|
|
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:50:18 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... [...] Ever hear of an all terrain vehicle? the U.S. Army spent a ton of money to develop one. You know, a wheeled vehicle that will go almost anywhere. So obviously your assertion that wheels are for roads is just another example of how stupid you really are. So now you want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails? You are way beyond stupid; you are criminally stupid. Ooh, you are so nimble. You say that wheels got to go on a road. I tell you that the Government spent a lot of money to build a wheeled vehicle that doesn't need a road and quick as a flash you say I want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails. But you seem to ignore the fact that your statement that wheels were for streets is simply a pile of rhetorical bull**** and either you are an outright liar, or simply so stupid that you can't realize what a silly statement you made. So tell us Doodles, are you a fool or a liar? Now go **** yourself and quit bothering the honorable members of this noble newsgroup. Post content or get lost. What an Asshole! But I am! I'm pointing out that your "content" is a lie.... Isn't that enough content for you? 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 -- Cheers, John B. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:28:17 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "Blackblade" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: Trends come and go the same way fads do. What is going to kill mountain biking are all the deaths and injuries. Mountain biking is not considered an extreme sport, yet it racks up deaths and injuries just like most extreme sports. The vast majority of people in this world do not want to risk life and limb for a mere recreation. Only an extremely stupid minority of fools want to do that. Well, IF there were all these deaths and injuries then you might have a point. However, the statistics don't back you up ... Mountainbiking is relatively safe ... a rate of 1.54 per 1,000 exposures is less than soccer, rugby, american football, road cycling etc etc etc. (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...9.086991.full). So, once again, you're incorrect; mountainbiking produces injury and death statistics nowhere near 'extreme' sports. You are not only wrong, but wrongheaded. I will continue to report stories from the field of what is actually happening on the trails and you can continue to puzzle over numbers (statistics) until kingdom come and we shall see who is the more persuasive. What's this Dooley? "Report stories"? You mean that you are going to tell some more lies like the wheels are for roads story. And here I thought saints told the truth. Saint Dolan, patron of liars. -- Cheers, John B. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:50:18 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... [...] Ever hear of an all terrain vehicle? the U.S. Army spent a ton of money to develop one. You know, a wheeled vehicle that will go almost anywhere. So obviously your assertion that wheels are for roads is just another example of how stupid you really are. So now you want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails? You are way beyond stupid; you are criminally stupid. Ooh, you are so nimble. You say that wheels got to go on a road. I tell you that the Government spent a lot of money to build a wheeled vehicle that doesn't need a road and quick as a flash you say I want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails. You have got to be nimble to deal with Assholes like yourself. If I took my lead from you, we would end up arguing about who knows what. Try to stay focused on what is at issue here – bicycles on trails. But you seem to ignore the fact that your statement that wheels were for streets is simply a pile of rhetorical bull**** and either you are an outright liar, or simply so stupid that you can't realize what a silly statement you made. It is not a silly statement when it is related to the issue under discussion – bicycles on trails. It puts things into perspective. All terrain vehicles fall into the same class as motorcycles which has already been dealt with multiple times on another thread on this newsgroup of which you are well aware. Try to stay current if that is possible. [...] Post content or get lost. What an Asshole! But I am! I'm pointing out that your "content" is a lie.... Isn't that enough content for you? No, it is NOT content because my signature is NOT content It is simply a way of giving you and your ilk the finger. And I am sure succeeding - aren't I! Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:28:17 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] You are not only wrong, but wrongheaded. I will continue to report stories from the field of what is actually happening on the trails and you can continue to puzzle over numbers (statistics) until kingdom come and we shall see who is the more persuasive. What's this Dooley? "Report stories"? You mean that you are going to tell some more lies like the wheels are for roads story. The stories reported are from newspapers, magazines and other newsgroups with the links supplied. How does it get any better than that? Or is everyone in the world lying except mountain bikers? Blackblade is relying on statistics which are always flawed. Such numbers never measure with any precision what they say they are measuring. Yes, they are measuring “something”, but exactly what is difficult to say. Polls are equally unreliable. Better to get actual reports from the field on what is happening. At least that way you will know something worth knowing. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:54:34 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:50:18 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... [...] Ever hear of an all terrain vehicle? the U.S. Army spent a ton of money to develop one. You know, a wheeled vehicle that will go almost anywhere. So obviously your assertion that wheels are for roads is just another example of how stupid you really are. So now you want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails? You are way beyond stupid; you are criminally stupid. Ooh, you are so nimble. You say that wheels got to go on a road. I tell you that the Government spent a lot of money to build a wheeled vehicle that doesn't need a road and quick as a flash you say I want all terrain vehicles on hiking trails. You have got to be nimble to deal with Assholes like yourself. If I took my lead from you, we would end up arguing about who knows what. Try to stay focused on what is at issue here – bicycles on trails. But you seem to ignore the fact that your statement that wheels were for streets is simply a pile of rhetorical bull**** and either you are an outright liar, or simply so stupid that you can't realize what a silly statement you made. It is not a silly statement when it is related to the issue under discussion – bicycles on trails. It puts things into perspective. All terrain vehicles fall into the same class as motorcycles which has already been dealt with multiple times on another thread on this newsgroup of which you are well aware. Try to stay current if that is possible. [...] Ah, but you didn't say that did you. You said wheels for streets. What is really silly is your rapid change of subject. First you make a positive statement; next someone demonstrates that your statement is incorrect; and presto-chango you sashay obliquely off to a new subject. What is becoming extremely evident is that you really don't know what you are talking about and are simply repeating stock phrases that you've heard somewhere. Your "What's matter, can't walk" is a fine example. Nearly every individual is capable of walking from about the age of eight months.... but what this has to do with mountain bicycles is a bit nebulas. After all, a simple comparison of the general population, above the age of eight months, and the users of public trails demonstrates the fact that the vast majority of the walking population does not go blundering about in the wilderness. What's next? A discussion of how many Angels can dance on the head of a needle and a comparison of that number with the number of spokes in the rear wheel of a mountain bike and thus proving emphatically that mountain bikes should not be ridden on public trails. Doodles you are impressive. Impressively stupid. -- Cheers, John B. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:54:34 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] It is not a silly statement when it is related to the issue under discussion – bicycles on trails. It puts things into perspective. All terrain vehicles fall into the same class as motorcycles which has already been dealt with multiple times on another thread on this newsgroup of which you are well aware. Try to stay current if that is possible. [...] Ah, but you didn't say that did you. You said wheels for streets. What is really silly is your rapid change of subject. First you make a positive statement; next someone demonstrates that your statement is incorrect; and presto-chango you sashay obliquely off to a new subject. The only one here who is attempting to get off the subject is yourself. You simply do not know how to post content. Too bad for you since I am not going to cooperate with your silliness. What is becoming extremely evident is that you really don't know what you are talking about and are simply repeating stock phrases that you've heard somewhere. Your "What's matter, can't walk" is a fine example. Nearly every individual is capable of walking from about the age of eight months.... but what this has to do with mountain bicycles is a bit nebulas. It has to do with what trails are for ... something that is obvious to all but brain blighted mountain bikers. After all, a simple comparison of the general population, above the age of eight months, and the users of public trails demonstrates the fact that the vast majority of the walking population does not go blundering about in the wilderness. But if they do, they need to walk on the trails, not ride bikes on the trails. What's next? A discussion of how many Angels can dance on the head of a needle and a comparison of that number with the number of spokes in the rear wheel of a mountain bike and thus proving emphatically that mountain bikes should not be ridden on public trails. Never fear, I know how to stay focused and will never let simpletons like you distract me from that focus. If and when I get off the subject, it will be because I choose to get off the subject, and not because you choose to get off the subject. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
