The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

This IS important. What you are doing is simply stating your
prejudices despite the fact that there is no data to back them up. I am
not going to let you get away with such poor argumentation. If you say
something is the case then I am going to ask you to justify it objectively
because, otherwise, you repeatedly spout nonsense in the hope that no-one will
actually call you on it.

Edward Dolan wrote:

99% of all phenomena under the sun never gets reported. It is
only deaths occur that you get some attention from the media. I am reporting
what commonly does not get reported elsewhere. It is personal stuff based on
experiences by individuals who have no ax to grind except their unpleasant
encounters on the trails.

It may well be. Still doesn't mean that it's the majority experience or common.

It is common enough so that I get dozens of reports of injuries and deaths every day crossing my computer desktop. I don’t bother to post them because they are all due to the same cause – biker error!

Blackblade is devoid of common sense, but his main problem is
that he does not like anything that runs counter to what he wants to do, namely,
to ride his bike on hiking trails. Too bad for for him there are so many that
object to what he wants to do. Everything I say is backed up by thousands of
reports from actual experiences. These experiences are numerous enough and broad
enough to count for much more than any so called "data" - whatever the hell that
is.

I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.

Your “circumstances� don’t interest me. The fact is that there is an irreconcilable conflict based on what the different modes of usage are DOING on the trails. The only compromise I am willing to make is that cyclists get their own trails far removed from any hiking trails. I have several times recommended that ski resorts would be ideal for devoping bike trails. It would be ideal because no one but trash people ever frequent ski resorts in the first place. Bikers would fit right in with that crowd.

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 bikers!

“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

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

So, Ed, this is a conceptual conflict which exists in YOUR head
(and possibly some other unreconstructed nutcases). Naturally, since I
can't see into your head, I don't see the conflict. I deal in facts, not
the perceptions and bizarre fantasies of the foolish.

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is not a conceptual conflict, but an actual conflict. The
fact that you don't see it counts for nothing. Enough others see it exactly as I
see it. Your facts are irrelevant to the problem which is a conflict of
usage related to purpose. You need to ask yourself ... what is a trail
for?

The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a perception not a reality for anyone else.

There is always plenty of conflict which my reports illustrate in one form or another.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so .... possibly both.

A road is for getting from point A to point B. A trail is for the enjoyment of nature – period. Glad I was able to clear that up for you.

If you are building trails that separate hikers and bikers,
then you have already conceded the argument. Why the hell should "circumstances"
matter?

What a ridiculous statement ! Circumstances don't matter !!!

It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have never grasped my concept of what a trail is for. If it is just for accommodating traffic, then why not motorcyclists and all-terrain vehicles too? I am the soul of sweet reason and compromise compared to Mr. Vandeman. He is the Messiah, not me. I am merely a Great Saint.

You have got the perspective of an idiotic risk taker.

Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as
"idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham Lincoln etc etc
then the world would be a much poorer place.

You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don't see
how dumb that is.

So did they ! Look up their life histories. It's an attitude of mind.

If none of them had ever lived, the world would still be pretty much as it is. I don’t believe in great men. I only believe in Great Saints, of which I am the foremost example.

If it showed sparse use, then of course little or no OBVIOUS
conflict, but still plenty of conflicting PURPOSES. I and other hikers
can see
that even if you can't.

We're back to what's going on in your head again aren't we Ed
?

The problem is what is going on in your head. You think trails
are there for your thrills and spills amusement. A few trips to the wood shed is
needed for some correction to that kind of thinking.

What is going on in my head and how I enjoy the trails is none of your business. I'm not the one insisting that your mere presence completely wrecks my enjoyment of the trails.

It becomes my business when what you are doing on the trails conflicts with what I am doing on the trails. We hikers have priority based on traditional usage.

Mechanical advantage is simply gearing Ed. The power output
doesn't alter. Higher gearing results in less torque but more motion for a
given output.

Of course power output matters since it determines speed,
distance and ease of movement.

Power output is the SAME ! How many times. Usain Bolt, Chris Hoy and Ian Thorpe all produce approximately the SAME power output. You are confusing power with torque and gearing.

I have already told you I don’t care about power. It is the mechanical advantage (“torque and gearing�) that concern me. It means you can go far faster and far further than any hiker with less effort (cycling is easier on the body than walking), which means that a hiking trail is not for your ilk.

Mechanical advantage puts you in a different
universe, one that is antithetical to walking in more ways than
one.

No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external power sources.

An external power source only magnifies already existing differences between cyclists and hikers. Nothing like having a blind spot to get you over a difficult traverse.

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 bikers!

