I'm actually trying to encourage you to think through your ideas and present them in such a way that they can be taken seriously ... as a business case.

There is business, which thrives on complexification. The more rules, insurance, and other structure - the more business has to manage and thus charge money for. Then there is this other business of simplification where a person can find a naturally clear spot of land and pitch a tent or a bivy, sleep the night, pack up in the morning and be off.

These two types of business conflict with each other. If you try to make money by regulating camping spots that require hardly any, if any, labor and/or management, it defeats the very essence of freedom. For this reason, insurance, lawyers, managers, etc. need to be kept out of the process of negotiating such spots. For some people this happens naturally because they just ask to camp on someone's land and the owner says yes and no problems arise. Great!

But what if the owner says no, and what if the reason has to do with liability concerns. What if the owner doesn't have insurance or doesn't want to deal with the hassle of filing an insurance claim because someone sprains an ankle while free camping on their property? What if someone comes on the property and abuses it, makes fires or leaves a mess? Wouldn't it help if the property owner could report abuses and campers knew that their reputation was at stake? What about security that they can allow campers on their land without incurring liability?

You claim there has to be some statistical measurement of how often these issues actually arise or how many people either want to free camp or want to allow others to free camp on their property. But what if the statistics are low because people have long since become conditioned to forego the right to free camp because of all sorts of territorial conflicts that have occurred in the past? Ask around. Property owners are concerned about liability. Liability protection is what they would need to allow free camping on their land. You don't need statistics to understand this. There may be other reasons people wouldn't want someone camping on their land, but if they have nothing to lose, that's already a big step in the right direction.

BTW, Machka. I sometimes think you try to bury in posts the threads whose premise you want to deter people from reading and participating in. This issue could be important for people who want to bike-camp on a budget and who might not exude the kind of elite status that causes people to want to give them free allowances to attract them as customers. Such people have a right to be able to travel and camp without government, insurance, etc. deterring others from allowing them to camp. There are no statistics that can diminish the fundamental importance of free camping without the territorial/liability conflicts that get built into the law and insurance rules.

I'm not sure there is such a clear-cut correlation.

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.

Other car-free living folk are those who have chosen to live in dense areas, close to their places of work and business (or have found themselves living in such areas, and have realized how much quicker/more pleasant it can be to get to work/business by bike instead of by car.) A subset of these mostly short-trip-taking cyclists will be interested in longer self-contained touring, but I'm guessing that it's pretty unlikely that there is a 1-to-1 correlation.

The guy or girl who lives out in the (relative) boonies, regularly racking up 40-mile days of bike commuting/shopping, is probably the most likely car-free-to-bike-tourist crossover (although maybe on their vacations, they would prefer to lie in a hammock all day with a nice umbrella drink ) but I would bet that they are the rarest of car-free folk.

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?)

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.

In light of the harm that was caused establishing America, I think you need to at least take the "was" out of the above.

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?

I am done with this inane academic exercise.

P.S. Look up dispersed camping in national forest land.

La majesteuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dan les rues et de voler du pain. Anatole France

The majestic equality of the law which forbids both the rich man and the poor man to sleep under the bridge, beg in the streets and to steal bread.

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.

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.

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?

'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?

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.

What a disrespectful thing to say. I was in no way disrespectful toward you.

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.

Actually, the entire premises of this thread is that the land owner would have NO responsibility whatsoever:

"Then create a registration system where private property owners can make campsites available with simple, ironclad liability restriction that guarantees no property owner will be sued for anything that happens to someone while camping."

If the consequences of one's actions can result in no liability, then one has no responsibilities.

Have you ever even been on a tour?

Others: Check out the other threads started by the OP and judge for yourself.

Excellent question. But one that won't be answered. Or at least, I'd be very surprised if he gives you a simple yes/no answer.



I have.

Even if he hadn't toured, it would not really displace his concerns since I think they are probably more relevant where he at the window looking in than not. I think a lot of people do worry about where they will sleep, and I have toured in areas where the primary modes are illegal. It is certainly difficult to be aware of all the ordinances for all the jurisdictions one travels through. This is one of the reasons for stealth camping, don't draw attention when one will end up on the loosing side of any argument, even if one is in the right.

