[Closed] That video of the very polite motoX riders talking down the ranting lady farmer

The thing which strikes me about people posting examples of animals they've seen near to tracks with motorised traffic on them, and posting different arguments, is it still remains a biological fact that there can be problems caused for pregnant animals if they're startled/frightened.

This is true, which is why the farmer should keep his pregnant animals in a different pasture. But in my experience as a horse rider, farmers very rarely consider any ROW across their land, be they footpath, bridleway or other. It is not that they are actively trying to keep people off, although some certainly are, it is just that they put the stock in the area which best suits, without thinking that people on horses, or motorbikes / quads may want to use those Rights of Way.

Maybe, just maybe, farmers would be advised not to put pregnant livestock in fields which have a public right of way across them rather than moaning when people use their quite legal right to access that route.

Maybe, just maybe, farmers would be advised not to put pregnant livestock in fields which have a public right of way across them rather than moaning when people use their quite legal right to access that route.

While a valid point, they do still have to run a business.

And they don't just put them in a field for 6 months and let them get on with it, they'll eat the grass in a few weeks and have to be moved onto the next field, to be replaced by a different animal or breed with a different diet. The farm I used to live on we had 2 breeds of sheep and cattle in rotation as they all had a preferance for different types of grass.

And you're getting dangerously close to 'victim blaming'. If it's the responsibility of the sheep/farmer to keep out of your way on the footpath, that's not so different from saying cyclists should keep out of the way of cars on the road.

russianbob, either your streetmap link is wrong, or you didn't see the NGR.

Path is here according to youtube description:
http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=392366&Y=216800&A=Y&Z=120

According to the OS map, its a long distance route, and "other route with public access", however, the public ROW map also linked on you tube page clearly shows no public ROW. It does state that [i]"This is not the definitive map but our attempt to show the data in an electronic format"[/i]

So in my eyes, the farmer was right.

And you're getting dangerously close to 'victim blaming'. If it's the responsibility of the sheep/farmer to keep out of your way on the footpath, that's not so different from saying cyclists should keep out of the way of cars on the road.

How is it even remotely close to "victim blaming" to suggest that if you KNOW you have a legal obligation to allow access to a field to walkers/horse riders/cyclists/motorbikes/elephants/whatever that you take appropriate steps to ensure that you don't leave pregnant ewes in that particular place then get all shirty when people actually want to access that field?

If these rights of way were imposed on people all of a sudden rather than them being historic, I'd be extremely sympathetic but these are not a surprise to the landowners and trying to play the victim is not really on.

According to the OS map, its a long distance route, and "other route with public access"

Yep he states in the YouTube description that it is an ORPA and says that to her in the video (about 3:10). It is marked as such on the OS.

Why would that make the farmer right?

My understanding was that ORPAs were fair game?

How is it even remotely close to "victim blaming" to suggest that if you KNOW you have a legal obligation to allow access to a field to walkers/horse riders/cyclists/motorbikes/elephants/whatever that you take appropriate steps to ensure that you don't leave pregnant ewes in that particular place then get all shirty when people actually want to access that field?

Because you're blaming the sheep/farmer for your disturbing them. It's your right to travel on that right of way, it's your responsibility to not be a dick about it, worry livestock, etc. The farmers responsibility in relation to this ends at not keeping agressive bulls (or tigers, or aligators if we're going down the jungle animal route) so that's it's safe for you, you should do the same and respect their property.

It's attitudes like that that're why we don't have Scottish style access laws in England. People are far too keen on their rights, not so much on accepting any personal responsibility.

Why would that make the farmer right?

Because its not a public right of way.

Doesn't the P of ORPA mean it is a public right of way?

If only it were in Scotland...

Quite. As a Scot I find the English obsession with Rights of Way quite confusing!

Because you're blaming the sheep/farmer for your disturbing them. It's your right to travel on that right of way, it's your responsibility to not be a dick about it, worry livestock, etc. The farmers responsibility in relation to this ends at not keeping agressive bulls (or tigers, or aligators if we're going down the jungle animal route) so that's it's safe for you, you should do the same and respect their property.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. However that's nothing to do with what is being discussed. I wouldn't suggest riding directly through the middle of a load of livestock but likewise I don't think saying, as you are, that we shouldn't go through the field at all is the answer.

Doesn't the P of ORPA mean it is a public right of way?

But they state very clearly on that page [i]"This map is not the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way. It has no legal status."[/i]

None of the public roads are marked as a Right Of Way on that map, but they are obviously open to the public. Doesn't an ORPA fall under the same definition?

Seems to be very unclearly defined in law however this is the perspective of one county. (PS drill into streetmap 1:25000 and it goes green/white)

"In addition to showing Public Rights of Way, Ordnance Survey maps show public roads. Main roads are usually shown by blue, pink, orange or yellow lines. Minor public roads or Unclassified County Road (UCRs), which may not have a tarmac surface, are usually shown on modern maps by a string of green dots - ORPAs (see page 4 for symbol).
On older editions of Ordnance Survey maps, before ORPAs were shown, minor non-tarmac roads were uncoloured, they were ‘white’. This caused a great deal of confusion because private roads and tracks, which may not be used by the general public, were also shown white. The ORPA symbol on modern maps helps to reduce this confusion."

"UCRs are public highways but the law does not define what public rights they carry. They are simply public highways, which have never been formally classified. The County Council therefore works on a presumption that they carry the same rights as a Byway (see page 2) until proven otherwise.
Non-tarmac surfaced UCRs are usually shown
on Ordnance Survey Explorer Maps as
ORPAs (see above)."

Given the road structure in the map it looks road to me

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. However that's nothing to do with what is being discussed. I wouldn't suggest riding directly through the middle of a load of livestock but likewise I don't think saying, as you are, that we shouldn't go through the field at all is the answer.

I didn't say don't go through the field at all, I said be responsible for your actions. If you think that a bike might scare them, then walk it through, or (you said it not me, but I do agree with it) find an alternative route.

Same with dogs, same with 'MX' bikes, unless you're touched in the head you'd not take a dog through a field of sheep at lambing time?