More Bridleways - ePetition
Comments
-
Read it again you will see a double negative - he actually agrees with me...bails87 wrote:mat-ster: Calling someone who disagrees with you a 'knob head' is 'words of wisdom'......? :roll:
who said anything about having to "build" - lots can simply be redesignated. Example - a packhorse trail officially designated as a "footpath" it has never been a footpath...!bails87 wrote:Where will these bridleways be built? And by who?
Please I beg of you, give this ePetition a chance - sure it's a long shot but would you not benefit from having legal access to the country side...bails87 wrote:Ibbo: That stuff looks brilliant. But why not allow MTBers to use the hundreds of miles of similar footpaths? There isn't going to be 70,000 miles of new bridleway that looks like that, not in a million years. As you can see from the pointlessness of most cycle lanes, if councils get a target to build 10 miles of something, they'll build it where it's not wanted, where it won't be used and where it'll be the least disruptive to other people.
Thankssquired wrote:I can't help but think that some of the people commenting on this are thinking about themselves and not the bigger picture. Would it be bad, for example, if they opened up 10,000 miles of new bridleway that was "boring"? If that extra 10,000 miles helped more people to get out and enjoy being on their bikes away from ever more dangerous roads I'd be happy.
I once cycled the track that runs down from Guildford to the south coast. It was incredibly boring, but I was really impressed by how many families I saw out on their bikes. From that point onwards I've always had it in my mind that giving more people access to such paths would bring a real shift in the attitude to cycling.
By the way, I signed the petition.0 -
Read it again you will see a double negative - he actually agrees with me...bails87 wrote:mat-ster: Calling someone who disagrees with you a 'knob head' is 'words of wisdom'......? :roll:
who said anything about having to "build" - lots can simply be redesignated. Example - a packhorse trail officially designated as a "footpath" it has never been a footpath...!bails87 wrote:Where will these bridleways be built? And by who?
Please I beg of you, give this ePetition a chance - sure it's a long shot but would you not benefit from having legal access to the country side...bails87 wrote:Ibbo: That stuff looks brilliant. But why not allow MTBers to use the hundreds of miles of similar footpaths? There isn't going to be 70,000 miles of new bridleway that looks like that, not in a million years. As you can see from the pointlessness of most cycle lanes, if councils get a target to build 10 miles of something, they'll build it where it's not wanted, where it won't be used and where it'll be the least disruptive to other people.
Thankssquired wrote:I can't help but think that some of the people commenting on this are thinking about themselves and not the bigger picture. Would it be bad, for example, if they opened up 10,000 miles of new bridleway that was "boring"? If that extra 10,000 miles helped more people to get out and enjoy being on their bikes away from ever more dangerous roads I'd be happy.
I once cycled the track that runs down from Guildford to the south coast. It was incredibly boring, but I was really impressed by how many families I saw out on their bikes. From that point onwards I've always had it in my mind that giving more people access to such paths would bring a real shift in the attitude to cycling.
By the way, I signed the petition.
Exactley - the point about styles is a good one also, why not have ramps over the gates like some Bridleways in Wales... :Psquired wrote:I can't help but think that some of the people commenting on this are thinking about themselves and not the bigger picture. Would it be bad, for example, if they opened up 10,000 miles of new bridleway that was "boring"? If that extra 10,000 miles helped more people to get out and enjoy being on their bikes away from ever more dangerous roads I'd be happy.
I once cycled the track that runs down from Guildford to the south coast. It was incredibly boring, but I was really impressed by how many families I saw out on their bikes. From that point onwards I've always had it in my mind that giving more people access to such paths would bring a real shift in the attitude to cycling.
By the way, I signed the petition.0 -
mat-ster
i do agree with you, any way, shape or form to get more bridlepaths can only be a good thing, and i think your post is a worth while one, to diss any attempt to get them by mountain bikers on a mountain bike forum then yes the term knob head is not a missanthem x with many upgrades0 -
So why not go for the Scottish style access laws?who said anything about having to "build" - lots can simply be redesignated. Example - a packhorse trail officially designated as a "footpath" it has never been a footpath...!
Although I agree that innaprpriate 'downgrading' of ROWs from b'way to footpath is wrong, but if you want to sort that you need to go to the council responsible and get in touch with their rights of way officer to reclassify it.
I know he agrees with you. I'm saying we don't need (and will never get) a load of new bridleway (a small amount of reclassification perhaps). So a more sensible approach would be to push for Scottish style access laws, or a change that stops bikes being treated the same as horses. Cloudynights said that I was a 'knob head' for not just demanding a load of new bridleway. You said that him calling me a knob head was "wise words". Childish name calling, for no other reason than a difference of opinion, is...well, childish. Do you agree? Or do you think I'm a knob head just because I'd rather have bikes treated more like people on foot than horses and their riders?Read it again you will see a double negative - he actually agrees with me...
