[Closed] Describe 'Right to Roam'

It's ace. 8)

As long as the land isn't privately owned i presume?

Simple - it's a fundamental freedom.

Go where you like, do no damage, behave as you would like others to behave if they were traversing your property, and keep away from homes. Basic good manners.

It works.

edit:

yorkshire89 - Member
As long as the land isn't privately owned i presume?

Access applies to all land regardless of ownership.

Your back garden is safe though. 🙂

Since I lived in Scotland (and now moved back to England, booooo) I take the Scottish policy- if there's a path, it's fair game so long as you won't ruin it. Works fine in the Peak provided you're willing to take a few ticking offs.

Well the basics in Scotland are that you are allowed "reasonable access" to all parts of the countryside. There are some exceptions for land that has been set aside for specific purposes like race courses, golf courses and the like. Pitching up in someones back garden would not constitute reasonable access unless said garden was about 1000 acres and no where near anyones actual house. Similarly tramping across crops, disturbing livestock would not consitute reasonable access.

Basically ask yourself this question, "Am I being a dick?" if the answer is no then carry on, if the answer is yes then stop and do something else.

All this of course only applies to non motorised access.

It's Ace.

Responsible access - so you can roam wherever you want, as long as you're being reasonable.
Round the edge of cropped fields, not in the equivalent to someone's front garden (which is called curtilage).
Look at a map - think you'd like to go there, and do.

Yeah - it's ace.

It's fantastic - it separates rights and responsibilities from ownership. We all have the right to use the land, and the responsibility to use it considerately, no matter who owns it.

If you think about it, trespassing is a really odd concept. If a person is on some land, doing no harm apart from breathing some air and resting their weight on the ground, then what harm is done?

"Tramping across fields" squashing crops or scaring livestock gets caught 2 ways... 1st, it's obviously not responsible. 2nd, it's no fun either. So you are neither allowed to do it, nor will you want to.

It is pretty much as everyone has described. You can pretty much access any land in Scotland excluding peoples gardens. You can't wade through the middle of fields where crop damage may occur. The 'right to roam' also excludes access with motorised vehicles I think.

There are responsibilities to go along with these rights such as not causing damage, closing gates, ensuring pets don't frighten livestock and ensuring that you don't leave a mess and cut down trees if wild camping.

England has a limited right to roam. In designated "Access Land" (marked on OS maps) you can "roam" wherever you wish, but only on foot. I'm pretty sure - but someone may correct me - it is the same in Wales. So, in summary, you have a right to roam but only on land "We" say you have a right to roam on and only if on foot. The access via footpaths, bridleways etc is separate to this i.e. a footpath gives you the same rights to use it whether it is on "Access Land" or not.

Scotland is different as pointed out above ^

SaxonRider - the 'rules' for Scotland: [url= http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/ ]link[/url]

Mod: Quote content removed

What is it that's so terrible about the english that they can't be trusted with something that the scots have shown works well? Should we be banning english people from visiting scotland?

Well, it didn't seem to work too well on the East shore of Loch Lomond, Dunning Glen etc!

accepting a massive amount of responsibility and knowing that you are crossing through somebodies place of work and livelihood.

Knowing when to not ride a trail when the weather and conditions are bad and accepting that not everything is about you.

Scottish rules are great in low density population areas in England & Wales it will be harder, why should you be able to ride/walk all over my family farm where we are trying to make a living disturbing livestock and then having to worry about people straying into areas where crop spraying etc is going on.

What is it that's so terrible about the english that they can't be trusted with something that the scots have shown works well?

More of us with much easier access to the kind of land we're discussing. With numbers come (more of) the bad element. There are millions of English people living within a relatively short distance of the Peak District for example. Getting to Torridon, by contrast, is quite an effort for most of us on this small island, so few bother.

{edit} - and what he said^

Scottish rules are great in low density population areas in England & Wales it will be harder, why should you be able to ride/walk all over my family farm where we are trying to make a living disturbing livestock and then having to worry about people straying into areas where crop spraying etc is going on.

+1

As someone said above, if there's a path/trail use it, To much of a blame culture in my eyes to let people roam anywhere where farming is involved.

