The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:27:10 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

More bad news from the trenches, something that blackblade, Phil W Lee and John B will not enjoy reading. It of course only confirms what I have been saying from day one, namely, that cycling on trails is a conflict with other trail users. Only the self-serving terminally stupid would claim otherwise.
“http://www.denverpost.com/lipsher/ci...#ixzz2sE2qwT62

Lipsher: Conflicts grow over biking in the mountains

By Steve Lipsher
Posted: 02/02/2014 05:00:00 PM MST

Land managers in Colorado have been unable to
keep up with the evolving uses and demands like
biking of mountain trails, writes Steve Lipsher.
(Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)

Mountain bikers philosophically have been more
aligned with hikers, cross-country skiers and
other "quiet use" types than with snowmobilers, dirt bikers and ATV riders.

But increasingly, the two-wheeled folks are
becoming embroiled in conflicts with other trail
users, and bikers now are finding themselves on
the other side of the philosophical divide and
risking alienating traditional allies.

From a long, unflattering history of creating
illegal, unsustainable trails to a new trend *
winter "fat" bikes that compete with skiers and
snowshoers on snow-covered trails * biking now
represents an intrusive activity that affects others in the woods.

Go to any online outdoor forum these days, and
you'll see lots of chatter about the
compatibility of bikes and other activities,
ranging from allowing bikes on trails in national
parks to whether battery-assisted bikes belong,
well, anywhere. (In Boulder, two distinct camps
have formed over allowing the new breed of
electric moped to share the paved bike paths.)

And the fiercest debate today is over whether the
new breed of winter bikes * which rely on
bulbous, low-pressure tires to float over the
snow * belong on the trails. The fear is they
will gouge out ruts in soft snow, making the skiing treacherous.

On MTBR, a popular mountain-biking chat site,
writers discussed whether fat bikes should be
allowed on specifically groomed cross-country ski
trails, which already prohibit hikers for the sake of keeping the track smooth.

"I tried to ride on a groomed trail once in
Wyoming," wrote one biker. "It was on public open
space land, and the trail was probably 40 inches
wide. I actually thought I was going to be
lynched. I got on my bike in the parking lot and
was surrounded by a bunch of XC skiers. They were
actually shouting two inches from my face."

"Skiers are a testy, testy bunch. Avoid them at all costs," wrote another.

But even in sticking to multi-use trails on
public lands that officially are open to all
users, "fat bikers" are encountering hostility
from unsuspecting snowshoers and skiers, similar
to the complaints that hikers have expressed in
the summer when bikers swarm past on their favorite treks.

Communities, public-lands agencies and user
groups now are grappling with how to keep peace
among the different interests. In Aspen, fat
bikes for the first time this winter are being
allowed on Pitkin County open space groomed by
the Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council as a trial run.
Two years ago, Idaho started hosting a "fat bike
summit" that brings land managers and bikers
together to discuss ways of alleviating
conflicts. And the International Mountain Biking
Association is imploring its members to be sure
that fat bikes are permitted on the lands where they want to ride.

Because the number of fat bikes is doubling every
year, doing nothing is no longer an option, and
some regulation is needed. The problem is that
land managers have been unable to keep up with the evolving uses and demands.

The U.S. Forest Service was slow to recognize the
explosion of summertime mountain biking in the
1980s, and the ensuing user conflicts and braids
of illegal, poorly designed user-created trails
created a management nightmare. Similarly, ATVs
have intruded into untrammeled places, forever altering their character.

Many of those routes have grown so popular that
forest managers begrudgingly have been forced to
include them in their updated trail networks.

Another issue is that bikers, as well as many
other groups, always are looking to expand their
territory, threatening to change the nature of ... well, nature.

This time, it's fat bikes. Next, powered bikes.
Before that, mountain boards. Every new fad and
craze competes for more space, resources,
management on the trail, and each creates its own
bitter divisions on who belongs.”

