"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

I don't have to refute what you think Ed ... it's just
your opinion. I HAVE refuted most of your propositions ... but you can
continue to think whatever you like.

Your refutations only work if one accepts your ethos, which
civilized hikers reject.

You've not shown that. YOU reject it but you're hardly objective, or that civilised given your penchant for profanity.

What constitutes a superior ethos? Just one thing. The judgment of your superiors. Democracy is for slobs. I use profanity when I am dealing with slobs. After all, it is their language which they understand fully. Why waste civilized discourse on them?

And ? So what ? They are still both
recreations ... deserving of equal treatment and access to public
resources. One is not axiomatically better than the other ...

Not to be able to make meaningful distinctions marks you as an
idiot. You did go to college, did you not?

Ah well, I suppose consistency would be too much to expect. You're usually accusing me of making meaningless distinctions. Your distinction, in this case, is simply that you prefer one recreation over another. You can't objectively assert why this should be the case hence your retreat into emotive language and "it's obvious" type statements.

You want all recreations and recreationalists to be treated equally, This marks you as an idiot. You do indeed make many meaningless distinctions but seem unable to make meaningful distinctions. You need to ask yourself why this is so. If you were college educated, you should be able to make MEANINGFUL distinctions with ease.
[...]

I am for free choice too, accept when it conflicts with
someone else's free choice. When choices conflict, decisions have to be made by
authorities as to whom has priority. It is called government.

When choices conflict, and the merits of the activities are similar, then what is needed is compromise. Something I suggest you consider.

I have compromised, by allowing cyclists to have their own trails separate from hiking trails, something Mr. Vandeman would never permit.

No Ed, I did NOT advocate that others do what I do. I
said they should have the choice.

It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do
because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them.

How ? That's a ludicrous statement. I don't want to go base jumping but I am fully supportive of others' rights to do so if they wish. I'm not promoting an activity, I'm promoting freedom of choice.

“It amounts to the same thing. I want others to do what I do because it is safe and fun. It will not injure or kill them.” – Ed Dolan

Live a little Ed .. you might enjoy it. If everyone
was as risk averse as you we would still be sitting in caves. Remember
mountainbiking is pretty safe ... safer than road cycling, rugby, american
football, driving a car etc etc etc.

Accidents happen in any field of activity, but almost always
due to errors involved. Mountain biking is different. You do what you are
suppose to do and still have terrible inevitable accidents, accidents that
paralyze and kill. It is actually a form of insanity.

I was almost tempted to let this slide as it's so ridiculous. When you tackle someone on the American Football or Rugby fields you are doing what you are supposed to do. It does sometimes result in injury. You are NOT intending to fall off a mountain bike. That just happens sometimes.

However, the statistics don't lie ... there are way more serious injuries from American Football and Rugby (and many other sports) than mountain biking.

Statistics lie all the time because they never precisely measure what they purport to measure. Reports from the field are what matter and they prove that cycling on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. This is glossed over by the mountain biking community so that even kids, women and the elderly are encouraged to go mountain biking. The only ludicrous one here is you.

However, you are quite right to compare mountain biking to rough contact sports. Hiking on the other hand has never been considered any kind of sport as far as I know. It is simply an actively, good for body and soul.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman I am not opposed to cycling on trails. I
just want cyclists to get their own trails entirely separated from trails used
by hikers. I think if cycling trails were properly designed they could be made
fairly safe for casual cyclists. The macho types will always find ways to kill
themselves. That is a given.

Sometimes I agree ... some tracks should be exclusive. But, from the evidence in the videos that you posted, you can see the sparsity of use on most trails. I cannot see any validity in suggesting that it is necessary to double up on trails in such cases.

Separate trails for cyclists are the ONLY solution. I do not want cyclists on my trails anymore than you want motorcyclists on your trails. Sparsity of use has nothing to do with it. Hikers and cyclists are DOING different things on the trails and in fact are there for DIFFERENT purposes. Therefore, different trails are called for.

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