UKC

This petition has been drawn to my attention and I'm quite confused by the thinking behind it; would appreciate knowing what others here think:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/610936

Putting aside the existing PRoW legal framework of which the petition itself seems to be only vaguely aware, I'm minded to think that the petition hasn't been put together by actual users of PRoWs. From a walker's point of view, it would make many footpaths unwalkable or less attractive to walk; from a horse-rider's point of view it seems to convey no desirable benefit; and from a cyclist's point of view, it seems guaranteed to make an enemy of a whole new section of the public just at the point when we're trying to convince them that being a cyclist doesn't necessarily mean being an arsehole.

[I didn't really know which forum to put it in as it would touch on all UKC/UKH members: have plumped for the bike forum but if the mods think it better belongs elsewhere, happy to accept it being moved.]

Thanks for that, I've signed it and shared it. All paths open to everyone, that's the future, not the current, restrictive, divisive mess.

Bring on the dislikes.  

Anyone can start a petition on that website - so they are often a bit odd - weird grammar and syntax, not very logical and so on. I'm not sure exactly what this one means.

Would you share what your thought behind doing so was?

Ah, I see: your answer is in the new edit to your comment. Thanks.

All having certain paths for certain users does is promote a them and us mindset that persists to shared trails. Learning how to share space with other users not segregating that space is the way to avoid conflict. 

Also, the current system is a mess with the designation of a path having nothing to do with what it's best suited to.

Good luck getting horses through or over the god-knows-how-many stiles / narrow gaps in walls etc etc. Who exactly is going to carry out this work, or perhaps more pertinently, pay for it? A complete non-starter if ever there was one.

I didn't say every path had to be made suitable for every user, just open to every user like in Scotland.

Would you then be more of the mind that the petition ought to be for all PRoWs to become BOATs?

I don't know what that means, mainly because I don't need to living in Scotland where we just have paths that can be used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists.

And how long do you think it would take before the first case of  “the law says I can, but I can’t, so somebody must be responsible”  comes to light? 

Now that’s a good idea - think I’ll pop out and buy a 4x4 before the rush starts 👍

I'll turn that around and ask you whether you really think that's a risk? I'm not aware of it ever happening in Scotland.

Edit: Does it happen now? There are bridleways now that aren't suitable for riding horses or bikes and I'm not aware of anyone going to court to demand they be improved to allow this.

So I went and googled it and if I understand correctly my answer is no. I think a right of non-motorised access is the obvious place to stop for a whole variety of reasons. 

Electric bikes?? Segways?? Perhaps not so clear-cut.

Electric bikes are classified as bikes so like it or loathe it, it is clear cut.

We don't really have a network of footpaths in Scotland like in England at all. We have open access but thst is not the same. 

It's certainly the case that many FPs are perfectly well suited to horse riding and cycling without any work needed on the ground but a huge number aren't. Mainly because of stiles and unsuitable surfaces. So who would pay for this work and compensate landowners who need to enclose animals behind fences and stiles?

Bikes can be lifted over stiles but horses can't. Not everyone can cycle across rough natural ground or around arable field edges. Would it be fair to make this legal change without changing anything on the ground? This proposed change would only benefit those cyclists who are happy to lift their bikes over stiles and can negotiate natural surfaces,  often muddy in winter and overgrown in summer. Horse riders and other cyclists would see no benefit unless huge amounts of money came from somewhere to change the situation on the ground at the same time.

Open access is like that. You have to put in the hard work when accessing harder terrain. We don't put down tarmac, install a chair lift or put up a via ferrata.

Like John Ww upthread you've got the wrong end of the stick on this. The proposal is not to make every path usable by all users but to make them open to all users. The nature of many paths means that who ends up using them is self limiting.

I'm not sure what you'd call the interconnecting system of paths in Scotland if not a network? 

You're right that the legislation that allows all non-motorised users to use paths in Scotland is different (and much broader) from what is proposed in the petition but for path users the effect would be much the same.

Well it would be but there isn't one in general!  In most areas of lowland England there is a network of legally defined and (at least nominally) maintained paths.  In Scotland it is just luck if there happens to be a track or traditional route, and mostly in lowland areas there aren't that many.

I don't think blanket acceptance of bikes etc of footpaths in England would be wise - many are narrow or delicate or with many stiles etc.  That said, there is definitely scope for wider acceptance of bikes.

That's fine but RoWs put legal obligations on landowners to maintain them.  It would be unreasonable to suddenly require all footpaths to maintained to a level suitable for bikes and horses.

It's pretty much luck (and history) in England too, it certainly isn't a planned network. Many of the paths in Scotland are nominally maintained too under the Core Paths scheme. The main difference is the designations.

The trouble is that many bridleways are also narrow and delicate with stiles etc and lots of footpaths eminently suitable for other users. The path system in England as it stands is a mess of historic designations that don't match their suitability for different users.

Personally I have a great dislike for the Scottish system (if it is one) where unless you have local knowledge you can never plan a walk with certainty that you’ll be able to complete it without some landowner preventing you doing so. 

Wire cutters would be your friend

How do they do that?

I don't think that's an issue except very rarely - I've never been challenged in 25 years in Scotland by land owners.  It's more there just aren't that many paths in comparison to England.

This hardly ever happens and if it does there are very simple methods to redress the issue i.e. contact the local authority access officer.

I found the wording of the petition to be at times highly confused, and the claims made to be so generic as to be unsuitable for evidencing or testing of merit.  

I maintain land containing a small section of a public footpath.  Making it usable by (not just open to) bicycles and horses would require a major investment, and would see me change my policy of leaving the surrounding land open (for walkers to enjoy to, and to alleviate the problems caused by the bog-like nature in the winter months) with fences and hedges and being done maintaining it beyond meeting my legal obligations of not allowing it to become blocked etc.  It would become a mud shute; on the up-side I would no longer be removing 4-5 dog turds a week from the property.

In reply to DaveHK:

I totally agree that the current grading is not matched to reality in many places - a reality based re-grading would be a very different proposition to opening them all up however.

Edit: Also

I think the wording is sufficiently poor that multiple different interpretations are possible; I would not say that either you or the two posters you reply to have got a canonical right (or wrong) end of the stick, because there isn't one.

There are distinctions between granting a legal right of access and placing legal obligation on landowners to ensure that right of access is usable, and questions over who pays for maintenance.  The petition proposes no structure of rights, responsibilities and authorities and doesn't even make it clear what it really wants.  

It does.  Landowners can be sued for poorly maintained stiles etc.  Rare but costly if it happens, and consequently landowners require insurance.

Stiles are merely difficult for many cyclists, but impossible for horse riders. This petition needs to be honest and say that it is just about making things better for some cyclists, but no-one else

But it won't make the PROW network open to all users in practice. As the OP says, is it a good move for some cyclists to call for some pretty seismic changes that will only benefit some cyclists?

I personally don't think that's unreasonable, it's just a question of who pays and how

This is incorrect, it will make things better for everyone because path users will be spread across a wider range of paths, reducing pressure and the potential for conflict.

I totally agree with this point. I just don't necessarily agree that campaigning for a legal right to use all PROWs with bikes and horses is the best solution

The cost is one thing and it would certainly be unreasonable for landowners to pay that.  I doubt wider society is too keen on subsidising mountain bikers in this way either.

Further, upgrading all paths to "horse-suitable" would completely change the nature of many footpaths, some centuries old, and would be destructive I think.

A proportion of cyclists would be spread more thinly across the network yes. But not horse riders, novice cyclists, family cycling groups etc.

Many (most?) horse riders would be happy just to see stiles taken out or replaced with gates without seeing surfacing or any other changes. That's still a seismic shift from the current situation

Absolutely agree that a lot of paths are completely wrong designation and changing them to bridal tracks would be sensible, as lots of people will probably be using them on bikes anyway.

Some paths, however, are far too narrow/have lots of stiles/etc, so it wouldn't be much point.

There's also erosion to consider, which may be why some are designated as paths.

I'd be interested to hear any alternatives? The most obvious one is to reclassify paths according to what they are best suited for but I think that could be problematic. For example, a flat, well surfaced track would be accessible to the greatest number of cyclists but it wouldn't be very popular with mountain bikers seeking a challenge. This would also be a potentially huge undertaking. I think it would be far simper to de-restrict and let the nature of the path sort out who uses it.

The existing legal framework allows for FPs to be upgraded to BW with compensation payable to the landowner if he can prove financial loss by the change. The problem is not enough staff or money in local authority run PROW teams to make these changes.

simple - yes, equitable - not in my view, a good PR move for mountain bikers to be pushing for this - debatable

What could be more equitable than equal access to the path network for all users?

Unrestricted access for all might work in Scotland or less populated areas, but I can think of several places in The Peak that are virtually impassible on foot after a few days of wet weather thanks to cyclists churning them up - Some are bridal ways so fair enough, others footpaths which is incredibly selfish.

I'm not against extending the cycle network (do you have permissive bridal ways in the same way we have permissive footpaths?), but levels of erosion need considering. Also in highly popular areas maybe a system (like on Snowdon) where bikes are only tolerated outside peak times to avoid conflict on narrow or steep routes.

In other words in an ideal world we need a review of all paths with only those that are suitable upgraded to bridal ways, or permissive bridal ways. But still maintaining (and enforcing) dedicated footpaths where bike traffic is likely to cause issues for existing users or the vegetation/soil.

