A statement of intent.
The current access situation is stupid. The current system of bridleways and footpaths is outdated – which is hardly surprising as it was developed and chosen in the post war period by parish councillors with vested interests.
Here at Singletrack we think that there should be no distinction between any non motorised form of transport, be it horse, walker or cyclist. We want to see Scottish style access across the rest of Britain. This doesn’t mean we want expensive changes to be made to enable easier access to what would previously have been called footpaths – we simply want access to these to be legal. There are miles of ‘footpath’ across moors where there are no stiles to impede riders or horses. Where stiles exist then riders can simply lift their bikes over. We don’t want costly changes to be made to ‘facilitate’ access. We can manage just fine at the moment, as most riders who have ever been tempted onto cheeky trails will attest.
Enlightened countries such as Sweden and Scotland simply have access to land – we have a piecemeal system where outdated decisions on land use still limit us to where we can ride. We must decide what future we want for ourselves and fight to achieve it.
There are many people that share the opinion that the Rights of Way network should be opened up and that the default status for every path should be access for all with local exceptions made for trails unsuitable due to ground conditions, rare habitats/species or volume of traffic. We understand we’re preaching to the converted but we’re also fully aware also that the outcome we want is unlikely to happen in the short term.
Latest Singletrack Merch
Buying and wearing our sustainable merch is another great way to support Singletrack
In a country struggling out of a recession and hampered by cutbacks to infrastructure and the bureaucracy that oversees it, we don’t expect these changes in legislation to be made – however much we believe in the rightness of them. Laws are too costly to be changed and, as many people we have spoken to have said, there is not enough political will to produce Scottish style access across Britain.
This doesn’t mean we are helpless. The coalition government has started to put an emphasis on it’s ‘Big Society’ approach. The cynical might say this is a way of stepping back from their responsibilities, cutting money and support to quasi-governmental organisations that were previously fighting for access and in their place leaving a void they hope will be filled by private individuals. Regardless of how people may feel about that, the fact that Coalition government is inviting greater participation from the general public could be a great opportunity for mountain bikers to resolve access issues on a local level. This might be the best opportunity we’ve got to get things moving.
Natural England is the body that, amongst other things, has a responsibility to “promote access, recreation and public well-being for the benefit of today’s and future generations”. It’s their duty to look after rights of way and access issues. Sadly, the government cuts have meant they’ve had to take a 5% drop in funding this year alone which translates into a 30% drop in staff. Back in July a Department for Rural Affairs spokesman told the BBC that:
“It will be up to each individual organisation to revise their plans to reflect this reduced funding, but we expect them to protect front-line services as much as they can by first looking for efficiency savings or reducing back office costs.”
So how do they plan to make ‘efficiency savings’? Well, along with the ominous sounding ‘reducing back office costs’, we’ve seen a document that outlines their plans to transfer some of their access related work to the civil organisations and local communities. While they still have to fulfil their statutory duties under current legislation they are starting to explore ways in which interested parties in the community can help.
This means that anyone interested will be able to heavily influence their local access issues. The worst case scenario is that an access land grab will follow – and better organised groups of users will be able to exert their influence more effectively and get the outcomes they desire. Of all the outdoors users, mountain bikers are without doubt the worst organised and if this continues we are bound to come out this situation poorly.
So now is our opportunity to get involved, it’s time to represent mountain biking via local access forums and start to campaign for what we want.
So how do we move forward on this?
The CTC has real political lobbying clout and is the organisation that is in a position to take the lead and push this issue forwards. They have experience in campaigning and they have seasoned campaigners just waiting to support local groups who want to get involved. We’ll be hearing from them soon and we’ll be following up this with interviews with local campaigners, access groups and anyone else that wants their say.
We want to hear your suggestions and ideas, what problems you’ve run into and the positive solutions you’ve found to make things happen on a local level. Get in touch with us at access@singletrackworld.com. We need you to get involved.
Myself and a lot of people i know sent letters to our MPs, the responce showed, more than anything, an utter lack of understanding from the government department involved. Anyone writing to their MP may want to look at their responces so they can counter the existing arguments, such as they are.
http://thisispanda.co.uk/~johnny/letters/
One friend got a reply from his MP who said he’d look into, but, he could forsee a cyclist might run into a problem when they reached a style, Which just shows how little those in charge understand about mountain biking, bikes (they come off the ground with an upwards lifting force), and rural access. But on the flip side if that was the only problem he had with it…
I think as well as supporting groups like the ST effort, the CTC individuals need to prove there is a need for reform.
The letters on the link above also give the details of the Minister we need to nobble… I would suggest more letters/emails…
We’ve been trying to get Access laws changed for canoeists for years
Good Luck!
Kudos to the magazine for banging the drum on this. Well done.
For the time being, just get out and ride the ‘cheeky trails’.
In my experience as long as you slow down and are polite when you meet other people there it’s usually smiles all round. Don’t get wound up or try to argue when you do meet a grumpy, just ignore them.
Excellent idea. Good luck. I wonder if using the term ‘cyclists’ rather than ‘mountain bikers’ is less threatening to the ramblers. And stiles are good – they help keep the motorised bikes out
Great idea, good luck.
What is really needed is to get the “opposition” on side. What does the ramblers association think about the issue?
