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.