CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   Social Issues (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=243190)

EdwardDolan March 4th 14 09:26 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

You've heard from him ... he's concerned about four-wheel drivers,

motorcycle riders, prospectors, hunters and fishermen. I don't see
mountainbikers in that list ... probably because they have about the same impact
as hikers.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I believe he is indeed including cyclists elsewhere in his
report. We do not want wheeled vehicles of any sort on hiking
trails.


Ah, you believe that do you ? Like you believed that there were thousands of hiker/biker collisions but, in reality, there weren't. Your beliefs, right now, have very little credibility. I suggest you either backup your beliefs with objective facts or avoid making statements that you have to later retract.


I never need to retract anything. However, I find that I do have to expand on everything because you lack the mentality to comprehend the simplest things. It must be hell to have to go thru life so literally minded. You are unable to make connections. Talking to you is like talking to a simpleton who has to have everything explained in detail.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 4th 14 09:52 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

All recreations have to be managed sensibly ... but that means

pragmatic solutions to individual circumstances ... not messianic proclamations
!


Edward Dolan wrote:

If recreations are sufficiently different from one another,
there is absolutely no way to combine them. Each recreation needs it own trails.
That is the "pragmatic solution" which is apparent to all but the blind, deaf
and dumb mountain bikers.


Why Ed ? There is no reason whatsoever why most trails can't be shared. Sharing works fine in most places. The videos you posted show the completely ridiculous nature of your position; you would advocate creating new trails when those videos clearly show that the existing ones are very lightly trafficked with hardly any conflict.


It doesn’t matter if trails are lightly trafficked or heavily trafficked. The users are doing different things which conflict. I have posted many reports in this thread which clearly illustrate the conflicts in great detail. These reports contradict your views but you are deaf and blind to what hikers insist upon – that trails be used for the quiet enjoyment of nature and not as a race course by cyclists.

Ed, YOU posted these links. Are they not representative of

reality now ? If so, why did you post them ?

The thousands of videos that you will see on YouTube are
representative. I no long bother looking at them they are so g.d.
idiotic.


You are going in circles. You posted videos then decided you didn't like what they showed so you want to refer to some amorphous 'other' ones on YouTube. Your case is completely shot. Why do you keep posting 'evidence' that doesn't support your propositions ?


Whatever is posted on this thread by me must be taken in context. It is the preponderance of the posts that matter, not any particular post about any particular aspect. I do not do any editing of the reports I post. Every post of mine in this thread is detrimental in the main to the issue of bikes on trails. That is all that matters to me. Either get on something important or get lost.

What bit of "stop within the distance you can see to be clear" was

unclear Ed ? If the sightline is practically nil then the speed needs to
be that much slower. If it's a long way ahead then speed can be much
higher. Simple.

Nothing is ever simple when you have testosterone prone
mountain bikers hogging the trails.


Ah, and back to ad hominem attacks rather than facts. I would also note that, bereft testosterone, the human race would have died out. You do sound like a rather bitter old man; did you never live a little when younger ?


There is a place for testosterone and it is NOT on trails used by hikers. Take your testosterone elsewhere ... like maybe to a battlefield.

Oh do stop going in circles ... it's very tiresome. I've

addressed this issue ad nauseum. If power, speed, weight, noise and
environmental damage differences between powered trail bikes and mountain bikes
are not obvious to you then you need glasses and a hearing aid.


If power, speed, weight, noise and environmental damage differences between
mountain bikes and people walking are not obvious to you then you need glasses
and a hearing aid. The only tiresome bore here is you.


Power; exactly the same (1 human power = approx 750 watts max)

Speed; Approximately 2x on average
Weight; Approx 15% higher for biker
Noise; equivalent
Environmental impact; equivalent

The facts, as usual, don't support you Ed.


Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed. Noise and environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain knows full well.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 5th 14 02:03 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

Blackblade wrote:

I get it .. you don't like mountainbikers. You don't need to re-post the same text incessantly ... it just makes you look foolish.


At least that is honest though.

We should at least give him credit for not trying to hide his
failings.

As long as you are reading a post of mine you will get MY message that way I want to give it.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 5th 14 02:07 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

It is amusing to see how strong a case he [Ed Dolan the Great] makes for cycle access to

all trails though. After all, if you have to be as demented as he is to oppose it, who
would want to?

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


EdwardDolan March 5th 14 02:10 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
[...]

It's his looking glass attitude - he can believe in any impossible

things, before, during, or after breakfast, as long as they support
his delusions.
It might also go some way to explaining why he expends so much energy
to get nowhere.
I reckon he's the red queen.
Well, some sort of queen, anyway.

**** you too Asshole!

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by
hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk
like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and
when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish!
Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Blackblade[_2_] March 12th 14 01:23 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
And you're entitled to your viewpoint.* I am similarly
entitled to disagree and completely ignore you.* It's really nothing to do
with you.

I will not feel any sympathy for you when you end up paralyzed
from the neck down like that other idiot Christopher Reeves
(Superman).


I'm not asking you to. Why would I care ? I feel sorry for you; that you can't just enjoy your own activity and let others enjoy theirs.

Take your god damn ****ing risk taking (mountain biking)
anywhere except on my sacred trails!


They're not yours Ed.

Well, the alternative is fascism (or nanny stateism).* Adults

are entitled to risk their own necks.

Stupid is as stupid does. Anyone who risks their necks for a
thrill is not an adult. Such an idiot is a juvenile.


Your opinion, you're welcome to it. It's wrong but ...

Stop ranting ... it doesn't get any more convincing for multiple

repeats.

Repetition is at the heart of all learning.


It's an element, true, but despite repeated trouncing of your premises you still aren't learning so what should we do with you ?

Better to be a sociopath who at least wants people to live out
their natural lives than a merchant of death like you who knowingly leads
cyclists to their deaths by promoting mountain biking on hiking
trails.


Better to actually go and do something and live your life ... and to not get so incredibly agitated that others want to live their lives differently.

Blackblade[_2_] March 12th 14 01:46 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
Ah, you believe that do you ?* Like you believed that there
were thousands of hiker/biker collisions but, in reality, there weren't.*
Your beliefs, right now, have very little credibility.* I suggest you
either backup your beliefs with objective facts or avoid making statements that
you have to later retract.

I never need to retract anything. However, I find that I do
have to expand on everything because you lack the mentality to comprehend the
simplest things. It must be hell to have to go thru life so literally minded.
You are unable to make connections. Talking to you is like talking to a
simpleton who has to have everything explained in detail.


The only person who never gets anything wrong is the person who does nothing ! You claimed, many times, thousands of collisions. There aren't and you couldn't produce any data to backup your claim. That's not being literally minded, it's calling you on spouting rubbish.


Blackblade[_2_] March 12th 14 02:03 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
It doesn't matter if trails are lightly trafficked or heavily trafficked.
The users are doing different things which conflict. I have posted many reports
in this thread which clearly illustrate the conflicts in great detail. These
reports contradict your views but you are deaf and blind to what hikers insist
upon - that trails be used for the quiet enjoyment of nature and not as a race
course by cyclists.


No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being shared without any issue.

You keep stating 'hikers insist upon' ... and forgetting that I, and many other mountainbikers, are also hikers too. What you're really saying is "I insist upon" and, quite frankly, what you insist upon is of no great import to anything since you don't own the trails.

You are going in circles. You posted videos then decided you

didn't like what they showed so you want to refer to some amorphous 'other' ones
on YouTube. Your case is completely shot. Why do you keep posting
'evidence' that doesn't support your propositions ?

Whatever is posted on this thread by me must be taken in
context. It is the preponderance of the posts that matter, not any particular
post about any particular aspect. I do not do any editing of the reports I post.
Every post of mine in this thread is detrimental in the main to the issue of
bikes on trails. That is all that matters to me. Either get on something
important or get lost.


Perhaps that's what you intended but what you actually posted was not at all detrimental since it showed sparse use and no conflict ... directly contradicting your proposition. If your 'evidence' doesn't support what you're saying then that is not immaterial since it fatally undermines your whole case.

Power; exactly the same (1 human power = approx 750 watts max)

Speed; Approximately 2x on average
Weight; Approx 15% higher for biker
Noise; equivalent
Environmental impact; equivalent

The facts, as usual, don't support you Ed.


Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical
advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed. Noise and
environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain knows
full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.

EdwardDolan March 13th 14 01:54 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. I am similarly

entitled to disagree and completely ignore you. It's really nothing to do
with you.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I will not feel any sympathy for you when you end up paralyzed
from the neck down like that other idiot Christopher Reeves
(Superman).


I'm not asking you to. Why would I care ? I feel sorry for you; that you can't just enjoy your own activity and let others enjoy theirs.


