Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

keithb
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 10:33am

Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

Postby keithb » 25 Aug 2016, 1:34pm

Given I joined the CTC at a time when it was just about the only group caompaigning for improved off-road access, and at the time had an "off road" officer who dealt with such matters, the issue seems to have been largely ignored for the last 10-ish years, until the Welsh Government looked at opening up access and a relatively recent debacle in the peak district where Derbyshire CC badly resurfaced a byway without consultation and using unsuitable materials...

while I'm glad that there seems to be some sort of progress on the issue (ie: it's actually being talked about! again!) it feels like CUK is basically jumping on a bandwagon that others have put in motion. After neglecting the issue for many years... even teh Press release stated that the design and creation of the survey was "led" by open MTB. My interpretation of "led" in this instance is that openMTB did all the leg work, and CTC have basically publicised it..

Given i've also only heard about this through a public forum on a third party website, doesnt fill me with confidence that CUK is actuallty committed to this issue, but is rather using it to gain exposure, as it is a current "hot topic".

Or am I just toally cynical..

It is, however, making me reconsider my intention to let my membership lapse at renewal...

Labrat
Posts: 168
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

Postby Labrat » 25 Aug 2016, 4:28pm

Well, I know that it went out in the campaigns newsletter earlier this week, so presumably part of a staged release, which seems like a good idea as it allows you to get some idea how its going from different outlets?

Giles Pargiter
Posts: 65
Joined: 15 Sep 2012, 11:34pm
Location: N & Mid Wales.

Re: Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

Postby Giles Pargiter » 26 Aug 2016, 9:09pm

I don't think you are cycnical. I was given a direct link to it by B.C. a number of days before C.U.K. brought it to my attention.

keithb
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 10:33am

Re: Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

Postby keithb » 27 Aug 2016, 10:00am

It was one of the articles in cycle clips this week.

In looking for it I scrolled tp and down the email twice before seeing it. The article starts with "win an iPad mini..." which I didn't read beyond as I was looking for something about "off road survey" or the like, that being the main point...

So, it this bad implementation or trying to be involved in something that they haven't really got behind,to claim some of the credit?

Whatever, I'm just glad it's on the agenda.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

Postby Vorpal » 27 Aug 2016, 10:58am

It's hardly jumping on the bandwagon. Off road access, IMO has some been CTC's most significant successes, first with the 1968 Act of Parliament that gave cyclists the right to use bridleways, then the Cycle Tracks Act in the 80s working to secure cyclists right in Scotland when they passed the Land Reform Act, and again in 2006 when they campaigned for cyclists to claim that a path should be a restricted byway if there is evidence of 20 years of uncontested cycle use.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... alweb1.pdf
https://bikemagic.com/news/ctc-secures- ... lists.html

The survey is part of an ongoing campaign to improve access to off-road routes http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... s5cbrf.pdf Not 'jumping on the bandwagon'.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 5844
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Off-road access survey - CUK jumping on bandwagon?

Postby Graham » 27 Aug 2016, 1:58pm

I tried to complete this survey but found a number of questions required mandatory answers - even though they were completely irrelevant to me.

Also it was not entirely clear whether the "mandatory question" error message related to the question above or below the error message.

I had to abandon it.