Has there ever been a campaign for riding access to footpaths?

Is there or has there ever been a concerted campaign to open up footpaths to bike riders in England and Wales?

I’m just curious, not thinking about starting one living as I do in Scotland.

What are peoples opinions on it?

Isn’t OpenMTB trying to do this sort of thing?

https://www.facebook.com/OpenMTB

Looks like it. Speaks volumes that I hadn’t heard of them.

Open mtb are just starting. I don’t think ‘a campaign to ride on footpaths’ would win many friends. A ‘pilot of Scottish access laws to support the tourist economy and promote public health’ is what you want 🙂

Good point eddie. I was of course coming at it from my own selfish stand point. 😉

Singletrack had a little go a while ago… but i think struggled to get anyone to listen outside of MTBing. Not having a go, the Access all areas series was agreat set of articles and helped the debate. OpenMTB seems a broader church with buy in from national bodies and a bit more momentum. but it will be a slooooowwwwwwwwwwww process.

When you look at the power of the Ramblers Association and BMC the chance of it ever happening in our lifetime (this one or the next!) is zero.

I don’t think the BMC would necessarily be against it.

You can ride footpaths, you just have to leave if asked to do so by the land owner or their representative.

I cannot believe how radical Scotland were on this issue.

A massively brave move, the success of which has legitimised the question for the rest of us.

Sadly, the political landscape is different down here.
The Tories will never, ever upset their landowning friends.

And it’s just not in their dna – the mass tresspasses that lead to the limited access we do have were mostly organised by the left.
As were many cycling clubs.

Not many politicians able to think outside the box and a distrust and dislike of ordinary people.

Not going to happen for a while yet.

The Welsh assembly looked into implementing scottish-style access laws but in the end decided that the population density would make it too problematic.

TBF, the LR(S)A only really codified what was already a de facto right of access. Remember, there is (effectively) no trespass law in Scotland. Folk had been wandering over the hills and glens on foot, on horsebacks and on bikes for ever. Although we are now seeing some kick-back, the landowners haven’t had to make much change to accommodate the Act. (And before we have the usual suspects telling that Englandandwales is different because it’s much more highly populated – areas like the Pentlands Hills have over 500,000 folk within just minutes drive/bus/ride and they cope just fine)

The footpath access in England is there as a result of an act of mass trespass.

We could try the same, but we we’d just be seen as a bunch of hooligans* who tear up the countryside, whereas walkers had old folk and high up supposedly respectable type members of the community on their side.

* drunken swearing hooligans in surrey[/url]

The Welsh assembly looked into implementing scottish-style access laws but in the end decided that the population density would make it too problematic.

Actually, the plan has continued from the initial stages to the point where there is a formal ‘green paper’ consultation ongoing at the moment into creating a right of responsible access, the Welsh proposal is very much based on the Scottish model.

There have been several weeks of behind the scenes discussions between the main cycling organisations regards a formal response on this, keep ’em peeled over the next week or so 😉

As someone who also walks on footpaths I’m not sure its a good idea, people are just as capable of being knob ends on bikes as they are in cars and some sanctuary from them is needed.

The Scottish model (based on the Scandinavian one) works, to a large extent, in the highlands simply due to the huge area and very low population. The situation south of the border (and it could be argued, around Glasgow and Edinburgh) is simply so different in terms of population density as to lead to huge conflicts. The answer, I have always advocated is one of common sense where access is fine on access land (using common sense) and to re-designate or create new suitable tracks that form sensible linking routes that people will want to ride. There are plenty of mechanisms to “persuade” land owners to open up limited access but what is needed is local agreement, common sense, and dialogue. Unfortunately, where 2 groups come at an issue form polar opposite points of view, I fear compromise is often overlooked as a solution.

people are just as capable of being knob ends on bikes as they are in cars

Or indeed on foot.

Except that it hasn’t. There’s no need to hypothesise on this.

I was about to post the exact same scotroutes.

As someone who also walks on footpaths I’m not sure its a good idea, people are just as capable of being knob ends on bikes as they are in cars and some sanctuary from them is needed.

I walk, run and ride, mostly Peak District, and fwiw, I’m quite happy with the current RoW system, ridiculous and outmoded though it is, because in the real world, if you’re prepared to ride with consideration, courtesy and a smile on your face and not behave like an arse, you can ride pretty much anywhere regardless.

Yes, you do have to think about timings, but who wants to ride busy trails anyway? And because they’re not legal, they don’t appear in magazines and guidebooks, which in turn keeps them relatively quiet, unlike most of the local Peak bridleways which have been heavily eroded by heavy use.

I’m not saying that the current RoW system makes any sort of logical sense, it doesn’t being based on arbitrary historical use, but it sort of works round here…

Except that it hasn’t. There’s no need to hypothesise on this.

Not hypothesising, just recalling genuine concerns and issues that have been raised on the British Farming Forum

Not hypothesising, just recalling genuine concerns and issues that have been raised on the British Farming Forum[/quote]That have already been comprehensively debunked in Scotland.

