The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Exactly ... why should bikers specifically behave in
any different way to hikers in terms of protecting trails and the trail
experience ? Do bikers not turn out, in general rather more than hikers,
to maintain trails ? The answer to these questions, of course, is that
they don't and they do.

Edward Dolan wrote:

This business about bikers maintaining trails is the biggest
laugh ever to come down the pike. What bikers do is use that as an excuse so
they can build their own outlaw trails designed for only one thing - biking.

At least they're doing something to protect and maintain the experience for others. You're doing nothing and castigating others, who are prepared to put something in, for unsurprisingly favouring their own activity when doing that work.

Nonsense, I pay my taxes some of which some goes for taking care of parks and trails.

It is wrong to do it on trails used by hikers because
there is
a conflict of purpose among other conflicts. Only
hooligans have no regard for
others.

Then that, clearly, makes you a hooligan by your own
definition. You've stated, again and again, that you don't care one jot
for mountainbikers and rejoice when they are killed and injured.

Well Hells Bells, I am not killing them.

I didn't accuse you of doing so. You said "only hooligans have no regard for others" and then clearly demonstrated that you, yourself, have no regard for a whole section of the trail using population. You are therefore, by your own definition, a hooligan.

Hoist on your own petard.

You must learn how to read properly. Everything I say must be taken in the context of what is being discussed. Those who bike on trails are clearly hooligans. Those who oppose this are as the saints in heaven. All the bikers have to do is stop biking on trails and then, and only then, will I regard them as human beings and not hooligans. However, I do not waste much time having regard for others, but at least I do not trespass where I am not wanted. It is the difference between not having a positive and having a negative perspective.

Your purpose argument was shot down long ago.
You want to ban trail runners simply because they are there for a different
purpose. Your fundamental premise has no logic.

The logic could not be more clear and direct. You are only
entitled to be on trails only if you there for the purpose of appreciating
nature.

Says who ? You ???? !!! I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read, that public spaces are constituted for the public and wildlife.

Too general. Specifically, trails are for hikers and equestrians. There are other public spaces that are used for other things. It is a question of how spaces are managed for various purposes.

So, your restriction on purpose is something you've come up with, to suit your own ends, and which is entirely valueless.

Purpose determines most things in life. Trail destruction by bikers and wildlife disturbance are actually minor issues to most trail users.. Admittedly, you have to have intelligence in order to get your priorities right. I guess this lets you out of deciding of what is important and what is trivial.

The park managers, who you continually castigate, are doing precisely what they are supposed to do; balancing public demand for access and recreation and the protection of the environment and wildlife. There is zero reason why they would ever apply your purpose test ... it's not an objective and nor should it be.

Park managers have been led astray by outside pressures. Bureaucrats are famous worldwide for never having any guts. They are cowards to the core.

The purpose of why you are doing anything cuts to the quick of the problem of what trails are for. They are indeed for recreation, but only of a particular kind. They cannot be all things to all people. The ever increasing conflicts prove this without any doubt whatsoever.

What bikers are doing on trails is entirely different from what hikers are doing on trails. You need to ask yourself what a single track trail is for. If it is not for exactly the same thing that serious hikers think it is for, then you have no business being on it.

Frankly, my hiking days are over for various medical reasons. I can no longer walk all that good. And so the trails are no longer for me. I can accept that. Trails were never meant for bikers. Why can’t you accept that? Because you can’t accept it, you are destroying an experience that has been a rich source of enjoyment for several generations of hikers. Like most folks these days, you only know how to destroy, not how to create.

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 ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

If you are bored by cycling on a road, then get
off your god damn ****ing bike and walk a trail like everyone else, However I
suspect that bores you too.

Why don't you just walk on pavement in the city then Ed ? Is that the same experience ? I don't think so.

Whether I walk on a sidewalk or a trail I am not causing any interference with others. When you bike on a trail, you are causing interference with others because it is a conflict that arises from both means and purpose.
[...]

Society has every
right to restrict your cycling to roads. Mr. Vandeman and I are working to make
that happen.

Society does, you don't. And society is mostly not comprised by extremists like you and instead rather more moderate people who accept that a public resource cannot simply be annexed solely for their preferred mode of recreation.

