"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Can you stay on topic for five seconds. I never said the
risks were the same. I simply pointed out that hiking does have risks
which means that there are an appreciable number of incidents.

Edward Dolan wrote:

If the risks are not the same, then you are comparing apples
to oranges - and who cares?

No, Ed, I'm referencing a report which contains accounts of rescues of both bikers and hikers. A hiker is unlikely to fall off a bike ... statement of the bloody obvious ... but both are subject to terrain, weather and location based perils which result in accidents.

A hiker has an accident – no big deal. A biker has an accident - damn near fatal. The risks are not the same. That is what is bloody obvious!

Even an idiot like you knows that bike injuries tend
to be serious whereas hiker injuries tend to be trivial. Your so-called topic is
as irrelevant as you are.

Yet the Lake District report contains accounts of hiking fatalities .... that's not what I'd call trivial ... would you ?

Your statement is, again, refuted by the facts.

Hiker fatalities are extremely rare. Biker fatalities are quite common. Hiker faltiies are usually interesting to read about because of their unique qualities. Biker fatalities are totally predictable and dull as hell to read about because they are all the same. The reason they are all the same is because bikes do not belong on trails. By the way, climber fatalities don’t count as that is not the same thing as trekking. It is as stupid to climb as it is to bike on a trail.
[...]

Also, now, perhaps I realise what you mean about representing all 'serious' hikers. It's the people that you know, with whom you hike and happen to live in one small location in one state of the US. I'm happy to concede that you probably do represent all 'serious hikers' in that location ... but have nothing in any way relevant to say about anywhere else.

I spent 10 years doing nothing but hiking full time year around out West in the late 60’s and early 70’s when I was in my 30’s. No bikes on trails during all that time. I later spent just a couple of years hiking in the Aspen, Colorado area in the 80’s when I first ran into bikes on trails. I never met another hiker who approved of this usage. Minnesota is not prime hiking country so there is not much in the way of conflicts here. But even so, all hikers prefer to have the trails reserved only for walkers. Positively no bikes on trails. Plenty of roads are available for biking everywhere in the world.
[...]

PREMATURE coronary disease is on the rise largely due to sedentary lifestyles. The human body is designed to move and be active ... bereft that it tends to go wrong.

Coronary disease is directly related to aging. The older you get, the more likely you are to have a cardio-vascular disease that is going to give you trouble. It is classically a condition of old age which can easily begin in your 50’s. Yes, that is old! I think diet has a lot more to do with it than being sedentary. In any event, only an idiot would suggest mountain biking as a preventative when the dangers of doing that can easily lead to a blunt force type of injury which can result in a PREMATURE death.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

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