Blackblade considered Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:14:22 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: Trends come and go the same way fads do. What is going to kill mountain biking are all the deaths and injuries. Mountain biking is not considered an extreme sport, yet it racks up deaths and injuries just like most extreme sports. The vast majority of people in this world do not want to risk life and limb for a mere recreation. Only an extremely stupid minority of fools want to do that. Well, IF there were all these deaths and injuries then you might have a point. However, the statistics don't back you up ... Mountainbiking is relatively safe ... a rate of 1.54 per 1,000 exposures is less than soccer, rugby, american football, road cycling etc etc etc. (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...9.086991.full). So, once again, you're incorrect; mountainbiking produces injury and death statistics nowhere near 'extreme' sports. According to the British Medical Associacion, most cycling trauma is associated with motor traffic. And even taking those motor traffic cases into account, cycling is far safer than NOT cycling. Which means than off-road cycling must be FAR safer than not cycling, right? After all, it represents the safer side of something which is already very safe indeed. What you say may very well be true, but there are accidents ... and then there are accidents. The kind of accidents road cyclists suffer are true accidents related to the presence of motor vehicles on the same roads as bicycles. The kind of accidents that off-road cyclists suffer are accidents that never need to happen since they are related to the cycling itself on an unsuitable surface apart from any conflicts with others. We need to keep our focus on mountain biking accidents due to riding on trails and not compare it with accidents which exist in other universes. Hikers do not suffer the kind of accidents that cyclists suffer on trails because hiking is truly safe, something that mountain biking truly is not. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:27:40 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote: John B. considered Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:39:33 +0700 the perfect time to write: On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:28:17 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: "Blackblade" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: Trends come and go the same way fads do. What is going to kill mountain biking are all the deaths and injuries. Mountain biking is not considered an extreme sport, yet it racks up deaths and injuries just like most extreme sports. The vast majority of people in this world do not want to risk life and limb for a mere recreation. Only an extremely stupid minority of fools want to do that. Well, IF there were all these deaths and injuries then you might have a point. However, the statistics don't back you up ... Mountainbiking is relatively safe ... a rate of 1.54 per 1,000 exposures is less than soccer, rugby, american football, road cycling etc etc etc. (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...9.086991.full). So, once again, you're incorrect; mountainbiking produces injury and death statistics nowhere near 'extreme' sports. You are not only wrong, but wrongheaded. I will continue to report stories from the field of what is actually happening on the trails and you can continue to puzzle over numbers (statistics) until kingdom come and we shall see who is the more persuasive. What's this Dooley? "Report stories"? You mean that you are going to tell some more lies like the wheels are for roads story. And here I thought saints told the truth. Saint Dolan, patron of liars. He's giving Saint Jude (fools and lost causes) and Saint Leonard (criminals) a run for their money as well. I always thought St. Jude was lost causes.... never knew he'd been enlisted for the fools as well :-) But if the criminals can have their man standing in the heavenly ranks it would be a shame of the liars were denied representation. All we need to do is martyrize Dolan and he could stand on the left hand side of the big chair :-) I envision him on the sinister side of the assembly :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:38:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote: "John B." wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:54:34 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] It is not a silly statement when it is related to the issue under discussion – bicycles on trails. It puts things into perspective. All terrain vehicles fall into the same class as motorcycles which has already been dealt with multiple times on another thread on this newsgroup of which you are well aware. Try to stay current if that is possible. [...] Ah, but you didn't say that did you. You said wheels for streets. What is really silly is your rapid change of subject. First you make a positive statement; next someone demonstrates that your statement is incorrect; and presto-chango you sashay obliquely off to a new subject. The only one here who is attempting to get off the subject is yourself. You simply do not know how to post content. Too bad for you since I am not going to cooperate with your silliness. I must thank you for the lesson. I now see that your mention of "content" means, simply, anything that provides insight into your stupidity. So no more telling the truth about Dolan. No more point out that he really doesn't know what he is talking about. No more point out that he is either the world's greatest fool; or perhaps a liar. What is becoming extremely evident is that you really don't know what you are talking about and are simply repeating stock phrases that you've heard somewhere. Your "What's matter, can't walk" is a fine example. Nearly every individual is capable of walking from about the age of eight months.... but what this has to do with mountain bicycles is a bit nebulas. It has to do with what trails are for ... something that is obvious to all but brain blighted mountain bikers. After all, a simple comparison of the general population, above the age of eight months, and the users of public trails demonstrates the fact that the vast majority of the walking population does not go blundering about in the wilderness. But if they do, they need to walk on the trails, not ride bikes on the trails. What's next? A discussion of how many Angels can dance on the head of a needle and a comparison of that number with the number of spokes in the rear wheel of a mountain bike and thus proving emphatically that mountain bikes should not be ridden on public trails. Never fear, I know how to stay focused and will never let simpletons like you distract me from that focus. If and when I get off the subject, it will be because I choose to get off the subject, and not because you choose to get off the subject. Well, I hate to disregard the panic call for content but just what is your focus? Denying citizens of the U.S. access to public land? Or is it just the old bigot's war cry - "They are different, Get 'em" Or perhaps only the cry of the great loon, echoing in the moon light? "NO, No, no" 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 -- Cheers, John B. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Oxford English Dictionary
Recreation; activity done for enjoyment when one is not working * Quad erat demonstrandum; hiking and biking are both recreations. But not the same KIND of recreation. Both purpose and means are different. It doesn't matter whether they are the same KIND or not ... they are both recreations therefore both entitled to the same consideration in terms of their use of public resource. 1. Note that in all the videos there are hardly any people ... for the vast majority of the time there is no interaction with other trail users.* Therefore, there should be no issue in sharing these trails at all. 2. Perceptions of speed can be very misleading and you should also remember that mountain bikes are equipped with very powerful disk brakes; we can stop much more quickly than most hikers or road cyclists would imagine. 1. Obviously you do not care what anyone has to to say about a situation. They are all lying thru their teeth? Right? I'm not listening to what people say ... I'm watching the video links which you posted ! The evidence of my eyes is clear ... hardly any interaction .... lots of open space with no people. 2. Speed doesn't matter since bikes have brakes and can stop whenever and wherever? Good to know that bit of information, although what it has to do with bikes on trails is not readily apparent. You need to see a psychiatrist to find out what is making your brain tick! Sorry Ed, I was assuming that you had a modicum of intelligence and that therefore you would get the point. Let me set it out for you in simple words ... Your post cited speed and the risk of collisions as a concern. Powerful brakes slow you down very quickly. A bike therefore appearing to be travelling too fast to stop is, in fact, perfectly able to do so before impacting a hiker, equestrian or other trail user. Get it now ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
And I have also stated that I don't care what you think,
particularly since you are all over the place with your pronouncements. You're happy to permit running ... which is clearly not about "communing with nature" but have a huge issue with bikes. Not caring what is said and refuting what is said are two different things. Too bad you can't refute anything except crying like a baby when you can't have your way. I don't have to refute what you think Ed ... it's just your opinion. I HAVE refuted most of your propositions ... but you can continue to think whatever you like. The two recreations are entirely different, both with respect to purpose and means. And ? So what ? They are still both recreations ... deserving of equal treatment and access to public resources. One is not axiomatically better than the other ... How the hell did we get to 'death merchant' and surely even you don't have the sheer effrontery to try and claim that you care about injuries to mountainbikers ? You've written enough times that you like to see them injured and killed in this thread. You don't want them to stop for their own good, you want them to stop so that you can enjoy your recreation in magnificent solitude. I want them to stop - period. What does the reason matter? You want them to continue - period. What does the reason matter? They will continue to injure and kill themselves because of slobs like you, not because of slobs like me. You are indeed a merchant of death. I don't want them to continue ... I want them to decide for themselves. You're the authoritarian here ... I'm for free choice. And I have already stated repeatedly that I regard you as a fool for risking life and limb doing stupid things. You are certainly welcome to kill yourself, but you advocate that others go and do what you do. No Ed, I did NOT advocat that others do what I do. I said they should have the choice. That makes you a merchant of death. You are a form of poison to humanity - and you illustrate perfectly the mountain biker ethos. I don't want you and your ilk anywhere near hiking trails. Live a little Ed .. you might enjoy it. If everyone was as risk averse as you we would still be sitting in caves. Remember mountainbiking is pretty safe ... safer than road cycling, rugby, american football, driving a car etc etc etc. I do indeed want others to make up their own minds. But let them make up their own minds riding trails designed for wheels and not trails designed for walking. I am not a merchant of death like you are. No Ed, you don't want them to make up their own minds ... you want to force them off the trails. Trails to which they have every bit as much right as you. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Blackblade is relying on statistics which are always flawed.
