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
  #241  
Old September 21st 14, 11:07 PM 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:

Road cycling has been around from the beginning. It is not
something anyone can do much about. The solution is to separate cyclists from
motorists. Bike paths are the answer, although they can sometimes create other
kinds of difficulties. My argument is all about the precise mechanism of injury
and death. I am not arguing that road cycling is safer than mountain
biking. Nice try though! However, I am arguing that hiking is about a thousand
times safer than mountain biking.


Ed, you seem incapable of following a coherent train of thought.


In response to my statement ... "I would far rather ride a trail than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I am out enjoying nature."


you wrote


"It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on roads, the

air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you are
desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain
biking."

So, yes, you most certainly DID try and claim that road cycling was safer than mountainbiking a trail. Which, as you well know, is NOT the case. Do you want to just debate yourself with your various contrary positions ?


For heaven’s sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am making is that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not. The other point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the accidents. Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as getting by an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave you paralyzed or dead.

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


Ads
  #242  
Old September 23rd 14, 11:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

Road cycling has been around from the beginning. It is not

something anyone can do much about. The solution is to separate

cyclists from

motorists. Bike paths are the answer, although they can sometimes

create other

kinds of difficulties. My argument is all about the precise mechanism

of injury

and death. I am not arguing that road cycling is safer than

mountain

biking. Nice try though! However, I am arguing that hiking is about a

thousand

times safer than mountain biking.




Ed, you seem incapable of following a coherent train of

thought.

In response to my statement ... "I would far rather ride a trail

than a road. It's safer, the scenery is better, the air is cleaner and I
am out enjoying nature."

you wrote


"It is more dangerous, there is plenty of scenery available on

roads, the

air is the same everywhere and you are NOT enjoying nature ... you
are

desecrating nature. Find another arena for your sport of mountain

biking."

So, yes, you most certainly DID try and claim that road cycling

was safer than mountainbiking a trail. Which, as you well know, is NOT the
case. Do you want to just debate yourself with your various contrary
positions ?

For heaven's sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on
roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am making is
that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not. The other
point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the accidents.
Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as getting by
an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave you
paralyzed or dead.


No Ed, since YOU raised the point regarding which was safer it's precisely on point. Firstly, hiking on trails is not safe as the 1.5million incidents attest. It is safer than mountainbiking in injuries and fatalities per exposure but certainly not totally safe. Secondly, you are quite right, getting hit by a motorist is very different to hitting an obstacle ... and massively MORE dangerous. Overall, road cyclists suffer less accidents and injuries than mountainbikers BUT many more fatalities.
  #243  
Old September 25th 14, 05:08 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:

For heaven's sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on
roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am making is
that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not. The other
point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the accidents.
Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as getting hit by
an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave you
paralyzed or dead.


No Ed, since YOU raised the point regarding which was safer it's precisely on point. Firstly, hiking on trails is not safe as the 1.5million incidents attest. It is safer than mountainbiking in injuries and fatalities per exposure but certainly not totally safe. Secondly, you are quite right, getting hit by a motorist is very different to hitting an obstacle ... and massively MORE dangerous. Overall, road cyclists suffer less accidents and injuries than mountainbikers BUT many more fatalities.


Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths are the answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in the trail is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do dangerous things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do dangerous things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to injure and kill themselves, let them! My main objection, as you should well know by now, is the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail and someone walking a trail. That you can’t’ see it from my perspective means that we are at permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what natural beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain shall meet!

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

  #244  
Old September 25th 14, 10:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails


For heaven's sakes, almost all cyclists will be riding on


roads. To compare the two modes misses the mark. The only point I am

making is

that biking on trails is dangerous whereas hiking on trails is not.

The other

point is that biking on trails is stupid because of the nature of the

accidents.

Getting hit by a motorist on the road is not quite the same thing as

getting hit by

an obstacle in the trail and taking a tumble which can easily leave

you

paralyzed or dead.



No Ed, since YOU raised the point regarding which was safer it's

precisely on point. Firstly, hiking on trails is not safe as the
1.5million incidents attest. It is safer than mountainbiking in injuries
and fatalities per exposure but certainly not totally safe. Secondly, you
are quite right, getting hit by a motorist is very different to hitting an
obstacle ... and massively MORE dangerous. Overall, road cyclists suffer
less accidents and injuries than mountainbikers BUT many more fatalities.

