View Single Post
  #25  
Old November 27th 14, 09:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Our wildlands are not outdoor gymnasiums or amusement parks.

It works fine for you, but not for hikers. Trust me on this,
they hate your guts!


I don't trust you even slightly Ed ... you've never been there so

you have not the slightest conception of what is going on there.

I know full well what is going on. You are criminally
trespassing on hiking trails and hikers hate you for it. If looks could kill you
would be a dead man.


Ed, you are quite simply wrong. These are areas of which I have personal experience and you have none. You're simply projecting your own monomania and obsessions onto others who don't share them. Everyone in these areas understands that the land is a public resource and it has to be shared.

The key phrase is "in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired". I will admit I much prefer the Wilderness Area

ethic
compared to the National Park one.


I don't care which you prefer. The reality is that there is

nothing in there that talks about preferring hiking to biking. So your
statement is disproven; the land managers ARE adhering to their mission
statement.

I have stated repeatedly in the course of this correspondence
that the land managers have to educated. I blame them more than I do you. You
are simply taking advantage of a flaw in the enforcement of what is
sensible.


Your premise was a little different this time though wasn't it ? You stated that the land managers were not upholding their 'lawful missions'. I've disproved that by reference to their actual lawful mission.

What you really want is for the land managers to go beyond their 'lawful missions' and prefer your activity over all others. You are not trying to get them to follow what they are legally tasked to do ... you want them to do something outside that to suit yourself.

I agree completely that the resource should be unimpaired which

therefore suggests traffic limits to minimise congestion and erosion.

I don't give a good god damn about the congestion and erosion.
What I care about is that cyclists are doing a sport and hikers are doing a
pilgrimage. When the hell are you are going to get up to speed on what is at
issue here?


When are you going to get up to speed on the fact that your 'pilgrimage' has no special status above others sport and recreation ? You are still eroding and impacting the natural environment simply for the purposes of your recreation.

Some roads are dangerous, others aren't. Young people who

ride
bikes are going to be riding on streets and roads

regardless of your nutty
ideas.


I already told you that mine, and those of several friends of

mine, don't do so because it's too dangerous. There have been, in the last
five years in my area, over 35 cyclist deaths on the road. There has been
1 off road ... and that was a guy who died of a heart attack.

I am going to cut you some slack here as I can believe that
the roads in the UK might be quite dangerous. Here in Minnesota you can easily
get killed also. The ultimate solution are bike paths. I can't wait for the day
when gas gets to be $20 a gallon (or maybe $50 dollars a gallon) which will mean
the end of the private motor vehicle. I along with Mr. Vandeman hate motor
vehicles. We humans can either walk or bike or else use public transport.
Believe me, I am a road cyclist and I have seen every danger that there is. But
cycling on hiking trails is NOT the answer.


Your last statement is not a consequence of anything that you wrote beforehand. Given that trail cycling is an order of magnitude safer than cycling on the road, which you concede is true, it is a perfectly valid answer to keeping ones children safer.

Residential streets are safe. Hiking trails are only safe for
hikers, not for bikers regardless of age.


More stupidity. "Residential streets are safe". What

total and utter nonsense. Why do you think the UK government is being
lobbied to reduce the speed limit further on residential streets ?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/drive...s-6753301.html

You just spout anything that comes into your head don't you

?

Residential streets are far safer than high speed highways,
especially those with no paved shoulders. But I admit I have no clue as to how
bad the streets are in the UK.


Ed Ed Ed. Take a moment BEFORE you spout more nonsense. If you consider the attached report you will note that high speed highways (we call them motorways in the UK) are actually the safest roads in the country. A moment's consideration would lead you to conclude this anyway; all traffic is moving in the same direction and at a similar speed and there is minimal interaction with other road users. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-report-2013)

You are, yet again, probably wrong in your assertion. When are you going to learn ???

People ... doing what! You make no sense
whatever.


You are simply too obtuse to understand. People own the

trails ... not the practitioners of one specific activity. Use and
ownership are not the same.

It never matters who "owns" anything. In the end it is the
practitioners and the customers who "own". Indeed, use and ownership are not the
same thing.


Did you actually have a point to make ? You appear to be going in a circle and contradicting yourself.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home