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

Is Mike Andaman finally dead?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 23rd 13, 08:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

There are plenty of roads everywhere which get little traffic
and are ideal for cycling. Here in Minnesota we have thousands of miles of
gravel roads with little or no traffic on them. It is best to stay off of
highways on a bike unless the highway has a good, broad shoulder. Elementary
my dear Watson!


Thank you. You have just made exactly my point for me. Substitute ‘roads’ for ‘remote trails’ in the above paragraph and you might get it. The reality is that if there is little or no traffic then there is no issue; and that applies to any road/trail/path. So, by your own admission, sharing clearly does work for some circumstances.


Your problem is that you do not know the difference between a road and a trail, most especially their different purposes. That being the case, your point is pointless!

A runner running is not in the same category as a cyclist
speeding downhill on a single track trail. Elementary my dear
Watson!


I didn’t say they were. I simply pointed out that speed differential was not, ex nihilo, a reason to prohibit traffic.


You are arguing a fine point which borders on being just plain stupid.

I don’t like runners using a trail designed for walking. Are
there no athletic tracks for such an activity. But runners are not using any
mechanical contraption, so I would NOT prohibit them.


But, in taking that stance, are you not accepting that RECREATION is a valid use of the trail ?


Contemplation and appreciation of nature is the ONLY valid recreational use of a trail. There are other venues for other recreational uses.

I don’t give a damn about damage to the trails. That is for
Mr. Vandeman. He is the expert on that subject, not mountain bikers like you who only want to justify your desecrations.


Then why raise it as an issue ? You opined that motorcycles could make the same claim as mountainbikes for trail access to support a ‘slippery slope’ type argument. I simply refuted such a conjugation with proof regarding the massive difference. Let’s stay on topic.


You are unable to read between the lines or make any sensible deductions on your own. I am not used to arguing with a childish literally minded mentality. I raised the motorcycle issue not as an example of damage to the trails, but as an example of a totally inappropriate use because it is a mechanical contrivance which goes fast (speed differential) and makes one hell of a lot of noise into the bargain. Bicycles fall into the same category and are only slightly less noisy. Until we agree on what trails are for, there can never be an agreement on anything else.
[...]

Bikers are using a mechanical contrivance, namely a bicycle,
Runners are not using anything other than their two legs. Think of it as fast
walking. Even so runners are there for a stupid reason, the same as cyclists.
Glad I was able to clear that up for you. Elementary my dear
Watson!


And ? So you don’t like runners either, but you wouldn’t ban them.


“Bikers are using a mechanical contrivance, namely a bicycle,
Runners are not using anything other than their two legs. Think of it as fast
walking. Even so runners are there for a stupid reason, the same as cyclists.” - Ed Dolan
[...]

The best solution is understanding of the other person’s point of view and some degree of accommodation. Bikers should, in my opinion, concede that not all trails should be open for mountainbikes; there does need to be space for quiet contemplation of nature and there are areas way too sensitive to permit much access at all. On the other hand, hikers should concede that in most cases mountainbike use is an equitable use of scarce natural resources.


Your argument would only make some sense if there was a shortage of roads. Plenty of fire roads and forestry roads for cyclists to ride.
[...]

You need to check into what mountain biking advocacy organizations are up to.
Better yet, look in on their blogs and their social groups. They are simply
thugs who have more testosterone than they know what to do with. Whenever they
manage to kill themselves cycling on hiking trails, I rejoice. It is good
riddance to bad rubbish!


So, you want to characterise 50m US citizens as ‘thugs’. Nice stereotyping… and complete balderdash.


Most folks who have mountain bikes do not ride them on single track trails. It is only a minority of cretins who do that. And when we hikers object to seeing them on our trails, then they act like the thugs that they are. All hikers should be packing a concealed firearm for their own safety.

On the other hand, if you really wanted to educate yourself,
why not look in on some hiking and equestrian groups. There you will at least
find some signs of intelligence, good breeding and civilization.


I AM a hiker; just one who also mountainbikes.


Land managers everywhere are starting to ban cycling from the
trails they manage in parks and natural areas. Soon mountain biking will be
confined to the least attractive natural areas, the kind that don’t appeal much
to hikers. I would direct mountain bikers to abandoned city dumps, their true
home. There they could consort with the rats and cockroaches, their true
neighbors.


