 I have to disagree with one statement in the article, and I think it wqas expressing the views of those about it's not upto the RA to fight for other groups access rights. While I think it is. Why? Well as this forum has pointed out alot of us do more than just walk, but take part in other activities. Therefore in the interests of it's members I would of thought fighting for every activities rights would be on the agenda.
|
 |
bump
|
|
 Not so sure, some people who walk (there's some who are OM members) also drive 4x4s, couldn't see the RA campaigning on their behalf.
|
|
 I think every group has its own agenda and the RA will represent the 99% of its members because thats its job. The 4*4 and M biking lot need to do their own lobbying.
|
|
Just smells of "I'm alright jack" to me.
|
|
 Why on earth would the RA fight for access for 4x4's (unless it wanted to lose most of its membership overnight)?
|
|
Maybe not 4x4 but canoing, rock climbing, paragliding or MTB maybe.
Or how about for 4x4 defining where they are allowed legally to go?
People have to pick one extreme and pick up on that one
|
|
The RA is for walkers (whatever else they might do in their spare time). Its mandate has historically been decided by it members (although there are plans afoot to change that). Not only does it not have any responsibility to cater for other groups, its mandate often forces it into direct opposition to them.
That is definitely the case with 4x4's, where the "popular vote" is for a reduction in access (if not an outright ban).
It also used to be the case that the RA was anti MTB, although attitudes have softened over the years. In fact the current anti 4x4 stance may ally the RA to MTB interests.
|
|
Interesting article though, particularly the view that CRoW might actually form a restriction in, rather than an extension to, access, which is one that I have a lot of sympathy with.
|
|
 an excellent article indeed and well done to the ra.
i belong to the bmc (i don't climb as my intense fear of heights won't allow it and i belong because, when they're not bickering internally, do a lot of good - much respect) and i would not expect them to cater for walkers.
it probably may show that groups representing other interests have too much wind and not enough nous.
crow is an excellent result and should not be denigrated becuase it doesn't cater fully for earthworm race meetings.
there are still faults in it but at least it's now on a five-a-side pitch rather than on a full-sized pitch somewhere over there making it easier to score goals.
if any group you belong to (and you do belong, don't you - if not shut up and stop whingeing) did not perform its function adequately then nail the leaders of that group up and get get some proper representation - it's nobody else's fault.
(darren, sorry, that may have sounded like a comment in your direction. it isn't. it's just a general whinge from me)
|
|
Parky,
whinge on, no offense taken. It's interesting to get other opinions to mine.
But I disagree with you about the BMC to some degree I would expect them to cater for walkers to some extent as there is some cross over (ie scrambling/mountaineering depending on your definition).
|
|
agreed, but i would imagine only in relation to access to climbs, and defending/pleading access to those places where the tossers who have their heads stuck so far up their rectums and can't follow simple rules and threaten access being denied by the landowner.
oooh - i let another little rant surface at the end there. why would they care about places without a hill in sight - wouldn't expect it.
although i belong to the organisation i must admit to knowing virtually diddlysquat about what they do (i also rabidly support the lifeboats and i'm sure what they do is a bit more complicated than hurling themselves into suicidal waters to rescue people)
|
|
Check this by the RA Spokesman. In his defence of the CRoW act he says "Something like seven million people visit the countryside each year, largely for walking and cycling" So let's use cycling as an argument, but let's not campaign for cyclist's rights alongside walkers. Bugger, I'm off to ride on a footpath. Yes I know I should post this on BM, but it seemed to fit here.
|
|
