View Single Post
  #15  
Old May 20th 14, 03:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

Serious hikers are NOT a tiny minority. They are the vast
majority of hikers.


So you say ... I beg to differ. Prove it.

My mental attitude is that of all serious hikers.


So you say ... I beg to differ. Prove it.

You've provided nothing material to counteract the real risk

levels which are, I reiterate, fatailies 0.00123/million miles and injuries
1.54/1,000 exposures. If you think it's higher ... then prove it.

Since those fatality and risk levels are low compared with many

daily activities mountainbiking can, quite justifiably, be quantified as
relatively safe.

We disagree about the risks. But of course, as you should well
know by now, that is not the main reason I am against biking on trails. However,
it may be that the risk factor will prove in the end to be the dominating
factor.


Yes, we disagree. But, unlike you, I've provided real data from third party sources and you're provided ... zip, nada, bupkiss beyond your own simple assertion.

However, since YOU and your minority of fellow travellers are

completely unwilling to compromise then, no, I don't give a damn about

you anymore. You would happily see me banned from all trails so that
you could enjoy them in splendid isolation whilst requiring me to pay for them through my taxes.

This is what I mean about extremism begetting

extremism.

As a biker on a trail, you are an interloper and a usurper.


The trails were there for the use and enjoyment of hikers long before

mountain

bikes were ever invented.


And, your point is what ? We've already done to death the fact that trails have been put to many uses over the centuries. The trails belong to people so use can change if people want it to.

Ed, I'm simply here because I find argument amusing ... but you

are becoming tiresome because of the paucity of yours.

I have stated my argument many times as succinctly as
possible. It is a consistent argument and a perfectly logical argument.
Moreover, it is a REASONABLE argument.


No, you've stated your opinion Ed ... and then been unable to back it up with anything.

All I have ever gotten from you are some
ridiculous data and the fact that you want to do what you want to do regardless
of how it effects others.


I've stated my opinions too ... I don't think anyone reading this thread would be unaware of them. However, unlike you, I prefer to test my hypotheses and assertions with real-world data. I'm sure that all the people whose research I've cited and whose work you consider 'ridiculous' would be more than happy to read your research on the issues ... oh, sorry, you don't have any do you ?

I have told you how it effects me and Mr. Vandeman and
other serious hikers of which there are many hundreds of thousands.


Yes, you have, but I only believe you about you and vandeman ... I don't think there are hundreds of thousands of others who hold the same opinion, I've certainly never met anyone with such extreme views as yours, and you're unable or unwilling to provide any data to backup that assertion.

And, given that you're not prepared to compromise one iota, why should I care what you and vandeman think when you're a tiny minority ?

You and your
ilk should never have been permitted anywhere near hiking trails, but let's face
it, the land and park managers are not only idiots but gutless. **** 'em all -
and you too!


Ah, more profanity. I'm sure that makes you feel better ... happy to provide that small recompense for demolishing your arguments.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home