Such numbers never measure with any precision what they say they are measuring. Yes, they are measuring "something", but exactly what is difficult to say.. Polls are equally unreliable. Better to get actual reports from the field on what is happening. At least that way you will know something worth knowing. Statistics, if ethically prepared and processed, will always have errors .... and usually the error bounds are actually stated. You're only getting field reports from those who agree with you ... so, unless they are a majority, they are unrepresentative of the whole trail using community. It's like concluding that the entire US population are satanists because you conducted your survey at a black mass :-). |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:38:50 -0600, "EdwardDolan" wrote: [...] The only one here who is attempting to get off the subject is yourself. You simply do not know how to post content. Too bad for you since I am not going to cooperate with your silliness. I must thank you for the lesson. I now see that your mention of "content" means, simply, anything that provides insight into your stupidity. My signature is not content. So no more telling the truth about Dolan. No more point out that he really doesn't know what he is talking about. No more point out that he is either the world's greatest fool; or perhaps a liar. My signature is not content. [...] Never fear, I know how to stay focused and will never let simpletons like you distract me from that focus. If and when I get off the subject, it will be because I choose to get off the subject, and not because you choose to get off the subject. Well, I hate to disregard the panic call for content but just what is your focus? Denying citizens of the U.S. access to public land? Or is it just the old bigot's war cry - "They are different, Get 'em" Read my signature below. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...] Quad erat demonstrandum; hiking and biking are both recreations. But not the same KIND of recreation. Both purpose and means are different. It doesn't matter whether they are the same KIND or not ... they are both recreations therefore both entitled to the same consideration in terms of their use of public resource. If that were true then all recreations would be equal, which they clearly are not. Different recreations have to be managed differently. 1. Note that in all the videos there are hardly any people ... for the vast majority of the time there is no interaction with other trail users. Therefore, there should be no issue in sharing these trails at all. 2. Perceptions of speed can be very misleading and you should also remember that mountain bikes are equipped with very powerful disk brakes; we can stop much more quickly than most hikers or road cyclists would imagine. 1. Obviously you do not care what anyone has to to say about a situation. They are all lying thru their teeth? Right? I'm not listening to what people say ... I'm watching the video links which you posted ! The evidence of my eyes is clear ... hardly any interaction ... lots of open space with no people. Videos are like statistics. They have to be interpreted. What people say is the only thing that matters. The videos are there for the mentally impaired. 2. Speed doesn't matter since bikes have brakes and can stop whenever and wherever? Good to know that bit of information, although what it has to do with bikes on trails is not readily apparent. You need to see a psychiatrist to find out what is making your brain tick! Sorry Ed, I was assuming that you had a modicum of intelligence and that therefore you would get the point. Let me set it out for you in simple words ... Your post cited speed and the risk of collisions as a concern. Powerful brakes slow you down very quickly. A bike therefore appearing to be travelling too fast to stop is, in fact, perfectly able to do so before impacting a hiker, equestrian or other trail user. Get it now ? Nope, I will never get it because disparate speeds on trails are extremely dangerous, brakes or no brakes. Motorcycles also have brakes but do you want them on the same trails as bikes? Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
And I have also stated that I don't care what you think, particularly since you are all over the place with your pronouncements. You're happy to permit running ... which is clearly not about "communing with nature" but have a huge issue with bikes. Edward Dolan wrote: Not caring what is said and refuting what is said are two different things. Too bad you can't refute anything except crying like a baby when you can't have your way. I don't have to refute what you think Ed ... it's just your opinion. I HAVE refuted most of your propositions ... but you can continue to think whatever you like. Your refutations only work if one accepts your ethos, which civilized hikers reject. The two recreations are entirely different, both with respect to purpose and means. And ? So what ? They are still both recreations ... deserving of equal treatment and access to public resources. One is not axiomatically better than the other ... Not to be able to make meaningful distinctions marks you as an idiot. You did go to college, did you not? How the hell did we get to 'death merchant' and surely even you don't have the sheer effrontery to try and claim that you care about injuries to mountainbikers ? You've written enough times that you like to see them injured and killed in this thread. You don't want them to stop for their own good, you want them to stop so that you can enjoy your recreation in magnificent solitude. I want them to stop - period. What does the reason matter? You want them to continue - period. What does the reason matter? They will continue to injure and kill themselves because of slobs like you, not because of slobs like me. You are indeed a merchant of death. I don't want them to continue ... I want them to decide for themselves. You're the authoritarian here ... I'm for free choice. I am for free choice too, accept when it conflicts with someone else’s free choice. When choices conflict, decisions have to be made by authorities as to whom has priority. It is called government. And I have already stated repeatedly that I regard you as a fool for risking life and limb doing stupid things. You are certainly welcome to kill yourself, but you advocate that others go and do what you do. No Ed, I did NOT advocat that others do what I do. I said they should have the choice. It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them. That makes you a merchant of death. You are a form of poison to humanity - and you illustrate perfectly the mountain biker ethos. I don't want you and your ilk anywhere near hiking trails. Live a little Ed .. you might enjoy it. If everyone was as risk averse as you we would still be sitting in caves. Remember mountainbiking is pretty safe ... safer than road cycling, rugby, american football, driving a car etc etc etc. Accidents happen in any field of activity, but almost always due to errors involved. Mountain biking is different. You do what you are suppose to do and still have terrible inevitable accidents, accidents that paralyze and kill. It is actually a form of insanity. I do indeed want others to make up their own minds. But let them make up their own minds riding trails designed for wheels and not trails designed for walking. I am not a merchant of death like you are. No Ed, you don't want them to make up their own minds ... you want to force them off the trails. Trails to which they have every bit as much right as you. Unlike Mr. Vandeman I am not opposed to cycling on trails. I just want cyclists to get their own trails entirely separated from trails used by hikers. I think if cycling trails were properly designed they could be made fairly safe for casual cyclists. The macho types will always find ways to kill themselves. That is a given. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: Blackblade is relying on statistics which are always flawed. Such numbers never measure with any precision what they say they are measuring. Yes, they are measuring "something", but exactly what is difficult to say. Polls are equally unreliable. Better to get actual reports from the field on what is happening. At least that way you will know something worth knowing. Statistics, if ethically prepared and processed, will always have errors ... and usually the error bounds are actually stated. You're only getting field reports from those who agree with you ... so, unless they are a majority, they are unrepresentative of the whole trail using community. It's like concluding that the entire US population are satanists because you conducted your survey at a black mass :-). The reports are numerous enough and far reaching enough to constitute an accurate account of the conflicts that are occurring. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"John B." wrote in message ...