Enjoy whatever risk taking you want, but not on MY (hiker and equestrian) trails.

Take your god damn ****ing risk taking (mountain biking)
anywhere except on my sacred trails!


They're not yours Ed.


They most certainly are not yours (bikers) who are Johnny come lately to trails. When I say MY trails I mean of course hiker and equestrian trails. Too bad I have to spell everything out for you as it must be boring in the extreme for others who might be following this thread.

Well, the alternative is fascism (or nanny stateism). Adults

are entitled to risk their own necks.

Stupid is as stupid does. Anyone who risks their necks for a
thrill is not an adult. Such an idiot is a juvenile.


Your opinion, you're welcome to it. It's wrong but ...


It will not be so wrong when you are laid up in bed unable to move because paralyzed. Just ask the ghost of Christopher Reeves if it was worth jumping a horse to end his life the way he did.

Stop ranting ... it doesn't get any more convincing for multiple

repeats.

Repetition is at the heart of all learning.


It's an element, true, but despite repeated trouncing of your premises you still aren't learning so what should we do with you ?


See my signature for enlightenment.

Better to be a sociopath who at least wants people to live out
their natural lives than a merchant of death like you who knowingly leads
cyclists to their deaths by promoting mountain biking on hiking
trails.


Better to actually go and do something and live your life ... and to not get so incredibly agitated that others want to live their lives differently.


You can live your life as differently as you want, but not on MY (hiker and equestrian) trails. Get your own g.d. trails.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 13th 14 02:03 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Ah, you believe that do you ? Like you believed that there

were thousands of hiker/biker collisions but, in reality, there weren't.
Your beliefs, right now, have very little credibility. I suggest you
either backup your beliefs with objective facts or avoid making statements that
you have to later retract.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I never need to retract anything. However, I find that I do
have to expand on everything because you lack the mentality to comprehend the
simplest things. It must be hell to have to go thru life so literally minded.
You are unable to make connections. Talking to you is like talking to a
simpleton who has to have everything explained in detail.


The only person who never gets anything wrong is the person who does nothing ! You claimed, many times, thousands of collisions. There aren't and you couldn't produce any data to backup your claim. That's not being literally minded, it's calling you on spouting rubbish.


99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity unless someone is killed. I am going by reports from various email lists that I am receiving daily. That in fact is what this thread is about. The only one spouting rubbish here is you. Get on something important or get lost!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 13th 14 02:23 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

It doesn't matter if trails are lightly trafficked or heavily trafficked.
The users are doing different things which conflict. I have posted many reports
in this thread which clearly illustrate the conflicts in great detail. These
reports contradict your views but you are deaf and blind to what hikers insist
upon - that trails be used for the quiet enjoyment of nature and not as a race
course by cyclists.


No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being shared without any issue.


There is little or no conflicts if the trails are empty of all except bikers. When hikers and equestrians are present, there is always conflict of purpose. That conflict is there even if YOU can’t see it.

You keep stating 'hikers insist upon' ... and forgetting that I, and many other mountainbikers, are also hikers too. What you're really saying is "I insist upon" and, quite frankly, what you insist upon is of no great import to anything since you don't own the trails.


You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker. In short, you are not an adult. Who the hell pays any attention to juvenile opinions except maybe on the subject of hubcaps and hood ornaments. Again, it doesn't matter who owns the trails. All that matters is that trails be managed sensibly by adults who have some judgment on what trails are for.

You are going in circles. You posted videos then decided you

didn't like what they showed so you want to refer to some amorphous 'other' ones
on YouTube. Your case is completely shot. Why do you keep posting
'evidence' that doesn't support your propositions ?

Whatever is posted on this thread by me must be taken in
context. It is the preponderance of the posts that matter, not any particular
post about any particular aspect. I do not do any editing of the reports I post.
Every post of mine in this thread is detrimental in the main to the issue of
bikes on trails. That is all that matters to me. Either get on something
important or get lost.


Perhaps that's what you intended but what you actually posted was not at all detrimental since it showed sparse use and no conflict ... directly contradicting your proposition. If your 'evidence' doesn't support what you're saying then that is not immaterial since it fatally undermines your whole case.


If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers can see that even if you can’t.

Power; exactly the same (1 human power = approx 750 watts max)

Speed; Approximately 2x on average
Weight; Approx 15% higher for biker
Noise; equivalent
Environmental impact; equivalent

The facts, as usual, don't support you Ed.


Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical
advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed. Noise and
environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain knows
full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.


You do not understand or appreciate mechanical advantage. Talk about basics!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] March 13th 14 12:40 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
The only person who never gets anything wrong is the person who
does nothing !* You claimed, many times, thousands of collisions.*
There aren't and you couldn't produce any data to backup your claim.*
That's not being literally minded, it's calling you on spouting rubbish.

99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity
unless someone is killed. I am going by reports from various email lists that I
am receiving daily. That in fact is what this thread is about. The only one
spouting rubbish here is you. Get on something important or get
lost!


More statistics Ed ... "99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity". You made that up !

You are, I know because you said, participating in email lists and forums with people who all have an axe to grind regarding mountainbiking. Unsurprisingly, they don't bother to send details of all the non-collisions, only the actual and near ones. It is therefore very easy to conclude, if one is foolish, that this is the majority case. It's not.

This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will actually call you on it.

Blackblade[_2_] March 13th 14 06:42 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are
incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being
shared without any issue.

There is little or no conflicts if the trails are empty of all except
bikers. When hikers and equestrians are present, there is always conflict of
purpose. That conflict is there even if YOU can't see it.


So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head (and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.

If there are really a lot of near collisions then I would do something about it ... and I have helped build trails to separate cycling/hiking traffic .... but I simply don't accept your fundamental point that trails cannot be shared under any circumstances.

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as "idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc then the world would be a much poorer place.

In short, you are not an adult. Who the hell pays any attention to juvenile
opinions except maybe on the subject of hubcaps and hood ornaments. Again, it
doesn't matter who owns the trails. All that matters is that trails be
managed sensibly by adults who have some judgment on what trails are
for.


Your view of what the trails are for matters very little to me nor, I suspect, the vast majority of other trail users. Your judgement, based as it is on supposition, prejudice and flawed intuition, is highly suspect.

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed ?

Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical


advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed.

Noise and

environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain

knows

full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already

covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a
second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.

You do not understand or appreciate mechanical advantage. Talk
about basics!


Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a given output.

EdwardDolan March 13th 14 10:50 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

The only person who never gets anything wrong is the person who

does nothing ! You claimed, many times, thousands of collisions.
There aren't and you couldn't produce any data to backup your claim.
That's not being literally minded, it's calling you on spouting rubbish.


Edward Dolan wrote:

99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity
unless someone is killed. I am going by reports from various email lists that I
am receiving daily. That in fact is what this thread is about. The only one
spouting rubbish here is you. Get on something important or get
lost!


More statistics Ed ... "99% of collisions and close calls never get any mass publicity". You made that up !


You are, I know because you said, participating in email lists and forums with people who all have an axe to grind regarding mountainbiking. Unsurprisingly, they don't bother to send details of all the non-collisions, only the actual and near ones. It is therefore very easy to conclude, if one is foolish, that this is the majority case. It's not.


This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will actually call you on it.


99% of all phenomena under the sun never gets reported. It is only deaths occur that you get some attention from the media. I am reporting what commonly does not get reported elsewhere. It is personal stuff based on experiences by individuals who have no ax to grind except their unpleasant encounters on the trails.

Blackblade is devoid of common sense, but his main problem is that he does not like anything that runs counter to what he wants to do, namely, to ride his bike on hiking trails. Too bad for for him there are so many that object to what he wants to do. Everything I say is backed up by thousands of reports from actual experiences. These experiences are numerous enough and broad enough to count for much more than any so called “data” – whatever the hell that is.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 13th 14 11:12 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

No, you've simply stated, again and again, that they are

incompatible. However, you've also then posted videos showing trails being
shared without any issue.


Edward Dolan wrote:

There is little or no conflicts if the trails are empty of all except
bikers. When hikers and equestrians are present, there is always conflict of
purpose. That conflict is there even if YOU can't see it.


So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head (and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.


It is not a conceptual conflict, but an actual conflict. The fact that you don’t see it counts for nothing. Enough others see it exactly as I see it. Your facts are irrelevant to the problem which is a conflict of usage related to purpose. You need to ask yourself ... what is a trail for?

If there are really a lot of near collisions then I would do something about it ... and I have helped build trails to separate cycling/hiking traffic ... but I simply don't accept your fundamental point that trails cannot be shared under any circumstances.


If you are building trails that separate hikers and bikers, then you have already conceded the argument. Why the hell should “circumstances” matter?