As such, I'm pretty confident that your efforts will continue to be in vain, as they have been for the past 20 years.

20 years is a mere flicker in time and not anything that we need think of as being a permanent fixture. The only extremists are bikers who want to ride their bikes on trails that have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians.

All public resources have to be managed for best use, not for most use. Traditional modes of recreation always take precedence over any recently evolved modes of recreation. Get your own trails if that is how you want to recreate. I have no objection to that although Mr. Vandeman clearly does. He thinks any contraption with wheels belongs on roads only. He is far more right than you and me.

More bad news from the trenches for idiots like Blackblade who
maintain there are no conflicts worth mentioning. Everything to him is just a
number (data). Why not try to tell that to this gentleman who now has a broken
leg due to a mountain biker.

No, he has a broken leg because an unfortunate co-incidence of mountainbiker and horse occurred. This is not a common occurrence.

It is common enough so that you have to constantly fear it. Get your own trails where you can crash into one another as much as you want and I sure as hell won’t give a damn.

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

You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups
should have access ...

Yes, since all recent groups, such as mountain bikers, are
essentially nothing but interlopers and are not welcomed by the traditional
users. Extreme democracy is for idiots. It is only serious intellectuals like
Mr. Vandeman and Myself that ever need to be asked anything even remotely
connected to trails. Mountain bikers should never be asked anything not related
to their dumb asses since that is where their brains are located.

Too funny. You want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of who may, and may not, have access. Do get over yourself.

Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers there.

The conflicts and complaints themselves are the only data that
matter to me since it is intelligent data, not dumb data like
yours.

Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data.

My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice
a week for three years now in this area.

You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues about
what is happening in the real world. California is the state where everything
happens first and the rest of the world follows.

Keep telling yourself that ... but I live in a 'backwater' whose GDP eclipses that of California.

If no one has ever told you that you are an idiot, I am
telling you now. No charge! I am telling you what you are out of the goodness of
My Great Sainthood.

I shall wear that as a badge of pride. If you, who thinks opinion counts as data and that your opinion trumps everyone else's, were to acclaim me as smart I would be very worried.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

You want to ask one small user group only if all user groups
should have access ..

Edward Dolan wrote:.

Yes, since all recent groups, such as mountain bikers, are
essentially nothing but interlopers and are not welcomed by the traditional
users. Extreme democracy is for idiots. It is only serious intellectuals like
Mr. Vandeman and Myself that ever need to be asked anything even remotely
connected to trails. Mountain bikers should never be asked anything not related
to their dumb asses since that is where their brains are located.

Too funny. You want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of who may, and may not, have access. Do get over yourself.

Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers there.

If you go back far enough not even land was owned by anyone. It was wilderness for all to use depending on who was the strongest – and it was all walked of course since wheels had not yet been invented.

The conflicts and complaints themselves are the only data that
matter to me since it is intelligent data, not dumb data like
yours.

Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data.

Nor is yours, It is just dumb numbers which mean nothing. Instead of resorting to meaningless numbers, why not try rational argument.

My personal experience is of no conflict ... and I've ridden twice
a week for three years now in this area.

You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues about
what is happening in the real world. California is the state where everything
happens first and the rest of the world follows.

Keep telling yourself that ... but I live in a 'backwater' whose GDP eclipses that of California.

I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small backwater.

If no one has ever told you that you are an idiot, I am
telling you now. No charge! I am telling you what you are out of the goodness of
My Great Sainthood.

I shall wear that as a badge of pride. If you, who thinks opinion counts as data and that your opinion trumps everyone else's, were to acclaim me as smart I would be very worried.

My opinions and the opinions of other hikers like myself count for infinitely more than any poor numbers you can dredge up. I urge you to become humble and self-effacing like ME. Pride, such as you constantly display here, goeth before a fall.

Here is something more from your neck of the woods that should interest you, although I think it may not have any numbers (data) for you to ponder.


