What should I write?

Here are some examples of the key points you should consider when writing…

To: Alun Michael MP

Trail riding is a legitimate activity for many people who care for the countryside and others who use it. Legislation that restricts their legitimate interest to satisfy the selfish anxieties of organisations that wish to make the countryside more exclusive is not acceptable.

Almost every road in the UK evolved directly from tracks that initially carried only horses and carts (or steam engines). That most were covered in Tarmac in the first half of the 20th century on the basis that they had historic rights as carriage/vehicular roads, and some others were not, is an accident of history, or because the Tarmac lorry ran out of material.

Less than 5 per cent of the UK’s rights of way network is available to mechanically propelled vehicles. Isn’t it reasonable to suggest that anyone not wishing to be offended by the presence of a motorcycle should plan their excursion to use the other 95 per cent?

To: Your Local Newspaper

Those of us involved in organised and responsible off-road recreation are very concerned that Mr Michael has been seriously misled by interest groups that wish to see the removal of vehicles from the countryside altogether – apart from their own, of course.

Ramblers have enjoyment of some 120,000 miles of footpath and bridleway in England and Wales where they can go without ever meeting a member of the public with a vehicle. There are just 5000 miles of byways open to vehicles, and those are happily shared with walkers, horse riders and cyclists.

Motorcyclists want to work with Mr Michael to solve the problems that do exist and create a positive and co-operative means of managing access to Britain’s countryside.

To: Your MP

Clearly, Mr Michael is concerned about the level of ‘cowboy’ activity that goes on, with illegal and annoying motorcycling and driving on wasteland, open country, footpaths and bridleways – and rightly so. But the consultation paper seems to propose measures that will directly and seriously affect me, and I am not a ‘cowboy’ in any way.

I note Mr Michael’s hope that responsible users of mechanically propelled vehicles will welcome his intention to rid the countryside of nuisance, and I agree that the basic principles underlying these proposals have merit. However, the representations made to Mr Michael that have prompted the detail in the paper have misinformed the Minister.

Please speak to the Minister to tell him that he has been misled. Get his reassurance that the interests of ordinary people like me will not be unjustifiably prejudiced, and that he will insist on being better informed by fact-based evidence before taking further action.