Not so fast there (in fact no faster than 15.5mph whilst assisted) only EAPCs (Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles) that meet certain requirements are classed as bicycles (or tricycles) not all electric bikes.  If an electric bike doesn't meet the requirements to be an EAPC then it is classified as a motorbike or moped.

https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

Key points:

• Must have pedals
• 250W maximum power output
• Electrically assisted only whilst pedalling*
• Electrically assisted up to a maximum of 15.5mph

*throttle controled electrical power only, limited to 3.7mph for starting assistance**

** unless your bike was manufactured/imported before 2016.

But who is going to enforce these rules out on the paths and bridleways?  I regularly see riders in London travelling at far more than 15.5mph without pedalling at all, presumably the police see them too, but the sheer number of them about tells me that enforcement is minimal if it is happening at all.  Many unrestricted bikes are available and a lot of those that are restricted can be hacked to remove the restriction, having a 30mph plus electric bike on a path is equivalent to having a motorbike on the path... except you can't hear it coming.

People speed on the road and use cars in lots of other illegal ways, shall we ban cars?

But "equal access" means removing stiles, improving gates, widening pinch points, surfacing in places etc, not just changing the rules on paper. Just doing the latter does not change anything in reality for any horse riders or for a significant proportion of cyclists. I'm sure I've made this point more than once now!

Who is enforcing them now? It is a problematic area but irrelevant here with regards to bridle vs footpaths since they are banned from both regardless and whilst there are definitely cases of them riding (there was a series of videos of some idiot riding a emotorbike round the swinley trails for example) I doubt they would be bother by changes in the laws which they are ignoring anyway.

Why are you signing a petition about English law, when you live in Scotland, what's that all about?

Perhaps because despite tominedinburghs best efforts people are still allowed to cross over the border for recreational purposes?

No it doesn't. Dave MacLeod and I have equal access to Rhapsody E11 but they haven't installed a ladder for me.

Or conversely increasing conflict due to multiple use, especially in easily accessed areas...

Though the restrictiveness of access south of the border is actually quite a big disincentive to bother doing so; we are very lucky in Scotland (basically, if you avoid walking across peoples' back gardens and back off a bit if there is gunfire in the hills there are no problems).

I quite like the idea of a pilot scheme. By choosing a National Park at least there should already systems in place to help with the issues around maintenance and improvements.

You might be happy with not being able to climb Rhapsody without a ladder but I doubt a horse rider would be happy with just the changes the petition is advocating

English and Welsh National Park Authorities have even less money than local councils for access improvements and path maintenance

My personal view on erosion is that on unsurfaced paths used by bikes, horses and walkers, the cycle use tends to flatten down, smooth out and compact any mud during summer into a good surface usable by all.

And that on paths used by walkers and horses but not bikes, the ruts created in winter by feet and hooves tend to remain there all year round.

Sorry, I have different opinion on that one, if trying to alter legislation thats an issue for the citizens of the area affected. Following your logic I would sign petitions in France or Spain.

On this issue, I feel Mountain Bikers often assume a right of way and expect walkers to move, it is bad enough having them come barreling down hill and unable to stop, but now with electric bikes they want you to move when they are coming up hill. 
It is about sharing, but IME many mountain bikers assume a precedence, and too many are on footpaths as it is, so opening all PROWs to them would be a bad thing.

Not disagreeing with you. But Scottish and Welsh MPs can and do vote in Westminster on matters that only affect England - surely nobody would suggest that MPs can be subject to different rules to the general public?

I think it depends where you are....I'm the western peak on peat based surfaces the ruts created by mountain bikes in winter, including wide fat bike tyres, tend to stay as ruts. I've seen groups of bikers lock their brakes on and skid down large sections of grass when it's wet ripping off the surface and causing significant damage.

Covid has made it worse as in an attempt to a avoid eachother there are often 3 tracks in some places, the central one being the actual path with one trodden down either side.

I don't support the principle of blanket changes for multi use....although the issues do need looking at as there are changes needed.

Erosion is an issue in some areas.

There are also issues with courtesy and shared use in honeypot areas.

I walk....ride bikes and horses....

I was  trying to address the concerns up thread about landowners having to do this and concerns about costs and  prosecution if they didn't. If local councils have money to do this I'd have thought the onus for doing the work would be on them and lack of funding a reasonable excuse for delays.  My experience is limited to  volunteering on working parties mainly replacing gates, bridges etc. any sign of this usually results in a few local farmers requesting work on their land, we do have a bit of a backlog but nothing ridiculous. As you say having to lift a bike over a style isn't a big deal for many. Horse riding tends to be a more local activity so i would hope they would be listened to when prioritising any improvements.

Surely to be "open to every user" it must also be made "suitable" - otherwise it isn't "open".

And what happens when someone (especially a youngster) on a narrow (currently foot only) path with hedges/fence on both sides meets someone on a half ton horse that is the same width as the pathway. Around where I live there are an awful lot of these.

Hmmm! There were lots of complaints when some of Snowdonia’s classic MTB routes were sanitised and made suitable for wheel chair users. Be careful what you wish for!

Well it would depend on whether it was valid to. They can always restrict it to the appropriate population as indeed the parliament uk website does.

Okay now I am confused. So its about sharing but you dont want to share?

Its odd how people have vastly different experiences isnt it? Whilst I can remember a few ignorant cyclists personally I find groups of walkers and runners generally far more problematic with their habit of expecting to be able to walk ten abreast, trashing the land, regardless of any other users. Perhaps we should ban large groups?

.... I think it would be far simper to de-restrict and let the nature of the path sort out who uses it.

But all that would happen would be that whoever is biggest, bolshiest or in groups would barge through without caring who they p1ss off.

I'm not wishing for it at all - in fact quite the reverse.

I'm really not a fan of the proposal, nor this argument.

What will happen is that enterprising mountain bikers (including me) will take to the minor footpaths and wear and widen them.

I don't think it's them and us - I think people who do both activities are the majority.  However, having trails that are reserved for "on foot" is a good thing - a bit quieter, a little wilder.

Round here there are plenty of bridlepaths (some rupps as well) which meet that criteria. I cant remember seeing horses or their tracks on them though. People tend to use what is sensible, at least after the first attempt.

There seems to be a belief amongst some that the existing path network was carefully planned out and rights assigned when in reality it was a pretty random mess. Hence why you get scenarios like a bridlepath stretching for miles before hitting a parish border and suddenly becoming a footpath. Logically when you look at many of the old paths they would be bridleways with the old drove paths.

With regards to styles etc a couple of points. Firstly the current approach isnt that great for those with disabilities and physical infirmities and so there has been a push to replace them anyway with more suitable options.

Secondly there is actually a clause in the amendment which allowed cyclists on bridleways saying "shall not create any obligation to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists". Nothing stopping the same approach again.

Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly, no one is going to enforce the rules about electric vehicles, or any other rules about paths and bridleways.

And we can take that further; as there is no enforcement anyway, the question of how paths, byways, bridleways, etc. are classified is an irrelevance to all the people who use them except tedious pedants.

I am a keen cyclist, and enjoy using cycling paths and mixed cycle and footpaths, and do find pedestrians frustrating when they cannot seem to hear bells, and expect a personal letter of gratitude for moving from ten abreast, to 3 abreast, and the bloke whose dog knocked my wife off her bike on a sustans route, I think started to appreciate if he did not STFU, I was about to throw him and his off the lead pooch into a nearby lodge, so I do appreciate the frustrations.

However, as a walker, moving along narrow uphill footpaths through woods or on the edge of moorland, and they are footpaths, I am not impressed when 10 or 12 blokes, and they are 99.9999% blokes come barrelling down with arms wide spread in an aggressive posture, with no ability nor intention of stopping, I am less than impressed. These galloots are not sharing in any sense of the word, they are bullies, demanding, no they so arrogant they expect the right of way. If they want a high octane red bull experience they should go to a MTB track or something, not a footpath or a bridleway for that matter, where people are out for a stroll watching the dickie birds. 

The only person who can is the Landowner. Its private land and you have no right to ride a bike on a footpath on Private land, but it is the Landowner who is infringed against. I am not discussing pavements and the like here, but countryside PROWs, classified as footpaths.
A walker has not rights to tell you want to do, its not their land, unless its the landowner out for a walk. Their only right in this matter is to walk on the footpath. I suppose if their was an accident the cyclist would be automatically liable as they should not have been there, but it would still be a civil matter, unless someone was very seriously injured or killed.

This you? "...if he did not STFU, I was about to throw him and his off the lead pooch into a nearby lodge...."

Okay but I am not sure how talking about people who arent obeying the law anyway is a good argument for restricting those who are law abiding and hence almost certainly more respectful of others anyway.

If anything it seems to be supporting my, not entirely joking, argument it would be best to restrict group size.

Thinking on it pretty much problem with cyclists I have had was large groups not riding sensibly. Aside from that there was just one muppet who admitting to trying and hit a strava best riding round a blind corner. I would have explained at length why I wasnt impressed but I think he had learnt his lesson since he hit the ground damn hard.

Just be aware that some pedestrians are genuinely deaf and that when wrapped up in winter hoods everyones hearing is muffled. Add in wind and other background noise and not hearing the bell may be genuinely not hearing, rather than arrogantly ignoring.

If wearing ear buds you do however have my permission to run them down - only thing worse would be listening to music without headphones and subjecting the rest of us to their invariably bad taste in music.