This problem is, of course, universal. If there is any place where
mountain bikers allegedly "get along" with other trail users, it is a
place where they have already driven everyone else off the trails, so
there is no one left to complain!

http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/...aths-1-6558134

Keep mountain bikers off our footpaths

Published 16/04/2014 17:00

The other day I came across a mountain biker at a path junction in
Pecket Well Clough.

She was making a decision between cycling down a footpath and cycling
down a bridleway. She did the 'right thing' and I complimented her on
her choice.

We then got into a discussion about mountain bikers using footpaths -
and she astounded me by saying that some mountain biking friends of
hers had been told by someone from Calderdale Council that it was OK
to cycle on footpaths!

I said this was unlikely to be true. But if it is, then it is quite
simply unacceptable. I realise that it is extremely difficult to
enforce the law regarding the use of footpaths by MTBs, but the
council should be getting the message out there that bridleways can
be used by bikes but footpaths are ONLY for walkers. It isn't as if
there is a dearth of bridleways in Calderdale. Quite the opposite -
bikers are really spoilt for choice.

The main problem with mountain bikes on footpaths, as you will well
know, is that whereas bridleways usually have causey stones, pitching
or some other hardwearing surface, footpaths usually do not.

Whereas walkers generally place their feet randomly on a path, bikers
will all tend to steer their wheels down the same line. This has
resulted (especially after the 2012 cloudbursts) in some very badly
damaged footpaths around Hebden Bridge.

I have come across a group of about six mountain bikers using a steep
footpath near Midgehole as a kind of bikers' "helter-skelter"! They
were not using it to travel from one place to another - but were
instead rocketing down it and then dragging their bikes uphill to go
back down it, again and again. This is an unsurfaced path through
deciduous woodland - and I hardly need to tell you what kind of
damage was being done, even after fairly dry weather. When I
challenged them, I was told that it was "much better in the mud"
after it had rained!

There is also a public safety issue when this sort of activity is
carried out on steep footpaths. And yet I frequently encounter tyre
tracks on the most unlikely of footpaths - near steep drops and often
on routes with many stiles and steps. Please could you release a
statement that could be published in the media - well before the Tour
comes to Yorkshire! - to explain why MTBs should stick to bridleways?
And how about some special waymark discs printed with "Bridleway -
MTBs welcome" and "Footpath - no MTBs please"?

Janina Holubecki


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

Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be
followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers
since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers
there.

If you go back far enough not even land was owned by anyone.
It was wilderness for all to use depending on who was the strongest - and it was
all walked of course since wheels had not yet been invented.

Thank you for proving my point. Over time, usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of that period only.

Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice.

Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just
opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data.

Nor is yours, It is just dumb numbers which mean nothing.
Instead of resorting to meaningless numbers, why not try rational
argument.

I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a bike would disturb you. That's not rational !

You are living in a backwater and simply have no clues
about

what is happening in the real world. California is the
state where everything

happens first and the rest of the world
follows.

Keep telling yourself that ... but I live in a
'backwater' whose GDP eclipses that of California.

I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small
backwater.

My 'backwater' is within a hour's commute of London ! Try again.

I shall wear that as a badge of pride. If you,
who thinks opinion counts as data and that your opinion trumps everyone else's,
were to acclaim me as smart I would be very worried.

My opinions and the opinions of other hikers like myself count
for infinitely more than any poor numbers you can dredge up.

For you and your fellow travellers I'm sure this is the case. I doubt you'll convince anyone rational though.

I urge you to
become humble and self-effacing like ME. Pride, such as you constantly display
here, goeth before a fall.

Well, perhaps you should heed your own admonishment ?

However, I seem to recall that I am the one stating that my personal experience counts for little whereas you seem to believe that your opinions and words are divinely inspired. Good luck with that !

Here is something more from your neck of the woods that should
interest you, although I think it may not have any numbers (data) for you to
ponder.

article snipped

You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Also, as an aside, if your premise were to be
followed then large swathes of countryside, worldwide, would be banned to hikers
since the traditional users were the landowners ... and they didn't want hikers
there.

Edward Dolan wrote:

If you go back far enough not even land was owned by anyone.
It was wilderness for all to use depending on who was the strongest - and it was
all walked of course since wheels had not yet been invented.

Thank you for proving my point. Over time, usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of that period only.

Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice.

I don’t care about the ancient history of trails. It is not relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000 with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are not mountain bikes, but development.

Unverified opinion is NOT data ... it's just
opinion. Your 'data' isn't even data.

Nor is yours, It is just dumb numbers which mean nothing.
Instead of resorting to meaningless numbers, why not try rational
argument.

I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a bike would disturb you. That's not rational !

You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut!
[...]

I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small
backwater.

My 'backwater' is within a hour's commute of London ! Try again.

England is like New Jersey, only worse.
[...]

Here is something more from your neck of the woods that should
interest you, although I think it may not have any numbers (data) for you to
ponder.

article snipped

You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all.

You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always available until very recently. All this blather about “proper research� is pure baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only going to grow in number and seriousness. Cycling on hiking trails will eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users.

Here is a report of another idiot mountain biker, this one from Australia, who came to a ‘rational’ end:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...422-370ue.html

Man dies after mountain bike crash

Queensland
April 22, 2014 - 6:18AM

Marissa Calligeros
brisbanetimes.com.au reporter

Daisy Hill Conversation Park in Brisbane's south is considered one of
Australia's premier mountain biking areas.

A man has died after crashing his mountain bike in Daisy Hill forest
in Brisbane's south.

Other mountain bike riders found the 52-year-old man unconscious at
the bottom of a very steep trail in the conservation park about 8am on Monday.

The man, from Wellington Point, was taken to Princess Alexandra
Hospital by ambulance with critical head injuries, but passed away about 9pm.

A mountain biking trail in Daisy Hill Conservation Park.

Police said it appeared the man had lost control of his bike while
riding, but they would continue to investigate the circumstances
surrounding the incident.

Daisy Hill Conservation Park is considered one of Australia's premier
mountain bike riding areas. It is frequented by riders, particularly
on weekends.

The park includes at least seven designated mountain bike trails, as
well as fire trails which are open to horse riders and trail runners.

Anyone with information about Monday's incident is asked to contact
Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

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

Thank you for proving my point. Over time,
usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one
particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of
that period only.

Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no
rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice.

I don't care about the ancient history of trails. It is not
relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since
the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests
me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a
tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000
with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That
is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas
and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are
not mountain bikes, but development.

That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts.

There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources.

I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on
trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a
bike would disturb you. That's not rational !

You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your
idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut!

No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition

adjective: irrational

1.not logical or reasonable.
"irrational feelings of hostility"
synonyms: unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable, unsound

I was not referencing the entire UK, but only your small
backwater.

My 'backwater' is within a hour's commute of London
! Try again.

England is like New Jersey, only worse.

You know, once in a while, when you lose it might be politic to admit such. I assume that you wouldn't call New Jersey a 'backwater' ? Hence, I assume you concede the point that I am not commenting from the perspective of a 'backwater' as you opined earlier.

You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose
that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows
the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all.

You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always
available until very recently.

Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care about what I want..

My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity.

Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done, everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access whatsoever.

You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your fundamental position.

All this blather about "proper research" is pure
baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real
world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only
going to grow in number and seriousness.

You are presenting ONLY reports which support your position and, in so doing, presenting a completely biased account of what is going on. Given that the injury and fatality rates are DECLINING what rational basis do you have for declaring that they will grow in number and seriousness ?

The overall statistics show that there are very very few accidents and the tiny handful of reports that you produce have to be compared against the millions of rides happening every day worldwide.

You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only 'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while and accept that things move on.

Cycling on hiking trails will
eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god
damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users.

Hasn't happened yet, unlikely to do so in the future I think. It's not a 'nuisance' ... it's a perfectly valid and healthy use of a public resource.

And the report that you referenced suggests that, in the future, there will be more bikers and less hikers ... so maybe YOU are the nuisance ?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Thank you for proving my point. Over time,
usage has changed hence there is absolutely no justification for selecting one
particular period and stating that usage has to be frozen to meet the needs of
that period only.

Yet again, you are forced to concede that there is no
rational justification for your position ... simply your prejudice.

