Originally Posted by
indyfabz
I said no such thing. That's your conspiracy theory mindset talking to you. Sounds like you want the benefits of running a business without the responsibilities and liabilities associated with of running a business.
I had two choices following your last response: 1) argue that it would be easier to get liability protection than you suggested or 2) assume you're right and it would be practically impossible. I chose the second and fleshed out the consequences of restricting bike camping to insured providers. You now tell me it's my 'conspiracy theory mindset' that's giving up on the idea of liability protection. Do you see the same contradiction I do?
Here is an idea: Sell it to me. I am a state senator from Columbia County, PA. In my county there are 12 campgrounds that are registered, licensed, insured and inspected. There are also 2 state parks with camping. Aside from sovereign immunity limiting the amount you can recover from state-owned facilities, none of these operations receive any special exemption from liability. Convince me why I should vote for a bill that would give a private landowner who wants to allow cyclists to camp on his or her property total immunity from liability in the event a camper is injured. I mean, why, for example, should a landowner who knows his property is full of dangerous, unsealed wells, be let off the hook if a camper falls into one and is injured? What if that injured person needs care for life and is uninsured or underinsured? The state ends up picking up the tab. Can you explain to me why I should support such a bill?
The big reason is that the whole idea of America was/is that people are supposed to be free to go and stay where they please as long as they don't harm others. Since practically all land is now chartered either as public or private property, the government has a responsibility to protect the right to travel freely without entering into conflict with others. Liability produces the potential for legal harassment of property owners so they, in turn, expect no-tresspassing rights to protect them from others harassing them. People should have a right to own private property without having to police it for prospective litigants.
Also, the state parks and registered campgrounds you mention may provide premium features and services that every camper may not need or want every day, such as showers and laundry facilities. If someone wants to bike a few days in a row without showering or doing laundry and then camp somewhere that they can, why should the government make it difficult for owners of undeveloped land to allow them to do so? In fact, why shouldn't the government facilitate the ability of undeveloped-land owners to allow such camping? Where is the line between using permitting, inspection, insurance, etc. as a means for improving the quality of businesses and using it as a means of forcing people into licensed facilities?