Oh I agree, they are walking along, totally relaxed, which is a good thing, if frustrating for cyclists. I have ordered an electronic bell thing for my bike, it makes weird electronic noises, which I hope will alert people.
The Bell issue is so difficult, ring it too much you are aggressive, to little and you get an "oy, buy a bell"

Drawing back to the footpaths and bikes being allowed, I do not see it as an access issue and a gain for cyclists, but rather a loss of a place where a pedestrian can just walk with total freedom. In the urban environment, on the road where pedestrians actually have equal rights to a car, the motor vehicle is King, and it will kill you if you encroach. On pavements, cars park all over the place, and cyclists often ride on pavements, forced there by cars. Cyclepaths and Bridleways, well we can share. But footpaths are the domain of the person on foot, and in any event, many/most are only 1 metre wide I believe, so not really wide enough to share.

I don't think anyone will argue against those.

I like the timberbell approach. Its a silenceable cowbell so rings constantly if you flip it on but not in a way that appears aggressive. Two downsides though.

On easy terrain eg surfaced paths it tends to be quiet but that can be got round with some fork pumping.

On hard terrain at speed it is very much the opposite but then again generally in those scenarios it can be stuck on silent.

Aside from the fact that something has been designated a footpath doesnt have any relationship to its usability as one in most cases. Outside of urban footpaths/alleys it was just what was chosen when there was a rather hurried period to define them after a law was passed.

I agree with this, though I would say many footpaths are unsuitable, particularly after wet weather, bikes do churn up the ground more.

Outside of urban footpaths/alleys it was just what was chosen when there was a rather hurried period to define them after a law was passed.

I am not so sure about this, my understanding is that many/most footpaths are historical routes between dwellings, villages, churches etc, over other peoples private land, and over the, often centuries people gained rights by consent, which were eventually enshrined in law. Some bridleways and roads, were classified as footpaths so that the local council would not have to maintain them, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

I would say that I agree with more of what you say than disagree, and would suggest you could enjoy reading Nick Hayes book Trespass, which challenges the accepted view of land access, and would be the way I would like to go. Another way of looking at footpath is that, it does not tell you where you can walk, but tells you where you cannot walk. However, a Carte Blanche right for cycling on our existing network of footpaths is something I am against.

Any extra damage to path surfaces would be my major concern. This might increase with time and with more cyclists too to the detriment of everyone. Many of the other problems people note could simply be alleviated with a lot more mutual consideration by all users.  However I'm not sure how much damage cyclists actually do compared to other users, I suppose its situational.

Is it possible to put a negative vote on a petition?

This seems like a red herring to distract attention from getting a decent cycle network.  All I can see is more conflict and less enjoyment for everyone.   The clue is in the word "Footpath"

(I enjoy cycling and going on foot)

This is often stated as fact but the evidence is rather slim and seems mostly based on people being able to recognise the lines from a bike tyre but not following the mess of footprints. Main issue for bikes is causing ruts in certain scenarios or sliding about riding uphill but walkers are perfectly capable of churning up the ground and horseriders in league of their own.

I did meet someone on the local field who whinged about the, obvious, cycle track and how they were damaging things but seemed oblivious to the 2m wide trail of footsteps until it was pointed out how unnatural it was compared to the grassland next to it.

Cycling definitely can do damage and there are some trails I barely rode last year and have only just started on this year since they are prone to damage in the wet. However some are equally prone to damage from walkers and looking at them now they have certainly suffered a lot.

Originally it would have been unlikely to be "peoples private land" that really came about with the enclosures. Even then a lot of the movement would have also included horse, oxen etc at least some of the time. So chances of something being pure footpath would have been fairly slim.

I wouldn't worry about it.  It'll never reach 100,000, and even if it did, bugger all would happen.

Its been a good chat, and one I would enjoy over a pint, but I think we now have our positions, maybe see you at the crag sometime or at a hut, and we could continue.

All the best Steve

I agree this doesn't seem to have been put together by someone ho knows about public rights of way - public bridleways are PROW. I would also support the view that the current system, despite providing legal protection of users' rights, could be a lot better and more practical and suited for today's usage.  Wales are looking at extending riding rights on current footpaths on a case by case basis but the government here is resistant to this. 

One of the benefits of the current designation is that a horse rider would know that they should be able to get their horse along a bridleway, however after this change (assuming maps updated that quickly) if everything then simply became a 'path' then they wouldn't have that information on the map.

So to summarise after 80 plus replies, the general consensus is that for a multitude of reasons, it’s a badly thought out, badly researched and badly worded petition which has zero chance of going anywhere. Apart from that, it’s excellent. 👍

Having read this thread, I find it fascinating the lengths that some people go to defend the existing system of access in England (or at best suggest to tweak it).  With arguments such as paths/tracks in England are different, so what works in Scotland won't work here. We have some pretty thin paths up here you know.

I wonder is there more deference to power generally in England?

Having lived down there for most of my life, I got use to the English system. But now having spent the last 8 years living in Scotland, I now find it extremely odd and wrong on a fundamental level , that when returning I get reminded of the laws of the land, such as 'oh you're not allowed to walk over to climb that boulder, it's below the sheep intake',  or you have to stick to the path and go around. 

Once you get a taste of freedom, there's no going back. 

 

I'm not sure that's generally true. Certainly round my way there are bridleways that are definitely not horse-friendly. You can't beat local knowledge.

Just to be clear, I am not defending the system, just objecting to this change, which I see as retrograde to the few rights walkers have, and bringing mechanical objects which travel at a different speed, into a non mechanical space.

Your comment about deference is very apposite. When a person steps from the path, crosses a boundary, they do seem to have a feeling of being in the wrong. I know I have, but it's something I am challenging within myself, and I think most other people do to, but hey, what do I know 🤷

Totally agree.

It would seem that bugger all happening has already been chosen as the preferred way forward in England:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/22/uk-minister-defends-she...

I have to say that this is my takeaway from the thread too. It's particularly interesting to see the walkers who feel their interests are best served by speaking against improved access rights for other outdoor users. I can't help but feel this is like turkeys voting for Christmas and that it plays into the hands of those who would restrict access for all. Divided we fall and all that.

This. 

Like garlic bread, it's the future, I've tasted it.

I find it fascinating that the framework exists to make the changes that cyclists and MTBers want to see and that the only thing stopping it happening is lack of public money and that nobody here is arguing for better resources for local authority PROW teams to allow it all to happen

What is it that you think cyclists and mountain bikers want to see? 

If my signing this petition annoys you here's something that will really get your goat. As things stand, if it comes to a vote in parliament, Scottish MPs will be allowed to vote on it. I'd hope that having tasted freedom north of the border they'd make the right choice for those south of it.  

But is this petition the wish of a small number of MTBers who want to career at high speed along pathways that have hitherto been safe for walkers, and, in many cases, would be downright dangerous when said walkers are faced with a line of MTBers heading straight at them with no room to even get out of the way.

And with reference to Scotland having different rules; England is far more densely populated, has far less open space, and a far greater percentage of this land as either or livestock arable farming. This means wandering far from any designated pathway is far more likely to damage crops or cause problems with livestock. Farms are not playgrounds, they are a source of employment for those who work on them, and food or the rest of us. The there are pathways in more urban areas - these are normally just wide enough for two people to pass. Anyone on a bike (or horse !) would mean real problems. To widen these paths might mean knocking down garden fences, uprooting hedges, or even knocking down houses.

We need to work together regarding access, not have some people think they can go wherever they like. And for those who regard all property as theft - I wonder what you'd think if someone decided to demand the right to ride an MTB or similar through where you work or live.

Some want to see more Bridleways and Cycletracks of a suitable standard for families, beginners, those wanting a relaxing ride, commuting etc. Some want to be able to go where they like with no changes on the ground. I think this thread has shown that there is not universal support for the latter, even amongst the demographic on here.

edited to add commuting to the list

I totally agree with you on this one, but perhaps not in the way you meant.

On that basis, do you agree we should be reducing the number of footpaths too?

Or alternatively a system where walkers are 9nly tolerated outside peak times.

Nonsense 

I'm not convinced by the arguments made in your second paragraph. Although I've only ever driven through it, I'm sure the Central Belt in lowland Scotland is densely populated and has lots of farmland and ramblers. And I've never heard much about the Scottish access rights causing problems there.

Well that problem is easily solved: Make the the some of the PRoWs 'bike-only', then there'll be no conflict! Ahh, you don't like that? Walkers having to give up their sacred exclusive rights of access for the benefit of others? Seems like walkers are all too often in favour of 'access' as long as it's just for walkers.

The population density thing is a massive red herring - much of Scotland is covered in private game reserves etc and empty, Meanwhile many of us are living in the centre with locally dense population. 

Just grateful for the freedom - walking can be tough for me and is always painful. I can still function outdoors here with few worries. The bike allows me more choice as to where I can "spend" the precious few km walking range that I have.  Result - full hill days.

Definitely agree with this, the population density argument doesn't hold much water at all.

I'm curious to know what the existing framework you mentioned is that could make this happen.

Someone always pops up to say something like this in these threads. Obviously no one is arguing for this. Here in Sweden we have the right to roam everywhere but *obviously* there are limits and rules for responsible access. You can't go walking across a field of crops. And obviously you can't go and walk or camp in someone's garden.

The points you make here, potentially could or may have happened, but in reality they are far from the norm in my experience and more likely never to happen. I think they are an example of the self policing that I observe happens in England with attitudes to access to land. I say that because once upon a time I may have made the same arguments.

I think it's very unlikely that hoards of people will travel miles out of a city to go and have a wander through a field full of livestock or oil seed rape. Why would anyone do that?

I've walked through the Angus glens, an intensely farmed landscape 40 odd miles in either direction of Aberdeen and Dundee and have never seen this happen. Coincidently last year I walked along an old public footpath through a field of curious heffers. In hindsight I wish I had walked around the edge, after they came very close to have a good look! The option to legally venture of the public footpath is not available in England.