Yeah, but Scotland /= torridon, right to roam applies everywhere. Get a train to Edinburgh, ride to the pentland hills from the city centre, see it in action (Edinburgh built-up-area is roughly equivalent in size to Liverpool)

I don't accept your assertion that pikeys are an ethnic group

I have not referred to romanies, gypsies or irish travellers - which are.

not all travellers or gypsies are pikeys, not all pikeys are travellers or gypsies.

I reckon in both Scotland and England there are examples of where it can (and does) work and examples where it can't (and doesn't). I think in England there are a lot more of the latter compared to Scotland which is why people - like me - have doubts about it.

I don't accept your assertion that pikeys are an ethnic group

Of course not, it's a pejorative term used to describe an ethnic group.

Unless you've recently been put in charge of the European Courts, it's not within your remit to decide one way or the other, there's plenty of case law that accepts that travellers are an ethnic group in law and are afforded legal protection as such. The word "pikey" refers to what it refers to. You can't just go and call someone a "n*g**r" or a "p*k*" and make that okay by claiming that you weren't using the word to mean what it is commonly accepted to mean. Pikey is a pejorative term used against a defined ethnic group.

Besides which, it's a term which you must know causes offence to plenty of people. Regardless of the legalities, isn't that enough to suggest that it would be better to not use it? Please?

[s]I don't accept your assertion that pikeys are an ethnic group
Of course not, it's a pejorative term used to describe an ethnic group.[/s]

Pikey is a pejorative term used against a defined ethnic group.

Frankly, without derailing the thread, no its not

Wiki:

"Pikey's most common contemporary use is not as a term for the Romani ethnic group, but as a catch-all phrase to refer to people, [b]of any ethnic group[/b], who travel around with no fixed abode."

Also: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pikey

/ends

Regardless, rural crime in England is a huge problem - from theft to poaching, I maintain that any 'right to roam' law as envisaged in Scotland would make the problem worse

why should you be able to ride/walk all over my family farm where we are trying to make a living disturbing livestock

I think it depends to some-extent if how much the farm is subsidised by tax payers as to where the moral high ground is on tax payer access.

So for instance there is a farmer near me who is currently trying to block people accessing non rights of way round his fields. Not because of spraying, not because of wildlife disturbance, but mostly because he's an arse - who I as a tax payer am subsidizing this benefit scrounger to the tune of £80,0000 a year. I'd suggest a reasonable moral standpoint would be if you don't want the public on your land, don't take their money.

For balance I should add that there are plenty of really nice farmers out there too though! For instance one grubbed up a popular path adjacent to hedgerow this winter, but the neighbouring farm has now created one on the opposite side of the hedgerow 🙂

I think it depends to some-extent if how much the farm is subsidised by tax payers as to where the moral high ground is on tax payer access.

@mikewsmith

Apologies, and point taken, but I will challenge racist (and other "-ist" or "-phobic") language when and where I encounter it. I appreciate that it's not always a first class ticket to popularity, but there you go.

@ninfan

I've posted links to credible sources (i.e. case law history) on other threads and, bearing in mind the above comment, I won't repeat it all here. We can all do the "selectively quoting the bits of a wikipedia article that seem to support my line of argument" game, so I'll leave you with a couple of excerpts from the same article and, again, a polite request to refrain from using language which, regardless of legal definition, a lot of people find offensive:

It is not well received among Irish Travellers or Romanies, as it is considered an ethnic slur.

In 2003 the Firle Bonfire Society burned an effigy of a family of gypsies inside a caravan after travelers damaged local land. The number plate on the caravan read P1KEY. A storm of protests and accusations of racism rapidly followed. Twelve members of the society were arrested but the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on a charge of 'incitement to racial hatred'

Scottish rules are great in low density population areas in England & Wales it will be harder, why should you be able to ride/walk all over my family farm where we are trying to make a living disturbing livestock and then having to worry about people straying into areas where crop spraying etc is going on.

The central belt of Scotland is one of the most densely populated areas in the UK. Going by what you're saying it should have descended into anarchy by now. I will need to go for a nice long ride tonight on whatever paths I so chose to check, but I'm fairly sure it hasn't.

Edit, I just saw your next comment about "noone can roam on private land unless I can roam in your garden". Scotland's an enlightened place and thankfully we can tell the difference between Mrs McWhirter at #62's front lawn and the Duke of Sutherland's estate. This argument was done to death pre 2003 in Scotland and in the end the right thing was done.