“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

Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times
how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some
hard data instead of just blathering.
*

All the activities you list are risk taking activities when
carried to an extreme. Mountain biking does not need to be carried to an
extreme. People are injured and killed just doing very modest riding on trails.
Blather beats statistics every time because most folks have some common sense,
something that you totally lack.

So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say ... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses please.

I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data
backs me up in that assertion.

My reports from the field refute your data.

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually provide some evidence .. not just waffle.

I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on
circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the
same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.

Your "circumstances" don't interest me. The fact is that there
is an irreconcilable conflict based on what the different modes of usage are
DOING on the trails. The only compromise I am willing to make is that cyclists
get their own trails far removed from any hiking trails.

Well, fortunately, more reasonable people than you prevail and look at the circumstances and whether trails should be shared or not. As I have pointed out before, if you want to ban recreation then you also need to ban trail running ... good luck with that.

The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict
with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the
environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is
that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a
perception not a reality for anyone else.

There is always plenty of conflict which my reports illustrate
in one form or another.

Ed, you're funny. In THE REPORT WHICH YOU QUOTED the hiker clearly stated that there was no conflict. Yet, somehow, you're looking to find some elsewhere and refer it back to this case.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to
either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so ...
possibly both.

A road is for getting from point A to point B. A trail is for
the enjoyment of nature - period. Glad I was able to clear that up for
you.

Definition of trail from the Oxford English Dictionary (one of several definitions);

"Beaten path through the countryside"

There is no mention of the purpose for which said trail might be used. You are, yet again, trying to make your iconoclastic and slightly skewed version of reality the default. Fortunately, most of us don't suffer from solipsism.
It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your
sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of
traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic
types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have never grasped my concept of what a trail is for. If
it is just for accommodating traffic, then why not motorcyclists and all-terrain
vehicles too?

I completely understand YOUR concept of what a trail is for. A very narrow, singular use which would exclude trail runners, mountainbikers and presumably family groups out for a picnic too (they're certainly not there for the contemplation of nature).

I simply disagree with your fundamental premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ... not yours.

You might disapprove of the use to which others put trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds for banning such use.
Thank you. If it weren't for what you characterise as


"idiotic risk takers" such as Buzz Aldrin, Chuck Yeager, Abraham
Lincoln etc etc

then the world would be a much poorer place.



You take risks for mere thrills. Amazing that you don't see

how dumb that is.



So did they ! Look up their life histories. It's an
attitude of mind.



If none of them had ever lived, the world would still be
pretty much as it is. I don't believe in great men. I only believe in Great
Saints, of which I am the foremost example.

Flick flack ... flick flack. One second, they weren't risk takers and, now that I've proved they were, suddenly they are no longer pioneers.

How do you manage to live when you can't make up your mind as to what you think from one second to the next ?

No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same
world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external
power sources.

An external power source only magnifies already existing
differences between cyclists and hikers.

A petrol engine producing 100 - 1000 times the power of a human being is simply "magnifying" a difference ? You don't half spout some nonsense.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Since I've quoted the backup to defend those statistics many times
how about, if you disagree, you justify how dangerous you think it is with some
hard data instead of just blathering.

Edward Dolan wrote:

All the activities you list are risk taking activities when
carried to an extreme. Mountain biking does not need to be carried to an
extreme. People are injured and killed just doing very modest riding on trails.
Blather beats statistics every time because most folks have some common sense,
something that you totally lack.

So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say ... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses please.

How many rugby players ever get killed from their ****ing stupid sport? No many I venture to guess. How many mountain bikers ever get killed from their ****ing stupid sport.? More than a few – I KNOW!

I do, because it is fun and relatively safe and because the data
backs me up in that assertion.

My reports from the field refute your data.

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually provide some evidence ... not just waffle.

The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it sinks in.

Here is some more evidence from your neck of the woods:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....untain_biking/

Fears over dangers of mountain biking

2:10pm Thursday 20th March 2014 in News By Katie Dickinson, Reporter

ACCIDENTS to mountain bikers could exceed those
for climbers and scramblers in 2014, according to
a new mountain rescue report.

Annual figures from the Lake District Search and
Mountain Rescue Association (LDSAMRA) reveal last
year was the third in a row in which a mountain biker has died on the fells.

The death of 59-year-old Silloth man John Graham
in September - in a location very close to that
of a fatality the year before – heightened
concerns for mountain bikers in some areas.

Mr Graham was found by mountain rescuers 60
metres down a steep gully close to Lonscale Fell
near Keswick. In total there were 13 incidents
involving mountain bikes in 2013 – down from 18 in 2012 and 26 in 2011.

But the association’s statistics officer Ged
Feeney said it was ‘not so much the number of
incidents as the seriousness of them’ that was
causing concern to rescue teams.

