[Alex63]

Slightly off topic, but related: I'm always interested in the different approach to public "right of ways" in the US (and Canada) versus the UK. Given that the concept of public right of way was well established in the UK before the colonial period, why didn't the colonies recognize rights of way based on well-established use? Based on my limited knowledge of the US and Canada, I'm not aware of any State or Province that recognizes the right of the public to cross private land on established paths/trails in the way that is recognized in the UK.

[wesleyd]

Maine has right to roam, kind of, in a very american way: you can assume you have permission, unless clearly indicated otherwise. This preserves property rights, but only if you want them. Also there is a strong presumption of zero liability for the landowner (AFAIK!), so landowners aren't particularly incentivized to close off their land.

All thanks to the hunting lobby, I expect.

[ryandrake]

Yea, I think the liability thing is key, at least in the USA. I have no problem in concept with allowing the public to roam on my property (as long as they're not taking or damaging things), but I wouldn't want to allow it if they could sue me and win because they tripped on a rock or something.

[volkl48]

Also the case in New Hampshire and Vermont. And at least in NH there's some tax incentives for leaving your land unposted/open to that kind of access.

[dylan604]

There is the concept of easements. Probably not as familiar to the suburban person, but out in the boonies, it is allowed for you to use another person's property to get to your property if there is no other access to your property. For example when your property doesn't have direct access to a road unless using your neighbor's access. Lots of country properties "share" a dirt road

[Alex63]

Noted (I'm actually rural, and have an easement on my own property), but an easement is quite different from a public right of way in the UK. An easement does not create a public right, and (at least in WA state) must be negotiated between the landowners.

[saagarjha]

Suburban resident here. We have easements for local hiking trails as they cross through private property :)

[mjh2539]

Well, for one, public rights of way do exist on, and adjacent to, every public road. But that's kind of besides the point.

I think there's probably many reasons, but here's a few I can think of:

1. The trails and such that warrant these rights never existed in the first place. 2. The rights come from long-established customs, which again, never got the chance to get going in the United States. 3. The legal/juridical establishment in the United States tended to care more about protecting the rights of property owners than protecting the freedom to travel (in this limited respect).

[Animats]

There's a lot of legal history there. The US never had feudalism. The overthrow of feudalism resulted in reduced land rights for large landowners.

There's another amusing historical accident - Blackstone.[1] Blackstone's Commentaries[2] are a self-contained four volume set on how the English legal system worked. They had a strong influence on the US legal system. Most of the drafters of the Constitution read them. There were few if any law libraries, but many copies of Blackstone.

Blackstone was a property rights absolutist. He wrote:

"So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men, to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no."[3]

This is further than English law goes. US law arose from that interpretation. That's the power of writing the most widely read book on the subject.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_En...

[3] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5....

[bombcar]

Also the UK is more "historically dense" than much of the US was (and is!).

[b112]

In Canada, there are so many streams and rivers, lakes, that these are the 'right to roam' areas. There are all sorts of laws for access, and the country was explored by canoe.

And in the winters of 200 years ago, the lakes became frozen roads.

Yet part of it may also be, that land wss apportioned in large, organized chunks in many cases. Given to settlers, with spaces for roads as part of the plan.

Europe had many places where there was no way to get around, for there were no roads!

[alistairSH]

And in the US, access to waterways isn't guaranteed. I'll have to look up the details, but there are sections of the James River in Virginia which are private and the right to privacy was granted in the colonial era.

[lozenge]

It's in the name isn't it? Colonies. There were already people there who shouldn't have any rights to the land.

[strictnein]

Which group of people who were in the Americas had the "right" to the land? The groups that were on the land when Columbus landed? Or the groups that were there when the Pilgrims landed? Or the groups that were there in 1776?

For large swaths of the Americas, these are all different groups, many of which seized the land through violence.

It's something people like to throw out as an argument, but it falls on its face under the most basic of scrutiny. The entire earth was "stolen" many, many times by this definition, making it nonsensical.

[undersuit]

In Montana we employ corner hopping: https://www.onxmaps.com/onx-access-initiatives/corner-crossi...

[chimeracoder]

> why didn't the colonies recognize rights of way based on well-established use?

Because that would have been at odds with colonists' goals of seizing the land from the people whom it previously belonged to, and who were using it.