Sorry if you feel offended, but thats freedom of speech for you,

According to your comment above, the CPS decided that it was not sufficient to breach the criminal law or incite racial hatred

Good enough for me!

Now, back to the point, would you accept that rural crime, particularly that committed by members of the community driving transit vans and owning lurchers (without prejudice to whatever their racial, ethnic, national or housing background is) is a significant problem, and a right to roam law would make it more so.

@tomd, that is called extrapolation....

One of vs the most vs the common area

In fairness I don't agree with the Scottish model from a land owners point of view or a users, I would prefer a more progressive system of reviewing rights of way based on use and land conditions.

I would prefer a more progressive system of reviewing rights of way based on use and land conditions.

I would actually call that regressive. An assumed right of access for recreational activity was deemed to be a socially desirably thing in Scotland. Extra controls can be added if necessary but by exception (see East side of Loch Lomond). Essentialy trusting people to use the access expcept where it's proven not to work is progressive.

@ninfan

Thanks for apologising for being offensive. We're all capable to doing it (being offensive, but then recognising it and modifying) Cheers

The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution - not that an offence wasn't committed.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to say absolutely anything, regardless of impact, which is why there are "incitement" offences, for example.

As for your question, no not really. I honestly don't think that robbers out on the rob are pulling out their Ordnance Survey maps and going "Damnit, I was gonna totally rob that farm, but there's just no right of way I can legally use to gain access"

I suppose the actual answer though must be available given the changes up north - has rural crime increased in Scotland since the access laws changed?

Essentialy trusting people to use the access expcept where it's proven not to work is progressive.

mikewsmith - Member
"Essentialy trusting people to use the access expcept where it's proven not to work is progressive."

I will trust people when they can be proven to act responsibly, it might take a while...

Either the English are a bunch of irresponsible arseholes, or you're wrong. I suggest the latter.

Right to roam works in many countries, and it would work in England.

Right to roam works in many countries, and it would work in England.

mikewsmith - Member
I assume this means I'm welcome to take a leak in your garden and crap behind your bushes too?

Your vested interest in exclusionary practices is blinding you to everything that has been said about right to roam which makes it very clear that it does not include the curtilage of homes, and has a requirement to behave decently.

Anyhow, it has been proven to work in several other countries. People aren't trampling through crops, letting their dogs chase ewes in lamb, or crapping in someone's garden. To assume the English are not capable of this basic decent behaviour is plain wrong.

As someone who's family owns several small farms, balls to it. The right to roam benefits far more people than there are landowners. Let the most people have the best time.

I assume this means I'm welcome to take a leak in your garden and crap behind your bushes too?

Soon as I get my £80,000 subsidy cheque. Sure.

If you need the toilet you only have to ask. 🙄

I trespass all the time. Somehow I manage not to disturb livestock and cause a nuisance. I don't know I manage it.

why should you be able to ride/walk all over my family farm where we are trying to make a living disturbing livestock and then having to worry about people straying into areas where crop spraying etc is going on.

mikewsmith seems to have a pretty common english landowner attitude, whereby his land is his, and his alone.

Having always lived in the scottish countryside, I've been brought up with the whole go anywhere you want, provided you don't do any damage attitude.

I suspect the big difference in attitudes is a historic thing, and mostly to do with your parents views. I've got an english mate who doesn't get right to roam, and there is one question he has never answered - What harm does it actually do you if somebody walks across your empty field?

Right to roam is better expressed as a right of responsible access. Sometimes people look after land better if they feel that they have a stake in it ie a secure right of access so long as they are not irresponsible. I have personally seen many hill walkers bikers etc picking up litter , , path work etc voluntarily on land they dont own.

because he's an arse - who I as a tax payer am subsidizing this benefit scrounger to the tune of £80,0000 a year.

Badly flawed reasoning. The government is subsidising his food producing business, because we need food. I seriously doubt he's pocketing £80k for doing nothing.

Anyway - what underpins all this is the concept of land ownership. Does this country fundamentally belong to all of its citizens, or is it entirely the property of the landowners? Legally, it's the latter, but what about morally?

This goes back to the Norman conquest I think.

