FFS no one needs this.

[riderdown]

The are people in the outdoors world who are vying for attention and to monetise.

I could suggest there is a little bit of the "self appointed" about her messages. A lawyer, a magazine creator (with commendable but lofty aims), a TED talk speaker, and now unpaid advisor to grassroots event organisers......

But I'm being uncharitable, in all likelihood she is trying to help but just comes across poorly. Either that or there will be a police raid to break up of people who might be planning to sleep in ditches......

[NewRetroTom]

Invite her to write an article for the site on the legalities of wild camping?

[riderdown]

My mind is at rest.

I'm surprised you were even slightly concerned

[woodsmith]

A problem with being stealthy is that it's by its nature nobody sees you doing it. So the only wild camping that gets *seen* is the problem type. Therefore it's assume wild camping is a problem. Some are rightly hesitant about sharing images of their stealthy camping exploits. Continuously emphasising the leave no trace ethos seems the best plan. Maybe start referring to it as 'leave no trace camping' as the term wild camping is becoming muddied.

I've been spotted wild camping on numerous occasions and have yet to have had an issue. It's most often by dopg walkers as anyone else out in the sticks last thing at night or first thing in the morning is either on their way to / from work, a bit bonkers, or as up to no good as I am. A cheery wave and saying how lovely their dog is always seems to do the trick. Lots of people have stopped to chat, asked about my trip, admired my bike ( plus sized tyres are a contant source of wonder to the un initiated) or commented on what I nice spot I'd chosen. I think people see that I'm on my own, not playing loud music, haven't started a campfire or dropped beer cans all over the place and consiously or subconsiousley see that I'm zero threat to their way of life.
Given that we're riding on legal ROW its not that easy to get out of sight without engaging in some actual trespass. If the BW passes through a bit of woodland or the corner of a ( mowed) hayfield I view it as fair game, but I don't jump fences or open gates unless I really am stuck.
I wonder how much the new Police Bill will change things if/when tresspass becomes a criminal rather than a civil offence?

[riderdown]

I wonder how much the new Police Bill will change things if/when tresspass becomes a criminal rather than a civil offence?

If doesn't cover wild camping as we would understand it

[woodsmith]

I wonder how much the new Police Bill will change things if/when tresspass becomes a criminal rather than a civil offence?

If doesn't cover wild camping as we would understand it

Care to elaborate?

[Bearbonesnorm]

All quiet on the western (Wales) front this morning

[psling]

All quiet on the western (Wales) front this morning

Two things:
1/ The legal profession don't do weekends.
2/ Probably out on a #virtuousmicroadventure.

[Lazarus]

Care to elaborate

Pretty sure it says camping with motorised vehicles ( or was meant to)
Basically they are not providing travellers with campsites ( as the law says they should ) and then criminalising them when they are forced to improvise.
I also think a copper has to serve the notice etc so the chances of us meeting plod ,wild camping , is basically nil.

[Rob S]

Care to elaborate

Pretty sure it says camping with motorised vehicles ( or was meant to)
Basically they are not providing travellers with campsites ( as the law says they should ) and then criminalising them when they are forced to improvise.
I also think a copper has to serve the notice etc so the chances of us meeting plod ,wild camping , is basically nil.

So it's aimed at camper vans primarily? What about people camping using a tent, but within ten paces of their car?

[Lazarus]

Its aimed at travellers[ roma/gypsy] , its not aimed at camper vans.

[Rob S]

Another curious one for a Friday: "Landowners may give permission to a wildcamper. The tragic problem is that they probably shouldn't. By giving that permission, they are also accepting a 'duty of care' over you, and therefore a degree of responsibility should anything go wrong". I wonder how true that is?

Reg, landowners have a certain level of 'duty of care' whether you are there with their permission or not. I don't know if that 'duty of care' becomes more onerous when permission is granted though.

I used to go climbing with two barristers years ago, maybe I should invite them bikepacking and introduce them to the forum. They may be able to advise us on such matters, probably for a hefty sum though

[ledburner]

I used to go climbing with two barristers years ago, maybe I should invite them bikepacking and introduce them to the forum. They may be able to advise us on such matters, probably for a hefty sum though :shock:

or cloud the issue with legalese and acts of double speak

[ScotRoutes]

Another curious one for a Friday: "Landowners may give permission to a wildcamper. The tragic problem is that they probably shouldn't. By giving that permission, they are also accepting a 'duty of care' over you, and therefore a degree of responsibility should anything go wrong". I wonder how true that is?

Reg, landowners have a certain level of 'duty of care' whether you are there with their permission or not.

This was a hot topic when the Land Reform (Scotland) Act was being debated. There was a fear that landowners would be responsible for everything that happened to anyone on their land.
They aren't.

[Leerowe76]

Can just see the headline now "KAREN GOES BIKEPACKING"

[thenorthwind]

Its aimed at travellers[ roma/gypsy] , its not aimed at camper vans.

I've heard this argument before. I think anyone who thinks that those with power (e.g. landowners) won't seek to use the letter of the law to punish someone doing something they don't like one the basis it goes against the original intention of the law, needs to reconsider.

[whitestone]

Another curious one for a Friday: "Landowners may give permission to a wildcamper. The tragic problem is that they probably shouldn't. By giving that permission, they are also accepting a 'duty of care' over you, and therefore a degree of responsibility should anything go wrong". I wonder how true that is?

Reg, landowners have a certain level of 'duty of care' whether you are there with their permission or not.

