A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old May 2nd 14, 11:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

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.


I'm more than happy to subject myself to the wisdom of our fellow group participants ... I'm just pointing out the gaping holes in your logic.

You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ... having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ?

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.


I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.

So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource.

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?


Wonderful non-sequitur ... as the Duke of Wellington said "Just because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse". But, no, thanks for asking ... I wasn't born in a barn. Fortunately, for me, I was born into a house where my parents taught me to think and to analyse carefully ... and to question anyone unable to backup their position with logic and facts.

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).


To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your fragile mental state.

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.


No, Ed, you weren't able to straighten it out. The reason I said neighbour in HIS garden is because I was making a point. The trails belong to me as much as to you so I am in 'MY' garden and your peace of mind is being destroyed. Get help.

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.


Do get your facts straight. You are confusing accidents with conflicts ... two completely different things. Secondly, I never said there were no conflicts ... I just said that I hadn't had any in three years riding.

What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers.


So you keep saying. Yet you posted videos showing it working fine and I have had no conflict using multi-use trails where I live. So, clearly, it works fine in some places. Probably in most.

The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be
ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers.


I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this.

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.


There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I don't care about you either.

I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics.

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.


What about the ramblers association and their organised group walks ? What about family groups ?

YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ... some do, sometimes.

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.


And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and, ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for access.

I've referred to it in the past but I would suggest, again, that you look at the voluntary arrangements between hiking groups and mountainbiking groups that exist. Where people are reasonable and accept that they have different viewpoints and desires ... but are forced to share the same resource to achieve those desires ... and do so in a reasonable manner then the outcomes are far far better than those occasioned by conflict.

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.


Hilarious ... really ??

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.


Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here.

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.


Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a day.

These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on facts regarding the number and frequency in the US.

So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity overall.

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.


Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ... and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical, selfish and irrational.
Ads
  #192  
Old May 3rd 14, 07:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

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.


I'm more than happy to subject myself to the wisdom of our fellow group participants ... I'm just pointing out the gaping holes in your logic.


You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ... having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ?


Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing is not my idea of winning and losing. Checkmate!
[...]

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.


I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification.


I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of substance. You have done the same, but your opinions and feelings are not my opinions and feelings. Checkmate!

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.


So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource.


Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may want. Democracy is for idiots.

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?


Wonderful non-sequitur ... as the Duke of Wellington said "Just because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse". But, no, thanks for asking ... I wasn't born in a barn. Fortunately, for me, I was born into a house where my parents taught me to think and to analyse carefully ... and to question anyone unable to backup their position with logic and facts.


I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle.

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).


To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your fragile mental state.


I am a stand-in for all hikers from time immemorial. You are a stand-in for all scofflaws from time immemorial.

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.


No, Ed, you weren't able to straighten it out. The reason I said neighbour in HIS garden is because I was making a point. The trails belong to me as much as to you so I am in 'MY' garden and your peace of mind is being destroyed. Get help.


Trails belong to those who are will use them by the right means and for the proper purpose. They are not for those who would desecrate natural values who will use them by the wrong means and for improper purposes. Checkmate!

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.


Do get your facts straight. You are confusing accidents with conflicts ... two completely different things. Secondly, I never said there were no conflicts ... I just said that I hadn't had any in three years riding.


Biking on hiking trails is ALWAYS an accident waiting to happen because wheels are a conflict with paths designed for walking. Checkmate!

What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers.


So you keep saying. Yet you posted videos showing it working fine and I have had no conflict using multi-use trails where I live. So, clearly, it works fine in some places. Probably in most.


The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be
ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers.


I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this.


The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels. Wheels belong on roads.

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.


There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I don't care about you either.


It is not about caring one way or another. It is about doing the right thing. That is something you would know nothing about.

I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics.


The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper and the usurper.

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.


What about the ramblers association and their organised group walks ? What about family groups ?


All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels.

YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ... some do, sometimes.


All serious hikers require solitude – period!

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.


And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and, ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for access.


My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose. Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are absolutely banned.

I've referred to it in the past but I would suggest, again, that you look at the voluntary arrangements between hiking groups and mountainbiking groups that exist. Where people are reasonable and accept that they have different viewpoints and desires ... but are forced to share the same resource to achieve those desires ... and do so in a reasonable manner then the outcomes are far far better than those occasioned by conflict.