And as above - the right to roam does not mean anything else - you're not allowed to litter, break things, mess stuff up; and likewise the landowners aren't required to make provisions for you to roam. They just can't stop you if you do. If you need to cross a fence, ok but you better make sure you don't break it.

I suspect that the people who care about whether or not they are entitled to be somewhere aren't the ones who are littering and letting their dog worry sheep etc.

Some of the posts on here really show up England. While the rest of Northern Europe just gets on with it, they moan. OK some of you don't like your fellow citizens moving about reasonably freely - why are you worried, you live in a country where you get your way. Just don't knock us - this is the will of the Scottish people and a long cherished tradition. Here you cannot own the right to exclude your fellows.
A side effect is there is little of the bureaucracy associated with CRoW land - soon be closing that off incase the English spontaneously combust. Also none of the alphabet soup of right of way heirarchy and stupid laws against cycling.

As for rural crime - criminals really care about trespass. I am glad that foul word is almost a thing of the past now.

The criminal thing is missing the point- it's not that criminals currently don't go on the rob because there's no convenient access to get there, it's that it gives them an excuse to be there- at the moment, if you go wandering through a farm, you're often trespassing, that wouldn't be the case any more, being there wouldn't be suspicious at all.

The landowner's association has been monitoring rural crime, they've not released anything to suggest it's risen and tbh, they probably would love to.

it's that it gives them an excuse to be there- at the moment, if you go wandering through a farm, you're often trespassing, that wouldn't be the case any more, being there wouldn't be suspicious at all.

I don't think wondering through a farm yard would come under reasonable access most of the time. If this is a problem it would be interesting to compare crime stats for farms where rights of way passed though farm yards vs those with out.

I don't think it's a real issue, it's just one of the concerns often mentioned- but I think people were misunderstanding the argument earlier.

I don't know if an exact replica of the Scottish model would work but I am a bit shocked by the animosity and suspicion felt by landowners. As stated Edinburgh is a city with plenty of agriculture on it's doorstep, between the Penlands and across much of, the Lothians. Any farmers I come across are perfectly reasonable, due mainly to the fact that people don't behave like idiots.

There is no right of access to farmyards in Scotland, although often it is tolerated / necessary to get to tracks and through routes. Ironically in England/Wales farms often have footpaths and even roads running through them. Remember the A590 in Furness - a trunk road running through a farmyard until the late 1990s.

A barrier to access here is "house blocking" where a house on a path can be a legitimate reason to deny access to that path. Braemore Junction is an infamous case. Estates with lodges can seal all their entrances this way. Fortunately few want to do this. Visit Perthshire to see a selection of dodges and loopholes in action.

[i]mikewsmith seems to have a pretty common english landowner attitude, whereby his land is his, and his alone.[/i]

Except it isn't actually theirs, but the Monarchs.

I did say farm rather than farmyard, fwiw.

When you look at the state of most trail centers and popular natural trails with inner tubes hanging out of trees and litter generally everwhere (picked up 3 inner tubes down the Doethie valley recently)i think this would be pretty indicative of how most mtbers would behave in open country so dont think they are responsible enough to enjoy such a right.

Nipper99 - Member
When you look at the state of most trail centers and popular natural trails with inner tubes hanging out of trees and litter generally everwhere (picked up 3 inner tubes down the Doethie valley recently)i think this would be pretty indicative of how most mtbers would behave in open country so dont think they are responsible enough to enjoy such a right.

Clutching at straws.

Strangely Scotland isn't littered with bike debris, and I cover a fair bit of my local patch. I haven't seen it elsewhere either. Maybe other folk who ride in Scotland would like to comment on their area.

From what I've heard it doesn't happen in the other countries with open access either.

Is what we're seeing here an example of the English class system? The upper and bourgeois classes stereotyping the lower classes as unfit to traverse the country?

Most of my riding is close to Edinburgh, and I have not seen the problems Nipper mentions. You do get the odd inner tube at Glentress but I have never seen it on any well frequented natural trail. The law in Scotland puts responsilities on people and I don't see any major abuse of these responsibilities.
As true countryside is at a premium in England , and generally revered, the chances are that giving the public greater access and informing them of their responsibilities will see the countryside treated with similar respect.