Since it seems I am now the only one on this newsgroup posting any content, I will treat with appropriate scorn any responders who do not also post some content. Name calling does not work with me as I just love to name call myself. It is part of being a Great Saint.

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

Good old Dobbin Dolan. He farts a bit as he wanders down the furrow.
Just turn your head and ignore it.

--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 19:27:10 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

More bad news from the trenches, something that blackblade, Phil W Lee and John B will not enjoy reading. It of course only confirms what I have been saying from day one, namely, that cycling on trails is a conflict with other trail users. Only the self-serving terminally stupid would claim otherwise.
[...]
Since it seems I am now the only one on this newsgroup posting any content, I will treat with appropriate scorn any responders who do not also post some content. Name calling does not work with me as I just love to name call myself. It is part of being a Great Saint.

Good old Dobbin Dolan. He farts a bit as he wanders down the furrow.
Just turn your head and ignore it.

You would normally earn scorn from the Great One for the above, but since you did post my entire message I am letting you off the hook. However, the only flatulent hippopotamus here is you. That has already been well established.

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

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

John B. considered Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:07:46
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:20:19 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Lest any of the remaining numbskulls and other assorted idiots still left on this desultory newsgroup (Blackblade and Phil W Lee) forget what the Great Michael Vandeman has taught us from our infancy, let us review what he has told us from the beginning:
“ http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/permit.html

Anyone who wants to dispute any of this needs to go to the links furnished and read for themselves what the facts are. Useless blather about how mountain biking does not conflict with other trail users and does no damage only marks you as the worthless liars and bums that you are.

I only bother reading articles written by those who have at least a
faint understanding of their subject, and certainly not those by
criminals seeking to desperately thrash around for something vaguely
resembling and excuse for their crimes.

The only criminal I know about here on this newsgroup is you. Just because you are not behind bars does not mean you are not a criminal. Criminal is as criminal does.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Wrong way round.
Roads are for wheels, but wheels are not restricted to roads, although
some vehicles do make the design choice to exclude off-road use.
Wheels were in widespread use for millennia before roads as we know
them existed at all (although it should be noted for completeness that
roads as we know them exist thanks to cyclists, despite any claims by
the motoring usurpers).

The Incas of South America before Columbus did not have the wheel, except on their toys. Their roads were not for wheels, and most likely would have been impossible to do on wheels. On the other hand Roman roads were for wheels as well as for other modes of travel. The riding of bikes off-road is a recent invention only made possible by mountain bikes. Wheels and roads go together like assholes and mountain bikers go together.
[...]

Maybe we should refer to him as Incitatus?
The parallels are not insignificant - a horse, appointed by a maniac,
to a role he was clearly (at least to the sane) completely unsuitable
for.
That would unfortunately make Vandal man Caligula though, and although
the insanity fits, at least Caligula's delusions were not entirely of
grandeur.

Your attempt to show some erudition is pathetic. Everyone knows that mountain bikers are devoid of culture, and indeed of all learning. It is why I do not waste any effort on them. When I call them assholes, thugs and hooligans everyone understands perfectly who and what I am talking about. You on the other hand are out in left field blathering only to yourself. But I guess we both know who and what you are.

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

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:12:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:07:46
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:20:19 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Lest any of the remaining numbskulls and other assorted idiots still left on this desultory newsgroup (Blackblade and Phil W Lee) forget what the Great Michael Vandeman has taught us from our infancy, let us review what he has told us from the beginning:
“ http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/permit.html

Anyone who wants to dispute any of this needs to go to the links furnished and read for themselves what the facts are. Useless blather about how mountain biking does not conflict with other trail users and does no damage only marks you as the worthless liars and bums that you are.

I only bother reading articles written by those who have at least a
faint understanding of their subject, and certainly not those by
criminals seeking to desperately thrash around for something vaguely
resembling and excuse for their crimes.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Wrong way round.
Roads are for wheels, but wheels are not restricted to roads, although
some vehicles do make the design choice to exclude off-road use.
Wheels were in widespread use for millennia before roads as we know
them existed at all (although it should be noted for completeness that
roads as we know them exist thanks to cyclists, despite any claims by
the motoring usurpers).