Ah, so that’s why Scotland is now completely open to mountainbikes and Vandeman is doing his nut with the increasing number of areas permitting riding ? /sarcasm


Who knows why Europeans do the things they do? All I know is that it is an issue here in the States that is never going to go away until mountain bikers are severely limited as to where they can commit their desecrations.

Nope, you have aligned yourself with mountain bikers and the
worst kind, those who desecrate hiking trails for their own small amusements.
It’s disgraceful and shameful.


I have aligned myself with no-one. I stand by my comments; there is nothing ‘shameful and disgraceful’ in advocating a rational, equitable approach to SHARING resources.


You want to ’share’ what you have no right to in the first instance. Get your own trails. Hiking trails are for hikers.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


Ads
  #2  
Old July 24th 13, 10:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

Your problem is that you do not know the difference between a
road and a trail, most especially their different purposes. That being the case,
your point is pointless!


Their purposes are myriad; most were not developed for an appreciation of nature but to get somewhere.

You are arguing a fine point which borders on being just plain
stupid.


No, I'm refuting your proposition with a fact.

Contemplation and appreciation of nature is the ONLY valid
recreational use of a trail. There are other venues for other recreational
uses.


I disagree completely. It is not for you, or anyone else, to arbitrarily decide, purely based on your own prejudices, what is a valid use of a trail which is a PUBLIC asset.

You are unable to read between the lines or make any sensible
deductions on your own. I am not used to arguing with a childish literally
minded mentality. I raised the motorcycle issue not as an example of damage to
the trails, but as an example of a totally inappropriate use because it is a
mechanical contrivance which goes fast (speed differential) and makes one hell
of a lot of noise into the bargain. Bicycles fall into the same category and are
only slightly less noisy. Until we agree on what trails are for, there can never
be an agreement on anything else.


No, you raised the motorcycle issue because you were trying to conflate motorcycles and mountainbikes. They are completely different beasts with very little in common beyond two wheels as I demonstrated by showing their vastly different weight and power.

Your argument would only make some sense if there was a
shortage of roads. Plenty of fire roads and forestry roads for cyclists to
ride.


What ! If that's your view then you've not understood the point. Mountainbikers don't want to ride roads ... and why should we ? There is no valid reason to ban them from most (not all) trails.

Most folks who have mountain bikes do not ride them on single
track trails. It is only a minority of cretins who do that. And when we hikers
object to seeing them on our trails, then they act like the thugs that they are.
All hikers should be packing a concealed firearm for their own safety.


So, to paraphrase, when you aggressively challenge riders for using a resource to which they are as entitled as you, but which you don't happen to like, you are surprised that they are somewhat belligerent ? There is no need for any aggression; courtesy on both sides is what is required. Mountainbikers are no more thugs (on average) than any other large population group .... axiomatically so.

Who knows why Europeans do the things they do? All I know is
that it is an issue here in the States that is never going to go away until
mountain bikers are severely limited as to where they can commit their
desecrations.


No, it's an issue that will go away when mountainbiking becomes perfectly normal for most trails and the reactionaries quieten down.

You want to ’share’ what you have no right to in the first
instance. Get your own trails. Hiking trails are for hikers.


Do you own the trails ? Clearly not. Do I own them ? Clearly not. Are they a PUBLIC resource ? Yes. Therefore, axiomatically, we are equally entitled to them. They are NOT yours and they never were.

Overall, I think we're about done. The argument is not going to be resolved; you think that the trails are 'yours' (Hikers to be specific) and simply don't like mountainbikes on them. You're not going to change that view are you ?

I see trails as a public resource to which I, as a citizen, am entitled to fair access. I simply don't accept that there is one sacrosanct use.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
  #3  
Old July 24th 13, 08:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Your problem is that you do not know the difference between a
road and a trail, most especially their different purposes. That being the case,
your point is pointless!


Edward Dolan wrote:

Their purposes are myriad; most were not developed for an appreciation of nature but to get somewhere.


It doesn’t matter what they were devoped for, it only matters what they are going to be used for now. Trails today have only a single purpose – an appreciation of nature.

You are arguing a fine point which borders on being just plain
stupid.


No, I'm refuting your proposition with a fact.


A fact which is pointless. But since you do not include what has transpired previously, your entire post becomes only more and more pointless.

