Although obviously everything really is shades of grey no black and white.
No it's not.
What exactly is the grey area in "you do not have landowners permission to ride on their footpaths"? ... seems pretty clear (i.e. black and white).
It's a shame some people can't undertake basic courteousy of not doing something they've been politely asked not to on someone elses property.
But, human nature is fundamentally selfish.
Plenty of miserable buggers out on bikes (Road) too, not one even acknowledged me in my Ron hills rocking the old skool
if i ride trails i shouldnt, i always wear my ipod . that way i cant hear what the moral majority say to me as i pass !! dont get me wrong i always holla nice things as i pass its just that with ear bud phones i dont know what they replay or how loud i holla!! 
t's a shame some people can't undertake basic courteousy of not doing something they've been politely asked not to on someone elses property.But, human nature is fundamentally selfish.
as evidenced by the truism that all property is theft
What exactly is the grey area in "you do not have landowners permission to ride on their footpaths"? ... seems pretty clear (i.e. black and white).
Well for one how do I know the landowner has nt given permission if there are no signs either way ? I can just as easily assume he has as I can assume he hasnt.
Also what do you mean the law is black and white ? The law is based on a serious of assumptions there is no black and white. These assumptions can not be 'proven', they are just there because they make society easier to run.
Unless you believe the current law is divinely inspired its clearly shades of grey.
Where is the justification that anybody should be able to own land at all ? Why should the term Landowner even have any meaning.
My assumption is because the society we have developed relies on these concepts to continue to function without turning into total anarchy.
Therefore why do footpath exist ? to give public rights of way and access to land that is not owned by them for the common good. Personally I see little difference between accessing it on foot as on bike.
I mean if someone decided to visit my garden with out damaging anything. I admit would be miffed but
1. How would I know they have done it ?
2. The cats/bird/dogs visit my garden all the time how is a person visiting different from them ?
3. What actual right to the land do I have more than them ?
The only thing I would say is I have a right to privacy. So if the person came too close to my house while I was in, their right to access would be imposing on my right to privacy.
It depends on the law as to which is more important. I think as most people want some privacy this has outed. Hence why society has decided wondering around other peoples gardens is a no-no.
But wondering around someones 100 acre estate is a bit different as generally your not affecting their privacy.
The cats/bird/dogs visit my garden all the time how is a person visiting different from them ?
Errr... what?
Where is the justification that anybody should be able to own land at all ? Why should the term Landowner even have any meaning.
So, in your world/opinion people shouldn't be allowed to own land, therefore everyone's property is fair game? ...
wondering around someones 100 acre estate is a bit different as generally your not affecting their privacy
So it's ok to abuse access rights/privileges as long as nobody finds out? ...
So, in your world/opinion people shouldn't be allowed to own land, therefore everyone's property is fair game? ...
No in my opinion the current society we live in requires land owner ship, but we should try to increase access rights to the largest extent we can without intruding on other rights such as privacy.
So it's ok to abuse access rights/privileges as long as nobody finds out? ...
How can I be abusing their rights if they cant find out ? Exactly what rights are you on about ? Please tell me ?
I agree if I was on someones land went right up to their window and started waving in. I would clearly be abusing their right to privacy.
If I started playing loud music I would again be abusing this right.
If I broke their property and destroyed their land I could see I was clearly in the wrong (according to the law and morally).
If I come and go on their land and they dont even notice what rights am I going against ?
If I come and go on their land and they dont even notice what rights am I going against ?
So anything goes so long as nobody finds out?
And if everyone adopted this attitude, there'd be all that anarchy you referred to earlier:
My assumption is because the society we have developed relies on these concepts to continue to function without turning into total anarchy.
You seem a bit confused.
So anything goes so long as nobody finds out?
Where did I say that ? For instance I could of destroyed their property with out them finding out but it would be wrong.
What I said is basically people should have the freedom to choose what they do as long it does not harm other people this is pretty much the definition of a right in my book.
I know this is on a whole nother scale. But in other countries it is illegal to be homosexual ?
Just because its illegal there do you that is right ? surely the people has a right to be homosexual.
I ask again what rights of there's am I breaking if I pass through with out damage or notice ?
And if Im not breaking any of their rights why cant I be there ?
And if everyone adopted this attitude, there'd be all that anarchy you referred to earlier:
Rubbish this system basically exists in Scotland as TJ says its not perfect but its hardly anarchy
Joao he's not on about wandering through your front room or trashing your property on his way through. Scu is talking about stupid archaic laws meaning that hoards of walkers can walk through a piece of land on a ROW but cyclists can't.
Daft situation.
Found this on wikipedia from sweden this is this system we should have. Unlike the system we currently have where peoples right to roam is constantly infringed.
In Sweden allemansrätten (lit. "the everyman's right") is a freedom granted by the Constitution of Sweden. Since 1994 the Instrument of Government says that notwithstanding the right to own property "everyone shall have access to nature in accordance with allemansrätten
Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. Restrictions apply for nature reserves and other protected areas. It also gives the right to pick wild flowers, mushrooms and berries (provided one knows they are not legally protected), but not to hunt in any way. Swimming in any lake and putting an unpowered boat on any water is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. Visiting beaches and walking by a shoreline is permitted, providing it is not a part of a garden or within the immediate vicinity of a residence (legally defined as the hemfridszon). According to legal practice this is between 100 to 300 metres from a dwelling house.[9] To better protect access to water and the right to walk along beaches, it is since 1975 generally not permitted to build a new house near (generally 100 m) from a beach and/or shoreline
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
