You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I live in Scotland but would also like the same type of access laws in the rest of the UK even though I don't ride there often.
The amount of private and no access signs when I was Cornwall recently was a real eye opener and quite unsettling.
Don't know much about the ramblers association so can't add much other than "my enemies enemy is my friend" means to an end and all that.
I pointed out on here some years ago that MTB was the next target for the Ramblers, they have successfully lobbied for the removal of vehicular rights on most byways.
They dont like Mountain Bikes and the rise of the electric MTB had galvanised them.
They are well organised, well established and politically well supported.
They will erode your access.
*englandshire
“The Ramblers’ opposes proposals for cycling to be allowed as a matter of course on footpaths in England. While we will work with other user groups to improve the path network for the benefit of all, we will resist changes which are detrimental to the interests of walkers. Changing the status of a footpath or footway to bridleway or cycle track must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with decisions based on an objective consideration of a range of factors.”
From Open mtb - England has about 146,000km of footpath, 32,000km of bridleway, 6,000km of restricted byway and 3,700km of byways open to all traffic. Footpaths therefore form about 78% of the Right of Way network, with only the remaining 22% open to bikes (and horses).
So ramblers get 100% plus ‘track’ access whilst bikes are limited to about 22% ‘track’ access (bridleways, restricted byway and byways), isn’t sharing nice.
*100% plus, in englandshire you can walk on all path types plus you have walking access on open access land which you can’t cycle on.
They will erode your access.
NOt in Scotland. this is about access in Scotland and there is no conflict between ramblers and cyclists in Scotland.
But it's asking for donations to the Ramblers association who are anti-cycling in England/Wales. You can't uncouple the two
Yes you can. Its perfectly right that the ramblers should be taking this case on and that the cycling folk support them - because its nothing to do with what is happening in England. Numerous scots based posters have explained this.
But there's no separate money 'just' for Scotland. The money the Ramblers raise in Scotland goes into their single funding pot which is [partly] used to restrict access in Wales and England for cyclists
The Chief Executive of the Ramblers is paid north of £120K, I hope they've made a sizable contribution.
Its like saying you shouldn't support the labour party in England because Scottish labour do deals with the tories in Scotland.
This has been explained to you by scots posters. Perhaps you could listen and try to understand?
TJ if this case was south of the border, the Ramblers wouldn't be fighting for access for cyclists, they be doing a deal with the owners that preserves the rights of walkers above those of MTB'er. They've done it before. Ramblers in Scotland work inside the legislation that they've got, and they do the same in England and Wales, and where I live they actively campaign to restrict my access.
This has been explained to you by many poster in Wales and England, perhaps you should listen and try to understand?
Somebody used the word "parochialism" on the previous page. I think that's cutting both ways. If I lived in England and had no intention of ever going to Scotland to take advantage of the more relaxed access laws then I might also be questioning why I'd support the RA on this, especially as I've no idea if there is a separate financial pot for this action. As I've already said on this thread, I'll similarly not be supporting any pro-access campaign for English access as I don't have a personal interest in it.
Its not south of the border tho is it.
I do understand your position in England but that is irrelevant to this case. Fortunatly those who are involved and live here understand.
Its like saying you shouldn’t support the labour party in England because Scottish labour do deals with the tories in Scotland.
It's more like saying you should vote Tory for your local MP because a Scottish Tory member was doing something good for a change.
It's great what you have in Scotland but you're asking English riders to support a group that might improve matters in Scotland but would actively harm our interests in England. I'm not sure shooting yourself in the foot to secure access for somewhere you might never ever visit is such a great move.
but that is irrelevant to this case.
No, it isn't, because the Ramblers don't have separate money for different countries, it's just one big pot. If you're an MTB'er living in Scotland and give Ramblers money, you are directly helping to restrict access in England and Wales.
Please, please can we have some comments from Wales here. We need to try to break the England/Scotland parochialism deadlock and I think that a Welsh perspective would be really valuable.
cycling folk support them – because its nothing to do with what is happening in England. Numerous scots based posters have explained this.