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as "idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc then the world would be a much poorer place.


You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don’t see how dumb that is.

In short, you are not an adult. Who the hell pays any attention to juvenile
opinions except maybe on the subject of hubcaps and hood ornaments. Again, it
doesn't matter who owns the trails. All that matters is that trails be
managed sensibly by adults who have some judgment on what trails are
for.


Your view of what the trails are for matters very little to me nor, I suspect, the vast majority of other trail users. Your judgement, based as it is on supposition, prejudice and flawed intuition, is highly suspect.


Ask yourself ... what are trails for?

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed ?


The problem is what is going on in your head. You think trails are there for your thrills and spills amusement. A few trips to the wood shed is needed for some correction to that kind of thinking.

Your facts are as screwy as your morality. Mechanical


advantage makes all the difference with respect to power and speed.

Noise and

environmental impact also are NOT the same as anyone with half a brain

knows

full well.


Ed, I'm not giving you another physics lesson. We already

covered this and you don't know the physics and are unwilling to spend even a
second reading enough to become conversant with the basics.

You do not understand or appreciate mechanical advantage. Talk
about basics!


Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a given output.


Of course power output matters since it determines speed, distance and ease of movement. Mechanical advantage puts you in a different universe, one that is antithetical to walking in more ways than one.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 16th 14 03:36 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Wed, 12 Mar 2014
05:23:56 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

And you're entitled to your viewpoint. I am similarly

entitled to disagree and completely ignore you. It's really nothing to do
with you.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I will not feel any sympathy for you when you end up paralyzed
from the neck down like that other idiot Christopher Reeves
(Superman).


I'm not asking you to. Why would I care ? I feel sorry for you; that you can't just enjoy your own activity and let others enjoy theirs.

Take your god damn ****ing risk taking (mountain biking)
anywhere except on my sacred trails!


They're not yours Ed.

Well, the alternative is fascism (or nanny stateism). Adults

are entitled to risk their own necks.

Stupid is as stupid does. Anyone who risks their necks for a
thrill is not an adult. Such an idiot is a juvenile.


Your opinion, you're welcome to it. It's wrong but ...

Stop ranting ... it doesn't get any more convincing for multiple

repeats.

Repetition is at the heart of all learning.


It's an element, true, but despite repeated trouncing of your premises you still aren't learning so what should we do with you ?

Better to be a sociopath who at least wants people to live out
their natural lives than a merchant of death like you who knowingly leads
cyclists to their deaths by promoting mountain biking on hiking
trails.


Better to actually go and do something and live your life ... and to not get so incredibly agitated that others want to live their lives differently.


One of the interesting facts I discovered from watching documentaries

on the television is that far more hikers need to be rescued by
helicopter (often at risk to the lives of the aircrew) or mountain
rescue volunteer services (also at risk to themselves) than cyclists,
even on routes that are used fairly equally by both. Mostly broken
ankles and legs from simple slips or stumbles, but not infrequently
that can lead to severe falls, and being stranded on the mountain in
conditions that were not expected or prepared for.
And it's quite common for the alert to be raised by a cyclist, who is
able to more quickly reach an area with cellphone reception (patchy in
the mountains) to summon aid.

Thanks for posting content!

It is true that hikers can occasially get into trouble, but it is almost always as a result of them doing something they should not have been doing (the rescues you see on TV are mostly for mountain climbers, not hikers). That is not the case with cyclists. They are doing exactly what their “sport” dictates and it invariably causes them to injure themselves or even to result in their deaths. Blackblade probably thinks he is doing something that is safe, but it is inherently unsafe. Very professional mountain bikers come to bad ends just like very professional mountain climbers. The reason they come to bad ends is because what they are doing is INHERENTLY unsafe. The are taking risks whether they realize it or not.

By the way, one of the most tragic of all accidents is one that happened to a large group of young hikers getting caught in a slot canyon in southern Utah, not foreseeing a flash flood that occurred as a result of rainfall many miles away. Those who had to pick up the pieces said it was the worst case of slaughter they had ever seen. But an accident like that is one in a million.

Of course, vandalman and dolan would deny them that assistance.


No, I would assist them to the best of my abilities. I do not want anyone to be injured or killed. It is Blackblade who is the merchant of death. He promotes mountain biking as something that is safe and fun to do. I want cyclists to have their own trails specially designed for wheels. I am not a purist like Mr. Vandeman who does not want wheels on anything except already constructed roads. Unless and until we get a fix on human population the world is going to hell everywhere in the natural realm. There is no cure for what ails us. As Pogo once famously said ....”we have the met the enemy and he is us”. The way things are going we will end up living in a world where our only companions will be cockroaches and rats.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] March 17th 14 10:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head
(and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I
can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not
the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.

It is not a conceptual conflict, but an actual conflict. The
fact that you don't see it counts for nothing. Enough others see it exactly as I
see it. Your facts are irrelevant to the problem which is a conflict of
usage related to purpose. You need to ask yourself ... what is a trail
for?


The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a perception not a reality for anyone else.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so ... possibly both.

If you are building trails that separate hikers and bikers,
then you have already conceded the argument. Why the hell should "circumstances"
matter?


What a ridiculous statement ! Circumstances don't matter !!!

It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as

"idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc
then the world would be a much poorer place.

You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don't see
how dumb that is.


So did they ! Look up their life histories. It's an attitude of mind.

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers

can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed

?

The problem is what is going on in your head. You think trails
are there for your thrills and spills amusement. A few trips to the wood shed is
needed for some correction to that kind of thinking.


What is going on in my head and how I enjoy the trails is none of your business. I'm not the one insisting that your mere presence completely wrecks my enjoyment of the trails.

Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output

doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a
given output.

Of course power output matters since it determines speed,
distance and ease of movement.


Power output is the SAME ! How many times. Usain Bolt, Chris Hoy and Ian Thorpe all produce approximately the SAME power output. You are confusing power with torque and gearing.

Mechanical advantage puts you in a different
universe, one that is antithetical to walking in more ways than
one.


No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external power sources.

Blackblade[_2_] March 17th 14 04:33 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your
prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am
not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say
something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively
because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will
actually call you on it.

99% of all phenomena under the sun never gets reported. It is
only deaths occur that you get some attention from the media. I am reporting
what commonly does not get reported elsewhere. It is personal stuff based on
experiences by individuals who have no ax to grind except their unpleasant
encounters on the trails.


It may well be. Still doesn't mean that it's the majority experience or common.

Blackblade is devoid of common sense, but his main problem is
that he does not like anything that runs counter to what he wants to do, namely,
to ride his bike on hiking trails. Too bad for for him there are so many that
object to what he wants to do. Everything I say is backed up by thousands of
reports from actual experiences. These experiences are numerous enough and broad
enough to count for much more than any so called "data" - whatever the hell that
is.


I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.

Blackblade[_2_] March 17th 14 04:39 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
Blackblade probably thinks he is doing something that is safe, but
it is inherently unsafe. Very professional mountain bikers come to bad ends just
like very professional mountain climbers. The reason they come to bad ends is
because what they are doing is INHERENTLY unsafe. The are taking risks whether
they realize it or not.


Blackblade knows the risks of death and injury and that mountainbiking, whilst not risk free, is BELOW Rugby, driving a car, American Football, Skiing, Snowboarding, Skateboarding, Motocross etc etc (I could go on).

Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some hard data instead of just blathering.

It is Blackblade who is the merchant of
death. He promotes mountain biking as something that is safe and fun to do.


I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data backs me up in that assertion.


EdwardDolan March 18th 14 03:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Blackblade probably thinks he is doing something that is safe, but
it is inherently unsafe. Very professional mountain bikers come to bad ends just
like very professional mountain climbers. The reason they come to bad ends is
because what they are doing is INHERENTLY unsafe. The are taking risks whether
they realize it or not.


Blackblade knows the risks of death and injury and that mountainbiking, whilst not risk free, is BELOW Rugby, driving a car, American Football, Skiing, Snowboarding, Skateboarding, Motocross etc etc (I could go on).


Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some hard data instead of just blathering.


All the activities you list are risk taking activities when carried to an extreme. Mountain biking does not need to be carried to an extreme. People are injured and killed just doing very modest riding on trails. Blather beats statistics every time because most folks have some common sense, something that you totally lack.

It is Blackblade who is the merchant of
death. He promotes mountain biking as something that is safe and fun to do.


I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data backs me up in that assertion.


My reports from the field refute your data.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 18th 14 04:02 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your

prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am
not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say
something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively
because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will
actually call you on it.


Edward Dolan wrote:

99% of all phenomena under the sun never gets reported. It is
only deaths occur that you get some attention from the media. I am reporting
what commonly does not get reported elsewhere. It is personal stuff based on
experiences by individuals who have no ax to grind except their unpleasant
encounters on the trails.


