I would be in favour of keeping a soft surfaced way whenever possible.Nearholmer wrote: 1 Sep 2025, 12:36pm There probably are a few places where bridleways and footpaths do still form ‘utility’ transport links (they all did once, that’s how they were established in the first place), where the ‘expected traffic’ might merit a surface other than what nature and agriculture have provided, but they must be few and far between, and where they do exist if the ‘expected traffic’ includes any number of horses I’d expect a strong argument to be put forward to retain a soft surfaced way in parallel with any hard surfaced one.
It really shouldn't and any such discussions should be punted firmly into their own arena. We have plenty of carriageways that aren't physically separated from the agricultural land that they traverse. Whether or not to fence is an orthogonal discussion.This subject often also brings up discussion of fencing too, because a high proportion of bridleways aren’t physically separated from the agricultural land that they traverse, they are RoW, not defined physical objects after all. [...]
Yes, that's wrong. Sorry for taking a while to clarify but you didn't quote or tag me. I oppose those who campaign against improving bridleways (and they do exist). Improved bridleways don't have to be tarmac. In fact, I suspect it's better if they're not, because then there's always some motorists start whining about not being allowed to drive there. They do need to be usable in wet weather without looking like a creature from the black lagoon, though. Rolled stone (what I think you mean by "Sustrans gravel") isn't good enough: cycle traffic kicks up a horrible gritty sludge that sticks everywhere, and it gets severely damaged by horse traffic. It needs to be more solid than that (but can still be permeable if wanted) and ideally smoother. Some suggest woodcrete but I don't know if I've ever ridden it. I'm even pretty bad at distinguishing macadam, tarmac and asphalt-concrete unless I stop and look closely.But, none of that goes any way to supporting MJR’s apparent (correct me of I'm wrong) opposition to bridleways on the grounds that their existence is holding back the creation of a comprehensive network of hard-surfaced cycleways. If there was a will to create the latter, we could have both, but unfortunately there isn’t a great deal of such will.
