A perfectly good path will be classed as a footpath because the landowner doesn't want it to be a bridle path, there's no history of it being used by horses and equestrian organisations haven't asked for it to be upgraded. Mountainbikers generally don't care and use it anyway - two consequences, one mountainbikers don't see any need to campaign for better access and don't bother, two mountainbikers get a bad reputation for breaking the rules and cause resistance to ROW improvements.doctor-bond":34rm2828 said:
I think there's a sort of suppressed resentment towards mountainbikers amongst other countryside users, stemming largely from the fact that most of them are elderly and frankly want to enjoy the countryside in tranquility and don't see why mountain bikes are allowed to disturb their peace and quiet. They accept that it's the law, but in a democracy they don't have to like it and they don't. Thus anything that goes wrong is blown up out of proportion. Mountainbikers are held to charge around the countryside at 30mph :? with complete disregard for the safety of walkers and it is said that they cause constant conflict. You haven't noticed anything like that out on your trails? Neither have I.
We depend hugely on equestrian organisations to support us. They do far more for us than CTC and IMBA combined. As long as we keep the link between cycling and bridle paths, we'll be reasonably safe. But I did once hear that several years ago the BEF contacted CTC over some draft legislation that proposed breaking the link. BEF suggested working together, simply because they see cyclists as allies in the cause of access. CTC said they weren't planning to comment because they weren't involved. BEF said 'don't you represent off-road cyclists?' and CTC said 'oh, I suppose we do, what's it all about?' There were two days to go. If not for BEF, CTC wouldn't have commented. Maybe just a story.
Ideally of course mtb should have greater access than horses. Mtbs can go places horses can't go. Mtbs could use trails as they are that horses couldn't use without costly 'improvement'. Mtbs cause less damage to trails than horses. There's far greater public interest in an expansion of mtb access than for horses - it's far better exercise than horse riding and there's a rapidly deteriorating obesity and unfitness crisis in the UK that costs the taxpayer billions. There are 11 million mtbs owned by adults in the UK, and just 750,000 horses. Half of those 11m mtbs are never used, 80% are used no more than once or twice per annum, so there is huge unused potential.
But there's no real push to extend ROWs because mtbers are a disorganised rabble. I was in touch at one time with the IMBA regional officer for the south east. One man, with a full time job and a family trying to cover the entire south east in his spare time. He asked me if I would be the officer for East and West Sussex, but as I couldn't be given a list of the names and addresses of IMBA members in East and West Sussex owing to the Data Protection Act I couldn't see the point. Local authorities recently adopted Rights of Way Improvement Plans for the period 2007-17, as required by HMG. As far as I can make out, neither IMBA nor CTC got involved at a local level, so as usual we depended on horse riders and local authority access officers to look after mtb.
I seem to have rather drifted off Tony's point, apologies for that.