Edward Dolan wrote:

I don't care about the ancient history of trails. It is not
relevant to what is being discussed. It is what trails have been used for since
the establishment of the National Parks (Yellowstone NP in 1872) that interests
me. Prior to that event, there was very little in the way of trekking as a
tourist industry. However the period from the late 1800s to almost 2000
with respect to trails was given over entirely to hikers and equestrians. That
is the way it should remain until the end of time, provided any natural areas
and wilderness can even be preserved. The main danger to all natural areas are
not mountain bikes, but development.

That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts.

I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom.

There is absolutely NO objective justification for this position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ... that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources.

It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since it is the BEST allocation of resources. You can have your playgrounds somewhere else where you won’t be interfering with your superiors (hikers and equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers.

I did ... but since you are irrational about bikes on
trails to little avail. You already conceded that by simply being there a
bike would disturb you. That's not rational !

You want a compromise which is simply a surrender to your
idiocy. I am rational to the core ... and you are a nut!

No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition

It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you.
[...]

England is like New Jersey, only worse.

You know, once in a while, when you lose it might be politic to admit such. I assume that you wouldn't call New Jersey a 'backwater' ? Hence, I assume you concede the point that I am not commenting from the perspective of a 'backwater' as you opined earlier.

NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England. And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are heavily used, especially in California.

You're never going to learn are you ? I suppose
that's because all you have are opinion pieces. Any proper research shows
the true situation ... which doesn't suit your agenda at all.

You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always
available until very recently.

Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care about what I want.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails.

My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to undertake my preferred activity.

Your “preferred activity� is incompatible with hiking. You are not being reasonable at all. In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect closed to hikers.

Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done, everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access whatsoever.

You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your fundamental position.

My fundamental position is right and proper. It is you and your ilk who are destroying what has been an enjoyable activity for hundreds of thousands of hikers and equestrians for many generations.

All this blather about "proper research" is pure
baloney. I am presenting reports on what is actually happening in the the real
world. You need to wrap your mind around these reports because they are only
going to grow in number and seriousness.

You are presenting ONLY reports which support your position and, in so doing, presenting a completely biased account of what is going on. Given that the injury and fatality rates are DECLINING what rational basis do you have for declaring that they will grow in number and seriousness ?

Rates go up and rates go down. The fact remains that biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous. My reports are so numerous and so serious that all bias is erased. However, if biking on trails decreases then it is quite possible that injuries and deaths will go done overall, but it will always remain a dangerous thing to be doing.

The overall statistics show that there are very very few accidents and the tiny handful of reports that you produce have to be compared against the millions of rides happening every day worldwide.

There are not millions of rides happening every day. Biking on hiking trails is still a minority pastime.. Most cyclists ride their bikes on roads however rough. Mountain bikes outsell road bikes these days, but that doesn't mean they are being used for riding on trails.

You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only 'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while and accept that things move on.

There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers. It is an incompatible use which is rife with all kinds of conflicts. The only spoiled child here is you who wants to do what he wants to do regardless of how it effects anyone else. You are not only irrational, but selfish to the core.

Cycling on hiking trails will
eventually be banned because it will be recognized by one and all for the god
damn ****ing nuisance that it is to other trail users.

Hasn't happened yet, unlikely to do so in the future I think. It's not a 'nuisance' ... it's a perfectly valid and healthy use of a public resource.

Only you and your ilk think it is not a nuisance. We cognoscenti know better. Get your own trails.

And the report that you referenced suggests that, in the future, there will be more bikers and less hikers ... so maybe YOU are the nuisance ?

Nope, priority counts for more than anything else. If you could be added without causing any interference with others, that would be one thing, But bikers can’t be added to trails being used by hikers because it is HUGE interference. No hiker who enjoys hiking would ever want to share a trail with anyone on a bike. It is a conflict of means and purpose. In other words, a cluster ****!

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

That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that
you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts.

I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up
tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom.

You may, indeed, be unaware of it ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When you say something and the facts prove your statement incorrect ... that means you LOSE.

So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions in a given location because the data showed that there weren't.

Better luck next time.

There is absolutely NO objective justification for this
position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ....
that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources.

It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since
it is the BEST allocation of resources.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what you like.. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental logical errors.

