Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew
Scepticism aside I'm following and supporting with interest.
But omits it from its own list of activities it wants to see included:The Right to Roam is really just a definition of private property that is different to England. There are still major landowners in Norway, Counts in Sweden, Lords in Scotland who own many hundreds of thousands of acres. Their ownership of the land, however, while it allows them to take rent, mine and make money from the land, does not include the right to exclude every other member of the public. In these countries, the Right to Roam is considered so important to the health and mental well-being of a nation, that it supercedes that peculiarly English stipulation of property: the right to exclude. Instead, every person has a right to explore these vast open spaces, to sleep there, to kayak, swim, climb, ride horses and cycle.
We need greater access rights to the land and waterways of England and Wales. The CRoW act needs to spread its wings over the land that will benefit the public the most but it also needs to include activities other than walking. What about kayaking, paddleboarding, wild swimming, wild camping?
We’d also like to see access rights broadened beyond rambling to include a right to kayak, swim, and wild camp.
I guess if we want this campaign to benefit us as mountain bikers, we first need to lobby the campaign to include access for cycling in their proposals.ive spoken to various representatives from mountain biking organisations over the last two weeks - and they have opened my mind to this side of things - also, horse-riders
we need a discussion internally before we change our wording, but personally, im beginning to see that we should include it - we left it out, alongside horse riding, because i think we assumed landowners might be more against it than rambling - but people i have spoken to have made a great case for the lack of damage and intrusion...
really, our initial job is to get people interested, and to join up - then we need to have a conversation - a public debate on right to roam - we dont pretend to have all the answers, and certainly dont think england should do it our way, but we recognise the urgent need to start discussing it
A good point. However, I think it can be viewed either way. A decent lobbyist might be able to make an argument that some of these problems (that are rather overdone, IMO, in the press) are as a result of limited access. Given the pandemic and restrictions on people and travel maybe there is a spotlight on how little or how much of the land is inaccessible to be fairly shared for positive uses. Plus, the Govt is making noises about sustainable travel and the need for a better "environment" (then again, it's the Tories and I'm more likely to eat your plaited snot than believe themBearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:07 pm Yep, tempted to think I've have picked a time somewhere in the future to try this. I imagine that at present, plaiting snot would be an easier task.
).
. I can't access the site from work but would be interested to see who is behind it and what connections, depth and/or breadth of support they have from existing organisations e.g. Cycling UK, Ramblers, BMC, BCU, BHS etc etc etc they have. Or is it *just* half a dozen well intentioned folk with a temporary bee in their bonnet?thenorthwind wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:37 pm Well, on my previous point, I thought the best way to find out was to ask them and I got this reply:
I guess if we want this campaign to benefit us as mountain bikers, we first need to lobby the campaign to include access for cycling in their proposals.ive spoken to various representatives from mountain biking organisations over the last two weeks - and they have opened my mind to this side of things - also, horse-riders
we need a discussion internally before we change our wording, but personally, im beginning to see that we should include it - we left it out, alongside horse riding, because i think we assumed landowners might be more against it than rambling - but people i have spoken to have made a great case for the lack of damage and intrusion...
really, our initial job is to get people interested, and to join up - then we need to have a conversation - a public debate on right to roam - we dont pretend to have all the answers, and certainly dont think england should do it our way, but we recognise the urgent need to start discussing it
and certainly dont think england should do it our way,
. No, no, no - that's exactly the deferential cap-doffing servitude these land "owners" have relied on for the past 1000 years
. I suspect the latter, but they are at least eloquent...Cheeky Monkey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:05 pm I can't access the site from work but would be interested to see who is behind it and what connections, depth and/or breadth of support they have from existing organisations e.g. Cycling UK, Ramblers, BMC, BCU, BHS etc etc etc they have. Or is it *just* half a dozen well intentioned folk with a temporary bee in their bonnet?
...if unaware of the shift key: yes.Is that quote verbatim?
