Philosophy | Why? | Green Cross-Country Code | Put-downs
Hopefully, the right to roam on foot will soon be enshrined in British Law thanks to the Countryside Bill. This means that, with a few exceptions, anyone can walk unrestricted over any uncultivated open land (as much as four million acres of open space). The reasons for this demand were many and varied; some people saw it as a right, others argued that by opening more areas to walkers, footpaths would become less congested, reducing trail erosion and therefore helping the environment (by dispersing the load over a wider area).
In the course of a previous debate on the same subject, in the Commons on 11 February 1998, the Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair said: "The Conservatives say that people having the right to roam or walk on moorlands on which they wish to walk will somehow put the countryside at risk. It will do no such thing.[...]"
Unlike ramblers, we do not wish to ride over any open land, mainly because it just isn't practical on a bike - and anyway, who wants to ride over a grassy field, or through heather? We've all had to at some point, either because the trail was undefined or the race circuit took in a field, so we all know there's not much fun involved - it's just a slog.
However, we do believe that cycling along footpaths and other trails should be permitted. This permission would spread the environmental loading across more trails, thereby reducing localised erosion (and not, as some ill-informed people claim, increasing it). It would reduce conflicts between various trail users on bridleways - in particular, it would reduce the likelihood of horse riders and cyclists coming into conflict, as there would be fewer cyclists on the bridleways in the first place. (Interestingly, equestrians are also campaigning for increased access rights - check out http://equest.remus.com/news/100399-01.htm - if the page no longer exists, check out the homepage http://equest.remus.com/). Importantly, it would also reduce the risk of road accidents involving cyclists as there are many instances where footpaths could be used to avoid busy roads.
Cyclists, like equestrians and walkers, are increasingly vulnerable on both urban and rural roads, as traffic density continues to increase in all areas. Current planning thinking groups cyclists with walkers rather than traffic or horses, as demonstrated by the growth in the number of urban cycle paths that share pavement space with pedestrians, rather than road space with traffic; and trails such as the Longdendale trail, which uses much of the old Woodhead railway route between Manchester and Sheffield. Most of this trail is split into two parallel paths, one for horses, the other for cyclists and walkers.
Increased access is not going to result in more cyclists - no-one is going to decide to buy a bike simply because they can ride on a footpath. If they're going to buy a bike, they will; if they choose to ride on a footpath, they will. No-one will choose not to buy a bike because they can 'only' ride on bridleways. Yes, it may mean more people riding down your local footpath, but generally this in turn will mean fewer people riding down your local bridleway, or fewer people getting run over on your local dual carriageway.
Similarly, increased access is not going to result in increased erosion or environmental damage. Independent research has shown that responsible riding causes no more - and in some cases less - trail damage than responsible walking. As stated above, we do not believe there will be an increase in the number of cyclists who ride off road, therefore, the same number of riders will cause only the same amount of damage (or potential damage) as they already do. As this damage would be spread over a far greater number of paths than at present, its effects would be lessened.
In summary, we do not believe increased access for cyclists will cause any more damage or harm to anyone or anything than the right to roam for walkers will. We also do not believe there are any legitimate reasons why cyclists should not have increased access (see the Why? section for details). Therefore, we do not see why cycling on footpaths should remain forbidden.