I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers, bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of England).

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.


Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here.


I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound happen. It would be a miracle if they didn’t happen. Who is Mark Shand?

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.


Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a day.


These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on facts regarding the number and frequency in the US.


So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity overall.


These million of rides are not on trails. They are on roads and streets. The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely dangerous.

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.


Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ... and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical, selfish and irrational.


Horses move along rather slowly. After all, they are just walking too. Any trails being “shared” are not happily being shared. We hikers loath the very sight of a biker on a trail. It is a transgression against nature and other humans pure and simple.

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


  #193  
Old May 6th 14, 11:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ...
having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary
tactics again ?

Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing
is not my idea of winning and losing.


My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?

I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to

believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that
this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the
slightest objective justification.

I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of
substance.


No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a

trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company..

So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it

utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource.

Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as
long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it
pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely
different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they
touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots.


"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill

Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are.

I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike
paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same
reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle.


And I have never argued the principles of precedence ... when on my bike I do give way to hikers and riders. However, that has nothing to do with what you're promoting ... which is excluding bikes from trails.

Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening


(mental torture) and a conflict (potential).


To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If

your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some
help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your
fragile mental state.

I am a stand-in for all hikers from time immemorial. You are a
stand-in for all scofflaws from time immemorial.


No, Ed, as you yourself admitted you are simply representing 'serious' hikers. The majority are prepared to share.

I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails

for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary
reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups
and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force
reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this.

The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious
hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we
will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels.
Wheels belong on roads.


Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote.

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.


No, I think we will have to educate YOU :-).

There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of

fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and
I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I
don't care about you either.

It is not about caring one way or another. It is about doing
the right thing. That is something you would know nothing about.


I think I am doing the right thing ... arguing that everyone gets to share the public resources for which they pay whilst, at the same time, preserving that resource for future generations and protecting wildlife.

I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with

fanatics.

The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been
customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper
and the usurper.


Oh do grow up ... you're old enough for god's sake. The world is not as it was 150 years ago and nor will it be in 150 years time. If you won't accept the lessons of history then history will simply roll right over you (possibly on a bike :-) ).

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.


What about the ramblers association and their organised group

walks ? What about family groups ?

All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they
are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels.


Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike.

YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your

position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ...
some do, sometimes.

All serious hikers require solitude - period!


Sounds as if your 'serious' hikers are a rather small minority even of the hiking population.

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.



And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want

and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and,
ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is
guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for
access.

My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is
never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose.
Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to
do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are
absolutely banned.


Ah, Ed, you dissemble. You admitted that it is the attitude of the newly designated group of 'serious' hikers. Where only you get to determine what 'serious' means in this context.

There are people on the trails for all kinds of purposes aside from solitude ...

I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and
accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers,
bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of
trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is
already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of
England).


Yet you were able to post numerous videos which showed bikers and hikers co-existing without conflict. I wonder why that is Ed ? Could it be that, maybe, you're wrong ?

Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said,

repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of
endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature
and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ....
things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for
hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would
vouch for that if he were still here.

I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at
which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot
explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer
stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound
happen. It would be a miracle if they didn't happen. Who is Mark
Shand?


And I've posted the list ... from the Lake District Mountain Rescue Annual Report. Seems to show rather too many hiker accidents for your liking though :-).

The natural world is not a sanitised play area for people so, whether on foot or bike, accidents will happen.

As to Mark Shand ... he was an environmental and wildlife activist, and the brother of the Duchess of Cornwall ... and he died in New York very recently from falling over after exiting a revolving door.

  #194  
Old May 7th 14, 05:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

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.


Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the

rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a
day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a
day.

These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on

facts regarding the number and frequency in the US.

So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the

numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says
is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very
few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity
overall.

These million of rides are not on trails. They are on roads
and streets.


You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS !

The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike
paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely
dangerous.


If you ride once a week, for twenty miles each time, then your risks are ...

0.64% of fatality ... IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME
1 injury requiring medical attention ... EVERY 12.5 YEARS

Those figures calculated from the 0.00123 fatalities every million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries requiring medical attention per thousand exposures.