I also used to work with Angus farmers and have never heard them talk of people causing a significant problem due to the access laws. But I also accept there are a few specific examples that have caused conflict with landowners/managers. But on the whole it works.

I've also chatted with Factors of some traditional sporting estates (who also have lowland grazing). Before the 2003 Land Reform Act, they were very concerned, (for the reasons you give), but they said these concerns never materialised. And have largely described the right to roam legislation works, because the other thing to note, is that under the legislation, there is duty on a persons right to roam with 'responsible access'.

Should also add the legislation excludes 'private gardens', so again I've never observed any mountain bikers setting up new trails through peoples gardens.   
 

Presumably the others you want to work with don't include mountain bikers!

 given that more people who drive miles to take dogs over land that has ground nesting birds such as curlews and skylarks just let them roam free (definitely more than those who give any thought to protecting the nesting birds) I do not think that is a safe assumption.  We have seen some horrendous behaviour by people who've gone to "travel miles out of a city" to do whatever they liked in NE Cumbria over the past 2 years or so, wrecking places and leaving soiled stuff and rubbish

Cyclists are not some kind of exemplary outdoor saint and of course nor are people on foot or on horses. There has to be somewhere to get away from noise and machines when you want to.  Footpaths give that and bridleways give somewhere for people to share the battlespace

I don't think he is saying that....I've said somewhere up thread that I ride mountain bikes and also walk but the courtesy aspect and erosion is crucial in my view....there are just some paths which are not appropriate for cycling on...

I don't really know what he was trying to say but it's pretty clear he has a poor opinion of mountain bikers.

Maybe so...then again I also have a poor opinion of 'some' mountain bikers....and an equally poor opinion of 'some' walkers!

I admit to some bias...I live in the western peak and my local hill is a bit of a honeypot and the amount of dog poo bags, litter, pee tissues (another thread) is shocking...but also some of the groups of mountain bikers who ride with no consideration to others or the environment on a designated footpath with clear signs saying no cycling is awful.....I really don't know the solution but I also think most people on here are motivated by their concern for the hills we all love...

Thanks to everyone for your views: you've helped me to understand a little better what seems to be a quite muddled and uninformed proposal, genuine though the desire it expresses may be. And apologies for a general reply - I was unable to reply yesterday and you're all now 100+ comments ahead of me...

I think I concur with Sam Beaton that the petition isn't really coming from the point of view of horse-riders, but only from cyclists; moreover that it isn't coming from a representative cross-section of cyclists but only (some ) MTBers. This definitely makes me think that EddInaBox is right to point out the inbuilt function creep of the petition, as the MTB/e-bike/motobike crossover is evident: it comes from people who think in terms of 'routes' rather than PRoWs. Moreover it seems clear to me that the petition represents the views of only a minority subsection of the MTB subsection of cyclists. In the forum I first spotted this on and in which opinions are rather more bluntly put, local MTBers are mainly castigating those in favour as basically wanting to indulge in antisocial behaviour (that forum is however for an area in which the police and council *have* become very active in enforcement, impounding vehicles and closing paths owing to public pressure, so its problems are unlikely to be typical of all areas - I hope).

JennyC's point about erosion makes sense to me, as I've seen it so often in the Peak District, particularly on peat: the paving of the Pennine Way was to mitigate erosion rather than to provide a convenient surface for wheels, never mind feet, hence the environmental impact of such a change would be insanely costly there. I've seen MTBers trying to ride over Black Hill though it's noticeable that they only want to ride where footpaths have already been established for them by walkers, and never over the quagmire of bog and grough that was there before the paving.

Much of the discussion between DaveHK and Sam Beaton makes me realize that the practical effect of the proposed change would be that all PRoWs become BOATs, though it clearly isn't sufficiently thought through to reach its own logical implication. It would inevitably lead to a situation in which current users of PRoWs were disadvantaged. Equal access isn't at all the same thing as equality.

Wintertree points to many of the legal and practical problems in the petition: I don't want to go into them in detail but I can see many more in addition, and think Steve Crossley has it right - I can foresee endless legal battles over encroachment and minimum width, with unavoidably poor consequences for all users. I look after about 260 PRoWs, bridleways, BOATs, and restricted byways for the PNFS in my own area, which covers barely 35 square miles - some 6 miles long from side to side on the map; these are variously privately-owned or on National Authority or council-owned land, and often cross all three. Some are on open moorland; some are merely suburban ginnels; and these don't include the extensive multipurpose network of greenways and cycle paths already in existence but which, oddly, no adherent of the petition has said they'd like extended further. Why not?

In response to MG's point about who sues/pursues enforcement when access is illegally impeded - the PNFS does. We try to represent all the users of all these types of rights of way, and balance the desires of walkers, cyclists, horse-riders, and motorists, which is why I'm keen to understand this proposal even if it comes from a small subpopulation of one of those groups.

I'd like to think that too but there's still an element of tribalism and mistrust of other trail users being displayed by some posters.

Thank you for responding, you've obviously thought a lot about it but I'm afraid what you've written depresses me. This is mainly because it looks like you're so enmeshed in the details of the current system that you don't appear to be able to see how much better things could be with wider access for all.

I accept that the petition itself is flawed but I think the principle of equal access to paths for all non-motorised users is absolutely the way to go to spread the load of users and avoid tribal conflict.

Thanks Dave: I have read all your comments and you've helped me a lot. I'm sorry you're depressed by my comment! But I do find the view you've put forward has downsides as well as upsides, and the downsides can't just be ignored. Where I think we differ is that

i. I'm pretty sure that your principles aren't expressed by this petition, and I would much rather have seen one that did express those principles from someone fully acquainted with the relevant laws, as there needs to be a practicable and fair basis for addressing the desires of those MTBers (myself included) who feel dissatisfied with things as they are;

ii. we differ wildly regarding our ideas about equality of access; that's partly because I'm having to consider benefits & disadvantages to groups that haven't come up in this discussion (e.g. the blind), whereas you're voicing an opinion that's the expression of one group alone;

and iii. I think you're both underestimating the potential of our English legal framework to address these issues, and overlooking the fact that England already has large tracts of open access land with amazingly exciting routes with permitted usage for bikes which bikers never seem to use. I think this is because they use apps rather than maps to find routes, and so are taking the lazy way to find a solution for their access desires. That needs to change.

Norway is similar, whilst you enjoy access above the fence line and forests, there aren't the paths or access in farmed areas. There is something quite unique about the uks meandering ancient rights of way between villages, which often take you past amazing places. I see no reason to open them up to everyone, sometimes you just can't have everything, bikers can cycle plenty other places.

A couple of points:

(a) Principles are great, but outside of academia, they rarely form the basis of good solutions. They tend to be too abstract and too utopian. A more pragmatic approach is to address the actual problem, in this case the lack of decent MTB trails (avoiding the PRoW issue completely). In reality a shared space (path) for walking and MTB is pretty unsatisfactory for both parties once the user density exceeds some small number. Much as I might like to ride on some footpath PRoWs near me, it's only based on the assumption that I'm the only user. Put a dozen bikes and a dozen walkers per mile of any path and it's never going to satisfy anyone. My gut feel is that the only effective solution would be to create more new bike-only trails, whether singular or as trail centers. How to go about doing that? I don't know.

(b) There may be 'potential of our English legal framework to address these issues', but is there any enthusiasm in those that can enact change? Precious little it seems to me. Your comment about 'open access land' also intrigued me: As I understand it, the CRoW act has no provisions for access to anyone other than walkers. Am I missing something? I'm an avid peruser of maps, but I don't know where to find these 'amazingly exciting routes with permitted usage for bikes'. Bridleways? Very few and not generally very interesting from an MTB perspective. Permissive bridleways? Generally not well mapped and require 'local knowledge' to unearth. I can only think of one within riding distance of my house and it doesn't appear on OS maps and has no signage on the ground. Surprise, surprise, most MTBers ride the obvious - and more interesting - footpath which runs parallel a few dozen yards up the hill. I don't think that's an apps vs. maps issue.

In a practical sense the difference between England and Scotland for acces to open country is non existent- you can go where you want.  The differences are in lowland areas where in general England has greater access because of tbe PROW network. As you point out, people don't walk through agricultural land in Scotland because it's impractical and not pleasant, by contrast in Englans (and Wales) PROWs make it straightforward.  Acces to rivers, coastland and some woodland is harder in England,  however. 

your position reminds me of the unrealistic idealism of the early generations of computer adopters in the early 70s into the 80s who (as I did) saw a wonderful new technology that could only do good as it would empower only good people to do interesting and good things.

We now see what unrestricted growth in that area brought us, first rambling footpaths of computing at home, then footpaths to connect machines together followed by local bridleways and then the information superhighway that brought viruses, good and evil.

What you seem to want is outdoors anarchy that allows people the freedom to explore the limits of the harm they can cause to other ROW users as well as indulging themselves.  You want the right to limit enjoyment of freedoms that are available now to you and the rest of us in favour of mechanicals and horses wholesale.  Your mechanicals and horses can for instance enjoy the freedom to take crowds of people through quiet paths that allow the silent observation of red squirrels and other wildlife by the quiet woodgoer

Well look out for other rights we might take unto ourselves

I think that would depend on what you like doing. Personally as much as I like hammering round a trail centre I am equally happy going for a more chilled ride out in the sun (or snow) on easier terrain. Generally I ride during quiet hours since frankly its more fun. Leave the midday to the redsock brigade and ride early or late instead.