It may well be. Still doesn't mean that it's the majority experience or common.


It is common enough so that I get dozens of reports of injuries and deaths every day crossing my computer desktop. I don’t bother to post them because they are all due to the same cause – biker error!

Blackblade is devoid of common sense, but his main problem is
that he does not like anything that runs counter to what he wants to do, namely,
to ride his bike on hiking trails. Too bad for for him there are so many that
object to what he wants to do. Everything I say is backed up by thousands of
reports from actual experiences. These experiences are numerous enough and broad
enough to count for much more than any so called "data" - whatever the hell that
is.


I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.


Your “circumstances” don’t interest me. The fact is that there is an irreconcilable conflict based on what the different modes of usage are DOING on the trails. The only compromise I am willing to make is that cyclists get their own trails far removed from any hiking trails. I have several times recommended that ski resorts would be ideal for devoping bike trails. It would be ideal because no one but trash people ever frequent ski resorts in the first place. Bikers would fit right in with that crowd.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 18th 14 04:27 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head

(and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I
can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not
the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.


Edward Dolan wrote:

It is not a conceptual conflict, but an actual conflict. The
fact that you don't see it counts for nothing. Enough others see it exactly as I
see it. Your facts are irrelevant to the problem which is a conflict of
usage related to purpose. You need to ask yourself ... what is a trail
for?


The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a perception not a reality for anyone else.


There is always plenty of conflict which my reports illustrate in one form or another.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so .... possibly both.


A road is for getting from point A to point B. A trail is for the enjoyment of nature – period. Glad I was able to clear that up for you.

If you are building trails that separate hikers and bikers,
then you have already conceded the argument. Why the hell should "circumstances"
matter?


What a ridiculous statement ! Circumstances don't matter !!!


It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.


You have never grasped my concept of what a trail is for. If it is just for accommodating traffic, then why not motorcyclists and all-terrain vehicles too? I am the soul of sweet reason and compromise compared to Mr. Vandeman. He is the Messiah, not me. I am merely a Great Saint.

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.


Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as

"idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc
then the world would be a much poorer place.

You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don't see
how dumb that is.


So did they ! Look up their life histories. It's an attitude of mind.


If none of them had ever lived, the world would still be pretty much as it is. I don’t believe in great men. I only believe in Great Saints, of which I am the foremost example.

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers

can see
that even if you can't.


We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed

?

The problem is what is going on in your head. You think trails
are there for your thrills and spills amusement. A few trips to the wood shed is
needed for some correction to that kind of thinking.


What is going on in my head and how I enjoy the trails is none of your business. I'm not the one insisting that your mere presence completely wrecks my enjoyment of the trails.


It becomes my business when what you are doing on the trails conflicts with what I am doing on the trails. We hikers have priority based on traditional usage.

Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output

doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a
given output.

Of course power output matters since it determines speed,
distance and ease of movement.


Power output is the SAME ! How many times. Usain Bolt, Chris Hoy and Ian Thorpe all produce approximately the SAME power output. You are confusing power with torque and gearing.


I have already told you I don’t care about power. It is the mechanical advantage (“torque and gearing”) that concern me. It means you can go far faster and far further than any hiker with less effort (cycling is easier on the body than walking), which means that a hiking trail is not for your ilk.

Mechanical advantage puts you in a different
universe, one that is antithetical to walking in more ways than
one.


No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external power sources.


An external power source only magnifies already existing differences between cyclists and hikers. Nothing like having a blind spot to get you over a difficult traverse.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



Blackblade[_2_] March 20th 14 06:00 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times
how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some
hard data instead of just blathering.
*

All the activities you list are risk taking activities when
carried to an extreme. Mountain biking does not need to be carried to an
extreme. People are injured and killed just doing very modest riding on trails.
Blather beats statistics every time because most folks have some common sense,
something that you totally lack.


So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say ... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses please.

I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data

backs me up in that assertion.

My reports from the field refute your data.


No Ed, to refute something you have to actually provide some evidence .. not just waffle.

Blackblade[_2_] March 20th 14 06:05 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on
circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the
same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.

Your "circumstances" don't interest me. The fact is that there
is an irreconcilable conflict based on what the different modes of usage are
DOING on the trails. The only compromise I am willing to make is that cyclists
get their own trails far removed from any hiking trails.


Well, fortunately, more reasonable people than you prevail and look at the circumstances and whether trails should be shared or not. As I have pointed out before, if you want to ban recreation then you also need to ban trail running ... good luck with that.

Blackblade[_2_] March 20th 14 06:22 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict
with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the
environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is
that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a
perception not a reality for anyone else.

There is always plenty of conflict which my reports illustrate
in one form or another.


Ed, you're funny. In THE REPORT WHICH YOU QUOTED the hiker clearly stated that there was no conflict. Yet, somehow, you're looking to find some elsewhere and refer it back to this case.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to

either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so ...
possibly both.

A road is for getting from point A to point B. A trail is for
the enjoyment of nature - period. Glad I was able to clear that up for
you.


Definition of trail from the Oxford English Dictionary (one of several definitions);

"Beaten path through the countryside"

There is no mention of the purpose for which said trail might be used. You are, yet again, trying to make your iconoclastic and slightly skewed version of reality the default. Fortunately, most of us don't suffer from solipsism.
It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your

sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of
traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic
types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have never grasped my concept of what a trail is for. If
it is just for accommodating traffic, then why not motorcyclists and all-terrain
vehicles too?


I completely understand YOUR concept of what a trail is for. A very narrow, singular use which would exclude trail runners, mountainbikers and presumably family groups out for a picnic too (they're certainly not there for the contemplation of nature).

I simply disagree with your fundamental premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ... not yours.

You might disapprove of the use to which others put trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds for banning such use.
Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as



"idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham

Lincoln etc etc

then the world would be a much poorer place.




You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don't see


how dumb that is.




So did they ! Look up their life histories. It's an

attitude of mind.



If none of them had ever lived, the world would still be
pretty much as it is. I don't believe in great men. I only believe in Great
Saints, of which I am the foremost example.


Flick flack ... flick flack. One second, they weren't risk takers and, now that I've proved they were, suddenly they are no longer pioneers.

How do you manage to live when you can't make up your mind as to what you think from one second to the next ?

No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same

world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external
power sources.

An external power source only magnifies already existing
differences between cyclists and hikers.


A petrol engine producing 100 - 1000 times the power of a human being is simply "magnifying" a difference ? You don't half spout some nonsense.

EdwardDolan March 22nd 14 03:45 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times

how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some
hard data instead of just blathering.


Edward Dolan wrote:

All the activities you list are risk taking activities when
carried to an extreme. Mountain biking does not need to be carried to an
extreme. People are injured and killed just doing very modest riding on trails.
Blather beats statistics every time because most folks have some common sense,
something that you totally lack.


So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say ... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses please.


How many rugby players ever get killed from their ****ing stupid sport? No many I venture to guess. How many mountain bikers ever get killed from their ****ing stupid sport.? More than a few – I KNOW!

I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data

backs me up in that assertion.

My reports from the field refute your data.


No Ed, to refute something you have to actually provide some evidence ... not just waffle.


The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it sinks in.

Here is some more evidence from your neck of the woods:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....untain_biking/

Fears over dangers of mountain biking

2:10pm Thursday 20th March 2014 in News By Katie Dickinson, Reporter

ACCIDENTS to mountain bikers could exceed those
for climbers and scramblers in 2014, according to
a new mountain rescue report.

Annual figures from the Lake District Search and
Mountain Rescue Association (LDSAMRA) reveal last
year was the third in a row in which a mountain biker has died on the fells.

The death of 59-year-old Silloth man John Graham
in September - in a location very close to that
of a fatality the year before – heightened
concerns for mountain bikers in some areas.

Mr Graham was found by mountain rescuers 60
metres down a steep gully close to Lonscale Fell
near Keswick. In total there were 13 incidents
involving mountain bikes in 2013 – down from 18 in 2012 and 26 in 2011.

But the association’s statistics officer Ged
Feeney said it was ‘not so much the number of
incidents as the seriousness of them’ that was
causing concern to rescue teams.

Of the 13 incidents last year, seven people
required medical assistance and five were categorised as serious.

These included a rider at Jenkin Hill, Skiddaw,
who suffered back and lower leg injuries after
being unable to control his descent and tumbling 40 metres.

Another incident involved a woman who suffered
fractured ribs and nausea at Hardknott Gill when
she could not control her bike and landed in a stream.

The LDSAMRA report said mountain biking incidents
were now on a similar scale to rock sports.

This trend in the Lakes is echoed across the
country, with national figures for the year
showing a marked increase over the same period five years ago.