You can have your playgrounds somewhere
else where you won't be interfering with your superiors (hikers and
equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers.

You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so.

No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least
be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the
mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of
interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition

It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers
anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you.

You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind.

NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England.

Very funny. Yet, the GDP eclipses that of the area you were referencing. So, that means only six nations in the world aren't backwaters according to your definition. What a ridiculous statement.

And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you
frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are
heavily used, especially in California.

I'd be interested in how you prove that Ed. The videos that you, yourself, posted in this thread showed very lightly trafficked trails.

The trails I frequent are used by hikers, bikers and equestrians ... and being that we are within an hour of London they are fairly heavily used.

You are the one with an agenda. I only want what was always
available until very recently.

Yes, I know. But you can't have it. The world has moved on. Get over it. You cannot have public lands just for your, one, preferred recreation.

Why should I care what you want ? You clearly don't care
about what I want.

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you
want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails.

They are mine Ed ... well, more than yours anyway, since I work to maintain them. Actually, they don't belong to either of us ... they are a public resource and we have to share because your solution of everyone having their own unique trails will see huge swathes of countryside consumed. Sure, in some locations it works ... there are bike parks in Wales for example ... but that's not going to work everywhere.

My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access
everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to
undertake my preferred activity.

Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are
not being reasonable at all.

No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail.

In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard
for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect
closed to hikers.

What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ?

Your agenda is that you want to do what you've always done,
everywhere, and to deny everyone who doesn't agree with you any kind of access
whatsoever.

You can dress it up any which way you like but this is your
fundamental position.

My fundamental position is right and proper.

No Ed, it's not. It's selfish, damaging to the environment and unreasonable.

Rates go up and rates go down. The fact remains that biking on
hiking trails is extremely dangerous. My reports are so numerous and so serious
that all bias is erased. However, if biking on trails decreases then it is quite
possible that injuries and deaths will go done overall, but it will always
remain a dangerous thing to be doing.

0.00123 fatalities per million miles.
1.54 injuries per thousand exposures

You are wrong ... it is relatively safe.

If you want to show lack of bias then ask a random sample and find out who has experienced conflict ... I will bet you a very large sum of money that the vast majority will not have done so. You only collect reports of conflict and accident ... so you have no idea whatsoever what percentage they represent.

Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict.

There are not millions of rides happening every day.

The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN !

You need to grow up and stop behaving like a spoilt child just
presented with a sibling who now wants to share what was, previously, only
'yours'. It never was, just be grateful you had it to yourself for a while
and accept that things move on.

There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers.

So you say ... and then ...

You are not only irrational, but selfish to the
core.

So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

That's right Ed. Bring up a topic, lose the argument that
you've started, and then hop off to the next assertion without facts.

Edward Dolan wrote:

I am not aware of ever losing any arguments ... and I bring up
tangential subjects so as not to die of boredom.

You may, indeed, be unaware of it ... doesn't mean it doesn't happen. When you say something and the facts prove your statement incorrect ... that means you LOSE.

So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions in a given location because the data showed that there weren't.

Better luck next time.

All this business about winning and losing makes you look like the child that you are. Like all of politics, there is no winning or losing, just who has the better argument ... and how many you are able to persuade that you have the better argument. One thing I do know for sure – you would not know a fact if it jumped up and bit you in your dumb ass.

There is absolutely NO objective justification for this
position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this period ....
that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources.

It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since
it is the BEST allocation of resources.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what you like. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental logical errors.

The only thing that is getting tiresome to me is that I have to keep going over and over why bikes do not belong on trails used by hikers. It is a conflict of MEANS and PURPOSE. If you do not know what I mean by that by now, then you are truly hopeless.

You can have your playgrounds somewhere
else where you won't be interfering with your superiors (hikers and
equestrians). Any trash environment is good enough for bikers.

You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so.

Hikers are superior to bikers when on trails ... or even when on bike paths for that matter. Were you born in a barn?

