The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Road cycling has been around from the beginning. It is not
something anyone can do much about. The solution is to separate cyclists from
motorists. Bike paths are the answer, although they can sometimes create other
kinds of difficulties. My argument is all about the precise mechanism of injury
and death. I am not arguing that road cycling is safer than mountain
biking. Nice try though! However, I am arguing that hiking is about a thousand
times safer than mountain biking.

Ed, you seem incapable of following a coherent train of thought.

In response to my statement ... "I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature."

you wrote

"It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the
air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are
desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain
biking."

So, yes, you most certainly DID try and claim that road cycling was safer than mountainbiking a trail. Which, as you well know, is NOT the case. Do you want to just debate yourself with your various contrary positions ?

For heaven’s sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am making is that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not. The other point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the accidents. Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as getting by an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave you paralyzed or dead.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

Road cycling has been around from the beginning. It is not

something anyone can do much about. The solution is to separate
cyclists from

motorists. Bike paths are the answer, although they can sometimes
create other

kinds of difficulties. My argument is all about the precise mechanism
of injury

and death. I am not arguing that road cycling is safer than
mountain

biking. Nice try though! However, I am arguing that hiking is about a
thousand

times safer than mountain biking.



Ed, you seem incapable of following a coherent train of
thought.

In response to my statement ... "I would far rather ride a trail
than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I
am out enjoying nature."

you wrote

"It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on
roads, the

air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you
are

desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain

biking."

So, yes, you most certainly DID try and claim that road cycling
was safer than mountainbiking a trail. Which, as you well know, is NOT the
case. Do you want to just debate yourself with your various contrary
positions ?

For heaven's sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on
roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am making is
that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not. The other
point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the accidents.
Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as getting by
an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave you
paralyzed or dead.

No Ed, since YOU raised the point regarding which was safer it's precisely on point. Firstly, hiking on trails is not safe as the 1.5million incidents attest. It is safer than mountainbiking in injuries and fatalities per exposure but certainly not totally safe. Secondly, you are quite right, getting hit by a motorist is very different to hitting an obstacle ... and massively MORE dangerous. Overall, road cyclists suffer less accidents and injuries than mountainbikers BUT many more fatalities.

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

For heaven's sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on
roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am making is
that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not. The other
point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the accidents.
Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as getting hit by
an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave you
paralyzed or dead.

No Ed, since YOU raised the point regarding which was safer it's precisely on point. Firstly, hiking on trails is not safe as the 1.5million incidents attest. It is safer than mountainbiking in injuries and fatalities per exposure but certainly not totally safe. Secondly, you are quite right, getting hit by a motorist is very different to hitting an obstacle ... and massively MORE dangerous. Overall, road cyclists suffer less accidents and injuries than mountainbikers BUT many more fatalities.

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths are the answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in the trail is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do dangerous things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do dangerous things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to injure and kill themselves, let them! My main objection, as you should well know by now, is the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail and someone walking a trail. That you can’t’ see it from my perspective means that we are at permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what natural beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain shall meet!

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

For heaven's sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on

roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am
making is

that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not.
The other

point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the
accidents.

Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as
getting hit by

an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave
you

paralyzed or dead.


No Ed, since YOU raised the point regarding which was safer it's
precisely on point. Firstly, hiking on trails is not safe as the
1.5million incidents attest. It is safer than mountainbiking in injuries
and fatalities per exposure but certainly not totally safe. Secondly, you
are quite right, getting hit by a motorist is very different to hitting an
obstacle ... and massively MORE dangerous. Overall, road cyclists suffer
less accidents and injuries than mountainbikers BUT many more fatalities.

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which
have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths are the
answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in the trail
is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do dangerous
things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do dangerous
things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.

The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?

Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's the other way around :-).

However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker injuries too.

So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous has no basis whatsoever in fact.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But
that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to injure and
kill themselves, let them!

Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk they are prepared to accept.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is
the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail and someone
walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that we are at
permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what natural
beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain shall
meet!

I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time ... which mountainbiking allows me to do.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of us some, but not all, of what we want.

If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others' rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which
have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths are the
answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in the trail
is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do dangerous
things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do dangerous
things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.

The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?

Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's the other way around :-).

However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker injuries too.

So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Media reports say otherwise ... and so does common sense.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But
that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to injure and
kill themselves, let them!

Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk they are prepared to accept.

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is
the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail and someone
walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that we are at
permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what natural
beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain shall
meet!

I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time ... which mountainbiking allows me to do.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of us some, but not all, of what we want.

If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others' rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?

There is no such thing as a “right” to bike on a hiking trail.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far in the majority – always have been and always will be as long as we humans are creatures who walk for locomotion.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which

have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths
are the

answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in
the trail

is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do
dangerous

things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do
dangerous

things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.