LDSAMRA is trying to raise awareness of the issue
through appeals to specialist media.

“We don’t want to put people off what is a very
valuable sport,” said Mr Feeney. “But people need
to be aware they are embarking on a serious
undertaking – particularly in areas they are unfamiliar with.

“Most cyclists do wear protective gear, which is
a good start, but it’s a matter of gaining
experience in a controlled environment and not
trying to do more than you are capable of.”

The increase in accidents coincides with a boom
in the popularity of cycling, both in Cumbria and across the UK.

According to Cumbria Tourism, who have been
working to see the region become known as the
UK’s Adventure Capital, it is the fastest growing
sporting activity in the county.

Ian Stephens, managing director of Cumbria
Tourism, said: “We encourage as many people as
possible to get involved and take advantage of
this great sport but with any outdoor adventure
activity we remind people to take care and keep
safe whilst out on any cycle route.

“All of our promotion reminds people to make sure
that bikes are well maintained and that
appropriate clothing and cycle helmets are worn.”

The LDSAMRA report shows that the overall number
of incidents in 2013 was 433 – a slight increase
from the previous two years (432 in 2012 and 425
in 2011) but a huge drop from 600 in 2010 and 555
in 2009. It also showed a decrease in fatalities
to 14 – the lowest in more than five years.


Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 22nd 14 03:50 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on

circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the
same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.


Edward Dolan wrote:

Your "circumstances" don't interest me. The fact is that there
is an irreconcilable conflict based on what the different modes of usage are
DOING on the trails. The only compromise I am willing to make is that cyclists
get their own trails far removed from any hiking trails.


Well, fortunately, more reasonable people than you prevail and look at the circumstances and whether trails should be shared or not. As I have pointed out before, if you want to ban recreation then you also need to ban trail running ... good luck with that.


Yes, trail running on trails should also be banned as it too is an irreconcilable use based on purpose. Runners can run on race tracks. That is what they are there for. And bikers can ride on roads. That is what they are there for.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


EdwardDolan March 22nd 14 04:40 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict

with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the
environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is
that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a
perception not a reality for anyone else.


Edward Dolan wrote:

There is always plenty of conflict which my reports illustrate
in one form or another.


Ed, you're funny. In THE REPORT WHICH YOU QUOTED the hiker clearly stated that there was no conflict. Yet, somehow, you're looking to find some elsewhere and refer it back to this case.


You have to take my reports in the main, all of which show plenty of conflicts in one form or another. None of my reports are favorable to bikes on trails. How could they be. My reports are from sane folks, not nut cases like you and your ilk.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to

either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so ....
possibly both.

A road is for getting from point A to point B. A trail is for
the enjoyment of nature - period. Glad I was able to clear that up for
you.


Definition of trail from the Oxford English Dictionary (one of several definitions);


"Beaten path through the countryside"


There is no mention of the purpose for which said trail might be used. You are, yet again, trying to make your iconoclastic and slightly skewed version of reality the default. Fortunately, most of us don't suffer from solipsism.


Dictionary definitions explain nothing. Everyone here knows what is being discussed. Or are all trails equal in your world?

It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your

sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of
traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic
types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have never grasped my concept of what a trail is for. If
it is just for accommodating traffic, then why not motorcyclists and all-terrain
vehicles too?


I completely understand YOUR concept of what a trail is for. A very narrow, singular use which would exclude trail runners, mountainbikers and presumably family groups out for a picnic too (they're certainly not there for the contemplation of nature).


There are urban trails which are used for other purposes to which I do not object. But a trail in a natural area in this day and age is just for one thing – walkers contemplating the beauties of nature. You have to go slow in order to accomplish that. Family groups are fine provided they do not become rowdy. Dogs must be on leashes of course.

I simply disagree with your fundamental premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ... not yours.


You might disapprove of the use to which others put trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds for banning such use.


I am merely defending the status quo which has existed for several generations. You are the unwelcome interloper and would be without any standing if the idiot land managers were doing their jobs properly. These disputes are not a matter of differing opinions. They reduce to rights. I trust in the common sense of everyday folks, not nut cases like you and your ilk.
[...]

If none of them [famous men] had ever lived, the world would still be
pretty much as it is. I don't believe in great men. I only believe in Great
Saints, of which I am the foremost example.


Flick flack ... flick flack. One second, they weren't risk takers and, now that I've proved they were, suddenly they are no longer pioneers.


How do you manage to live when you can't make up your mind as to what you think from one second to the next ?


The world moves along at its own pace whether there are any risk takers or not. Pioneers were merely the first of many and not due for any special consideration. Most of the pioneers I have read about here in America were amazingly good at destroying the natural environment. Oregon Trail anyone?

You apparently believe in the great men of history view, a view that I disagree with. Read Tolstoy for the contrary argument. He argues that the French were bound to invade Russia, Napoleon or no Napoleon. Do you think if Edison had never lived we would not have every single one of his inventions? Even if Beethoven had never lived, music would have taken its present course. Only fools acknowledge great men! Sociology 101.

No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same

world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external
power sources.

An external power source only magnifies already existing
differences between cyclists and hikers.


A petrol engine producing 100 - 1000 times the power of a human being is simply "magnifying" a difference ? You don't half spout some nonsense.


Yes, as a far as its effect on other trail users ... same as bikes on trails, just magnifying the difference. What’s the matter? Don’t like the difference?

You simply have no good argument for excluding motorized vehicles from trails once you admit bicycles. All a gasoline engine does is increase the mechanical advantage (able to go faster and further) as far as I am concerned. I am consistent in my argument for admitting only walkers and equestrians, both of which are slow moving and are there for just just one purpose – the appreciation of nature. You are the one who is all over the place with nonsensical arguments which contradict one another.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


EdwardDolan March 22nd 14 09:52 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

I simply disagree with your fundamental premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ... not yours.


You might disapprove of the use to which others put trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds for banning such use.


I am merely defending the status quo which has existed for several generations. You are the unwelcome interloper and would be without any standing if the idiot land managers were doing their jobs properly. These disputes are not a matter of differing opinions. They reduce to rights. I trust in the common sense of everyday folks, not nut cases like you and your ilk.

I realize upon reflection that the above is not nearly strong enough. Allow me to add a few well chosen words.

You and I are not equals in this argument. You are a transgressor who is using the trails for a despicable purpose. I not only want the likes of you banned from trails (unless you want to walk them like everybody else), I want you severely fined for such use. A good horsewhipping into the bargain is also clearly called for.

Your effrontery in thinking you have equal standing with respect to trail use is outrageous. What you are doing to the trails and how it is effecting traditional users is criminal. If there were any justice in this world you would be sitting in a jail cell for many years – and so would the idiot land managers who are permitting such usage.

Until you become humble and self effacing like me (and learn your proper place in the scheme of things), there is no hope for you. You stand condemned out of your own mouth.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Blackblade[_2_] March 24th 14 10:57 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say
... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to
an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses
please.

How many rugby players ever get killed from their ****ing
stupid sport? No many I venture to guess. How many mountain bikers ever get
killed from their ****ing stupid sport.? More than a few - I KNOW!


About 71 in the last century. But the risk of serious injury is much higher than for mountain biking ... which is only 1.54 per 1,000 exposures (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...6991.abstract).

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually

provide some evidence .. not just waffle.

The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute
evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it sinks
in.


You have to provide objective evidence ! Do so, and I'll take notice. All you have is personal anecdote which, as I've said until I'm blue in the face, means nothing unless you know what percentage of the trail using population it represents.

Here is some more evidence from your neck of the
woods:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....untain_biking/

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


Just read the bloody thing before you post ... there has been a massive rise in mountainbiking so, unsurprisingly, there is a rise in incidents. Duh !

Blackblade[_2_] March 24th 14 11:26 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
I simply disagree with your fundamental
premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ....
not yours.

You might disapprove of the use to which others put

trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds
for banning such use.

I am merely defending the status quo which has
existed for several generations. You are the unwelcome interloper and would be
without any standing if the idiot land managers were doing their jobs properly.
These disputes are not a matter of differing opinions. They reduce to rights. I
trust in the common sense of everyday folks, not nut cases like you and your
ilk.

I realize upon reflection that the above is not nearly strong
enough. Allow me to add a few well chosen words.

You and I are not equals in this argument.


No, we're not.

I provide data and backup to support my position, you don't.

I suggest a case by case approach and am not messianic about sharing every trail; you are a zealot who can't bear bikes anywhere near you.

You state that bikes should have separate trails but, when they do, you castigate that too.

You want to ban all activities which you don't approve of for having the right, reverential, attitude to a trail. I think that some trails should be reserved for such quiet contemplation, but there is no way that one, small, group should get to monopolise the entire trails network.