So my preferred option would be the Scottish system. Failing that, a change in the PROW legislation to give cyclists a right of way on footpaths. That would open up far more countryside to us (and families out for leisure rides, and commuters looking for traffic free routes) than new bridleways would, at a much, much, much, much lower cost. This also means that 'silly' classifications (e.g., flat, wide path with no stiles classified as a footpath when it should be a B'way) don't matter, because we can ride on both.
Not so good for the horse crowd, but that brings us back to Scottish laws, and the, IMO seperate, issue of incorrect downgradings, which should be dealt with at a local level.
Edit: Just to make clear, I'm not against building new bridleways, if the council announced they were recassifying a load of footpath as bridleway and then building 50 miles of new bridleway to link the reclassified stuff up then I'd be fine with that. I just think there are much easier and cheaper ways to increase access to the countryside. If you want people to have the same level of access whether they're on a bike or on foot then you just give them the same rights, not build a load of new stuff to mirror something that already exists.0 -
Rushing in and demanding anything makes us all look like knob heads to those who will be against it. The walkers/ramblers and locals have very prominent and powerful people, some of which own the actual lands and some are councillors or MPs. You can see what we're thought of from many of the NIMBY battles and arguments with walker groups. The cases where trails are proposed to be built are heavily protested on the basis that we're reckless, irresponsible ("drunken swearing hooligans" as locals round my way branded us in the press), will run over the walkers, endanger wildlife, will spoil the quiet of nature, will run over their children, "people don't use bells" (or they have a heart attack if they do use them), etc. These protests are listened to in preference to those of us scruffy lot on bikes who have little representation.
Remember, bridleways are also part of the walker/rambler's network and they're never happy about bikes on them either.
For even a remote chance, these petitions need to have balance and offer something to everyone and not just "we demand access to XYZ, we demand XYZ to be built". Putting the case of health benefits in cycling is not enough. The opposition doesn't want bikes in their exclusive lands at all.
A fair point though is this particular petition is a veiled one by aiming at horse riders with cycling tucked in there. I've said before though about bikes are not horses. We shouldn't be restricting ourselves to where horses can ride, and walkers will insist that we do.0 -
Which is why an argument in favour of the scottish system would (could?) get universal support as it's more access for everyone. But that's been ruled out for some reason.For even a remote chance, these petitions need to have balance and offer something to everyone0 -
Please give it a chance - I do agree it aint perfect but it has a "realistic chance".
I know about the potential pitfalls but this one has some good backing from both the mountain bike and horseriding community.
I would also love the "scottish / scandanavian" approach but lets be honest that has not got a snowballs chance in hell.
With the Olympics coming up perhaps this has momentum to achieve something different - certainly better than nothing.
For the record Bails87 I was not calling you a "knobhead" - sorry if you got that impression...
BTW - the count is not far off 7,000 thats over a thousand in one week...!
Thanks,
Matt0 -
Thankyou
Honestly though, I think that stopping bikes being classified in the same way as horses would be the best way to go.
There may be plenty of footpaths that are fine to ride a bike (safely) on but not suitable to ride a horse down. Most of the ones near me fit that description. Reclassifying those as bridelways would never happen, likewise there's nowhere to put a new bridleway that 'mirrors' that path.
Out of interest, does anyone know what the reasons were for ruling out the scottish system?0 -
Currently, if someone says you're trespassing you can counter argue an established row not on the definitive map. That goes in 2026 when they are expunged.
Its not a big deal, but worthy of notice.0 -
547 extra votes in 3 days...!
wow - seriously if you have not voted please take 60sec of your time to do it...!
Its a secure website, you will not be sent any junk mail, just one acknowledgement which you do not have to verify...
English Law is silly....counter argue is that before or after I have been shot 0 -
I agree with Bails, in that the structure is already there, and all that really needs to be changed is the letter of the law. But I support the voice. One that needs to be heard as much as possible. That the network we have out there at the moment is just stupid.0
-
Is this not one of the ways to "change the law" or at least provide "more bridleways to cycle on".0
-
Still a long way off the 100,000 needed to get it to a debate in Parliament though :roll:mat-ster wrote:547 extra votes in 3 days...!0 -
done09 Rockhopper Comp
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9150062@N05/3371548932/
road bike
http://s451.photobucket.com/albums/qq23 ... 042625.jpg0 -
Even less likely then :roll:bails87 wrote:0 -
And even if it does it'll be taking up time and our money to run a debate where few will turn up and all knowing that nothing will be done about it (probably those who turn up are going to be ramblers), and then a report or response has to be written to make it sound like they care.
Given the current climate, who would pay for this anyway? Footpaths were often pre-existing and just needed a bit of clearing, sign posts and stiles. Bridleways may not exist at all or require widening of footpaths, thus build costs, compensations, make them meet health & safety rules, and a whole bunch of legal stuff requiring legal services.
On the other hand, a law saying cyclists are free to use public footpaths, very much a lower cost.
Either is not going to happen though as it will take the next 50 years to argue with the bobble hats and NIMBYs.
Solution - continue as normal, ride where we have a right of way, ride where we don't have a right of way but aren't told to "get orf my land". After all, there's no criminal law broken riding on public footpaths or trails on private lands.
Just ride.0
