"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Thank you for proving my point. Over time,
usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one
particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of
that period only.

Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no
rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice.

Edward Dolan wrote:

I don't care about the ancient history of trails. It is not
relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since
the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests
me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a
tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000
with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That
is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas
and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are
not mountain bikes, but development.

That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts.

I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom.

There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources.

It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since it is the BEST allocation of resources. You can have your playgrounds somewhere else where you won’t be interfering with your superiors (hikers and equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers.

I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on
trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a
bike would disturb you. That's not rational !

You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your
idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut!

No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition

It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you.
[...]

England is like New Jersey, only worse.

You know, once in a while, when you lose it might be politic to admit such. I assume that you wouldn't call New Jersey a 'backwater' ? Hence, I assume you concede the point that I am not commenting from the perspective of a 'backwater' as you opined earlier.

NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England. And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are heavily used, especially in California.

You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose
that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows
the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all.

You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always
available until very recently.

Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care about what I want.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails.

My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity.

Your “preferred activity” is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect closed to hikers.

Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done, everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access whatsoever.

You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your fundamental position.

My fundamental position is right and proper. It is you and your ilk who are destroying what has been an enjoyable activity for hundreds of thousands of hikers and equestrians for many generations.

All this blather about "proper research" is pure
baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real
world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only
going to grow in number and seriousness.

You are presenting ONLY reports which support your position and, in so doing, presenting a completely biased account of what is going on. Given that the injury and fatality rates are DECLINING what rational basis do you have for declaring that they will grow in number and seriousness ?

Rates go up and rates go down. The fact remains that biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. My reports are so numerous and so serious that all bias is erased. However, if biking on trails decreases then it is quite possible that injuries and deaths will go done overall, but it will always remain a dangerous thing to be doing.

The overall statistics show that there are very very few accidents and the tiny handful of reports that you produce have to be compared against the millions of rides happening every day worldwide.

There are not millions of rides happening every day. Biking on hiking trails is still a minority pastime.. Most cyclists ride their bikes on roads however rough. Mountain bikes outsell road bikes these days, but that doesn't mean they are being used for riding on trails.

You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only 'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while and accept that things move on.

There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers. It is an incompatible use which is rife with all kinds of conflicts. The only spoiled child here is you who wants to do what he wants to do regardless of how it effects anyone else. You are not only irrational, but selfish to the core.

Cycling on hiking trails will
eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god
damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users.

Hasn't happened yet, unlikely to do so in the future I think. It's not a 'nuisance' ... it's a perfectly valid and healthy use of a public resource.

Only you and your ilk think it is not a nuisance. We cognoscenti know better. Get your own trails.

And the report that you referenced suggests that, in the future, there will be more bikers and less hikers ... so maybe YOU are the nuisance ?

Nope, priority counts for more than anything else. If you could be added without causing any interference with others, that would be one thing, But bikers can’t be added to trails being used by hikers because it is HUGE interference. No hiker who enjoys hiking would ever want to share a trail with anyone on a bike. It is a conflict of means and purpose. In other words, a cluster ****!

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