Ramblers shared use policy

I’d love to be able to ride on footpaths as well as bridleways. As far as I’m concerned I wouldn’t want them to be engineered for our use as well as walkers, surely half the fun is dealing with the challenges that nature has provided?

Yeah I get that, I suppose it does sound defeatist, so lets formulate the argument/benefits for allowing cycles on footpaths then.

1. More off-road routes available, potentially meaning that more journeys can be made avoiding roads
2. Encourage more people to cycle, fighting obesity
3. Spread out cyclists across the whole network, less conflict on busy bridleways
4. Economic benefits for areas where there are few bridleways, cyclist passing through spend money

Anymore?

Maybe we could start a thread specificly to crowdsource all the good reasons for allowing cycles on footpaths?

I don’t know of any firm figures, but since the opening of the Way of the Roses the anecdotal opinion in my town is cyclists spend more than walkers in the destination towns. They don’t bring their sandwiches and warm lemon drink with them. 😉

I believe the same goes for mtbers… for a start the hunger is more demanding.

Edit: Better riding on the doorstep may mean rather than spending money on petrol riders may spend money on post ride beer and food at local pubs.

From my experience of Sweden a lot of people in the UK think total freedom of access is a bad idea due to the number of people in the UK. But this is wrong it is really about the respect you have for the landscape, trails and the working countryside. I have never thought it would be a good idea to cycle across a farmers wheat field or near someone’s house as it would be rubbish. I do clear sticks and branches away and pick out natural jumps drops and kickers when selecting the trails in the forest though. It is a bit of a cultural shift though. In the UK and even worse in Ireland and the USA people buy land and it is theirs to do as they want and you stop other people from doing what they want on it. The feeling here seems to be if you buy land its yours to do as you want but somebody else can use it if they are not stopping you do want you want with it.

So glad l live in scotland,to me ramblers are of no importance. Feel sorry for yo :wink:u lot south of the boarder 😉

I went to one of the Forestry Panel’s discussion evenings re. the future of the forests. My discussion group was chaired by the (then) Ramblers’ Chief Exec Tom Franklin, one of the panel members. I pointed out to him that there was no panel member who represented the interests of mountain bikers and asked if he would speak up on our behalf. He said, “No, I’ll speak up for ramblers.”
Not impressed.

Interesting that he said ramblers, not walkers.

Well I’ve decided to reply to their email as it was from the Campaigns Administrator (probably not as significant position as it sounds but hopefully more than just email monkey), I’ll resist the urge to dissect their policy in detail and instead briefly make the following points.

• The policy is based on misconceptions that do not reflect the real world (what happens when cyclists meet walkers, and what cyclists want/need from shared access). This is a good thing as all their concerns can be reassured and with discussion a way forward found. 😉

• It’s a shame all outdoors access groups aren’t represented by one single body as the ‘us and them’ standpoint implied by their choice of words distracts from more important things and again doesn’t reflect the world outside (ill try and find a more diplomatic way of putting that).

• Cycling off road is not a destructive or an aggressive sport, it’s basically just rambling on wheels, most off road cyclists also own walking boots, and the current access classifications are woefully inconsistent and inadequate.

Taking on everyone’s comments (big thanks btw) something just now struck me, this policy read like the writings of someone who has all the gear, but rarely actually goes outside walking in the real world :D. That encourages me that even if they never mellow their opposition, in calm reasoned debate they would end up looking out of touch and silly.

Nick I think that would be a good idea, I think Dave of the Magazine Access Things currently has an interview request in with the ramblers so such a list could be useful to him as well as for future purposes.

That could be a very interesting interview, would also be great if Trail or Country Walking did an interview with the Singletrack team in return, might really help build a better understanding.

I’ll start the thread on why cycling on footpaths should be allowed then 🙂

Whats good for the average STWer and what’s good for the majority of cyclists are different things, and once you start making things official you have to consider being inclusive and with the “wrong” (uninformed, unimaginative) people in charge, you end up with wide smooth paths that everyone can ride on, not rocky, fun singletrack.

Agree.

Agree.

