Cycling is niche in this country, mountain biking is a niche in a niche, and cheeky trails is a niche in a niche in a niche. The article was right about arbitrary categorisation of bridleways and foot paths. How flipping silly eh? The argument for open access is legitimate, but:
1. We aren't exactly popular with some other trail users
2. We have no effective single voice, and ain't going to win a straight up debate easily against well organised groups like the ramblers, NT, National Parks etc.
3. There's a risk lack of considerate use of trails actually pushes our cause backwards.
4. It's not like the Kinder Trespass. We will not get mass law breaking events going, and even if we did, we'd not get much sympathy from the wider public in the short term.
If we genuinely want to legitimise the cheeky stuff, I think the thing that will most help our cause in the short term is developments like CyB, GT or the Adrenaline Gateway in Lancashire. This shows that mountain biking can be used as a re-generation tool in areas that really need it. It needed people sympathetic to our cause in positions of influence to get this going. They are the visionaries!
If local businesses see an increase in trade due to mountain biking, they'll come over to our way of thinking eventually, cos money talks.
The other thing we should look at in the short term is infiltrating other groups to get a say in things. Thinking here of the example where the anti-hunt people joined the National Trust en-masse to get hunting stopped on NT land. We need to work the systems already in place. Use the force Luke.
Longer term it'd be great to have a powerful lobbying body, but see niche issue above – we're too small in number at present to pull this off without backing from other bodies who have influence.
Oh yeah, and in the long term we'll all be dead, so in the meantime I'll continue to use cheeky trails…..