This was a hot topic when the Land Reform (Scotland) Act was being debated. There was a fear that landowners would be responsible for everything that happened to anyone on their land.
They aren't.

A landowner isn't responsible for someone injuring themselves walking along a footpath or cycling on a bridleway on their land provided that they (the landowner) haven't made substantial modifications to the footpath/bridleway. An example might be a stream crossing: if the landowner puts a bridge next to the crossing then they are responsible for any injury resulting from the bridge not being maintained but they wouldn't be responsible for someone getting injured whilst fording the stream. That's why you'll see signs like "Private bridge, not for public use". Care and upkeep of historic bridges/crossings tend to be the responsibility of the local highways agency - we've a couple near us like that.

A completely fanciful example would be a crag - you could climb on the crag and if you got injured then tough luck. If the landowner put up a climbing wall next to the crag then the landowner has a duty of care should you use the climbing wall.

[Lazarus]

I've heard this argument before

The may try and they may well want to but

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill criminalises trespass for the first time in the UK, making it a criminal offence to live on land in a vehicle, including caravans, without consent

See also unlawful encampment ( as that is what they are trying to stop / make criminal

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn05116/

create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”; and.....The PCSC Bill would not criminalise trespass. Instead, it is designed to criminalise the act of trespassing when making an unauthorised encampment. The Bill’s explanatory notes says “the provisions do not capture ramblers and those who wish to enjoy the countryside” because to commit the offence you must be “residing in or intending to reside in, or with, a vehicle”



Surely we would be taking emergency rest on a trip rather than attempting to reside and we won't be motorised.
I cannot see how it will be applied to us ( though I accept some landowners would like to keep everyone off " their " land
It's a terrible law aimed at a persecuted minority but it won't affect us ( though an ignorant landowner may claim it does but we would all move if asked / challenged )

[PaulB2]

I thought a bike was legally a vehicle in English law at least - not a motorised one but a vehicle none the less.

[fatbikephil]

A landowner isn't responsible for someone injuring themselves walking along a footpath or cycling on a bridleway on their land provided that they (the landowner) haven't made substantial modifications to the footpath/bridleway. An example might be a stream crossing: if the landowner puts a bridge next to the crossing then they are responsible for any injury resulting from the bridge not being maintained but they wouldn't be responsible for someone getting injured whilst fording the stream. That's why you'll see signs like "Private bridge, not for public use". Care and upkeep of historic bridges/crossings tend to be the responsibility of the local highways agency - we've a couple near us like that.

Thats actually not the case Bob (says the author of a countryside bridge design guide ) The reason being that there is no duty or requirement to provide bridges in the countryside and if you do there is no duty or requirement to provide one to a certain standard, or any duty or requirement to maintain it. It's different on the public road as there is a raft of design standards and legislation for anything that gets built on the public road. Away from here or the built environment (i.e. buildings) its basically a free for all. A case came up many years ago when somebody crossed a knackered fence by a cliff top, fell off the cliff and made a claim against Highland Council on the basis that the fence was knackered and so the fall was all the councils fault. The court found that as there was no duty to fence a cliff top, no duty to maintain such a fence and the that the fence, although knackered still provided a barrier / indicator of the cliff edge, it was all the claimants fault.

So if you put a plank bridge across a burn and someone then stands (or in my case rides) across it, slips and falls in the burn, its all your fault. Essentially anything you do in the countryside is at your own risk as you are in an environment that is inherently risky and so by entering it you have knowingly taken on those risks. That said if you arranged the bridge so that it collapsed when the first person crossed it and dumped them into a pool full of spikes, you probably deemed to have been negligent and would maybe get done, if someone could prove it.

The other oft used argument by landowners is that farmyards should all be excluded from ROW's and access rights as they are so dangerous. As a farmyard is a pretty obviously dangerous thing then anyone venturing into one is taking on that inherent risk so the farmer doesn't have any additional liability.

[RIP]

I thought a bike was legally a vehicle in English law at least - not a motorised one but a vehicle none the less.

Interesting one! I'm often saying that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as any other road user, ie. we're moving a 'vehicle' along the highway.

So maybe we are with vehicles and therefore not allowed to stop and 'camp' after all!

A horse is a vehicle in that sense too - a valid user of the highway - so is a horse a vehicle?

Maybe a vehicle must contain a 'power unit' or some prime mover. A car/van obviously does. And a horse. But not a bike, or a caravan for that matter. If a traveller pulls up with a lorry and caravan, then takes the lorry away and parks it somewhere else, then returns to reside in the engineless caravan is that allowed? How far away does the lorry have to be not to be counted as part of the residing situation?

(edit: ignore the lorry/caravan point, a 'vehicle' is a "thing for transporting goods or people... car, lorry, cart...".... but that definition includes a cycle, not excludes it!)

Arg my brain hurts.

[whitestone]

Fair play Phil.

The "not wanting paths/BWs through farmyards" is more about security these days rather than "safety". The trusting nature of the countryside and those who live there is getting exploited by thieves. My brother's had two quad bikes nicked for example.

[Lazarus]

Of course our bikes are a vehicle but they are not motorised nor are we attempting to sleep in our vehicle

Still does not apply to us as written and is not intended to apply to us ( presumably walkers also wild camp so lobbied for this exemption )

[RIP]

" in or with a vehicle", and a bike is a vehicle.

[thenorthwind]

All I'm trying to say is that

is not intended to apply to us

is not how the law works, and that

does not apply to us as written

is debatable.

The Vagrancy Act 1824 wasn't intended to, say, prevent anti-war demonstrations, but did that stop the establishment from using it as such?