Contemplation and appreciation of nature is the ONLY valid
recreational use of a trail. There are other venues for other recreational
uses.


I disagree completely. It is not for you, or anyone else, to arbitrarily decide, purely based on your own prejudices, what is a valid use of a trail which is a PUBLIC asset.


I am stating the general consensus. What the hell do you think park, recreational and wilderness trails are for? You do not have a clue what trails are for. One thing they are not for is getting from point A to point B rapidly.That is what roads are for. Duh!

You are unable to read between the lines or make any sensible
deductions on your own. I am not used to arguing with a childish literally
minded mentality. I raised the motorcycle issue not as an example of damage to
the trails, but as an example of a totally inappropriate use because it is a
mechanical contrivance which goes fast (speed differential) and makes one hell
of a lot of noise into the bargain. Bicycles fall into the same category and are
only slightly less noisy. Until we agree on what trails are for, there can never
be an agreement on anything else.


No, you raised the motorcycle issue because you were trying to conflate motorcycles and mountainbikes. They are completely different beasts with very little in common beyond two wheels as I demonstrated by showing their vastly different weight and power.


What a laugh the above is! Bicycles and motorcycles do indeed have wheels in common and fast speeds also. They are both mechanical contrivances. Neither one of them have anything in common with a person walking. Your weight and power aspects do not have anything to do with my concerns although that is what causes more damage to the trails, a major issue with Mr. Vandeman.

Your argument would only make some sense if there was a
shortage of roads. Plenty of fire roads and forestry roads for cyclists to
ride.


What ! If that's your view then you've not understood the point. Mountainbikers don't want to ride roads ... and why should we ? There is no valid reason to ban them from most (not all) trails.


Wheels belong on roads.Even idiots know that much!

Most folks who have mountain bikes do not ride them on single
track trails. It is only a minority of cretins who do that. And when we hikers
object to seeing them on our trails, then they act like the thugs that they are.
All hikers should be packing a concealed firearm for their own safety.


So, to paraphrase, when you aggressively challenge riders for using a resource to which they are as entitled as you, but which you don't happen to like, you are surprised that they are somewhat belligerent ? There is no need for any aggression; courtesy on both sides is what is required. Mountainbikers are no more thugs (on average) than any other large population group ... axiomatically so.


Go back to the beginning of this thread and review what I had to say about conflicting uses which can never be reconciled. Also look up the word ‘never’ in your dictionary.

Who knows why Europeans do the things they do? All I know is
that it is an issue here in the States that is never going to go away until
mountain bikers are severely limited as to where they can commit their
desecrations.


No, it's an issue that will go away when mountainbiking becomes perfectly normal for most trails and the reactionaries quieten down.

“Also look up the word ‘never’ in your dictionary.” – Ed Dolan

You want to ’share’ what you have no right to in the first
instance. Get your own trails. Hiking trails are for hikers.


Do you own the trails ? Clearly not. Do I own them ? Clearly not. Are they a PUBLIC resource ? Yes. Therefore, axiomatically, we are equally entitled to them. They are NOT yours and they never were.


Trails belong to hikers. It is axiomatic!

Overall, I think we're about done. The argument is not going to be resolved; you think that the trails are 'yours' (Hikers to be specific) and simply don't like mountainbikes on them. You're not going to change that view are you ?


“Also look up the word ‘never’ in your dictionary.” – Ed Dolan

I see trails as a public resource to which I, as a citizen, am entitled to fair access. I simply don't accept that there is one sacrosanct use.


You are only entitled to what the managers of the resources say you are entitled to. Managers that think you are entitled will have to be removed and replaced by more intelligent managers. It will be a political process ultimately.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.


Mr. Vandeman and I will press on ever ready to refute those who would desecrate natural areas with their mechanical contrivances. The future will see bikes banned from trails the same as we now see motorcycles banned from trails ... and for the same reasons.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #4  
Old July 25th 13, 10:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

It doesn’t matter what they were devoped for, it only matters
what they are going to be used for now. Trails today have only a single purpose
– an appreciation of nature.


Ah, so irrespective of who developed the trail, and for what, it is now fine for you to annex it and determine its use ? This is nonsense.

I am stating the general consensus.


This is clearly wrong. If it WERE the general consensus then the situation would be very different to what it is.