No, numerous Scots based posters just keep reiterating their 'I'm alright, jack' position.
**
Give us your support and we'll make the trains run on time.....
" Sounds great, where do i put my X?
"Whoa fella - before you do, are you aware they want to round up the disabled, jewish, gypsies.... and put them in forced labour and extermination camps?"
"Yep. But I'm none of those and a decent train service would be very good for me. The rest doesn't affect me, so why should I care what they'll do to others given the chance"
If you’re an MTB’er living in Scotland and give Ramblers money, you are directly helping to restrict access in England and Wales.
Exactly. But that doesn't matter, it seems because 'it's not Scotland so we don't care', in fact I'm detecting an additional 'it's England so we care even less' vibe from some posters 🙄 Despite also being a hillwalker, I won't give the RA the steam off my s**t until they stop actively campaigning against improved cycling access, wherever in these islands they are doing it.
Please, please can we have some comments from Wales here. We need to try to break the England/Scotland parochialism deadlock and I think that a Welsh perspective would be really valuable.
I can't claim to be Welsh but live in the Marches close to the border and ride extensively in Wales. There is anger that during the consultation process to allow cycling on footpaths in Wales the RA actively campaigned to prevent it.
Its because the English posters fail to understand scots law and the reality of access in Scotland. The last two posts show clearly the lack of comprehension.
God knows if that ghastly URL will parse or not but the 10 year 2016-2026 vision document for Ramblers Cymru mentions "Cycle" once in the context of saying walking is 10x as popular as cycling and more inclusive. The words "bike" and "share" don't appear so it's not a giant leap of imagination to assume they couldn't care less either about improving cyclists access in Wales.
A predicable TJ insult. Even with my thicko poor comprehension, I wouldn't throw cyclists in other parts of the UK under a bus because it doesn't affect me locally. Some it seems have no qualms about doing just that.
Where is the insult? Its clear that you do not understand what is happening north of the border and no one is "throwing cyclists in England under a bus"
What we are doing is working with our partners to preserve scots access.
Its because the English posters fail to understand scots law and the reality of access in Scotland.
It isn't about Scots law though, it's about the charity that have taken on the court case. I will heap money on a charity helping to broaden access rights where ever they live England, Wales or Scotland. I won't though, give money to a charity that's fighting for access rights in Scotland that at the same time is doing it's damndest to restrict rights where I live.
I don't think that's a difficult position to understand really.
The irony of accusing someone of not understanding the realities of access in another country while simultaneously doing exactly that is off the bleeding charts! 🤣
Let's see if I understand then, having been accused of lack of comprehension;
Scottish landowner wants to restrict access to their land
This is against the law because Scotland has very permissive access laws that need protecting.
People want to support and fund the legal challenge. A very laudable act, one I can get behind.
The RA has set up a fund for the purpose.
The RA is a pan UK organisation that represents the rights of walkers.
The RA has an active anti-cycling stance in E/W, lobbying to not allow further access to footpaths.
By funding the RA, you fund the whole of the RA.
- what other bits have I missed?
Understanding of scots law and how cases like this are fought.
Understanding of the context
Understanding of co operation between pro access bodies
What we are doing is working with our partners to preserve scots access.
while the very same partner actively campaigns against your neighbour's access.
No-one's arguing about what you're trying to achieve / protect; it's your choice of partner.
The RA has set up a fund for the purpose.
I don't think that's the case. From the original link...
Your donation will help us protect access rights for the people of Scotland, and our work to open up access to everyone, everywhere across Great Britain.
A separate fund for this action isn't mentioned. That might be influencing a few posters on here.
In fact, find me another means to support and I will, just to show good faith. Anyone, even if they have a neutral / "not our fight, sorry" stance to access rights in E/W
I can support fighting to maintain your access even if it doesn't affect me, I stick up for my neighbours. But I can't do that thru' an organisation that has a stated aim to reduce mine.
Thanks johnnystorm and blokeuptheroad
Do you, and others with a Welsh angle, advocate providing funds as requested by the OP?