Nothing at all to with class just an observation of what I see on the ground - the status quo is fine as it is. Those who ride responsibly wherever, cheeky or otherwise, me included, will contiune to do so whatever.This isn't the 1920s 1930s and we are not talking about a similar situation that existed prior to Kinder. Most mtbers seem just want there trail centre fix and thats it - I doubt there is any real desire in England and Wales for a right to roam and I bet that 99% of those turning up at Afan, or wherever, this morning have given it a second thought.

Nipper99 - Member
....I doubt there is any real desire in England and Wales for a right to roam and I bet that 99% of those turning up at Afan, or wherever, this morning have given it a second thought.

There will always be riders who prefer trail centres for the facilities and safety, but people who like to roam are unlikely to frequent trail centres unless that is the only choice.

I don't know about others, but I'd sooner ride road than a trail centre. At least you can go somewhere on the road.

Gaining the right to roam is reclaiming a freedom that was stolen not that very long ago.

With such a large urban population I find it hard to believe that opening up areas of currently inaccessible areas of countryside would not be popular. It sounds like people that currently use the countryside are unwilling to see the wrong sort there.
Perhaps opening up access will remove some traffic from honeypot areas and routes.

Eh - when was the right to roam stolen?

I think that was a reference to the Inclosure Acts a couple of hundred years ago.

There will be riots and bloodshed before this will be accepted in the new forest.... At the moment they are getting increasingly militant about Road cyclists. Imagine the frothing if mountain bikes were allowed...

My view is anyone who has a large expanse of countryside land in their estate and does nothing with it, looses their exclusive rights to it. Pisses me off seeing miles and miles of woodland fenced off with "private keep out" signs all over and it's totally unused. Some are forested yes, but I see many that are not. Just old woodlands, and no evidence they particularly use it. It's just Lord whatever (probably hereditary) who's family had a massive estate and just sits on it doing nothing.

The Inclosure Acts didnt curtail any right to roam they just inclosed common land which of itself was normally wasteland of a manor where tenants of that manor could graze in common - not public land. At common law in england and wales there never was a right to roam and public access from the 19th century onwards has been by statute.

Gypsies - Go where they want anyway, If there going to steal ROW isn't going to help them,

Mountain Bikers/Walkers/Hikers will go where looks good and is more than likely a trail, A field of crop aint fun.

Average Joe - This is where there is more likely to be a problem in my eyes. Take a short cut without thinking about livestock etc and then sue landover because they got hurt through their own stupidity.

All the terrible things that are going to happen if there is a right to roam simply aren't happening in places where the right exists.

Nipper99 - Member
...At common law in england and wales there never was a right to roam and public access from the 19th century onwards has been by statute.

Was there ever a restriction on free movement in Common Law in England? I thought (maybe mistakenly) that the point of Common Law was that if it was not specifically restricted, it was allowed.

Access rights that have been removed by statute have been stolen - much as you would expect if you had a landowning elite at the top of the government pile - did the common man ever agitate to get their rights removed?

I'll bow out of this thread - I live in Scotland, it's not my fight. 🙂

much as you would expect if you had a landowning elite at the top of the government pile - did the common man ever agitate to get their rights removed?

Mws That goes back to the concept of curtilage.

ninfan - Member
Well, it didn't seem to work too well on the East shore of Loch Lomond, Dunning Glen etc!

Nothing to do with Right to Roam and LRA(S)2003 not working - its the inadequate policing/managing of the abuse of the act that falls down there.

"responsible access" does not include littering, cutting down trees or playing loud music. The right to wild camp comes as an ancillary to the right to walk/cycle on the land - not as a standalone right - people who drive to (or very close to) their 'campsite' are not privileged in the same way.

"irresponsible parking" (a complaint at both locations you listed) is illegal - but appears not to be prosecuted.

some of the behaviour complained about (drunkenness, abusiveness etc) by local residents is likely to be a breach of the peace (either common law or statutory) and could be prosecuted. I've also heard complaints about drug taking at these locations - again this is easily dealt with by other laws.

And better facilities for disposing of litter etc would have been a more proactive response from the land managers than new bylaws which will be just as hard to enforce as the numerous other laws being broken. If one authority in Scotland might have had a grasp on how to to make LRA(S)2003 work for everyone your would have thought it might have been the National Park Authorities, sadly they chose the easy way out.

If you think "trespass" is holding the urban masses back from invading the countryside, then you are very confused.