I’m not sure I do, we’re not talking about redesignating footpaths as cyclepaths with the removal of styles and increased access that involves, merely lifting the ban on riding footpaths. This should be seen as seperate to the increase in cycle/accessible paths and other work done by groups like sustrans. The two compliment one another, but are fundamentally seperate. Other than a clause to prevent land owner increasing hinderences I see this as being what is already there stays, and involving no actual work on the ground. Lift your bike over the gate/style/etc, or ride elsewhere…

jwmlee – Member
Agree.

Disagree.

Look North.

Edit: Sorry to keep banging on about this but it’s not like you have to go far to see where a policy of allowing bikes access to footpaths works and has not required that all footpaths are made suitable for all cyclists regardless of ability.

That could be a very interesting interview, would also be great if Trail or Country Walking did an interview with the Singletrack team in return, might really help build a better understanding.

Ramblers have their own publication, Walk Magazine which i get at work. In 2 yrs not seen one single complaint letter about bikes…

For anyone wanting to contribute some reasoning Nick’s thread is here

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/why-cycling-should-be-allowed-on-footpaths-in-england-wales-and-ni

Other than a clause to prevent land owner increasing hinderences I see this as being what is already there stays, and involving no actual work on the ground. Lift your bike over the gate/style/etc, or ride elsewhere…

This. If you are able to get there, without any physical alteration of the path or its acces (unless some arse has put in anti-bike obstacles), you should be allowed.
Rambling with bikes, basically. It isnt about increasing path use, more allowing those who already use them to do so legally.

I’d like to see shared access.

However, we (cyclists) need to be more self policing and to actively promote responsible trail use.

The industy can help:
Some sort of guide given away with each new bike, outlining some broad
do’s and don’ts.
Promote MTB’ing as a healthy way to explore the countryside rather than some sort of extreme sport.
Remember the ‘Country(side) Code‘ ?
Well, let’s start lobbying government to ACTIVELY promote this again – remember the TV adverts in the 70’s and 80’s?

But we also need to act individually:
Point out irresponsible behaviour – have a quiet word.
Take newbies out on a ride and lead by example.
Teach your kids about responsible trail use.
Pick up litter and encourage others to do the same.

I reckon most older MTB’ers were already outdoors people before they started riding.
Things have changed though, so we need to promote and encourage respect for the countryside as an integral part of our pastime.

Parkedtiger – where is that photo?

It’s Sail/Crag Fell in the lakes, I think.

However, we (cyclists) need to be more self policing and to actively promote responsible trail use.

Very definetly. I wondered if we got to the stage where it looked like access was a possibilty then the main 5 magazines might agree to run double page spreads on the countryside code dos and don’ts.

In all seriousness, the Kinder trespass had little to do with the Ramblers, the national council of ramblers federations (which became the RA) opposed the trespass – Kinder was organised by the British workers sports federation, which was mainly commies and leftie agitators… a little fact that the Ramblers don’t shout about in their history books!

Yep, quite right. The real heirs to the Kinder Trespassers are the likes of Greenpeace and anti-capitalist demonstrators, the Ramblers are more about getting footpath restrictions lifted by working within the system.

To be fair, at the Kinder 80 launch, Kate Ashbrook, the new Ramblers President – it was Julia Bradbury before – said openly that the Ramblers Association at the time had openly opposed the Trespass, though they’re quite happy to claim some reflected glamour 80 years later.

Anyway, I don’t care what they do or say. What matters is what happens on the ground, in real life, where regardless of access legislation, you can, with care and consideration, ride most places without problems round here anyway. Aas far as I can see, the main victims of access legislation aren’t mountain bikers per se, but buy guidebook writers and magazine route compilers… 😉

Very definetly. I wondered if we got to the stage where it looked like access was a possibilty then the main 5 magazines might agree to run double page spreads on the countryside code dos and don’ts.

Problem is, it doesn’t fit in with the sales model of the majority of their advertisers – which appears to be selling excitement to the under 40’s.

teamhurtmore – Member

Parkedtiger – where is that photo?