If you could get them to fight the cause, then I would think there is a fair chance of swift success. Thought swift in these things is still usually measured in decades.
Without them (or some other similar body) I can’t see it happening. It would just be an us vs them, and effectively we’d cancel eachother out.
IMHO.
good point ‘hiker – there are benefits to ‘ramblers’/everyone from increasing/changing cycling access laws.
cyclists would be less concentrated on just a few trails, and there’d be fewer conflicts as a result.
etc.
yes, for this to work we need to convince the ramblers of the benefits it offers them.
Having thought about it a bit more, Sustrans may well be worth talking too. They’re likely to be pro this and are hellish good at campaigning.
Good on you.
Given your aims, it would also be helpful to approach the British Horse Society. They campaign to improve access to bridleways for horses. It would have to be clear that the responsibilities for maintaining access for bridleways are kept but footpaths don’t suddenly need horse-navigable gates. They could be a good ally particularly if all 3 user groups (foot, bike, horse) could agree on a positions of increasing access.
I’m all for this. A properly done campaign could work out for all of us.
I do like the rambler angle as UrbanHiker suggests.
In fact, I think I want to get involved in this. I’m going to talk to some of my council contacts, see if I can get my foot in the door.
I’m not sure why The Ramblers would support The Cyclists in gaining access to the routes they alone enjoy. But I support this initiative. Is there a standard form of words? Who should I mail-bomb it to?
Do you want more cheeky pix ? I got millions 😉
this is all very nice, and I know as the publishers of a national magazine you have to be “responsible”, but it’s all a bit slow isn’t it? I mean this will take generations to resolve. I thought cyclists were a militant bunch – what’s wrong with a bit of direct action?
There is enough ambiguity in the right of way on rural footpaths where cycling is not specifically prohibited, and mass trespass is a proven method for establishing precedent and forcing a change in the interpretation of the law. What about a few hundred mountain bikers turn up at a pre-arranged time and ride along a rural footpath and challenge the authorities to do something about it (or accept it for what it is)?
Well a few hundred mountain bikers all on the same trail at once should cause enough damage to make somebody’s case!
Before I die I’d like to ride the Ashdown Forest legally so let’s get moving folks.
Brilliant by the way…..brilliant….love it
I am sure you have responsible intentions but your article smacks too much of ‘me, me, me’ and does not even attempt to appreciate why the current system may be good enough. The population density of Scotland and Sweden is hardly comparable to England. Re-classification of certain FPs to BWs may make more sense than a blanket change. Enough MTBers still tear down BWs scattering walkers to suggest that walkers need some safe havens from bikes. Lots of FPs are relatively unspoit (singletrack!) and they would be trashed by the extra traffic from bikes and horses. The environment must come ahead of any one group’s selfish interests.
Actually I expect you will win the day eventually but it still doesn’t seem quite as great as you describe.
Hh45 is assuming is that every “cyclist” will immediately dive down the nearest footpath abandoning the current byways.
By opening up the ROW system you will actually dilute the users (person/mile) and actually reduce the opportunities for conflict.
I accept there are one or two that may suffer slightly however many footpaths that would benefit from some additional traffic in the summer to help keep them clear of foliage.
I do concede there are probably some paths in the national parks that would need some form of (voluntary??) regulation (Just like Snowdon does currently)
But then I think lot of cyclists would actively avoid these hiking honey spots during peak hours as, lets face it, who wants to ride the best downhill in the lakes at 2mph behind a procession of day trippers from Birkenhead.
Re The Ramblers. I used to be a member about 15 years ago as I thought they did more for access in the UK than any other organisation. I left when I realised that they wanted access for those on foot even – and sometimes especially – if it was to the detriment of other outdoor users. Good luck getting them on side, perhaps they might see sense these days.
Re direct action: I am not a lawyer, but the law as I understand it is pretty much as follows, please leap in and correct me if I’m wrong:
1) If you’re using a bike on a footpath – or indeed anywhere else on someone’s land where you don’t have legal access – you are committing trespass. This is a civil offence, not a criminal one.
2) It’s a matter between you and the landowner, so if anyone other than the landowner, their representative or perhaps a police officer approaches you about the matter, it’s basically none of their business.
3) If you are on someone’s land, you can be asked to leave the land by the shortest practical route, and if you don’t, you are then trespassing.
4) As it’s a civil offence, you may be sued for damages as a result of your trespass, but you will not incur a criminal record unless you fail to pay any damages awarded against you. What material damages could realistically be awarded against you, I am at a loss to anticipate; the effects of erosion perhaps? It is however very possible that if intenational trespass could be proved, then punitive damages and legal costs might be awarded against you, since the landowner has a right in law to keep you out and can claim they were ‘injured’ by your trespass (see e.g. here: http://bit.ly/hGpOTn ). That said, intent would have to be proved, and they’d have to have some way of identifying you in order to bring a case.
More here: http://bit.ly/i2IVHw
Cheeky trails are great however not all are safe for use (i.e. detrimental to other users). The sad thing is the more technical it is the more mountain bikers want to ride them… walkers should have places to walk where they don’t have to fear for their safety on tight steps etc because of middled-aged men thinking they are 15 again.
Sorry.