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

As I've told you before, no.

Ed Dolan the Great arsehole
aka
Stupid Edward the Grunt

IFTFY

Ah Yes. Mr. Blackblade and Mr. Phil W Lee are here posting their
logical, well thought out remarks and the Sainted Dolan has nothing to
say and so posts the remarks of a convicted criminal in response.

It really says something for Dolan's ability to debate the point in
question, or more bluntly, his inability to reply logically.

In short we have a situation where one side posts logical statements
while the other side simply repeats their bigoted comments and in
justification posts the remarks of a convicted criminal.

One might even say, using the vernacular, we got the rational chaps on
one side and a horse's ass on the other.

That is most unfair on horses asses.
They do at least perform a useful function.


Well, I did qualify that by saying "in the vernacular".
Sort of like "cool" doesn't necessarily indicate temperature :-)

You'll need to change your signature to Dobbin Dolan.

Maybe we should refer to him as Incitatus?
The parallels are not insignificant - a horse, appointed by a maniac,
to a role he was clearly (at least to the sane) completely unsuitable
for.
That would unfortunately make Vandal man Caligula though, and although
the insanity fits, at least Caligula's delusions were not entirely of
grandeur.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:12:37 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:07:46
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 23:20:19 -0600, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:

Lest any of the remaining numbskulls and other assorted idiots still left on this desultory newsgroup (Blackblade and Phil W Lee) forget what the Great Michael Vandeman has taught us from our infancy, let us review what he has told us from the beginning:
“ http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/permit.html

Anyone who wants to dispute any of this needs to go to the links furnished and read for themselves what the facts are. Useless blather about how mountain biking does not conflict with other trail users and does no damage only marks you as the worthless liars and bums that you are.

I only bother reading articles written by those who have at least a
faint understanding of their subject, and certainly not those by
criminals seeking to desperately thrash around for something vaguely
resembling and excuse for their crimes.

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Wrong way round.
Roads are for wheels, but wheels are not restricted to roads, although
some vehicles do make the design choice to exclude off-road use.
Wheels were in widespread use for millennia before roads as we know
them existed at all (although it should be noted for completeness that
roads as we know them exist thanks to cyclists, despite any claims by
the motoring usurpers).

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

As I've told you before, no.

Ed Dolan the Great arsehole
aka
Stupid Edward the Grunt

IFTFY

Ah Yes. Mr. Blackblade and Mr. Phil W Lee are here posting their
logical, well thought out remarks and the Sainted Dolan has nothing to
say and so posts the remarks of a convicted criminal in response.

It really says something for Dolan's ability to debate the point in
question, or more bluntly, his inability to reply logically.

In short we have a situation where one side posts logical statements
while the other side simply repeats their bigoted comments and in
justification posts the remarks of a convicted criminal.

One might even say, using the vernacular, we got the rational chaps on
one side and a horse's ass on the other.

That is most unfair on horses asses.
They do at least perform a useful function.

You'll need to change your signature to Dobbin Dolan.

Maybe we should refer to him as Incitatus?
The parallels are not insignificant - a horse, appointed by a maniac,
to a role he was clearly (at least to the sane) completely unsuitable
for.
That would unfortunately make Vandal man Caligula though, and although
the insanity fits, at least Caligula's delusions were not entirely of
grandeur.

It is more than likely that he is a pitiful little nonentity who is
using the, largely insignificant, matter of walking/bicycles as a
subject for him to wax loud and long about. Quite noticeably in a
bicycle group where he will be most likely to get a response, and of
course it is the response that massages his ego - "look Mama, they
noticed me!"

