[Closed] Describe 'Right to Roam'

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.