Correct. Its as little as could be got away with. So open access doesnt help at all. There is an interesting campaign at the moment by the CTC about access to Bolton Abbey and whether the tax exemptions the duke is getting are value for money since all that seems to be on offer is what is already required by the open access laws so cyclists are blocked from most of it.

They vary wildly in numbers depending on the area (itself a good indication that the way they were assigned wasnt really based on past use) and some can be relatively challenging although in my experience for that you really want a BOAT which has been heavily used by 4x4s.

A lot of the "think of the walkers" does strike me as being a modernised version of "Think of the grouse" in keeping the area for themselves. After all if you cared, for example, about snowdon then the best way, short of no access, of reducing erosion would be restricting it to cyclists (non e-bike) only. Would vastly reduce the number giving it a go considering its both physically and technically tricky. A lot easier to walk it.

As a "quiet woodgoer" in my experience if you really want low impact and to see things without going for long sit spots then a bike is the least impact and best results. The lack of footfall noise really does help.

If I was going for campaigning on the "quiet woodgoer" front I would be going for trading cyclists for walkers with dogs any day of the week.

Most bikes don't $hit on the track every day either. 

Have you ever been to Scotland? Anarchic is not the word I would use, even in the most densely populated and heavily used areas. For the most part, we get along. Why? We have to because the trails are a shared resource and not viewed by a single group as the preserve of their activity with other groups being merely tolerated at best. It's not perfect but a perfect system of outdoor access isn't possible.

The word I have heard used most often to describe the Scottish access legislation is enlightened. And yes, I know, things are different in England so it wouldn't work. This thread has made me realise that things probably are different in England, not for the practical reasons commonly advanced but because of the entrenched, proprietorial attitude of some users to what should be a common resource for all responsible users.

Haven’t read the whole thread so somebody else may have said this - riding a bike where horses have been can be incredibly challenging. I haven’t tried it on a mountain bike but on a cross bike it’s challenging but quite enjoyable when wet and soft, bloody horrible when dry and hard. 

I think that where we're differing is in our response to the petition. I see a (doomed) attempt to improve the level of access and you see the practical implications of its proposal within the current framework. I'm happy to defer to your knowledge on the practicalities of the petition. 

In England and Wales the legislation allows for new PROWs to be created (either from scratch or by upgrading FPs to BWs) by agreement with the landowner, or by making a legal order to impose new ones on landowners against their wishes. The first option requires PROW Officers having the time for negotiations, the second requires compensation to be paid to a reluctant landowner. Both options also usually require some money to be spent on the ground. Local councils are both short staffed and broke at present which is why this doesn't happen as often as it should.

In response to your point (a), look up Ride Sheffield. A MTB group that has led the way in creating several mini trail centres around here.

in response to (b):

There *IS* enthusiasm to make changes. Just the lack of resources to create new PROWs. Most PROW Officers have their work cut out just looking after what they already have.

Publicising permissive Bridleways is tricky. Some appear on the Explorer OS mapping in orange (PROWs are green) but many don't. The Eastern Moors Partnership manages the moors around Burbage, Froggatt and Curbar in the Eastern Peak. They have created quite a few permissive BWs that appear on OS maps, but some don't. You have to visit their website to get the full picture. And of course not everyone uses OS maps. 

IF the cyclists are riding in a way that endangers ramblers then that is indeed a bad thing.  If however the ramblers are just annoyed because they are selfish and want to maintain exclusive access to the paths, then tough shit.

The solution is obvious, remove the signs.

I've worked lived and wandered in Scotland and been a frequent visitor since the 1980s.  It's a very different place with a lot more space.

Actually there was a clampdown in this area after the creation of Access Land as landowners started to put up rather aggressive signs and wiring up gates to keep people to totally footpaths.

I grew up in and lived a good part of my life in rural areas where at that time there was no real limit to where you could go on agricultural land as long as you exercised responsibility and common sense so that change did not sit well with me

I should be clear that an awareness of those practicalities leads me to an awareness of how this particular attempt to improve access involves significantly decreasing access for other groups, some of them with legally protected status. Unless this particular MTB group acknowledge & address those more difficult issues head-on I can't see any prospect of progress - and that comes down to having some sort of negotiation between two groups of MTBers: those who want improved access whilst maintaining the existing rights of all other parties, and those who, quite candidly, do not care if others' rights are infringed as long as they get what they want. It's a classic case of the really difficult but absolutely essential precondition for progress being ignored in favour of an unrealistic attempt to make progress sound simple and easily achievable... now, I'm sure that reminds me of something...

I'm not good enough on a bike to enjoy these, but they look excellent and our local trails at Grenoside are incredibly popular - and pedestrians do respect the bike only trails. The woods there are heavily used by cyclists, horses and walkers but I have never experienced or witnessed any tension between different user groups. 

That's great to hear. Lots of paths round here where I can see no issues about allowing bikes to use, as you say conveying the change of status is important but tricky - nobody wants signs at every path junction and it's important walkers are also aware that its shared use, so they don't wrongly criticise cyclists for going onto paths. 

However as I said above some paths are just not suitable for shared use (no in answer to someone else im not suggesting downgrading any existing byways to footpaths). Going down the line of permitted use rather than right allows any unforeseen issues to be evaluated and reviewed if needed on a case by case basis.

I very much feel that following the above procedure of trying to increase the network of permissive bridal ways would be far more likely to succeed, yes it's more work than starting a petition as would mean liaising with each landowner. But from the cyclists perspective it might actually result in more trail access.

I agree that the best solution is more bike-only trails. I have a feeling that that wouldn't satisfy all of this particular group of petitioners, but it's definitely the way forward and in the area I live is progressing rather well thanks to a small army of very generous volunteers. Without those volunteers I doubt anything would happen very quickly, but then that's becoming the case with all sorts of things in England nowadays - everything from social care and food provision to libraries and park management is increasingly community-led.

In answer to (b) it may well vary by area but here's one example where bikers don't choose the obvious footpath: the Nidderdale Way. The greatest portion of the way is actually a renamed bridleway, and on the Great Whernside side of the way it connects with a network of permissive bridleways and tracks. I stopped following the map when I got to Barnard Castle...  I've never seen a bike anywhere on any of this: look for it on for example CTC's route mapper and it's nowhere to be seen, yet it's all plain as day on the OS maps and free to view on North Yorks online PRoW map. That's not to say that biking isn't popular in Nidderdale, so where are they? Mostly cycling over the equally exciting racetrack roads that climb out of Pateley Bridge and over Dallow Moor.

One point you make puzzles me: the one about needing local knowledge. I'm sure I must be misreading you. What's unusual about this situation, as opposed to any other situation in life, that makes knowledge a specifically unfair barrier rather than an automatic good that it's worth working to acquire?

The original proposal is fundamentally flawed and I suspect somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek', so I would tend to ignore it.

Indeed. Same here, but there is another party to this process: the landowner and their lawyers. Near me the is a forest which has for ages been used for informal MTB (including extensive trail building) seemingly with the tacit approval ('blind-eye') of the landowner. Recently however - probably due to increase use/abuse during covid - the landowner has clamped down and put up signs saying that any 'off-piste' trails are not approved, dangerous and shouldn't be used. The wording is weird in that it seems like they felt the need to put up the signs, but really don't intend to do anything more to stop people using them. It's a pretty delicate situation critically dependent on the diminishing tolerance of the landowner and the non-evident self-control of the users. Basically, not a good model for the way forward.

Yes, it does seem very area dependent. I've looked at the Nidderdale area (daughter lives in Leeds) and it looks great for a bit of exploring. Here in the western Peak - not so much.

Nothing unusual, as you say, but there's a difference between knowledge-that-is-available-in-the-obvious-place-if-you-look as opposed to knowledge-who's-existence-is-hidden-and-only-available-by-word-of-mouth-if-you-know-the-right-people. Unfortunately, a lot of MTB gems in my experience fall into the latter class. Probably for good reasons (see comment above about overuse/abuse).

Agree. Whilst in Bohuslan, Sweden I could have done with an OS type map –  never quite sure  whether a path was actually someones driveway or garden, and a promising track would just end at a house/farm, with lot of impenetrable vegetation if you wanted to make further progress.  

I live within 200 yards of the cathedral in my city, and about 600 yards from the official city centre.

I can, within a mile and a half, be in the countryside.

Outside of the major metropolises there is absolutely no need to travel very far to be in the countryside. Even in said metropolises there are FOOTpath networks that are not open to cyclists, principally I'm sure because of the fact that they are only wide enough for two persons to pass, difficult for two (ordinary) bicycles (with standard handlebars) to pass, and downright impossible for two MTB's with their much wider handlebars to pass unless one of them is physically lifted to go over the other.

It's these narrow pathways, both in towns/cities and between villages in the more populated - and usually arable farming - parts of the country where this proposal would cause serious problems. 

I have a pretty poor opinion of SOME mountain bikers.

Just as I have  pretty poor opinion of some "off-roaders" who (effectively) vandalise green lanes just so they can "willy-wave" how good their 4x4 is.

I've seen a few situations identical to the one you describe and that have followed exactly the same pattern over the last two years - one very near to me on land owned by the Earl of Wilton comes to mind particularly. I think biking is now at a point where it needs something like the PNFS to negotiate such situations (I know mondite mentioned the CTC's campaign, but that's aimed only at PRoWs, whereas what's needed in this sort of situation is not campaigning but local negotiation).

Thanks for answering my question about local knowledge. I see what you mean now, and am struck by the parallel with 'wild' camping spots, and the way the forums have in the past responded to posts asking for top tips on where to camp: the answer usually (and rightly) being, get off your arse and find one and when you do find one, keep it to yourself...