Obviously the most effective method of dealing with the twerp would be
to ignore him but he posts such infantile arguments that there is the
temptation post a response to his arguments simply to demonstrate the
poorly thought out logic of his ascertains. Unfortunately it appears
that he is so poorly educated that he cannot formulate a rebuttal and
simply repeats his previous statements or, in desperation, falls back
on the utterances of his mentor, the convict.

An insignificant twerp :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

By the way, if you were to suffer a really serious injury, one

that left you paralyzed for example, I doubt that you would think it
was worth

it. Price to be paid - indeed!

*

Well, clearly, you DON'T understand risk either or you would not
have written this.

It is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that such a fate will befall me ... but
not impossible.* If you live your life based on worrying about extremely
unlikely events then you will end up doing a Howard Hughes and never leaving
your house.

It is not as unlikely as you think it is. Helmets will not
protect you from a paralyzing injury. Bikers who ride their bikes on hiking
trails will hit something and go over the handlebars. It is not rare for this to
happen. How you land will determine how serious your injuries will be. Why risk
any of this?

Well, actually, I know precisely ... as a percentage per mile travelled ... how likely/unlikely it is. I have decided that this risk level is acceptable. I don't castigate anyone who takes a more cautious view but my choice is my choice and I, and any other adult who is mentally competent, am entitled to make up my own mind.

Of course, the reality is that the risk is variable and depends on many factors including the type of riding that one undertakes. Thus, taking one's children on the trail one would ensure that they were undertaking less risky activities whereas I would tend to gravitate towards the more extreme end of the spectrum with concomitantly greater risk.

However, since the odds of killing or disabling yourself whilst
walking down the stairs or taking a shower are also unlikely, but not zero, even
there you are not safe.

Hikers walking a trail are not in much danger of killing or
injuring themselves whereas bikers who do what they do on trails are. Very odd
that you would argue anything to the contrary.

I simply pointed out that the odds are not as extreme as you might expect. And, for this reason, a goodly number of hikers do succumb to fatal injuries as a result of hiking.

Mountain biking, measured against other risks, is not at the top
of the risk tree ... but it's not at the bottom either.* Pay your money and
take your choice.* As I also enjoy extreme skiing and motorcycle racing I
take it you can guess where I draw the line.

You are risking life and limb doing dangerous things. When the
inevitable happens you will have nothing but second thoughts about the risk
taking. It is entirely possible to enjoy what the outdoors has to offer without
doing anything foolish. I enjoy trekking, but I would never for a moment
consider any kind of climbing. Why? It is dangerous and doesn't add to my
enjoyment of trekking. Adrenalin rushes are strictly for idiots.

Risk is endemic to living. Pretty much everything that you do has an element of risk. You may eschew 'dangerous' sports but then expire from congestive heart failure or as a result of a motoring accident. I think you're missing the fundamental point ... I AM fully aware of the risks and I CHOOSE to accept them. I am not alone in that and, in fact, many major breakthroughs in a lot of fields have resulted from people prepared to take calculated risks. Given that nearly every risk is well below 100% no, nothing is 'inevitable' as you posit. In fact, most people will enjoy their activity with nothing worse than a few bruises ... that's the norm.

Mountain biking ranked low on the list compared to hiking in
terms of popularity. That is all I was interested in.

But was more popular amongst first time participants and the young ... which means that, over time, it will grow relative to hiking. More people are taking up mountainbiking than hiking.

You remind me of a bulldog that gets hold of some little
thing, however irrelevant, and then wants to hang onto it forever. Notice how I
move on, never stumbling over stuff that doesn't matter.

How does the aforementioned statement not matter Ed ... it directly contravenes your point about mountainbiking going away ... it's growing relative to hiking. The report confirms that there will be more new bikers and less new hikers so, over time, mountainbiking will overtake hiking if that trend continues.

Where are we right now on this thread? I am proving that
mountain biking is not as popular as you think it is and it is also far more
dangerous then you think it is. That is the subject of this thread - the
so-called "joys & pleasures", or is satire wasted on you?

