It is time for Rights of Way to be reconsidered and a distinction made between what could be called Rural and Urban Rights of Way where Urban RoW can provide access to schools, shops etc by being made acceptable for everyday use.
The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act first set up the legal framework of Rights of Way with legal maps/statements being drawn up in the early 1950s. Marple and the Urban District Councils did a thorough job recording and legalising usage of rights of way. The County Boroughs and Cities often argued that the legal recording system for the towns and cities was not appropriate: many towns and cities disagreed with the legal concept of urban rights of way. The consequence was that the recording of footpath, bridleways and other routes in towns which were not predominantly motor routes were sometimes overlooked and the Ramblers Association and Bridleways groups have to provide proof of continuous usage with no objection from the landowner for twenty year for routes to be added to the definitive map.
There is no proposed statute in the pipeline to change the structure of who can and who cannot use existing rights of way. I believe the current system of division between roads and rights of way generally works well. The roads and adjacent cycleways provide routes for the speedy passage of cyclists, public footpaths provide a safe route for the pedestrian to enjoy a leisurely walk, public bridleways and higher status rights of way provide the opportunity for enjoyment of the countryside and traffic free routes in towns by pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders.
What the existing rights of way system does not provide is a structure for cycle or horse usage at a pace faster than running speed about 5mph. Routes are generally too narrow and surfaces are too rough (unless you have a robust mountain bike). Improve the bridleways to a level that they can be easily used by cyclists wishing to travel at commuting speed of 10mph+ and the route becomes dangerous inaccessible to pedestrians and horse riders.
Rights of way provide access to shops, bus stops, stations and the workplace as well as providing a facility of simply walking/cycling/riding for pleasure. If changes were to take place it would be very wise to follow the excellent example of speed limits such as those imposed on canal towpaths and on the canals themselves. A 6mph/jogging pace would guarantee safety for everyone on the public rights of way in exactly the same way as safety for users of canals is guaranteed by a single digit speed limit on canal boats.
Horse only routes seems to be totally impractical because walkers and cyclists cannot be banished from existing bridleways. It would be prohibitively expensive/ absolutely impossible to set up a new additional route network for horses.
The cyclist takes his choice. If he wants a speedy traffic free route he fights for cycleways, if he wishes to share the bridleways he travels at the same low speed as the walker and horserider.