5 ms·

Sweden offers everyone who are are allowed to stay in the country and abide to simple courtesy rules access to pretty much all of its land for free. 24/7/365.

by tpmx 3y ago

Sweden offers everyone who are are allowed to stay in the country and abide to simple courtesy rules access to pretty much all of its land for free. 24/7/365. This is regardless of who owns the land in question.

kylehotchkiss 3y ago
When USA allows this, people come in with 4,000 pound (minimum) off road vehicles with off road tires that will destroy all the land they touch. Thankfully there’s large pieces of the desert open for these guys to enjoy and I’ve appreciated that we have both well managed parks with rules and wide open spaces with less.
- btilly 3y ago
  Sweden does not allow them to do that. See https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/sustainable-and-rural-tourism/the-right-of-public-access/ https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/su... for more.
- defrost 3y ago
  The US has deserts that lack any eco-systems that can be destroyed? How exceptional.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    The US has deserts large enough that establishing an off-road vehicle park within many of them will not destroy ecosystems.
    - defrost 3y ago
      I'm in global geophysics, have been for decades, I understand the size and georaphy of the USofA. > will not destroy ecosystems. Are you certain about that? I would have said it was more the case that eco-systems in in off-road 4x4 areas will be destroyed where the vehicles routinely drive and the best comprimise would be to have limited areas for total destruction by 4x4's and larger areas for limited 4x4 constrained to pre existing trails. Even beach driving is problematic: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/28/2175600.htm https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/28/2175600.h...
      - stonogo 3y ago
        Here's some actual survey research: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.805707/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.80570... Turns out various species are differentially impacted, with the only clear consistent effect being (predictably) decreased sward height. Good news: no reports of ecosystem destruction! Hope this helps.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  Hmm. Just my own opinion, but that doesn't sound like "everyone who abides to simple courtesy rules". Pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do that in Sweden or the US.
- munk-a 3y ago
  So why don't we fine the people with 4,000 lbs vehicles if they're acting irresponsibly? It'd be great for these places to be free to those who respect the maintenance of them and just recoup the cost for people who are destructive.
  - PumpkinSpice 3y ago
    The US is vast and many of the attractive rural lands effectively have no law enforcement presence of any sort. That said, the parent is being a bit too pessimistic. There's plenty of negligibly-policed and freely-accessible BLM land in the West that generally doesn't get abused all that much. But in part because of the abundance of BLM land - the government owns nearly 50% of the Western states! - we don't really need to allow people to trespass on private land to recreate. There are some exceptions to that - mostly around access to water and beaches - but if you just want to go on a scenic hike, you're not out of options around here, and I'm not sure it's useful to hold Sweden as a role model. As a private landowner, I'm thankful that I can post a "do not trespass" sign. Even well-behaved hikers leave a mark over time. Some trash is inevitably left behind or carried away by wind. Soil erosion is a problem on frequently-accessed trails. And that's before we get to the occasional drunk or rowdy group.
- mongol 3y ago
  Off road driving is not legal here. Not through the right that parent mentions, nor can you even do it on our own land. Only certain vehicles for certain purposes are allowed to drive in terrain. Offroading for fun, not allowed. I was lazy and auto-translated the first paragraphs of the law in question: "Off-road driving with a motorized vehicle for purposes other than agriculture or forestry is prohibited throughout the country 1. on bare ground, 2. on snow-covered forest land with sapling or young forest, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the forest, 3. on snow-covered agricultural land, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the land. Within the parts of the mountain area determined by the government, off-road driving with a motorized vehicle is prohibited, even on ground other than that specified in the first paragraph."
  - sithadmin 3y ago
    That's probably a fine trade-off for the other advantages of living in Sweden, but restricting off-road vehicle use on private property seems excessive. Banning electric bikes also seems like obnoxious oldster nanny-state behavior.
    - tpmx 3y ago
