CycleBanter.com

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

EdwardDolan May 16th 14 04:50 AM

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

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.


You can have all those social qualities in any bar (saloon) in the world. I am as normal as John Q. Public ever gets – and as pure as the driven snow into the bargain besides.

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.


You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker as exists on this forum.

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.


You have confused the word “best” with the word “most’. In fact, overall you seem confused about “most” everything under the sun.

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.


What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers here in the US.

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.


More calumny.

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.


You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core.

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.


Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the impending conflicts will see to that.

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.


You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist are are never going go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasis the MEANS conflicts and I emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts.

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.


Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your twists and turns of senseless argument.

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.

[...]

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%.


You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself, but serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious injuries are rare – mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles.

Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of your life. Read on:

From: "Monica Craver"
Subject: Whistler, BC: The highs and lows of bike park season
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:47:18 -0700

"One stop at the ER room at Whistler Medical Clinic and you'll see
how many bikes are chained up outside, the owners seen walking around
the Village later in the day in casts and slings."

- See more at:
http://www.whistlerquestion.com/opin....3gI23P8y.dpuf


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



EdwardDolan May 16th 14 05:01 AM

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

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 ?


Edward Dolan wrote:

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 :-)


I do believe that walking is the best exercise in the world, but not always so easy to do under all circumstances. I walk quite a bit in the winter when cycling is impossible (snow, ice and extreme cold), but I much prefer to ride my bicycles the rest of the year. I consider all recreational hikers to be serious hikers provided they want to experience nature and wilderness values in as direct and simple a way as possible. Just walking around town has naught to do with that. They are walkers, not 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 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



EdwardDolan May 16th 14 05:25 AM

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

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 !


Edward Dolan wrote:

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.


All of the above is crazy. There are only a few nations in the world which are even into mountain biking. And it is not done year around. The numbers actually riding on hiking trails are simply not that great (although numerous enough to ruin the trails for hikers) and never will be because of the extreme dangers of doing it.
[...]

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.


All I need are the many reports that are crossing my computer monitor as presented by the mass media (mainly newspapers).

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.


Not necessarily better, but sufficiently different. In the end that difference will be what matters.

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.


The only extremist here is you. Wilderness Areas in the US are set aside for a truly tiny group of users. Most trails outside of designated Wilderness Areas were always being used by large numbers of people just hiking from nearby recreation resorts. Mountain bikers are still a minority on trails, but they must be eliminated altogether. Land managers who can not or will not see the light will have to be gotten rid of.

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



Blackblade[_2_] May 16th 14 11:49 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
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.

You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker
as exists on this forum.


Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the substance.

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.

You have confused the word "best" with the word "most'. In
fact, overall you seem confused about "most" everything under the
sun.


No, I've simply taken the actual objectives of most of the Parks and Recreation Departments. Best is subjective .. you think it's one thing and I think it's another .. so let's refer back to what the core objectives really are.

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.

???


You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've effectively refuted your own 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.

What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the
way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers
here in the US.


As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ... so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group.

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.

More calumny.


No, publicly documented fact. Look it up.

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.

You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is
typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core.


No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable ... so, sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine.

As I said before, I will interact reasonably with reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason ... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and you reap what you sow.

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.

Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything


No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly disproportionate.

other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every
confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the
impending conflicts will see to that.


So you keep saying. However, it's not happened in decades and mountainbiking is now mainstream and continuing to grow.

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.

You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and
equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no
business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist are
are never going go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasis the MEANS conflicts and I
emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts.

Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking.

Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated.


.... by you.

Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just

bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere
smokescreen.

Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a
conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your
twists and turns of senseless argument.


Ed, you've conceded that groups who don't share your means and purpose CAN be permitted on the trails .. provided they're not on bikes. So, you've thereby invalidated your own argument ... it's nothing to do with purpose ... it's just bikes.

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%.

You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself


That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just forgotten what you said last ?

, but
serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious
injuries are rare - mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles.


1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other sports. Not risk free.

Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of
your life. Read on:


Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian trail riding with steeplechasing.

So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there are many different forms with very different risk profiles.

EdwardDolan May 17th 14 05:46 AM

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

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.

You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker
as exists on this forum.


Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the substance.


I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes.
[...]

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.

???


You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've effectively refuted your own position.


Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose which is why they have no business being on a trail at all.

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.

What tiny minority are you talking about? Maybe that is the
way it is in England, but serious hikers constitute the vast majority of hikers
here in the US.


