Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which

have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths
are the

answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in
the trail

is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do
dangerous

things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do
dangerous

things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.

The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there
for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?

Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's
the other way around :-).

However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles
that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000
exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker
injuries too.

So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous
has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Media reports say otherwise ... and so does common
sense.

No, they don't. That's precisely my point. If we use your simplistic and flawed method of simply referencing media reports we would conclude that hiking is way more dangerous as there are more injuries and fatalities.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But

that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to
injure and

kill themselves, let them!

Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally
safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you
say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk
they are prepared to accept.

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own axiom, you are a fool.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is

the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail
and someone

walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that
we are at

permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what
natural

beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain
shall

meet!

I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree
with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the
view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we
will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time
... which mountainbiking allows me to do.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself; but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to
some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of
us some, but not all, of what we want.

If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others'
rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You
accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's
not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you
want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your
position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.

Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.

What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is large; you are going to have to learn to share.