Describe 'Right to Roam'
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?Posted 4 years agogordimhorMember
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.Posted 4 years agomolgripsSubscriber
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.Posted 4 years agofasgadhMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agoTheBrickMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agofasgadhMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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?Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years 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.Posted 4 years ago
Perhaps opening up access will remove some traffic from honeypot areas and routes.deadkennySubscriber
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agoSinglespeed_ShepMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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. 🙂Posted 4 years agomikewsmithSubscriber
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?
not to spoil it but a lot of common men own land these days, I never see the house owning common man complaining about how they stole the houses from the peoplePosted 4 years agopolyMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Describe 'Right to Roam'’ is closed to new replies.