What the hell do you think
park, recreational and wilderness trails are for? You do not have a clue what
trails are for. One thing they are not for is getting from point A to point B
rapidly.That is what roads are for. Duh!


Who said anything about rapidly ? They are about getting from point A to point B and enjoying the experience of that journey.

What a laugh the above is! Bicycles and motorcycles do indeed
have wheels in common and fast speeds also. They are both mechanical
contrivances. Neither one of them have anything in common with a person
walking. Your weight and power aspects do not have anything to do with my
concerns although that is what causes more damage to the trails [...]


A mountainbike is far closer to a hiker than a motorbike. It is HUMAN POWERED. That is the key distinction irrespective of your concerns.

Wheels belong on roads.Even idiots know that
much!


Tell that to the American West settlers; no road ? sorry, you can't go here.. What a ridiculous statement.

Trails belong to hikers. It is axiomatic!


No, it's not. They belong to people. Unless and until you wish to buy your own land where you can designate whatever exclusive use your heart desires you are sharing a public resource to which you have the same rights as everyone else.

You are only entitled to what the managers of the resources
say you are entitled to. Managers that think you are entitled will have to be
removed and replaced by more intelligent managers. It will be a political
process ultimately.


But the managers are appointed by the public, who own the trails. If the public decide, which they appear to have done, that mountainbiking is an acceptable use given its low environmental impact and positive benefits then the managers will, as they have been doing for a while now, open up the trails to mountainbikes. You can't have it both ways; one moment you claim that hikers are the majority so can have what they want and the next, when that starts looking questionable in certain locales, you then say that mountainbikers, even if in the majority, should still be restricted. I think you need to stop trying to argue this from a logical perspective and simply concede that you desperately don't WANT mountainbikers on trails becuase you don't like it. There is no other reason.

Mr. Vandeman and I will press on ever ready to refute those
who would desecrate natural areas with their mechanical contrivances. The future
will see bikes banned from trails the same as we now see motorcycles banned from
trails ... and for the same reasons.


And I will press on with mountainbiking, enjoying the experience and promoting it to others as a great way to enjoy the natural environment. I suspect that Vandeman will manage to be as successful as he's been in the last 20 years; to whit, not at all, but we will see won't we ?
  #5  
Old July 25th 13, 06:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

It doesn’t matter what they were developed for, it only matters
what they are going to be used for now. Trails today have only a single purpose
– an appreciation of nature.


Ah, so irrespective of who developed the trail, and for what, it is now fine for you to annex it and determine its use ? This is nonsense.


The only nonsense being spouted is by you. Trails for bicycles are a very recent phenomenon. Mr. Vandeman will have none of it. For him, bicycles are for roads – period! I don't object to bicycle trails; I only object to bicycles on hiking trails.

I am stating the general consensus.


This is clearly wrong. If it WERE the general consensus then the situation would be very different to what it is.


What the hell do you think
park, recreational and wilderness trails are for? You do not have a clue what
trails are for. One thing they are not for is getting from point A to point B
rapidly.That is what roads are for. Duh!


Who said anything about rapidly ? They are about getting from point A to point B and enjoying the experience of that journey.


You are unable to appreciate the speed differential. Maybe some day you will when you are walking a trail and are run over by a cyclist.

What a laugh the above is! Bicycles and motorcycles do indeed
have wheels in common and fast speeds also. They are both mechanical
contrivances. Neither one of them have anything in common with a person
walking. Your weight and power aspects do not have anything to do with my
concerns although that is what causes more damage to the trails [...]


A mountainbike is far closer to a hiker than a motorbike. It is HUMAN POWERED. That is the key distinction irrespective of your concerns.


It is the mechanical advantage that is critical which results in a speed differential. Whether the power is human or a gasoline engine generated doesn’t matter. It is not the same as walking.

Wheels belong on roads. Even idiots know that
much!


What follows is too stupid for comment!
[...]

Trails belong to hikers. It is axiomatic!


More stupidity follows.
[...]

You are only entitled to what the managers of the resources
say you are entitled to. Managers that think you are entitled will have to be
removed and replaced by more intelligent managers. It will be a political
process ultimately.