And if anyone has been to Norway lately they will note that the ancient rights of access are slowly being tightened up in the south due to the pressure from the sheer numbers of tourists taking advantage of the “law” but never really venturing more than a few metres from the national road network.

I think we have this argument every time this topic comes up Scotroutes 🙂

You can debunk concerns, but not issues. And there are documented issues. So please do not try and sweep them away. Sure it works in the eyes of those who want it to work, especially if they themselves are responsible. However, not everyone out there is, and you have to accept that. Have a look at Glen Etive and the problems of littering there. Why are you no longer aloowed to camp in Glencoe on the flat ground on the old road to the Clachaig?

And there are documented issues

There are plenty of issues involving irresponsible use under the current English system. Will wider access make it worse? I doubt it. The problem isn’t the level of access it’s the idiots that will always abuse any system.

Hang on, you argued that Englandandwales was “different” due to population density. Which of those two above is due to population density?

Oh – and the Clachaig closed to camping in 1996 – seven years before the Land Reform Act.

Welshfarmer – the Scottish Governments Land review reform group looked extensively into this and concluded that the legislation was “generally working well on the ground” and accepted that while there had been issues, that these were essentially issues over implementation rather than with the terms of the legislation.

One of the key examples was camping on the shores of Loch Lomond being linked with episodes of anti-social behaviour, to tackle which a byelaw was introduced (a power that was part of the access legislation) that saw an 81% reduction in reported problems. All this is a matter of record.

Or indeed on foot.

Possibly but without the same risks, in fact I cant actually think of any pederstian on pedestrian incidents!

As BWD puts it, the absence of ROW for people on bikes put the maximum responsibility on them to consider other users. That is in my opinion how it should be, how could that be achieved were all footpaths shared use?

As BWD puts it, the absence of ROW for people on bikes put the maximum responsibility on them to consider other users. That is in my opinion how it should be, how could that be achieved were all footpaths shared use?

No, the absence of ROW puts responsibility on bikers not to ride there at all.

If you want people to ride responsibly make a law saying they have to ride responsibly, don’t keep the one saying you can’t ride at all, which after all only affects the law abiding citizens anyway.

Spin – Member
Is there or has there ever been a concerted campaign to open up footpaths to bike riders in England and Wales?

I’m just curious, not thinking about starting one living as I do in Scotland.

What are peoples opinions on it?

I think the simple answer is that the majority of our fellow bikers don’t give a (insert expletive)
IMBA tried, but how many joined?
Is CTC not or were making an effort?
There are not many dedicated mtb clubs and very few people willing to join a club. There are plenty of “mates” groups calling themselves “clubs” not affiliated to BC/CTC/SC etc
I think there is a new Lakesmtb being formed

I ride on footpaths, seems to me someone making a big hoo-haa about it will bring the fact that many mtbers use footpaths to someone in authorities attention and there’ll be a crack down, bringing the rules to the attention of everyone, militant walker and casual walker alike. I say keep quiet and ride on as we are under the radar

Rarely have issues with footpaths and virtually no one challenges me and some move aside to let me through even though I slow up to give way to them.

With the exception of RoW footpaths that cross farms with stiles which are not only awkward to ride but they often are hinted at even walkers not being welcome. Big private signs, locked gates and stiles tucked away so it’s not easy to see them or overgrown. Been on a few though where thought it would be a nice clear footpath but was far more work.

Daft thing is so many footpaths are far more rideable than many bridleways and plenty of space for both bike and walkers. Some bridleways are a nightmare when they’re mainly used by horses, or they just end in daft places, turn into footpaths and someone stuck up has stuck a no bikes sign on it. Then I see clearly horse prints down the footpath!

There are some fantastic bridleways however. Those that are steep and full of rocks especially 😀

I ride on footpaths, seems to me someone making a big hoo-haa about it will bring the fact that many mtbers use footpaths to someone in authorities attention and there’ll be a crack down, bringing the rules to the attention of everyone, militant walker and casual walker alike. I say keep quiet and ride on as we are under the radar

This.

Get politicians involved to make a change and they’ll change things for the worse.

Came across this via singletracks.com;

George Wuerthner of Mountain Bikers for Wildlands wrote a letter to the editor of the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, saying, in part,

And as a mountain biker, I believe the single best way to preserve the Boulder-White Clouds area is wilderness designation.

I am extremely disappointed in the overall selfish message from the mountain-biking community that seems to believe that all public lands are nothing more than a playground or outdoor gymnasium for their self-gratification. Wilderness is about limits. It is the recognition that some places are so special they should be off-limits to mechanical advantages. I have been riding versions of mountain bikes since the 1980s when I first encountered some prototypes in bike shops in Missoula, Mont. Mostly, we used those early bikes to ride dirt roads. However, the technological advantage of mountain bikes has improved tremendously since that time. People on the latest equipment can climb hills, go farther, go longer and descend steeper terrain than ever before. There is really no limit to the technological advantages. And each advance shrinks wilderness. It means fewer areas of our wildlands will be truly remote. It means fewer refuges for sensitive wildlife. Many of today’s hardcore mountain bikers are essentially thrillcraft enthusiasts, no different than dirt bikers, jet skiers and others who relish speed and daredevil antics.
(Read his full letter here.)

