anybody else think this is ironic?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-18021854

all gone a bit establishment methinks…

Refer them to Scotland?

I’d like to say I’m surprised, but… I’m always struck by how keen “people” are to tell you where you can’t ride, but how reluctant they are to say where you can. Until cycling really gets a unified voice over access etc I think little is likely to change except in small local ways. The opposition in the form of the Ramblers, CLA etc are just too strong.

Of course the ramblers are going to object. What’s the point in asking a select group with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Ask the general public at large.

So, I can’t really tell from the article whether its talkign about footpaths as in pavements or footpaths as in public footpaths?

I would assume it means public footpaths, but the way it reads seems to imply pavements… Or is it a case that the writer isn’t clear on the subject? I’m often amazed that people dont know the difference between the different rights of way, but if you never use them I suppose you wouldnt really know!

Its a vaguely worded and not very informative article, seems to be mostly about urban footpaths, which lets be honest we all ride anyway.

But the involvement of the Ramblers suggests rural access… still its a shame they’re not more open than they sound to be, you would think they would remember 12 years ago when all access was balls.

Rule 1: Ride where you like
Rule 2: Be nice while you are doing it

That is all

It’s mainly on about urban footpaths (not pavements) but presumably the same legislation would allow you to challenge the status of any footpath.

Get off somebody else’s land!

I’d have thought their argument isn’t about trespass but trail overuse/damage?

It seems to be about how vulnerable they are [feel].

that if cyclists and walkers are in conflict, walkers are the more vulnerable”.

are we in conflict and are they they the most vulnerable?

There may be occasions when providing more facilities for cyclists means better facilities for walkers, it adds

Niche groups just wanting stuff for its own members

I am not surprised nor am I in the leat sbit interested in their views and I simply say Kinder whenever they point out my lack or right to roam and remind them how they got theirs

are we in conflict and are they they the most vulnerable?

Yes and yes?

Either you have to mince down the decents at a fraction of the speed you could if you knew it was clear, or you put them at risk of a crash. And admit it, you’re never that slow for 100% of the ride, and even if you think you are, accidents happen.

More cyclists on ‘footpaths’ put walkers at a higher risk of an accident than no cyclists. Whether that extra risk is sufficient to continue banning us is a different matter. I’m sure grannys relatives will be gald to hear that you’re fighting obesity and global warming whilst they’re burying her. I’m for more access, but I’m not sure I’d trust MTB’ers to be resmponsible and not treat every footpath as a trail center.

If more footpaths were open for cycling, then bikes would be spread across the country more and there might be less conflict….

conflict is a bit strong but I get your point

In an accident i think I am as likely to be as badly hurt as there are possibly more likely so I am not convinced tbh the danger is to them.

Yes i would not trust MTB to behave responsibly and I have had more problems walking with MTB ers than I have riding with walkers

In an accident i think I am as likely to be as badly hurt as there are possibly more likely so I am not convinced tbh the danger is to them.

Errrr….. Just becasue you broke your hurt as well doesnt mean that there was no danger to the walker you just ran over? Add tot hat walkers ten to be old, and therefore likely to die form things like broken bones where mtb’ers just bounce. A bit like a drunk driver doesn’t count as not dangerous because he kills himself as well as a pedestrian, he was still a danger to pedestrians. Whether it’s once a month, once a year, once a decade, once every centuary, more bikes means more chance of an accident with walkers, which is the ramblers position, they don’t quantify the risk, but they’re quite right to point out that it is there.

I would have thought Wales would be a good candidate for Scottish-style access, what with the big role played by tourism in its economy and is lower population density. But I understand there’s still strong opposition even to established rights of way from some landowners.

I’ve heard stories of event organisers coming up against really strong resistance when they want to use a bridleway (which they’re perfectly legally entitled to do) and authors of guidebooks getting it in the neck for publishing routes which again use perfectly legal tracks.

i’m just going to ride where i want, aslong as where i ride is suitable for a bike then so be it, some of the footaths in the lakes are better than the bridalways.

if i get prosecuted i will take it ofr the cyclists 😀 good chance i won’t though.

Don’t underestimate the power of the Ramblers Association. They are extremely well-organized and experienced lobbyists and if they want to stop legislation that liberalises the use of footpaths they’ll work damned hard to do so. Most of their members despise cyclists, MTBers in particular, and attitudes such as ‘I ride where I like’ only harden their resolve.

On the one hand we have the RA to thank for the UK’s vast footpath network, on the other they can be as determined to thwart other potential users of footpaths as they are to maintain access to obscure and little-used rural rights-of-way by taking on bolshy landowners.

Most of their members despise cyclists, MTBers in particular

Ah yes, let’s trot out a load more unfounded “us and them” nonsense in response to a badly worded news story.

I read the BBC piece as referring to pavements, not footpaths, in which case I’d agree with the RA position. I’d much rather have decent provision for cycles or use the roads than be fobbed off with crappy shared use paths.

The vagueness of the statements in the press article derive from vagueness in the White Paper, unfortunately. Having read through it, it really isn’t clear what the Welsh Assembly mean by ‘urban’ footpaths and they make vague statements about allowing cyclists and, sometimes, equestrians, to utilise footpaths, but only in certain cases, but doesn’t outline how those cases will be judged and how the change in right of way will be implemented (although it does explicitly state that local authorities won’t be required to change the signposting – so I suspect that will be a source of conflict in itself!). The White Paper seems a nice idea, but just not that well implemented when you think about the practicalities (i.e. there are statements in there about having to maintain a cycle path to a certain design standard, which might be appropriate for urban school-run type shared use routes, but not really for more rural paths). I would note that the Paper specifically relates to travel by foot and cycle for A to B journeys like the school-run and commuting, not for leisure.

you sound like you’ve evaluated the available information, and come to reasoned opinion. you’ve no place here! 😀

Its a vaguely worded and not very informative article, seems to be mostly about urban footpaths, which lets be honest we all ride anyway.

No, we all don’t.