support their stance against access in E/W.
you really think Ramblers should be funding this case on their own without our help even tho we benefit?
Happy to support, just not through an Org that is actively looking to restrict my rights.
My understating is Ramblers Scotland is supporting The Highland Council's action, or at least "sitting on their side of the table" against the landowner.
My concern is if the action against this landowner in this case is unsuccessful or cannot continue due to lack of funding, then the consequences for access across Scotland for all recreational users could be grave. It would basically give the green light to any unconscionable landowners to restrict access.
If you ride off-road in Scotland I would recommend you donate to help the legal action. If you don't, then don't.
Can you donate to the Highland Council instead of via the Ramblers? That would seem to be a better suggestion, as a cyclist I'd like to cut the RA out of it?
That's the gist of the argument, not whether fighting the action is right. Or are there special circumstances we don't understand that mean you have to go through the RA route?
What we are doing is working with our partners to preserve scots access.
And in so doing supporting an organisation who are actively campaigning to deny those very same access rights to many of us on this forum. And yet you can't understand why we are a bit prickly about it? I support the Ardnamurchan case even though it doesn't affect me directly. I would even chip a few quid in as long as it's not going to the Ramblers, because they are a direct threat to mountain biking in England and Wales. We get that you don't care about that, but maybe other Scottish forum members are a bit more empathetic to mtbers outside their own back yard.
We get that you don’t care about that, but maybe other Scottish forum members are a bit more empathetic to mtbers outside their own back yard
I'm very empathetic to the issues south of the border. What we are trying to avoid in Scotland in this case is a reversal of our hard-won access rights that many people and organisations campaigned for. I will happily contribute to a campaign to improve access rides for mtbers in E & W. In fact I maybe do already through Cycling UK?
I’m very empathetic to the issues south of the border. What we are trying to avoid in Scotland in this case is a reversal of our hard-won access rights that many people and organisations campaigned for.
I get that, it's an important issue that is well worth fighting for. As others have said, it's not the cause but the dubious credentials of one of your fellow travellers. Would you really feel comfortable giving financial support to Ramblers over this, knowing their anti-cycling access stance in E/W? Especially as it isn't clear from the link in the OP that donations are completely ring fenced for the Ardnamurchan case?
I will happily contribute to a campaign to improve access rides for mtbers in E & W. In fact I maybe do already through Cycling UK?
👍
Got visions of the Ramblers and Cycle UK locked in battle over southern access rights.... both of them being supported financially by pistola
( and indeed various others, which essentially demonstrates the conflict in most people's minds on this)
Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
What we are trying to avoid in Scotland in this case is a reversal of our hard-won access rights
So the question remains;
How does the Scottish Ramblers ringfence Scottish cyclist's money so that it's not used for anti-off road cycling campaigning in the rest of the UK?
JohnV
sorry dude. Not meant to be rude to you. I'm not getting involved any more due to behaviour of other posters.
Really, we (E&W cyclists), should try and get someone from Scotland Ramblers to state that they support open access for all of Great Britain, as it is in Scotland cos that works, then jump all over it and get it on massive posters or something….
Agreed. All of this is very sad, as walkers and off road cyclists should be natural allies in the fight for improved access across the whole of the UK. I suspect that a majority of us on this forum have a foot (and tyre) in both camps. Very few people are solely walkers, or solely mountain bikers. We have mutual concerns and we all stand to benefit from working together, so it is especially galling that an organisation like RA have torpedoed cooperation and created division amongst natural bedfellows because they feel their preferred flavour of countryside recreation trumps that of others.
The bobble hatted ** can go * themselves...
so it is especially galling that an organisation like RA have torpedoed cooperation and created division
And in this case misled cyclists in Scotland into supporting them with (probably) deliberately wooly wording on their campaign materials. In the knowledge that they will use funds given to them in the rest of the UK in a way that they cannot in Scotland, and indeed would likely as not be unsupported by those donating to this campaign, however worthy
Re Wales
“Question 8: How could current legislation be changed to make it easier to allow for a wider range of activities on existing and new paths?
Great care must be taken when considering allowing a wider range of activities on new and existing paths. We recognise that both walkers and cyclists can often benefit from infrastructure enhancements and that there are public benefits to promoting cycling generally. However, we could not support a blanket approach to the upgrading of rights on all paths. We believe a blanket reclassification to allow higher rights would result in fewer people accessing the countryside.”
*2015, but it’s still on their site.
you want England to follow with better access laws then you might just find that in this case that are.
They're anti even the idea of allowing cycling on footpaths let alone broader Scottish style access by bike.
