|
|
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
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're going around in circles. I read your posts carefully the first time.. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE BACKUP ! Your whole argument rests on your own opinions and anecdotal reports from like-minded individuals ... that is not a 'good' argument. 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. Quad Erat Demonstrandum. You accuse me of being unwilling to compromise but you clearly show here that it's you who won't do so. These are NOT your trails so your ridiculous proposed outright ban is never going to work. If you won't compromise then you will, probably, find that you are simply eventually overruled and get very little of what you want. You would probably do better being more reasonable ... but that's your call. We started out having a more sensible conversation but, as I've realised that you simply won't move one iota from your position, I've gone from being somewhat more emollient to saying "Your problem - I don't care what you think and I'm just going to do what I was anyway". I think that probably wasn't the result you were looking for ? Bikers need to get their own trails far removed from hiking trails. That way all conflict with hikers is removed. No, hikers need to accept that they do not have carte blanche to take a public resource and do with it precisely what they wish anymore than bikers. And, in any case, since the majority of hikers are quite happy to share it's just a small, intolerant minority anyway. 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. Whether both grow or contract is largely immaterial for the purposes of this argument. What matters is the relative size of the trail-using population. Since mountainbiking is growing faster than hiking (per the report you kindly provided) the relative size will tilt more towards mountainbikers. 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. That's not what the report you provided says ... 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. But mountainbiking does not inflict materially more impact on the environment than hiking. I've never argued that all uses are equal nor that all should share completely equal access. 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. And hiking in the UK took off after a mass trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932 at which there were violent scuffles with gamekeepers and arrests. That paved the way for the current access rules and therefore, arguably, recreational hiking in the UK. Do you therefore belong to that class ? Mountainbiking, whatever its origins, is no longer solely about going downhill fast just as hiking is no longer about getting around because that was the only way to travel. 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 think you just proved my point again. If the mere appearance of one biker is sufficient to unsettle you then you need to get help ... not to try and ban the biker. The problem, most definitely, is yours. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
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. It's from the journal of EMERGENCY MEDICINE ... it IS from the people who treat injuries. What an ***** ! |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
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. Edward Dolan wrote: Instead of reading a report on numbers, why not read some reports from doctors who have to treat these morons in the ER. It's from the journal of EMERGENCY MEDICINE ... it IS from the people who treat injuries. What an ***** ! No, it is just data. You need to speak personally to the doctors to get their opinions of the kind of assholes they are treating. Numbers don't count for much worth knowing since numbers lie about everything all the time. That is what polls do too – lie about everything all the time. Intelligent folks need to have conversations with the participants in this folly of mountain biking. That is what my reports present. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
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. Edward Dolan wrote: 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're going around in circles. I read your posts carefully the first time. YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE BACKUP ! Your whole argument rests on your own opinions and anecdotal reports from like-minded individuals .... that is not a 'good' argument. It is the BEST argument. Your so called “objective backup” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. It is designed to mislead, but it can’t do that to anyone who has had some actual trail experience since the advent of mountain biking. I remember the good old days when nary a bike was ever to be seen on a trail. No one is as dumb as you think they are. 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. Quad Erat Demonstrandum. You accuse me of being unwilling to compromise but you clearly show here that it's you who won't do so. These are NOT your trails so your ridiculous proposed outright ban is never going to work. If you won't compromise then you will, probably, find that you are simply eventually overruled and get very little of what you want. You would probably do better being more reasonable ... but that's your call. The bikers are going to make trails an ordeal and untenable even for themselves eventually. That is always the way of gangsters and hooligans. They only know how to destroy. We started out having a more sensible conversation but, as I've realised that you simply won't move one iota from your position, I've gone from being somewhat more emollient to saying "Your problem - I don't care what you think and I'm just going to do what I was anyway". I think that probably wasn't the result you were looking for ? I have given you a few second thoughts about what you are doing and about how others on the trail regard you. When something is totally wrong, there is no possibility of compromise. Wrong is wrong. What you have done for me is to convince me more than ever how right I am. I have never yet heard a good argument for permitting bikes on trails. [...] 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. Whether both grow or contract is largely immaterial for the purposes of this argument. What matters is the relative size of the trail-using population. Since mountainbiking is growing faster than hiking (per the report you kindly provided) the relative size will tilt more towards mountainbikers. No, you are depending on trails not to be crowded which is the only way bikes can use trails. If trails were to get crowded with hikers, bikers would have to go. Biking on trails is a fad, admittedly a long one, but it is destined for oblivion. It is a kid thing - enjoying new toys. [...] 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. And hiking in the UK took off after a mass trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932 at which there were violent scuffles with gamekeepers and arrests. That paved the way for the current access rules and therefore, arguably, recreational hiking in the UK. Do you therefore belong to that class ? The Brits are a strange island people like the Japanese. No one understands what makes them tick. Mountainbiking, whatever its origins, is no longer solely about going downhill fast just as hiking is no longer about getting around because that was the only way to travel. It may not be what it is about solely, but it is still what they all live for and like to do whenever they can. Hiking since the days of the establishment of the national parks has always been about enjoying nature, not about getting around. Jeez, do you ever get up to date on anything? 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 think you just proved my point again. If the mere appearance of one biker is sufficient to unsettle you then you need to get help ... not to try and ban the biker. The problem, most definitely, is yours. The problem is also yours since all serious hikers think and feel the way I do. Bikers are being more and more banned from trails because of folks like me. The only one who is out of step here is 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 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Instead of reading a report on numbers, why not read some
reports from doctors who have to treat these morons in the ER. It's from the journal of EMERGENCY MEDICINE ... it IS from the people who treat injuries. What an ***** ! No, it is just data. You need to speak personally to the doctors to get their opinions of the kind of assholes they are treating. Numbers don't count for much worth knowing since numbers lie about everything all the time. That is what polls do too - lie about everything all the time. Intelligent folks need to have conversations with the participants in this folly of mountain biking. That is what my reports present. Nice one Ed ... you don't like reports, it's important to speak to people, and now you are just referencing other reports ... but ones that are simply personal anecdote rather than from people who have any kind of objectivity. The report I cited was collated from ER doctors ... some numbers but also interviews. I guess that, yet again, you didn't bother to read it ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You're going around in circles.* I read your posts carefully
the first time.* YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE BACKUP !* Your whole argument rests on your own opinions and anecdotal reports from like-minded individuals ... that is not a 'good' argument. It is the BEST argument. No, Ed, it isn't. See the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory You have very little evidence, and none of it objective, so your position is very weak. I remember the good old days when nary a bike was ever to be seen on a trail. I am sure you do. Fondly no doubt ? 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. * Quad Erat Demonstrandum.* You accuse me of being unwilling to compromise but you clearly show here that it's you who won't do so.* These are NOT your trails so your ridiculous proposed outright ban is never going to work. * If you won't compromise then you will, probably, find that you are simply eventually overruled and get very little of what you want.* You would probably do better being more reasonable ... but that's your call. * The bikers are going to make trails an ordeal and untenable even for themselves eventually. That is always the way of gangsters and hooligans. They only know how to destroy. Why Ed ? This is a statement without the slightest factual backup or logic.. We started out having a more sensible conversation but, as I've realised that you simply won't move one iota from your position, I've gone from being somewhat more emollient to saying "Your problem - I don't care what you think and I'm just going to do what I was anyway".* I think that probably wasn't the result you were looking for ? I have given you a few second thoughts about what you are doing and about how others on the trail regard you. No, not really. You've opened my eyes to an extremist fringe to which you clearly belong but, as you keep forgetting, I am a hiker too and I'm not getting any similar feedback through those channels. I won't say all is sweetness and light but I have encountered no-one else who would have the gall to suggest that only hikers be permitted on trails. When something is totally wrong, there is no possibility of compromise. Wrong is wrong. What you have done for me is to convince me more than ever how right I am. I have never yet heard a good argument for permitting bikes on trails. You've not made any case to conclude that mountainbiking is simply wrong. You might believe it, but that doesn't make it true. No, you are depending on trails not to be crowded which is the only way bikes can use trails. If trails were to get crowded with hikers, bikers would have to go. Biking on trails is a fad, admittedly a long one, but it is destined for oblivion. It is a kid thing - enjoying new toys. Crowded trails, whether by bikers or hikers, are always going to be an issue that needs to be managed. I think all the statistics suggest biking is going to continue to grow relative to hiking ... 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. * And hiking in the UK took off after a mass trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932 at which there were violent scuffles with gamekeepers and arrests.* That paved the way for the current access rules and therefore, arguably, recreational hiking in the UK.* Do you therefore belong to that class ? The Brits are a strange island people like the Japanese. No one understands what makes them tick. Nice way to completely miss the point Ed. If you want to ascribe me to a 'class' of people from a totally different country a few decades ago simply based on activity then I reserve the right to allocate you similarly. Alternatively, you could stop flip-flopping all over the place and deal with what's really happening now. I think you just proved my point again.* If the mere appearance of one biker is sufficient to unsettle you then you need to get help ... not to try and ban the biker.* The problem, most definitely, is yours. The problem is also yours since all serious hikers think and feel the way I do. No, Ed, they don't. A tiny minority of extremists think as you do ... the majority are much more reasonable. Many people hike and bike. Bikers are being more and more banned from trails because of folks like me. The only one who is out of step here is you. Not seeing it here ... in fact more trails are opening up along with new trail centres. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: No, it is just data. You need to speak personally to the doctors to get their opinions of the kind of assholes they are treating. Numbers don't count for much worth knowing since numbers lie about everything all the time. That is what polls do too - lie about everything all the time. Intelligent folks need to have conversations with the participants in this folly of mountain biking. That is what my reports present. Nice one Ed ... you don't like reports, it's important to speak to people, and now you are just referencing other reports ... but ones that are simply personal anecdote rather than from people who have any kind of objectivity. The report I cited was collated from ER doctors ... some numbers but also interviews. I guess that, yet again, you didn't bother to read it ? Why not post what the doctors have to say about the idiocies of mountain bikers. No one is interested in reading numbers, least of all me. I am not much for anecdotes either, but when they are all saying the same thing, you have to sit up and take notice. Note that many of my reports are not overwhelmingly against bikes on trails. Like you, some of them believe it is possible to compromise. They are merely reporting their experiences. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: The bikers are going to make trails an ordeal and untenable even for themselves eventually. That is always the way of gangsters and hooligans. They only know how to destroy. Why Ed ? This is a statement without the slightest factual backup or logic. Both facts and logic back me up. As a resource become overused it is destroyed. The parks will frequently close various areas so they can be renewed by mother nature. Even too many hikers can destroy a resource and make it not worth hiking. We started out having a more sensible conversation but, as I've realised that you simply won't move one iota from your position, I've gone from being somewhat more emollient to saying "Your problem - I don't care what you think and I'm just going to do what I was anyway". I think that probably wasn't the result you were looking for ? I have given you a few second thoughts about what you are doing and about how others on the trail regard you. No, not really. You've opened my eyes to an extremist fringe to which you clearly belong but, as you keep forgetting, I am a hiker too and I'm not getting any similar feedback through those channels. I won't say all is sweetness and light but I have encountered no-one else who would have the gall to suggest that only hikers be permitted on trails. The reason you can't see the light is because you are an English crazy. If you had some Irish heritage, all would be crystal clear. I will shortly be posting some more reports from the field which continue to show lots of conflicts. When something is totally wrong, there is no possibility of compromise. Wrong is wrong. What you have done for me is to convince me more than ever how right I am. I have never yet heard a good argument for permitting bikes on trails. You've not made any case to conclude that mountainbiking is simply wrong. You might believe it, but that doesn't make it true. It is wrong to do it on trails used by hikers because there is a conflict of purpose among other conflicts. Only hooligans have no regard for others. No, you are depending on trails not to be crowded which is the only way bikes can use trails. If trails were to get crowded with hikers, bikers would have to go. Biking on trails is a fad, admittedly a long one, but it is destined for oblivion. It is a kid thing - enjoying new toys. Crowded trails, whether by bikers or hikers, are always going to be an issue that needs to be managed. I think all the statistics suggest biking is going to continue to grow relative to hiking ... If bikers grow numerous on trails they will conflict with one another and that will be the end of it. Hikers seldom if ever conflict with one another. [...] The problem is also yours since all serious hikers think and feel the way I do. No, Ed, they don't. A tiny minority of extremists think as you do .... the majority are much more reasonable. Many people hike and bike. Casual hikers hardly know what is happening. Serious hikers know what is happening and strenuously object. Try to get real! Bikers are being more and more banned from trails because of folks like me. The only one who is out of step here is you. Not seeing it here ... in fact more trails are opening up along with new trail centres. Here in Minnesota we have an excellent system of bike trails based on old railroad beds. You don’t need any special bike to ride them and you can still enjoy a natural environment. All you have to give up is any thought of off-road and wilderness single track riding. These bike trails are so pleasant that only a nut case would want to ride off of them. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Why not post what the doctors have to say about the idiocies