As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ... so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group.


Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got to be something wrong with the way your brain functions.

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.

More calumny.


No, publicly documented fact. Look it up.


Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a scholar and a gentleman. Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails. I am not an expert on anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours.

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.

You do not CARE whether you inconvenience other users. That is
typical of ALL mountain bikers who are selfish to the core.


No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable ... so, sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine.


I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers, serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails – unless you are willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do not have to play by your rules.

As I said before, I will interact reasonably with reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason ... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and you reap what you sow.


I have stated my position and the reasons for it clearly enough for even a moron like you to follow. Further, my position is that of all hikers. You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts, both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means and purpose.

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.

Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything


No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly disproportionate.


It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for well over a hundred years.

other than the stupidity of allowing mortmain bikes on trails. I have every
confidence that that is going to change in the not so distant future. All the
impending conflicts will see to that.

[...]

You can seek physical challenges away from hikers and
equestrians. That is not what we are about. But even civilized bikers have no
business being on trails used by hikers and equestrians. The conflicts exist and
are never going to go away. Mr. Vandeman emphasizes the MEANS conflicts and I
emphasize the PURPOSE conflicts.

Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking.

Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated.


... by you.


Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just

bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere
smokescreen.

Being on a bike on trails is both a conflict of means and a
conflict of purpose all by itself. The only smokescreen I know about are your
twists and turns of senseless argument.


Ed, you've conceded that groups who don't share your means and purpose CAN be permitted on the trails .. provided they're not on bikes. So, you've thereby invalidated your own argument ... it's nothing to do with purpose ... it's just bikes.


Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can’t but help notice your surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers. What destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the trail by their means also – a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about purpose and only secondarily about means.

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%.

You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself


That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just forgotten what you said last ?


It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough – like 100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking.

, but
serious injuries are as common as mud. This is not true of hiking. Serious
injuries are rare - mostly just stubbed toes and turned ankles.


1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other sports. Not risk free.


Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a sport – which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a pastime.

Why not educate yourself instead of remaining stupid all of
your life. Read on:


Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian trail riding with steeplechasing.


No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible. I suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents are happening on just ordinary hiking trails.

So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there are many different forms with very different risk profiles.


Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do.

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




Blackblade[_2_] May 19th 14 01:25 PM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone

... other than myself.


You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker


as exists on this forum.


Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the

substance.

I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes.


You do have a penchant for assuming that everyone agrees with you.

You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key

determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail
runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've
effectively refuted your own position.

Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as
far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs
without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the
purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose
which is why they have no business being on a trail at all.


That's not what you said Ed ... never mind, I'm used to you dancing around now, I'll just make a mental note that it's just the bikes, not the activity as far as you're concerned.

As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ...

so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group.

Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the
mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got
to be something wrong with the way your brain functions.


Your definition was someone seeking solitude, so all groups are out, and looking to commune with nature in a suitably reverential manner. So, I think you'll find you have quite effectively disenfranchised the vast majority of the hiking population most of whom, I've notice, seem to prefer to hike in groups.

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.




More calumny.




No, publicly documented fact. Look it up.




Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a
scholar and a gentleman.


It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven criminal.

Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost
expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails.


He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert.

I am not an expert on
anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours.


If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour.

No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish

minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I
don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable .... so,
sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine.

I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers,
serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails - unless you are
willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do
not have to play by your rules.


Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience .... and I am also a hiker.

There is no earthly reason why one group, such as you, should get to dictate access to all others. That's what I mean about being selfish ... you want it all, just for you and you're not prepared to share.


As I said before, I will interact reasonably with

reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason
... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no
choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and
you reap what you sow.

I have stated my position and the reasons for it clearly
enough for even a moron like you to follow. Further, my position is that of all
hikers.


You have stated your position and your reasons ... certainly ... you've done precisely nothing to prove that it is the position of all hikers and, since I am a hiker, I can immediately disprove your statement anyway.

You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the
swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to
put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts,
both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means
and purpose.


Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness.

Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything


No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings

before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a
visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly
disproportionate.

It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the
hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for
well over a hundred years.


How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded.

Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails.

Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the
purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a
trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can't but help notice your
surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers.. What
destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue
about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the
trail by their means also - a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about
purpose and only secondarily about means.


Your argument is all over the place ...
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%.




You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself


That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near

inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just
forgotten what you said last ?

It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking.


Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years !

1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other

sports. Not risk free.

Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a
sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a
pastime.


Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too.

Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to

compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two
completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian
trail riding with steeplechasing.

No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go
up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible.. I
suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents
are happening on just ordinary hiking trails.


Yet the article you were quoting had nothing to do with hiking trails ... it was all about riding in a bike park.

So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic

would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all
mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there
are many different forms with very different risk profiles.

Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by
professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one
thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything
else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President
Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you
are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do.


If you think about this some more then you might, just maybe, have suddenly seen the light. I completely understand that no-one wants to go hiking on a trail that has bikers appearing at over 20mph dressed in full armour. That's an accident waiting to happen and not enjoyable for either party.

But, just like other activities, there are many different types. If what you're saying is that you object to public trails being used for downhill racing then I agree with you completely. Whilst I confess to occasionally enjoying such riding for a day or two I only ever do it in bike parks.

However, my contention is that neither Mr Bush nor I am doing anything wrong in wanting to share a trail for the sheer enjoyment of being out and about with friends in the natural world. I just don't see the conflict there.

My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone.


EdwardDolan May 22nd 14 06:04 AM

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

I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes.


You do have a penchant for assuming that everyone agrees with you.


I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me.

You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key

determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail
runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've
effectively refuted your own position.

Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as
far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs
without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the
purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose
which is why they have no business being on a trail at all.


That's not what you said Ed ... never mind, I'm used to you dancing around now, I'll just make a mental note that it's just the bikes, not the activity as far as you're concerned.


No, it is indeed the activity. All others are walking except bikers.

As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ...

so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group.

Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the
mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got
to be something wrong with the way your brain functions.


Your definition was someone seeking solitude, so all groups are out, and looking to commune with nature in a suitably reverential manner. So, I think you'll find you have quite effectively disenfranchised the vast majority of the hiking population most of whom, I've notice, seem to prefer to hike in groups.


Nope – just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost as bad as bikers. The reverential manner will happen automatically with anyone walking either solitarily or in a small group. It never happens with bikers. After all, they are there for thrills and spills, not for connecting with nature.
[...]

Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a
scholar and a gentleman.


It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven criminal.


I use Mr. Vandeman as an appeal to common sense, something that all mountain bikers completely lack.

Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost
expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails.


He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert.


Nope, he is the expert by sheer dint of interest in the topic. Furthermore, he perseveres. Folks like you and me come and go, but Mr. Vandeman remains.

I am not an expert on
anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours.


If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour.


I have never yet been bested by anyone in an argument on a newsgroup. Hells Bells, if I’m wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent. When it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I have an excellent track record in that regard.

No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish

minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I
don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable ... so,
sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine.

I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers,
serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails - unless you are
willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do
not have to play by your rules.


Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience ... and I am also a hiker.


But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they all agree with my sentiments – exactly. We do not want bicycles on our trails.
[...]

You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the
swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to
put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts,
both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means
and purpose.


Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness.


It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use. Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that.

Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything


No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings

before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a
visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly
disproportionate.

It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the
hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for
well over a hundred years.


How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded.


All any of us can ever know are the local trails. California trails are being totally ruined because of mountain biking. Admittedly, Minnesota trails are not yet in such bad shape.

Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails.


But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every opportunity.

Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the
purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a
trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can't but help notice your
surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers. What
destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue
about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the
trail by their means also - a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about
purpose and only secondarily about means.

[...]

It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking.


Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years !


But let’s say you have eternal life. It would be cut short if any amount of mountain biking were to take place. ... whether it be a 100 years or 1000 years. Hikers would live forever – because hiking is not dangerous like biking is.

1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other

sports. Not risk free.

Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a
sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a
pastime.


Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too.


It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a sporting/racing side?

Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to

compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two
completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian
trail riding with steeplechasing.

No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go
up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible. I
suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents
are happening on just ordinary hiking trails.


Yet the article you were quoting had nothing to do with hiking trails .... it was all about riding in a bike park.


So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic

would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all
mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there
are many different forms with very different risk profiles.

Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by
professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one
thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything
else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President
Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you
are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do.


If you think about this some more then you might, just maybe, have suddenly seen the light. I completely understand that no-one wants to go hiking on a trail that has bikers appearing at over 20mph dressed in full armour. That's an accident waiting to happen and not enjoyable for either party.


But, just like other activities, there are many different types. If what you're saying is that you object to public trails being used for downhill racing then I agree with you completely. Whilst I confess to occasionally enjoying such riding for a day or two I only ever do it in bike parks.