Your donation will help us protect access rights for the people of Scotland, and our work to open up access to everyone, everywhere across Great Britain.
Read the small print.
* Except cyclists in E/W. They can go **** themselves
TJ, I understand that Scot's law needs defending and protecting, I absolutely get that. No argument here. My complaint is that the group that have taken on the case are raising funds that they've specifically said is going to their broader funding pot, which they will use in England and Wales where they will go to court in order to do the opposite to what they are doing in this case.
I would wholeheartedly support the RA if they said "You know what? Shared access [like they have in Scotland] works really well, we'll campaign the same thing in England and Wales. But only have they never thought that, they've in fact said and done the opposite.
.
I think Scotroutes has hit the nail in the head. If it was a seperate fund for this particular case I don't think anyone would take issue. As it stands it's not so the money is as likely to go towards restricting access for others.
I have previously commented to the contrary but that being the case it's not an action I would support now. I don't think they really need the money anyway so I don't see the issue with not giving them any.
What you don't understand Nickc is how the law works and the practicalities of defending it
So explain it, and specifically why we should fund the RA to do it and not someone else?
If there's a real reason to that it would help if you could spell it out, rather than just saying it's lack of comprehension?
Explain it to me then?
EDIT: beaten to it by theotherjohnV, rather than tell us that we don't understand, help us to understand why we should give money to the RA here.
Whilst the Ramblers may be doing the right thing in this case. Many of us in Wales would not contribute cash to the organisation regardless of how good the individual cause it because they do more harm than good in the access debate in Wales. I say that as someone who enjoys walking as much as cycling and gets the fact the there can be some conflicts of interest. The Ramblers do good work for walkers here… but it is overshadowed by the position they take on cycling.
I get the importance of the Ardnamurchan case but I wouldn’t want to contribute to strengthen an organisation that works to resist access reform elsewhere.
coming back to @scotroutes
The RA has set up a fund for the purpose.
I don’t think that’s the case. From the original link…
The original link takes you to a netdonor page that is branded up as Ramblers Scotland and makes no mention of RS being part of the RA (or Ramblers as they are now called), and in fact elsewhere on that page says
But we won't succeed without the support of people like you. If you can, please help us by making a one-off donation today. Your support could help this case and other Scottish legal work.
which might just be bad wording or may be actually disingenuous unless this funding is actually ringfenced for this work alone.
Yeah, I think it's all a bit unclear.
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/rights-of-way/shared-use-routes.aspx/a >
Our position
The Ramblers’ opposes proposals for cycling to be allowed as a matter of course on footpaths in England. While we will work with other user groups to improve the path network for the benefit of all, we will resist changes which are detrimental to the interests of walkers. Changing the status of a footpath or footway to bridleway or cycle track must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with decisions based on an objective consideration of a range of factors.
Why would any cyclist provide funding for an organisation that has this as a clear policy and goal?
Why would a shared path be detrimental to walkers? Unless you are a typical Daily Heil and Express readers who hates cyclists who don't have insurance or pay road tax, why would you think that?
and @nickc on the other foot
the group that have taken on the case are raising funds that they’ve specifically said is going to their broader funding pot,
Unless I've missed in the past 120 messages is that actually said?
I mean, doesn't materially change my position, whether it's funding the broader policy re cycling in E/W or just by building a Scottish pot that frees up more funding for the E/W issue the effect is the same, and it's one of alignment as well.
But would be good that both sides of this debate are clear on where these funds are actually going
Thats about England not Scotland
But would be good that both sides of this debate are clear on where these funds are actually going
Indeed. These funds are going to fund a legal case in Scotland under Scots law about a Scottish access case.
Thats about England not Scotland
And Wales.
Indeed. These funds are going to fund a legal case in Scotland under Scots law about a Scottish access case.
Aside from if you read what they say it doesnt actually state that. The closest it gets is "Your support could help this case and other Scottish legal work. "
Note "could" not will.
So given their dislike of cyclists it would be nuts for anyone who cares about the UK as a whole to donate to them.
