I'd add that it isn't just rates, it is also the no turn away policy that makes hiker biker sights important. For those not familiar with hiker biker sights they are usually either a group site of a regular camp site that you share with other hiker or cyclists.

On the east coast, assuming decent rates, it would be wonderful if the hiker biker system was implemented. For much of the middle of the country it is a lot less of an issue since it is usually pretty easy to find a place to camp for free in plain sight. Small town folks there seem to be a lot more laid back about a cyclist pitching a tent in their town park or sleeping under a picnic pavilion roof. In a lot of the west and the plains states I find I camp for free much more often than not.

Even in the western states that have the Hiker/Biker policy it frequently is only offered in a subset of parks. In California most of the parks along the coast have Hiker/Biker sites, but they aren't that common in other state parks. Some of the rangers are sympathetic and will let a bicycle tourer stay somewhere in the park even if all sites are already reserved, but it would be nice for this to be a uniform policy rather than dependent on the whims of individual rangers.

Given the vagaries of wind and other weather it's hard for a bicycle tourist to stick strictly to the kind of schedule that's needed to be able to make reservations months in advance (which is nec. in many of our state parks)

Also even if you could stick to one, a rigid schedule would suck much of the joy out of a tour IMO. Making reservations months in advance is unthinkable to me. Heck I don't like to commit hours in advance. I often don't know where I will want to stay until I am there, let alone when that will be. Fortunately it always seems to work out somehow.

A few times in the busiest parks we had to ask around and find someone willing to share a site.

We don't have the same land laws as countries such as Norway - and they are not likely to change just for cyclists. But there are many possibilities out there that most cyclists are not aware of. Throughout the Midwest and Great Plains, you can usually overnight on public right of way - this includes county dirt roads. So you turn down a dirt farm road for a mile - find a wide spot near the fence - and pitch your tent. Similarly, many states have state wildlife areas and state forests where primitive camping is permitted. Fire is a serious issue in the West - and some cyclists would not abide by an ironclad "No Fires of Any Sort". A significant fire and a rancher might be bankrupted.

As a lawyer, that made me chuckle.

Even something like an Equine Activity Liabilities Act, on the books in at least forty-four states, does not provide unequivocal immunity. And even if it would provide immunity in a specific case, that doesn't mean someone won't sue anyway, so appropriate liability insurance is advisable.

Amen

People can sue, but if the law clearly states that campers camp at their own risk and the property owner makes no claims about the quality of the land being used, then shouldn't any lawsuit be easily dismissed? If not, couldn't the law provide counter-lawsuit provisions that would make it easy for property owners to recover any legal fees spent defending against a false claim? That would discourage lawsuits and clarify the intent to make campers responsible for themselves and their stuff on the property, rather than the owner.

You're splitting my sides. PA's EALA took 16 years to pass. What could be passed and what would pass are often two different things.

Theorize all you want, but I don't think it will ever become reality.

Let's assume you're right and there is a water-tight control-system between the legal system and the insurance industry that prevents the possibility of liberating property owners from potential lawsuits. That discourages property owners from allowing camping or any other form of commerce taking place on their land without sufficient payment to make it worth their risk. That, in turn, means less bike-camping spots and/or more expensive ones.

So what's the problem with paying more to camp, you may ask. Well, think about the bottom line of bike touring. It takes more time to travel less distance than with motorized forms of transportation. So if lodging-prices are normalized according to a standard that requires covering the costs of liability insurance and whatever property-management costs go along with satisfying insurance requirements, that is going to discourage bike-camping as an alternative to car-touring for people who wish to tour.

Economically, we've reached a point where the economy no longer affords most people the opportunity to tour. For one thing, it's very hard to get time off from most jobs. Second, if it was easier to get enough time off to go on long bike tours AND people made enough money to car-tour, then the roads and highways would fill up with traffic as they used to do before the 2000s. So, essentially, we're in an economic state of travel-repression because no one wants an economy where everyone can afford the time AND the cost of touring around in their car.

So if bike campers are held to the standards of cost and time that the economy affords to car-touring, bike-camping is going to be subject to as strong of restriction as car-touring and camping. This is a sad prospect considering that bike touring/camping is the solution to the problem of population growth and travel that has more or less hit a brick wall in recent decades. If the law won't bend to allow the economy to evolve, what then?

If that's true we're in for a sad future. Bicycles will not become ubiquitous fixtures in the vacationing/touring life of most people. Not gonna happen.

Again ... you're assuming a problem that just doesn't exist and you're trying to propose a solution to it.


1) We cycletourists have been managing to find accommodation to suit our needs just fine.

2) Bike touring/camping is not the solution to the problem of population growth and travel. Most people do not want to travel on a bicycle ... and do not want to camp.

3) Why do you think travel has more or less hit a brick wall in recent decades? Do you have statistics to back up that idea?

