Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[Bottlebank]

My club has at least one successful dig that I'm aware of that had to be sealed on completion as a condition of permission to dig as the landowner didn't want more cavers visiting.

Does that not strike you as a very selfish thing to do? Surely if that was the landowner's requirement then it would be better to just walk away and come back in a few decades when the land has changed hands or his attitudes have changed.

Not really. I wasn't involved but to me it seems a reasonable request from the landowner, given his concerns, and whilst not ideal at least allowed some new exploration to take place. Hopefully one day we'll be allowed to open it to the wider caving world.

I could argue it's selfish of people to vote for CRoW whilst ignoring the effects on digging and other non CRoW activities simply to gain access to a few of the few caves we currently don't have access to - caves that in many cases they'll probably only visit once if at all!

I'd like to see people thinking about the future of caving as a whole, not just from their own perspective.

 

[jasonbirder]

What we both agree on is:

1.  If CRoW applies then the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to sport caving will almost disappear whilst the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to diggers, professional cavers, and other trips not covered by CRoW (non CRoW activities) will remain the same.

I've read your earlier statement and taken the liberty of highlighting the segment relating to digging...

So the worst case is that as liability remains unchanged for non-CRoW activities (digging) then landowners that are currently positively disposed to cavers/diggers will accept that liability and say yes (as they do now), whilst those those that are neutral or antagonistic to cavers will not accept the liability and say no (as they do now)

 

[Bottlebank]

What we both agree on is:

1.  If CRoW applies then the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to sport caving will almost disappear whilst the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to diggers, professional cavers, and other trips not covered by CRoW (non CRoW activities) will remain the same.

I've read your earlier statement and taken the liberty of highlighting the segment relating to digging...

So the worst case is that as liability remains unchanged for non-CRoW activities (digging) then landowners that are currently positively disposed to cavers/diggers will accept that liability and say yes (as they do now), whilst those those that are neutral or antagonistic to cavers will not accept the liability and say no (as they do now)

No, that's probably the best case.

I don't think the terms "positively disposed/neutral/antagonistic" are quite right, but regardless, the worst case is that a substantial number move from accepting the risk to not accepting it, either because they see it as an increased risk, or they decide to take advice and are advised not to take the increased risk.

The assumption that because a landowner is willing to take a risk now is no basis for assuming they will do if things change.

 

[tony from suffolk]

Well, it'll be after dark so they won't be able to see them anyway...

What a stupid reply. Cavers wear lamps which can be seen from miles away in open countryside.

It was meant as a light-hearted comment in a (sadly failed) attempt to lighten the debate. Oh well, regrettably it looks like smileys are required in such circumstances these days.

 

[bograt]

Don't worry Tony, some of have still got a sense of humour and understood the intention of the post 

 

[Aubrey]

Don't worry Tony, some of have still got a sense of humour and understood the intention of the post 

I was going to say Tony had mis-posted what should have been under his usual Friday Joke thread.

 

[tony from suffolk]

...but it's Monday!

 

[droid]

Yes, but Suffolk is always behind the times....

 

[jasonbirder]

How does this statement

the worst case is that a substantial number move from accepting the risk to not accepting it, either because they see it as an increased risk, or they decide to take advice and are advised not to take the increased risk.

Link up with this statement

What we both agree on is:

1.  If CRoW applies then the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to sport caving will almost disappear whilst the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to diggers, professional cavers, and other trips not covered by CRoW (non CRoW activities) will remain the same.

Both of which you have submitted?

 

[Bottlebank]

How does this statement

the worst case is that a substantial number move from accepting the risk to not accepting it, either because they see it as an increased risk, or they decide to take advice and are advised not to take the increased risk.

Link up with this statement

What we both agree on is:

1.  If CRoW applies then the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to sport caving will almost disappear whilst the level of risk that the liability a land owner has relating to diggers, professional cavers, and other trips not covered by CRoW (non CRoW activities) will remain the same.

Both of which you have submitted?

Easily enough.

You need to read the rest of the statement, rather than challenge one sentence in isolation.

You have two risks, call them Risk A and Risk B

At the moment Risk A is similar to Risk B - allowing Risk B does not represent much increase in risk.

At some point Risk B remains the same, But Risk A reduces, allowing Risk B now represents an increase in risk - what used to happen is now irrelevant.

Post CRoW landowners will be increasing the risk they're exposed to, if they allow non CRoW activities such as digging.

 

[jasonbirder]

I hate to re-emphasise the point because I understand your (perfectly reasonable) concerns around permission for surface digs...