No, I'm not asking you to surrender ... I'm asking you to at least
be honest. The fact that YOUR mind-state is affected negatively by the
mere presence of a bike on a trail, irrespective of whether there is any kind of
interaction whatsoever, is clearly irrational. Dictionary definition

It is perfectly rational that we hikers do not want bikers
anywhere near us on a trail. The only irrational slob here is you.

You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed ... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my peace of mind.

Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening (mental torture) and a conflict (potential). I think you meant to say you do not want YOUR neighbor in YOUR garden because it destroys YOUR peace of mind. Glad I was able to straighten you out on that.

NJ is indeed a backwater as is the entire nation of England.

Very funny. Yet, the GDP eclipses that of the area you were referencing. So, that means only six nations in the world aren't backwaters according to your definition. What a ridiculous statement.

What does GDP have to do with anything? England is a backwater because it was stupid enough to lose its empire in the European civil wars (WWI and WWII). Even Churchill could not save you. But fear not, the US is not far behind you and we are fast becoming a backwater ourselves. Just as I tell you to get your own trails for cycling , I would tell you to get your own military defense instead of eternally relying on the US for that. I see that China is shortly going to become the number one economic nation in the world despite its colossal and doubtlessly unsolvable people problems. GDP ... my ass!

And the closer you are to London, the worse it is. It seems that the trails you
frequent are lightly used. That is not the case in the US. Most trails are
heavily used, especially in California.

I'd be interested in how you prove that Ed. The videos that you, yourself, posted in this thread showed very lightly trafficked trails.

The trails I frequent are used by hikers, bikers and equestrians ... and being that we are within an hour of London they are fairly heavily used.

California is always in the forefront of every unfavorable development in the world and the trails there are full of bedlam thanks to mountain bikers. If you tell me your trails are crowded, then I believe you. I do note that many of my reports of accidents come from England so you cannot claim that there are no conflicts.
[...]

Unlike Mr. Vandeman, I am willing to let you have what you
want, only not anywhere near a hiking trail. Get your own trails.

They are mine Ed ... well, more than yours anyway, since I work to maintain them. Actually, they don't belong to either of us ... they are a public resource and we have to share because your solution of everyone having their own unique trails will see huge swathes of countryside consumed. Sure, in some locations it works ... there are bike parks in Wales for example ... but that's not going to work everywhere.

What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers. The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers.

My agenda is that I want 'reasonable' access. Not access
everywhere, not mixed use trails everywhere but a reasonable level of access to
undertake my preferred activity.

Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are
not being reasonable at all.

No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the trail.

You actually do both of the above. You are deaf and blind as to what your presence on a bike on a trail means for walkers. It we can’t educate you, we will have to police you.

In fact, you are being selfish. You have no regard
for any others than yourself. Once a trail is open to bikers, it is in effect
closed to hikers.

What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being selfish and intransigent ?

ALL hikers require solitude. That is one of the essentials of the hiking experience. Otherwise, why not go for a walk in the streets of New York or London. The only compromise you can make is to get the hell off of hiking trails with your bike. My compromise is that you can get your own trails as long as they are not anywhere near my hiking trails. What a cyclist wants to experience on a trail is not anything like what a hiker wants to experience.
[...]

If you want to show lack of bias then ask a random sample and find out who has experienced conflict ... I will bet you a very large sum of money that the vast majority will not have done so. You only collect reports of conflict and accident ... so you have no idea whatsoever what percentage they represent.

Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the internet and trawl for conflict.

Reports from the field in the media are all the proof anyone ever needs as to what the problems are. Since you are unable to explain these accidents and deaths, it would seem that you have the problem and only resort to numbers as an excuse and a distraction. Unfortunately for you, I am not easily distracted.

There are not millions of rides happening every day.

The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2 weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You are wrong ... AGAIN !

Are they riding on trails? Most likely they are riding on roads and city streets. You are never able to make any sense of numbers. Good thing for you that I am always able to provide the essential information as to what the numbers might mean.
[...]

There can be no sharing of hiking trails with bikers.

So you say ... and then ...

You are not only irrational, but selfish to the
core.

So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical.

Totally rational, totally unselfish and totally logical NOT to want to share that which CAN’T be shared. Now all you need is to get a brain so you can see the intelligence of it.

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