However, my contention is that neither Mr Bush nor I am doing anything wrong in wanting to share a trail for the sheer enjoyment of being out and about with friends in the natural world. I just don't see the conflict there.


My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone.


Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn’t mean they aren’t there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way. They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they are there just the same.

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



Blackblade[_2_] May 22nd 14 10:00 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
you.

I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me.


No, Ed, you DON'T. You've never conducted, as you confessed, any kind of survey or research to confirm this and that's the only way you would know. Supportive emails from fellow travellers are not sufficient evidence.

Nope - just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving
slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost
as bad as bikers.


My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to enjoy nature. That's none of your business.

It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to

Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no
qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven
criminal.

I use Mr. Vandeman as an appeal to common sense, something
that all mountain bikers completely lack.


Vandeman and common sense don't apply in the same sentence.

Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost
expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails.


He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think

not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original
research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert.

Nope, he is the expert by sheer dint of interest in the topic.
Furthermore, he perseveres. Folks like you and me come and go, but Mr.
Vandeman remains.


News Flash; you DON'T get to be an expert in anything just by being interested and keeping at it. If that were the case then many demagogues would be rather happy.

I am not an expert on
anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours.


If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would

hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour.

I have never yet been bested by anyone in an argument on a
newsgroup.


I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your premises and axioms.

You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence to do so..

Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent.


Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself but you still won't concede.

When
it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I
have an excellent track record in that regard.


And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum.

Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're

blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely
nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my
experience ... and I am also a hiker.

But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to
California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will
soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they
all agree with my sentiments - exactly. We do not want bicycles on our
trails.


If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ?

And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument.

Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it

? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you
... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple
fairness.

It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use.
Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for
bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that.


Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring.. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.

How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness

is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2
bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ...
presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded.

All any of us can ever know are the local trails.


If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read.

However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel.

Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to

sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on
trails.

But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every
opportunity.


No, it's not ... and even if it were physics and motion also mean that it takes about 5 times as long to go up as to go down. That's why many mountainbikers prefer to travel across.


It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking.


Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and

death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years !

But let's say you have eternal life.


No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because this is getting silly.

Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a


sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as

a

pastime.


Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both

disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get
out in the mountains aspects too.

It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could
be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of
them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a
sporting/racing side?


Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells ??

My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We

encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other
bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone.

Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn't mean they
aren't there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way.
They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there
in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they
are there just the same.


Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because others resent them. There's a nasty word for that.


EdwardDolan May 24th 14 07:59 AM

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me.


No, Ed, you DON'T. You've never conducted, as you confessed, any kind of survey or research to confirm this and that's the only way you would know. Supportive emails from fellow travellers are not sufficient evidence.


The emails are based on media reports. Duh!

Nope - just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving
slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost
as bad as bikers.


My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to enjoy nature. That's none of your business.


Hikers and equestrians are the only groups that count as far as how trails are to be used. We do indeed want to police any and all others. Bikers belong on roads and they can have their say there. Trails are none of their business.
[...]

News Flash; you DON'T get to be an expert in anything just by being interested and keeping at it. If that were the case then many demagogues would be rather happy.


Actually though it does. Mr. Vandeman simply knows more than any other living person about the subject. That makes him the expert. It certainly is not you or me. In comparison we are virtual idiots.
[...]

I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your premises and axioms.


You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence to do so.


I too trust to others’ intelligence to discern the difference between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to want to restore the status quo ante.

Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent.


Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself but you still won't concede.


You have persuaded me of nothing. How could you when your argument stinks of mountain biker propaganda. You are not only an idiot, but immoral besides.

When
it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I
have an excellent track record in that regard.


And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum.


Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and will damn well say anything I please. But you are quite right to be cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get twice as dirty. Words do not scare me. I will get lower and more vulgar than anyone since I am by far smarter and better than anyone I have ever encountered on these ****ed-up forums.

Am I smarter and better than you? Of course I am. You are arguing from an untenable position (because selfish) and from one that is also immoral (because it harms hikers and equestrians).

Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're

blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely
nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my
experience ... and I am also a hiker.

But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to
California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will
soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they
all agree with my sentiments - exactly. We do not want bicycles on our
trails.


If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean .... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ?


Everything happens in California first and is then exported to the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails – everywhere.

And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument.


Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What’s the matter? Can’t stand you own company?

Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it

? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you
... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple
fairness.

It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use.
Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for
bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that.


Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.


It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to the status quo ante.

