You know the worlds donald ducked when we need laws for this sort of stuff.
I do take your point, but access has always been an issue very close to people’s hearts, bound up as it is in class, privilege and land ownership.
Consider the mass trespass of Kinder Scout in 1932. The ordinary worker saw that access to the countryside was important for their health and happiness, so they took direct action to attack the class interests that saw the countryside as the playground of the landed gentry.
I believe that cyclists face a similar crisis at present. As a mode of transport, cycling is marginalised, as our transport systems are geared for the motor vehicle. Plus, look at the rigmarole involved in trying to take your bike on a train.
As a leisure pursuit, cycling is marginalised by those who see the roads as the place for cars, pavements, seafronts and parks as the place for pedestrians, footpaths for walkers, bridleways for ramblers and horses, towpaths for, well, anyone but us… etc
Trail centres have their critics, but at least you can ride there in the knowledge that no-one’s going to try to tell you you don’t belong there. The same with Sustrans trails etc. However, do we want to be pushed into these specific ghettoes, or do we want to be able to enjoy the whole of the countryside without the nagging feeling that we’re pissing people off just by being there?
Round my manor, some of the best riding is on footpaths. To have to avoid these routes, because of some outdated and unclear legislation, is an injustice, in my opinion. So there’s a local saying: “Ride where you like, but don’t be a dick.” I’m sure some of you will disagree with this unofficial policy, but I strongly believe that the controversy around cycling on footpaths (and, indeed, the heirarchy on bridleways) is simply a matter of legislation failing to keep up with the changes in usage that have occurred since the advent of off-road cycling.
Flame away.