[...] But if the criminals can have their man standing in the heavenly ranks it would be a shame of the liars were denied representation. All we need to do is martyrize Dolan and he could stand on the left hand side of the big chair :-) Mountain bikers lie all the time about everything. It is why all discussion with them is a dead end. Post content or get lost. What an Asshole! Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
It doesn't matter whether they are the same KIND or not
... they are both recreations therefore both entitled to the same consideration in terms of their use of public resource. If that were true then all recreations would be equal, which they clearly are not. Different recreations have to be managed differently. Stop dodging the point. You are arguing that one recreation is superior to another, which you can do, but what you can't do is refute that they are both recreations and, hence, one is not more axiomatically valid than the other. You keep trying to secure a privileged position for hiking but it is, in fact, just another recreation. I'm not listening to what people say ... I'm watching the video links which you posted !* The evidence of my eyes is clear ... hardly any interaction ... lots of open space with no people. Videos are like statistics. They have to be interpreted. What people say is the only thing that matters. The videos are there for the mentally impaired. YOU posted the video links Ed ! Are you mentally impaired ? Why do you keep posting evidence that refutes your own positions ? Powerful brakes slow you down very quickly. A bike therefore appearing to be travelling too fast to stop is, in fact, perfectly able to do so before impacting a hiker, equestrian or other trail user. Get it now ? Nope, I will never get it because disparate speeds on trails are extremely dangerous, brakes or no brakes. I think you'll find that, provided you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear, that there is no issue whatsoever with disparate speeds. Why do you care what speed I'm doing elsewhere as long as I pass you carefully and slowly and don't put you at risk ? |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
I don't have to refute what you think Ed ... it's just
your opinion. I HAVE refuted most of your propositions ... but you can continue to think whatever you like. Your refutations only work if one accepts your ethos, which civilized hikers reject. You've not shown that. YOU reject it but you're hardly objective, or that civilised given your penchant for profanity. And ? So what ? They are still both recreations ... deserving of equal treatment and access to public resources. One is not axiomatically better than the other ... Not to be able to make meaningful distinctions marks you as an idiot. You did go to college, did you not? Ah well, I suppose consistency would be too much to expect. You're usually accusing me of making meaningless distinctions. Your distinction, in this case, is simply that you prefer one recreation over another. You can't objectively assert why this should be the case hence your retreat into emotive language and "it's obvious" type statements. I want them to stop - period. What does the reason matter? You want them to continue - period. What does the reason matter? They will continue to injure and kill themselves because of slobs like you, not because of slobs like me. You are indeed a merchant of death. I don't want them to continue ... I want them to decide for themselves. You're the authoritarian here ... I'm for free choice. I am for free choice too, accept when it conflicts with someone else's free choice. When choices conflict, decisions have to be made by authorities as to whom has priority. It is called government. When choices conflict, and the merits of the activities are similar, then what is needed is compromise. Something I suggest you consider. No Ed, I did NOT advocate that others do what I do. I said they should have the choice. It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them. How ? That's a ludicrous statement. I don't want to go base jumping but I am fully supportive of others' rights to do so if they wish. I'm not promoting an activity, I'm promoting freedom of choice. Live a little Ed .. you might enjoy it. If everyone was as risk averse as you we would still be sitting in caves. Remember mountainbiking is pretty safe ... safer than road cycling, rugby, american football, driving a car etc etc etc. Accidents happen in any field of activity, but almost always due to errors involved. Mountain biking is different. You do what you are suppose to do and still have terrible inevitable accidents, accidents that paralyze and kill. It is actually a form of insanity. I was almost tempted to let this slide as it's so ridiculous. When you tackle someone on the American Football or Rugby fields you are doing what you are supposed to do. It does sometimes result in injury. You are NOT intending to fall off a mountain bike. That just happens sometimes. However, the statistics don't lie ... there are way more serious injuries from American Football and Rugby (and many other sports) than mountain biking. Unlike Mr. Vandeman I am not opposed to cycling on trails. I just want cyclists to get their own trails entirely separated from trails used by hikers. I think if cycling trails were properly designed they could be made fairly safe for casual cyclists. The macho types will always find ways to kill themselves. That is a given. Sometimes I agree ... some tracks should be exclusive. But, from the evidence in the videos that you posted, you can see the sparsity of use on most trails. I cannot see any validity in suggesting that it is necessary to double up on trails in such cases. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
It doesn't matter whether they are the same KIND or not ... they are both recreations therefore both entitled to the same consideration in terms of their use of public resource. If that were true then all recreations would be equal, which they clearly are not. Different recreations have to be managed differently. Stop dodging the point. You are arguing that one recreation is superior to another, which you can do, but what you can't do is refute that they are both recreations and, hence, one is not more axiomatically valid than the other. You keep trying to secure a privileged position for hiking but it is, in fact, just another recreation. I have already conceded that they are both recreations (not sure how “valid” mountain biking is though), but they have to be managed differently. Hiking is clearly a superior recreation compared to mountain biking, but even if it weren't, it would still have to be managed differently. I'm not listening to what people say ... I'm watching the video links which you posted ! The evidence of my eyes is clear ... hardly any interaction ... lots of open space with no people. Videos are like statistics. They have to be interpreted. What people say is the only thing that matters. The videos are there for the mentally impaired. YOU posted the video links Ed ! Are you mentally impaired ? Why do you keep posting evidence that refutes your own positions ? If you really want to see how mountain bikers behave on trails, go to YouTube where you can see tons and tons of videos showing bikers ****ing up the trails. Trust me on this, you would not want to be on any hiking trails used by mountain bikers. Powerful brakes slow you down very quickly. A bike therefore appearing to be travelling too fast to stop is, in fact, perfectly able to do so before impacting a hiker, equestrian or other trail user. Get it now ? Nope, I will never get it because disparate speeds on trails are extremely dangerous, brakes or no brakes. I think you'll find that, provided you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear, that there is no issue whatsoever with disparate speeds. Why do you care what speed I'm doing elsewhere as long as I pass you carefully and slowly and don't put you at risk ? Trails wend and wind and sightlines are sometimes practically nil. A biker can be on you before he even sees you. The truth of the matter is that bikers do not like to brake under any circumstances. You need to answer the question of why motorcycles and bikes should not share the same trails. After all, they both not only have wheels, but have brakes too! Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
I don't have to refute what you think Ed ... it's just your opinion. I HAVE refuted most of your propositions ... but you can continue to think whatever you like. Your refutations only work if one accepts your ethos, which civilized hikers reject. You've not shown that. YOU reject it but you're hardly objective, or that civilised given your penchant for profanity. What constitutes a superior ethos? Just one thing. The judgment of your superiors. Democracy is for slobs. I use profanity when I am dealing with slobs. After all, it is their language which they understand fully. Why waste civilized discourse on them? And ? So what ? They are still both recreations ... deserving of equal treatment and access to public resources. One is not axiomatically better than the other ... Not to be able to make meaningful distinctions marks you as an idiot. You did go to college, did you not? Ah well, I suppose consistency would be too much to expect. You're usually accusing me of making meaningless distinctions. Your distinction, in this case, is simply that you prefer one recreation over another. You can't objectively assert why this should be the case hence your retreat into emotive language and "it's obvious" type statements. You want all recreations and recreationalists to be treated equally, This marks you as an idiot. You do indeed make many meaningless distinctions but seem unable to make meaningful distinctions. You need to ask yourself why this is so. If you were college educated, you should be able to make MEANINGFUL distinctions with ease. [...] I am for free choice too, accept when it conflicts with someone else's free choice. When choices conflict, decisions have to be made by authorities as to whom has priority. It is called government. When choices conflict, and the merits of the activities are similar, then what is needed is compromise. Something I suggest you consider. I have compromised, by allowing cyclists to have their own trails separate from hiking trails, something Mr. Vandeman would never permit. No Ed, I did NOT advocate that others do what I do. I said they should have the choice. It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them. How ? That's a ludicrous statement. I don't want to go base jumping but I am fully supportive of others' rights to do so if they wish. I'm not promoting an activity, I'm promoting freedom of choice. “It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them.” – Ed Dolan Live a little Ed .. you might enjoy it. If everyone was as risk averse as you we would still be sitting in caves. Remember mountainbiking is pretty safe ... safer than road cycling, rugby, american football, driving a car etc etc etc. Accidents happen in any field of activity, but almost always due to errors involved. Mountain biking is different. You do what you are suppose to do and still have terrible inevitable accidents, accidents that paralyze and kill. It is actually a form of insanity. I was almost tempted to let this slide as it's so ridiculous. When you tackle someone on the American Football or Rugby fields you are doing what you are supposed to do. It does sometimes result in injury. You are NOT intending to fall off a mountain bike. That just happens sometimes. However, the statistics don't lie ... there are way more serious injuries from American Football and Rugby (and many other sports) than mountain biking. Statistics lie all the time because they never precisely measure what they purport to measure. Reports from the field are what matter and they prove that cycling on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. This is glossed over by the mountain biking community so that even kids, women and the elderly are encouraged to go mountain biking. The only ludicrous one here is you. However, you are quite right to compare mountain biking to rough contact sports. Hiking on the other hand has never been considered any kind of sport as far as I know. It is simply an actively, good for body and soul. Unlike Mr. Vandeman I am not opposed to cycling on trails. I just want cyclists to get their own trails entirely separated from trails used by hikers. I think if cycling trails were properly designed they could be made fairly safe for casual cyclists. The macho types will always find ways to kill themselves. That is a given. Sometimes I agree ... some tracks should be exclusive. But, from the evidence in the videos that you posted, you can see the sparsity of use on most trails. I cannot see any validity in suggesting that it is necessary to double up on trails in such cases. Separate trails for cyclists are the ONLY solution. I do not want cyclists on my trails anymore than you want motorcyclists on your trails. Sparsity of use has nothing to do with it. Hikers and cyclists are DOING different things on the trails and in fact are there for DIFFERENT purposes. Therefore, different trails are called for. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Just whenever I think there can’t possibly be a God, I am brought up short by a report such as this one. Yea, there must be a God after all if there can be this kind of strict justice in the world.
