View Single Post
Old 08-16-21, 12:48 PM
  #47  
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
rhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,808

Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...

Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times in 339 Posts
Originally Posted by GhostRider62
It is called trespassing.

Your refusal to accept common law is rather sad, too.

I don't want to live in your world.
Interesting discussion! Let's look a little closer at some of the terms used:

Trespass. According to my old Merriam-Webster dictionary, "tresspass" is, in one sense, "1a : a violation of moral or social ethics : TRANSGRESSION: [i]esp [/]: SIN" and in another sense "TREPASS implies an unwarranted, unlawful, or offensive intrusion." (all this on p. 944 of a 1969 edition). OP is clearly trying to be inoffensive, so I am not convinced that he is trespassing. I would need to see the specifics of what he's referring to, before I could voice an opinion.

common law
According to the same Merriam-Webster (p. 167), Common Law is "the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and consisting of the basis of the English legal system in all of the U. S,. except Louisiana." Which is interesting (particularly the bit about Louisiana; does Common Law not apply in Louisiana, but it does apply in other states in land acquired through the Louisiana Purchase? weird!), but does not actually tell us anything useful to this discussion. As I read it, OP is specifically asking what is common law regarding use of thoroughfares that are publicly accessible but not publicly owned, and the answer (assuming all respondents are experts) seems to depend on location.

your world
This whole discussion seems to be U. S. based, and several posters have revealed a distinctive US understanding of Common Law. To be clear, I too am an American and I am not a lawyer in any sense of the word, common or otherwise. so I am clearly not an expert. I have spent some time in foreign countries, however, and am pretty sure other countries are much more relaxed about trespassing. In remote areas of Europe I believe land owners do not have the right to prevent travelers (hikers, bike tourists, &c) from camping on their property, provided there is no harm. So, for example, you can camp in an apple orchard, but you can't cut apple branches for firewood and you can't eat the apples. Alpine hikers regularly climb over electrified fences and cheerfully greet the cows (and the farmers) they pass as they travel over private land; they have been doing it as long as anyone can remember and no one complains about the practice. A certain amount of etiquette is required, of course; you have to treat other people's property respectfully. Though you could probably hang a hammock between two of the apple trees in the orchard without harming them, I don't believe anyone would do so; that would seem against the rules.

right-of-way
I may have missed it, or can it be that no one has mentioned right of way? My dictionary defines it as "a legal right of passage over another person's ground" and that seems to be at the heart of the question. Who has right of way over the property in question? I don't know, and it seems to me no one who has posted on this thread does, so... who knows.
__________________
www.rhmsaddles.com.

Last edited by rhm; 08-16-21 at 12:53 PM.
rhm is offline