Around here bike touring is vastly unpopular, and there is no way there will be accommodations made to make it easier. Stuff that is hugely popular like fishing, has been waiting decades to have minor sensible adjustments to the regs made. I think the main option will be backdoor solutions over the internet. Changing the Taxi licensing system would be tough. Comparatively Uber is simple.

An example of something not entirely unlike what Tandem is after is the Walmart system for allowing campers to use their lots. Sorta odd really, one would not expect Walmart to do something oddball like that. Around here there aren't any 24 hour stores, so it is more than possible to set up in Walmart after driving till dark and spend not a dime in the stores. I am not aware of all the issues this may have caused, it seemed superficially to be a mater of saying come on in. They aren't charging for the service, so that may work. The question for small camp ground folk would be how to get paid, if that was an issue. But there is probably a way. Like maybe a purchase over ebay, that will be difficult to track the reality of. Local pick-up only.

It's importantly unlike what the OP suggests because Walmart has insurance and, as far as I know, has not received any special legal immunity, much less total, unqualified immunity. It owes the same responsibilities to "invitee" as any other person or entity does under applicable state law.

I have actually read a couple of articles about "Walmart camping." According to employees of the company, it does generate sales. A lot of sales at some stores. Most of those who take advantage of it are RV drivers. In some places where it is frequent, the stores place some RV-related products (e.g., septic system treatment products) near store entrances. All that is typically asked is that RVs be parked in designated areas, away from the parking spots that are most convenient for day shoppers. I would be surprised if one would be allowed to pitch a tent directly on the parking lot surface. Seems like a recipe for an accident.

A big issue with providing primitive camp sites for cyclists is that of human waste disposal. If I were a Walmart manager I would not want my customers to need to walk by sites with fresh poop and pee left by tent campers, nor would I want holes dug in the landscape to conceal it. The same would apply to tent sites on my private property. Tandempower's proposal for a licensed system for landowners to "post a standardized sign designating a path from the road to a camping spot" would never fly with me. Any primitive camping by cyclists needs to be dispersed at random locations to work unless sanitary facilities are provided.

I think this is the most valid post in this thread. Camping permits should specify how to mark bathroom spots so that subsequent campers can avoid them. Making crosses or piles of sticks over a covered waste spot is a good system, imo, because by the time the wood rots enough to be indistinguishable as a market, so too has the waste composted.

Signs from the road could specify an area. E.g. "Dispersed camping permitted between flags up to 500ft from the road." That way, you could see the two flags tied on trees from the road and pick a spot between them at any depth into the land. If built establishments like Walmart or other stores want to allow camping behind their buildings, they could set limits on the number of consecutive days and allow use of customer restrooms and/or provide a porta-potty (or composting toilet) so campers don't have to come inside (which would be impossible at night if the store is closed anyway).

I don't see why liability protection should be a problem if simple guidelines are followed: E.g.

1) post a sign disclosing any known hazards within the camping area. (the sign should say that any other hazards encountered are unknown to the property owner and therefore exempt from liability)
2) In order to get a camping permit, users have to accept the owner takes no responsibility for anything that occurs between campers on the property. Legally, the area must be designated as public property or 'no man's land' where local police could be called but neither the property owner nor municipal government, state government, etc. could be sued for anything that occurs on the property.

How would these rules create problems? Please give specific examples for clarity?

[QUOTE=indyfabz;17446342]It's importantly unlike what the OP suggests because Walmart has insurance and, as far as I know, has not received any special legal immunity, much less total, unqualified immunity. It owes the same responsibilities to "invitee" as any other person or entity does under applicable state law."

Oh yeah the insurance stuff is a fantasy. I don't think the suggestions are going anywhere, I just know there is a lot of concern over the whole where do I camp thing, and there have been endless agony threads over various startegies like stealth camping, that whatever one calls the various tactics make certain people uncomfortable.

"I have actually read a couple of articles about "Walmart camping." According to employees of the company, it does generate sales. A lot of sales at some stores. Most of those who take advantage of it are RV drivers. In some places where it is frequent, the stores place some RV-related products (e.g., septic system treatment products) near store entrances."