”Mountain bikers think nothing of riding illegally -- until they are the victim of it. http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/s...es-toll/?cs=12 Bulli trail bike ride takes toll By BREE FULLER Feb. 26, 2014, 4:10 a.m. A Wollongong council worker hit and seriously injured a mountain biker while riding his trail bike illegally. Bulli trail bike ride takes toll A Wollongong City Council worker who hit and seriously injured a mountain biker while riding his trail bike illegally in bushland has been criticised by a magistrate for his irresponsible behaviour. Wollongong Local Court heard Tim Crinnion was riding illegally in the Illawarra Escarpment State Conservation Area on December 22, 2012, when he hit a cyclist travelling south on the Lower Escarpment Trail at Bulli. The collision, on a blind corner, threw both men from their bikes and knocked them unconscious. The impact was so severe it snapped the carbon fibre mountain bike frame and witnesses reported hearing a "loud cracking noise". Both men suffered significant injuries and were airlifted from Bulli Showground to hospital. The court heard that Crinnion was riding illegally on the trail, despite clear signage banning trail bikes from the environmentally sensitive area. Magistrate Geraldine Beattie, who accepted Crinnion had no criminal history and was otherwise of good character, said the signs were there to prevent such accidents. "That is the very thing we are trying to stop by keeping motorbikes out of there. "It is of concern that someone of good character and in a responsible position thought it was OK to ride a [trail] bike in that area in contravention of those signs," she said. The cyclist, who spent five days in hospital as a result of the accident, suffered fractures to his right leg, hand, elbow, ribs, and a suspected skull fracture. He was unable to return to work until late February 2013. The court heard Crinnion suffered a badly broken jaw and multiple fractures to the skull. He has also suffered from depression and anxiety following the accident and sold his bike. The magistrate accepted Crinnion was remorseful for the crime and had attempted to contact his victim personally. The court heard he had already paid the victim $5000 as compensation for damages to his mountain bike. She fined him $2250 and ordered him to pay an additional $1000 for professional costs.” These two bozos richly deserved one another. This is the world of risk that Blackblade would willing undertake, all in the name of fun and games. The “thrill” would have been worth it according to him. Well, if you want to have this kind of fun, then this is how you pay for it. I don’t think hikers would ever have suffered an accident like this one no matter how hard they tried. Of course, given cyclists on hiking trails, anything is possible. Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Another mountain biker bites the dust! He was a scientist, but as dumb as a rock for mountain biking when he should have been hiking.
“http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/n...-dies-suddenly A Motueka scientist and Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit has died suddenly while mountainbiking. Tony Whitaker dedicated his working life to studying New Zealand and Pacific amphibians. He was also deeply involved in several conservation projects and biosecurity work... Mr Whitaker said then that one of his achievements in New Zealand had been becoming the first person to recognise that rodents were a problem for native lizards. (But the guy could not see past his mtbing blindness to realize his mtn bike was also a problem??! I can't feel sorry for people like this...Are they all that daft?)” Hey, this is the price you pay for thrills and spills. Is it worth it? Just ask Blackblade. He will tell you that it is worth it because the guy was doing what he wanted to do (freedom of choice), even if it killed him. Typical mountain biker ethos. Damn the torpedoes – full speed ahead! I have got hundreds of reports like this one in my grubby little hands, yet Blackblade the Blind will tell you that the statistics say this “sport” is safe. I wish death and destruction on all who desecrate nature with their god damn ****ing bikes. It is nothing but just deserts – God punishing the Wicked. “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Mountain biking is not only dangerous to the riders themselves, but is also devastating to the trails and trail sides and destroys values that other users would enjoy.
“Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 20:56:14 -0800 Subject: The Hidden Costs of Mountain Biking A Trip Up Romero Canyon With Native Plant Enthusiast Frank Sovich From: Karen Sullivan have you seen this? http://www.independent.com/news/2008...untain-biking/ Thursday, May 8, 2008 by RAY FORD (CONTACT) Frank Sovich loves hiking Romero Canyon and you can tell it as we walk up the trail. We stop at one point to check out a cluster lupine along the edge of the trail, perfectly placed to provide a dash of color to the overwhelmingly green canopy that covers most of the skyline. The joy on his face as he tells me about them says it all. Frank is from Carpinteria but with no trail access there he spends much of his time hiking Romero - often once or twice a week. "I've got a thing for native plants," Frank explains, "and the canyon is a great place to enjoy them. Over the course of the next hour we check out a dozen or more other plant species including one of my favorites, the Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii), a tall thin reed-like perennial that grows to heights of 8 feet and produce clusters of the most intensely brilliant orangish-yellow flowers, jewels of the canyon if only for the few weeks when they are in blossom. "I'm not quite sure why this year," Frank tells me, "but they've come up in much larger number than I've seen in quite a while." At one point just above one of the many creek crossings there is a small pool, perfectly located about halfway up the canyon trail. We stop to splash a bit of water on our faces, sit back enjoy the sound of a nearby canyon wren and the small waterfall that cascades into the pool. It is an idyllic moment, the kind that makes having such places so close to Santa Barbara such a special treat. Trailside plants are especially susceptible to damage by users. Frank has added rocks along the edges of the lillies to discourage bikers from hitting the plants. Click to enlarge photo Ray Ford Trailside plants are especially susceptible to damage by users. Frank has added rocks along the edges of the lillies to discourage bikers from hitting the plants. Then we are back on the trail again. A few minutes later Frank points a long section by the side of the trail that is filled with several dozen of the lilies. "Look closely," Frank shows me, "many of the stems are broken in half. A few others are just plain crushed." It becomes evident after a bit of looking about that the reason for the damage is the increased use of the trail by mountain bikers who aren't always good at staying on the trail. As we continue up the trail Frank points out numerous places where the trail is being widened as the bikers seek out new lines to follow. "I've been hiking Romero since the early 1990s and regularly for the past 4-5 years and I'm seeing more and more damage," Frank adds. "It isn't just the impacts from the mountain biking but the rapidity of the damage they are causing." It has gotten to such a point that Sovich is now placing small rocks along the sides of the trail where the lupine lilies and other fragile canyon vegetation grows to help keep them from being run over. That may save a few plants but he wonders what the canyon will look like another ten years from now if the use increases. Mountain bikes cause the trail to become grooved when they speed down the trail and brake hard into the corners. Click to enlarge photo Ray Ford Mountain bikes cause the trail to become grooved when they speed down the trail and brake hard into the corners. The damage is especially evident where the trail gets steeper and particularly where it is both steep and rocky - which is about 80% of the trail. "Not only are some parts of the trail now 5-6 feet wide, in many places the bikes are riding up on the side of the hills above the trail, widening them even further," Frank adds. "Then there are the impacts caused by over use of the brakes when the riders go so fast down the trails. The trail getting more grooved and the tires are knocking rocks down on the trail, making it especially difficult to hike back down the trail without slipping all over the place." This past March 22 marked the day Sovich decided he couldn't take it anymore. Over the forty-five minutes that it usually takes him to hike up the canyon with his dogs, 17 mountain bikers came by. "They were all polite," he remembers, "and there wasn't a question of either me or the dogs being in danger. It was what this kind of use was going to do to the canyon over time. This is an example of a spot along the trail where mountain bikes have cut a new shortcut down a steep section. The branches have been put in place to discourage continued use by bikers. "I'm not normally very aggressive when it comes to standing up and saying enough is enough, but that day that many mountain bikers coming down the trail was a few too many. When I got home I took out a list I'd gotten from one of the local trail groups of newspapers, agencies and organizations and started writing to anyone and everyone." While many trail user organizations, especially those committed to keeping the trails open to mountain biking, were busy defending their rights at the Task Force meetings set up to study user conflict issues on the trails, Sovich was taking a different point of tack, choosing to speak out for the protection of the trails themselves and the canyon ecosystems rather than the users themselves. Once the grooves begin developing the trail can break down quite rapidly. Click to enlarge photo Ray Ford Once the grooves begin developing the trail can break down quite rapidly. "Is anyone out there talking about what the costs are for allowing downhill use of the trails by mountain bikers?" he asked. "It isn't just the damage to the plants or the trails, it's the increased cost of maintenance, the added trail signage, the money we'll need to come up with to rebuild the trails to accommodate mountain biking, the impacts on other trail users rights, the difference it makes psychologically when you add mechanized vehicles on the trail - these are big costs. "Does the community really understand how much it will really cost and what the impacts will be if we don't close at least some of the trails to mountain biking? If I were king for a day, I'd close the Romero Canyon Trail for sure, especially since the old road provides a perfectly great route for them to get up to the top of the mountains. Mountain bikers have the capability of going off the two-foot wide tread and often do as shown here where they've scarred the hillside above the trail. "Then I'd take a new look at how we define multi-use. For mechanized uses such as mountain biking, generally the trails are open until someone proves they shouldn't be. It ought to be the other way around: the trails should be closed to those uses until it's proved they're not only safe but the damage they cause can be dealt with.” But Blackblade sees none of this. He is too busy looking at the latest numbers (statistics) to come out of some research agency about how safe mountain biking is compared to some other stupid sport. Numbers are all that matter to him. What of any of the finer things that only hikers and equestrians will notice? He cares not a wit at what may be beside the trail and what damage he may be doing to it. Hells Bells, he does not even SEE anything – except the trail itself as an obstacle course to be overcome. 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 injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when the manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
