View Single Post
  #74  
Old February 11th 14, 11:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

We already had this conversation, and I posted links to a number
of MTB sites which have crash and injury sections. Anyone who rides a bike
understands that it is inherently unstable and they may fall off it.

It is a minority of cyclists who read that kind of ****. A
bike is NOT inherently unstable, but it most certainly is when you are riding on
a trail which was intended for walking.


Oh, a bike is not inherently unstable ? What nonsense. Try this ... ride into your drive, then dismount and leave your bike standing in the middle unsupported. If it's still upright an hour later then I'll agree that it's stable ... but ...

This is your judgement ... you approve of hikers and disapprove of

bikers. However, viewed objectively they are both doing the same thing ....
recreation in a natural environment.

I have already stated many times in another thread on this
newsgroup that hikers and bikers on trails are NOT doing the same thing at all.


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.

"Communing with nature" is still recreation. You don't NEED to do it any more than you need to ride a mountainbike. They are both recreations.

And, even if you were correct, adults are entitled to risk their

own necks.

These so called adults will soon be suing the owners and
managers of these public and private lands for providing an unsafe venue for
recreation.

I am just waiting for the lawsuits to commence. Someone needs


to be held responsible for this carnage.


You and I live in very different worlds. In mine, an adult

is entitled to make their own decisions and then has to live with the
consequences. Who do you propose is sued ?

See above sentence. This thread is going to contain many
reports about cyclists who have seriously injured themselves doing what you are
doing - riding their bikes on trails. I wish them dead for doing what they are
doing, but you are far more cruel and callous because you encourage them. I want
them to stop; you want them to continue. Who is the real death merchant
here?


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 don't want anything other than that I, and they, have the right to choose.. I'm in favour of personal choice and personal responsibility. I have no issue with highlighting the real risks associated with activities so that people are participating with their eyes wide open. I support things like the Isle of Man TT despite the fact that there are several fatalities every year. I visit the Nurburgring regularly. As was posted on the epitaph to David Jefferies ... "Those who risk nothing do nothing, achieve nothing, become nothing". We are all going to die one day ... I strongly advise living first rather than worrying about it.

And, were your proposal to be adopted, think of all the other,

more dangerous, sports ... what would happen there ? No more American
Football for a start.

The fact is that most cyclists simply have no idea of how
dangerous it is to bikes on trails. They buy a particular style of bike, see the
trails and assume they are safe to ride. But they are NOT! This is fertile
ground for lawsuits. ALL football players know full well the dangers of playing
that incredibly stupid game. All the protective gear they wear tells the
tale.


The reality is that it's NOT that dangerous; all Vandeman's trolling still shows up, worldwide, hardly any fatalities compared with participants. The British Medical Journal, hardly a byword for supporting risky endeavours, also concludes that it's low risk.

But, by all means, post your foolish rants about the danger levels and let people make up their own minds ...
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home