ukdodger wrote:Bicycler wrote:We probably all have the same interests at heart. It is wrong to suggest a bias where people differ in opinion. I may be on a cycling forum but I spent a long time as a an active member of a walkers' group and the Open Spaces Society. It did make me aware of the difficulties faced by many people trying to access paths and what is fit for a 20 or 30 year old is not necessarily fit for somebody older, with restrictive movement, or with a dog. The same applies to cycling. How this country hopes to promote utility cycling by making even cycle facilities inaccessible by utility cyclists I have no idea.
Our ancestors in the 17th century had no problem labelling the erection of gates or barriers across highways a "public nuisance". I can think of no more adequate description in the 21st.
But those gates were erected to keep people out for their own financial reasons. Not quite the same thing. I cant help wondering why there isnt a similar hue and cry from walkers about turn stiles or other barriers across their paths not accompanied by a gate. Ok for the able bodied but what about wheelchair users?
IMO there's a difference between hillwalking and walking to the shops,the paths required are completely different.
Wheelchair users who wish to experience the countryside won't be able to get to the top of some of the peaks in say the Lakes,or other such highlands.
I think that's accepted to a large degree by them,and that some places aren't safe for wheelchair use.
Cycling utility routes and national cycling routes should be accessible by
all cyclists whatever type of machine they ride,whether that be one,two,three or more wheels.
Most if not all these routes are shared use and therefore should be accessible to
everyone from the able bodied to the most disabled who need use of wheeled transport,whether that be elec assist,helper assisted or not.Obviously there needs to be a power limit for those with power assist,there's very good legislation covering cycles and other assisted vehicles that can be used (and already is for all I know) for such paths.
That said there's no need for any kind of barrier other than to prevent motor cars taking wrong turnings but even then a signpost big enough explaining the limitations of use of such paths is all that should be needed in a civilised society.
Anyone breaking such laws should be dealt with by suitable penalty.
I suspect we'd all be agreed on that but I make no assumptions.
Why if that system works in other countries as mentioned by other and BTW, is my own experience,doesn't it work in this country?
Or is it that it does but for some reason the people in charge don't think it would and so erect barriers to prevent motorised vehicles from those paths?
Or is that in the UK we don't think it worthwhile policing such issues,and so erect barriers to stop any chance of perceived lawbreaking?
Either way it's a wrong attitude by those authorities and IMHO is a true human rights issue.
TBH such cries that these barriers are needed is a fallacy and misguided as society is inclusive and should remain so.
IMHO there are laws but only some are being upheld.
It seems to me that the quote ''civilised society should be judged on how it treats it's minorities'' was never more true than in this case and that it,and the law is conveniently forgotten by some in authority.