About as close to wilderness as you can get on a bike without breaking the law. Photo: mtbgreg1.

This argument fails on many levels. For the moment, I’ll address three fallacies in particular since others have already addressed the fact that other mechanical aids are allowed in Wilderness, along with the false generalization of mountain bikers as a whole.

First, the author presents a false dilemma of, “would you rather protect our wild areas or have mountain biking access?” He then takes “selfish” mountain bikers to task for choosing the latter over the former. This fallacy presents only two alternatives, as if those were the only two available. The USFS has many designations and tools at its disposal for protecting our wild places from all the other evils Wilderness designation seeks to avoid (i.e. road development, logging, natural resource extraction, etc.), while still allowing mountain biking. There are National Scenic Areas, National Scenic Trails, National Recreation Trails, and, as is most commonly employed, management plans for each and every National Forest, where any tailoring of restrictions may be employed. Here the author is, at best, horribly shortsighted, or, at worst, deliberately presenting a false dilemma in a blatantly transparent attempt to push his agenda.

Second, the author states, “And each advance shrinks wilderness. It means fewer areas of our wildlands will be truly remote,” in hopes that the reader will accept his personal value system as some sort of natural fact. Certainly, the wilderness doesn’t shrink in a literal sense, only the perception of if. Having acknowledged this, why should we accept as some sort of self-evident truth that seeing 6 (a typical backcountry riding speed) miles of wilderness in an hour is somehow less valid than seeing only 3 miles in an hour (a typical hiking speed)? Furthermore, horses are allowed in the Wilderness, can travel faster and further than I can on my bike, and provide the greatest advantage of all. At least the bike is human-powered–the horse does all the work for the rider! Lastly, with regard to this point, the hiker often uses electronic, space -age technology in the form of GPS to his/her advantage while traversing the wilderness. Certainly triangulating your position to within a few feet by coordinating signals off a constellation of space satellites represents a higher application of technology than a simple mechanical transportation device.

Third, the author states, “It means fewer refuges for sensitive wildlife,” without any evidence to back up that statement. Again, we are expected to accept his analysis without reason. Studies have shown that wildlife is often less affected by cyclists than by hikers. This certainly makes sense when you think about it: wildlife is conditioned to be wary of humans on foot. After all, those are the ones who carry guns! As an avid backcountry hiker for 40 years and a cyclist for only 15, I have seen just as much wildlife from my WTB saddle as I have from my hiking boots. When I’m on foot, the deer and elk bolt… when I’m on my bike, they simply watch me glide on by. The same goes for wild turkeys and just about every species I’ve ever encountered. The only species I’ve seen on foot but not on bike is the grizzly bear–I suspect because I’ve spent many days on foot in grizzly country, and almost no bike time in the same areas. After all, most grizzly country is off limits to bikes–Wilderness, you know.

I don’t think that there are any lessons to learn from America on this – the entire history of access and legal designation is totally different, and discussion on their situation, particularly regards wilderness legislation, adds nothing to the debate.

the entire history of access and legal designation is totally different,

Land ownership is different too with vast swathes of the country owned by the state.

Like BWD I’m sort of torn on this issue. I’ll ride FP, but I do it mostly on my own, Mostly away from the CPs and Honey spots, and mostly at times that suit me rather than what might be considered popular. I’ve never had any real issues, 99% of folk couldn’t give a fig. Sure I’d like the legal right to access these paths, it would make me feel a bit better about it, but as crimes go, it hardly puts me up there with the Crays anyway.

I don’t want idiots tearing up and down FP any more than anyone else. I don’t know enough about the issue to make any sort of educated guess as to the effects really

Has anyone here ever been prosecuted for riding a footpath? I’m intrigued, I’m aware that there’s a Peak Park by-law for example, that makes it theoretically possible, but I can only vaguely recall one incidence of mtbers being fined for riding footpaths in the area. And that might be hearsay…

Has anyone here ever been prosecuted for riding a footpath?

Even simonfbarnes never managed to be prosecuted for FP riding and his/the Bogtrotters riding was about as blatant as it was possible to be!

I’m with rocketdog on this – keep the status quo and ride on under the radar.
Cheeky riding ethics

No, but if there’s no legal ROW, we wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if any authority did decide to start enforcing that. Nice to have the right enshrined in law rather than down to the whim of whoever is in charge in the short term.

The Welsh Government have put rights of way (among other things) out to consultation and I’m certainly planning to respond advocating for mtb access on footpaths (again, among other things).