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which
have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths are the
answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in the trail
is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do dangerous
things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do dangerous
things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.


The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?

Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's the other way around :-).

However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker injuries too.

So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous has no basis whatsoever in fact.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But
that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to injure and
kill themselves, let them!


Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk they are prepared to accept.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is
the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail and someone
walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that we are at
permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what natural
beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain shall
meet!


I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time ... which mountainbiking allows me to do.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of us some, but not all, of what we want.

If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others' rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?
  #245  
Old October 26th 14, 07:05 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:

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which
have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths are the
answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in the trail
is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do dangerous
things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do dangerous
things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.


The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?


Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's the other way around :-).


However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker injuries too.


So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous has no basis whatsoever in fact.


Media reports say otherwise ... and so does common sense.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But
that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to injure and
kill themselves, let them!


Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk they are prepared to accept.


Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is
the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail and someone
walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that we are at
permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what natural
beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain shall
meet!


I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time ... which mountainbiking allows me to do.


But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of us some, but not all, of what we want.


If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others' rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?


There is no such thing as a “right” to bike on a hiking trail.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far in the majority – always have been and always will be as long as we humans are creatures who walk for locomotion.

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


  #246  
Old October 28th 14, 09:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

Road cycling has certain inherent dangers from motorists which

have been around from day one. I have already told you that bike paths

are the

answer to that particular problem. But getting hit by an obstacle in

the trail

is so ****ing stupid as to boggle the rational mind. You like to do

dangerous

things because you are a fool. Worse yet, you encourage others to do

dangerous

things which makes you a criminal in my eyes.


The road is a dangerous place ... agreed ... so why cycle there

for pleasure when there are better alternatives ?

Obstacles do not hit mountainbikers I think you'll find ... it's

the other way around :-).

However, as the data shows, mountainbikers don't hit obstacles

that often and the injury stats are relatively low (1.54 injuries per 1,000
exposures) as a result. And, those self same obstacles also cause hiker
injuries too.

So, your characterisation of mountainbiking as extremely dangerous

has no basis whatsoever in fact.

Media reports say otherwise ... and so does common
sense.


No, they don't. That's precisely my point. If we use your simplistic and flawed method of simply referencing media reports we would conclude that hiking is way more dangerous as there are more injuries and fatalities.

I think you have met me half way on this issue of safety. But


that is not my main objection to bikes on trails. If fools want to

injure and

kill themselves, let them!


Perhaps ... I have never stated that mountainbiking is totally

safe and have certainly fallen off my bike several times. However, as you
say, adults are entitled to make their own decisions about the level of risk
they are prepared to accept.

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.


That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own axiom, you are a fool.

My main objection, as you should well know by now, is


the inherent conflict that is present between someone riding a trail

and someone

walking a trail. That you can't' see it from my perspective means that

we are at

permanent loggerheads. I want to walk a trail in order to enjoy what

natural

beauty there is. You want to ride a trail for sport. Never the twain

shall

meet!


I understand your perspective completely ... I simply disagree

with it. We are comparing two recreational activities and you have the
view that yours is inherently superior. I don't share that view so, no, we
will never agree. I want to enjoy a sport and nature ... at the same time
... which mountainbiking allows me to do.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.


Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself; but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

We've both just written down what we want ... and they conflict to

some degree ... so the only solution is to find a compromise which gives both of
us some, but not all, of what we want.

If you continue to simply dig your heels in and deny others'

rights then, as I've said several times, you will simply get ignored. You
accuse me of failing to understand your perspective yet I can assure you it's
not the case. I understand your perspective completely; you want what you
want and are not prepared to compromise one iota. Given that this is your
position is it any wonder that we will never agree ?

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.


Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.


What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is large; you are going to have to learn to share.
  #247  
Old October 29th 14, 08:54 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:

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.


That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own axiom, you are a fool.


A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of serious risk – whereas biking on a hiking trail does.
[...]

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.


Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have everything you want.


I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself; but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.


Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from any hiking trails – preferably on another planet. I think the moon or Mars would suit you best.
[...]

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.


Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.


You are on the wrong side of history.