of mountain bikers. No one is interested in reading numbers, least of all me. You can read it in the report ... And you should be interested in numbers ... they might be tougher going for the numerically illiterate BUT they present a much broader picture. I am not much for anecdotes either, but when they are all saying the same thing, you have to sit up and take notice. Note that many of my reports are not overwhelmingly against bikes on trails. Like you, some of them believe it is possible to compromise. They are merely reporting their experiences. They are indeed ... and, as you say, many are far less extreme than you. However, I refer you to your own point ... what about all the people who DON'T have any negative experiences ? They are just as valid in understanding what is going on BUT they won't write anything will they ? This is why, to get a real perspective, you have to ask EVERYONE ... or at least a reasonable sample of everyone ... otherwise you are never going to get the broad picture. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
The bikers are going to make trails an ordeal and untenable
even for themselves eventually. That is always the way of gangsters and hooligans. They only know how to destroy. Why Ed ? This is a statement without the slightest factual backup or logic. Both facts and logic back me up. As a resource become overused it is destroyed. The parks will frequently close various areas so they can be renewed by mother nature. Even too many hikers can destroy a resource and make it not worth hiking. Exactly ... why should bikers specifically behave in any different way to hikers in terms of protecting trails and the trail experience ? Do bikers not turn out, in general rather more than hikers, to maintain trails ? The answer to these questions, of course, is that they don't and they do. No, not really. You've opened my eyes to an extremist fringe to which you clearly belong but, as you keep forgetting, I am a hiker too and I'm not getting any similar feedback through those channels. I won't say all is sweetness and light but I have encountered no-one else who would have the gall to suggest that only hikers be permitted on trails. The reason you can't see the light is because you are an English crazy. If you had some Irish heritage, all would be crystal clear.. I will shortly be posting some more reports from the field which continue to show lots of conflicts. So, you're going to convince me that you're not an extremist by posting me reports from other extremists ? !! Or, as you mentioned above, you're going to post reports that don't actually support your position at all. Neither of those are likely to advance your argument ! You've not made any case to conclude that mountainbiking is simply wrong. You might believe it, but that doesn't make it true. It is wrong to do it on trails used by hikers because there is a conflict of purpose among other conflicts. Only hooligans have no regard for others. Then that, clearly, makes you a hooligan by your own definition. You've stated, again and again, that you don't care one jot for mountainbikers and rejoice when they are killed and injured. Your purpose argument was shot down long ago. You want to ban trail runners simply because they are there for a different purpose. Your fundamental premise has no logic. Crowded trails, whether by bikers or hikers, are always going to be an issue that needs to be managed. I think all the statistics suggest biking is going to continue to grow relative to hiking ... If bikers grow numerous on trails they will conflict with one another and that will be the end of it. Hikers seldom if ever conflict with one another. Completely untrue. Get too many people, whatever they're doing, in one crowded space and conflicts will arise. The problem is also yours since all serious hikers think and feel the way I do. No, Ed, they don't. A tiny minority of extremists think as you do ... the majority are much more reasonable. Many people hike and bike. Casual hikers hardly know what is happening. Serious hikers know what is happening and strenuously object. Try to get real! No, you need to get real. You've spent so long in your echo chamber that you've completely lost any sense of reality. Go on, try it ... actually go for a hike on a shared trail. My bet is that you will encounter no conflict (beyond the cognitive dissonance in your own brain if you see a bike) whatsoever. Of course, that's not to say that no conflicts occur ... just to say that they are very rare. So, if you go looking for them .. as you do .. then you will simply confirm your own prejudices. As I said, look up confirmation bias. Bikers are being more and more banned from trails because of folks like me. The only one who is out of step here is you. Not seeing it here ... in fact more trails are opening up along with new trail centres. Here in Minnesota we have an excellent system of bike trails based on old railroad beds. You don't need any special bike to ride them and you can still enjoy a natural environment. All you have to give up is any thought of off-road and wilderness single track riding. These bike trails are so pleasant that only a nut case would want to ride off of them. Way to wander off track there Ed. The point was whether more, or less, trails were becoming open to bikes. In the UK, I can state for a fact that it's more .. I don't have the data for the US but your mate Vandeman was complaining about the amount of new trails being created so I suspect the situation is the same there too. Your point is refuted. As to your point about the trails in Minnesota ... stop being so authoritarian and hubristic. You may believe that these trails are the best thing ever to ride .. they sound fairly boring to me and far too close to a road experience. You don't get to decide what other people enjoy doing. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: I am not much for anecdotes either, but when they are all saying the same thing, you have to sit up and take notice. Note that many of my reports are not overwhelmingly against bikes on trails. Like you, some of them believe it is possible to compromise. They are merely reporting their experiences. They are indeed ... and, as you say, many are far less extreme than you. However, I refer you to your own point ... what about all the people who DON'T have any negative experiences ? They are just as valid in understanding what is going on BUT they won't write anything will they ? This is why, to get a real perspective, you have to ask EVERYONE ... or at least a reasonable sample of everyone ... otherwise you are never going to get the broad picture. It is only necessary to get input from serious hikers and equestrians. The vast majority of people using the trails will never report anything. They are like sheep and will go along to get along. In short, they don’t count. Who counts are those who are protesting the depredations of bikers on trails. There are more than enough of them to count for something serious. You are so far out of the loop that you simply have no idea what is going on in the arena of trail conflicts. Your ignorance of the issues is abysmal. Why not read the following to get some clues. It relates to the late great state of California and not so to some backwoods area of England where apparently according to you all is tranquility. To California State Park Director Major General Anthony Jackson, The California State Park Commissioners, Resource Directors PLEASE DO SOMETHING NOW! MOUNT DIABLO STATE PARK IS WRITING THE ROAD AND TRAIL PLAN AS I WRITE THIS! ******* Where as: 1. I have a reasonable expectation to feel safe while on a trail in a California State Park. Note the difference between Ca. State Parks, Ca. State Recreation Areas, and Off Road Vehicle Parks. I should be able to be on a trail in a Ca. State Park and not feel that a mountain bike rider will be speeding at me around the next turn, or coming at me from behind. Increased documented accidents nation wide show this to be a risky mix. Let us risk rattle snakes, poison oak, steep trails, but NOT reckless behavior from other people! That should NOT be happening in our State Parks. Lack of law enforcement to deal with the unlawful bike riders has led to displacement of other Park users who no longer feel SAFE on the trails. Bird watching a thing of the past? Elderly folks forced to dodge mechanical forward motion propelled metal "weapons" with riders dressed to crash and burn? This is reality and what a shame. At many of the trail entrances in Ca. State Parks there are signs cautioning the presence of Rattle Snakes. Park officials must know that the trails are being over run by renegade mountain bikers, which is a more likely encounter than a Rattle Snake! They simply act as if they don't know about this SAFETY HAZARD. If they were to acknowledge it there would be warning sings cautioning the likely-hood of engaging a speeding cyclist. By ignoring this safety hazard they are blatantly setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit. 2. I have a reasonable expectation when I visit a Ca. State Park that I may enjoy nature in peace and get away from the hustle and bustle. When I take my family to the Ca. State Parks and we go out on the trails I expect to be in nature. We want to see wildlife and leave the tension of the world behind. We want to be able to stop and close our eyes and listen to the birds singing and smell the fresh sages. We do not want to worry about a speeding mountain biker coming at us. We found that ruins the experience. We do not want to keep our guard up. Ca. State Parks needs to revise their mission statement from providing recreation to providing wreckreation. They are displacing the "old fashioned" user groups for this new group that wants extreme experiences of thrill. 3. I have a reasonable expectation that resources will be protected in a Ca. State Parks. Along with providing recreation it is the mission of Ca. State Parks to protect resources. The land, waters, animals, plants, everything in Ca. State Parks is supposed to be protected. Recreation should take a back seat to resource destruction. The health of the parkland is dependent on good decisions that protect the parks looking seven generations ahead. State Parks are charged with this important obligation. Illegal trail building by mountain bikers is common in the Ca. State Park system. Built often along creeks and other water ways displaying complete disregard for cut down trees. They build bridges and jumps. Trails are popping up faster than they can be recorded. Proper trail maintenance of trails helps with resource protection. Trail crews should devote their time to maintaining trails and not covering up the illegally constructed ones. It must be impossible to keep up with the added work or those illegal trails would be dealt with. They are not. 4. I have a reasonable expectation that Ca. State Parks Staff Leaders will look ahead to the future as far as seven generations and make decisions accordingly. Do not open up the "flood waters" please. I understand Mount Diablo State Park is being reviewed for adding more multi use trails. Mountain Bikes in Ca. State Parks should be kept to dirt roads. Developing multi use trails will only invite more illegal use in the back country of parks. There are websites that must be visited to prove my point. Go to YouTube videos enter Mount Diablo Downhill, extreme mountain biking. You will see the proof boasted by the violators themselves. Enter the name of a trail not open to mountain bikers and watch as wildlife and people run for their lives. The camera shows cross country riding and bikers flipping off Rangers in a video or two. Visit STRVA a site dedicated to promote speed competition. This is happening right now on Ca. State Park trails and dirt roads. People want to be "King of the Mountain" and be the fastest recorded using GPS. With this knowledge it would be a huge mistake to ignore these warnings.The situation is already out of control. Offer Ca. State Park Recreation Areas to mountain bike enthusiasts and keep them off the trails in Ca. State Parks. Stand strong in your mission to keep park visitors safe and resources protected as you have been charged to do by the people of California. Sincerely, Sue Schwartz Please reply back through email 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: Both facts and logic back me up. As a resource becomes overused it is destroyed. The parks will frequently close various areas so they can be renewed by mother nature. Even too many hikers can destroy a resource and make it not worth hiking. Exactly ... why should bikers specifically behave in any different way to hikers in terms of protecting trails and the trail experience ? Do bikers not turn out, in general rather more than hikers, to maintain trails ? The answer to these questions, of course, is that they don't and they do. This business about bikers maintaining trails is the biggest laugh ever to come down the pike. What bikers do is use that as an excuse so they can build their own outlaw trails designed for only one thing - biking. Bikers maintaining trails trails are a huge headache for the park managers. They are essentially nothing but desecrators of trails. Have you not read my many reports which show exactly what bikers are doing with respect to trails? [...] You've not made any case to conclude that mountainbiking is simply wrong. You might believe it, but that doesn't make it true. It is wrong to do it on trails used by hikers because there is a conflict of purpose among other conflicts. Only hooligans have no regard for others. Then that, clearly, makes you a hooligan by your own definition. You've stated, again and again, that you don't care one jot for mountainbikers and rejoice when they are killed and injured. Well Hells Bells, I am not killing them. They are killing themselves through their own willful stupidity. And since you support biking on trails, you are an accessory to the killing. I am as innocent and as pure as a Great Saint – which in fact is what I am! The only hooligan here is you. Your purpose argument was shot down long ago. You want to ban trail runners simply because they are there for a different purpose. Your fundamental premise has no logic. The logic could not be more clear and direct. You are only entitled to be on trails only if you there for the purpose of appreciating nature. Clearly, runners and bikers are not there for that purpose. I suggest you leave off on the subject of logic since you seem not to underatnd it at all. Philosophy 101. Crowded