Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

apidura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#81

Post by DonaldFisk »

egeozcan wrote: post #60
Lio wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t. Trespassing in England and Wales is NOT illegal. If you’re asked to leave you have to but trespass itself is not a crime, it’s purely a civil matter. See the opening sentence from the CPS website: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-...

> If you’re asked to leave you have to Really asking: Wouldn't a "no trespassing" sign be considered an ask to leave?

What if the trespassers just ignore the sign, and walk on/over the privately owned land without the landowner ever becoming aware of it? How could the landowner sue the unknown trespassers when there wasn't even any evidence of their trespassing?

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#82

Post by [deleted] »

baggsie wrote: post #44
Gordonjcp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Europeans may not really get how big some of these places are until they experience it first hand Conversely, I think most Americans don't get how big the UK is, or how much longer it will take to get around than you think. Look at a map of Scotland. If you start at Glasgow on the west coast about a third of the way up, and drive to Scrabster, the northern end of the A9, that will take you at least 9 hours…

And how dense England is - I'm from Leicester and one hours drive (give or take) I can reach Nottingham, Derby, Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield, Northampton, Lincoln. Two and a half hours drive and it's London, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Cambridge, Oxford....

[deleted]

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#83

Post by DonaldFisk »

lebski88 wrote: post #39
Lio wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In England we have this weird legal gray area around wild camping. It’s not strictly speaking legally protected but it’s not illegal either. Trespass in England is definitely not yet a crime[1]. Apart from a few specific areas like Dartmoor where wild camping is specifically legal it amounts to, you can camp where you like but you can’t damage anything doing so and if you get asked to leave you have to. If you don’t…

I would love the right to wild camp in England. That said I do wonder how well it would stand up to our much higher population density. The current system does kind of work despite its lack of rules or clarity. I think our trespass rules are a good compromise.

I've heard this argument before but there are plenty of remote, sparsely populated places in England (e.g. Dartmoor, the Peak District). Yes, wild camping in more densely populated areas might be a problem, and England has more of those due to its higher population density, but similar places would in practice be off-limits in Scotland too.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#84

Post by ttymck »

sandworm101 wrote: post #67
WilTimSon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The owner must not have thought it through then, because most tourists will chug on straight through their field. Having a marked path is to their own benefit if they have the (mis?)fortune of living on the way to a landmark. I remember a similar case on Malta, where I went up a hill to get a nice view from a cave, recommended to me as part of the tourist route. The whole access to the cave lies across private proper…

Creating a marked path can increase liabilities. It implies that the path is safe. When someone falls and is hurt, the landowner doesnt want to hear that the "designated pathway" was unsafe, that the totally innocent member of the public was literally sent down the garden path to an injury. So landowners will ignore many paths, adopting an "enter at your own risk" approach. One increasing area is accessibility levels…

Are you American? I am, and this line of thinking screams "uniquely American" to me, but I'm curious if "liabilities everywhere" is similarly a concern across the pond.

My understanding has been that every other country has much more "common sense" than we do in these matters.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#85

Post by ttymck »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #81
egeozcan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you’re asked to leave you have to Really asking: Wouldn't a "no trespassing" sign be considered an ask to leave?

What if the trespassers just ignore the sign, and walk on/over the privately owned land without the landowner ever becoming aware of it? How could the landowner sue the unknown trespassers when there wasn't even any evidence of their trespassing?

What about a security camera?

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#86

Post by vidarh »

bjornsing wrote: post #70
guerrilla wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As does Sweden.

It’s been customary law in Sweden since pretty much forever. But interestingly it had no explicit foundation in written law until 1994, when a short passage was added to the Swedish constitution: “Everyone shall have access to nature in accordance with ‘allemansrätten’” (“Alla ska ha tillgång till naturen enligt allemansrätten”).

Similar in Norway (though not added to the constitution) - it was for very long considered so obvious as to be unnecessary to codify, as pretty much the only area of Norwegian law treated similarly as in common law jurisdictions.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#87

Post by ghaff »

ttymck wrote: post #84
sandworm101 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating a marked path can increase liabilities. It implies that the path is safe. When someone falls and is hurt, the landowner doesnt want to hear that the "designated pathway" was unsafe, that the totally innocent member of the public was literally sent down the garden path to an injury. So landowners will ignore many paths, adopting an "enter at your own risk" approach. One increasing area is accessibility levels…

Are you American? I am, and this line of thinking screams "uniquely American" to me, but I'm curious if "liabilities everywhere" is similarly a concern across the pond. My understanding has been that every other country has much more "common sense" than we do in these matters.

People who claim that someone who breaks their ankle on an unmaintained footpath through a field or in the woods in the US will routinely track down the landowner and sue them really need to provide some documentation that's the case.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#88

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

ajuc wrote: post #46
maccard wrote: post #11

I live in Scotland, but grew up in Ireland (where there is no such right). The value of this cannot be understated, IMO. It's not _just_ the right, the fact that it exists forces landowners to consider access routes. Very rarely have I found myself crossing fields full of livestock or someone's front garden, because in most places the landowners have maintained or signalled a preferred walking route. It really is won…

I visited Ireland this year (+- the Wild Atlantic Way), we considered biking but I'm happy we eventually decided to hike/hitchhike/take buses cause Ireland is not designed for walking/biking. Everything's fenced, roads have crazy high speed limits for their width, there's no pavements outside cities, even forests are banned most of the time. Hitchhiking on the other hand was great - we waited for more than 15 minutes…

I wouldn't necessarily say that's true for cycling. You just need to choose your routes carefully - follow the minor roads, not the major ones you'd use in a car. I've had some lovely days cycling quiet country lanes in Ireland.

Same applies in the UK, though there are some areas (principally the Home Counties) where it's difficult to find a road that isn't infested with speeding Audis.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#89

Post by matsemann »

balderdash wrote: post #69

“You have to respect the interests of other people, care for the environment and take responsibility for your own actions.” My experience is the (few) individuals that struggle with this (leaving litter, leaving gates open, trampling crops, letting dogs into animal pastures, interfering with other peoples recreation) really do spoil it for everyone and irreparably damages relations with landowners

It's often easy to avoid the worst offenders, though. Place a few trash bins close to popular camping spots, and then more people will clean after themselves. Have a spring in the gate so it always closes itself. Make a marked path that is easy to follow that avoids crops. Etc. etc. Most people behave if you make it the most convenient thing.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#90

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

ttymck wrote: post #84
sandworm101 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating a marked path can increase liabilities. It implies that the path is safe. When someone falls and is hurt, the landowner doesnt want to hear that the "designated pathway" was unsafe, that the totally innocent member of the public was literally sent down the garden path to an injury. So landowners will ignore many paths, adopting an "enter at your own risk" approach. One increasing area is accessibility levels…

Are you American? I am, and this line of thinking screams "uniquely American" to me, but I'm curious if "liabilities everywhere" is similarly a concern across the pond. My understanding has been that every other country has much more "common sense" than we do in these matters.

That line of thinking is certainly not British. Rights of way exist; it's not a matter of "creating a marked path". Farmers have a duty to keep the rights of way clear. See https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment/countryside/public-r...
Post reply on HN