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.

You may, indeed, be unaware of it ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When you say something and the facts prove your statement incorrect ... that means you LOSE.

So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions in a given location because the data showed that there weren't.

Better luck next time.

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.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what you like.. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental logical errors.

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.

You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so.

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.

You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind.

NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England.

Very funny. Yet, the GDP eclipses that of the area you were referencing. So, that means only six nations in the world aren't backwaters according to your definition. What a ridiculous statement.

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.

I'd be interested in how you prove that Ed. The videos that you, yourself, posted in this thread showed very lightly trafficked trails.

The trails I frequent are used by hikers, bikers and equestrians ... and being that we are within an hour of London they are fairly heavily used.

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

Yes, I know. But you can't have it. The world has moved on. Get over it. You cannot have public lands just for your, one, preferred recreation.

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.

They are mine Ed ... well, more than yours anyway, since I work to maintain them. Actually, they don't belong to either of us ... they are a public resource and we have to share because your solution of everyone having their own unique trails will see huge swathes of countryside consumed. Sure, in some locations it works ... there are bike parks in Wales for example ... but that's not going to work everywhere.

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.

No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail.

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.

What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ?

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.

No Ed, it's not. It's selfish, damaging to the environment and unreasonable.

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.

0.00123 fatalities per million miles.
1.54 injuries per thousand exposures

You are wrong ... it is relatively safe.

If you want to show lack of bias then ask a random sample and find out who has experienced conflict ... I will bet you a very large sum of money that the vast majority will not have done so. You only collect reports of conflict and accident ... so you have no idea whatsoever what percentage they represent.

Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict.

There are not millions of rides happening every day.

The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN !

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.

So you say ... and then ...

You are not only irrational, but selfish to the
core.

So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical.