Originally Posted by
maxine
A certain segment of the "car-free" is made up of people who don't really want to be car-free, but are out on bikes due to lack of money, DUI arrests, etc. Probably not a big segment, but I would guess that very few of those folks have any burning interest in vacation travel on bikes.
Many people who lack the money to afford to drive and travel by car do anyway, when biking locally (and ultimately for weekend getaways as well) would put them in a better economic situation. This is an expanding segment of the population. With oil and gas prices currently discounted, there's going to be a movement to market driving and flying to people who haven't been able to afford it through the years of high fuel prices and who won't be able to again later when prices stabilize and begin their upward shift again.
On the other hand, there is an awareness now that the more fuel-independent people get, the lower the price goes so the trend to live and travel car-free may well continue to gain ground, including a widening variety of methods and types of lodging for bike travel. Personally, I favor the free camping model because it's the closest you can get to total independence, and regardless of how many different business options emerge to accomodate bike touring, I will continue to make a case for free camping and public use of private property because it's a fundamental exercise of freedom and independence at the most basic level.
I think the basic point is that you're talking about a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the population. How many (somewhat) dedicated cyclists in the U.S.? Of those, how many are interested in touring? And of those, how many are interested in self-contained bike camping (as opposed to doing organized tours, and/or staying in hotels along the way?)
It doesn't really matter how small a 'sliver' it may be. There's still the problem that the courts and insurance providers are harassing private property owners with a de facto threat of liability if they allow potential litigants to free camp on their land. That's not right. It's like the "yes means yes" law for sexual consent: private property owners should have the right to consent to strangers using their land without fear of future litigation.
Originally Posted by
pdlamb
While Machka can certainly speak for herself, I think you're avoiding the issues she's pointed out. Unfortunately, your response has been a multiplication of hypotheticals. If you're serious about this idea, you (or somebody) will have to address the business case sooner or later. If there's no business case to support your proposed model, it'll save a lot of time and wasted words to find that out now rather than later.
Do you see the constitution as serving its purpose if activities for which there's no business case get discouraged by legal and insurance practices?
Originally Posted by
indyfabz
In light of the harm that was caused establishing America, I think you need to at least take the "was" out of the above.
'America' only caused harm if you define it in terms of the people who did the harm. America as an idea of freedom and democracy never did any harm. It was always those who fell short of the ideal that caused the harm. How can you harm others if you truly respect their freedom and respect their reasoned judgement?
In any event, you haven't sold me on why one class should receive favorable treatment while others are faced with more burdens. If you want to offer licenses to the public to essentially you use your property as a campground, what difference does it make where or not you have hook ups, picnic tables or flush toilets?
Once upon a time, people were free to use uncharted land as they pleased. Since all land is now charted, the law should protect the right of private owners to allow public use of their land without threat of potential litigation due to liability.
I am done with this inane academic exercise.
What a disrespectful thing to say. I was in no way disrespectful toward you.
P.S. Look up dispersed camping in national forest land.
I have and I think private property owners should be allowed to make their land available with the same usage rules and responsibilities - and without facing potential litigation.