CycleBanter.com

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

Blackblade[_2_] February 14th 14 01:32 PM

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.

Blackblade[_2_] February 14th 14 01:43 PM

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 :-).


EdwardDolan February 16th 14 03:09 AM

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



EdwardDolan February 16th 14 03:21 AM

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



EdwardDolan February 16th 14 03:45 AM

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



EdwardDolan February 16th 14 03:50 AM

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


EdwardDolan February 16th 14 03:56 AM

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

Blackblade[_2_] February 25th 14 06:00 PM

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 ?

Blackblade[_2_] February 25th 14 06:12 PM

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.

EdwardDolan February 26th 14 03:45 AM

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





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

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