Perhaps not quite what Bruxist meant, but NRW / Forestry England are normally quite happy for people to cycle on fire roads on their land. Unfortunately, they don't tend be be particularly exciting or often have the greatest views. I don't think this is well publicised, however.

Do you walk much in areas with a clay soil? I do. In winter, horses can turn muddy footpaths to complete quagmires. So, to an extent, can heavy bike use but I think most walkers could live with that. Horses, no thanks.

Another difference is spring barley - Scotland still has big areas under stubble into the Winter - this is accessible and rideable.  

Incorrect.  Not everyone will need or want to walk on a footpath which doesn't go the way they wish to travel.  Some ROWs are used more than others because they go from a place with people who want to travel to another place - such as village to village.  And they may not wish to go the long way around!

As for reducing conflict  I don't think so.  It will simply increase the conflict between groups like horses and bikers who may then come into conflict with pedestrians on paths which are unsuitable for the bikers and/or horse riders.

Sometimes the risk of a bit of conflict between the 'haves' (right of access) and the 'have-nots' is deemed acceptable when it's for the greater good. Ask the Kinder Trespassers.

Whether that's true in this case of course, is another matter, but the 'might cause conflict' is not reason enough in and of itself not to do something. Every definition of rights has winners and losers and hence potential for conflict.

As for 'unsuitable paths', you may well be right, but there are also plenty of perfectly suitable paths for bikes and horses and both groups are like to gravitate to those rather than the unsuitable ones,

Or do you mean 'unsuitable for walker AND bikes AND horses all at the same time'? That again is a different issue of 'shared use' and is easily resolved (in theory) by making some of the current footpaths in 'bikes'only' and some into 'horses only'. It's just a case of social and political will power - and hence will never happen.

I'm not sure you've thought this ad populum comparison through - it doesn't support a "greater good" argument at all.

The "haves" in this PRoW case are those walkers who have at present exclusive access to footpaths. But your comparison conflates them with the Duke of Devonshire, trying to stop the Kinder trespass hoi polloi from accessing his land. Hoi polloi ('the many') still exist, and are still trying to extend the right to roam. I don't think it quite works to portray cyclists as the "have-nots" battling for the greater good, when their battle seems to be waged not against the likes of Devonshire but against the many who secured those rights in the first place.

If you take the 'class-war' aspect out of the equation it is still a reasonable argument. I accept that there are more walkers than cyclists, but the 'greater good' is not just an issue of numbers. Any decent society is careful to protect the rights of minorities and in this sense the 'greater good' is  part of being fair to minorities an allowing them to have their fair share of the resources. I would argue that at the moment bikers and horses are minorities which do *not* have their fair share of resources (places to legally access) and therefore the 'greater good' should include a re-balancing of access rights.

I does seem sad that the Kinder Trespasser fought for access right of the common man, but then it turns out that it was only for 'their sort of common man' (walkers) and not for 'those others'. I'm sure that was not what they intended, but that's how the end result looks now. And their descendants now protect their exclusive access rights just as tenaciously as the aristocrats did all those years ago.

Its worth reading up on the history of the trespass. Several of the groups who are opposed to cyclists now were also opposed to the trespass but somehow forget to mention it nowadays..

With my cyclist hat on, I see the problem is with Cars, they claim the PROWs known as roads, many cycle lanes and increasingly park on footpaths, all done by brute force. If you get in the way of cars, you will be injured, forcing cyclists to seek a place of safety.
I can never understand why councils paint cycle lanes down the sides of roads, then allow Cars to park there, and the habit of parking cars on pavements is getting out of hand.
What seems to be happening here is that Cyclists are being forced off the roads, and are trying to claim a place on Footpaths.

As to more adrenaline type cycling, such as fast MTB descents or Road Bike racing, these have no place on PROWs of any kind really, unless marshalled correctly. An MTB travelling across country is one thing, but zooming in often mobs down PROWs, often of an evening afterwork near towns, is pretty selfish IMHO. That walker they zoom past and they give a cheery greeting to, had no choice but to get out of the way, they had to unless they got mown down.

One of the challenges of the concept of 'sharing' is the acceptance the concept of "Don't be a dick!". You can't make rules and laws to cover every possible point of conflict - you have to rely on people being reasonable, i.e., accepting that other users have just as much right as you have. Sadly we seem to have ended up in a very 'tribal' society (the new 'class'?) where too many driver don't care about cyclist, too many MTBer don't care about walkers and too many walkers don't care about anyone else at all.

are you a really have-not?  Do you (and other people who who allege unfairness) not have access to footpaths already??

Just go on foot, you already share the right with other walkers.  I'm happy that you already share the rights I have.  Perhaps you are more affluent as a mountain bike I can't afford so I wouldn't be able to exercise the rights you want to take as extra over those you already HAVE

please tell me how you are a have-not.  I don't have regular access to a car to carry a fancy bike somewhere at the climate's expense to ride footpaths so I ride along local roads and walk local footpaths.  And because I have the right to go on foot, the same right YOU and others have, you call yourselves HAVE-NOTs.  What a distortion of morality

Many of the paths round here are passable with care on foot because the ground holds water but as soon as horses and bikes get on them they will become very unpleasant on foot because they simply cannot carry much traffic

"Lycra clad", you forgot to say "lycra clad". If you include that, then it serves to escalate the "them and us" points of view. And it also give you the perfect opportunity to alliterate with "louts" which not only denigrated and belittles cyclists but gets you a further 10 points in Gammon buzzword bingo.

How many walkers have you actually seen getting " mown down" by a bike off road?

Genuinely, honestly....

I have seen a grand total of zero, despite having been mountain biking for 35 years and having met hundreds of walkers who [ quite rightly] didn't get out of the way or take any action.

Now contrast this with the number of pedestrians getting hit by cars.  Ive seen a fair few.

Admit it, there's nothing rational behind your argument, you just don't like sharing " your" precious place with "others"

It's OK, we understand, people are generally selfish by nature.

From my perspective many MTBers claim a precedence, they are not sharing, its their trail until they have zoomed past. TBH, I doubt many could stop.

Could not agree more. Who is this "we" by the way, and are you not a "people"

Out of curiosity were you opposed to the crow act?

When I'm riding I will always be looking at what others on the trail are doing. If people do chose to move slightly out of the way then I will voice my appreciation and continue slowly past. If they move a long way out of the way then I will voice my appreciation and might contnue past at a higher speed. If they don't move out of the way at all then that's also fine. I generally stop reasonably* close to them ( assuming they are closing) but to one side and leave them to walk past at their leisure.  

(* I need to emphasise that I mean reasonable in its proper sense, ie sensible, rational, just sense of the word. Not in a "fairly or pretty or approximately" way)

I'm sure you do get some people breaking Rule 1 and being more pushy when cycling past, and I deplore that. But you may well find that many of them are doing as I do, which is to see what the rambler does and then adapting to that. Just because they haven't stopped by the time you decide to step aside doesn't mean they aren't planning to stop.

I try to follow this Rule1 regardless of whether I'm on a Bridleway or not.  The illogical distinction of BW or FP is immaterial. RULE 1 is paramount regardless.

I'm sorry if some bikers don't follow Rule 1,  but that is not a reason to prevent all bikers from having access.

Yes, I'm generally selfish, like pretty much everyone is. But I still feel, from as objective a standpoint as I can take, that bikers should have more access available and that Rule1 is far more important than some stupid historical BW/FP designation.

For a bit of perspective here I MTBd in Scotland for about 10 years under the old rules.  I was absolutely religious about sticking to Bridleways only and wouldn't have dreamed of biking a footpath.

The (successful) complete and utter abandoning of those rules in Scotland has made me realise how utterly stupid they were and how foolish we were to follow them

The Scottish issue is  a Red Herring here, what is proposed is change to the existing English system. I would, I think support a move to he Scottish system.

However on this proposal I see it as a zero sum game, with a gain for cyclists at the loss to walkers.

Though I am sure you are a considerate MTBer, my experience with many MTBers is they do not appreciate how they are perceived barrelling down trails, arms wide spread, all helmeted up, sometimes with body armour on. 

But really this is all moot, as the chances of a cyclist being taken to court by a land owner for riding a footpath are extremely remote. Or have I got that wrong, does this often happen and I am unaware.

Not in principle, but it did lead to more strict enforcement of footpaths and restrictive signs placed by landowners round here in areas I used to wander in.  I suppose it was a reaction by vested interests who see everyone out there tarred with the same brush

I think I'm in the camp that wants a far better network of cycle routes generally

Can we examine this a bit more closely, as it seems to be at the root of the "problem"

What exactly is your issue with bikers wearing helmets and even body armour?

This appears to be a ridiculous basis to claim they are being inconsiderate. Likewise having their arms spread wide... what the heck has that got to do with anything. You do realise that it is accepted and recommended practice to hold the handlebars at the end?

Your post seems to be about other people's * perception* of mountain bikers. That they should change due to how other people perceived them.  Can we move the debate to something more concrete. What are the problems, actually problems, caused by more access and what are the benefits?

I'm not going to change my riding style because some random objects to me wearing kneepads and a helmet.

I think the problem here is that I do not think a Footpath is suitable place to partake in a pastime where one needs to wear protective gear due to the speeds you are travelling, when the other users, the pedestrians will not have the benefit of the protective gear. 

Also what you fail to appreciate is that my perception is my perception, and a fully padded up MTBer with arms out spread is intimidating to me as a walker and possibly others. But not to you because all your buddies are similarly dressed. 