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/rights-of-way/shared-use-routes.aspx
The Ramblers’ opposes proposals for cycling to be allowed as a matter of course on footpaths in England.
[Edit] realised I was replying at the bottom of a previous page not the last one. Even if the argument is still going in the same circle.
Are those who are suggesting the funding from Scotland is being funnelled to England? How much short are they for the fees in Scotland? Would they prefer it was funded to that level so the money covered just that amount?
But, as someone has already pointed out, that simply means freeing up their existing funds for anti-cycling action in E&W.
The Ramblers want all other users banned from green routes. May not be in their policy documents, however history tells us otherwise.
Sonce Alan Kind retired from the Byeways and Bridleways Trust as rights of way officer they have lost their effectiveness.
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland, not fund them at all so they spend significant sums partly on our behalf and thus bleed them of funding so they have less to spend elsewhere?
The Ramblers want all other users banned from green routes
Not in Scotland
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland, not fund them at all so they spend significant sums partly on our behalf and thus bleed them of funding so they have less to spend elsewhere?
Yes, when the alternative is to free up funds to be used to actively campaign against cycle access outside Scotland.
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland, not fund them at all so they spend significant sums partly on our behalf and thus bleed them of funding so they have less to spend elsewhere?
I thought you had flounced?
You still don't get it?
The Ramblers are an actively anti-cycling organisation. Even if a lot of their membership are also cyclists, their stated policy, from their board of trustees, is to oppose shared use of off road trails. They paint a picture of the lyrca clad hooligans who ride through red lights and have no insurance.
**** them.
Not fighting (just disagreeing)
technically the RA aren't "fighting our corner" Highland Council are. RA just asked to join an already existing case, so that they could question witnesses. I'd further add that RA are doing this because two walkers (members of Ramblers) were accused of aggravated trespass. It's that battle they're fighting, cyclists will get access on the back of it because of a peculiarity of Scots Law, not because of anything Scottish Ramblers are actively doing.
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland
Yes, they don't support me, why should I give them money? The Law in Scotland means that they cannot run the same sorts of anti-cycling campaigns they do in England and Wales. If Scotland is so successful, [which it clearly is, south of the border we're jealous] then why haven't the Ramblers changed their stance in the rest of the UK? Until they do, it's not really surprising that many off-road cyclists are weary about giving them money.
The wording on the funding literature is (probably deliberately) designed to invite one to make the assumption that you are contributing to this case. There is no evidence that Ramblers are doing that. let alone having separate funding for their activates in Wales, England and Scotland.
So still the question
How will Ramblers Scotland ensure that funds given to them by cyclist in Scotland remain sperate from the anti-cycling campaigning in the rest of the UK?
Not in Scotland
As you've repeated, over and over. The Scottish ramblers are the same organisation as the English and Welsh Ramblers. Same funding, same bank accounts, no ring fencing of money raised in one part of the UK to be spent there. So if you support or fund them in Scotland, you are indirectly funding their anti cycling campaigning in England and Wales. If you are (as it seems) content with this, then I can't fault your honesty in admitting it, though I find nothing else admirable in that stance on a UK cycling forum. It feels like you are flicking the Vs to cyclists south of the border over and over, improving their access isn't important, you'll happily support a group which will block it because... 'not in Scotland'.
Balderdash. Back to the insults I see.
Can you not see the hypocrisy?
Back to the insults I see.
No one has insulted you!
Unless you take disagreement as an insult?
Where are the insults? I do see the hypocrisy though.
Can you not see the hypocrisy?
Flip that around and look in the mirror.
I also don't see any insults, just disagreement.
You're just not willing to listen to the English side of the (wider) argument for some reason.
Edit: I've just sent an email to The Ramblers, asking why they have conflicting stances on access rights and whether the funds they recieve for this legal case will be ring fenced from other funding they recieve that will go towards actively campaigning against shared access for Eng & Wales.
Doubt I'll get any kind of decet response, but thought I'd ask the question...
If you are (as it seems) content with this, then I can’t fault your honesty in admitting it, though I find nothing else admirable in that stance on a UK cycling forum. It feels like you are flicking the Vs to cyclists south of the border over and over,
Thats both untrue and an insult
You’re just not willing to listen to the English side of the (wider) argument for some reason.
Because this case is nothing to do with anything that happens in England. to want to use this case to bleed ramblers of funds is gross hypocrisy
the basic issue here is a total lack of understanding that Scotland is a different country with different laws and a total lack of understanding of this from english posters.
jeepers. Why did I come back in?