      So, I'm relatively speaking politically aligned towards the right - in Sweden, which means I'm on the average somewhat more to the left than Joe Biden. I agree with that law. Owning the land does not give you the right to abuse it. The land is forever, you are temporary. Note that there are exceptions for actual forestry use.
    - mongol 3y ago
      Electric bikes were not a thing when the law was created. But as written, also they are covered, as far as I can tell. The law can be seen as an environment protection law. Just like you can't pollute the environment on land you own, you can't tear up the soil as side effect of amusement off road driving.
- tomxor 3y ago
  Straw man alert. Free != Lawless
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Honda Civics are almost 3,000 pounds, so not sure what you're trying to imply with the supposedly scary 4K figure. Obviously weight is one of the things you want to limit in difficult off-road terrain. It's very scary driving a heavy vehicle up a mountain side where a mud slide could end your life. I have off-roaded in many national parks around the country. Vehicles are restricted to designated trails for off-roading. Many of them are challenging, rocky terrain and it's basically impossible to drive more than 10mph for a lot of these trails. There are some parks that are more intended for UTVs and ATVs where you will get more muddy flat land (more common in the southeastern U.S. due to climate and geography) and you can typically go a lot faster and it's quite fun, but these are again, UTVs that weigh about 1K-2K pounds and again, these are special trails designated for that purpose. There are heavy fines and even jail time for people that try to break the rules and take vehicles into unpermitted areas. Nevermind that barriers are usually constructed to prevent or forest is too dense anyway to allow for.
  - defrost 3y ago
    .. and Toyota Land Cruisers, one of the most globally popular 4x4s are bigger and heavier than a Honda Civic, so it's not clear what point you're making by bringing that up. FWiW the 2022 Toyota LandCruiser LC300 VX (4x4) is 2630kg (5798.2 lbs in obscure units). Still, if you're going to cross a big desert area we can at least agree that lighter is better, (failing access to camels). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3T_vM3VBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3T_vM3VBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson NB. width of Australia is approximate width of mainland USofA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4UcVbhR8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4UcVbhR8o
kylecazar 3y ago
Freedom to roam!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jononomo 3y ago
Just FYI, "irregardless" is not a word. The word you want is "regardless". Yes, I know that "irregardless" has now made it into dictionaries and whatnot, but that is just because it is misused so often. (Consider that dictionaries now consider "figuratively" to be a valid meaning for the word "literally" because that has also been misused so much.) "Irregardless" is the result of confusing "regardless" and "irrespective".
- tpmx 3y ago
  Thanks! Fixed. I actually wrote regardless at first but it seemed wrong when I revisited the comment.
- Tao3300 3y ago
  200 years of use isn't long enough for you? It's a word.
- pests 3y ago
  Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Dictionaries record the current usage, not some rules of language. I would say irregardless is a word. It hasn't made it into dictionaries because it's been misused, it's made it into dictionaries because it's been in use! Irregardless of your thoughts on the matter; people use literally differently than you do. Why are you correct and they are wrong?
mcguire 3y ago
What does "abide to simple courtesy rules" mean, specifically? Can you have a family reunion with 30-40 people? Can you stay in one place for a week? Fishing? Hunting?
- tpmx 3y ago
  https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/the-right-of-public-access/ https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/the-right-of-publi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden Family reunion with 30-40 people? - Yes, if you don't disturb anyone's home or the land. Can you stay in one place for a week? - Sure. Fishing? Hunting? - generally no, unless you get a permit. Fishing permits are easy to get. Fishing recreationally in the ocean does not require a permit.
- balls187 3y ago
  Means dont destroy, don’t disturb. Stay away from peoples homes, and dont bother gardens/farms. Other than that you can enjoy. Not sure if you need a hunting or fishing license, but a family reunion is fine, so long as you abide by the above.
kubectl_h 3y ago
Maine does not have a right to roam, but trespass is implicitly allowed -- that is to say if law enforcement is called on someone trespassing on private land that has not been posted, they will basically receive a warning and be asked to leave. If they return to that private land after being told not to be on it they will be ticketed. The landowner will be advised to post their land if they do not want people accessing it. Owners are indemnified against lawsuits if an accident happens while a person is trespassing on the owners land.