The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there
for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?

Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's
the other way around :-).

However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles
that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000
exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker
injuries too.

So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous
has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Media reports say otherwise ... and so does common
sense.

No, they don't. That's precisely my point. If we use your simplistic and flawed method of simply referencing media reports we would conclude that hiking is way more dangerous as there are more injuries and fatalities.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But

that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to
injure and

kill themselves, let them!

Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally
safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you
say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk
they are prepared to accept.

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own axiom, you are a fool.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is

the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail
and someone

walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that
we are at

permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what
natural

beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain
shall

meet!

I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree
with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the
view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we
will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time
... which mountainbiking allows me to do.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself; but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to
some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of
us some, but not all, of what we want.

If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others'
rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You
accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's
not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you
want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your
position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.

Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.

What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is large; you are going to have to learn to share.

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own axiom, you are a fool.

A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of serious risk – whereas biking on a hiking trail does.
[...]

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself; but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from any hiking trails – preferably on another planet. I think the moon or Mars would suit you best.
[...]

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.

Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.

Hiking and biking don’t mix on the same trails. Your law is an Ass!

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.

What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is large; you are going to have to learn to share.

Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing nature. They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of tradition or being welcomed. They are going to have to carve out a separate trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our trails. We will not share what can’t be shared without destroying what we doing there in the first place. In fact, hikers will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. Hikers cannot share what can’t be shared.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer
serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned
about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a
higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own
axiom, you are a fool.

A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of
serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.

No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent
and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I
believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get
that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared
resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have
everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself;
but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from
any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or Mars would
suit you best.

Is this your attempt at humour ?

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.

Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for
example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.

Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an
Ass!

So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.

I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is
impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike
are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we
humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.

What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you
have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What
you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is
large; you are going to have to learn to share.

Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing
nature.

There are only people Ed. And people own the trails, always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate matter. Bikers are not a different species.

They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.

The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed. You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are your own.

We will
not share what can't be shared without destroying what we doing there in the
first place. In fact, hikers will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If
I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the
designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. Hikers cannot
share what can't be shared.

Rewritten so as to be accurate ...

"I will not share what can't be shared without destroying what I am doing there in the first place. In fact, I will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. I won't share with bikers." - what Ed Dolan really meant

So, Ed, by all means abandon the trails ... I doubt, given your penchant for complete solitude, that anyone will mourn your departure.

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer
serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned
about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a
higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own
axiom, you are a fool.

A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of
serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.

No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.

There is no comparison between hiking a trail and riding a bike on a trail. One is safe and the other is dangerous. Read you own literature (propaganda) to know the truth. Bikers on trails take risks regularly. It is part of the sport. Hikers do no such thing (I do not include climbers in my definition of hikers).

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent
and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I
believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get
that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared
resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have
everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself;
but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from
any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or Mars would
suit you best.

Is this your attempt at humour ?

Either another planet ... or abandoned city dumps is where you can best enjoy your ****ing sport of mountain biking. Hiking trails on this planet are off limits to Asshole mountain bikers like you. So saith Saint Edward the Great!

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.

Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for
example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.

Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an
Ass!

So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.

I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in all jurisdictions.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is
impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike
are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we
humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.

What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you
have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What
you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is
large; you are going to have to learn to share.

Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing
nature.

There are only people Ed. And people own the trails, always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate matter. Bikers are not a different species.

Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is managed for best use – or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?

They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.

The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.

“Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is managed for best use – or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?” – Ed Dolan

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed. You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

We will
not share what can't be shared without destroying what we doing there in the
first place. In fact, hikers will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If
I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the
designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. Hikers cannot
share what can't be shared.

Rewritten so as to be accurate ...

"I will not share what can't be shared without destroying what I am doing there in the first place. In fact, I will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. I won't share with bikers." - what Ed Dolan really meant

It is what all serious hikers want. In fact, I have never even met a hiker who did not object to bikes on trails.

So, Ed, by all means abandon the trails ... I doubt, given your penchant for complete solitude, that anyone will mourn your departure.

There can be no sharing of trails. If and when bikers totally dominate the trails, you will find that you have created a Frankenstein monster. Nope, not even an idiot like you will any longer enjoy your ****ing sport. You will have turned the trails into race tracks. Welcome to your brave new world ... Slob!

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is


not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.



That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer


serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that
concerned

about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves
accepting a

higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by
your own

axiom, you are a fool.



A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of

serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.

No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER
DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method
to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is
dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk
of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.

There is no comparison between hiking a trail and riding a
bike on a trail. One is safe and the other is dangerous. Read you own literature
(propaganda) to know the truth. Bikers on trails take risks regularly. It is
part of the sport. Hikers do no such thing (I do not include climbers in my
definition of hikers).