I think you underestimate the growth potential under the right conditions. Just consider what Orlando tourism would be like if there was a network of bike roads to the theme parks, restaurants, etc. Currently, a certain level of middle-class income and work-scheduling permits people to travel, fly and then rent cars, etc. This class continues to shrink. It simply discourages people from traveling when there are too many tourists on the roads. Yes, some people will always be willing to deal with the hassles because they absolutely MUST take the family to Disney world, but how many people gladly opt for a vacation somewhere that is brimming with driving tourists?

Of course, this thread isn't about "bicycles becoming ubiquitous fixtures in the vacationing/touring life of most people." It is about making bike touring easier for the people that do want to do it by making more camping spots available. Some people may not mind chancing a spot in what seems to be an unpopulated area, but imo it would be nicer to know that you have permission to camp at that spot AND it would be nice if you didn't have to put too much planning into finding a place and going 10 or 20 (or even 5 really) extra miles to get there. Bike touring is best when you can stop for the night whenever you feel like it.


Machka, it's unpleasant when you begin a post with, "again . . ." It puts all the weight of past disagreements between us at the start of your post. Further, you disrespect me by saying basically that something that's a problem for me is negligible because I'm the only one concerned. I promise you that there are plenty of people who would be much more comfortable pitching camp in a spot where they have a right to camp than one where the owner might want them to leave if they are caught. Someone posted about the 'freedom to roam' in Scandinavia, which is one way to legitimate responsible free camping. US national parks also allow dispersed primitive camping within certain guidelines. All I am proposing is that private land owners also be given an easy option to make their land available for free or low cost to bike campers.

Yes, so have I but sometimes I've checked into potential overnight spots in planning a new route and it's never quite as easy as, "oh great, you can camp 100ft from the road anywhere along this corridor. . . " even though that is ultimately what I think is feasible given that campers behave responsibly, don't leave trash, don't make fires, etc.

Maybe not, but many can't afford to travel by car, airplane, train, or ship; either in terms of the cost or in terms of getting time off of work. We have simply reached the limits of expanding the global economy to allow everyone to achieve the same standard of living as the middle classes of the developed world. And it's not like we're even going to make it possible for everyone to have fly/drive vacations in the US and Europe. There are simply too many people to comfortable travel around flying and driving as tourists.

What kind of statistics would "back up that idea?" I don't know you personally, Machka, but the impression I get from your posts is that you don't come in contact with many low- to middle- income people. Maybe you do, though, or maybe you see them on TV and realize they can barely afford to pay their bills and rarely, if ever, get to travel. It's not like it used to be pre-2000 when a typical family could take long and regular vacations. I don't believe that will ever be broadly possible again due to the sheer number of people who aspire to that lifestyle (or who are now allowed to aspire to it) compared with a few decades ago.

I'm talking about Post 19 in this thread.



Travel trends in the US and other countries over the past decade or two or three.

Are there really fewer people travelling now as compared with the 1990s, for example? Or is the opposite true?

What kind of travelling are people doing? Has the number of people flying to other countries for leisure travel increased or decreased? Or are people tending to stay in their local areas? And so on.

Real statistics.


You're claiming that "travel that has more or less hit a brick wall in recent decades". I'm asking ... has it? And do you have statistics to back up that claim?

Ok, then I misinterpreted it.

Even if the total number of people traveling (or trips taken) would be more, that wouldn't mean that travel isn't reaching its limits. Look at the limiting factors of different modes of transportation and you will see factors that discourage instead of encourage users. Increased airport security and disasters are not planned deterrents but they have a limiting effect on demand, which still doesn't push the supply side to the point of creating incentives to attract more business. This suggests that there is no shortage of demand.

Auto travel is also nothing like what it was in earlier decades, when the US masses flocked up and down highways in search of seasonal comfort. High fuel prices are the direct deterrent for such liberal driving-travel, but the more general cause is a global economy that is cutting back demand on multiple levels because there is widespread dissatisfaction with mass travel. Remember that the 2001 WTC attacks were preceded by global-scale anti-globalization resistance that is still present. Xenophobia in Europe has steadily increased, or at least steadily grown more visible. US xenophobia is back on the rise as well after what seemed to be a few years of calm, probably only due to reduced migration as a result of economic recession.

For the same reason car-free living is growing in popularity, so should car-free travel. People just don't like being stuck driving in traffic everywhere. This may seem like a purely psychological effect divorced from economics but travel is limited by psychological factors more than hard economic limits, such as a lack of seats on planes or beds in hotels. Also, there is tiered market-pricing for airplane seats and hotel rooms so they will never all fill up. Instead, the number of people who would travel if the prices were more affordable keeps increasing because people simply forego what seems too pricey for their budget.

Lots of talk ... but you still haven't provided any statistics. You're obviously quite passionate about this subject. I presume you've researched it. So ... provide us with some of the statistics you've uncovered.

It would be interesting to see real statistics about travel trends.

