Hacker News Reader

Comment by haspok | Hacker News Reader

Interestingly, in Yorkshire, where there is the Rights of Way, which gives you the right to pass through private land on a specific path, I had the opposite experience. I can't count how many times I had to pass through ploughed fields, the arrow sign pointing roughly in the direction of the other side of the field, and in between there is... nothing. If it is a popular path then others might have created a faint footpath, so you don't have to tread on the wheat or corn. Maybe this is how the owner wants to discourage wanderers?

View on HN

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 property and there's about 20 signs explicitly pointing where to go and what will happen if you go anywhere else. I got to the cave, enjoyed it, got out, never once stepped outside the designated route. I imagine the owner worked out that meticulous path a while ago to minimise tourist noise.

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. If a landowner installs a gate or other structure on a path, does that structure have to be wheelchair accessible? Can a landowner install a gate designed to disuade bicycles?

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.

That's fair. I think it's a (possibly logical) extrapolation from the undeniably litigious nature of Americans. See recent: https://6abc.com/water-bead-warnings-are-beads-safe-dangers-...

> At least one parent has sued the maker and distributor of one of the products. The lawsuit says some children are ingesting them, and the beads are blocking airways and organs.

Health Insurance companies will follow-up with determining if the property/land owner is responsible for the accident and try to sue. Months after ER treatment, I've had to respond that my child's cycling accident on a camp site was not because of the camp site owner's site maintenance. So it's not necessarily the victim who sues, but the victims' insurer.

I'm honestly skeptical that's a common thing however. I've certainly never encountered such a thing and, while I've seen a few cases such as yours mentioned online, it's not something I've ever heard from anyone I know.

If someone received an insurance payout (ie medical expenses covered) then there was absolutely a subrogation discussion between the insurance companies of each party. Upon being given access to electronic law records, new law students are often shocked to see their names on lawsuits they never heard about. That bicycle accident at the mall when you were a kid ... your dad's work-based health insurer sued the mall's insurer to get back the money they paid to the hospital that stitched you up. Thousands of such tiny actions are filed and settled every day.

Last time I had a cycling accident that required an ER trip, I received a packet from my insurer a few weeks later asking for details. The way the questions were phrased, they were absolutely looking for somebody else to pay. Is it common that the insurer takes the next step (actually suing another party)? No idea, but they definitely look for ways to pass the buck.

Well you'll have to define common, then. From the parent comment and "cases mentioned online" I would personally say it's common enough in the US. It's how our system works.

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...

Some landowners I suspect hope that if they let the public footpath get poorly maintained and poorly marked, walkers will tell their friends its a bad walk, easy to get lost, and fewer will try to walk it. That if people can't identify the legal path across a field, they won't cross at all for fear of breaking the law.

Needless to say, this doesn't work well on the stubborn, hardy types who'll spend hours ascending hills for fun - but it might deter the more casual walkers.

Aye - this is definitely the case near me in North Wales - it’s normal to find posts that held trail markers hacked down, stiles festooned with barbed wire like it’s time for some trench warfare, and paths that just disappear into a bog, a river, or a newly built housing estate.

The local farmers generally detest ramblers, as it’s not unusual to find picnic leftovers, balloons, condoms, whatever, in a field with livestock, so I can understand their desire to discourage walkers. Heck, where I live most of the time in the wilds of Portugal, I initially had no reservations about people using our land to access the river - until they started leaving trash and faeces around the place. Now we have no trespassing signs, which saddens me, but I’ve picked up my last pile of shit and toilet paper.

It usually depends a lot on both the culture of the area and how often the paths are used. Where I am in Somerset there are an incredible number of paths, there's barely a field without a path through it. The routes are well marked and have good gates or styles for walkers. They are well used which helps keep the weeds down. Most of the Forrest also goes above the required footpaths and rights of way and keep a lot of permissive paths open too.

Land owners have a responsibility to keep the routes accessible and I think they are paid a small amount for it. Grants are available for gates etc. That said they are rough routes so are fairly muddy at this time of year. I love them and base most of my running around them.

I don't spend much time in the area so I can't really comment on it, but it's definitely (in my experience) the exception rather than the norm. It's happened to me twice in 10 years of living here, both in the same general area (black isle) on two different trips. We are very regular walkers, but we're not "explorers", looking for new or untrodden paths.

There's not necessarily a lot they can easily do, there. Once a route is a RoW the farmer can't close or divert it without the consent of the council. If you've got a RoW crossing one of your fields diagonally then you're going to get a line trampled in your crops whether you like or or not!

A Right of Way I walk frequently in Kent in the UK the farmer has literally put a sign up either end of the path through his crops and then not planted a ~6 foot wide diagonal path through the crops so you're walking with growing wheat on either side of you and a cleared path where you can be comfortable you're not destroying his livelihood... if more did this it would make it so much easier.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com