So, no, we are not at all the same .. you're bigoted, prejudiced, monomaniacal and think you should be privileged over everyone else.

You are a
transgressor who is using the trails for a despicable purpose. I not only want
the likes of you banned from trails (unless you want to walk them like everybody
else), I want you severely fined for such use. A good horsewhipping into the
bargain is also clearly called for.


I think you've been skipping your meds.

Your effrontery in thinking you have equal standing with
respect to trail use is outrageous. What you are doing to the trails and how it
is effecting traditional users is criminal. If there were any justice in this
world you would be sitting in a jail cell for many years - and so would the
idiot land managers who are permitting such usage.


Yes, how dare I think that I should in any way be entitled to use public resources that Mr E Dolan has designated for one, very specific purpose and that specific purpose ONLY.

Until you become humble and self effacing like me (and learn
your proper place in the scheme of things), there is no hope for you. You stand
condemned out of your own mouth.


If I were to become like you then I would rather be dead. You are wholly negative and don't give a damn about anyone else. You seem to think that your desires trump everyone else's ... you want to annex the entire trail network for one, highly specific, use and damn everyone else. I've tried to be polite but, really, you are becoming beyond the pale ... you're like the geriatric who used to play football in the street but now appears shaking a fist when the young do the same. Life is to be lived and things change and move on ... either accept that or step aside.


EdwardDolan March 27th 14 10:03 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say

... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to
an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses
please.


Edward Dolan wrote:

How many rugby players ever get killed from their ****ing
stupid sport? No many I venture to guess. How many mountain bikers ever get
killed from their ****ing stupid sport.? More than a few - I KNOW!


About 71 in the last century. But the risk of serious injury is much higher than for mountain biking ... which is only 1.54 per 1,000 exposures (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...6991.abstract).


Rugby players know the extent of the danger they are exposing themselves to. Mountain bikers do not have a clue about the danger they are exposing themselves to. They are all stupid enough to think it is safe.

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually

provide some evidence .. not just waffle.

The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute
evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it sinks
in.


You have to provide objective evidence ! Do so, and I'll take notice. All you have is personal anecdote which, as I've said until I'm blue in the face, means nothing unless you know what percentage of the trail using population it represents.


“The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute
evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it sinks
in.” – Ed Dolan

Here is some more evidence from your neck of the
woods:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....untain_biking/

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


Just read the bloody thing before you post ... there has been a massive rise in mountainbiking so, unsurprisingly, there is a rise in incidents. Duh !


But why should there be any incidents at all if, as you claim, it is safe. Hikers do not have a similar incident count regardless of the number of hikers.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


EdwardDolan March 27th 14 10:40 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

I simply disagree with your fundamental

premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ...
not yours.

You might disapprove of the use to which others put

trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds
for banning such use.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I am merely defending the status quo which has
existed for several generations. You are the unwelcome interloper and would be
without any standing if the idiot land managers were doing their jobs properly.
These disputes are not a matter of differing opinions. They reduce to rights. I
trust in the common sense of everyday folks, not nut cases like you and your
ilk.

I realize upon reflection that the above is not nearly strong
enough. Allow me to add a few well chosen words.

You and I are not equals in this argument.


No, we're not.


I provide data and backup to support my position, you don't.


I suggest a case by case approach and am not messianic about sharing every trail; you are a zealot who can't bear bikes anywhere near you.


You state that bikes should have separate trails but, when they do, you castigate that too.


You want to ban all activities which you don't approve of for having the right, reverential, attitude to a trail. I think that some trails should be reserved for such quiet contemplation, but there is no way that one, small, group should get to monopolise the entire trails network.


So, no, we are not at all the same .. you're bigoted, prejudiced, monomaniacal and think you should be privileged over everyone else.


I have given every good argument there is for banning bikes from trails in the course of several threads on this newsgroup You have given no arguments at all, instead blathering something about data and statistics. You want to do what you want to do regardless of how it effects others. If the land managers had any sense, there is no way you and your ilk would ever get anywhere near a hiking trail on a bike.

You certainly are right when you call me prejudiced. That I am about hiking trails and who has any right to use them. I only get monomaniacal with nuts like you who childishly want to hog the trails with bikes. ANYONE can walk a trail. That is the only privileged types I am aware of. And I am definitely bigoted against mountain bikers. They can ride their bikes on roads of which this world has no shortage.

You are a
transgressor who is using the trails for a despicable purpose. I not only want
the likes of you banned from trails (unless you want to walk them like everybody
else), I want you severely fined for such use. A good horsewhipping into the
bargain is also clearly called for.


I think you've been skipping your meds.


Your effrontery in thinking you have equal standing with
respect to trail use is outrageous. What you are doing to the trails and how it
is effecting traditional users is criminal. If there were any justice in this
world you would be sitting in a jail cell for many years - and so would the
idiot land managers who are permitting such usage.


Yes, how dare I think that I should in any way be entitled to use public resources that Mr E Dolan has designated for one, very specific purpose and that specific purpose ONLY.


Mr. Ed Dolan belongs to a universe of hikers and equestrians who think and feel exactly the same. The only one who is out of step here is you.

Until you become humble and self effacing like me (and learn
your proper place in the scheme of things), there is no hope for you. You stand
condemned out of your own mouth.


If I were to become like you then I would rather be dead. You are wholly negative and don't give a damn about anyone else.


I care about hikers and I don’t care about bikers on trails.

You seem to think that your desires trump everyone else's ... you want to annex the entire trail network for one, highly specific, use and damn everyone else.


I want the traditional uses to continue until the end of time. Just because some jerks came up with an idea of a bike that can ridden off road does not mean they have to be accommodated on hiking trails.

I've tried to be polite but, really, you are becoming beyond the pale .... you're like the geriatric who used to play football in the street but now appears shaking a fist when the young do the same. Life is to be lived and things change and move on ... either accept that or step aside.


What you want to do with your bike on trails is NOT being polite. You are a transgressor, an interloper and basically a scoundrel. There is no good reason in the world why the traditional uses of trails should change to accommodate you and your ilk. The trails are there for walkers. Either walk them like everybody else – or go to Hell!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Blackblade[_2_] March 27th 14 11:40 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
About 71 in the last century.* But the risk of serious injury
is much higher than for mountain biking ... which is only 1.54 per 1,000
exposures (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...6991.abstract).

Rugby players know the extent of the danger they are exposing
themselves to. Mountain bikers do not have a clue about the danger they are
exposing themselves to. They are all stupid enough to think it is
safe.


It is relatively safe. 1.54 injuries per thousand exposures for Mountainbiking vs between 10.6 and 19.8 for rugby. You are 10 times (on average) more likely to be injured playing rugby than mountainbiking.

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually


provide some evidence .. not just waffle.


The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute


evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it

sinks

in.


The reports you have deigned to provide are nowhere near the level of being significant ... there are 50million mountainbikers in the US alone and the trail network is vast.

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


Just read the bloody thing before you post ... there has been a

massive rise in mountainbiking so, unsurprisingly, there is a rise in
incidents.* Duh !

But why should there be any incidents at all if, as you claim,
it is safe. Hikers do not have a similar incident count regardless of the number
of hikers.


Why do you think injury rates are quoted relative to amount of activity ... as in Injuries per 1,000 exposures ? Nothing in this world is 'safe' as in ... there is no risk.

As I mentioned before, thousands die in their bathrooms and falling down stairs ... not because it is "unsafe" to take a shower or walk down the stairs but because billions of people do it every day.

Blackblade[_2_] March 27th 14 11:56 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
So, no, we are not at all the same .. you're bigoted, prejudiced,
monomaniacal and think you should be privileged over everyone else.

I have given every good argument there is for banning bikes
from trails in the course of several threads on this newsgroup You have given no
arguments at all, instead blathering something about data and statistics.


No, Ed, You've yet to come up with even one 'good' argument for a ban. You seem to think that just stating something counts as a good argument ... bereft any objective backup it's just your opinion and therefore worthless.

You want to do what you want to do regardless of how it effects others.


No, Ed, that's not true. I proposed that compromise was needed to ensure that everyone gets some, not all, of what they want.

You certainly are right when you call me prejudiced. That I am
about hiking trails and who has any right to use them.


At last, some honesty.

Your effrontery in thinking you have equal standing with


respect to trail use is outrageous. What you are doing to the trails

and how it

is effecting traditional users is criminal. If there were any justice

in this

world you would be sitting in a jail cell for many years - and so

would the

idiot land managers who are permitting such usage.


Yes, how dare I think that I should in any way be entitled to use

public resources that Mr E Dolan has designated for one, very specific purpose
and that specific purpose ONLY.

Mr. Ed Dolan belongs to a universe of hikers and equestrians
who think and feel exactly the same.