But the managers are appointed by the public, who own the trails. If the public decide, which they appear to have done, that mountainbiking is an acceptable use given its low environmental impact and positive benefits then the managers will, as they have been doing for a while now, open up the trails to mountainbikes. You can't have it both ways; one moment you claim that hikers are the majority so can have what they want and the next, when that starts looking questionable in certain locales, you then say that mountainbikers, even if in the majority, should still be restricted. I think you need to stop trying to argue this from a logical perspective and simply concede that you desperately don't WANT mountainbikers on trails becuase you don't like it. There is no other reason.


The managers of our parks and natural areas are stupid. I have stated from the beginning of this thread that they will have to be replaced by more intelligent managers. That is what in fact Mr. Vandeman is working for. I have also stated from page one that hikers and cyclists cannot share single track trails because it is an irreconcilable conflict, not only of base use, but of purpose. An enlightened public will come to see this sooner than you think, most especially when hikers and equestrians start suffering injuries and deaths from the activities of mountain bikers. We both agree that it will be a political process that decides the issue.

Mountain biking, if it continues to be a popular activity, will have to get their own trails entirely separate from the trails that hikers enjoy. There can be no sharing!

Mr. Vandeman and I will press on ever ready to refute those
who would desecrate natural areas with their mechanical contrivances. The future
will see bikes banned from trails the same as we now see motorcycles banned from
trails ... and for the same reasons.


And I will press on with mountainbiking, enjoying the experience and promoting it to others as a great way to enjoy the natural environment. I suspect that Vandeman will manage to be as successful as he's been in the last 20 years; to whit, not at all, but we will see won't we ?


You have aligned yourself with the worst elements of those who enjoy the out of doors. You have never handled the motorcycle and other motorized uses of trails adequately, That is because you are a hypocrite, hardly worthy of being in the same universe as Mr. Vandeman and myself. Try to get a sense of shame about it if nothing else.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great



  #6  
Old July 26th 13, 10:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

The only nonsense being spouted is by you. Trails for bicycles
are a very recent phenomenon. Mr. Vandeman will have none of it. For him,
bicycles are for roads – period! I don't object to bicycle trails; I only
object to bicycles on hiking trails.


I don’t give a stuff what Mr Vandeman does, or doesn’t, want so that is irrelevant.

The key issue then is what on earth is a ‘hiking trail’ ? It seems to me that you want to redesignate all kinds of trails that were heretofore for transport or recreation as such.

You are unable to appreciate the speed differential. Maybe
some day you will when you are walking a trail and are run over by a
cyclist.


It’s not happened yet … and I’ve been hiking for decades. You are focussing on a tiny, problem minority who go too fast in the wrong place. The vast majority no more want to crash into you than you want them to do so.

It is the mechanical advantage that is critical which results
in a speed differential. Whether the power is human or a gasoline engine
generated doesn’t matter. It is not the same as walking.


No, of course it’s not the same as walking. Just as cross-country skiing or canoeing are not the same either. However, they all have the same thing in common; the motive power is the unaided human body. As I said before, you want to lump this in with powered vehicles but you simply can’t … this is a fundamental dichotomy that exists in pretty much every regulatory regime in the world. Bicycles and motorcycles are not the same.

What follows is too stupid for comment!


You mean you can’t refute it.

Trails belong to hikers. It is axiomatic!


More stupidity follows.


Again, no refutation. You can’t justify this because it’s not true.

The managers of our parks and natural areas are stupid. I have
stated from the beginning of this thread that they will have to be replaced
by more intelligent managers.


Your definition of ‘more intelligent’ is simply ones that will accede to your wishes. My view is that they are, in the main, taking reasonably judicious decisions to share resources whilst having a care for the overall dynamic between user groups and environmental impact.

That is what in fact Mr. Vandeman is working for. I
have also stated from page one that hikers and cyclists cannot share single
track trails because it is an irreconcilable conflict, not only of base use,
but of purpose.


So you say. You’ve not justified it other than by repeated assertion and I’ve already shown numerous examples where sharing works just fine.

An enlightened public will come to see this sooner than you
think, most especially when hikers and equestrians start suffering injuries
and deaths from the activities of mountain bikers. We both agree that it will
be a political process that decides the issue.


As I already said, we will see. As the ‘enlightened public’ includes 50m mountainbikers I suspect you are wrong.

Mountain biking, if it continues to be a popular activity,
will have to get their own trails entirely separate from the trails that
hikers enjoy. There can be no sharing!


