Farewell to kissing-gates?

In this extract from Open Space magazine Summer 2008 Rosie Norris of the Disabled Ramblers sets out issues which should concern us all.

In November 2007 the government issued a statement urging councils to increase  countryside  accessibility, specifically referring to the removal of stiles and kissing-gates. The reaction was as though the sky had fallen in, as a host of no doubt well-intentioned, but woefully ill-informed, people leapt to the defence of these structures.
The first misconception was that disabled people were out to ruin the countryside. This could not be further from the truth. Disabled ramblers, like, I imagine, the majority of disabled people, treasure the beauty of the countryside and worry about its fragility and vulnerability. We are fiercely keen for the countryside to remain essentially as it is, and we are
not asking for tussocks to be levelled, marshes drained and clifftop paths made safe.
We recognise there will always be some inaccessible terrain, but there are many areas still open to us, and there would be vastly more if there were fewer stiles and small kissing-gates.
A second common misconception was that disabled people only try to gain access to the countryside in standard wheelchairs. Walkers use boots, disabled ramblers most often use mobility vehicles (or in some cases specially-adapted, heavy-duty wheel-chairs). While we use standard wheel-chairs or powered chairs on some easy routes, when the going gets tougher we turn to heavy-duty vehicles—different beasts altogether.
Tramper
My vehicle, a Tramper, copes happily with 1 in 4 gradients and takes uneven country tracks, mud, streams, light snow and ploughed fields in its metaphorical stride. Machines like these find little problem with a variety of terrain and have no need therefore for any wholesale modification of the countryside.
We do however call for the removal of stiles, and the dismantling or modification of small pedestrian kissing-gates.
At the moment, disabled people cannot be sure that a walk they have chosen from a map will be free of such impediments.   While  able-bodied walkers merely grab their Ordnance Survey maps and boots and can expect to get along the paths, disabled people have to forgo this spontaneity as no OS maps or, in my experience, council leaflets show the position of barriers. We have to rely on the kindness of able-bodied supporters checking out the route beforehand, to avoid having to turn around and to ensure there is a way through to our planned destination.
Kissing-gates and stiles have been with us for centuries and it is difficult to calculate their number. Suffolk County Council, for example, has 2,500-odd stiles and around 1,740 kissing or other gates. Multiply these by the number of counties in England and Wales and you see the size of the problem and the number of people affected—not just disabled people in mobility vehicles and families with baby buggies, but also, where there are stiles, people with visual impairment and ageing walkers and dogs who lack agility.
Barriers
The number of barriers is increasing. New small kissing-gates continue to be added to the rights-of-way network, many of which deny accessibility to legitimate user groups. The dimensions of these structures vary widely.
To be acceptable, kissing-gates need to be wide enough to cater not only for larger cross-country baby-buggies and mobility vehicles for disabled ramblers but also for the wider public (literally and figuratively). This means that the gate (the moving part of the structure) when fully open leaves a distance of 1.6 metres between the end of the gate and the stationary part of the structure.
A proportion of the funding for these smaller, inaccessible, kissing-gates comes from the public purse. It's unacceptable for public resources to be used on discriminatory measures.
However,   there   are   some encouraging signs. Buckinghamshire has 4,000 stiles and each year 200-300 of these are removed. Hertfordshire County Council is a trail blazer, aspiring to remove all its inaccessible kissing-gates and stiles over a period of time. The East Berkshire Group of the Ramblers' Association has been campaigning for years to have stiles replaced with more accessible openings. The group even pays for gates on selected routes. The council installs the new gate with agreement from the owner.
Priorities
Realistically though, increased countryside access will only be achieved gradually, as priorities and funding allow. No one is asking for a wholesale, immediate removal of all of these obstacles.
The  Disabled  Ramblers seek replacement of impassable barriers on a phased and planned basis, focusing on paths and routes that are in reasonable condition and able to be used by properly equipped and supported disabled people. It makes sense to start on paths which only require the removal of a few barriers to make them accessible. These changes can be incorporated as targets into councils' rights-of-way improvement plans.
The primary purpose of kissing-gates and stiles is to contain stock. Clearly farmers and landowners have a duty in law to protect themselves and their stock.
For a path running through grazed land next to a road, kissing-gates with a RADAR bypass key could be installed. In fields away from the road we support the British Standard 5709 (2006):
Gaps, Gates and Stiles. The standard states that, if a gap cannot be left open, barriers should be considered in the following order: gates (two-way, then one-way), accessible kissing-gates and finally stiles, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Unreasonable
It's unreasonable for a kissing-gate to be installed between fields in order to control stock to a higher level of security, when often the fence or hedge around the rest of the field is not secure and stock can escape at will through it. Self-closing gates here can both achieve control of stock and allow ingress and egress.
It is argued that these larger kissing-gates allow motorbikes through as well. Some bikes can get through some kissing-gates and other motorbike barriers—and probably no motorbike barrier is 100 per cent successful.
But unless these kissing-gates are fully accessible they will stop all mobility-vehicle users, who have a right to be there.
Disabled people must not be barred from the public rights-of-way network because of the misdeeds of others. Resolving motorbike access falls to the police. We know that funding, and therefore police manpower, is often limited. However, we also know these problems can be addressed by close liaison between rights-of-way officers and the local police force, where a tip-off can lead to a successful blitz of the area. But there must be a will to resolve these problems.
Summing up
In summary, we say the following.
• Disabled people aren't out to ruin the countryside.
• Our mobility vehicles are able to cope   with   a   variety   of terrain without any countryside alteration.
• Stiles and small kissing-gates are impenetrable barriers to a wide section of the public, not just disabled people.
• We seek a gradual, phased and reasonable start to the removal of these   structures,   or   the provision of alternative, accessible ways round these obstacles, with any   replacement   structures complying with BS 5709 (2006).
• We want disabled people to have greater access to the public rights-of-way network than the current, pitifully low, 1-2 per cent of public paths.
Challenge
We recognise with gratitude the help and support we have received over the years in achieving greater accessibility to the countryside. We warmly welcome those who might also like to rise to the challenge of making the countryside more open to everyone. Visit www.disabledramblers