Bureaucracy Gone Mad (Absurdity at its best)

I still use "Have a good weekend"!!!! I like you subtle dig at the "safe" not "good" times ahead. Seems like fun, enjoyable, good and happy are not allowed.

Phil

You got it in one Nick.
For those who still have doubts about "why it is so" (sorry Prof J.S-M.) have a look in a mirror. Many years ago, I had a dealership that supplied a certain brand of off road vehicles. One of our customers was the president (CEO?) of a shire just to the north of Perth. Within the boundries of this shire was a recreational area, mainly sand dunes, that was the favourite playground for trail bikes, buggies and ATVs. Many of the weekend warriors that used this area would get real cranky when the shire ranger would show up and enforce the requirement that a helmet and suitable footwear was to worn as a minimum. Basically no riding gear, get your vehicle back on the ute or trailer.
The ranger was just being a spoil sport by enforcing this and some other riding laws.
All good until someone decided that the safe boundries of this area as set by the shire were just there to ruin his fun. So ignoring the rules he rode his trailbike over the edge of a wind blown dune and broke some vertibrae in his back.
The next thing you know this bloke and his legal team wanted several million in damages from the shire. It cost the shire many thousands of dollars to defend the action even though it was decided in their favour. The bloke from the shire told us that if the litigant had been successful they would have had no other choice than to fence off the dunes and surrounding area and totally ban it's use.
As the old saying goes, great fun until someone gets an eye poked out. Then it's lawyers at 10 paces.
Cheers
Pop

Kenell,

Most of what you say is as you state, just common sense. A commodity getting more uncommon these days it would seem.

As far as getting an "all care, no responsibility" doco to fly in a court of law, good luck with that.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, as you like, there are certain "rights" for want of a better term, than cannot be signed away.

Cheers
Pop

I should have read your comment before I posted mine Kenell. Pretty much the same thoughts.

True, but this is on 100 acres and low key camping by all accounts, not a suburban block...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Understand that Baz. The issue needs to be discussed - with a good dose of common sense as everyone agrees - if for no other reason than alerting lessors to their liabilities and responsibilities. Turning a blind eye is not the answer.

That's only part of the problem Munji but yes something like the NZ adventure tourism laws (possibly coupled with a no-fault insurance scheme?) would be a good start.

Hey Munji

Happy to put my name to that rant as well - spot on!

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Hear, hear...

This is low key camping, not overly complicated, but somehow authorities seem to have a knack of making it complicated.

Cheers, Baz

Hi Motherhen,

Points are well noted, but it has gone over the top.

Munji summed it up nicely in his response above.

Cheers, Baz

Hey Ron

Some very balanced comments, especially your last remark.

What I take issue at is this overwhelming need for authorities to protect us all the time.

And for sure, I get the joke, it is all about legal liability, but how did we ever let the potential for litigation encroach on our everyday lives to the extent it has?

For most of us when we are Out and About having fun we generally seem to get by quite well in determining safe areas to camp, whether it be on the Anne Beadell, the CSR, somewhere up in the Gulf, wherever.

And I suspect most of us aren’t looking around to see whom we can blame and sue if the tree we camp under drops a branch in the middle of the night – in fact most of us probably wouldn’t camp under it.

Common sense at work, I guess…

So when it comes to determining whether it is safe to camp at the campsite discussed in this article, or others that are offering similar, I suspect most of us can do our own due diligence and if it looks unsafe or “dodgy” we won’t stay there.

I’m betting that most people that offer this style of camping on their properties are not doing it on a wholesale basis and that it is mostly low key – perfect, over the years on EO that is what many have called for, especially given many (most) are not willing to pay the caravan park owner the true cost of parking a van or camping on his plot of land.

As for insurance liability, that is something for the property owner to consider.
But for me, if I thought there was a risk I would be needing to call in the compensation lawyers for a mishap caused on the property I would avoid the risk by not staying there, much the same way I’ve exercised risk management everywhere else I camp.

This is pocket money stuff for the owners, generally not a full on business that will generate a return sufficient to pay the price of compliance.

I am behind this type of low key offering as it opens the opportunity for a greater variety of camping, especially on Australia’s East Coast where you are limited to either National Parks or Caravan Parks…

Cheers, Baz

Baz,

While I agree wholeheartedly with the general concept of "common sense" that we should (but often don't) apply, Maybe look at this from a slightly different angle.

You say "What I take issue at is this overwhelming need for authorities to protect us all the time"

Have you considered that just maybe there is also a significant component of protecting themselves from us.

Just a thought (;=))

Cheers
Pop