So you say … repeatedly. Doesn’t make it true.

Mr. Vandeman and I will press on ever ready to refute those
who would desecrate natural areas with their mechanical contrivances.
The future will see bikes banned from trails the same as we now see
motorcycles banned from trails ... and for the same reasons.


Well, it’s good to have a hobby … even if it is a futile one.

You have aligned yourself with the worst elements of those who
enjoy the out of doors.


I have, as I said, aligned myself with no-one; I don’t represent anyone.

You have never handled the motorcycle and other
motorized uses of trails adequately,


Actually, no, I provided factual backup regarding power, weight and environmental damage clearly differentiating motorised vehicles. That you don’t like it doesn’t make it incorrect.

That is because you are a hypocrite, hardly
worthy of being in the same universe as Mr. Vandeman and myself.


You’re aligning yourself with a convicted criminal. And precisely how am I being a hypocrite ? Am I advocating one course of action and then conducting another ? Don’t think so. Are you stooping to ad-hominem now because you can’t support your premises logically ?

Try to get a
sense of shame about it if nothing else.


It’s a big shame that you can’t learn to share and understand that your view is not the only one nor axiomatically correct. Until you do, you will continue to be amazed that others don’t agree with you.
  #7  
Old July 27th 13, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

The only nonsense being spouted is by you. Trails for bicycles
are a very recent phenomenon. Mr. Vandeman will have none of it. For him,
bicycles are for roads – period! I don't object to bicycle trails; I only
object to bicycles on hiking trails.


I don’t give a stuff what Mr Vandeman does, or doesn’t, want so that is irrelevant.


The key issue then is what on earth is a ‘hiking trail’ ? It seems to me that you want to redesignate all kinds of trails that were heretofore for transport or recreation as such.


Everyone in the world knows what a hiking trail is, except you apparently. I wonder if you know what a bike path is? Do you know what a road is?

You are unable to appreciate the speed differential. Maybe
some day you will when you are walking a trail and are run over by a
cyclist.


It’s not happened yet … and I’ve been hiking for decades. You are focussing on a tiny, problem minority who go too fast in the wrong place. The vast majority no more want to crash into you than you want them to do so.


Bicycles go much faster than anyone can walk, whether on a street or on a trail. Many hikers have been struck by cyclists while hiking on trails.

It is the mechanical advantage that is critical which results
in a speed differential. Whether the power is human or a gasoline engine
generated doesn’t matter. It is not the same as walking.


No, of course it’s not the same as walking. Just as cross-country skiing or canoeing are not the same either. However, they all have the same thing in common; the motive power is the unaided human body. As I said before, you want to lump this in with powered vehicles but you simply can’t … this is a fundamental dichotomy that exists in pretty much every regulatory regime in the world. Bicycles and motorcycles are not the same.


What matters is the speed of the walker, not anything else. Glad we finally agree on something! Now we just need to get bicycles off trails the same as we got motorcycles off trails – and for the same reason - speed differentials.

What follows is too stupid for comment!


You mean you can’t refute it.


There is no need to respond to my every sentence. Only idiots do that sort of thing.
[...]

The managers of our parks and natural areas are stupid. I have
stated from the beginning of this thread that they will have to be replaced
by more intelligent managers.


Your definition of ‘more intelligent’ is simply ones that will accede to your wishes. My view is that they are, in the main, taking reasonably judicious decisions to share resources whilst having a care for the overall dynamic between user groups and environmental impact.


You will be proven wrong in the end. I depend on human nature to **** things up ... as usual.

That is what in fact Mr. Vandeman is working for. I
have also stated from page one that hikers and cyclists cannot share single
track trails because it is an irreconcilable conflict, not only of base use,
but of purpose.


So you say. You’ve not justified it other than by repeated assertion and I’ve already shown numerous examples where sharing works just fine.


What works “just fine” for you does not work so fine for most others. Come to Aspen, Colorado sometime to get a clue!

An enlightened public will come to see this sooner than you
think, most especially when hikers and equestrians start suffering injuries
and deaths from the activities of mountain bikers. We both agree that it will
be a political process that decides the issue.


As I already said, we will see. As the ‘enlightened public’ includes 50m mountainbikers I suspect you are wrong.