So, no, you're extremely unlikely to come to a bad end even if you ride quite a lot.

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.




Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ...

and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are
also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical,
selfish and irrational.



Horses move along rather slowly. After all, they are just
walking too. Any trails being "shared" are not happily being shared. We hikers
loath the very sight of a biker on a trail. It is a transgression against nature
and other humans pure and simple.


I thought we'd dispensed with the 'we hikers' Ed ? You've already admitted that you only represent 'serious' hikers since group ramblers, family groups, trail runners and others are 'inferior' users in your lexicon.

So, let's rewrite your last two sentences to reflect the real situation shall we ?

"I loathe the very sight of a biker on a trail. I consider it a transgression against nature and my peace of mind pure and simple." - What Ed Dolan really meant
  #195  
Old May 8th 14, 03:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ...

having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary
tactics again ?


Edward Dolan wrote:

Your logic is not my logic and your idea of winning and losing
is not my idea of winning and losing.


My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?


My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for – and it sure as hell ain’t mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels.

I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to

believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that
this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the
slightest objective justification.

I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of
substance.


No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'.


I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a

trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.

So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it

utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource.

Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as
long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it
pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely
different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they
touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots.


"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill


Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are.


Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots in the sense that it never reproduces any high culture. Of course, you Europeans would know all about elites having been infested with them for most of your existence on this earth. The English especially were not far removed from a caste system until recently.

I have simply stated who gets precedence on trails and bike
paths. Never bikers because they are moving faster than walkers. It is the same
reason why a pedestrian gets preference to a motor vehicle.


And I have never argued the principles of precedence ... when on my bike I do give way to hikers and riders. However, that has nothing to do with what you're promoting ... which is excluding bikes from trails.


It is exactly the same thing. Bikes go too fast for walkers and should therefore be banned from trails. Bikes on trails are at best a nuisance and at worse an accident waiting to happen.
[...]

The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious
hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we
will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels.
Wheels belong on roads.


Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote.


I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain.
[...]

I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with

fanatics.

The only fanatic here is you. I only want what has been
customary and traditional for over 150 years to continue. You are the interloper
and the usurper.


Oh do grow up ... you're old enough for god's sake. The world is not as it was 150 years ago and nor will it be in 150 years time. If you won't accept the lessons of history then history will simply roll right over you (possibly on a bike :-) ).


The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial. It cannot be change without us being changed. You have all of civilized society to roam in. Wilderness belongs to those of us who wish to touch our roots since that is how we evolved as human beings. In wilderness is the preservation of the world.
[...]

All of the above are few and far between. In any event, they
are least walking and not cheating like bikers on wheels.


Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike.


You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not.
[...]

My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is
never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose.
Until we can get your dumb asses off our trails I think what hikers will have to
do is resort more and more to designated wilderness areas where bikes are
absolutely banned.


Ah, Ed, you dissemble. You admitted that it is the attitude of the newly designated group of 'serious' hikers. Where only you get to determine what 'serious' means in this context.


There are people on the trails for all kinds of purposes aside from solitude ...


Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated.

I have in my possiosn hundreds of reports of conflicts and
accidents that say just the opposite. In a contest between hikers and bikers,
bikers will win every time because hikers soon find that there is no sharing of
trails. The effect of bikers on trails is to permantly remove hikers. It is
already happening everywhere (except apparently in your cozy little area of
England).


Yet you were able to post numerous videos which showed bikers and hikers co-existing without conflict. I wonder why that is Ed ? Could it be that, maybe, you're wrong ?


Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said,

repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of
endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature
and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ....
things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for
hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would
vouch for that if he were still here.

I have asked you to post all your hiking/camping accidents at
which point I will explain the accidents (given enough details). You cannot
explain all the accidents attendant on bikes on trails other than the sheer
stupidity of it in the first place. These biking accidents on trails are bound
happen. It would be a miracle if they didn't happen. Who is Mark
Shand?


And I've posted the list ... from the Lake District Mountain Rescue Annual Report. Seems to show rather too many hiker accidents for your liking though :-).


The natural world is not a sanitised play area for people so, whether on foot or bike, accidents will happen.


As to Mark Shand ... he was an environmental and wildlife activist, and the brother of the Duchess of Cornwall ... and he died in New York very recently from falling over after exiting a revolving door.


Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable.

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 biking!

“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

  #196  
Old May 8th 14, 03:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Tue, 6 May 2014 15:08:55
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

I am a stand-in for all hikers from time immemorial. You are a
stand-in for all scofflaws from time immemorial.


No, Ed, as you yourself admitted you are simply representing 'serious' hikers. The majority are prepared to share.

And even that is an empty claim.

He could hardly be a more serious hiker than my grandfather, who was a
founder member of the Ramblers Association, and took part in the
Kinder Trespass, which directly led to establishing hikers rights in
the UK.
It was a large part of the reasoning behind his choice of profession
(schoolmasters get longer holidays than are available to most
professionals, which allowed him to enjoy his hiking far more than
would have been the case if he had chosen any other occupation).
He campaigned tirelessly for the establishment of the long distance
trail network in the UK, was one of the first to complete the Pennine
Way, and did so every year from when it was first opened until his mid
80's - always packing his own camping equipment, as (in his words)
"the hostels are too close together to make a full days hiking, but
far enough apart that you can't sensibly reach the next one". He was
almost always leading a group.
I don't believe there was any area with enjoyable hiking in the UK
that he was not intimately familiar with, and covered every long
distance path in the UK within a year of it's opening.
After his retirement, he never took a holiday without a large hiking
element, including large parts of the Alps, Pyrenees, Dolomites, and
Scandinavia, among others, leading many of the hikes himself, both
here in the UK and abroad.
Yet he was entirely happy to share trails with cyclists, and cycled
many trails himself - and if mountain bikes had been invented in time
for him to have used them, he would indubitably have ridden an even
more extensive range of trails (there are limits to what is reasonably
achievable on a traditional sit-up-and-beg with a Sturmey Archer 3sp
hub).

I simply don’t believe you! Your grandfather did what I would have liked to do, but was not strong enough to do. He may not have been a solitary hiker like me, but there is no way he would want to share trails with a horde of mountain bikers. Perhaps an occasional cyclist, but not hordes of them. Trails are being abandoned here in the US by hikers because of hordes of mountain bikers taking them over. It is NOT possible to share trails. Even too many equestrians would ruin trails for hikers.
[...]

His idol has already been policed.

You'd think that would act as some form of education, but Dolan is
clearly ineducable.

More calumny from a former Asshloe poster who has at least learned to post SOME occasional content.
[...]

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 biking!

“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

  #197  
Old May 8th 14, 03:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

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

Edward Dolan wrote:

These million of rides are not on trails. They are on roads
and streets.


You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS !


Your common sense, if you had any, would tell you that that number is impossible. They are clearly riding on roads and streets.

The fact remains that those who bike on hiking trails (not bike
paths) will eventually come to a bad end because it is extremely
dangerous.


If you ride once a week, for twenty miles each time, then your risks are ...


0.64% of fatality ... IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME

1 injury requiring medical attention ... EVERY 12.5 YEARS

Those figures calculated from the 0.00123 fatalities every million miles travelled and 1.54 injuries requiring medical attention per thousand exposures.


So, no, you're extremely unlikely to come to a bad end even if you ride quite a lot.


You need to spend some time in this country where those numbers would not apply at all to those who ride mountainous trails in the Rockies.
[...]

Horses move along rather slowly. After all, they are just
walking too. Any trails being "shared" are not happily being shared. We hikers
loath the very sight of a biker on a trail. It is a transgression against nature
and other humans pure and simple.


I thought we'd dispensed with the 'we hikers' Ed ? You've already admitted that you only represent 'serious' hikers since group ramblers, family groups, trail runners and others are 'inferior' users in your lexicon.


So, let's rewrite your last two sentences to reflect the real situation shall we ?


"I loathe the very sight of a biker on a trail. I consider it a transgression against nature and my peace of mind pure and simple." - What Ed Dolan really meant.


Unfortunately for you, bikes on trails are being attacked by those who are like me, serious hikers and not once a year family groups. Two things need to happen: land mangers need to grow a spine and bikers need to leave the gene pool. Then all will return to normalcy and God’s grace will rain down on only hikers on trails.

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 biking!

“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


  #198  
Old May 13th 14, 08:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?

My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels.


But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema.