I am quite sure you do. Fortunately, for the rest of us, it's a very small universe and getting smaller by the day.

If I were to become like you then I would rather be dead.

You are wholly negative and don't give a damn about anyone else.

I care about hikers and I don't care about bikers on trails.


And, if that's your attitude, then why should bikers care about you when they become the majority users of a trail ?

You seem to think that your desires trump everyone else's ... you

want to annex the entire trail network for one, highly specific, use and damn
everyone else.

I want the traditional uses to continue until the end of time.
Just because some jerks came up with an idea of a bike that can ridden off road
does not mean they have to be accommodated on hiking trails.


What an idiotic statement ... nothing continues to the end of time. The trails you are so vigorously annexing for one specific use now were not instituted for that use so you were, once, a non-traditional use too. The world changes; you can either see that as an opportunity or rail against it as some latter day Canute. I see you've chosen the latter option.

I've tried to be polite but, really, you are becoming beyond the

pale ... you're like the geriatric who used to play football in the street but
now appears shaking a fist when the young do the same. Life is to be lived
and things change and move on ... either accept that or step aside.

What you want to do with your bike on trails is NOT being
polite. You are a transgressor, an interloper and basically a scoundrel. There
is no good reason in the world why the traditional uses of trails should change
to accommodate you and your ilk. The trails are there for walkers. Either walk
them like everybody else - or go to Hell!


I'm not asking anyone to change ... I'm not saying you can't do your activity. That your mind is so fragile that simply having bikes in your vicinity seems to upset your mental equilibrium is NOT MY PROBLEM.

EdwardDolan March 28th 14 09:14 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

About 71 in the last century. But the risk of serious injury

is much higher than for mountain biking ... which is only 1.54 per 1,000
exposures (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...6991.abstract).


Edward Dolan wrote:

Rugby players know the extent of the danger they are exposing
themselves to. Mountain bikers do not have a clue about the danger they are
exposing themselves to. They are all stupid enough to think it is
safe.


It is relatively safe. 1.54 injuries per thousand exposures for Mountainbiking vs between 10.6 and 19.8 for rugby. You are 10 times (on average) more likely to be injured playing rugby than mountainbiking.


Who knows what is being counted as “exposures”. Your statistic aside, it is NOT safe. That is the bottom line, especially in view of my many reports which show just how stupid most of the accidents are. In fact, it is almost impossible to bike on a hiking trail and not have an accident. Your statistic is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.
[...]

The reports you have deigned to provide are nowhere near the level of being significant ... there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone and the trail network is vast.


Who knows what the vast majority of those mountain bikers are doing. Most of them are riding very sedate bike paths and streets no doubt.

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


Just read the bloody thing before you post ... there has been a

massive rise in mountainbiking so, unsurprisingly, there is a rise in
incidents. Duh !

But why should there be any incidents at all if, as you claim,
it is safe. Hikers do not have a similar incident count regardless of the number
of hikers.


Why do you think injury rates are quoted relative to amount of activity ... as in Injuries per 1,000 exposures ? Nothing in this world is 'safe' as in ... there is no risk.


As I mentioned before, thousands die in their bathrooms and falling down stairs ... not because it is "unsafe" to take a shower or walk down the stairs but because billions of people do it every day.


But it is only a few bikers who are riding hiking trails and their injuries and deaths are out of all proportion to what anyone else is ever doing (except maybe those rugby players). The fact remains that hikers do not have many injuries at all whereas bikers have numerous injuries. There is no comparison.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 28th 14 09:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

So, no, we are not at all the same .. you're bigoted, prejudiced,

monomaniacal and think you should be privileged over everyone else.


Edward Dolan wrote:

I have given every good argument there is for banning bikes
from trails in the course of several threads on this newsgroup You have given no
arguments at all, instead blathering something about data and statistics.


No, Ed, You've yet to come up with even one 'good' argument for a ban. You seem to think that just stating something counts as a good argument ... bereft any objective backup it's just your opinion and therefore worthless.


Review my every word in my every post. Also, try to get on a recipient list to receive messages in your email from hikers and equestrians. You are deaf, blind and dumb to what is being disputed.

You want to do what you want to do regardless of how it effects others.


No, Ed, that's not true. I proposed that compromise was needed to ensure that everyone gets some, not all, of what they want.


You want to ride your bike on SOME trails that include hikers. That is a conflict of usage based on purpose. Positively no exceptions. Bikers need to get their own trails far removed from hiking trails. That way all conflict with hikers is removed.

You certainly are right when you call me prejudiced. That I am
about hiking trails and who has any right to use them.


At last, some honesty.

[...]

Mr. Ed Dolan belongs to a universe of hikers and equestrians
who think and feel exactly the same.


I am quite sure you do. Fortunately, for the rest of us, it's a very small universe and getting smaller by the day.


I do think there is not as much hiking as there used to be some 40 years ago. It has fallen off because there seems to be less leisure for it with the economy being the way it is. But the biking universe isn’t what it used to be either. Mountain biking will go the way of the Dodo Bird. It is essentially a fad.

If I were to become like you then I would rather be dead.

You are wholly negative and don't give a damn about anyone else.

I care about hikers and I don't care about bikers on trails.


And, if that's your attitude, then why should bikers care about you when they become the majority users of a trail ?


That is never going to happen. Bikers are actually their own worst enemies. They will make trails unusable by everyone, including themselves.

You seem to think that your desires trump everyone else's ... you

want to annex the entire trail network for one, highly specific, use and damn
everyone else.

I want the traditional uses to continue until the end of time.
Just because some jerks came up with an idea of a bike that can ridden off road
does not mean they have to be accommodated on hiking trails.


What an idiotic statement ... nothing continues to the end of time. The trails you are so vigorously annexing for one specific use now were not instituted for that use so you were, once, a non-traditional use too. The world changes; you can either see that as an opportunity or rail against it as some latter day Canute. I see you've chosen the latter option.


Every day some jerk is coming up with something new to inflict on the environment and lots of other jerks think it is cool. Unfortunately for them, the environment is limited as to what we can do with it for a good purpose.

You should read a little something about the history of the mountain bike. It was invented by some of the greatest morons (true scalawags) ever to walk the earth in the golden state of California. They merely wanted to go downhill fast on a bike. It was like downhill (alpine) skiing That is the sum total of it. Now you know to what class of idiots you belong.

I've tried to be polite but, really, you are becoming beyond the

pale ... you're like the geriatric who used to play football in the street but
now appears shaking a fist when the young do the same. Life is to be lived
and things change and move on ... either accept that or step aside.

What you want to do with your bike on trails is NOT being
polite. You are a transgressor, an interloper and basically a scoundrel. There
is no good reason in the world why the traditional uses of trails should change
to accommodate you and your ilk. The trails are there for walkers. Either walk
them like everybody else - or go to Hell!


I'm not asking anyone to change ... I'm not saying you can't do your activity. That your mind is so fragile that simply having bikes in your vicinity seems to upset your mental equilibrium is NOT MY PROBLEM.


It is not possible to enjoy a hike (a walk in the woods) if bikers are doing their thing all around you. Even one biker is too many.

I am confidant that hikers and bikers are going to continue to clash until everyone, including the bikers themselves, see the wisdom of separate trails. I have compromised enormously by allowing bikers to have their own trails. In an ideal universe, bikes would be restricted to roads – never allowed off-road.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Blackblade[_2_] March 28th 14 10:00 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
It is relatively safe. 1.54 injuries per thousand exposures
for Mountainbiking vs between 10.6 and 19.8 for rugby. You are 10 times
(on average) more likely to be injured playing rugby than mountainbiking.

Who knows what is being counted as "exposures". Your statistic
aside, it is NOT safe. That is the bottom line, especially in view of my many
reports which show just how stupid most of the accidents are. In fact, it is
almost impossible to bike on a hiking trail and not have an accident. Your
statistic is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.


So, you are critiquing a report from the British Medical Journal as to whether their methodology on exposures is correct. This despite the fact that they have no axe to grind .. they just treat people who get injured.

Then, in the next sentence, you're happy to reference completely unscientific anecdotal reports and put that up as a counter argument ? No wonder you keep losing the argument.

The simple reality is that you're just plain wrong ... the vast majority of rides no one gets hurt or injured ... whether on singletrack trails or wider fire roads.

The reports you have deigned to provide are nowhere near the level

of being significant ... there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone and
the trail network is vast.

Who knows what the vast majority of those mountain bikers are
doing. Most of them are riding very sedate bike paths and streets no
doubt.


No, Ed, don't add in conjecture and expect me to treat it as anything other than your opinion. You don't know what the vast majority of riders are doing ... and, critically, you don't actually care either ... you're just flailing around again trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

Why do you think injury rates are quoted relative to amount of

activity ... as in Injuries per 1,000 exposures ? Nothing in this world is
'safe' as in ... there is no risk.

