SBT GRVL Runs Afoul of Local Ranchers & Residents in Colorado

[benb]

Originally Posted by .RJ

It almost sounds as if your no tresspassing signs arent working.

They are legally required in many jurisdictions for someone to actually be charged with criminal trespass.

The sign serves as a direct notice that you have been told you are not permitted to use the property.

Unfortunately even arrests don't make the problem go away. The police are good in VT FWIW.

My aunt and uncle even had a trespasser burn their cabin to the ground years ago in VT.

This is the kind of thing that makes people in rural areas wary. They can't watch their property and people can do a lot of damage before they can catch them.

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

I dont think it is quite to the level of description as you or others view it ...

You stated earlier you drove through Steamboat once. Some of us live in the west, and have a bit more experience with these issues. As I stated earlier, I have a lot of sympathy for the Steamboat ranchers, based on my experience:

1) Organizing races in rural Colorado, including one in the Steamboat area.
2) Racing SBT GRVL twice, and riding in other races and events in Steamboat.
3) Living with the disruptions caused by triathlons, due to living in a rural area.

Closing a road to traffic in rural areas in the west can cause major problems for local residents, as there are often no reasonable alternative routes. So, yes, you can effectively be stuck at home for most of the day during these events.

[glepore]

Originally Posted by benb

They are legally required in many jurisdictions for someone to actually be charged with criminal trespass.

The sign serves as a direct notice that you have been told you are not permitted to use the property.

This. In Va. for example the only thing you need explicit permission for is to hunt, otherwise you are only a trespasser in the eyes of the law if you've been verbally told to leave or if the property is posted. So people post.
And its the south, so there's an exemption if your hunting fox etc with dogs and your dogs follow quarry onto posted land, you can follow the dogs...

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by redir

Living in SW Virginia I do see that a lot. My take on it was that they felt they needed to do it in case some idiot trespasses and breaks his leg he can hire a lawyer and sue the property owner but if they have the sign up then it's some sort of protection?

It's very situational (state/county, what happened, the sign location, etc). But generally, posting a NO TRESPASSING sign doesn't grant a property owner immunity from injury claims for known hazards. And this is American - you can sue or be sued for darn near anything, regardless of merit.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by benb

They are legally required in many jurisdictions for someone to actually be charged with criminal trespass.

The sign serves as a direct notice that you have been told you are not permitted to use the property.

Only half correct. Verbal or written notice works. Signs are just an easy subset of written notice (because they're proactive).

Somebody that burns down a cabin is a felon regardless of any signs on the property. All the sign does it tell law-abiding citizens to stay away.

[GregL]

In rural areas of the northeast, posted signs are common. I grew up on a dairy farm in Otsego County, NY (just south of Cooperstown). Our property was posted for the safety of our livestock during hunting seasons. The last thing you want is errant bullets flying through a pasture full of expensive Holsteins!

Greg

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by Alistair

It's very situational (state/county, what happened, the sign location, etc). But generally, posting a NO TRESPASSING sign doesn't grant a property owner immunity from injury claims for known hazards. And this is American - you can sue or be sued for darn near anything, regardless of merit.

Similarly (though more extreme), you can't intentionally booby-trap your property and be immune from prosecution, no matter how many "no trespassing" signs you put up.

[glepore]

On the flip side of the liability issue, many states have a recreational use immunity law which gives a landowner immunity from hazards on the land (other than booby trap type stuff) wrt recreational users, but most of these laws require in return that the land be open to the public for recreational use.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by glepore

On the flip side of the liability issue, many states have a recreational use immunity law which gives a landowner immunity from hazards on the land (other than booby trap type stuff) wrt recreational users, but most of these laws require in return that the land be open to the public for recreational use.

There's also the legal concept of "attractive nuisance" to consider, i.e. a visible trampoline or pool that could entice a child to use it and get hurt.

[redir]

Originally Posted by Alistair

It's very situational (state/county, what happened, the sign location, etc). But generally, posting a NO TRESPASSING sign doesn't grant a property owner immunity from injury claims for known hazards. And this is American - you can sue or be sued for darn near anything, regardless of merit.

Yeah so that being the case what's the point? People know that they can't simply walk into your house same as they know they can't ski or hunt on your property. My guess is the ones who don't care will do it regardless of signs.

[benb]

Originally Posted by redir

Yeah so that being the case what's the point? People know that they can't simply walk into your house same as they know they can't ski or hunt on your property. My guess is the ones who don't care will do it regardless of signs.

The sign is a legal notice and changes the sequence of events & outcomes when the police arrive at the property.

If there are no signs you are not liable for criminal trespass until someone tells you to leave and you refuse or return a second time. If there are signs you can be liable for criminal trespass immediately.

Are we this urban here? Without a sign people might not know at all they crossed into a different property. Signage and warnings exist to provide safety to both sides so you can't be charged unfairly.

I come across No Trespassing signs all the time in the woods. They don't bother me at all. I go down trails that I don't know where they go sometimes. The No Trespassing sign is the only warning I might get that I'm veering out of the trail system I intend to use.

[glepore]

Actually, that statement is incorrect. Really, in most states the "known hazard" doctrine only applies to persons who have the common law status of "licensee" that is, one who has permission. No duty is owed a trespasser, except where the trespasser does it so often that the landowner should know, and the aforementioned attractive nuisance. As an example of the traditional law-https://www.wolcottriversgates.com/blog/premises-liability-in-virginia-a-summary-of-the-duties-and-responsibilities-of-the-landowner/.

So, the signs do have a purpose wrt legal liability; it make the status of someone who enters clear. It also gives notice so that they may be charged with criminal trespass where enforced.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by glepore

So, the signs do have a purpose wrt legal liability; it make the status of someone who enters clear. It also gives notice so that they may be charged with criminal trespass where enforced.

I wasnt aware of the criminal implications of the signs - so this does make more sense.

What still doesnt make sense are the signs threatening violence.

[adub]

Typically cyclists are city folk, Ranchers and farmers generally don't appreciate a big group of city folk outside of a city, especially on their land.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by adub

Typically cyclists are city folk, Ranchers and farmers generally don't appreciate a big group of city folk outside of a city, especially on their land.

Which is a little absurd if you consider it. If 100 farmers are walking around my city's downtown I'm not exactly annoyed. Of course, I'm assuming no one's trespassing in either case, and I'm sure the vast majority of "city folk" aren't trespassing anywhere when they (gasp) leave the city for a bit.

Maybe misanthropic wasn't the exact word I should have used earlier; maybe some combination for misanthropic and xenophobic better describes it.