I have already conceded that they are both recreations (not
sure how "valid" mountain biking is though), but they have to be managed differently. Hiking is clearly a superior recreation compared to mountain biking, but even if it weren't, it would still have to be managed differently. Hiking is NOT "clearly a superior recreation". That's a value judgement that many (possibly most) would not share. All recreations have to be managed sensibly ... but that means pragmatic solutions to individual circumstances ... not messianic proclamations ! YOU posted the video links Ed ! Are you mentally impaired ? Why do you keep posting evidence that refutes your own positions ? If you really want to see how mountain bikers behave on trails, go to YouTube where you can see tons and tons of videos showing bikers ****ing up the trails. Trust me on this, you would not want to be on any hiking trails used by mountain bikers. Ed, YOU posted these links. Are they not representative of reality now ? If so, why did you post them ? I think you'll find that, provided you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear, that there is no issue whatsoever with disparate speeds. Why do you care what speed I'm doing elsewhere as long as I pass you carefully and slowly and don't put you at risk ? Trails wend and wind and sightlines are sometimes practically nil. What bit of "stop within the distance you can see to be clear" was unclear Ed ? If the sightline is practically nil then the speed needs to be that much slower. If it's a long way ahead then speed can be much higher. Simple. A biker can be on you before he even sees you. The truth of the matter is that bikers do not like to brake under any circumstances. You need to answer the question of why motorcycles and bikes should not share the same trails. After all, they both not only have wheels, but have brakes too! Oh do stop going in circles ... it's very tiresome. I've addressed this issue ad nauseum. If power, speed, weight, noise and environmental damage differences between powered trail bikes and mountain bikes are not obvious to you then you need glasses and a hearing aid. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You've not shown that. YOU reject it but you're hardly
objective, or that civilised given your penchant for profanity. What constitutes a superior ethos? Just one thing. The judgment of your superiors. Well, I think I am superior to you ... I guess you think the opposite. I'm happy to be judged by others based on what I've written here ... are you ? When choices conflict, and the merits of the activities are similar, then what is needed is compromise. Something I suggest you consider. I have compromised, by allowing cyclists to have their own trails separate from hiking trails, something Mr. Vandeman would never permit. It's not your decision to make Ed ... you don't own the resource. How ? That's a ludicrous statement. I don't want to go base jumping but I am fully supportive of others' rights to do so if they wish.. I'm not promoting an activity, I'm promoting freedom of choice. "It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them." - Ed Dolan You are clearly missing the point ... suggest you go back, re-read and think some more. Permitting others to make a free choice does not equate to promotion. I was almost tempted to let this slide as it's so ridiculous. When you tackle someone on the American Football or Rugby fields you are doing what you are supposed to do. It does sometimes result in injury. You are NOT intending to fall off a mountain bike. That just happens sometimes. However, the statistics don't lie ... there are way more serious injuries from American Football and Rugby (and many other sports) than mountain biking. Statistics lie all the time because they never precisely measure what they purport to measure. Reports from the field are what matter and they prove that cycling on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. This is glossed over by the mountain biking community so that even kids, women and the elderly are encouraged to go mountain biking. The only ludicrous one here is you. Well, all the "reports from the field" that your pal Vandeman can come up with equate to a death rate of 0.00123 per million miles travelled ... making mountainbiking a pretty safe endeavour. Even the reports from your supporters don't support your proposition. However, you are quite right to compare mountain biking to rough contact sports. Hiking on the other hand has never been considered any kind of sport as far as I know. It is simply an actively, good for body and soul. Sport is good for body and soul ... I suggest you try it. Not everyone wants to amble slowly ... perhaps you have forgotten what it is to be young ? Separate trails for cyclists are the ONLY solution. I do not want cyclists on my trails anymore than you want motorcyclists on your trails. Sparsity of use has nothing to do with it. Hikers and cyclists are DOING different things on the trails and in fact are there for DIFFERENT purposes. Therefore, different trails are called for. They are not yours !!!! Nor mine for that matter. Cyclists and hikers are participating in a recreational activity. There is only such much resource to go around. Therefore, they are going to have to SHARE sometimes ! Not all the time, but sometimes. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
I don't know about you, but I would rather hear from an expert in the field
than from bozo mountain bikers who are mostly jerk-offs and ****-ups with their brains in their groin. Despite what appears to be the ever increasing diversity of WIIFM supporters that includes some members of the more radical recreational groups of four-wheel drivers, motorcycle riders, prospectors, hunters and fishermen, they often seem to be using very similar words. You've heard from him ... he's concerned about four-wheel drivers, motorcycle riders, prospectors, hunters and fishermen. I don't see mountainbikers in that list ... probably because they have about the same impact as hikers. If an area needs to be off limits then so be it ... but that includes hiking too as it is also a recreation and similarly impacting ! |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
These two bozos richly deserved one another. This is the world of risk that
Blackblade would willing undertake, all in the name of fun and games. The "thrill" would have been worth it according to him. Well, if you want to have this kind of fun, then this is how you pay for it. I don't think hikers would ever have suffered an accident like this one no matter how hard they tried. Of course, given cyclists on hiking trails, anything is possible. I was very clear that you are entitled to risk only your own neck ... not others. Stop willfully misrepresenting what I said. The trail bike rider was breaking the law, clearly not riding within the 'be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear' guideline and therefore wholly at fault. If a mountainbiker rode into a hiker in similar circumstances I would happily condemn that too ... |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
This past March 22 marked the day Sovich decided he couldn't take it
anymore. Over the forty-five minutes that it usually takes him to hike up the canyon with his dogs, 17 mountain bikers came by. "They were all polite," he remembers, "and there wasn't a question of either me or the dogs being in danger. It was what this kind of use was going to do to the canyon over time. Ah, at last, we can cut to the chase. The issue has very little to do with mountainbikes vs hikers ... if there were 17 hikers also on that trail they would have caused similar levels of erosion. I note also that this guy concedes that he did not feel threatened or endangered. There is absolutely an issue ... we have to preserve the natural environment for future generations. My argument with you is that you seem to believe that hiking is entirely beneficial and mountainbiking harmful. The facts are that they are both activities which cause similar levels of erosion and there have to be user limits if we are not to destroy the things we love. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
This past March 22 marked the day Sovich decided he couldn't take it anymore. Over the forty-five minutes that it usually takes him to hike up the canyon with his dogs, 17 mountain bikers came by. "They were all polite," he remembers, "and there wasn't a question of either me or the dogs being in danger. It was what this kind of use was going to do to the canyon over time. Ah, at last, we can cut to the chase. The issue has very little to do with mountainbikes vs hikers ... if there were 17 hikers also on that trail they would have caused similar levels of erosion. I note also that this guy concedes that he did not feel threatened or endangered. There are always saps in the world who do mind being pushed aside provided it is done with politeness. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on who causes what kind of erosion. I am the expert on who should be on a trail in the first place. It has to do with purpose, not who causes the most erosion. There is absolutely an issue ... we have to preserve the natural environment for future generations. My argument with you is that you seem to believe that hiking is entirely beneficial and mountainbiking harmful. The facts are that they are both activities which cause similar levels of erosion and there have to be user limits if we are not to destroy the things we love. I suppose you would think that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles would also cause “similar” levels of erosion. All of that is a minor issue in my view. What matters to me is what one is doing on a trail in the first place. Are you contemplating nature (hikers) or are you sport riding a trail (bikers). 