by tpmx 3y ago

kylehotchkiss 3y ago

When USA allows this, people come in with 4,000 pound (minimum) off road vehicles with off road tires that will destroy all the land they touch. Thankfully there’s large pieces of the desert open for these guys to enjoy and I’ve appreciated that we have both well managed parks with rules and wide open spaces with less.

btilly 3y ago
Sweden does not allow them to do that. See https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/sustainable-and-rural-tourism/the-right-of-public-access/ https://visitsweden.com/what-to-do/nature-outdoors/nature/su... for more.
defrost 3y ago
The US has deserts that lack any eco-systems that can be destroyed? How exceptional.
- stonogo 3y ago
  The US has deserts large enough that establishing an off-road vehicle park within many of them will not destroy ecosystems.
  - defrost 3y ago
    I'm in global geophysics, have been for decades, I understand the size and georaphy of the USofA. > will not destroy ecosystems. Are you certain about that? I would have said it was more the case that eco-systems in in off-road 4x4 areas will be destroyed where the vehicles routinely drive and the best comprimise would be to have limited areas for total destruction by 4x4's and larger areas for limited 4x4 constrained to pre existing trails. Even beach driving is problematic: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/28/2175600.htm https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/28/2175600.h...
    - stonogo 3y ago
      Here's some actual survey research: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.805707/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.80570... Turns out various species are differentially impacted, with the only clear consistent effect being (predictably) decreased sward height. Good news: no reports of ecosystem destruction! Hope this helps.
bilbo0s 3y ago
Hmm. Just my own opinion, but that doesn't sound like "everyone who abides to simple courtesy rules". Pretty sure you wouldn't be able to do that in Sweden or the US.
munk-a 3y ago
So why don't we fine the people with 4,000 lbs vehicles if they're acting irresponsibly? It'd be great for these places to be free to those who respect the maintenance of them and just recoup the cost for people who are destructive.
- PumpkinSpice 3y ago
  The US is vast and many of the attractive rural lands effectively have no law enforcement presence of any sort. That said, the parent is being a bit too pessimistic. There's plenty of negligibly-policed and freely-accessible BLM land in the West that generally doesn't get abused all that much. But in part because of the abundance of BLM land - the government owns nearly 50% of the Western states! - we don't really need to allow people to trespass on private land to recreate. There are some exceptions to that - mostly around access to water and beaches - but if you just want to go on a scenic hike, you're not out of options around here, and I'm not sure it's useful to hold Sweden as a role model. As a private landowner, I'm thankful that I can post a "do not trespass" sign. Even well-behaved hikers leave a mark over time. Some trash is inevitably left behind or carried away by wind. Soil erosion is a problem on frequently-accessed trails. And that's before we get to the occasional drunk or rowdy group.
mongol 3y ago
Off road driving is not legal here. Not through the right that parent mentions, nor can you even do it on our own land. Only certain vehicles for certain purposes are allowed to drive in terrain. Offroading for fun, not allowed. I was lazy and auto-translated the first paragraphs of the law in question: "Off-road driving with a motorized vehicle for purposes other than agriculture or forestry is prohibited throughout the country 1. on bare ground, 2. on snow-covered forest land with sapling or young forest, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the forest, 3. on snow-covered agricultural land, if it is not obvious that driving can take place without risk of damage to the land. Within the parts of the mountain area determined by the government, off-road driving with a motorized vehicle is prohibited, even on ground other than that specified in the first paragraph."
- sithadmin 3y ago
  That's probably a fine trade-off for the other advantages of living in Sweden, but restricting off-road vehicle use on private property seems excessive. Banning electric bikes also seems like obnoxious oldster nanny-state behavior.
  - tpmx 3y ago
    So, I'm relatively speaking politically aligned towards the right - in Sweden, which means I'm on the average somewhat more to the left than Joe Biden. I agree with that law. Owning the land does not give you the right to abuse it. The land is forever, you are temporary. Note that there are exceptions for actual forestry use.
  - mongol 3y ago
    Electric bikes were not a thing when the law was created. But as written, also they are covered, as far as I can tell. The law can be seen as an environment protection law. Just like you can't pollute the environment on land you own, you can't tear up the soil as side effect of amusement off road driving.
tomxor 3y ago
Straw man alert. Free != Lawless
chrisco255 3y ago
Honda Civics are almost 3,000 pounds, so not sure what you're trying to imply with the supposedly scary 4K figure. Obviously weight is one of the things you want to limit in difficult off-road terrain. It's very scary driving a heavy vehicle up a mountain side where a mud slide could end your life. I have off-roaded in many national parks around the country. Vehicles are restricted to designated trails for off-roading. Many of them are challenging, rocky terrain and it's basically impossible to drive more than 10mph for a lot of these trails. There are some parks that are more intended for UTVs and ATVs where you will get more muddy flat land (more common in the southeastern U.S. due to climate and geography) and you can typically go a lot faster and it's quite fun, but these are again, UTVs that weigh about 1K-2K pounds and again, these are special trails designated for that purpose. There are heavy fines and even jail time for people that try to break the rules and take vehicles into unpermitted areas. Nevermind that barriers are usually constructed to prevent or forest is too dense anyway to allow for.
- defrost 3y ago
  .. and Toyota Land Cruisers, one of the most globally popular 4x4s are bigger and heavier than a Honda Civic, so it's not clear what point you're making by bringing that up. FWiW the 2022 Toyota LandCruiser LC300 VX (4x4) is 2630kg (5798.2 lbs in obscure units). Still, if you're going to cross a big desert area we can at least agree that lighter is better, (failing access to camels). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3T_vM3VBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI3T_vM3VBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Davidson NB. width of Australia is approximate width of mainland USofA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4UcVbhR8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP4UcVbhR8o

