Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t entirely get it. Having come from Canada, I understand that if I rode my bike across some farmer’s filed, he could set the dogs on me. I have since ridden in both England and Wales, and just stick to the trails on which I am allowed, including when they traverse a farmer’s property. As I understand it, that is something that has been possible since, well, forever.

How is access different under ‘Right to Roam’? Does it mean that, in Scotland, and eventually Wales, you can just ride/camp on/ramble across anything you see? And does it only apply in rural areas? I mean, whatever the nature of the law, I assume it doesn’t mean that someone could just show up in my back garden!

Explanations/descriptions please.

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: link

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?

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.

Leave it or start another thread

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, of any ethnic group, 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.

to me not really, no historic access, no old roads, no general right sof way except 1 which is a FP linking us and my cousins farm. Nobody should have a right to roam over that private property unless I can roam across all of your gardens.

@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.

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

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.

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

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.

Oh good grief. Are landowners still grinding out this stuff? Right to Roam is not about allowing people to “ride/walk all over” etc etc. Have you read any of the posts in this thread?