Your problem is that you do not know the difference between a
road and a trail, most especially their different purposes. That being the case,
your point is pointless!

Their purposes are myriad; most were not developed for an appreciation of nature but to get somewhere.

You are arguing a fine point which borders on being just plain
stupid.

No, I'm refuting your proposition with a fact.

Contemplation and appreciation of nature is the ONLY valid
recreational use of a trail. There are other venues for other recreational
uses.

I disagree completely. It is not for you, or anyone else, to arbitrarily decide, purely based on your own prejudices, what is a valid use of a trail which is a PUBLIC asset.

You are unable to read between the lines or make any sensible
deductions on your own. I am not used to arguing with a childish literally
minded mentality. I raised the motorcycle issue not as an example of damage to
the trails, but as an example of a totally inappropriate use because it is a
mechanical contrivance which goes fast (speed differential) and makes one hell
of a lot of noise into the bargain. Bicycles fall into the same category and are
only slightly less noisy. Until we agree on what trails are for, there can never
be an agreement on anything else.

No, you raised the motorcycle issue because you were trying to conflate motorcycles and mountainbikes. They are completely different beasts with very little in common beyond two wheels as I demonstrated by showing their vastly different weight and power.

Your argument would only make some sense if there was a
shortage of roads. Plenty of fire roads and forestry roads for cyclists to
ride.

What ! If that's your view then you've not understood the point. Mountainbikers don't want to ride roads ... and why should we ? There is no valid reason to ban them from most (not all) trails.

Most folks who have mountain bikes do not ride them on single
track trails. It is only a minority of cretins who do that. And when we hikers
object to seeing them on our trails, then they act like the thugs that they are.
All hikers should be packing a concealed firearm for their own safety.

So, to paraphrase, when you aggressively challenge riders for using a resource to which they are as entitled as you, but which you don't happen to like, you are surprised that they are somewhat belligerent ? There is no need for any aggression; courtesy on both sides is what is required. Mountainbikers are no more thugs (on average) than any other large population group .... axiomatically so.

Who knows why Europeans do the things they do? All I know is
that it is an issue here in the States that is never going to go away until
mountain bikers are severely limited as to where they can commit their
desecrations.

No, it's an issue that will go away when mountainbiking becomes perfectly normal for most trails and the reactionaries quieten down.

You want to ’share’ what you have no right to in the first
instance. Get your own trails. Hiking trails are for hikers.

Do you own the trails ? Clearly not. Do I own them ? Clearly not. Are they a PUBLIC resource ? Yes. Therefore, axiomatically, we are equally entitled to them. They are NOT yours and they never were.

Overall, I think we're about done. The argument is not going to be resolved; you think that the trails are 'yours' (Hikers to be specific) and simply don't like mountainbikes on them. You're not going to change that view are you ?

I see trails as a public resource to which I, as a citizen, am entitled to fair access. I simply don't accept that there is one sacrosanct use.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.