trails, whether by bikers or hikers, are always going to be an issue that needs to be managed. I think all the statistics suggest biking is going to continue to grow relative to hiking ... If bikers grow numerous on trails they will conflict with one another and that will be the end of it. Hikers seldom if ever conflict with one another. Completely untrue. Get too many people, whatever they're doing, in one crowded space and conflicts will arise. Nope, you can walk down a busy street in London or New York and there is no conflict at all with other walkers. The same goes for trails. On the other hand a bike tour like the Iowa RAGBRAI (some 10,000 cyclists) is on roads and there will frequently be conflicts because they are running into one another. There is much less room for cyclists on trails then there is on roads. The problem is also yours since all serious hikers think and feel the way I do. No, Ed, they don't. A tiny minority of extremists think as you do ... the majority are much more reasonable. Many people hike and bike. Casual hikers hardly know what is happening. Serious hikers know what is happening and strenuously object. Try to get real! [...] Here in Minnesota we have an excellent system of bike trails based on old railroad beds. You don't need any special bike to ride them and you can still enjoy a natural environment. All you have to give up is any thought of off-road and wilderness single track riding. These bike trails are so pleasant that only a nut case would want to ride off of them. Way to wander off track there Ed. The point was whether more, or less, trails were becoming open to bikes. In the UK, I can state for a fact that it's more .. I don't have the data for the US but your mate Vandeman was complaining about the amount of new trails being created so I suspect the situation is the same there too. Your point is refuted. It is a pendulum which is beginning to swing back now. I suggest you practice your walking skills because your biking days on trails are numbered. As to your point about the trails in Minnesota ... stop being so authoritarian and hubristic. You may believe that these trails are the best thing ever to ride .. they sound fairly boring to me and far too close to a road experience. You don't get to decide what other people enjoy doing. Only hooligans like you ever want to ride off-road on a single track trail meant for hikers. If you are bored by cycling on a road, then get off your god damn ****ing bike and walk a trail like everyone else, However I suspect that bores you too. Why not stay home and find a hobby that does not bore you. Christ, now I have heard everything ... biking on a road is too boring! When are you ever going to stop being such a jackass! Society has every right to restrict your cycling to roads. Mr. Vandeman and I are working to make that happen. More bad news from the trenches for idiots like Blackblade who maintain there are no conflicts worth mentioning. Everything to him is just a number (data). Why not try to tell that to this gentleman who now has a broken leg due to a mountain biker. Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:23:14 -0700 Subject: MTBer blamed for injury to horse rider (accident March 25, 2014) From: Karen Sullivan http://www.socaltrailriders.org/foru...to-horse-rider SAN JAUN CAPISTRANO - A 71-year-old man had to be rescued by helicopter Tuesday after being thrown from a horse while riding in a remote section of Caspers Wilderness Park. The man, who wasn't identified, was knocked unconscious and possibly fractured a femur in the mishap that occurred around 2:40 p.m., said Orange County Fire Authority Capt. Steve Concialdi. The horse got spooked by a mountain biker, he said. A woman who was riding with the man called 911. An OCFA's helicopter lowered two urban search and rescue firefighters down to the man. He was then placed on a backboard and in a Stokes Basket and hoisted to the helicopter, Concialdi said. The helicopter then picked up two firefighter/paramedics from a nearby ridge and flew all on board to Mission Hospital in Mission Viejo. The man underwent surgery at the hospital, but information about his condition was not available Tuesday night. http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/g...out-of-caspers 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...] More likely he's [Ed Dolan] nutty enough to go and provoke some conflict to prove it happens, just like his hero the convict vandalman did. There is no point in going over old ground (Mike Vandeman) which has already been gone over many times on these bicycle newsgroups. All trail conflicts are due to bikers being on trails which they have no business being on. Elementary my dear Watson! [...] I don't know. He makes a very good case for confining hikers to paved "trails" as well. Got to protect that wilderness from human damage, after all. That is an issue that Mr. Vandeman disposed of long ago. My concern is trail conflict among users. Try to get up to speed if that is even remotely possible. Blackblade wrote: As to your point about the trails in Minnesota ... stop being so authoritarian and hubristic. You may believe that these trails are the best thing ever to ride .. they sound fairly boring to me and far too close to a road experience. You don't get to decide what other people enjoy doing. I'm guessing that he refuses to use any of the trails there himself, as only historical use is acceptable in his eyes, and he is both shod and of non native American descent. Although the last point may be uncertain (he'd need to ask potentially embarrassing questions of his female antecedents to have any chance of knowing himself), I bet he doesn't hike those trails in moccasins. And maybe he should remember that it was an Irishman who invented the pneumatic tyre, not an Englishman. If the brogue fits :-) You guess wrong as you do about most everything. Historical use means recent usage since the establishment of the National Parks. We need not go back any further than that. The Western world with its trails has been created and organized for Western Man and does not relate even remotely to primitive Indian savages any more than it does to animals on four legs. Biker use of single track trails happened like yesterday and there is no tradition of such usage, which is a good enough reason to keep things the way they were. The fact is that bikers on trails are interlopers who destroy the traditional trail experience (appreciation of nature) for all. The bikers (and the land managers who permit this desecration) should be brought up before courts of law and administered a good horse whipping for their criminal behavior and thereafter be permanently banned from ever entering into a pristine outdoors environment under any circumstances for the rest of their miserable lives. Let them ride their off-road contraptions in abandoned city dumps where they can consort with their true fellow beings on this earth – rats and cockroaches. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
This is why, to get a real perspective, you have to
ask EVERYONE ... or at least a reasonable sample of everyone ... otherwise you are never going to get the broad picture. It is only necessary to get input from serious hikers and equestrians. Very funny ... and totally idiotic. I know, let's ask only pedestrians and cyclists whether cars should be permitted on roads ! You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups should have access ... The vast majority of people using the trails will never report anything. Indeed ... because there are very few conflicts and the vast majority have no problem with sharing. Your small, vocal, minority is just that ... a small minority. You are so far out of the loop that you simply have no idea what is going on in the arena of trail conflicts. Your ignorance of the issues is abysmal. I'm here liaising with you and asking you to backup your opinions with some real data ... but you can't. As such, I've given you the opportunity to provide convincing argument to refute my position but you can't. You cite thousands of conflicts, then can't back it up. You cite thousands of complaints, then can't back it up. My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice a week for three years now in this area. Why not read the following to get some clues. Because it's one person's opinion. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Exactly ... why should bikers specifically behave in
any different way to hikers in terms of protecting trails and the trail experience ?* Do bikers not turn out, in general rather more than hikers, to maintain trails ?* The answer to these questions, of course, is that they don't and they do. This business about bikers maintaining trails is the biggest laugh ever to come down the pike. What bikers do is use that as an excuse so they can build their own outlaw trails designed for only one thing - biking. At least they're doing something to protect and maintain the experience for others. You're doing nothing and castigating others, who are prepared to put something in, for unsurprisingly favouring their own activity when doing that work. It is wrong to do it on trails used by hikers because there is a conflict of purpose among other conflicts. Only hooligans have no regard for others. Then that, clearly, makes you a hooligan by your own definition.* You've stated, again and again, that you don't care one jot for mountainbikers and rejoice when they are killed and injured. Well Hells Bells, I am not killing them. I didn't accuse you of doing so. You said "only hooligans have no regard for others" and then clearly demonstrated that you, yourself, have no regard for a whole section of the trail using population. You are therefore, by your own definition, a hooligan. Hoist on your own petard. Your purpose argument was shot down long ago.* You want to ban trail runners simply because they are there for a different purpose.* Your fundamental premise has no logic. The logic could not be more clear and direct. You are only entitled to be on trails only if you there for the purpose of appreciating nature. Says who ? You ???? !!! I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read, that public spaces are constituted for the public and wildlife. So, your restriction on purpose is something you've come up with, to suit your own ends, and which is entirely valueless. The park managers, who you continually castigate, are doing precisely what they are supposed to do; balancing public demand for access and recreation and the protection of the environment and wildlife. There is zero reason why they would ever apply your purpose test ... it's not an objective and nor should it be. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Way to wander off track there Ed.* The point was
whether more, or less, trails were becoming open to bikes.* In the UK, I can state for a fact that it's more .. I don't have the data for the US but your mate Vandeman was complaining about the amount of new trails being created so I suspect the situation is the same there too.* Your point is refuted. It is a pendulum which is beginning to swing back now. I suggest you practice your walking skills because your biking days on trails are numbered. It's very difficult to predict ... especially the future :-). We will see won't we ? As to your point about the trails in Minnesota ... stop being so authoritarian and hubristic.* You may believe that these trails are the best thing ever to ride .. they sound fairly boring to me and far too close to a road experience.* You don't get to decide what other people enjoy doing. Only hooligans like you ever want to ride off-road on a single track trail meant for hikers. Ah, back to ad-hominem again I see. Just because I enjoy riding my bike in a natural environment does not make me a hooligan Ed. Although you may beg to differ. If you are bored by cycling on a road, then get off your god damn ****ing bike and walk a trail like everyone else, However I suspect that bores you too. Why don't you just walk on pavement in the city then Ed ? Is that the same experience ? I don't think so. Why not stay home and find a hobby that does not bore you. I have many, many hobbies which don't bore me ... including mountainbiking. Society has every right to restrict your cycling to roads. Mr. Vandeman and I are working to make that happen. Society does, you don't. And society is mostly not comprised by extremists like you and instead rather more moderate people who accept that a public resource cannot simply be annexed solely for their preferred mode of recreation. As such, I'm pretty confident that your efforts will continue to be in vain, as they have been for the past 20 years. More bad news from the trenches for idiots like Blackblade who maintain there are no conflicts worth mentioning. Everything to him is just a number (data). Why not try to tell that to this gentleman who now has a broken leg due to a mountain biker. No, he has a broken leg because an unfortunate co-incidence of mountainbiker and horse occurred. This is not a common occurrence. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:55:07 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: Blackblade considered Mon, 14 Apr 2014 03:54:39 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: This is why, to get a real perspective, you have to ask EVERYONE ... or at least a reasonable sample of everyone ... otherwise you are never going to get the broad picture. It is only necessary to get input from serious hikers and equestrians. Very funny ... and totally idiotic. I know, let's ask only pedestrians and cyclists whether cars should be permitted on roads ! You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups should have access ... The vast majority of people using the trails will never report anything. Indeed ... because there are very few conflicts and the vast majority have no problem with sharing. Your small, vocal, minority is just that ... a small minority. You are so far out of the loop that you simply have no idea what is going on in the arena of trail conflicts. Your ignorance of the issues is abysmal. I'm here liaising with you and asking you to backup your opinions with some real data ... but you can't. As such, I've given you the opportunity to provide convincing argument to refute my position but you can't. You cite thousands of conflicts, then can't back it up. You cite thousands of complaints, then can't back it up. My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice a week for three years now in this area. Why not read the following to get some clues. Because it's one person's opinion. It's good to wind the extremists up though so that their views get aired and their real agenda exposed. This has the benefit that no politician (who ultimately decide on such things as access to the trails) would touch them or their extremist views with a barge-pole. After all, the main purpose of a politician is to get re-elected, and aligning themselves with criminals and extremists almost guarantees defeat the next time around. Logic and the bigot :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
