The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails
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.
A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of
serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.
No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER
DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method
to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is
dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk
of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.
There is no comparison between hiking a trail and riding a
bike on a trail. One is safe and the other is dangerous. Read you own literature
(propaganda) to know the truth. Bikers on trails take risks regularly. It is
part of the sport. Hikers do no such thing (I do not include climbers in my
definition of hikers).
You're going around in circles and, every time, simply asserting the same premise which has been thoroughly disproven. Either produce some real evidence or get lost.
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.
Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from
any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or
Mars would
suit you best.
Is this your attempt at humour ?
Either another planet ... or abandoned city dumps is where you
can best enjoy your ****ing sport of mountain biking. Hiking trails on this
planet are off limits to Asshole mountain bikers like you. So saith Saint Edward
the Great!
So saith a nonentity with serious delusions of grandeur.
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.
Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an
Ass!
So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the
world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.
I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your
point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.
There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in
all jurisdictions.
Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who are you to try and determine what is moral ?
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.
Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing
nature.
There are only people Ed. And people own the trails,
always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate
matter. Bikers are not a different species.
Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is
managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen
times?
You have. And I have pointed out, the same number of times, that you are not entitled to determine what is best use for everyone.
They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.
The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we
have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.
"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?"
- Ed Dolan
Best use isn't decided by you Ed.
They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our
trails.
I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed.
You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are
your own.
My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.
I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.
And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist and self regarding people like you.
|