Adventure Bike Rider Forum

Greetings folks,

West Sussex is seeking opinions on their draft ROW Management plan and say:

"Anyone with an interest in accessing the countryside is encouraged to express their views.
Deborah Urquhart, Cabinet Member for Environment, said: “We want to hear people’s opinions, whether they are someone who simply enjoys rural walks, or are a landowner or another stakeholder. All responses will be considered and the document will be amended as appropriate before publication in 2018.”

The council manages more than 4,000km, or 2,500 miles, of Public Rights of Way, such as footpaths, bridleways and byways. The draft plan sets out its approach to managing the network, as well as signposting how improvements can be achieved over the next 10 years.

The council’s vision for Public Rights of Way is: “to enable people to enjoy the countryside on foot, by bicycle and by horse, for health, recreation and to access services, while recognising the need to balance this with the interests of those who live and work in the countryside and the management of special landscapes”".

Pity is that they seem to have forgotten to include we lowly motorists who use the BOATS and UCHs in their list of users, is this by accident or is it discriminatory?

To enter your comments please follow the link;

https://haveyoursay.westsussex.gov.uk/h ... ort/rowmp/

At least on this website I do not need to ask folks please to remember to be respectful in your responses.

TTFN

Hugh.

Hi Hugh' lets hope you know who is onto this rather deleting posts and banning users

Hugh ..

they state.. "..signposting how improvements can be achieved .."
perhaps also >`improving signposting could be achieved`,
this is the biggest issue for legal-minded riders .. who can inadvertently wander into illegal routes.
(more substantial and metal or stone? ..[ not wood] ., possibly plastic?)

(in the last month I had 2 (amicable) confrontations, with land owners, which need not have happened had the signpost been present or more visible.)

Also of course there is the joined up thinking needed to join up our bike trails,
2 weeks ago I travelled 7 miles along a trail only to turn back at the end because of a disputed 100 yard section.
These disputed lengths should be `automatically` proved and given to the obvious trail user.. possibly with amendments.

The amount of trails for bikers needs to be increased!
..not just being silly or selfish, but this will decrease the need for illegal trail use.

this increase needs to come partly from byways downgraded by nerc 2006,
and also new (sensible) ones incorporated to make a sensible joined up network.

also .. where boats have been altered, they need to be reviewed as to suitability.
(.. recently I travelled a boat that took me away from a farmhouse, that was on the obvious old route, and led me onto a dangerous new route, with a very steep side slope in wet grass, across his field. This was for the convenience of the farmer, obviously, and the map had been altered, but this is just not on, unless it is sensible.)

[any more thoughts, and I will post later.]

Gary.

o .. managing the network .. each section or sections of trails (or area) could be allocated to each section of user/s .. eg trf, lara, glas, horse fanciers club, nice lycra bodies, etc .. to patrol, repair, report etc ?

Rather depressing!

garyboy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:44 pm
Also of course there is the joined up thinking needed to join up our bike trails,
2 weeks ago I travelled 7 miles along a trail only to turn back at the end because of a disputed 100 yard section.
These disputed lengths should be `automatically` proved and given to the obvious trail user.. possibly with amendments.

I think you may find that conflicts with TRF policy.
I have heard that current policy is to get the National Parks to close a lane, then the TRF can challenge it, take them to court find out all procedures have been correctly followed and cough up from the fighting fund.

That seems a tad fraught with the risk of failure and maybe a bit reckless with OUR money. Of which more is about to be asked for.
But we can't say that without risk of censure.

Reactive defence doesn't seem a safe route to me.
I would prefer to try comprehensive dialogue with the relevant authorities through the various groups and only get a strop on if they play dirty.
That said, a court decision at least should set a precedence that can't(?) be ignored or abused.