Thats about England not Scotland
Its the same organisation! Therefore, unless the money is specifically shown to be split into a seperate pot, the funds raised for this court case is aiding the anti shared paths stance in E&W. How are you not understanding this? Or do you just not care, because englandshire....
Unless you are a typical Daily Heil and Express readers who hates cyclists who don’t have insurance or pay road tax, why would you think that?
The Ramblers have always been that sort of organisation. You wouldnt know it from their celebration nowadays of the Kinder trespass but at the time they were heavily opposed to it.
These funds are going to fund a legal case in Scotland under Scots law about a Scottish access case.
But it doesn't say that, it says you donation will help Scottish access, and then goes on to say that they will use the money to broaden access throughout the whole of Great Britain. Their stated position outside Scotland is to campaign to restrict the rights of cyclists. Here, this is what they say about any donations they receive
We need your help to deliver a clear message that the people of Scotland know their rights - and that they are worth fighting for.
Your donation will help us protect access rights for the people of Scotland, and our work to open up access to everyone, everywhere across Great Britain
You still haven't explained what either @theotherjohnv or I don't understand about it though. I'd welcome that.
the funds raised for this court case is aiding the anti shared paths stance in E&W
How can it be when its
These funds are going to fund a legal case in Scotland under Scots law about a Scottish access case.
Or are you suggesting we should take money from the ramblers in Scotland by making them fund a case that is to our benefit without any help from us?
What is happening in England is irrelevant to this case.
you really think Ramblers should be funding this case on their own without our help even tho we benefit?
You still haven’t explained what either @theotherjohnv or I don’t understand about it though. I’d welcome that.
No you don't. You just want to pick fights in your usual manner.
A lot of it has been explained in earlier posts and you just deny, insult and argue that black is white
our work to open up access to everyone, everywhere across Great Britain
Even that bit is misleading.
You just want to pick fights in your usual manner.
You said on another thread, "I'm not fighting, I'm just disagreeing with you" Extend me the same courtesy that you you give yourself.
argue that black is white
I think the fact that is very NOT B&W is the problem here.
If the funds for this court case are shown to be seperate from general Ramblers.org funds then, as other have already stated, thats fine. But, if these funds are going into a shared pot, any one that donates is actively supporting their stance on open access in E&W.
Thats about England not Scotland
So what?
If they had separate organisations for Scotland and England then I might understand your position.
The actively campaign to restrict cycling in the UK.
If they could remove cyclists from the land in Scotland they would.
TJ - let's suppose the fundraising is massively successful and they raise £1M. They spend half of that on the Ardnamurchan case. What happens to the rest? There's a clue on the appeal page.
If they could remove cyclists from the land in Scotland they would.
Nah. Not in my experience. Most of the Ramblers I know are cyclists too.
Nah. Not in my experience. Most of the Ramblers I know are cyclists too.
And this is the problem the way I see it. @scotroutes is probably right and they wouldn't activley try and force cyclist off the land/paths in Sctoland, unfortunatley the info on the Ramblers.org site is all encompassing. So even if the Scottish arm has different views they fall under the E&W stance as they cannot come out and actively support one set of rules as it shits all over their stance south of the border.
Really, we (E&W cyclists), should try and get someone from Scotland Ramblers to state that they support open access for all of Great Britain, as it is in Scotland cos that works, then jump all over it and get it on massive posters or something....
Some posters might be being argumentative but I'd hope you'd give me a bit more courtesy. I asked a very civil question and you're swatting me away. What is so specific about Scottish law and this case that means it has to be the RA?
The situation of what is being funded is unclear, but if your assertion that it's going to fund a legal case in Scotland about a Scottish access is right, can you cite that. Because the coulds, and the "Your donation will help us protect access rights for the people of Scotland, and our work to open up access to everyone, everywhere across Great Britain" bit on the netdonor page is not making me think that?
