Very well said indeed! They and other groups should be promoting at every opportunity both for bikes and those stupid bloody gates that prevent so much access should be vilified.
It is clear to me, at any rate, as a normal 'utility/leisure cyclist' that if I were to
need to ride a recumbent, a tricycle, tow a trailer, use adult stabilisers or indeed if I were less 'sturdy' than I am now - and at 75 already, I doubt I'm going to be getting any
more sturdy! - that I would be very, very limited in where I could ride my bike as I would not be able to
physically access a great many of the paths and tracks where it is safer for an older, younger, inexperienced or handicapped-by-anything-else cyclist to ride.
Just as great a problem as not being able to physically access a pleasant path is when one can access the path - but not leave it at an appropriate point, and must either continue on further or turn back and return. I occasionally meet up with a gentleman who rides an electric trike due to Parkinson's disease, and there are several points like this. At some of these so-called 'bike access points', there is a wide gate that could be opened if (a) he had a key and/or (b) he could get off his trike, manoeuvre the heavy gate open and closed, then get back on his trike. Now, this being the outskirts of a city, and he only goes out in the middle of the day in fine weather, he does sometimes 'take the risk' and rely on someone coming along who will be able to open and close the gate for him - and has not been disappointed yet but that's not the point ...
Nowadays we consider a modern or updated public building to be 'not fit for purpose' if it is physically inaccessible for people with a range of handicaps, disabilities and/or differences. Why should modern or updated provision of public paths and roads not be subject to similar rights of accessibility?