As I mentioned before, thousands die in their bathrooms and

falling down stairs ... not because it is "unsafe" to take a shower or walk down
the stairs but because billions of people do it every day.

But it is only a few bikers who are riding hiking trails and
their injuries and deaths are out of all proportion to what anyone else is ever
doing (except maybe those rugby players). The fact remains that hikers do not
have many injuries at all whereas bikers have numerous injuries. There is no
comparison.


Actually, no, if you bothered to read anything outside your small circle you would find out that there are appreciable risks to hiking too ... as I said earlier, nothing is 'safe'. See here http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/

So your fundamental proposition, that mountainbiking is particularly dangerous, is simply and provably ... WRONG.

It's not risk free ... but it's not particularly risky either and not, as you no doubt think, massively more risky than hiking.

When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
mountain bikers!


I say good riddance to bigoted old fools who think they own the trails and can dictate to everyone.

EdwardDolan March 28th 14 10:11 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

For the story of how a trail develops over time, I would recommend the

song "Telegraph Road" by Dire Straits.
Ed my find it highly educational.
The fact is that most rural roads started out as trails.
And since men took the easiest route when establishing the early
trails, that often meant following animal trails, so Ed is really
advocating banning all human use altogether.

Reading the history of anything is usually an eye opener. But that does not make it relevant for today. What was a ‘trail’ several hundred years ago is not quite the same thing as a ‘trail’ today. I am not interested in what animals were doing nor what Indians and pioneers were doing either for that matter. The kind of trails we are discussing here began with the National Parks and spread from there throughout all wilderness and natural areas. For many generations they were for the exclusive use of walkers and equestrians. We should strive to keep it that way for ourselves and for future generations.

There is a universe of roads of all kinds for bikes to play on. I am a cyclist myself and ride almost every day weather permitting. I do it for the enjoyment I get from it. I do not ever need to ride off road. Minnesota has thousands of miles of gravel roads for me to ride on right out my back door. When I am on a foot path (the correct definition of a trail today) I only want to be walking – and I do not want to encounter any bicycles any more than I want to encounter any motorcycles or all-terrain vehicles. There are a gazillion miles of roads for them - dammit!

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 28th 14 10:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

It is relatively safe. 1.54 injuries per thousand exposures

for Mountainbiking vs between 10.6 and 19.8 for rugby. You are 10 times
(on average) more likely to be injured playing rugby than mountainbiking.


Edward Dolan wrote:

Who knows what is being counted as "exposures". Your statistic
aside, it is NOT safe. That is the bottom line, especially in view of my many
reports which show just how stupid most of the accidents are. In fact, it is
almost impossible to bike on a hiking trail and not have an accident. Your
statistic is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.


So, you are critiquing a report from the British Medical Journal as to whether their methodology on exposures is correct. This despite the fact that they have no axe to grind .. they just treat people who get injured.


Instead of reading a report on numbers, why not read some reports from doctors who have to treat these morons in the ER.

Then, in the next sentence, you're happy to reference completely unscientific anecdotal reports and put that up as a counter argument ? No wonder you keep losing the argument.


There is littlie to no science involved in any of this. However, there is some common sense involved. You should try it sometime.

The simple reality is that you're just plain wrong ... the vast majority of rides no one gets hurt or injured ... whether on singletrack trails or wider fire roads.


The simple reality is that almost everyone gets hurt, but maybe not bad enough for the ER. I have gone on hundreds of hikes and nary a scratch. I once tried to ride my bike on a hiking trail near Aspen, Colorado and nearly killed myself.

The reports you have deigned to provide are nowhere near the level

of being significant ... there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone and
the trail network is vast.

Who knows what the vast majority of those mountain bikers are
doing. Most of them are riding very sedate bike paths and streets no
doubt.


No, Ed, don't add in conjecture and expect me to treat it as anything other than your opinion. You don't know what the vast majority of riders are doing ... and, critically, you don't actually care either ... you're just flailing around again trying to justify an unjustifiable position.


You think all those 50 million mountain bikes are being used on hiking trails? Don’t be ridiculous. The vast majority of mountain bikes are being ridden on roads. Only a small minority of crazies ride their bikes on hiking trails.

Why do you think injury rates are quoted relative to amount of

activity ... as in Injuries per 1,000 exposures ? Nothing in this world is
'safe' as in ... there is no risk.

As I mentioned before, thousands die in their bathrooms and

falling down stairs ... not because it is "unsafe" to take a shower or walk down
the stairs but because billions of people do it every day.

But it is only a few bikers who are riding hiking trails and
their injuries and deaths are out of all proportion to what anyone else is ever
doing (except maybe those rugby players). The fact remains that hikers do not
have many injuries at all whereas bikers have numerous injuries. There is no
comparison.


Actually, no, if you bothered to read anything outside your small circle you would find out that there are appreciable risks to hiking too .... as I said earlier, nothing is 'safe'. See here http://www.besthealthdegrees.com/health-risks/


“I have gone on hundreds of hikes and nary a scratch. I once tried to ride my bike on a hiking trail near Aspen, Colorado and nearly killed myself.” – Ed Dolan

So your fundamental proposition, that mountainbiking is particularly dangerous, is simply and provably ... WRONG.


Your numbers are wacky. Most injuries never get reported to anyone except to other crazy bikers. They glory in machismo, as long as it doesn’t get them killed.

It's not risk free ... but it's not particularly risky either and not, as you no doubt think, massively more risky than hiking.


I see I have introduced some doubt in your mind. Cycling a trail in alpine terrain is extremely dangerous. It is possible that cycling on the flats is not so dangerous and may not be life threatening, although cyclists can manage even that without too much trouble.

When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
mountain bikers!


I say good riddance to bigoted old fools who think they own the trails and can dictate to everyone.


It doesn't matter who owns the trails. It is how they are managed for best use that matters. We old fools are going to see to it that bikers like you are going to be gone from the trails sooner than you think. You should read about some of the disputes that are taking place in California, ever the bellwether for the whole world.

One example of that among hundreds:

Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:20:14 -0700
Subject: Fwd: [RC] [Endurance Tracks] Urge Calif. State Parks to Reconsider a
Proposal That Would Curtail Bike Access
From: Karen Sullivan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Grass_Valley_Girl
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [RC] [Endurance Tracks] Urge Calif. State Parks to
Reconsider a Proposal That Would Curtail Bike Access
To:
Cc: Barbara White

I have been watching IMBA's high-profile push to equestrian groups online
and on Facebook pages to protest this new CA State Parks trail policy
language - IMBA is trying to trick equestrians to protest something that is
actually good for horsemen. No, it will not limit horses to any trails
currently open to them. Yes, it will limit mt. bikers' access and trails
that are unsafe for other users. Yes, it will save taxpayers scads of money
by not having to replacing any more "no bikes" signs. Yes, it will make it
easier for Rangers to cite bikers who are poaching and riding illegally. I
am going to write to Alex Stehl and Gen. Jackson for a positive YES to the
new language. Anything to get the bikes to stop illegally and unsafely
poaching the hiker-horse trails...and this new language will help do it.

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:26:15 PM UTC-7, Barbara White wrote:

Local mountain bikers and the international bike industry organization,
IMBA, are trying to get equestrians to join them in their fight to open all
trails to bikes. This will only hurt equestrians, and they are implying
that horses will be closed out. This is NOT TRUE. Actually, trails already
designated for horsemen will stay that way and cannot be changed without a
lengthy, public process. CA State Park people are tired of mountain bikers
poaching trails, and this will mean that they can ride on bike-permitted
trails only with signage that states "Bikes Allowed." This is excellent for
hikers and horsemen. It is excellent for tax payers who are paying for the
replacement of all the stolen and vandalized "No Bikes" signs. Bikers won't
steal signs that say "Bikes Allowed." IMBA wants the trails to default to
everyone, including bikes, unless prohibited, and is blanketing CA State
Parks with their emails and form letters.

Mountain bikes are causing huge problems in many areas of CA. I know of
two longstanding endurance rides that are no longer held because of them,
as well as many multi-use trails where equestrians will no longer go. I
have had two collisions with bicycles while riding a horse. Where it is
safe, riding on multi-use trails is appropriate and fun. However, many of
the CA State Parks trails are mountainous single tracks, on cliffsides,
with no line of vision. These trails should not be defaulted to everyone
who wants access, including horsemen.

Write your letter of SUPPORT to California State Parks for the new
proposed language in its Public Resources Code which reads: "Unless
designated by the Department, all trails are open to pedestrians and closed
to all other uses."

Remember, horses will be allowed where they are now, no changes.



Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com