I'm sure they make money, my thing being while one could possibly get around some concerns by offering free camping, the small guy doesn't have sales to be made from his adjacent store. Walmart could leverage their parking lot in a lot of ways, it is odd this is the main, or only one, but they don't do anything by accident.

"All that is typically asked is that RVs be parked in designated areas, away from the parking spots that are most convenient for day shoppers. I would be surprised if one would be allowed to pitch a tent directly on the parking lot surface. Seems like a recipe for an accident"

I am not sure they even allow you to use this capability if you do not have a toilet. I have always wondered. While the 24 hour places could deal with it, the others would be at risk. A lot of the problems around bike camping come down to hygiene around toilet issues. These are difficult to deal with, but not insurmountable, if it can be done on a big wall.

I rode a Surly LHT from Key West, Fl up to the Great Lakes and west to California then back home to New Mexico a few years ago. I was on the road for a little over 7 months and stealth camped in a tent each night. Yes, it can be done but the ease with which you can do it depends on the US region you find yourself in at any given moment. The east coast and eastern woodlands extending west to central Missouri were the easiest. Lots of unfenced woods at the side of the road in which to hide. The Midwest extending to New Mexico was the most difficult. No woodlands to hide in and extremely rare is a piece of property that doesn't have a barbed wire fence around it. Do not climb fences to camp. Only camp on land that is not fenced. Otherwise, if you are caught, you lose all deniability of knowing you were on private property. I was told to "move along" by cops three or four times at the early stages of my trip before I wised up to the fact that any "citizen" driving by who happens to see you from the road camping is going to pull out a cell phone and call the cops. We live in a culture of do-gooder anonymous snitches. So make sure no one sees you leaving the shoulder of the road to enter the treeline and go deep enough into the trees that your tent can't be seen from the road. Once I entered the Midwest and cattle country it became virtually impossible to find unfenced land or woods. Your entire day is basically limited to pedaling down a ribbon of blacktop road between two never-ending barbed wire fences. To deal with this I would pedal up to the local city hall building of whatever small town or village I had entered at the end of the day, telling them who I was and what I was doing, and asking to pitch for the night in their local municipal park. They always said yes and were very nice about it. Once I had made it across the Midwest and into BLM country, I went back to stealth camping. When asking for permission to camp in a small town's community park, always ask at city hall. Never ask at the local police station. City Hall's contain politicians and they are more prone to welcoming you. Cops reside at police stations and their first instinct is to say no to anything that falls outside their limited scope of life experience. Plus, cops just like to say no to prove their manhood. But by far and away, my biggest piece of advice for commando camping is to think like a hunted animal. Because in a culture as socially backwards as ours, the infinite layers of law enforcement won't make the slightest distinction between you and a homeless person and we all know how the homeless are treated in our country. I was riding a $4,500 custom bike with $2,500 worth of state-of-the-art camping gear and dressed in cycling clothes. No matter. The cops, especially in the dixieland south, stopped me and ran my driver's license on a regular basis. On one particular day in Georgia I was stopped five times by local police in various towns. In southern Alabama I was surrounded on the side of the highway by five police cars and cops with drawn weapons and accused of committing a **** that had just happened as I was cycling through their town. In Arkansas I found myself in a vicious fist-fight with an Ozark hillbilly in front of a convenience store for no other reason than he thought I was a homeless man and jumped on me for fun. In Kansas I was repeatedly refused entry into a certain chain of grocery stores for being "indecently dressed". I was wearing standard cycling clothes. Having said all this, most days were fairly good days and some were sublime. But anyone attempting a long bicycle trip in America should be wise to the fact that in large part cross-country cycling is a European thing and the average American has never seen such a creature much less comprehends why you would want to do such a thing. The familiar explanation for them? You must be a homeless person. So do what I did and TAKE IT AS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE NOT TO LIVE THE LIFE OF A HERD ANIMAL AND STEALTH CAMP UNTIL YOU'RE TOO DAMN OLD TO DO IT ANYMORE.