I will leave this now, because its going nowhere.

Bikers do not wear protective gear to protect them against impacts with pedestrians ( as I'm sure you know).  They wear them to protect them against impacts with the ground, which happen frequently.  I refer you to my question above, how many times have you actually seen a mtber hit a pedestrian?

.

By the way, I do agree that bikers can look intimidating at times, and can understand concerns around this.  But feel we should distinguish between different severity of issues. People looking intimidating is a concern, but perhaps not a big enough one to prevent people from cycling in certain places.

Out of interest, do you think a Bridleway is a suitable place to partake?

You aren't really engaging with the point being made.  The fact is 100kg+ of bike and rider going fast has the potential to seriously hurt someone if they collide.  Mostly the risk is low but there are paths where it simply isn't sensible to mix cycling and pedestrians - we  call them footpaths.  

Totally agree.

totally agree

This is the bit I don't get.  There isn't that level of rationality behind it.  What is it that differentiates between footpaths and bridleways that makes one suitable and the other not?

( and please don't say "one's legal and the other isnt") 😆

I do think you are being rather obtuse. If you fall of frequently, that would suggest a lack of control, and would suggest you are not riding in a way suitable be with pedestrians.

Certainly, if riding as suggested by the Highway code, why ever not?

However if riding as you would at the Marin track, no.

Out of interest, what do you think about pedestrians starting to walk on the MTB trails at Marin, Stocks in Bowland, and Llandegla, do you think this would be a good plan. Would you be in favour of a petition supporting this.

There is one ride I often do near a friend's house. There is a steep, narrow descent that is a bridleway. This then changes to a footpath when you exit the woods and get on a flat surfaced farm track. I've always regarded the farmer as being a bit of an a*se for making us walk 400m to the road when he is around, but his view seems to have quite a bit of support. 

Possibly, he thinks you are a bit of an   a*se, for riding down his track, when you think he is not watching, and he has asked you not to, and has possibly even put up a sign to that effect.

Possibly, he is worried about one of his children being hit by a bike or his cat being run over.

Why do you ride down it, when he asked you not to?

But I don't wear the gear to protect me when I'm near pedestrians. I wear the gear to protect me on the faster/gnadgery bits that I do in between meeting pedestrians.  It's kinda obvious really. If I get to something difficult ( or where I want to go fast) and there's a pedestrian on it, I'll generally stop and wait.  If you would prefer that I remove my helmet, gloves and kneepads as well until they have gone past then .... erm  sorry no.

So you think it's OK on a Bridleway, but not a Footpath.  Back to my question, what is the material  difference?

Are you offering this in exchange for equal access elsewhere? If so then it sounds great, count me in.

But the track is wider, better surfaced and with better visibility than the tarmac road it leads onto, which then leads past the farmhouse and he hasn't got any kids. Not sure about a cat, but he does have dogs. They're a major issue themselves, but I don't think they know where the road stops and the footpath starts. 

Convience I suppose, to avoid pushing my bike along what is basically a flat road, used by lorries to access a quarry, for a few hundred metres 

Haven't a major issue with it. Never really understood why people skinned or showshoed up pistes, at busy times, but in terms of risk it seems pretty similar. 

So, when zipping down a narrow footpath from the Moorland through a woodland such as the Stubbins Estate, which is all twisty and gnarly, you know there will be no Pedestrians, obviously the bikers I see, are not as skilled as you. There are other places I should cite.

And they're also busy processing backlogs of applications and orders based on 'as of use' and historic source evidence. 

When you say " petition supporting this" can you clarify exactly what you mean?

Do you mean that the law ought to be changed to make it legal for people to walk on bike tracks?

Or that you want to start a petition just to express your support and brotherhood with people who decide to go for a ramble on a designated bike track.

Both seem utterly pointless, but fill yer boots.

Are you perchance a Politician, you do seem to like to dodge a question.

Are you saying that the MTB trails are a suitable place for pedestrians. Yes or no?

Awful idea being dragged up by the selfish and thoughtless.

Until you have exhausted very RoW that you are entitled to use and in different conditions and also many times why would you be so selfish? Use what you have first rather than damnd a whole lot more that you won't use. 

I have to assume that those who support this will also encourage support a repeal of that immoral legislation that down graded RUPPS to Restricted byways purely on the whim of the seflish few with no reagrd to legitimate and importantly local users. 

In fact I might suggest that the idea that this would encourage greater use is the best argument for not changing. All we get is more people using the RoW at the detriment to all. Has anyone ever seen a bit of nature improved by man. Nope!

As to the idea that the land owner should do more to maintain. Equally bad. Just why should they be forced to encourage people to come along and bugger up their property. Fair enough if they wish, maybe even encourage but to insist. Equally immoral. 

"I does seem sad that the Kinder Trespasser fought for access right of the common man, but then it turns out that it was only for 'their sort of common man' (walkers) and not for 'those others'. I'm sure that was not what they intended, but that's how the end result looks now. And their descendants now protect their exclusive access rights just as tenaciously as the aristocrats did all those years ago."

Don't let the RA hear you have anything negative about their sacred cow. However right you may be of course.

I haven't got a problem with letting the pedestrians decide. 

It’s not illegal to walk on bike tracks, but common sense and polite signage should hopefully make it very unlikely. I live next to Greno woods where I walk my dog and ride my mountain bike. After problems some years ago the bike riders, dog walkers and horse riders coexist peacefully. This is because all use the shared trails responsibly; the shared trails are only usually used by mountain bikers to ride (or more often push) their bikes to the top of the downhill runs.

The major issue which you choose to ignore in your posts would be if mountain bikers choose to descend steep and/or technical and narrow walkers’s paths and the risk of injury or forcing walkers off the path. There’s a good reason mountain bikers’ access to the Snowdon path is restricted by dates/times. Of course some riders are careful and respectful but many are not. This is why I believe the law should stay as it is 

It's not a reasonable argument, and that's the problem with it. It is a badly reasoned argument, and hence a poor one, based on a false premise and a logical fallacy. Even worse, it uses a comparison in order to, by dint of false association, exaggerate the perceived injustice it purports to address.

You may think it sounds like a reasonable argument, and that is because of two things. It imitates a standard form of a reasoned argument, hence it sounds to you like it ought to pass muster. The second thing is more problematic. It is in emotional support of your opinion, and so you've concluded that this is the same thing as it being a reasonable argument: in other words, you've made up your mind without caring whether the argument is valid and well-reasoned or not, and that rather undermines your whole position.

If in the future such proposals ever come to a point where they need to bear the scrutiny of the kind of independent body who might make an actual decision, the argument will need to be solid in order to persuade. An argument that persuades its own adherents but nobody else is no argument at all.

I don't think MTB'ing was big 90 years ago, and horses were for working with, not (leisure) riding on.

Have you considered that he's asked you not to ride so as to not cause the dogs to chase, as some do? In which case he would actually be quite thoughtful and doing his best to protect you from a bite, and his dogs from a problematic situation. 

Love this. The notion that the dog owner is protecting people from his out of control mutts by restricting what other people are allowed to do around them 😀

By the time you get to where the dogs are left, at times unsupervised, you are on a public road. 

It's basically part of a private tarmac road to a farm and quarry the useful bit is no where near any buildings and happens to be on a footpath, so they can't prevent access to the bridleway. So, as well asking to be chased by some unsupervised dog, I pose more of a risk to some imaginary kids playing, than quarry lorries using the road. 

I was working on the principle that being a farmer, and being working dogs it's neither the done thing or indeed even practical to have them 'under control' (on a lead/indoors) at all times. That's not to say I agree with it, or think that he shouldn't be liable for any problems that come his way.. but prevention is always better than the cure, and he's well within his rights to demand cyclists get off and push. Everyone wins.

The RA? Just point out that they were against it when it happened. Let the wrong sort of people out into the countryside, bunch of commies and the like rather than just allowing the more gentile classes some limited access.

Your question was,

Why do you ride down it, when he asked you not to?

My assumption is that you see yourself as fighting the battle for access, a bit like a modern Kinder Trespasser, but I suspect your a bit closer to being a Self Entitled lout, who will do what he wants, when he wants, and stuff anyone else.

But I could be wrong, I often am, so go on then,Why do you ride down it, when he asked you not to? 

Presumably he weighed up the pros and cons of the situation and came to an independent conclusion of what was the best action to take.  Just because someone tells someone else to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.  FFS I had the local Tory council candidate at the door the other day imploring me to vote Conservative.

The fact that I went against his wishes, does that make me a lout too?

If Johnny asked you to jump, sorry barrel off Tower Bridge, would you do it..... 

The number of times I have been chased by a farmer's working dog when on farmland: 0

The number of times I have been chased by another PRoW user's dog when on farmland: 5

Now this is getting funny, Rob answers for you, and you answer for Rob. 

What I have often observed is that people who take your approach, seem to get incredibly worked up when they same approach reciprocated.

Personally I am in favour of protest that is protest, such as organised trespass, and do feel that land access in England could be much improved, but I am not in favour of loutish anti social behaviour.
 

I shall be ordering this book https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Nick-Hayes/The-Trespassers-Companion/2638405... and possibly you and others may enjoy it.

That’s great whatabouttery but completely irrelevant. We know it’s farmland, and a farmer, and his dog. We were exploring potential reasons as to why said farmer was insistent on not cycling along his tarmac’d footpath. 

But for a laugh..

Times I’ve heard of dog attacks in our village by a residents dog: 1 (on another dog, not a human)

Times I’ve heard of dog attacks in surrounding farm land by farmers dogs: 2 (same dog to be fair.. but attacks were on humans not other dogs)

I didn't we got off and walked? 