No Ed, you're not proving that. Firstly, I never stated how popular or otherwise it was ... and, frankly, I don't particularly care. You just grabbed a statistic that you thought backed you up but, because you couldn't be bothered to read the rest, failed to notice what I've just pointed out.

Secondly, I already know what the risk is; 0.00123 killed per million miles travelled ... using data from your dear pal Vandeman who has a strong bias against mountainbiking so the real figure is likely significantly lower.

Lastly, for satire to work it needs a common understanding. As I, and many others, genuinely do enjoy the Joys and Pleasures of cycling on trails the irony is lost on us ...

"John B." wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

When are you ever going to learn how to edit a post?

It is more than likely that he is a pitiful little nonentity who is
using the, largely insignificant, matter of walking/bicycles as a
subject for him to wax loud and long about. Quite noticeably in a
bicycle group where he will be most likely to get a response, and of
course it is the response that massages his ego - "look Mama, they
noticed me!"

I am more than willing to talk about bicycles unconnected to trails if and when anybody wants. But so far just asshole mountain bikers are posting on this newsgroup as far as I can tell. As long as that is the the case. I am here to refute you and everything you stand for. Death to mountain bikers!

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

Obviously the most effective method of dealing with the twerp would be
to ignore him but he posts such infantile arguments that there is the
temptation post a response to his arguments simply to demonstrate the
poorly thought out logic of his ascertains. Unfortunately it appears
that he is so poorly educated that he cannot formulate a rebuttal and
simply repeats his previous statements or, in desperation, falls back
on the utterances of his mentor, the convict.

I repeat previous statements because of what I get from the biker louts – the same old points being raised again and again. If anyone has any new points to bring up, I will gladly deal with them. But otherwise repetitions are all you deserve and all you will get.

Mr. Vandeman has better things to do than deal with a cretin like you. I on the other hand enjoy kicking dumb ass. From this point on all you will get from me is invective since you have proven yourself unworthy of anything else. Enjoy!

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

An insignificant twerp :-)

The only insignificant twerp here is you, which you prove with your every post.

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

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 ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is not as unlikely [a serious accident due to cycling on a trail] as you think it is. Helmets will not
protect you from a paralyzing injury. Bikers who ride their bikes on hiking
trails will hit something and go over the handlebars. It is not rare for this to
happen. How you land will determine how serious your injuries will be. Why risk
any of this?

Well, actually, I know precisely ... as a percentage per mile travelled ... how likely/unlikely it is. I have decided that this risk level is acceptable. I don't castigate anyone who takes a more cautious view but my choice is my choice and I, and any other adult who is mentally competent, am entitled to make up my own mind.

Of course, the reality is that the risk is variable and depends on many factors including the type of riding that one undertakes. Thus, taking one's children on the trail one would ensure that they were undertaking less risky activities whereas I would tend to gravitate towards the more extreme end of the spectrum with concomitantly greater risk.

You obviously do not read your own mountain biker propaganda. It is just chock full of nothing but enthusiasm for riding bikes on hiking trails. I see very litte there about the dangers of mountain biking. I assure you that most cyclists who ride their bikes on trails have no sense of the danger of it.

What you think you know and how you will feel if you get a serious injury from mountain biking are two different things. You need to grow up and put away childish things. Anyone who risks injury in the pursuit of a recreation is slightly crazy to say the least. You are a fool to “gravitate towards the more extreme end of the spectrum with concomitantly greater risk�.

However, since the odds of killing or disabling yourself whilst
walking down the stairs or taking a shower are also unlikely, but not zero, even
there you are not safe.

Hikers walking a trail are not in much danger of killing or
injuring themselves whereas bikers who do what they do on trails are. Very odd
that you would argue anything to the contrary.

I simply pointed out that the odds are not as extreme as you might expect. And, for this reason, a goodly number of hikers do succumb to fatal injuries as a result of hiking.

Hikers occasionally come to a bad end too but almost always from doing something they shouldn't have been doing. With mountain bikers it is just the opposite. They are doing what they think they should be doing and come to a bad end as a direct result of it. The two cases are very different.