Also, you might have a read through some of the recent threads on touring costs and favourite places to stay.

Statistics are a very superficial research tool. I gave you a number of examples of directly observable indexes of what I'm talking about and all you do is keep talking about statistics.

FWIW: My impression is that cycle touring is more accessible than it ever has been in my lifetime (I am 63). I also suspect that it is about as popular as it has been with the possible exception of a surge in the bicentennial year.

I think that in general more folks are likely to be able to get time off from work and tour as long as they live even moderately frugal lifestyles. I say this because we now have a workplace environment where a lot of workers either change jobs every few years or work as contract workers sometimes staying only a few months on any given job. During much of my life a lot of the workforce was likely to work for the same employer 20, 30, or more years so leaving a job would be traumatic and life changing. That no longer seems to be the case for a large segment of the work force. Taking a month or whatever between jobs is much more doable for folks who are changing jobs frequently any way.

There is a large segment of the population that chooses to live well beyond their means to the extent that it kills their chances to do a lot of things. At least some of them made choices that limited their ability to tour. Things like new cars, homes well beyond their means, and a host of other luxuries treated as necessities are the problem for that segment of the population.

Yes there are people who are just scraping by in poorly paying jobs, but there always have been, and they generally aren't going to be going on a bike tour regardless of whether people let them camp in their yards or not.

I have crossed the US a couple times, done the pacific coast, and done some other longish tours. I found that it was possible to do so quite cheaply and did not have an especially hard time finding places to camp despite the fact that I choose to very seldom use stealth and have never asked anyone if I could camp in their yard (I have been invited to do so quite often though). On the Trans America and probably on the Southern Tier I camped for free more often than I paid. I did get rooms more often on the ST, but that was because I chose to, not because I needed to.

I have actually found that I sometimes spend less while on tour than I would at home. Most of the folks I met on tour were folks of modest means, living on a modest budget, and doing fine.

All of that reinforces my impression that your proposal is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't really exist in most places that folks tend to tour in a way that would be unlikely to work even where/if the problem did exist.

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.

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?

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?

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?

That is cool!!! I have never heard of them. Thanks for posting.

I talked it over with Cheryl and we signed up to provide a camp spot in West Georgia. We'd welcome a visit or three!!

Yes ... I would really be interested to see some statistics to back up your premise.

I can provide you with a number of examples that would have you convinced that Winnipeg is hotter than Miami... by selecting certain summertime situations. But if you looked at the statistics of the entire year, the story would be completely different.


If you want to explain why a "state senator from Columbia County, PA", for example, should support the sort of bill you're proposing, you're going to have to come up with statistics to show ... an increased desire for basic camping facilities ... an increased desire for camping in general ... an increase in cycletouring ... increases or decreases in other sorts of travel ... etc. etc. You're going to have to show numbers and charts rather than just a lot of words.



And if I were the senator you're trying to convince, I'd say ... why don't the campers who don't want those facilities stay in municipal campgrounds or just pitch in the ditch on a quiet country road?

I might also ask for statistics on how many campers there are in the state in question, and perhaps also in surrounding states. And I'd ask you if you have done some research (surveys or something) on what sort of camping facilities are actually desired. I'd want proof that this is actually an issue for more than just one or two people.

If this isn't a topic you consider relevant for more than one or two people, why would you even bother to post on it at all?

To ask you why you think this is relevant for more than just a small handful of people. Back to Post 19 again. IMO you're trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

But ... maybe you can provide statistics to show that this is a significant problem.



Also, I said the following with the qualifier ... "if I were the senator you're trying to convince" ...


If you genuinely think that there is a problem and that you've got a solution, and if you genuinely want to convince someone/anyone to implement a solution, you've first got to produce evidence that there is a problem. If you can't produce evidence that there is a problem no one is going to want to go through all the fuss, hassle, and bother of implementing a so-called "solution".

Do some research ... come up with statistics ... put together some surveys and polls.

Machka, you may not realize it but what you are doing is creating conditions for me (or anyone else) to put an issue on the table by saying that it's irrelevant to do so without jumping through the hurdles of finding supporting statistics, etc. What I've been trying to do is explain how this is a valid topic WITHOUT jumping through such hurdles. Why? Because I believe it is. Now are you going to try to reduce my belief that it is to some arbitrary subjective point of view of a single individual? Probably, because you for some reason refuse to comprehend general reasoning without reference to popular sovereignty in the form of statistics or some other representation of arbitrary collective opinion.

See post #45 .

If you have some reason to block an idea that would allow private property owners to share their land with bike campers WITHOUT paying insurance companies, government permitters, etc.; you're doing a good job of trying to get me to shut up about it. Why can't you see that people have the right to raise issues and pursue policies without jumping through the kinds of hoops you set up? Free speech doesn't require a special permit, the use of statistics, or anything else you keep insisting on. Democratic participation isn't supposed to be filtered by technocracy in this way.