Reply was signed "nick" so maybe? Edit: yes. Well done Reg.RIP wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:09 pm "interested to see who is behind it" - looking at the very nice artwork on the site, which is authoritatively and cogently put-together, it's curiously similar to that in "The Book Of Trespass" so I reckon Nick Hayes has something to do with it as well. Investigating further....
I don't know if change to established ROW use is different or more complicated than enabling RTR, I need to find time to read the site content in more detail. If UK RTR was to follow Scotland's example then Scotroutes would know more on that I expect.thenorthwind wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:11 pm Obviously I would support this campaign, but I wonder if they will stop short of arguing for greater access for cycling in order to stand a better chance of success?
I wonder if the end result if successful may be something we'd benefit from (^ that Q there), but could (politically/PR-wise) hinder if part of it from the start. I mean, MTBs common image now of trail-smashing Enduroists on e-bikes with 3" tyres wearing red shorts and full-face lids.. it might not help help at the superficial level. Then there's the 'trail-builders'. I could understand a deliberate avoidance of mentioning bike access.But no cyclists in the alliance (yet)
Buy the books... and we really need to be right behind this. BearBones corporate membership perhaps .Reasonable points. First stage as said above - get involved.jameso wrote: I wonder if the end result if successful may be something we'd benefit from but could hinder if part of it from the start.... I mean, MTBs common image now of trail-smashing Enduroists.... it might not help help at the superficial level... Then there's the 'trail-builders'. I could understand a deliberate avoidance of mentioning bike access.
Will get back to it now I've finished my other tome. Mebe.
). You need more than two blokes with books, you need an appropriate organisation which is properly set up and accountable. Hell, if you aren't going to somehow get the Ramblers on side then you're a bit foo-bar'd and heavenforbid you'd have to engage with the horsey (to some extent landowning set What's that saying about strange bedfellows? English landowners have stolen our rights. It is time to reclaim them by George Monbiot
.Apologies thenorthwind, I see your post about their reply on this topic covers a lot of what I was thinking when I posted this ^. Complex thread. I can imagine the representatives of cycling putting themselves across well, I'm less confident that the PR side of the campaign benefits from our inclusion. Esp if RTR opens up access for us automatically. I suppose that point will come out anyway so there may be nothing to lose.jameso wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:25 pm I wonder if the end result if successful may be something we'd benefit from (^ that Q there), but could (politically/PR-wise) hinder if part of it from the start. I mean, MTBs common image now of trail-smashing Enduroists on e-bikes with 3" tyres wearing red shorts and full-face lids.. it might not help help at the superficial level. Then there's the 'trail-builders'. I could understand a deliberate avoidance of mentioning bike access.
No need to be! I'd like to think I'm not a grammar-nazi either, but I thought some capital letters would be the least I could expect in a long-form email... especially now I find out the writer is a published author!Cheeky Monkey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:30 pm Northwind - sorry, I'm such an old fart and am not a fan of self appointed grammar-police but that reply was just a bit too "yoof"
Still, regarding the horrifying notion of being aligned with the Torygraph - even a broken clock's right twice a day... with parodic student-union chippiness ...
Also no needjameso wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:51 pm Apologies thenorthwind, I see your post about their reply on this topic covers a lot of what I was thinking when I posted this ^. Complex thread. I can imagine the representatives of cycling putting themselves across well, I'm less confident that the PR side of the campaign benefits from our inclusion. Esp if RTR opens up access for us automatically. I suppose that point will come out anyway so there may be nothing to lose.
Complex indeed. It's a difficult one - to try and add a voice for responsible access for mountain biking to this, at risk of alienating people who would otherwise support it? Or to quietly support it sans-cycling provision and hope it opens peoples minds to access issues and paves the way (not literally ) to greater cycling access. ) and hopefully attainable goal. Maybe we should just butt out? (A rhetorical question for debate, not a suggestion.)