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 injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when the manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: These two bozos richly deserved one another. This is the world of risk that Blackblade would willing undertake, all in the name of fun and games. The "thrill" would have been worth it according to him. Well, if you want to have this kind of fun, then this is how you pay for it. I don't think hikers would ever have suffered an accident like this one no matter how hard they tried. Of course, given cyclists on hiking trails, anything is possible. I was very clear that you are entitled to risk only your own neck ... not others. Stop willfully misrepresenting what I said. You have already told me that you engage in high risk sports. I have already told you how stupid I think that is. The trail bike rider was breaking the law, clearly not riding within the 'be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear' guideline and therefore wholly at fault. If a mountainbiker rode into a hiker in similar circumstances I would happily condemn that too ... The fact is that mountain bikers are constantly breaking the law. Why? Because it is no fun to ride sedately on a trail. They are into taking risks just like you are. That is why I call them and you merchants of death. Your “freedom of choice” ethos is a dagger planted squarely at the heart of unsuspecting victims. To advocate mountain biking for kids and women is especially reprehensible. 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 injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: I don't know about you, but I would rather hear from an expert in the field than from bozo mountain bikers who are mostly jerk-offs and ****-ups with their brains in their groin. Despite what appears to be the ever increasing diversity of WIIFM supporters that includes some members of the more radical recreational groups of four-wheel drivers, motorcycle riders, prospectors, hunters and fishermen, they often seem to be using very similar words. You've heard from him ... he's concerned about four-wheel drivers, motorcycle riders, prospectors, hunters and fishermen. I don't see mountainbikers in that list ... probably because they have about the same impact as hikers. I believe he is indeed including cyclists elsewhere in his report. We do not want wheeled vehicles of any sort on hiking trails. If an area needs to be off limits then so be it ... but that includes hiking too as it is also a recreation and similarly impacting ! The impacts are quite dissimilar if you consider what people are doing on the trails in the first place. All areas walked by hikers need to be off limits to wheeled vehicles. The fact that both mountain biking and hiking are recreations has nothing to do with how to post trails. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Edward Dolan wrote: I have already conceded that they are both recreations (not sure how "valid" mountain biking is though), but they have to be managed differently. Hiking is clearly a superior recreation compared to mountain biking, but even if it weren't, it would still have to be managed differently. Hiking is NOT "clearly a superior recreation". That's a value judgement that many (possibly most) would not share. All recreations have to be managed sensibly ... but that means pragmatic solutions to individual circumstances ... not messianic proclamations ! If recreations are sufficiently different from one another, there is absolutely no way to combine them. Each recreation needs it own trails. That is the “pragmatic solution” which is apparent to all but the blind, deaf and dumb mountain bikers. YOU posted the video links Ed ! Are you mentally impaired ? Why do you keep posting evidence that refutes your own positions ? If you really want to see how mountain bikers behave on trails, go to YouTube where you can see tons and tons of videos showing bikers ****ing up the trails. Trust me on this, you would not want to be on any hiking trails used by mountain bikers. Ed, YOU posted these links. Are they not representative of reality now ? If so, why did you post them ? The thousands of videos that you will see on YouTube are representative. I no long bother looking at them they are so g.d. idiotic. I think you'll find that, provided you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear, that there is no issue whatsoever with disparate speeds. Why do you care what speed I'm doing elsewhere as long as I pass you carefully and slowly and don't put you at risk ? Trails wend and wind and sightlines are sometimes practically nil. What bit of "stop within the distance you can see to be clear" was unclear Ed ? If the sightline is practically nil then the speed needs to be that much slower. If it's a long way ahead then speed can be much higher. Simple. Nothing is ever simple when you have testosterone prone mountain bikers hogging the trails. A biker can be on you before he even sees you. The truth of the matter is that bikers do not like to brake under any circumstances. You need to answer the question of why motorcycles and bikes should not share the same trails. After all, they both not only have wheels, but have brakes too! Oh do stop going in circles ... it's very tiresome. I've addressed this issue ad nauseum. If power, speed, weight, noise and environmental damage differences between powered trail bikes and mountain bikes are not obvious to you then you need glasses and a hearing aid. If power, speed, weight, noise and environmental damage differences between mountain bikes and people walking are not obvious to you then you need glasses and a hearing aid. The only tiresome bore here is you. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when the manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
You've not shown that. YOU reject it but you're hardly objective, or that civilised given your penchant for profanity. Edward Dolan wrote: What constitutes a superior ethos? Just one thing. The judgment of your superiors. Well, I think I am superior to you ... No, I mean OUR superiors ... outside of ourselves – or maybe you think they don’t exist? That is how all art is evaluated too. What you and I like or don’t like is not that important in the grand scheme of things. We have to defer to OUR superiors because their judgment and wisdom is superior to ours. There is a vast literature of wilderness treatises and tomes written by experts whose knowledge and wisdom dwarfs our poor efforts. [...] When choices conflict, and the merits of the activities are similar, then what is needed is compromise. Something I suggest you consider. I have compromised, by allowing cyclists to have their own trails separate from hiking trails, something Mr. Vandeman would never permit. It's not your decision to make Ed ... you don't own the resource. It doesn't matter who owns the resource. It has to be managed according to best practices for the greatest benefit of us and future generations. How ? That's a ludicrous statement. I don't want to go base jumping but I am fully supportive of others' rights to do so if they wish. I'm not promoting an activity, I'm promoting freedom of choice. "It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them." - Ed Dolan You are clearly missing the point ... suggest you go back, re-read and think some more. Permitting others to make a free choice does not equate to promotion. It most certainly does promote it if you know something is dangerous and yet allow it. Regulation is at the heart of all governance. I was almost tempted to let this slide as it's so ridiculous. When you tackle someone on the American Football or Rugby fields you are doing what you are supposed to do. It does sometimes result in injury. You are NOT intending to fall off a mountain bike. That just happens sometimes. However, the statistics don't lie ... there are way more serious injuries from American Football and Rugby (and many other sports) than mountain biking. Statistics lie all the time because they never precisely measure what they purport to measure. Reports from the field are what matter and they prove that cycling on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. This is glossed over by the mountain biking community so that even kids, women and the elderly are encouraged to go mountain biking. The only ludicrous one here is you. Well, all the "reports from the field" that your pal Vandeman can come up with equate to a death rate of 0.00123 per million miles travelled ... making mountainbiking a pretty safe endeavour. Even the reports from your supporters don't support your proposition. The reports are numerous enough and broadly-based enough to absolutely support the proposition that mountain biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. No one, not even you, know how to read numbers presented as a statistic. However, you are quite right to compare mountain biking to rough contact sports. Hiking on the other hand has never been considered any kind of sport as far as I know. It is simply an actively, good for body and soul. Sport is good for body and soul ... I suggest you try it. Not everyone wants to amble slowly ... perhaps you have forgotten what it is to be young ? Enjoy any sport you want. Just don’t do it on a hiking trail. Separate trails for cyclists are the ONLY solution. I do not want cyclists on my trails anymore than you want motorcyclists on your trails. Sparsity of use has nothing to do with it. Hikers and cyclists are DOING different things on the trails and in fact are there for DIFFERENT purposes. Therefore, different trails are called for. They are not yours !!!! Nor mine for that matter. Cyclists and hikers are participating in a recreational activity. There is only so much resource to go around. Therefore, they are going to have to SHARE sometimes ! Not all the time, but sometimes. There is plenty of resource to go around. Bikers are Johnnies come lately to trails. It is up to them to get their own trails. Moreover their trails do not need to be in pristine wilderness areas. Hell Bells, that is way too good for their ilk. I have previously suggested that abandoned city dumps would be a good area for them to exploit. Another idea would be for ski resorts to develop trails for them which is already happening in a few areas. 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 injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
Ah, at last, we can cut to the chase. The issue has very
little to do with mountainbikes vs hikers ... if there were 17 hikers also on that trail they would have caused similar levels of erosion. I note also that this guy concedes that he did not feel threatened or endangered. There are always saps in the world who do mind being pushed aside provided it is done with politeness. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on who causes what kind of erosion. I am the expert on who should be on a trail in the first place. It has to do with purpose, not who causes the most erosion. What expertise do you have Ed ? I see none aside from your own prejudice. If you don't have an issue on the grounds of erosion, which is what the article is about, and there isn't an issue on the grounds of conflict between users then what, precisely, are you objecting to ? There is absolutely an issue ... we have to preserve the natural environment for future generations. My argument with you is that you seem to believe that hiking is entirely beneficial and mountainbiking harmful. The facts are that they are both activities which cause similar levels of erosion and there have to be user limits if we are not to destroy the things we love. I suppose you would think that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles would also cause "similar" levels of erosion. No, Ed, the research suggests that hikers and bikers cause similar levels of erosion ... horses and powered vehicles cause far far more. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers - rant snipped I get it .. you don't like mountainbikers. You don't need to re-post the same text incessantly ... it just makes you look foolish. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