Mountain biking, measured against other risks, is not at the top
of the risk tree ... but it's not at the bottom either. Pay your money and
take your choice. As I also enjoy extreme skiing and motorcycle racing I
take it you can guess where I draw the line.

You are risking life and limb doing dangerous things. When the
inevitable happens you will have nothing but second thoughts about the risk
taking. It is entirely possible to enjoy what the outdoors has to offer without
doing anything foolish. I enjoy trekking, but I would never for a moment
consider any kind of climbing. Why? It is dangerous and doesn't add to my
enjoyment of trekking. Adrenalin rushes are strictly for idiots.

Risk is endemic to living. Pretty much everything that you do has an element of risk. You may eschew 'dangerous' sports but then expire from congestive heart failure or as a result of a motoring accident. I think you're missing the fundamental point ... I AM fully aware of the risks and I CHOOSE to accept them. I am not alone in that and, in fact, many major breakthroughs in a lot of fields have resulted from people prepared to take calculated risks. Given that nearly every risk is well below 100% no, nothing is 'inevitable' as you posit. In fact, most people will enjoy their activity with nothing worse than a few bruises .... that's the norm.

That is NOT the norm with young males cycling on hiking trails. The injuries and deaths are out of all proportion to any enjoyment derived therefrom. It is an extremely dangerous thing to be doing. But there are plenty of older males and women and children who also suffer injuries while engaged in this “sport� because they are entirely ignorant of how dangerous it is.

I am just waiting for the lawsuits to commence. Someone needs to be held responsible for this carnage. Mountain bikers themselves don't know **** about anything – period! They are heedless of the dangers just as you are, thinking it will never happen to them. All this blather about “calculated risks� is blarney – just whistling by the graveyard!

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 ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Mountain biking ranked low on the list compared to hiking in
terms of popularity. That is all I was interested in.

But was more popular amongst first time participants and the young .... which means that, over time, it will grow relative to hiking. More people are taking up mountainbiking than hiking.

It is going to turn around rather quickly when the dangers become ever more apparent. Only a minority of fools engage in extreme sports.

You remind me of a bulldog that gets hold of some little
thing, however irrelevant, and then wants to hang onto it forever. Notice how I
move on, never stumbling over stuff that doesn't matter.

How does the aforementioned statement not matter Ed ... it directly contravenes your point about mountainbiking going away ... it's growing relative to hiking. The report confirms that there will be more new bikers and less new hikers so, over time, mountainbiking will overtake hiking if that trend continues.

I do not see that ‘trend’ developing at all. I see it going in just the opposite direction for many and various reasons. You need to look up the word “fad�.

Where are we right now on this thread? I am proving that
mountain biking is not as popular as you think it is and it is also far more
dangerous then you think it is. That is the subject of this thread - the
so-called "joys & pleasures", or is satire wasted on you?

No Ed, you're not proving that. Firstly, I never stated how popular or otherwise it was ... and, frankly, I don't particularly care. You just grabbed a statistic that you thought backed you up but, because you couldn't be bothered to read the rest, failed to notice what I've just pointed out.

The statistic did back me up. Trends don’t interest me since they are subject to interpretation. I am not a futurist.

Secondly, I already know what the risk is; 0.00123 killed per million miles travelled ... using data from your dear pal Vandeman who has a strong bias against mountainbiking so the real figure is likely significantly lower.

Your reliance on statistics is meaningless since it is impossible to measure with any confidence what we are concerned with. All the reports from the field are far more reliable because they involve real people in real situations.

Lastly, for satire to work it needs a common understanding. As I, and many others, genuinely do enjoy the Joys and Pleasures of cycling on trails the irony is lost on us ...

At least you recognize an attempt at satire when you see it. After all, if the “Joys and Pleasures� are coming from me, then you know I am meaning just the opposite. Most of your peers are way too stupid to know even that little.

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