How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness

is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2
bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ....
presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded.

All any of us can ever know are the local trails.


If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read.


However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel.


Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of common experience. I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that regard. I also see how mountain bikers behave everywhere in the world based on reports. I do not have to go to China to know that it exists. I rely on the reports of others. All you are relying on are some incredibly stupid numbers which you call data. The only one here who does not have a clue about anything is you.

Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to

sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on
trails.

But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every
opportunity.


No, it's not ... and even if it were physics and motion also mean that it takes about 5 times as long to go up as to go down. That's why many mountainbikers prefer to travel across.


Everything bad happens going downhill. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking.


Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and

death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years !

But let's say you have eternal life.


No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because this is getting silly.


My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal, but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first place.

You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do. Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?.

Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a


sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as

a

pastime.


Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both

disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get
out in the mountains aspects too.

It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could
be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of
them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a
sporting/racing side?


Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells ??


I have never seen any of that kind of foolishness except on TV. All I have ever seen are hikers and a few horse riders on trails until very recently when bikes began appearing. Many trails are now unusable by hikers and equestrians because of the bikers.

My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We

encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other
bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone.

Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn't mean they
aren't there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way.
They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there
in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they
are there just the same.


Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because others resent them. There's a nasty word for that.


Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it for the same reason – to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all hikers experience this connection with nature like I do. I have given you many good reasons why bikers do not belong on trails with hikers. It is indeed resentment bordering on anger. It will increasingly be your problem whether you want it or not.

Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails. This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want. You need to study something called “the tragedy of the commons”. Cycling on trails is destroying that commons.

Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage. The conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how trails are managed. The bikes have got to go!

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



Blackblade[_2_] May 27th 14 11:05 AM

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
 
My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to
enjoy nature. That's none of your business.

Hikers and equestrians are the only groups that count as far
as how trails are to be used.


More circular logic. Or, to be more blunt, lack of logic.

There is no backup for this statement ... it's just what you would like to be ... not what is.

We do indeed want to police any and all others.


Well, fortunately, you can't. They are not your trails to police.

Actually though it does. Mr. Vandeman simply knows more than
any other living person about the subject. That makes him the expert.


Utter and total rubbish. The guy's even more illogical than you.

I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the

numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic
and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your
premises and axioms.

You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence

to do so.

I too trust to others' intelligence to discern the difference
between a self-serving argument that makes no sense and my very modest desire to
want to restore the status quo ante.


No, Ed, your very immodest desire to annex a public resource, for which everyone pays, for your sole use ...

Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent.


Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself

but you still won't concede.

You have persuaded me of nothing.


I'm not talking about persuading you of anything. I am talking about the direct contradictions you commit .. stating one thing when it suits one purpose and the contrary when it doesn't.

And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as

vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum..

Public forums be damned! I am living in a free country and
will damn well say anything I please.


That's your right ... which I would support. But, in a free country, I am also perfectly free to consider that descending to profanity is a clear signal that you've lost the argument.

But you are quite right to be
cautious when around someone like me. I have argued with the scum of the earth
on these newsgroups on every conceivable topic, and when they get dirty I get
twice as dirty.


I don't need profanity to beat you ... just logic and a coherent position.

Am I smarter and better than you?


Very much doubt it. If that were the case you wouldn't make so many logical errors. Your whole position devolves to "I want this, I used to have it .... therefore it's right".

If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be

candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you
mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your
signature do you ?

Everything happens in California first and is then exported to
the rest of the world. I mean death to all mountain biking on trails -
everywhere.


Contrary to what you might believe, California is not the world.

And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people

with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude
and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community
encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now
because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned
argument.

Most hikers hike alone or with just one other person. I seldom
meet groups. Only slobs like you like to hike or ride with others. What's the
matter? Can't stand you own company?


What's the matter Ed, can't interact normally with other people ?

Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population

pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are
referring. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for
travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the
people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred
use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.

It is NOT a matter of fairness. Where did you ever get such a
crazy idea? It is a matter of BEST use. That is how every public resource is
managed. In fact, that is how every resource is managed, public or private. You
surely must be an idiot! There is nothing arbitrary about wanting to return to
the status quo ante.


Define 'best' ... to a standard that everyone is going to agree. You can't.. Your best is not mine. You have to look at the fundamental premise of what national parks are intended to do ... which is to provide recreation for people and preserve wildlife and the resource for future generations. So they are absolutely doing what they should ... trying to balance occasionally conflicting requirements so that, overall, the most number of people are satisfied. That is made very difficult if you have a small number of selfish and stubborn individuals, such as yourself, who seem to believe that they are, without the slightest logical justification, deserving of some special treatment.