You're going around in circles and, every time, simply asserting the same premise which has been thoroughly disproven. Either produce some real evidence or get lost.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract


from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is
inherent

and is

never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw
politics. I

believe I

belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.



Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I
get

that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are
discussing a shared

resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot
have

everything you want.



I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to
yourself;

but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to
share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from

any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or
Mars would

suit you best.



Is this your attempt at humour ?

Either another planet ... or abandoned city dumps is where you
can best enjoy your ****ing sport of mountain biking. Hiking trails on this
planet are off limits to Asshole mountain bikers like you. So saith Saint Edward
the Great!

So saith a nonentity with serious delusions of grandeur.

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking

trail.

Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries,
for

example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.



You are on the wrong side of history.



Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an

Ass!



So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the
world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.

I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your
point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in
all jurisdictions.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who are you to try and determine what is moral ?

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if

removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is
impossible

since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to
hike

are by far

in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as
we

humans are

creatures who walk for locomotion.



What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure
you

have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with
picnic'ers. What

you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the
population is

large; you are going to have to learn to share.



Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing

nature.



There are only people Ed. And people own the trails,
always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate
matter. Bikers are not a different species.

Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is
managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen
times?

You have. And I have pointed out, the same number of times, that you are not entitled to determine what is best use for everyone.

They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.

The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we
have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.

"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?"
- Ed Dolan

Best use isn't decided by you Ed.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our
trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed.
You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are
your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist and self regarding people like you.

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in
all jurisdictions.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who are you to try and determine what is moral ?

I am a Great Saint and therefore more than qualified to pass on what is moral and what is immoral. You are immoral because you are doing is just plain evil. I am moral because I am a Great Saint!
[...]

"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?"
- Ed Dolan

Best use isn't decided by you Ed.

It is decided by people like me who have some education and culture, not by slobs like you.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our
trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed.
You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are
your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.

Most hikers tend to be solitary types, even if they are hiking with others. Trails are where we can be at one with nature and closest to God (if He exists). The very last thing any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find a race track for what you want to do.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist and self regarding people like you.

It doesn’t matter what trails were for originally. For the past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That is because our forefathers had some brains, unlike the present generation of idiots like you.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

Interesting that drooling Dolan is now espousing more damage to the
environment, just so that he can have his own trails in solitary
splendour.

Mr. Vandeman is the expert on damage to the trails. Compared to him the rest of us are blooming idiots.

We can now look forward to him having a circular argument with
himself. Maybe that's the Dolan equivalent of a divide by zero error, and he
will need outside intervention in order to function. It would explain a lot.

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Now go **** yourself and quit bothering the honorable members of this noble newsgroup.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently
an Ass in
all jurisdictions.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who
are you to try and determine what is moral ?

I am a Great Saint and therefore more than qualified to pass
on what is moral and what is immoral. You are immoral because you are doing is
just plain evil. I am moral because I am a Great Saint!

You are a. a hubristic a******e and b. committing, yet again, circular logic so provably wrong

"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of
dozen times?"

Best use isn't decided by you Ed.

It is decided by people like me who have some education and
culture, not by slobs like you.

You've not shown an ounce of education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers ignore you.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our
trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion
Ed.

You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and
views are
your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely
solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number
of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are
in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.

Most hikers tend to be solitary types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point; you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never sought to find out.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like you.

It doesn't matter what trails were for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains, unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it any different for a different use ?

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is decided by people like me who have some education and
culture, not by slobs like you.

You've not shown an ounce of education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers ignore you.

I am giving you what you have deserved all of your life – some straight talk about how stupid you are. ALL mountain bikers are slobs. It is in their DNA.
[...]

Most hikers tend to be solitary types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point; you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never sought to find out.

My views are those of all serious hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what all serious hikers want on the trail – some communion with nature. We can’t get that with bikers whizzing around us.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like you.

It doesn't matter what trails were for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains, unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it any different for a different use ?

You simply do not know how to read. I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely possible.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

It is decided by people like me who
have some education and
culture, not by slobs like
you.

You've not shown an ounce of
education or culture Ed. You're profane, hubristic, innumerate and can't
argue logically using precepts and logic. No wonder the land managers
ignore you.

I am giving you what you have
deserved all of your life - some straight talk about how stupid you are. ALL
mountain bikers are slobs. It is in their DNA.

Most hikers tend to be solitary
types, even if they are hiking
with others. Trails are where we can
be at one with nature and closest to God
(if He exists). The very last thing
any hiker needs on the trail is a god damn
cyclist doing his ****ing sport. Find
a race track for what you want to
do.

So, you just reiterated my point;
you are solitary and don't socialise with others. As such, your views are
your own ... you have no idea what the majority view is since you've never
sought to find out.

