Horses again

[Rich]

A local authority, which has proposed allowing horses on all cycle paths in
its area, has produced the report of its Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee was called in after cyclists found out about the proposal: the
horse riders had been given 10 months to be consulted, the cyclists weren't
consulted at all.

The report can be found at www.bathnes.gov.uk/scrutiny

The two things that struck me were that despite the fact that the committee
were extremely critical of the Council's failure to consult users of the
paths, bizarrely they do not reccommend proper consultation - but they do
reccommend going ahead with a trial period.

They also claim that the horse riders had the same time period to be
consulted as the cyclists/peds, which is clearly not true, and a point made
by several of the people presenting to the committee.

The email which was sent to all the respondents says:

"Finally, I would welcome your comments and opinions on our report either by
letter or e-mail."

Does anyone have any experience of this kind of situation? i.e. where a
committee has clearly come to an illogical decision? can it be challenged?

--
cheers

Richard Burton

 

[pk]

Rich wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any experience of this kind of situation? i.e. where
> a committee has clearly come to an illogical decision? can it be
> challenged?

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/simpleguide.html

pk

 

[Hywel Davies]

Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of the particular case, nor do I ride
a horse, I would have though horsey and bikey interests were sufficienlty
common that the two groups would do better to ally with each other than be
two even-smaller, seperate niche interests. A bit like cyclists and rambers
(should but don't)

Hywel

 

[Andy Key]

In message <[email protected]>, Hywel Davies
<[email protected]> writes
>Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of the particular case, nor do I ride
>a horse, I would have though horsey and bikey interests were sufficienlty
>common that the two groups would do better to ally with each other than be
>two even-smaller, seperate niche interests. A bit like cyclists and rambers
>(should but don't)

Er... No. Not when it comes to those gravelled Sustrans cyclepaths. When
I lived in Swindon some years back I witnessed the Old Town cyclepath
being systematically destroyed by groups of horse-riders from local
riding schools. Hooves make short work of the track's surface. (The same
is true of bridleways, of course, but strangely people still manage to
blame imaginary hordes of mountain-bikers for that. Presumably ones with
horseshoe-shaped tread on their tyres.) When they built the
Chiseldon-Marlborough cyclepath, Sustrans actually built a bridleway
alongside it so that riders and cyclists could live in harmony. Result:
the horse riders used the cycle track anyway, because it was so nice and
smooth.

Of course Bath is unusual in that a lot of the local cycle tracks are
Tarmac. So the horses won't destroy them... they'll just leave piles of
manure at frequent intervals.

So yes, while equestrians and cyclists might have many common causes,
horse-riding on purpose-built cycle paths isn't one of them.

--

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Hywel Davies" <[email protected]>typed


> Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of the particular case, nor do I ride
> a horse, I would have though horsey and bikey interests were sufficienlty
> common that the two groups would do better to ally with each other than be
> two even-smaller, seperate niche interests. A bit like cyclists and rambers
> (should but don't)

> Hywel


Normally, I would agree with you, but the Bath-Bristol route is full of
fastish cycling commuters and not very wide. A ton of easily-spooked
equine could spoil many people's day.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[James Annan]

Andy Key wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, Hywel Davies
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of the particular case, nor do
>> I ride
>> a horse, I would have though horsey and bikey interests were sufficienlty
>> common that the two groups would do better to ally with each other
>> than be
>> two even-smaller, seperate niche interests. A bit like cyclists and
>> rambers
>> (should but don't)
>
>
> Er... No. Not when it comes to those gravelled Sustrans cyclepaths. When
> I lived in Swindon some years back I witnessed the Old Town cyclepath
> being systematically destroyed by groups of horse-riders from local
> riding schools. Hooves make short work of the track's surface. (The same
> is true of bridleways, of course, but strangely people still manage to
> blame imaginary hordes of mountain-bikers for that. Presumably ones with
> horseshoe-shaped tread on their tyres.) When they built the
> Chiseldon-Marlborough cyclepath, Sustrans actually built a bridleway
> alongside it so that riders and cyclists could live in harmony. Result:
> the horse riders used the cycle track anyway, because it was so nice and
> smooth.