All any of us can ever know are the local trails.


If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead

preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that
you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to
read.

However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails

then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my
locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel.

Anyone walking a trail for recreation belongs to a universe of
common experience.


What total and utter nonsense. Everyone who goes hiking has the same experience ? What about family groups, ramblers clubs, trail runners, dog walkers and the numerous other users ?

I can assume that everyone everywhere is the same in that
regard.


Feel free to assume what you wish ... yet again, you're wrong but since you won't ever bother to check your assumptions you can continue in your ignorance.

It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of

hiking.

Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said

... and

death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years

!

But let's say you have eternal life.


No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was

incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because
this is getting silly.

My point was correct. Everyone knows that life is not eternal,
but if it were then my point was made. What was my point? I am sure you have
lost it by now, but it was that biking on trails is much more dangerous than
hiking on trails and that if you did enough of it you would be far more likely
to suffer an injury than would hikers. Simple enough even for an idiot like you
to understand, but why must I go into such details in the first
place.


Because Ed, your memory is becoming somewhat 'convenient'. Let me refresh it for you, you wrote ...

" 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."

Whereas, as I showed and you eventually were forced to concede, the risk of a fatality or serious injury in a lifetime of mountainbiking is, in reality, very low indeed. So, if you take up mountainbiking you will probably live a long and healthy life.

So, the reason I focus on these, as you call them 'details, is that they prove you wrong.

That you then start talking nonsense about eternal life shows how desperate, or illogical, you are since, as you should know, any risk, however small, will become a near inevitability in infinite time.

You do not know how to read me, whereas I can read you
perfectly, but choose not to get bogged down in moronic details like you do.


I can read you perfectly; old, bigoted, lazy, profane and selfish

Anyone who will argue about details has already lost the reader. Details belong
in footnotes. How scholarly do you want to get?.


You're missing the difference between a detail and a key fact. Key facts, such as the facts that mountainbiking is actually pretty safe, that there are NOT many collisions and that most concede the need to share, demolish your arguments.

I have never heard of hiking having a



sporting/racing side?


Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells

??

I have never seen any of that kind of foolishness except on
TV.


Ah, right, and in your world unless you see it personally it doesn't happen ?

Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so

you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why
I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because
others resent them. There's a nasty word for that.

Walking a trail is a universal experience. Everyone does it
for the same reason - to connect with nature for a time. I can assume that all
hikers experience this connection with nature like I do.


No, you can't assume that at all. Particularly since, as you admit, you are largely solitary and enjoy your own company. How the hell would that permit you to empathise with anyone else ?


I have given you many
good reasons why bikers do not belong on trails with hikers.


No, you've given me your opinions .. unsupported by anything else.

It is indeed
resentment bordering on anger. It will increasingly be your problem whether you
want it or not.


I'm not going to worry about bitter, selfish and unpleasant people resenting perfectly reasonable activities. Give me a logical reason; risk of injury, insufficient space, too crowded etc etc then I'll agree a fair resolution is required but your mental health isn't my concern.

Your belief that everyone should be given a shot at using
trails is belied by the fact that even you do not want motorcycles on trails.


I didn't say that did I Ed ? I said they SHOULD get SOME access ... but much less because of environmental impact and risk to other trail users.

This points up the essential selfishness of your argument. Democracy does not
mean that everyone can do whatever they want.


No, of course it doesn't, it means that everyone gets some of what they want ... it's essentially the art of compromise.

Biking on trails is a conflict of MEANS and of PURPOSE with
those of hikers and equestrians. Who should have priority? I am arguing that
hikers were there first and deserve not only priority but exclusive usage..


Thank you for clarifying your essentially selfish position; I was there first, I liked being by myself, you lot can clear off.

The reality is that each new generation will have different preferences as to type of recreation. You don't, Canute like, get to stop the clock at a point in time that happens to suit you.

The
conflicts are a permanent fixture and are never going to go away. That is what
has to be recognized by one and all before any changes can take place on how
trails are managed. The bikes have got to go!


No, Ed, what needs to go are dogmatic people like you who won't compromise reasonably and actually prevent solutions being agreed and engender more extremism.

Research shows that real conflict is very rare ... the perception thereof is higher. What needs to be recognised is that there is no alternative to sharing; there is only one natural environment and we need to agree to share it and to protect it.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

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