And even then
If the funds for this court case are shown to be seperate from general Ramblers.org funds then, as other have already stated, thats fine. But, if these funds are going into a shared pot, any one that donates is actively supporting their stance on open access in E&W
I'm not sold on that - even if vs Scotroutes has said there is NO excess, then anything they got towards this has freed up other funding which may then be used to support their stance against access in E/W.
you really think Ramblers should be funding this case on their own without our help even tho we benefit?
Happy to support, just not through an Org that is actively looking to restrict my rights.
My understating is Ramblers Scotland is supporting The Highland Council's action, or at least "sitting on their side of the table" against the landowner.
My concern is if the action against this landowner in this case is unsuccessful or cannot continue due to lack of funding, then the consequences for access across Scotland for all recreational users could be grave. It would basically give the green light to any unconscionable landowners to restrict access.
If you ride off-road in Scotland I would recommend you donate to help the legal action. If you don't, then don't.
Can you donate to the Highland Council instead of via the Ramblers? That would seem to be a better suggestion, as a cyclist I'd like to cut the RA out of it?
That's the gist of the argument, not whether fighting the action is right. Or are there special circumstances we don't understand that mean you have to go through the RA route?
What we are doing is working with our partners to preserve scots access.
And in so doing supporting an organisation who are actively campaigning to deny those very same access rights to many of us on this forum. And yet you can't understand why we are a bit prickly about it? I support the Ardnamurchan case even though it doesn't affect me directly. I would even chip a few quid in as long as it's not going to the Ramblers, because they are a direct threat to mountain biking in England and Wales. We get that you don't care about that, but maybe other Scottish forum members are a bit more empathetic to mtbers outside their own back yard.
We get that you don’t care about that, but maybe other Scottish forum members are a bit more empathetic to mtbers outside their own back yard
I'm very empathetic to the issues south of the border. What we are trying to avoid in Scotland in this case is a reversal of our hard-won access rights that many people and organisations campaigned for. I will happily contribute to a campaign to improve access rides for mtbers in E & W. In fact I maybe do already through Cycling UK?
I’m very empathetic to the issues south of the border. What we are trying to avoid in Scotland in this case is a reversal of our hard-won access rights that many people and organisations campaigned for.
I get that, it's an important issue that is well worth fighting for. As others have said, it's not the cause but the dubious credentials of one of your fellow travellers. Would you really feel comfortable giving financial support to Ramblers over this, knowing their anti-cycling access stance in E/W? Especially as it isn't clear from the link in the OP that donations are completely ring fenced for the Ardnamurchan case?
I will happily contribute to a campaign to improve access rides for mtbers in E & W. In fact I maybe do already through Cycling UK?
👍
Got visions of the Ramblers and Cycle UK locked in battle over southern access rights.... both of them being supported financially by pistola
( and indeed various others, which essentially demonstrates the conflict in most people's minds on this)
Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
What we are trying to avoid in Scotland in this case is a reversal of our hard-won access rights
So the question remains;
How does the Scottish Ramblers ringfence Scottish cyclist's money so that it's not used for anti-off road cycling campaigning in the rest of the UK?
JohnV
sorry dude. Not meant to be rude to you. I'm not getting involved any more due to behaviour of other posters.
Really, we (E&W cyclists), should try and get someone from Scotland Ramblers to state that they support open access for all of Great Britain, as it is in Scotland cos that works, then jump all over it and get it on massive posters or something….
Agreed. All of this is very sad, as walkers and off road cyclists should be natural allies in the fight for improved access across the whole of the UK. I suspect that a majority of us on this forum have a foot (and tyre) in both camps. Very few people are solely walkers, or solely mountain bikers. We have mutual concerns and we all stand to benefit from working together, so it is especially galling that an organisation like RA have torpedoed cooperation and created division amongst natural bedfellows because they feel their preferred flavour of countryside recreation trumps that of others.
The bobble hatted ** can go * themselves...
so it is especially galling that an organisation like RA have torpedoed cooperation and created division
And in this case misled cyclists in Scotland into supporting them with (probably) deliberately wooly wording on their campaign materials. In the knowledge that they will use funds given to them in the rest of the UK in a way that they cannot in Scotland, and indeed would likely as not be unsupported by those donating to this campaign, however worthy
Re Wales
“Question 8: How could current legislation be changed to make it easier to allow for a wider range of activities on existing and new paths?