But it does need to be stated for those who are deciding one way or another about the BCA vote...

If CRoW is show not to exclude caving it will not affect landowner liability for surface digs in anyway, permission sought and granted will leave the landowner in exactly the same position as he is now.

There is nothing a favourable clarification of CRoW will do other than reduce his liability for sports caving trips

 

[martinm]

If CRoW is show not to exclude caving it will not affect landowner liability for surface digs in any way, permission sought and granted will leave the landowner in exactly the same position as he is now.

There is nothing a favourable clarification of CRoW will do other than reduce his liability for sports caving trips

hear, hear! 

 

[bograt]

Good point, well made Jason, there is nothing in this vote for clarification that should affect present digging and professional caving arrangements with the owners. It would just ease the sporting caving access arrangements.

 

[peterk]

MODS: Posted in wrong thread - should be in the landowner liability thread

I don't think that there will be any distinction between surface and underground digging on CROW land. 
The BMC published a guide "Climbing & Occupiers? Liability - a guide for landowners, managers & users". It's here ( no link to BMC site found ) http://www.fedme.es/salaprensa/upfiles/701_F_es.pdf. It looks to be a reasoned opinion on landowners' liability issues. The only thing that concerned me was prompted by the liability in respect of "non natural features".  Under the current regime where permission is sought from the landowner, permits etc. there is an element of assurance given to the landowner by visitors giving feedback on any underground risks such as bad spits/bolts, digging, fixed aids etc. Without that feedback the "non caving" landowner has no method by which he can be sure  there are no risks - unlike styles and gates that can be readily "inspected" .

There are frequent threads here about underground risks but I don't think that the above is a major issue but does require some thought.  The removal of permissions required will open up caves to people "outside the system" and I would consider that is the major (but minor) liability for landowners

 

[martinm]

The BMC published a guide "Climbing & Occupiers? Liability - a guide for landowners, managers & users".

The DCA has just published a similar one, bottom of page and downloadable:-

http://thedca.org.uk/publications

MODS: I think this link should be in both threads. Leave it to you to decide...

 

[Bob Mehew]

The BMC published a guide "Climbing & Occupiers? Liability - a guide for landowners, managers & users". It's here ( no link to BMC site found ) http://www.fedme.es/salaprensa/upfiles/701_F_es.pdf.

If you go to the BMC web site at https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ and use their search facility with the words 'occupiers liability' you will get a search return whose first item is the 2014 version of the leaflet and the others various other useful back ground documents.

 

[Bottlebank]

I hate to re-emphasise the point because I understand your (perfectly reasonable) concerns around permission for surface digs...

But it does need to be stated for those who are deciding one way or another about the BCA vote...

If CRoW is show not to exclude caving it will not affect landowner liability for surface digs in anyway, permission sought and granted will leave the landowner in exactly the same position as he is now.

So far so good.

But since you have re-emphasised it then let's be clear, he will be in the same legal position, but he will have to accept an increase in liability to return to that position, which is where the problem lies.

Unfortunately this means your next line is wrong:

There is nothing a favourable clarification of CRoW will do other than reduce his liability for sports caving trips

and so is this:

Good point, well made Jason, there is nothing in this vote for clarification that should affect present digging and professional caving arrangements with the owners. It would just ease the sporting caving access arrangements.

And people do need to realise this before they vote. It is likely to be more difficult to obtain permission for non CRoW activities on some Access Land post CRoW. No one can say how much more difficult, or in which areas, which makes it a leap in the dark.

Any caver who cares about new exploration needs to decide which is more important - exploration or access?

 

[Peter Burgess]

For a quick reminder of the purpose of this thread, please read the original post. It seems to have strayed a bit - even the proponents of a yes vote should be able to envisage a "worst" case. We seem to be back to wishful thinking of a "best" case?

 

[Bottlebank]

For a quick reminder of the purpose of this thread, please read the original post. It seems to have strayed a bit - even the proponents of a yes vote should be able to envisage a "worst" case. We seem to be back to wishful thinking of a "best" case?

I agree Peter, but isn't part of the problem that the BCA appear to be running with this without making the worst case clear?

 

[MarkS]

If it's simply a case of considering worst-case scenarios, it's a fact that the 'no vote, worst case' scenario is the same or worse than the 'yes vote, worst case' situation.

I appreciate that the important factor here is the relative likelihoods of these worst-case situations occurring, but I personally find it hard to imagine many landowners suddenly changing their stance on cavers as a result of the BCA's stance on CRoW. I think to most non-cavers it would seem pretty bizarre for the BCA to take any other stance.