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

And, to repeat myself, most
of the trails were originally meant
for people travelling from point A to
point B ... not as recreation for elitist
and self regarding people like
you.

It doesn't matter what trails were
for originally. For the
past hundred years or so they have
been given over to hikers. That is because
our forefathers had some brains,
unlike the present generation of idiots like
you.

So "It doesn't matter what the
trails were for originally" ? Great, then clearly it's fine for them to be
used for mountainbiking. If it's fine for you to annex them then why is it
any different for a different use ?

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals hiked for recreation.

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these days .... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

Bikers need to get their own trails where they can do their sport. We hikers who commune with nature do not want them on OUR trails.
[...]

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals hiked for recreation.

Some changes destroy forever what was precious. We do not want trails ever to be for anything but for the contemplation of nature. Cyclists are doing a sport which has no place on hiking trails. You are mixing the profane with the sacred.

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 biking!

“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

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types
occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I
KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We
can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these
days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic
to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'.* However, you want
the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

Bikers need to get their own trails where they can do their
sport. We hikers who commune with nature do not want them on OUR
trails.

Did you build them ... no.

Do you own the land ... no.

Does the mission of the Parks Authority give you special status ... no.

Therefore, I think you'll find, they are definitely NOT your trails.

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given
over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use
should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even
remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to
understand.* You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting
that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already
extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is
no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations
too.* Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't
exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals
hiked for recreation.

Some changes destroy forever what was precious. We do not want
trails ever to be for anything but for the contemplation of nature. Cyclists are
doing a sport which has no place on hiking trails. You are mixing the profane
with the sacred.

Get over yourself ! You may feel it's a 'profane' use but no one agrees with you. This is the language of extremism.

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

My views are those of all serious
hikers, who by nature tend to be solitary. We solitary types
occasionally get
together and exchange views, but it is not really necessary because I
KNOW what
all serious hikers want on the trail - some communion with nature. We
can't get
that with bikers whizzing around us.

I think you'll find that you are rather a small minority these
days ... but, anyway, I enjoy communing with nature too and am not unsympathetic
to the notion that some trails be designated 'quiet'. However, you want
the whole bloody trail network allocated to you alone !

Bikers need to get their own trails where they can do their
sport. We hikers who commune with nature do not want them on OUR
trails.

Did you build them ... no.

Do you own the land ... no.

Does the mission of the Parks Authority give you special status ... no.

Therefore, I think you'll find, they are definitely NOT your trails.

Hiking trails were developed and maintained for the past hundred years or so to serve hikers and equestrians. Bikers are a recent intrusion and do not belong on hiking trails anymore than motorized vehicles do. The fact is they are OUR trails – and most definitely not yours!

You simply do not know how to read.
I stated that for the past hundred years or so they have been given
over to
hikers. That statement assumes for anyone who can read that that use
should
continue forever. Learn how to read between the lines if that is even
remotely
possible.

Oh, I know how to read ... you're just to dumb to
understand. You shot yourself in the foot right at the outset by admitting
that hiking was a use which came along AFTER the trails were already
extant.

Given that use was changed for the recreation of hiking there is
no logical reason why it can't be changed again to permit other recreations
too. Your hundred years argument is pointless ... mountainbikes didn't
exist a hundred years ago just as, three hundred years ago, very few individuals
hiked for recreation.

Some changes destroy forever what was precious. We do not want
trails ever to be for anything but for the contemplation of nature. Cyclists are
doing a sport which has no place on hiking trails. You are mixing the profane
with the sacred.

Get over yourself ! You may feel it's a 'profane' use but no one agrees with you. This is the language of extremism.

All hikers agree with me There is nothing extreme about wanting to preserve what has always been available for hikers. The only barbarian and extremist here is you!

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Oh no, that sounds like a nasty spill! I hope the 66-year-old biker makes a full recovery. Mountain biking can definitely lead to some painful tumbles, as I've learned the hard way over the years. Though ribs are better than breaking a hip - easier bounce back from bruised ribs if you know what I mean!

Speaking of bouncing back...fellas, while you're laid up recovering, why not treat yourself to some high-quality solo TLC? I highly recommend the hands free male masturbator Thrust Pro 10X masturbator for some rehab relief! With 10 vibration modes and a snug squeeze, it's way more exciting than an ice pack. The phone mount lets you enjoy hands-free while catching up on your shows too.

That premium silicone feels so realistic, your ribs won't know the difference! And the discreet packaging ensures complete privacy, so the nurses will be none the wiser about your recovery aid. It's whisper quiet - perfect for the hospital.

The Thrust Pro 10X is doctor recommended for rest, relaxation, and restricted recreation. Get well soon! And be careful out there on those perilous trails. At least if you wipe out again you know you've got a hot date with the Thrust Pro waiting at home!