I have backed up my opinions and feelings with plenty of
substance.


No, Ed, that's what you have NEVER done. You've stated your own feelings clearly and repeatedly but you have never shown that any significant percentage of the trail-using population agrees with you and recently you've moved from your claim to represent hikers to now only representing what you term 'serious hikers'.


I am your prototypical hiker. My opinions reflect those of all serious hikers. You are the prototypical insane Asshole mountain biker who does not know **** from shinola.


Even if it were true that you represent 'serious' hikers, which you've also done nothing to prove, given that you are a small minority of trail users why should you get to dictate to anyone else ?

And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone ... other than myself.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a

trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company..

Others may use trails for other than perfect reasons, but as
long as they do not unduly interfere with us superior hikers, then we let it
pass. Mostly they are not numerous in any event. Bikers belong to an entirely
different class of beings. They are like locusts and destroy whatever they
touch. Public resources have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may
want. Democracy is for idiots.


"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Churchill


Any self-appointed, so-called superior elite tends to have a limited lifespan before the rest of the population figure them out for the self-serving, corrupt, greedy and mediocre individuals they really are.


Thanks for the elementary lesson in polysci. However, public resources STILL have to be managed for BEST use, not for what MOST may

want.

Best is usually defined according to a sensible formula including satisfying the most number of people ... in fact, that's precisely what the Park Department has as its objectives. So, it is managed for BEST use ... that's just not what you and a small minority of fanatics want.

The only spent force here is you and your ilk. We serious
hikers will put up with less serious hikers as long as they are walking. What we
will not put up with are bikers because they are on contraptions with wheels.
Wheels belong on roads.


Ah, so your MEANS and PURPOSE don't actually matter a damn ... that was just another Dolan diversion to try and argue your untenable position.

And, given that you 'serious hikers' are a tiny minority why the hell should anyone care what you will or won't put up with ? If you won't share then you can simply go away.

Ed, if you were not a spent force you wouldn't be arguing about this on moribund newsgroups ... you would actually be out there making change happen. In reality, as you well know, more and more trails are open to bikers and more and more people are taking up biking rather than hiking. History belongs to those who show up ... and your 'serious' hikers for whom bikes are anathema are an old, declining footnote.


I am doing what I can to support Mr. Vandeman. He is the true warrior who makes things happen. I am just a bystander who is getting ready to leave this vale of tears and frankly could care less how all this eventually plays out. The only thing I know for sure is that you and your ilk are never going to get the last word with me as long as I am above ground because you and your ilk are not only wrong on the issue, but are criminal scofflaws into the bargain.


Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and banned from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to do it.

And, as you know, whilst I'm happy to joust with you electronically all of this makes not the slightest bit of difference to what I do. I ride twice a week ... on shared trails ... and enjoy the experience without, as far as I can tell, inconveniencing the equestrians, hikers, family groups, ramblers and all the other trail users I encounter.

So, I'm quite happy to let you have the 'last word' here, if it brings you any satisfaction, but know that it doesn't change the real world one iota. I'm sorry for you; that instead of enjoying your old age and viewing the young with wry amusement and a degree of indulgence you are, instead, eaten up with rage and spite. I hope I never end up that way.

The natural environment relatively untouched by man is our primeval connection with the world from time immemorial.


Ah, at last, something with which I can agree.

Not germane to the point. The point, I reiterate, is that not everyone is seeking solitude and therefore not everyone has the visceral and illogical reaction you do to the mere presence of a bike.


You can bike anywhere except on trails in a natural environment. That is reserved for hikers whether they seek solitude or not.

[...]

My attitude is the dominant attitude of all hikers. It is
never going change because of the essential conflicts of means and purpose.


Your two statements above are incompatible. Either means and purpose creates conflict or it doesn't. Perhaps, what you really want to say, is that it's just your perception of biking that creates a conflict and you've never even considered that, just like the difference between social walkers and 'serious hikers' there are difference between mountainbikers. Some are seeking a physical challenge and others are simply using the bike as a means to travel into the natural environment.

Others can be tolerated as long as they are walking. Bikers are on contraptions with wheels and cannot be tolerated.


Ah, thanks for confirming my assertion ... it IS just bikes you have an issue with and means and purpose is mere smokescreen.

