All this consultation does is highlight the utter perversity of ROW policy in England, which turns user against user as the whole system is based around “class”, “classifications” and their associated rights. Basically the system is entirely flawed, based on historical anachronisms, decided upon in a manner that is largely unaccountable (despite access forums and consultations), often resulting in decisions that are short-termist, divisive and, in the large part, unenforceable.
The idea that because certain “classes” of users are free to do whatever they so wish, whereas the mere presence of other “classes” of user is unacceptable – regardless of the impact either might actually have on the route, the environment, other users and land management is absurd. The system should be overhauled in its entirety, and access policy determined on the basis of what is sustainable and desirable today and into the future.
That would of course require compromise on all sides. For example, there may be routes with vehicular rights that would be vastly improved for the majority of users (walkers, cyclists, horse riders, disabled…) were motorised access to be curtailed, and, likewise, many estate or forestry tracks (for example) that go over “open access” (sic) land to which much higher rights could and should be opened. Similarly, as cyclists, we shouldn’t be riding stuff in a way that damages the track for others – but its hardly unreasonable to argue that we should be allowed to ride responsibly elsewhere if it causes no harm.
As it stands, too many people on all sides (riding, on foot, with engine, or without) are of the mindset that if they are OK, then **** everyone else concerned (as they look different they must be different, and so that’s fine), and the likelihood of landowners permitting higher access rights under the current system is low (understandably given the nature of the law).
Anyway, to get back to the OP, instead of ranting at a tangent, I wouldn’t get too het up about it, whether you want a TRO enforced or not. IME the ROW authorities tend to do what they want. Consultations are merely an exercise in governance, and as such are rarely more than box ticking to that effect.
