CycleBanter.com

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

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

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

You might disapprove of the use to which others put

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

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

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

You and I are not equals in this argument.


No, we're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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


I think you've been skipping your meds.

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


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

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


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


EdwardDolan March 27th 14 10:03 AM

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

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

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


Edward Dolan wrote:

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


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


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

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually

provide some evidence .. not just waffle.

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


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


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

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

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

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


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


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

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

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

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


EdwardDolan March 27th 14 10:40 AM

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

I simply disagree with your fundamental

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

You might disapprove of the use to which others put

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


Edward Dolan wrote:

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

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

You and I are not equals in this argument.


No, we're not.


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


I think you've been skipping your meds.


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


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

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

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


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

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually


provide some evidence .. not just waffle.


The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute


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

sinks

in.


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

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


At last, some honesty.

Your effrontery in thinking you have equal standing with


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

and how it

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

in this

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

would the

idiot land managers who are permitting such usage.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

EdwardDolan March 28th 14 09:14 AM

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

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

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


Edward Dolan wrote:

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


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


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

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


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

Fears over dangers of mountain biking


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 28th 14 09:49 AM

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

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

monomaniacal and think you should be privileged over everyone else.


Edward Dolan wrote:

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


At last, some honesty.

[...]

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

As I mentioned before, thousands die in their bathrooms and

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

EdwardDolan March 28th 14 10:11 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



EdwardDolan March 28th 14 10:49 AM

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

It is relatively safe. 1.54 injuries per thousand exposures

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


Edward Dolan wrote:

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

As I mentioned before, thousands die in their bathrooms and

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

One example of that among hundreds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com