This is why, to get a real perspective, you have to ask EVERYONE ... or at least a reasonable sample of everyone ... otherwise you are never going to get the broad picture. Edward Dolan wrote: It is only necessary to get input from serious hikers and equestrians. Very funny ... and totally idiotic. I know, let's ask only pedestrians and cyclists whether cars should be permitted on roads ! You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups should have access ... Yes, since all recent groups, such as mountain bikers, are essentially nothing but interlopers and are not welcomed by the traditional users. Extreme democracy is for idiots. It is only serious intellectuals like Mr. Vandeman and Myself that ever need to be asked anything even remotely connected to trails. Mountain bikers should never be asked anything not related to their dumb asses since that is where their brains are located. The vast majority of people using the trails will never report anything. Indeed ... because there are very few conflicts and the vast majority have no problem with sharing. Your small, vocal, minority is just that .... a small minority. The ONLY minority that counts! You are so far out of the loop that you simply have no idea what is going on in the arena of trail conflicts. Your ignorance of the issues is abysmal. I'm here liaising with you and asking you to backup your opinions with some real data ... but you can't. As such, I've given you the opportunity to provide convincing argument to refute my position but you can't. You cite thousands of conflicts, then can't back it up. You cite thousands of complaints, then can't back it up. The conflicts and complaints themselves are the only data that matter to me since it is intelligent data, not dumb data like yours. My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice a week for three years now in this area. You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues about what is happening in the real world. California is the state where everything happens first and the rest of the world follows. Why not read the following to get some clues. Because it's one person's opinion. If no one has ever told you that you are an idiot, I am telling you now. No charge! I am telling you what you are out of the goodness of My Great Sainthood. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...] It's good to wind the extremists up though so that their views get aired and their real agenda exposed. This has the benefit that no politician (who ultimately decide on such things as access to the trails) would touch them or their extremist views with a barge-pole. After all, the main purpose of a politician is to get re-elected, and aligning themselves with criminals and extremists almost guarantees defeat the next time around. Politicians have a very loose grasp of what is ever happening on the ground. It is the land managers (bureaucrats) who determine almost everything that we can and can’t do. The only criminals and extremists I know about about are mountain bikers. When land mangers start getting law suits from all sides it will be an eye opener for them. The notion that hikers and bikers can share trails is on the face of it absurd. The real problem is that the land managers are idiots. They will have to be educated ... just as everyone else will have to be educated too. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:55:07 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote: [...] It's good to wind the extremists up though so that their views get aired and their real agenda exposed. This has the benefit that no politician (who ultimately decide on such things as access to the trails) would touch them or their extremist views with a barge-pole. After all, the main purpose of a politician is to get re-elected, and aligning themselves with criminals and extremists almost guarantees defeat the next time around. Logic and the bigot :-) **** you too Asshole! 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 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Exactly ... why should bikers specifically behave in any different way to hikers in terms of protecting trails and the trail experience ? Do bikers not turn out, in general rather more than hikers, to maintain trails ? The answer to these questions, of course, is that they don't and they do. Edward Dolan wrote: This business about bikers maintaining trails is the biggest laugh ever to come down the pike. What bikers do is use that as an excuse so they can build their own outlaw trails designed for only one thing - biking. At least they're doing something to protect and maintain the experience for others. You're doing nothing and castigating others, who are prepared to put something in, for unsurprisingly favouring their own activity when doing that work. Nonsense, I pay my taxes some of which some goes for taking care of parks and trails. It is wrong to do it on trails used by hikers because there is a conflict of purpose among other conflicts. Only hooligans have no regard for others. Then that, clearly, makes you a hooligan by your own definition. You've stated, again and again, that you don't care one jot for mountainbikers and rejoice when they are killed and injured. Well Hells Bells, I am not killing them. I didn't accuse you of doing so. You said "only hooligans have no regard for others" and then clearly demonstrated that you, yourself, have no regard for a whole section of the trail using population. You are therefore, by your own definition, a hooligan. Hoist on your own petard. You must learn how to read properly. Everything I say must be taken in the context of what is being discussed. Those who bike on trails are clearly hooligans. Those who oppose this are as the saints in heaven. All the bikers have to do is stop biking on trails and then, and only then, will I regard them as human beings and not hooligans. However, I do not waste much time having regard for others, but at least I do not trespass where I am not wanted. It is the difference between not having a positive and having a negative perspective. Your purpose argument was shot down long ago. You want to ban trail runners simply because they are there for a different purpose. Your fundamental premise has no logic. The logic could not be more clear and direct. You are only entitled to be on trails only if you there for the purpose of appreciating nature. Says who ? You ???? !!! I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read, that public spaces are constituted for the public and wildlife. Too general. Specifically, trails are for hikers and equestrians. There are other public spaces that are used for other things. It is a question of how spaces are managed for various purposes. So, your restriction on purpose is something you've come up with, to suit your own ends, and which is entirely valueless. Purpose determines most things in life. Trail destruction by bikers and wildlife disturbance are actually minor issues to most trail users.. Admittedly, you have to have intelligence in order to get your priorities right. I guess this lets you out of deciding of what is important and what is trivial. The park managers, who you continually castigate, are doing precisely what they are supposed to do; balancing public demand for access and recreation and the protection of the environment and wildlife. There is zero reason why they would ever apply your purpose test ... it's not an objective and nor should it be. Park managers have been led astray by outside pressures. Bureaucrats are famous worldwide for never having any guts. They are cowards to the core. The purpose of why you are doing anything cuts to the quick of the problem of what trails are for. They are indeed for recreation, but only of a particular kind. They cannot be all things to all people. The ever increasing conflicts prove this without any doubt whatsoever. What bikers are doing on trails is entirely different from what hikers are doing on trails. You need to ask yourself what a single track trail is for. If it is not for exactly the same thing that serious hikers think it is for, then you have no business being on it. Frankly, my hiking days are over for various medical reasons. I can no longer walk all that good. And so the trails are no longer for me. I can accept that. Trails were never meant for bikers. Why can’t you accept that? Because you can’t accept it, you are destroying an experience that has been a rich source of enjoyment for several generations of hikers. Like most folks these days, you only know how to destroy, not how to create. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: If you are bored by cycling on a road, then get off your god damn ****ing bike and walk a trail like everyone else, However I suspect that bores you too. Why don't you just walk on pavement in the city then Ed ? Is that the same experience ? I don't think so. Whether I walk on a sidewalk or a trail I am not causing any interference with others. When you bike on a trail, you are causing interference with others because it is a conflict that arises from both means and purpose. [...] Society has every right to restrict your cycling to roads. Mr. Vandeman and I are working to make that happen. Society does, you don't. And society is mostly not comprised by extremists like you and instead rather more moderate people who accept that a public resource cannot simply be annexed solely for their preferred mode of recreation. As such, I'm pretty confident that your efforts will continue to be in vain, as they have been for the past 20 years. 20 years is a mere flicker in time and not anything that we need think of as being a permanent fixture. The only extremists are bikers who want to ride their bikes on trails that have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. All public resources have to be managed for best use, not for most use. Traditional modes of recreation always take precedence over any recently evolved modes of recreation. Get your own trails if that is how you want to recreate. I have no objection to that although Mr. Vandeman clearly does. He thinks any contraption with wheels belongs on roads only. He is far more right than you and me. More bad news from the trenches for idiots like Blackblade who maintain there are no conflicts worth mentioning. Everything to him is just a number (data). Why not try to tell that to this gentleman who now has a broken leg due to a mountain biker. No, he has a broken leg because an unfortunate co-incidence of mountainbiker and horse occurred. This is not a common occurrence. It is common enough so that you have to constantly fear it. Get your own trails where you can crash into one another as much as you want and I sure as hell won’t give a damn. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups
should have access ... Yes, since all recent groups, such as mountain bikers, are essentially nothing but interlopers and are not welcomed by the traditional users. Extreme democracy is for idiots. It is only serious intellectuals like Mr. Vandeman and Myself that ever need to be asked anything even remotely connected to trails. Mountain bikers should never be asked anything not related to their dumb asses since that is where their brains are located. Too funny. You want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of who may, and may not, have access. Do get over yourself. Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers there. The conflicts and complaints themselves are the only data that matter to me since it is intelligent data, not dumb data like yours. Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data. My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice a week for three years now in this area. You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues about what is happening in the real world. California is the state where everything happens first and the rest of the world follows. Keep telling yourself that ... but I live in a 'backwater' whose GDP eclipses that of California. If no one has ever told you that you are an idiot, I am telling you now. No charge! I am telling you what you are out of the goodness of My Great Sainthood. I shall wear that as a badge of pride. If you, who thinks opinion counts as data and that your opinion trumps everyone else's, were to acclaim me as smart I would be very worried. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups should have access .. Edward Dolan wrote:. Yes, since all recent groups, such as mountain bikers, are essentially nothing but interlopers and are not welcomed by the traditional users. Extreme democracy is for idiots. It is only serious intellectuals like Mr. Vandeman and Myself that ever need to be asked anything even remotely connected to trails. Mountain bikers should never be asked anything not related to their dumb asses since that is where their brains are located. Too funny. You want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of who may, and may not, have access. Do get over yourself. Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers there. If you go back far enough not even land was owned by anyone. It was wilderness for all to use depending on who was the strongest – and it was all walked of course since wheels had not yet been invented. The conflicts and complaints themselves are the only data that matter to me since it is intelligent data, not dumb data like yours. Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data. Nor is yours, It is just dumb numbers which mean nothing. Instead of resorting to meaningless numbers, why not try rational argument. My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice a week for three years now in this area. You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues about what is happening in the real world. California is the state where everything happens first and the rest of the world follows. Keep telling yourself that ... but I live in a 'backwater' whose GDP eclipses that of California. I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small backwater. If no one has ever told you that you are an idiot, I am telling you now. No charge! I am telling you what you are out of the goodness of My Great Sainthood. I shall wear that as a badge of pride. If you, who thinks opinion counts as data and that your opinion trumps everyone else's, were to acclaim me as smart I would be very worried. My opinions and the opinions of other hikers like myself count for infinitely more than any poor numbers you can dredge up. I urge you to become humble and self-effacing like ME. Pride, such as you constantly display here, goeth before a fall. Here is something more from your neck of the woods that should interest you, although I think it may not have any numbers (data) for you to ponder. This problem is, of course, universal. If there is any place where mountain bikers allegedly "get along" with other trail users, it is a place where they have already driven everyone else off the trails, so there is no one left to complain! http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/...aths-1-6558134 Keep mountain bikers off our footpaths Published 16/04/2014 17:00 The other day I came across a mountain biker at a path junction in Pecket Well Clough. She was making a decision between cycling down a footpath and cycling down a bridleway. She did the 'right thing' and I complimented her on her choice. We then got into a discussion about mountain bikers using footpaths - and she astounded me by saying that some mountain biking friends of hers had been told by someone from Calderdale Council that it was OK to cycle on footpaths! I said this was unlikely to be true. But if it is, then it is quite simply unacceptable. I realise that it is extremely difficult to enforce the law regarding the use of footpaths by MTBs, but the council should be getting the message out there that bridleways can be used by bikes but footpaths are ONLY for walkers. It isn't as if there is a dearth of bridleways in Calderdale. Quite the opposite - bikers are really spoilt for choice. The main problem with mountain bikes on footpaths, as you will well know, is that whereas bridleways usually have causey stones, pitching or some other hardwearing surface, footpaths usually do not. Whereas walkers generally place their feet randomly on a path, bikers will all tend to steer their wheels down the same line. This has resulted (especially after the 2012 cloudbursts) in some very badly damaged footpaths around Hebden Bridge. I have come across a group of about six mountain bikers using a steep footpath near Midgehole as a kind of bikers' "helter-skelter"! They were not using it to travel from one place to another - but were instead rocketing down it and then dragging their bikes uphill to go back down it, again and again. This is an unsurfaced path through deciduous woodland - and I hardly need to tell you what kind of damage was being done, even after fairly dry weather. When I challenged them, I was told that it was "much better in the mud" after it had rained! There is also a public safety issue when this sort of activity is carried out on steep footpaths. And yet I frequently encounter tyre tracks on the most unlikely of footpaths - near steep drops and often on routes with many stiles and steps. Please could you release a statement that could be published in the media - well before the Tour comes to Yorkshire! - to explain why MTBs should stick to bridleways? And how about some special waymark discs printed with "Bridleway - MTBs welcome" and "Footpath - no MTBs please"? Janina Holubecki 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be
followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers there. If you go back far enough not even land was owned by anyone. It was wilderness for all to use depending on who was the strongest - and it was all walked of course since wheels had not yet been invented. Thank you for proving my point. Over time, usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of that period only. Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice. Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data. Nor is yours, It is just dumb numbers which mean nothing. Instead of resorting to meaningless numbers, why not try rational argument. I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a bike would disturb you. That's not rational ! You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues about what is happening in the real world. California is the state where everything happens first and the rest of the world follows. Keep telling yourself that ... but I live in a 'backwater' whose GDP eclipses that of California. I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small backwater. My 'backwater' is within a hour's commute of London ! Try again. I shall wear that as a badge of pride. If you, who thinks opinion counts as data and that your opinion trumps everyone else's, were to acclaim me as smart I would be very worried. My opinions and the opinions of other hikers like myself count for infinitely more than any poor numbers you can dredge up. For you and your fellow travellers I'm sure this is the case. I doubt you'll convince anyone rational though. I urge you to become humble and self-effacing like ME. Pride, such as you constantly display here, goeth before a fall. Well, perhaps you should heed your own admonishment ? However, I seem to recall that I am the one stating that my personal experience counts for little whereas you seem to believe that your opinions and words are divinely inspired. Good luck with that ! Here is something more from your neck of the woods that should interest you, although I think it may not have any numbers (data) for you to ponder. article snipped You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers there. Edward Dolan wrote: If you go back far enough not even land was owned by anyone. It was wilderness for all to use depending on who was the strongest - and it was all walked of course since wheels had not yet been invented. Thank you for proving my point. Over time, usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of that period only. Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice. I don’t care about the ancient history of trails. It is not relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000 with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are not mountain bikes, but development. Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data. Nor is yours, It is just dumb numbers which mean nothing. Instead of resorting to meaningless numbers, why not try rational argument. I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a bike would disturb you. That's not rational ! You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut! [...] I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small backwater. My 'backwater' is within a hour's commute of London ! Try again. England is like New Jersey, only worse. [...] Here is something more from your neck of the woods that should interest you, although I think it may not have any numbers (data) for you to ponder. article snipped You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all. You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always available until very recently. All this blather about “proper research” is pure baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only going to grow in number and seriousness. Cycling on hiking trails will eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users. Here is a report of another idiot mountain biker, this one from Australia, who came to a ‘rational’ end: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...422-370ue.html Man dies after mountain bike crash Queensland April 22, 2014 - 6:18AM Marissa Calligeros brisbanetimes.com.au reporter Daisy Hill Conversation Park in Brisbane's south is considered one of Australia's premier mountain biking areas. A man has died after crashing his mountain bike in Daisy Hill forest in Brisbane's south. Other mountain bike riders found the 52-year-old man unconscious at the bottom of a very steep trail in the conservation park about 8am on Monday. The man, from Wellington Point, was taken to Princess Alexandra Hospital by ambulance with critical head injuries, but passed away about 9pm. A mountain biking trail in Daisy Hill Conservation Park. Police said it appeared the man had lost control of his bike while riding, but they would continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident. Daisy Hill Conservation Park is considered one of Australia's premier mountain bike riding areas. It is frequented by riders, particularly on weekends. The park includes at least seven designated mountain bike trails, as well as fire trails which are open to horse riders and trail runners. Anyone with information about Monday's incident is asked to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Thank you for proving my point. Over time,
usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of that period only. Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice. I don't care about the ancient history of trails. It is not relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000 with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are not mountain bikes, but development. That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts. There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources. I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a bike would disturb you. That's not rational ! You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut! No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition adjective: irrational 1.not logical or reasonable. "irrational feelings of hostility" synonyms: unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable, unsound I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small backwater. My 'backwater' is within a hour's commute of London ! Try again. England is like New Jersey, only worse. You know, once in a while, when you lose it might be politic to admit such. I assume that you wouldn't call New Jersey a 'backwater' ? Hence, I assume you concede the point that I am not commenting from the perspective of a 'backwater' as you opined earlier. You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all. You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always available until very recently. Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care about what I want.. My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity. Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done, everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access whatsoever. You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your fundamental position. All this blather about "proper research" is pure baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only going to grow in number and seriousness. You are presenting ONLY reports which support your position and, in so doing, presenting a completely biased account of what is going on. Given that the injury and fatality rates are DECLINING what rational basis do you have for declaring that they will grow in number and seriousness ? The overall statistics show that there are very very few accidents and the tiny handful of reports that you produce have to be compared against the millions of rides happening every day worldwide. You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only 'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while and accept that things move on. Cycling on hiking trails will eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users. Hasn't happened yet, unlikely to do so in the future I think. It's not a 'nuisance' ... it's a perfectly valid and healthy use of a public resource. And the report that you referenced suggests that, in the future, there will be more bikers and less hikers ... so maybe YOU are the nuisance ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Thank you for proving my point. Over time, usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of that period only. Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice. Edward Dolan wrote: I don't care about the ancient history of trails. It is not relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000 with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are not mountain bikes, but development. That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts. I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom. There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources. It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since it is the BEST allocation of resources. You can have your playgrounds somewhere else where you won’t be interfering with your superiors (hikers and equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers. I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a bike would disturb you. That's not rational ! You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut! No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you. [...] England is like New Jersey, only worse. You know, once in a while, when you lose it might be politic to admit such. I assume that you wouldn't call New Jersey a 'backwater' ? Hence, I assume you concede the point that I am not commenting from the perspective of a 'backwater' as you opined earlier. NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England. And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are heavily used, especially in California. You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all. You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always available until very recently. Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care about what I want. Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails. My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity. Your “preferred activity” is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect closed to hikers. Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done, everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access whatsoever. You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your fundamental position. My fundamental position is right and proper. It is you and your ilk who are destroying what has been an enjoyable activity for hundreds of thousands of hikers and equestrians for many generations. All this blather about "proper research" is pure baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only going to grow in number and seriousness. You are presenting ONLY reports which support your position and, in so doing, presenting a completely biased account of what is going on. Given that the injury and fatality rates are DECLINING what rational basis do you have for declaring that they will grow in number and seriousness ? Rates go up and rates go down. The fact remains that biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. My reports are so numerous and so serious that all bias is erased. However, if biking on trails decreases then it is quite possible that injuries and deaths will go done overall, but it will always remain a dangerous thing to be doing. The overall statistics show that there are very very few accidents and the tiny handful of reports that you produce have to be compared against the millions of rides happening every day worldwide. There are not millions of rides happening every day. Biking on hiking trails is still a minority pastime.. Most cyclists ride their bikes on roads however rough. Mountain bikes outsell road bikes these days, but that doesn't mean they are being used for riding on trails. You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only 'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while and accept that things move on. There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers. It is an incompatible use which is rife with all kinds of conflicts. The only spoiled child here is you who wants to do what he wants to do regardless of how it effects anyone else. You are not only irrational, but selfish to the core. Cycling on hiking trails will eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users. Hasn't happened yet, unlikely to do so in the future I think. It's not a 'nuisance' ... it's a perfectly valid and healthy use of a public resource. Only you and your ilk think it is not a nuisance. We cognoscenti know better. Get your own trails. And the report that you referenced suggests that, in the future, there will be more bikers and less hikers ... so maybe YOU are the nuisance ? Nope, priority counts for more than anything else. If you could be added without causing any interference with others, that would be one thing, But bikers can’t be added to trails being used by hikers because it is HUGE interference. No hiker who enjoys hiking would ever want to share a trail with anyone on a bike. It is a conflict of means and purpose. In other words, a cluster ****! 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that
you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts. I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom. You may, indeed, be unaware of it ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When you say something and the facts prove your statement incorrect ... that means you LOSE. So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions in a given location because the data showed that there weren't. Better luck next time. There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period .... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources. It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since it is the BEST allocation of resources. Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what you like.. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental logical errors. You can have your playgrounds somewhere else where you won't be interfering with your superiors (hikers and equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers. You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so. No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you. You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind. NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England. Very funny. Yet, the GDP eclipses that of the area you were referencing. So, that means only six nations in the world aren't backwaters according to your definition. What a ridiculous statement. And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are heavily used, especially in California. I'd be interested in how you prove that Ed. The videos that you, yourself, posted in this thread showed very lightly trafficked trails. The trails I frequent are used by hikers, bikers and equestrians ... and being that we are within an hour of London they are fairly heavily used. You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always available until very recently. Yes, I know. But you can't have it. The world has moved on. Get over it. You cannot have public lands just for your, one, preferred recreation. Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care about what I want. Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails. They are mine Ed ... well, more than yours anyway, since I work to maintain them. Actually, they don't belong to either of us ... they are a public resource and we have to share because your solution of everyone having their own unique trails will see huge swathes of countryside consumed. Sure, in some locations it works ... there are bike parks in Wales for example ... but that's not going to work everywhere. My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity. Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail. In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect closed to hikers. What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ? Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done, everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access whatsoever. You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your fundamental position. My fundamental position is right and proper. No Ed, it's not. It's selfish, damaging to the environment and unreasonable. Rates go up and rates go down. The fact remains that biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. My reports are so numerous and so serious that all bias is erased. However, if biking on trails decreases then it is quite possible that injuries and deaths will go done overall, but it will always remain a dangerous thing to be doing. 0.00123 fatalities per million miles. 1.54 injuries per thousand exposures You are wrong ... it is relatively safe. If you want to show lack of bias then ask a random sample and find out who has experienced conflict ... I will bet you a very large sum of money that the vast majority will not have done so. You only collect reports of conflict and accident ... so you have no idea whatsoever what percentage they represent. Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict. There are not millions of rides happening every day. The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN ! You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only 'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while and accept that things move on. There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers. So you say ... and then ... You are not only irrational, but selfish to the core. So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts. Edward Dolan wrote: I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom. You may, indeed, be unaware of it ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When you say something and the facts prove your statement incorrect ... that means you LOSE. So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions in a given location because the data showed that there weren't. Better luck next time. All this business about winning and losing makes you look like the child that you are. Like all of politics, there is no winning or losing, just who has the better argument ... and how many you are able to persuade that you have the better argument. One thing I do know for sure – you would not know a fact if it jumped up and bit you in your dumb ass. There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period .... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources. It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since it is the BEST allocation of resources. Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what you like. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental logical errors. The only thing that is getting tiresome to me is that I have to keep going over and over why bikes do not belong on trails used by hikers. It is a conflict of MEANS and PURPOSE. If you do not know what I mean by that by now, then you are truly hopeless. You can have your playgrounds somewhere else where you won't be interfering with your superiors (hikers and equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers. You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so. Hikers are superior to bikers when on trails ... or even when on bike paths for that matter. Were you born in a barn? No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you. You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind. Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening (mental torture) and a conflict (potential). I think you meant to say you do not want YOUR neighbor in YOUR garden because it destroys YOUR peace of mind. Glad I was able to straighten you out on that. NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England. Very funny. Yet, the GDP eclipses that of the area you were referencing. So, that means only six nations in the world aren't backwaters according to your definition. What a ridiculous statement. What does GDP have to do with anything? England is a backwater because it was stupid enough to lose its empire in the European civil wars (WWI and WWII). Even Churchill could not save you. But fear not, the US is not far behind you and we are fast becoming a backwater ourselves. Just as I tell you to get your own trails for cycling , I would tell you to get your own military defense instead of eternally relying on the US for that. I see that China is shortly going to become the number one economic nation in the world despite its colossal and doubtlessly unsolvable people problems. GDP ... my ass! And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are heavily used, especially in California. I'd be interested in how you prove that Ed. The videos that you, yourself, posted in this thread showed very lightly trafficked trails. The trails I frequent are used by hikers, bikers and equestrians ... and being that we are within an hour of London they are fairly heavily used. California is always in the forefront of every unfavorable development in the world and the trails there are full of bedlam thanks to mountain bikers. If you tell me your trails are crowded, then I believe you. I do note that many of my reports of accidents come from England so you cannot claim that there are no conflicts. [...] Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails. They are mine Ed ... well, more than yours anyway, since I work to maintain them. Actually, they don't belong to either of us ... they are a public resource and we have to share because your solution of everyone having their own unique trails will see huge swathes of countryside consumed. Sure, in some locations it works ... there are bike parks in Wales for example ... but that's not going to work everywhere. What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers. The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers. My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity. Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail. You actually do both of the above. You are deaf and blind as to what your presence on a bike on a trail means for walkers. It we can’t educate you, we will have to police you. In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect closed to hikers. What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ? ALL hikers require solitude. That is one of the essentials of the hiking experience. Otherwise, why not go for a walk in the streets of New York or London. The only compromise you can make is to get the hell off of hiking trails with your bike. My compromise is that you can get your own trails as long as they are not anywhere near my hiking trails. What a cyclist wants to experience on a trail is not anything like what a hiker wants to experience. [...] If you want to show lack of bias then ask a random sample and find out who has experienced conflict ... I will bet you a very large sum of money that the vast majority will not have done so. You only collect reports of conflict and accident ... so you have no idea whatsoever what percentage they represent. Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict. Reports from the field in the media are all the proof anyone ever needs as to what the problems are. Since you are unable to explain these accidents and deaths, it would seem that you have the problem and only resort to numbers as an excuse and a distraction. Unfortunately for you, I am not easily distracted. There are not millions of rides happening every day. The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN ! Are they riding on trails? Most likely they are riding on roads and city streets. You are never able to make any sense of numbers. Good thing for you that I am always able to provide the essential information as to what the numbers might mean. [...] There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers. So you say ... and then ... You are not only irrational, but selfish to the core. So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical. Totally rational, totally unselfish and totally logical NOT to want to share that which CAN’T be shared. Now all you need is to get a brain so you can see the intelligence of 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions
in a given location because the data showed that there weren't. Better luck next time. All this business about winning and losing makes you look like the child that you are. Like all of politics, there is no winning or losing, just who has the better argument ... and how many you are able to persuade that you have the better argument. I'm more than happy to subject myself to the wisdom of our fellow group participants ... I'm just pointing out the gaping holes in your logic. You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ... having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ? There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources. It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since it is the BEST allocation of resources. Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what you like. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental logical errors. The only thing that is getting tiresome to me is that I have to keep going over and over why bikes do not belong on trails used by hikers. It is a conflict of MEANS and PURPOSE. If you do not know what I mean by that by now, then you are truly hopeless. I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification. Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company. So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource. You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so. Hikers are superior to bikers when on trails ... or even when on bike paths for that matter. Were you born in a barn? Wonderful non-sequitur ... as the Duke of Wellington said "Just because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse". But, no, thanks for asking ... I wasn't born in a barn. Fortunately, for me, I was born into a house where my parents taught me to think and to analyse carefully ... and to question anyone unable to backup their position with logic and facts. You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind. Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening (mental torture) and a conflict (potential). To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your fragile mental state. I think you meant to say you do not want YOUR neighbor in YOUR garden because it destroys YOUR peace of mind. Glad I was able to straighten you out on that. No, Ed, you weren't able to straighten it out. The reason I said neighbour in HIS garden is because I was making a point. The trails belong to me as much as to you so I am in 'MY' garden and your peace of mind is being destroyed. Get help. California is always in the forefront of every unfavorable development in the world and the trails there are full of bedlam thanks to mountain bikers. If you tell me your trails are crowded, then I believe you. I do note that many of my reports of accidents come from England so you cannot claim that there are no conflicts. Do get your facts straight. You are confusing accidents with conflicts ... two completely different things. Secondly, I never said there were no conflicts ... I just said that I hadn't had any in three years riding. What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers. So you keep saying. Yet you posted videos showing it working fine and I have had no conflict using multi-use trails where I live. So, clearly, it works fine in some places. Probably in most. The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers. I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this. Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail. You actually do both of the above. You are deaf and blind as to what your presence on a bike on a trail means for walkers. It we can't educate you, we will have to police you. There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I don't care about you either. I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics. What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ? ALL hikers require solitude. That is one of the essentials of the hiking experience. Otherwise, why not go for a walk in the streets of New York or London. What about the ramblers association and their organised group walks ? What about family groups ? YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ... some do, sometimes. The only compromise you can make is to get the hell off of hiking trails with your bike. My compromise is that you can get your own trails as long as they are not anywhere near my hiking trails. What a cyclist wants to experience on a trail is not anything like what a hiker wants to experience. And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and, ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for access. I've referred to it in the past but I would suggest, again, that you look at the voluntary arrangements between hiking groups and mountainbiking groups that exist. Where people are reasonable and accept that they have different viewpoints and desires ... but are forced to share the same resource to achieve those desires ... and do so in a reasonable manner then the outcomes are far far better than those occasioned by conflict. Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict. Reports from the field in the media are all the proof anyone ever needs as to what the problems are. Hilarious ... really ?? Since you are unable to explain these accidents and deaths, it would seem that you have the problem and only resort to numbers as an excuse and a distraction. Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here. The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN ! Are they riding on trails? Most likely they are riding on roads and city streets. You are never able to make any sense of numbers. Good thing for you that I am always able to provide the essential information as to what the numbers might mean. Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a day. These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on facts regarding the number and frequency in the US. So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity overall. So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical. Totally rational, totally unselfish and totally logical NOT to want to share that which CAN'T be shared. Now all you need is to get a brain so you can see the intelligence of it. Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ... and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical, selfish and irrational. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: All this business about winning and losing makes you look like the child that you are. Like all of politics, there is no winning or losing, just who has the better argument ... and how many you are able to persuade that you have the better argument. I'm more than happy to subject myself to the wisdom of our fellow group participants ... I'm just pointing out the gaping holes in your logic. You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ... having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ? Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing is not my idea of winning and losing. Checkmate! [...] The only thing that is getting tiresome to me is that I have to keep going over and over why bikes do not belong on trails used by hikers. It is a conflict of MEANS and PURPOSE. If you do not know what I mean by that by now, then you are truly hopeless. I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification. I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of substance. You have done the same, but your opinions and feelings are not my opinions and feelings. Checkmate! Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company. So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource. Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots. You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so. Hikers are superior to bikers when on trails ... or even when on bike paths for that matter. Were you born in a barn? Wonderful non-sequitur ... as the Duke of Wellington said "Just because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse". But, no, thanks for asking ... I wasn't born in a barn. Fortunately, for me, I was born into a house where my parents taught me to think and to analyse carefully ... and to question anyone unable to backup their position with logic and facts. I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle. You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind. Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening (mental torture) and a conflict (potential). To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your fragile mental state. I am a stand-in for all hikers from time immemorial. You are a stand-in for all scofflaws from time immemorial. I think you meant to say you do not want YOUR neighbor in YOUR garden because it destroys YOUR peace of mind. Glad I was able to straighten you out on that. No, Ed, you weren't able to straighten it out. The reason I said neighbour in HIS garden is because I was making a point. The trails belong to me as much as to you so I am in 'MY' garden and your peace of mind is being destroyed. Get help. Trails belong to those who are will use them by the right means and for the proper purpose. They are not for those who would desecrate natural values who will use them by the wrong means and for improper purposes. Checkmate! California is always in the forefront of every unfavorable development in the world and the trails there are full of bedlam thanks to mountain bikers. If you tell me your trails are crowded, then I believe you. I do note that many of my reports of accidents come from England so you cannot claim that there are no conflicts. Do get your facts straight. You are confusing accidents with conflicts ... two completely different things. Secondly, I never said there were no conflicts ... I just said that I hadn't had any in three years riding. Biking on hiking trails is ALWAYS an accident waiting to happen because wheels are a conflict with paths designed for walking. Checkmate! What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers. So you keep saying. Yet you posted videos showing it working fine and I have had no conflict using multi-use trails where I live. So, clearly, it works fine in some places. Probably in most. The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers. I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this. The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads. Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail. You actually do both of the above. You are deaf and blind as to what your presence on a bike on a trail means for walkers. It we can't educate you, we will have to police you. There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I don't care about you either. It is not about caring one way or another. It is about doing the right thing. That is something you would know nothing about. I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics. The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper and the usurper. What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ? ALL hikers require solitude. That is one of the essentials of the hiking experience. Otherwise, why not go for a walk in the streets of New York or London. What about the ramblers association and their organised group walks ? What about family groups ? All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels. YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ... some do, sometimes. All serious hikers require solitude – period! The only compromise you can make is to get the hell off of hiking trails with your bike. My compromise is that you can get your own trails as long as they are not anywhere near my hiking trails. What a cyclist wants to experience on a trail is not anything like what a hiker wants to experience. And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and, ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for access. My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose. Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are absolutely banned. I've referred to it in the past but I would suggest, again, that you look at the voluntary arrangements between hiking groups and mountainbiking groups that exist. Where people are reasonable and accept that they have different viewpoints and desires ... but are forced to share the same resource to achieve those desires ... and do so in a reasonable manner then the outcomes are far far better than those occasioned by conflict. I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers, bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of England). Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict. Reports from the field in the media are all the proof anyone ever needs as to what the problems are. [...] Since you are unable to explain these accidents and deaths, it would seem that you have the problem and only resort to numbers as an excuse and a distraction. Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here. I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound happen. It would be a miracle if they didn’t happen. Who is Mark Shand? The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN ! Are they riding on trails? Most likely they are riding on roads and city streets. You are never able to make any sense of numbers. Good thing for you that I am always able to provide the essential information as to what the numbers might mean. Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a day. These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on facts regarding the number and frequency in the US. So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity overall. These million of rides are not on trails. They are on roads and streets. The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous. So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical. Totally rational, totally unselfish and totally logical NOT to want to share that which CAN'T be shared. Now all you need is to get a brain so you can see the intelligence of it. Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ... and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical, selfish and irrational. Horses move along rather slowly. After all, they are just walking too. Any trails being “shared” are not happily being shared. We hikers loath the very sight of a biker on a trail. It is a transgression against nature and other humans pure and simple. 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 |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ...
having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ? Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing is not my idea of winning and losing. My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ? I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification. I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of substance. No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'. Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.. So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource. Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are. I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle. And I have never argued the principles of precedence ... when on my bike I do give way to hikers and riders. However, that has nothing to do with what you're promoting ... which is excluding bikes from trails. Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening (mental torture) and a conflict (potential). To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your fragile mental state. I am a stand-in for all hikers from time immemorial. You are a stand-in for all scofflaws from time immemorial. No, Ed, as you yourself admitted you are simply representing 'serious' hikers. The majority are prepared to share. I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this. The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads. Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote. Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail. You actually do both of the above. You are deaf and blind as to what your presence on a bike on a trail means for walkers. It we can't educate you, we will have to police you. No, I think we will have to educate YOU :-). There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I don't care about you either. It is not about caring one way or another. It is about doing the right thing. That is something you would know nothing about. I think I am doing the right thing ... arguing that everyone gets to share the public resources for which they pay whilst, at the same time, preserving that resource for future generations and protecting wildlife. I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics. The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper and the usurper. Oh do grow up ... you're old enough for god's sake. The world is not as it was 150 years ago and nor will it be in 150 years time. If you won't accept the lessons of history then history will simply roll right over you (possibly on a bike :-) ). What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ? ALL hikers require solitude. That is one of the essentials of the hiking experience. Otherwise, why not go for a walk in the streets of New York or London. What about the ramblers association and their organised group walks ? What about family groups ? All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels. Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike. YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ... some do, sometimes. All serious hikers require solitude - period! Sounds as if your 'serious' hikers are a rather small minority even of the hiking population. The only compromise you can make is to get the hell off of hiking trails with your bike. My compromise is that you can get your own trails as long as they are not anywhere near my hiking trails. What a cyclist wants to experience on a trail is not anything like what a hiker wants to experience. And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and, ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for access. My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose. Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are absolutely banned. Ah, Ed, you dissemble. You admitted that it is the attitude of the newly designated group of 'serious' hikers. Where only you get to determine what 'serious' means in this context. There are people on the trails for all kinds of purposes aside from solitude ... I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers, bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of England). Yet you were able to post numerous videos which showed bikers and hikers co-existing without conflict. I wonder why that is Ed ? Could it be that, maybe, you're wrong ? Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase .... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here. I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound happen. It would be a miracle if they didn't happen. Who is Mark Shand? And I've posted the list ... from the Lake District Mountain Rescue Annual Report. Seems to show rather too many hiker accidents for your liking though :-). The natural world is not a sanitised play area for people so, whether on foot or bike, accidents will happen. As to Mark Shand ... he was an environmental and wildlife activist, and the brother of the Duchess of Cornwall ... and he died in New York very recently from falling over after exiting a revolving door. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once
every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN ! Are they riding on trails? Most likely they are riding on roads and city streets. You are never able to make any sense of numbers. Good thing for you that I am always able to provide the essential information as to what the numbers might mean. Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a day. These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on facts regarding the number and frequency in the US. So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity overall. These million of rides are not on trails. They are on roads and streets. You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS ! The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous. If you ride once a week, for twenty miles each time, then your risks are ... 0.64% of fatality ... IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME 1 injury requiring medical attention ... EVERY 12.5 YEARS Those figures calculated from the 0.00123 fatalities every million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries requiring medical attention per thousand exposures. So, no, you're extremely unlikely to come to a bad end even if you ride quite a lot. So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical. Totally rational, totally unselfish and totally logical NOT to want to share that which CAN'T be shared. Now all you need is to get a brain so you can see the intelligence of it. Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ... and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical, selfish and irrational. Horses move along rather slowly. After all, they are just walking too. Any trails being "shared" are not happily being shared. We hikers loath the very sight of a biker on a trail. It is a transgression against nature and other humans pure and simple. I thought we'd dispensed with the 'we hikers' Ed ? You've already admitted that you only represent 'serious' hikers since group ramblers, family groups, trail runners and others are 'inferior' users in your lexicon. So, let's rewrite your last two sentences to reflect the real situation shall we ? "I loathe the very sight of a biker on a trail. I consider it a transgression against nature and my peace of mind pure and simple." - What Ed Dolan really meant |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ... having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ? Edward Dolan wrote: Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing is not my idea of winning and losing. My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ? My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for – and it sure as hell ain’t mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels. I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification. I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of substance. No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'. I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola. Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company. So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource. Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are. Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots in the sense that it never reproduces any high culture. Of course, you Europeans would know all about elites having been infested with them for most of your existence on this earth. The English especially were not far removed from a caste system until recently. I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle. And I have never argued the principles of precedence ... when on my bike I do give way to hikers and riders. However, that has nothing to do with what you're promoting ... which is excluding bikes from trails. It is exactly the same thing. Bikes go too fast for walkers and should therefore be banned from trails. Bikes on trails are at best a nuisance and at worse an accident waiting to happen. [...] The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads. Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote. I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain. [...] I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics. The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper and the usurper. Oh do grow up ... you're old enough for god's sake. The world is not as it was 150 years ago and nor will it be in 150 years time. If you won't accept the lessons of history then history will simply roll right over you (possibly on a bike :-) ). The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial. It cannot be change without us being changed. You have all of civilized society to roam in. Wilderness belongs to those of us who wish to touch our roots since that is how we evolved as human beings. In wilderness is the preservation of the world. [...] All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels. Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike. You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not. [...] My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose. Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are absolutely banned. Ah, Ed, you dissemble. You admitted that it is the attitude of the newly designated group of 'serious' hikers. Where only you get to determine what 'serious' means in this context. There are people on the trails for all kinds of purposes aside from solitude ... Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated. I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers, bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of England). Yet you were able to post numerous videos which showed bikers and hikers co-existing without conflict. I wonder why that is Ed ? Could it be that, maybe, you're wrong ? Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase .... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here. I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound happen. It would be a miracle if they didn't happen. Who is Mark Shand? And I've posted the list ... from the Lake District Mountain Rescue Annual Report. Seems to show rather too many hiker accidents for your liking though :-). The natural world is not a sanitised play area for people so, whether on foot or bike, accidents will happen. As to Mark Shand ... he was an environmental and wildlife activist, and the brother of the Duchess of Cornwall ... and he died in New York very recently from falling over after exiting a revolving door. Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable. 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 ...