The only time I tried a local sustrans path, I met some horses on a
section where there were 3 clearly-labelled lanes for pedestrians,
cyclists and horses respectively. The horses were all on the cycle track
and refused to move over.

James

 

[JLB]

James Annan wrote:


> The only time I tried a local sustrans path, I met some horses on a
> section where there were 3 clearly-labelled lanes for pedestrians,
> cyclists and horses respectively. The horses were all on the cycle track
> and refused to move over.

Damn these illiterate horses!

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[David Martin]

On 4/3/05 9:21 am, in article
[email protected], "Simon Brooke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Hywel Davies
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Whilst I don't know the in's and out's of the particular case, nor do
>> I ride a horse, I would have though horsey and bikey interests were
>> sufficienlty common that the two groups would do better to ally with
>> each other than be two even-smaller, seperate niche interests. A bit
>> like cyclists and rambers (should but don't)
>
> Interesting. The Local Access Forums established under the Land Reform
> Act actually do create (at a formal level) precisely that alliance. I
> was at such a meeting on Tuesday, along with the local high heid yin of
> the British Horse Society and a local representative of the Ramblers
> Association (and a landowner representative and council officers). It
> was amazing how the cyclist, the horse person and the walker
> automatically formed an alliance.
>
> It's a side-benefit of the Land Reform Act that I hadn't predicted, and
> I suspect in time it will trickle down to the average horse(wo)man and
> cyclist on the ground.

Unlikely to trickle down as far as Bath though, what with that being in a
foreign country 'n all..

...d

 

[Dave Larrington]

David Martin wrote:

> Unlikely to trickle down as far as Bath though, what with that being
> in a foreign country 'n all..

The Bath is a foreign country, they do things differently there...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Not Responding]

Rich wrote:
> A local authority, which has proposed allowing horses on all cycle paths in
> its area, has produced the report of its Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
> Committee was called in after cyclists found out about the proposal: the
> horse riders had been given 10 months to be consulted, the cyclists weren't
> consulted at all.
>
> The report can be found at www.bathnes.gov.uk/scrutiny
>
> The two things that struck me were that despite the fact that the committee
> were extremely critical of the Council's failure to consult users of the
> paths, bizarrely they do not reccommend proper consultation - but they do
> reccommend going ahead with a trial period.
>
> They also claim that the horse riders had the same time period to be
> consulted as the cyclists/peds, which is clearly not true, and a point made
> by several of the people presenting to the committee.
>
> The email which was sent to all the respondents says:
>
> "Finally, I would welcome your comments and opinions on our report either by
> letter or e-mail."
>
> Does anyone have any experience of this kind of situation? i.e. where a
> committee has clearly come to an illogical decision? can it be challenged?
>

I'm the chairman of a scrutiny board, so I ought to know a thing or two
on this topic. However, every council's constitution will be different
as will be the routes by which the public can get involved or express
opinions.

On my council, the setup is this:

Scrutiny Board generates policy and project options. The full Council
adopts these (or doesn't, of course). The Executive then implement the
policy with Decisions (ie they decide to do x, y, z and spent a, b and c
in doing so). (There's also other stuff that Scrutiny does but it's not
relevant here)

Decisions (ie let's support our equestrian policy by letting them in
bike lanes) can be "called in" to Scrutiny if a Councillor (in many
authorities it needs to be x councillors) feels the decision is outside
the policy agreed by full Council.

At call in, I ask the callers-in to say why they think it's bad decision
and the relevant Executive to justify it. The board then discusses. And
discusses. (Repeat...Until). I try and find the consensus between (a)
supporting the Exec decision and (b) requesting that the decision be
reconsidered.

I suspect what's happened in your case is that someone has thought "hang
on a minute, the Exec can't muck around with cycle lanes without full
and fair consultation - I'll call it in".

How you're opinion is heard will depend on the Council's arrangements.
At the very least you can always lobby the members of the Board and most
councils will have a deputation procedure allowing to you speak to the
Board.

Hope that helps.