kylecazar 3y ago

Freedom to roam!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jononomo 3y ago

Just FYI, "irregardless" is not a word. The word you want is "regardless". Yes, I know that "irregardless" has now made it into dictionaries and whatnot, but that is just because it is misused so often. (Consider that dictionaries now consider "figuratively" to be a valid meaning for the word "literally" because that has also been misused so much.) "Irregardless" is the result of confusing "regardless" and "irrespective".

tpmx 3y ago
Thanks! Fixed. I actually wrote regardless at first but it seemed wrong when I revisited the comment.
Tao3300 3y ago
200 years of use isn't long enough for you? It's a word.
pests 3y ago
Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Dictionaries record the current usage, not some rules of language. I would say irregardless is a word. It hasn't made it into dictionaries because it's been misused, it's made it into dictionaries because it's been in use! Irregardless of your thoughts on the matter; people use literally differently than you do. Why are you correct and they are wrong?

mcguire 3y ago

What does "abide to simple courtesy rules" mean, specifically? Can you have a family reunion with 30-40 people? Can you stay in one place for a week? Fishing? Hunting?

tpmx 3y ago
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/the-right-of-public-access/ https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/the-right-of-publi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden Family reunion with 30-40 people? - Yes, if you don't disturb anyone's home or the land. Can you stay in one place for a week? - Sure. Fishing? Hunting? - generally no, unless you get a permit. Fishing permits are easy to get. Fishing recreationally in the ocean does not require a permit.
balls187 3y ago
Means dont destroy, don’t disturb. Stay away from peoples homes, and dont bother gardens/farms. Other than that you can enjoy. Not sure if you need a hunting or fishing license, but a family reunion is fine, so long as you abide by the above.

kubectl_h 3y ago

Maine does not have a right to roam, but trespass is implicitly allowed -- that is to say if law enforcement is called on someone trespassing on private land that has not been posted, they will basically receive a warning and be asked to leave. If they return to that private land after being told not to be on it they will be ticketed. The landowner will be advised to post their land if they do not want people accessing it. Owners are indemnified against lawsuits if an accident happens while a person is trespassing on the owners land.