I was very clear that you are entitled to risk only your own neck
... not others. Stop willfully misrepresenting what I said. You have already told me that you engage in high risk sports. I have already told you how stupid I think that is. And you're entitled to your viewpoint. I am similarly entitled to disagree and completely ignore you. It's really nothing to do with you. The fact is that mountain bikers are constantly breaking the law. Why? Because it is no fun to ride sedately on a trail. They are into taking risks just like you are. That is why I call them and you merchants of death. And your point is what ? That some sections of the populace want to experience riskier activities ? No **** sherlock ! There are hormonal changes in the body, including the reduction in testosterone, that predispose older men to becoming more risk averse. So, true, for large sections of the population a gentle ramble through the woods is not likely to trigger much dopamine nor nor-adrenaline. However, were that not the case human development would have stalled a long time ago; risk taking behaviour is, provided not taken to excess, a good thing. Your "freedom of choice" ethos is a dagger planted squarely at the heart of unsuspecting victims. Well, the alternative is fascism (or nanny stateism). Adults are entitled to risk their own necks. 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. Stop ranting ... it doesn't get any more convincing for multiple repeats. When they crash and injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! Sociopath. (And you might want to look at your grammar too ... it should be crash and injure) |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
You've heard from him ... he's concerned about four-wheel drivers,
motorcycle riders, prospectors, hunters and fishermen.* I don't see mountainbikers in that list ... probably because they have about the same impact as hikers. I believe he is indeed including cyclists elsewhere in his report. We do not want wheeled vehicles of any sort on hiking trails. Ah, you believe that do you ? Like you believed that there were thousands of hiker/biker collisions but, in reality, there weren't. Your beliefs, right now, have very little credibility. I suggest you either backup your beliefs with objective facts or avoid making statements that you have to later retract. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
All recreations have to be managed sensibly ... but that means
pragmatic solutions to individual circumstances ... not messianic proclamations ! If recreations are sufficiently different from one another, there is absolutely no way to combine them. Each recreation needs it own trails. That is the "pragmatic solution" which is apparent to all but the blind, deaf and dumb mountain bikers. Why Ed ? There is no reason whatsoever why most trails can't be shared. Sharing works fine in most places. The videos you posted show the completely ridiculous nature of your position; you would advocate creating new trails when those videos clearly show that the existing ones are very lightly trafficked with hardly any conflict. Ed, YOU posted these links. Are they not representative of reality now ? If so, why did you post them ? The thousands of videos that you will see on YouTube are representative. I no long bother looking at them they are so g.d. idiotic. You are going in circles. You posted videos then decided you didn't like what they showed so you want to refer to some amorphous 'other' ones on YouTube. Your case is completely shot. Why do you keep posting 'evidence' that doesn't support your propositions ? What bit of "stop within the distance you can see to be clear" was unclear Ed ? If the sightline is practically nil then the speed needs to be that much slower. If it's a long way ahead then speed can be much higher. Simple. Nothing is ever simple when you have testosterone prone mountain bikers hogging the trails. Ah, and back to ad hominem attacks rather than facts. I would also note that, bereft testosterone, the human race would have died out. You do sound like a rather bitter old man; did you never live a little when younger ? Oh do stop going in circles ... it's very tiresome. I've addressed this issue ad nauseum. If power, speed, weight, noise and environmental damage differences between powered trail bikes and mountain bikes are not obvious to you then you need glasses and a hearing aid. If power, speed, weight, noise and environmental damage differences between mountain bikes and people walking are not obvious to you then you need glasses and a hearing aid. The only tiresome bore here is you. Power; exactly the same (1 human power = approx 750 watts max) Speed; Approximately 2x on average Weight; Approx 15% higher for biker Noise; equivalent Environmental impact; equivalent The facts, as usual, don't support you Ed. Mountain bikers are barbarians ... rant snipped Do stop with the ranting ... makes you look very foolish. |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
Ah, at last, we can cut to the chase. The issue has very little to do with mountainbikes vs hikers ... if there were 17 hikers also on that trail they would have caused similar levels of erosion. I note also that this guy concedes that he did not feel threatened or endangered. Edward Dolan wrote: There are always saps in the world who do [not] mind being pushed aside provided it is done with politeness. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on who causes what kind of erosion. I am the expert on who should be on a trail in the first place. It has to do with purpose, not who causes the most erosion. What expertise do you have Ed ? I see none aside from your own prejudice. I claim expertise based on all the idiots I have to deal with here on this newsgroup. If you don't have an issue on the grounds of erosion, which is what the article is about, and there isn't an issue on the grounds of conflict between users then what, precisely, are you objecting to ? This thread is not about any single issue, but about bikes on trails - period! There is a conflict between users based on purpose. Hikers use trails for contemplating and communing with nature. Bikers use trails for sport riding as on an obstacle course. Different universes! There is absolutely an issue ... we have to preserve the natural environment for future generations. My argument with you is that you seem to believe that hiking is entirely beneficial and mountainbiking harmful. The facts are that they are both activities which cause similar levels of erosion and there have to be user limits if we are not to destroy the things we love. I suppose you would think that motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles would also cause "similar" levels of erosion. No, Ed, the research suggests that hikers and bikers cause similar levels of erosion ... horses and powered vehicles cause far far more. It is not just a question of who is causing more erosion, but also a question of what kind of erosion is being caused by the different modes. Bikers cause one kind of erosion peculiar to wheels, hikers cause quite another kind of erosion due to boots. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers - rant snipped I get it .. you don't like mountainbikers. You don't need to re-post the same text incessantly ... it just makes you look foolish. It is part of my signature, Get used to it because it defines my position exactly. Others may be reading these posts besides us, and I want them to know where I stand without any equivocation. 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 injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! “Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.” ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24), from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets" Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads. Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk? Ed Dolan the Great aka Saint Edward the Great |
The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
I was very clear that you are entitled to risk only your own neck ... not others. Stop willfully misrepresenting what I said. Edward Dolan wrote: You have already told me that you engage in high risk sports. I have already told you how stupid I think that is. And you're entitled to your viewpoint. I am similarly entitled to disagree and completely ignore you. It's really nothing to do with you. I will not feel any sympathy for you when you end up paralyzed from the neck down like that other idiot Christopher Reeves (Superman). The fact is that mountain bikers are constantly breaking the law. Why? Because it is no fun to ride sedately on a trail. They are into taking risks just like you are. That is why I call them and you merchants of death. And your point is what ? That some sections of the populace want to experience riskier activities ? No **** sherlock ! There are hormonal changes in the body, including the reduction in testosterone, that predispose older men to becoming more risk averse. So, true, for large sections of the population a gentle ramble through the woods is not likely to trigger much dopamine nor nor-adrenaline. However, were that not the case human development would have stalled a long time ago; risk taking behaviour is, provided not taken to excess, a good thing. Take your god damn ****ing risk taking (mountain biking) anywhere except on my sacred trails! By the way, your true home is an amusement park featuring scary rides. There you can get your adrenalin rush and still be safe. Your "freedom of choice" ethos is a dagger planted squarely at the heart of unsuspecting victims. Well, the alternative is fascism (or nanny stateism). Adults are entitled to risk their own necks. Stupid is as stupid does. Anyone who risks their necks for a thrill is not an adult. Such an idiot is a juvenile. 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. Stop ranting ... it doesn't get any more convincing for multiple repeats. Repetition is at the heart of all learning. When they crash and injury themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain bikers! Sociopath. (And you might want to look at your grammar too ... it should be crash and injure) Spelling mistakes are always due to typos. The fact is that I can’t type worth a damn. My spell check can **** me up too. Better to be a sociopath who at least wants people to live out their natural lives than a merchant of death like you who knowingly leads cyclists to their deaths by promoting mountain biking on hiking trails. Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain 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 12:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com