Of the 13 incidents last year, seven people
required medical assistance and five were categorised as serious.

These included a rider at Jenkin Hill, Skiddaw,
who suffered back and lower leg injuries after
being unable to control his descent and tumbling 40 metres.

Another incident involved a woman who suffered
fractured ribs and nausea at Hardknott Gill when
she could not control her bike and landed in a stream.

The LDSAMRA report said mountain biking incidents
were now on a similar scale to rock sports.

This trend in the Lakes is echoed across the
country, with national figures for the year
showing a marked increase over the same period five years ago.

LDSAMRA is trying to raise awareness of the issue
through appeals to specialist media.

“We don’t want to put people off what is a very
valuable sport,� said Mr Feeney. “But people need
to be aware they are embarking on a serious
undertaking – particularly in areas they are unfamiliar with.

“Most cyclists do wear protective gear, which is
a good start, but it’s a matter of gaining
experience in a controlled environment and not
trying to do more than you are capable of.�

The increase in accidents coincides with a boom
in the popularity of cycling, both in Cumbria and across the UK.

According to Cumbria Tourism, who have been
working to see the region become known as the
UK’s Adventure Capital, it is the fastest growing
sporting activity in the county.

Ian Stephens, managing director of Cumbria
Tourism, said: “We encourage as many people as
possible to get involved and take advantage of
this great sport but with any outdoor adventure
activity we remind people to take care and keep
safe whilst out on any cycle route.

“All of our promotion reminds people to make sure
that bikes are well maintained and that
appropriate clothing and cycle helmets are worn.�

The LDSAMRA report shows that the overall number
of incidents in 2013 was 433 – a slight increase
from the previous two years (432 in 2012 and 425
in 2011) but a huge drop from 600 in 2010 and 555
in 2009. It also showed a decrease in fatalities
to 14 – the lowest in more than five years.


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 bikers!

“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

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

I'm the one who is willing to compromise based on
circumstances. You're the one who can't even countenance a bike on the
same trail as you in case it disturbs your, clearly fragile, equilibrium.

Edward Dolan wrote:

Your "circumstances" don't interest me. The fact is that there
is an irreconcilable conflict based on what the different modes of usage are
DOING on the trails. The only compromise I am willing to make is that cyclists
get their own trails far removed from any hiking trails.

Well, fortunately, more reasonable people than you prevail and look at the circumstances and whether trails should be shared or not. As I have pointed out before, if you want to ban recreation then you also need to ban trail running ... good luck with that.

Yes, trail running on trails should also be banned as it too is an irreconcilable use based on purpose. Runners can run on race tracks. That is what they are there for. And bikers can ride on roads. That is what they are there for.

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 bikers!

“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

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

The person writing the article agreed that there was no conflict
with mountainbikers and you've stated that you don't care about the
environmental aspects in this instance. Therefore, the only conflict is
that you don't want mountainbikes to be there ... which is, axiomatically, a
perception not a reality for anyone else.

Edward Dolan wrote:

There is always plenty of conflict which my reports illustrate
in one form or another.

Ed, you're funny. In THE REPORT WHICH YOU QUOTED the hiker clearly stated that there was no conflict. Yet, somehow, you're looking to find some elsewhere and refer it back to this case.

You have to take my reports in the main, all of which show plenty of conflicts in one form or another. None of my reports are favorable to bikes on trails. How could they be. My reports are from sane folks, not nut cases like you and your ilk.

As to what a trail is for, that's an easy one, it's for people to
either get from point A to point B or to enjoy the journey of doing so ....
possibly both.

A road is for getting from point A to point B. A trail is for
the enjoyment of nature - period. Glad I was able to clear that up for
you.

Definition of trail from the Oxford English Dictionary (one of several definitions);

"Beaten path through the countryside"

There is no mention of the purpose for which said trail might be used. You are, yet again, trying to make your iconoclastic and slightly skewed version of reality the default. Fortunately, most of us don't suffer from solipsism.

Dictionary definitions explain nothing. Everyone here knows what is being discussed. Or are all trails equal in your world?

It's this kind of messianic idiocy that makes me worry for your
sanity. In the real world, you have to look at circumstances; lots of
traffic ... probably need more trails and to separate different traffic
types; low traffic ... probably fine to share the trail.

You have never grasped my concept of what a trail is for. If
it is just for accommodating traffic, then why not motorcyclists and all-terrain
vehicles too?

I completely understand YOUR concept of what a trail is for. A very narrow, singular use which would exclude trail runners, mountainbikers and presumably family groups out for a picnic too (they're certainly not there for the contemplation of nature).