Hiking and biking don’t mix on the same trails. Your law is an Ass!

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.


What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is large; you are going to have to learn to share.


Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing nature. They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of tradition or being welcomed. They are going to have to carve out a separate trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our trails. We will not share what can’t be shared without destroying what we doing there in the first place. In fact, hikers will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. Hikers cannot share what can’t be shared.

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


  #248  
Old October 29th 14, 11:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.


That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer

serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned
about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a
higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own
axiom, you are a fool.

A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of
serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.


No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent

and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I

believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.


Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get

that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared
resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have
everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself;

but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from
any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or Mars would
suit you best.


Is this your attempt at humour ?

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.


Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for

example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.


Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an
Ass!


So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.

I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is

impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike

are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we

humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.


What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you

have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What
you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is
large; you are going to have to learn to share.

Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing
nature.


There are only people Ed. And people own the trails, always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate matter. Bikers are not a different species.

They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.


The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our trails.


I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed. You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are your own.

We will
not share what can't be shared without destroying what we doing there in the
first place. In fact, hikers will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If
I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the
designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. Hikers cannot
share what can't be shared.


Rewritten so as to be accurate ...

"I will not share what can't be shared without destroying what I am doing there in the first place. In fact, I will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. I won't share with bikers." - what Ed Dolan really meant

So, Ed, by all means abandon the trails ... I doubt, given your penchant for complete solitude, that anyone will mourn your departure.

  #249  
Old October 30th 14, 08:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is
not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.


That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer

serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that concerned
about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves accepting a
higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by your own
axiom, you are a fool.

A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of
serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.


No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.


There is no comparison between hiking a trail and riding a bike on a trail. One is safe and the other is dangerous. Read you own literature (propaganda) to know the truth. Bikers on trails take risks regularly. It is part of the sport. Hikers do no such thing (I do not include climbers in my definition of hikers).

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract
from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is inherent

and is
never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw politics. I

believe I
belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.


Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I get

that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are discussing a shared
resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot have
everything you want.

I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to yourself;

but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from
any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or Mars would
suit you best.


Is this your attempt at humour ?


Either another planet ... or abandoned city dumps is where you can best enjoy your ****ing sport of mountain biking. Hiking trails on this planet are off limits to Asshole mountain bikers like you. So saith Saint Edward the Great!

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking
trail.


Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries, for

example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.

You are on the wrong side of history.


Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an
Ass!


So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.


I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.


There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in all jurisdictions.

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if
removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is

impossible
since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to hike

are by far
in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as we

humans are
creatures who walk for locomotion.


What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure you

have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with picnic'ers. What
you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the population is
large; you are going to have to learn to share.

Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing
nature.


There are only people Ed. And people own the trails, always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate matter. Bikers are not a different species.


Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is managed for best use – or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?

They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.


The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.


“Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is managed for best use – or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?” – Ed Dolan

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our trails.


I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed. You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are your own.


My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.

We will
not share what can't be shared without destroying what we doing there in the
first place. In fact, hikers will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If
I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the
designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. Hikers cannot
share what can't be shared.


Rewritten so as to be accurate ...


"I will not share what can't be shared without destroying what I am doing there in the first place. In fact, I will abandon any and all trails that bikers use. If I were young and wanted to hike I would now only go to the National Parks or the designated Wilderness Areas where bikes are banned from trails. I won't share with bikers." - what Ed Dolan really meant


It is what all serious hikers want. In fact, I have never even met a hiker who did not object to bikes on trails.

So, Ed, by all means abandon the trails ... I doubt, given your penchant for complete solitude, that anyone will mourn your departure.


There can be no sharing of trails. If and when bikers totally dominate the trails, you will find that you have created a Frankenstein monster. Nope, not even an idiot like you will any longer enjoy your ****ing sport. You will have turned the trails into race tracks. Welcome to your brave new world ... Slob!

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


  #250  
Old October 30th 14, 10:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

Only a fools do things that are risky. Hiking on a trail is


not risky whereas biking on a hiking trail is risky.




That's not what the media reports say Ed. People suffer



serious injuries and fatalities whilst hiking. If you're that

concerned

about risk you should only be walking pavements ... hiking involves

accepting a

higher degree of risk than walking on a pavement. Therefore, by

your own

axiom, you are a fool.