Great care must be taken when considering allowing a wider range of activities on new and existing paths. We recognise that both walkers and cyclists can often benefit from infrastructure enhancements and that there are public benefits to promoting cycling generally. However, we could not support a blanket approach to the upgrading of rights on all paths. We believe a blanket reclassification to allow higher rights would result in fewer people accessing the countryside.”
*2015, but it’s still on their site.
you want England to follow with better access laws then you might just find that in this case that are.
They're anti even the idea of allowing cycling on footpaths let alone broader Scottish style access by bike.
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/rights-of-way/shared-use-routes.aspxblockquote >The Ramblers’ opposes proposals for cycling to be allowed as a matter of course on footpaths in England.
[Edit] realised I was replying at the bottom of a previous page not the last one. Even if the argument is still going in the same circle.
Are those who are suggesting the funding from Scotland is being funnelled to England? How much short are they for the fees in Scotland? Would they prefer it was funded to that level so the money covered just that amount?
But, as someone has already pointed out, that simply means freeing up their existing funds for anti-cycling action in E&W.
The Ramblers want all other users banned from green routes. May not be in their policy documents, however history tells us otherwise.
Sonce Alan Kind retired from the Byeways and Bridleways Trust as rights of way officer they have lost their effectiveness.
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland, not fund them at all so they spend significant sums partly on our behalf and thus bleed them of funding so they have less to spend elsewhere?
The Ramblers want all other users banned from green routes
Not in Scotland
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland, not fund them at all so they spend significant sums partly on our behalf and thus bleed them of funding so they have less to spend elsewhere?
Yes, when the alternative is to free up funds to be used to actively campaign against cycle access outside Scotland.
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland, not fund them at all so they spend significant sums partly on our behalf and thus bleed them of funding so they have less to spend elsewhere?
I thought you had flounced?
You still don't get it?
The Ramblers are an actively anti-cycling organisation. Even if a lot of their membership are also cyclists, their stated policy, from their board of trustees, is to oppose shared use of off road trails. They paint a picture of the lyrca clad hooligans who ride through red lights and have no insurance.
**** them.
Not fighting (just disagreeing)
technically the RA aren't "fighting our corner" Highland Council are. RA just asked to join an already existing case, so that they could question witnesses. I'd further add that RA are doing this because two walkers (members of Ramblers) were accused of aggravated trespass. It's that battle they're fighting, cyclists will get access on the back of it because of a peculiarity of Scots Law, not because of anything Scottish Ramblers are actively doing.
Are you really suggesting that we should let ramblers fight our corner in Scotland
Yes, they don't support me, why should I give them money? The Law in Scotland means that they cannot run the same sorts of anti-cycling campaigns they do in England and Wales. If Scotland is so successful, [which it clearly is, south of the border we're jealous] then why haven't the Ramblers changed their stance in the rest of the UK? Until they do, it's not really surprising that many off-road cyclists are weary about giving them money.
The wording on the funding literature is (probably deliberately) designed to invite one to make the assumption that you are contributing to this case. There is no evidence that Ramblers are doing that. let alone having separate funding for their activates in Wales, England and Scotland.
So still the question
How will Ramblers Scotland ensure that funds given to them by cyclist in Scotland remain sperate from the anti-cycling campaigning in the rest of the UK?
Not in Scotland
As you've repeated, over and over. The Scottish ramblers are the same organisation as the English and Welsh Ramblers. Same funding, same bank accounts, no ring fencing of money raised in one part of the UK to be spent there. So if you support or fund them in Scotland, you are indirectly funding their anti cycling campaigning in England and Wales. If you are (as it seems) content with this, then I can't fault your honesty in admitting it, though I find nothing else admirable in that stance on a UK cycling forum. It feels like you are flicking the Vs to cyclists south of the border over and over, improving their access isn't important, you'll happily support a group which will block it because... 'not in Scotland'.