Blackblade considered Tue, 6 May 2014 15:08:55 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: [...] Edward Dolan wrote: I am a stand-in for all hikers from time immemorial. You are a stand-in for all scofflaws from time immemorial. No, Ed, as you yourself admitted you are simply representing 'serious' hikers. The majority are prepared to share. And even that is an empty claim. He could hardly be a more serious hiker than my grandfather, who was a founder member of the Ramblers Association, and took part in the Kinder Trespass, which directly led to establishing hikers rights in the UK. It was a large part of the reasoning behind his choice of profession (schoolmasters get longer holidays than are available to most professionals, which allowed him to enjoy his hiking far more than would have been the case if he had chosen any other occupation). He campaigned tirelessly for the establishment of the long distance trail network in the UK, was one of the first to complete the Pennine Way, and did so every year from when it was first opened until his mid 80's - always packing his own camping equipment, as (in his words) "the hostels are too close together to make a full days hiking, but far enough apart that you can't sensibly reach the next one". He was almost always leading a group. I don't believe there was any area with enjoyable hiking in the UK that he was not intimately familiar with, and covered every long distance path in the UK within a year of it's opening. After his retirement, he never took a holiday without a large hiking element, including large parts of the Alps, Pyrenees, Dolomites, and Scandinavia, among others, leading many of the hikes himself, both here in the UK and abroad. Yet he was entirely happy to share trails with cyclists, and cycled many trails himself - and if mountain bikes had been invented in time for him to have used them, he would indubitably have ridden an even more extensive range of trails (there are limits to what is reasonably achievable on a traditional sit-up-and-beg with a Sturmey Archer 3sp hub). I simply don’t believe you! Your grandfather did what I would have liked to do, but was not strong enough to do. He may not have been a solitary hiker like me, but there is no way he would want to share trails with a horde of mountain bikers. Perhaps an occasional cyclist, but not hordes of them. Trails are being abandoned here in the US by hikers because of hordes of mountain bikers taking them over. It is NOT possible to share trails. Even too many equestrians would ruin trails for hikers. [...] His idol has already been policed. You'd think that would act as some form of education, but Dolan is clearly ineducable. More calumny from a former Asshloe poster who has at least learned to post SOME occasional content. [...] 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
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Edward Dolan wrote: These million of rides are not on trails. They are on roads and streets. You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS ! Your common sense, if you had any, would tell you that that number is impossible. They are clearly riding on roads and streets. The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous. If you ride once a week, for twenty miles each time, then your risks are ... 0.64% of fatality ... IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME 1 injury requiring medical attention ... EVERY 12.5 YEARS Those figures calculated from the 0.00123 fatalities every million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries requiring medical attention per thousand exposures. So, no, you're extremely unlikely to come to a bad end even if you ride quite a lot. You need to spend some time in this country where those numbers would not apply at all to those who ride mountainous trails in the Rockies. [...] Horses move along rather slowly. After all, they are just walking too. Any trails being "shared" are not happily being shared. We hikers loath the very sight of a biker on a trail. It is a transgression against nature and other humans pure and simple. I thought we'd dispensed with the 'we hikers' Ed ? You've already admitted that you only represent 'serious' hikers since group ramblers, family groups, trail runners and others are 'inferior' users in your lexicon. So, let's rewrite your last two sentences to reflect the real situation shall we ? "I loathe the very sight of a biker on a trail. I consider it a transgression against nature and my peace of mind pure and simple." - What Ed Dolan really meant. Unfortunately for you, bikes on trails are being attacked by those who are like me, serious hikers and not once a year family groups. Two things need to happen: land mangers need to grow a spine and bikers need to leave the gene pool. Then all will return to normalcy and God’s grace will rain down on only hikers on 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 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 idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?
My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels. But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema. I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of substance. No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'. I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola. Even if it were true that you represent 'serious' hikers, which you've also done nothing to prove, given that you are a small minority of trail users why should you get to dictate to anyone else ? And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone ... other than myself. Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.. Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are. Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Best is usually defined according to a sensible formula including satisfying the most number of people ... in fact, that's precisely what the Park Department has as its objectives. So, it is managed for BEST use ... that's just not what you and a small minority of fanatics want. The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads. Ah, so your MEANS and PURPOSE don't actually matter a damn ... that was just another Dolan diversion to try and argue your untenable position. And, given that you 'serious hikers' are a tiny minority why the hell should anyone care what you will or won't put up with ? If you won't share then you can simply go away. Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote. I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain. Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it. And, as you know, whilst I'm happy to joust with you electronically all of this makes not the slightest bit of difference to what I do. I ride twice a week ... on shared trails ... and enjoy the experience without, as far as I can tell, inconveniencing the equestrians, hikers, family groups, ramblers and all the other trail users I encounter. So, I'm quite happy to let you have the 'last word' here, if it brings you any satisfaction, but know that it doesn't change the real world one iota. I'm sorry for you; that instead of enjoying your old age and viewing the young with wry amusement and a degree of indulgence you are, instead, eaten up with rage and spite. I hope I never end up that way. The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial. Ah, at last, something with which I can agree. Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike. You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not. [...] My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose. Your two statements above are incompatible. Either means and purpose creates conflict or it doesn't. Perhaps, what you really want to say, is that it's just your perception of biking that creates a conflict and you've never even considered that, just like the difference between social walkers and 'serious hikers' there are difference between mountainbikers. Some are seeking a physical challenge and others are simply using the bike as a means to travel into the natural environment. Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated. Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere smokescreen. Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable. How many errors, logical and otherwise, can you make in one paragraph ? Evidently, in your case, a lot ! Firstly, and axiomatically, if you go hiking and have an accident then you have a 'hiking accident' and if you go mountainbiking and have an accident you have a 'mountainbiking accident'. Your odds of either are low as I've shown many times by reference to actual figures. As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%. So, no, your inevitable statement is errant nonsense ... again. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Blackblade
wrote: My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ? My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels. But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema. Are they "serious" I tend to view serious walkers as those who are required to walk as part of their daily life. I would classify Dolan and his ilk as "frivolous walkers", those who toddle about because it is "fun". Sort of like the mountain bike enthusiast but without wheels :-) -- Cheers, John B. (invalid to gmail) |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers
ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS ! Your common sense, if you had any, would tell you that that number is impossible. They are clearly riding on roads and streets. No Ed. My common sense tells me that more than 5% of the world's mountainbikers ride on trails. I'm cutting the number down so as to err on the side of caution. The funny thing with common perception is that, bereft actually thinking about things clearly, it is frequently wrong. I would estimate that there are somewhere between 300million to 500million mountainbikers world wide so even if only 5% of them ride on trails that is still 2.3million rides per day (assuming that they ride once per week). Or half that if they ride once every two weeks. The likelihood, of course, is that since we have drastically reduced the figures at every step the reality is much much higher. If you ride once a week, for twenty miles each time, then your risks are ... 0.64% of fatality ... IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME 1 injury requiring medical attention ... EVERY 12.5 YEARS Those figures calculated from the 0.00123 fatalities every million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries requiring medical attention per thousand exposures. So, no, you're extremely unlikely to come to a bad end even if you ride quite a lot. You need to spend some time in this country where those numbers would not apply at all to those who ride mountainous trails in the Rockies. But, of course, as ever you have no evidence whatsoever for that do you ? No facts or figures that would, you know, actually allow you to be informed as opposed to prejudiced. Unfortunately for you, bikes on trails are being attacked by those who are like me, serious hikers and not once a year family groups. Two things need to happen: land mangers need to grow a spine and bikers need to leave the gene pool. Then all will return to normalcy and God's grace will rain down on only hikers on trails. Oh, I don't think it's unfortunate at all. As Baltasar Gracian said "A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." If I am being opposed by a tiny, histrionic, selfish and diminishing minority who think they are better than everyone else then that's a position I'm more than happy to occupy. The more extreme you get, the easier it is to position you as the lunatic fringe and the less attention and consideration you will get from the land managers. It is obvious to everyone, except you and your fellow travellers, that the fundamental remit of public parks is to provide recreation for the public. It is not to provide recreation for one tiny group only to the detriment of everyone else. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com