A higher degree of risk still does not constitute any kind of


serious risk - whereas biking on a hiking trail does.


No, it doesn't constitute that high a risk ... but NEITHER

DOES BIKING. That's the whole point. You're trying to use a method
to show that biking is dangerous but what it also shows is that hiking is
dangerous too. Which proves, given that we both agree that the real risk
of hiking is low, that the method is FLAWED.

There is no comparison between hiking a trail and riding a
bike on a trail. One is safe and the other is dangerous. Read you own literature
(propaganda) to know the truth. Bikers on trails take risks regularly. It is
part of the sport. Hikers do no such thing (I do not include climbers in my
definition of hikers).


You're going around in circles and, every time, simply asserting the same premise which has been thoroughly disproven. Either produce some real evidence or get lost.

But in order for you to do what you want to do, you distract



from the enjoyment of what others want to do. The conflict is

inherent

and is


never going to go away. It will have to be settled by raw

politics. I

believe I


belong to the stronger party and will prevail in the end.




Yes, you would prefer me not to be there on my bike. I

get

that. However, what you don't get is that, when we are

discussing a shared

resource, that one has to accept a reasonable compromise; you cannot

have

everything you want.




I'm sure you would prefer to have the trails entirely to

yourself;

but that's not feasible nor fair ... you are going to have to

share.

Nope, you are going to have to get your own trails far from


any hiking trails - preferably on another planet. I think the moon or

Mars would

suit you best.




Is this your attempt at humour ?


Either another planet ... or abandoned city dumps is where you
can best enjoy your ****ing sport of mountain biking. Hiking trails on this
planet are off limits to Asshole mountain bikers like you. So saith Saint Edward
the Great!


So saith a nonentity with serious delusions of grandeur.

There is no such thing as a "right" to bike on a hiking


trail.


Yes, there is. In Scotland and several other countries,

for

example, Right to Roam legislation covers hiking and biking.




You are on the wrong side of history.




Hiking and biking don't mix on the same trails. Your law is an


Ass!




So you say ... incessantly. Yet, lo and behold, the

world carries on despite your foolish pronouncements.

I note that you fail to acknowledge that I disproved your

point though ... there IS a right to bike in certain jurisdictions.

There is no MORAL right to bike on a hiking trail. Only
Assholes transgress and despoil natural beauty. The law is frequently an Ass in
all jurisdictions.


Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting very tiresome. Who are you to try and determine what is moral ?

I have agreed that cyclists can have their own trails if


removed sufficiently from trails used by hikers. What you want is

impossible


since it conflicts with what others want. And those who want to

hike

are by far


in the majority - always have been and always will be as long as

we

humans are


creatures who walk for locomotion.




What you want, Ed, is magnificent isolation. I'm sure

you

have the same visceral objection to trails crowded with

picnic'ers. What

you want is impossible given that resources are limited and the

population is

large; you are going to have to learn to share.




Bikers are a Johnny come lately to the feast of experiencing


nature.




There are only people Ed. And people own the trails,

always have. What activity they wish to undertake is a separate
matter. Bikers are not a different species.

Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land is
managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen
times?


You have. And I have pointed out, the same number of times, that you are not entitled to determine what is best use for everyone.

They want to horn in on what they have not earned, either by dint of
tradition or being welcomed.


The public owns the resources ... and pay for it ... so we

have most definitely earned it to exactly the same degree as you.

"Ownership has nothing to do with it. All public land
is managed for best use - or have l already said that a couple of dozen times?"
- Ed Dolan


Best use isn't decided by you Ed.

They are going to have to carve out a separate
trail system for themselves. We hikers do not want bikers on our

trails.

I already disposed of your 'we hikers' assertion Ed.

You do not speak for the vast majority of hikers. Your words and views are
your own.

My words and views are those of all serious hikers, the kind
of hikers that trails were meant for in the first instance.


I'm not going over that all over again. You are a largely solitary man, by your own admission, and therefore interact with a tiny number of others. As such, you are in no position to assume that your views are in the slightest bit representative of other hikers.

And, to repeat myself, most of the trails were originally meant for people travelling from point A to point B ... not as recreation for elitist and self regarding people like you.

 




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 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.