There are urban trails which are used for other purposes to which I do not object. But a trail in a natural area in this day and age is just for one thing – walkers contemplating the beauties of nature. You have to go slow in order to accomplish that. Family groups are fine provided they do not become rowdy. Dogs must be on leashes of course.

I simply disagree with your fundamental premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ... not yours.

You might disapprove of the use to which others put trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds for banning such use.

I am merely defending the status quo which has existed for several generations. You are the unwelcome interloper and would be without any standing if the idiot land managers were doing their jobs properly. These disputes are not a matter of differing opinions. They reduce to rights. I trust in the common sense of everyday folks, not nut cases like you and your ilk.
[...]

If none of them [famous men] had ever lived, the world would still be
pretty much as it is. I don't believe in great men. I only believe in Great
Saints, of which I am the foremost example.

Flick flack ... flick flack. One second, they weren't risk takers and, now that I've proved they were, suddenly they are no longer pioneers.

How do you manage to live when you can't make up your mind as to what you think from one second to the next ?

The world moves along at its own pace whether there are any risk takers or not. Pioneers were merely the first of many and not due for any special consideration. Most of the pioneers I have read about here in America were amazingly good at destroying the natural environment. Oregon Trail anyone?

You apparently believe in the great men of history view, a view that I disagree with. Read Tolstoy for the contrary argument. He argues that the French were bound to invade Russia, Napoleon or no Napoleon. Do you think if Edison had never lived we would not have every single one of his inventions? Even if Beethoven had never lived, music would have taken its present course. Only fools acknowledge great men! Sociology 101.

No Ed, if you are 'self powered' you are fundamentally in the same
world. The order of magnitude difference occurs once you allow external
power sources.

An external power source only magnifies already existing
differences between cyclists and hikers.

A petrol engine producing 100 - 1000 times the power of a human being is simply "magnifying" a difference ? You don't half spout some nonsense.

Yes, as a far as its effect on other trail users ... same as bikes on trails, just magnifying the difference. What’s the matter? Don’t like the difference?

You simply have no good argument for excluding motorized vehicles from trails once you admit bicycles. All a gasoline engine does is increase the mechanical advantage (able to go faster and further) as far as I am concerned. I am consistent in my argument for admitting only walkers and equestrians, both of which are slow moving and are there for just just one purpose – the appreciation of nature. You are the one who is all over the place with nonsensical arguments which contradict one another.

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 bikers!

“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

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

I simply disagree with your fundamental premise. The dictionary definition of trail supports my interpretation ... not yours.

You might disapprove of the use to which others put trails but it is hubristic in the extreme to assume that this is good grounds for banning such use.

I am merely defending the status quo which has existed for several generations. You are the unwelcome interloper and would be without any standing if the idiot land managers were doing their jobs properly. These disputes are not a matter of differing opinions. They reduce to rights. I trust in the common sense of everyday folks, not nut cases like you and your ilk.

I realize upon reflection that the above is not nearly strong enough. Allow me to add a few well chosen words.

You and I are not equals in this argument. You are a transgressor who is using the trails for a despicable purpose. I not only want the likes of you banned from trails (unless you want to walk them like everybody else), I want you severely fined for such use. A good horsewhipping into the bargain is also clearly called for.

Your effrontery in thinking you have equal standing with respect to trail use is outrageous. What you are doing to the trails and how it is effecting traditional users is criminal. If there were any justice in this world you would be sitting in a jail cell for many years – and so would the idiot land managers who are permitting such usage.

Until you become humble and self effacing like me (and learn your proper place in the scheme of things), there is no hope for you. You stand condemned out of your own mouth.

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 bikers!

“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

So, you HAVEN'T got any data to backup what you say
... yet again. And, apparently, rugby is only dangerous if you play it to
an extreme level ! Do tell me what extreme rugby encompasses
please.

How many rugby players ever get killed from their ****ing
stupid sport? No many I venture to guess. How many mountain bikers ever get
killed from their ****ing stupid sport.? More than a few - I KNOW!

About 71 in the last century. But the risk of serious injury is much higher than for mountain biking ... which is only 1.54 per 1,000 exposures (http://emj.bmj.com/content/early/201...6991.abstract).

No Ed, to refute something you have to actually
provide some evidence .. not just waffle.

The reports are numerous enough and broad enough to constitute
evidence. I wonder how many times I will have to say this before it sinks
in.

You have to provide objective evidence ! Do so, and I'll take notice. All you have is personal anecdote which, as I've said until I'm blue in the face, means nothing unless you know what percentage of the trail using population it represents.

Here is some more evidence from your neck of the
woods:

http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co....untain_biking/

Fears over dangers of mountain biking

Just read the bloody thing before you post ... there has been a massive rise in mountainbiking so, unsurprisingly, there is a rise in incidents. Duh !