Accidents will happen because of various kinds of stupidity. Mountain biking accidents happen because they are doing what all mountain bikers do. The only stupidity is taking up mountain biking in the first place. If you do it, you will suffer an injury or death. It is just a matter of time. It is in fact inevitable.


How many errors, logical and otherwise, can you make in one paragraph ? Evidently, in your case, a lot !

Firstly, and axiomatically, if you go hiking and have an accident then you have a 'hiking accident' and if you go mountainbiking and have an accident you have a 'mountainbiking accident'. Your odds of either are low as I've shown many times by reference to actual figures.

As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still be around 0.5%.

So, no, your inevitable statement is errant nonsense ... again.
  #199  
Old May 13th 14, 11:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
John B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Blackblade
wrote:

My idea of winning is convincing the most people of the validity of my arguments ... and pointing out the flaws in yours. What's your idea ?


My idea is to present common sense arguments about what trails are best suited for - and it sure as hell ain't mountain biking! I depend on how a normal person thinks and feels, not on what an Asshole mountain bikers like you thinks and feels.


But, as you've now admitted, you don't represent normal people at all. You only represent a tiny minority of 'serious' hikers who crave solitude and for whom laughter, companionship and fun are anathema.

Are they "serious" I tend to view serious walkers as those who are
required to walk as part of their daily life. I would classify Dolan
and his ilk as "frivolous walkers", those who toddle about because it
is "fun".

Sort of like the mountain bike enthusiast but without wheels :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)
  #200  
Old May 14th 14, 11:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

You missed the 5% ... I said even if only 5% of mountainbikers
ride on trails ... and I would suggest it's much higher than that ... you still
end up with nearly 5 million rides/day worldwide ... ON TRAILS !

Your common sense, if you had any, would tell you that that
number is impossible. They are clearly riding on roads and streets.


No Ed. My common sense tells me that more than 5% of the world's mountainbikers ride on trails. I'm cutting the number down so as to err on the side of caution.

The funny thing with common perception is that, bereft actually thinking about things clearly, it is frequently wrong.

I would estimate that there are somewhere between 300million to 500million mountainbikers world wide so even if only 5% of them ride on trails that is still 2.3million rides per day (assuming that they ride once per week). Or half that if they ride once every two weeks.

The likelihood, of course, is that since we have drastically reduced the figures at every step the reality is much much higher.

If you ride once a week, for twenty miles each time, then your

risks are ...

0.64% of fatality ... IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFETIME


1 injury requiring medical attention ... EVERY 12.5 YEARS

Those figures calculated from the 0.00123 fatalities every million

miles travelled and 1.54 injuries requiring medical attention per thousand
exposures.

So, no, you're extremely unlikely to come to a bad end even if you

ride quite a lot.

You need to spend some time in this country where those
numbers would not apply at all to those who ride mountainous trails in the
Rockies.


But, of course, as ever you have no evidence whatsoever for that do you ? No facts or figures that would, you know, actually allow you to be informed as opposed to prejudiced.

Unfortunately for you, bikes on trails are being attacked by
those who are like me, serious hikers and not once a year family groups. Two
things need to happen: land mangers need to grow a spine and bikers need to
leave the gene pool. Then all will return to normalcy and God's grace will rain
down on only hikers on trails.


Oh, I don't think it's unfortunate at all. As Baltasar Gracian said "A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends."

If I am being opposed by a tiny, histrionic, selfish and diminishing minority who think they are better than everyone else then that's a position I'm more than happy to occupy.

The more extreme you get, the easier it is to position you as the lunatic fringe and the less attention and consideration you will get from the land managers. It is obvious to everyone, except you and your fellow travellers, that the fundamental remit of public parks is to provide recreation for the public. It is not to provide recreation for one tiny group only to the detriment of everyone else.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pleasures of cycling in the Netherlands Partac[_10_] UK 28 May 28th 12 09:10 PM
The joys of cycling in London Simon Mason[_4_] UK 2 November 2nd 11 05:17 PM
The joys of cycling as seen through the eyes of a runner Simon Mason[_4_] UK 0 August 11th 11 08:24 AM
The pleasures of illegal cycling Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 37 June 2nd 09 03:58 PM
one of the joys of cycling... greggery peccary General 56 March 12th 05 02:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.