To much of a coward, not wanting confrontation, for that

 30+ years ago and kayaking rather than cycling I seem to remember a multi millionaire landowner (I knew his son quite well) saying similar, so you might have a point. Would I jepordise a negotiated access agreement, no. 

I'll admit to doing 80mph on a quiet motorway, but slowing down to 70 if I see a camera/police car. I would suggest that a self entitled lout wouldnt accept a fine without a fuss 

Busted 😃

Apologies, I had not seen your previous reply, thats why I asked again, sorry to badger you.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/biking/petition_to_turn_all_prows_into_br...
 

Convience I suppose, to avoid pushing my bike along what is basically a flat road, used by lorries to access a quarry, for a few hundred metres 

As the 'suitability' of tracks and trails for cycling on keeps popping up, I'd be interested in people's thoughts on the following.

Bridleway and footpath status appears to have little to do with the 'suitability' of a physical track:

You get RoWs that cross a parish boundary and change from bridleway to footpath or vice versa with no change to the physical trail.

There are incredibly narrow and rocky bridleways and there are footpaths that double up as access roads or farm tracks. There are muddy and easily eroded bridleways and there are well-surfaced and durable footpaths.

You'll also find bridleways though SSSIs, footpaths beside busy roads. Bridleways in the trees where you can't see around the next bend and footpaths where you can see users coming a mile away.

If you're worried about wildlife, what disturbs nesting birds and the like more: a bike passing in seconds or a couple of dog walkers passing slowly, chatting away and with their dog rooting around in the bushes?

After that, you've got people who trip over walking down the pavement and you've got people who can ride bikes down stuff that's approaching a grade 1 scramble in complete control. Suitability in that case is a matter of perception.

Arguments about cyclists racing along, arms spread wide etc don't really hold water I don't think. People being inconsiderate are just that. It's probably obvious that I ride bikes and I've got to say that no cyclist I know does anything other than stop and give way to walkers and horseriders. The track makes no difference.

(I've got really long arms. Handy for reaching through cruxes, must make me look terrifying on a bike.)

Just curious as to people's thoughts about what makes a RoW suitable or unsuitable for cycling along really. 

Edit for another thought: busy trails can be an issue. But they aren't much fun for cyclists either - I tend to avoid them for example. They're also nothing to do with the track itself. If I want to ride a route I know gets busy, I tend to go very early or very late (snowdon in the summer being an example). If I do that, I meet virtually nobody so the track itself is of little relevance. 

Some walkers want unspoilt countryside looking as natural as possible, no matter how awkward it is to use.

Some walkers want smooth path surfaces and minimal stiles and gates to make paths more accessible for the very young, the very old, those with pushchairs or mobility scooters.

Some cyclists want steep, narrow, challenging paths.

Some cyclists want wider flatter paths for an easier stress free outing and/or if they've got young children with them or are just starting out on a bike.

Some horse riders want wide flat paths with good visibility and sightlines.

Some horse riders want access to anything that isn't a road with traffic on it.

It's a bit of a minefield.

Excellently put.

All of it.

Mainly width and line of sight.  If pedestrians a bikes can't pass safely or see each other coming, it makes sense to limit access to pedestrians.  I know in practice this designation isn't always in line with this sort of aim but mostly it is, and anomalies can be corrected (in either direction).

I've spent quite a lot of time researching bridleways all over England and Wales in a professional capacity and this isn't really the case.

RoW status has nothing to do with the width or sight-lines of a particular track. While some bridleways may once have been wider or straighter due to their use by horses they have often changed considerably since then. It's amazing how narrow and twisty some are.

The issue is a minority of users behaving irresponsibly, not the 'suitability' of the track. From a cycling point of view, if you can't see round a corner, slow down. Can't pass safely? Stop and wait. (Or, from as a walker's, if a cyclist approaches courteously from behind, let them past.)

Walkers, runners, climbers, cyclists etc all manage to share tracks all over Europe (and Scotland) with few issues. It's a peculiarity of England and Wales that we can't.

My initial post was probably bit ambiguous. The on being confronted by the farmer we got off and walked. If he had given a reason like my kids are playing or my dogs might chase you, I would have viewed him differently. It's not a trail local to me, but on the couple of other occasions I've used it we have ridden down because no one was there, if there had been, we would have walked. In hindsight probably shouldn't have mentioned that, as I was just trying to illustrate that the designation of a right of way often has no bearing on its suitability, which twoshoes has done far more eloquently. In this example you have basically the opposite of what MG describes above. A technical narrow descent with poor visibility that is a bridleway, you can also throw in that as its part of Offa's Dyke LDP you will get a lot of non locals who might not be aware it is used for biking. You then exit onto what is basically a private drive/quarry road obviously wide enough for lorries and with good visibility but the right of way along it is a footpath. 

Not very easily they can't due to a combination of unwieldy legislation and lack of resources for local councils

You missed out the number 1 reason: Motivation. Nobody with the capabilities to make those change actually wants to - probably for good reason. "Unwieldy legislation" and "lack of resources" are just excuses.

Many landowners and PROW Officers would like to be able to upgrade some FPs to BW and downgrade some BWs to FP to end up with a better path network that doesn't disadvantage anyone. It's relatively easy to do the former but harder to do the latter thanks to the legislation they have to work with. Hence an unwillingness to do one without the other to keep a balance, so little changes. How much appetite for changing PROW laws do you think there is within national government at this point in time?

On your second point, are you genuinely unaware of the cuts faced year on year by local councils since 2010? Many councils would have gone bust by now if they were private companies but they have to keep going. Countryside managers have to compete with bin collections, pothole filling, care of vulnerable children etc when they fight their corner for ever dwindling resources. Not many people think that messing about with the PROW network is more important than many other things local councils are obliged to do.

Zero.

Exactly. Pretty much everything local councils do is subject to "unwieldy legislation" and "lack of resources", so you can't use that as the justification for why something wasn't done. It's down to what the 'decision makers' choose - or choose not - to do. Don't get me wrong, I don't think councils are specifically deficient in not upgrading masses of footpaths to bridleways, I was just trying to get away from the laziness of blaming  "unwieldy legislation" and "lack of resources".

I think that local councils should be spending their time and money emptying dustbins, filling potholes and looking after vulnerable children in preference to making wholesale changes to the PROW network. I would love them to do all of those things but it simply isn't possible. Do you agree?

Given there is the law requiring they currently support the review of ancient rights sounds like the best solution would be to just take the same approach as was used when opening bridleways to cyclists and have the "no need to adjust" and open them all up.

Most cost effective way of meeting your think about the children requirement.

Lack of local authority funding and no end to cuts in sight means that local councils are well beyond the point of prioritising statutory duties over those things they are not obliged by law to do. It is more a case of which statutory duties can they get away with ignoring or paying lip service to without significant financial penalties and/or political consequences.

I said it earlier in the thread and had no response so I'll say it again. I'm quite taken aback that there has been little or nothing said here about the catastrophic cuts to public services over the past 12 years. I would love my taxes to fund proper support for walking and cycling and I don't hear anyone else here saying the same.

The "no need to adjust" part of the legislation that allowed cyclists to use bridleways was there so that local councils wouldn't be obliged to tarmac every rural bridleway once cyclists could use them. Off road cycling and mountain bikes weren't a thing in 1968 when that legislation came in. That approach simply wouldn't work in practice if every footpath now suddenly became available to cyclists, as has been discussed at length in this thread.

The Roughstuff Fellowship & others might want a word. Cyclists have been cycling off road since bikes were invented

Probably because its irrelevant and a diversion.

As Doug points out this is wrong.

Aside from it hasnt really has it. Its just had a bunch of "cyclists bad" statements. I mean to take just one example talking about blind corners that would mean a 2km bridleway near me would get closed because of one corner at one time of the year.

Well we'll just have to agree to differ on this point. Many pro access landowners and PROW Officers would like to be able to modernise the PROW network and it's not laziness or apathy that is stopping that from happening

Fair point. I was only trying to point out that the majority of cyclists in 1968 wanted tarmac but that isn't the case in 2022.

I wouldn't be in favour of closing such a Bridleway. But I would be in favour of closing one that is an unwalkable and unrideable swamp for most of the year as part of a deal to upgrade a nearby Footpath that can withstand year round use by all.

In your example there I wouldn't be allowed to ride your 'unrideable swamp' in a bone dry summer or when it's frozen solid and perfectly appropriate to use. And, as has happened near me repeatedly, a fell race could be sent down it at any point and cause more permanent damage in one wet day than years of walking and biking ever have. 

It's about responsible use, not blanket bans. 

I'm only in favour of downgrading "unrideable swamps" if nearby suitable footpaths can be upgraded at the same time

Actually, I'd say the *majority* still want tarmac.

It's certainly an issue in the context of this discussion that MTBers, commuting cyclists, and weekend family cycling enthusiasts all want slightly different things

Whereas I'd be in favour of increased access for all and some increased discussion of the environment to go with it. 

As an (related) aside, and not really in response to you, there are several biking groups working with national parks and wildlife trusts to provide volunteers for maintenance work on various rights of way about the country, and also cycling-led initiatives like Trash Free Trails doing a lot of work on litter picking, including talking to companies whose litter they most often encounter. Hardly the actions of a group of louts who don't care about the countryside. 

It's a minor issue at best. There are tracks around to suit everybody. And there would be even more if cycling was legally allowed on footpaths.  

I'm a massive fan of Ride Sheffield and what they do around here