North Lakes – coming off the top of Sail down to the back of Causey Pike. Fix the Fells[/url] use a variety of top notch, well thought out techniques to combat erosion. Honestly, you’d never know they’d been there 😯

Joking aside, in their never ending (already lost) battle against erosion from the rain, they’ve actually created some of the best technical descents we have around here. Although, I’d not include the one in the picture in that category.

Mintimperial wrote

in most cases of “conflict” the cyclist will come off worse because they’re a) trying to negotiate a safe path round someone who isn’t paying attention or is even actively trying to get in the way

I think it’s possibly reasonable to say that rambling allows you the liberty to ‘pay less attention’ in many situations however there’s little distinction between paying less attention and stupidity. I am of the belief that bike riders need to pass walkers cautiously (read more slowly) irrespective of whether it’s spoiling their favourite descent.

Those who actively get in the way do deserve to get run over much in the same way as if they actively got in the way of a farmer’s tractor.

I am of the belief that bike riders need to pass walkers cautiously (read more slowly) irrespective of whether it’s spoiling their favourite descent.

Absolutely agree. I am always careful to give walkers as much space as possible, to warn them of my approach, and to stop completely if necessary.

In the couple of cases I’m thinking of what happened is the first few individuals in a large group gave way in a friendly manner and encouraged the rider to pass (slowly and safely, naturally) and then one or two others further down the path didn’t give way, either deliberately or involuntarily. The rider was effectively trapped into falling off due to a combination of technicality of the trail and lack of consideration from walkers. It wasn’t that big a deal the times I’ve seen it happen, it’s just a bit embarrassing and annoying for the rider. But it does demonstrate that we cyclists are sometimes more vulnerable to walkers’ actions than walkers are to ours, and that walkers aren’t always whiter-than-white angels when they’re out and about – which appears to be the implication of what The Ramblers were saying.

One way to help change attitudes is to get involved in a walking/climbing club or group and promote cycling from within.
Get on the committee – make your voice heard.

I joined a Mountaineering Club about 6 years ago (because my partner was a member) and try and organise 2 or 3 beginner friendly rides a year.
Slowly, attitudes are changing, even amongst the older, previously sceptical members.

You might even enjoy the non cycling activities as well. 😀

Re the path in the picture

I rode that before it was done then after. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it after it had been improved, so to speak. As a walker, trails like that bore the Sh!t out of me while as a mountain biker, there’s no real sense of challenge or fun.

Has anyone taken the time to respond to the Welsh Consultation? I did as I always go on the principle that if you want to be heard, do something about it and not just pontificate on a forum (not meaning to have a go at anyone when I write this). It doesn’t take long to fill in the form and you can be sure that there will be users vehemently opposed to it who will be filling it in. If we want our opinions to matter, we need to shout them out!

Rusty spanner and Druidh

Always good to read posts such as yours.

Scotland has proven that open access can work. Even in England in the honeypot areas, opening up access would arguably mean that pressures from bike erosion are less concentrated on a limited network of trails. I wonder how often walkers on rambling forums debate erosion with a sense of their impact on the environment?

Cheers

Sanny

Unk stupidly wrote

Ramblers have their own publication, Walk Magazine which i get at work. In 2 yrs not seen one single complaint letter about bikes…

And summer’s edition just fell into the letter box

TWO letters, one from someone who had a walk spoiled by quad bikes, 4X4s and scramble bikes and decided to shove mountain bikes in with those. Another letter asking legal advice after their walk was “caught up in a cross-country cycle race” and the “had to keep stepping aside for competitors” what are our rights etc…

The responce was the usual cyclists shall yield for anyone but made no reference to the circumstances (race), I thought in order to hold a race on a public bridleway you had to apply for some form of licence and that would override the usual policy (not saying run people over, but, you know, its a race! why not just cheer for people etc.) 🙄

Both letters very short on detail and supporting info so came off as “other people spoiled our day with their fun” but that could just have been the editor cutting them down for space…

The Ramblers Association said:

* The Ramblers recognises that cyclists, like walkers, are
vulnerable road users, but notes that if cyclists and walkers are in
conflict, walkers are the more vulnerable.

George Orwell said:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

🙄