Mountain biking, if it continues to be a popular activity,
will have to get their own trails entirely separate from the trails that
hikers enjoy. There can be no sharing!


So you say … repeatedly. Doesn’t make it true.


Mr. Vandeman and I will press on ever ready to refute those

who would desecrate natural areas with their mechanical contrivances.
The future will see bikes banned from trails the same as we now see
motorcycles banned from trails ... and for the same reasons.


Well, it’s good to have a hobby … even if it is a futile one.


Better to have a futile hobby than a reprehensible pastime of ruining trails for hikers by desecrating wilderness and natural areas with the loathsome presence of a bicycle.

You have aligned yourself with the worst elements of those who
enjoy the out of doors.


I have, as I said, aligned myself with no-one; I don’t represent anyone.


Nonsense! Everyone in the world now knows where you stand although, like all liberal cowards, you choose to remain anonymous, never using your real name. Only Mr. Vandeman and I have the courage of our convictions.

You have never handled the motorcycle and other
motorized uses of trails adequately,


Actually, no, I provided factual backup regarding power, weight and environmental damage clearly differentiating motorised vehicles. That you don’t like it doesn’t make it incorrect.


What I don’t like is that you did not focus on what matters - the speed differential ... and the engine which makes noise. In other words, it is a contraption just like a bicycle is a contraption. Motorcycles in essence are motorized bicycles plus a bit of noise. Sorry you do not have the brains to see what is so obvious to the rest of the world.

That is because you are a hypocrite, hardly
worthy of being in the same universe as Mr. Vandeman and myself.


You’re aligning yourself with a convicted criminal. And precisely how am I being a hypocrite ? Am I advocating one course of action and then conducting another ? Don’t think so. Are you stooping to ad-hominem now because you can’t support your premises logically ?


Unlit you can justify motorized vehicles using the trails the same as bicycles, you are and remain a hypocrite. Mr. Vandeman is a Saint almost on my level. The only person here wearing a black hat is you – Blackblade!

Try to get a
sense of shame about it if nothing else.


It’s a big shame that you can’t learn to share and understand that your view is not the only one nor axiomatically correct. Until you do, you will continue to be amazed that others don’t agree with you.


Like all liberal know nothings you would like to think it is just a matter of different views, never once stooping to considerations of right and wrong, good and evil, the sacred and the profane. It is why I am a Great Saint and you are a mere sinner. My view will prevail in the end. All that needs to happen is for a few cyclists to kill a few hikers while “doing their thing” on a trail.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #8  
Old July 29th 13, 09:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

Everyone in the world knows what a hiking trail is, except you
apparently.


Oh do they ? So, please enlighten me, how am I to determine a 'hiking trail' to which only the Sainted Ed and his compatriots are permitted access and a 'regular trail' which is to be shared ? I can, tracker like, look at some kind of spoor to determine which is which ?

Bicycles go much faster than anyone can walk, whether on a
street or on a trail. Many hikers have been struck by cyclists while hiking on
trails.


How many ? It's easy to assert this but, bereft facts, it's anecdote and hearsay. There have been NO reported hiker/biker accidents in, for example, Swinley Forest in the last two years and most trails are shared there.

What matters is the speed of the walker, not anything else.
Glad we finally agree on something! Now we just need to get bicycles off trails
the same as we got motorcycles off trails – and for the same reason - speed
differentials.


We didn't agree Ed ... provided that cyclists go past hikers at a slow speed and permit them space what does it matter what speed they do elsewhere ?

You mean you can’t refute it.


There is no need to respond to my every sentence. Only idiots
do that sort of thing.


So, you definitely can't refute it. Ad hominem is always when you've lost.

What works “just fine” for you does not work so fine for most
others. Come to Aspen, Colorado sometime to get a clue!


I already agreed with you that a case by case basis for deciding what works is required. You have to take into account numbers of people, type of the trail and many other factors. I have never been messianic that all trails should be shared.

An enlightened public will come to see this sooner than you
think, most especially when hikers and equestrians start suffering

injuries
and deaths from the activities of mountain bikers. We both agree that

it will
be a political process that decides the issue.


Well, for this to happen, there would have to be significant numbers of hiker/biker and biker/equestrian incidents. Your pal Vandeman trawls the net feverishly to find such encounters and highlight them but he comes up with barely any relative to the numbers of bikers and hikers.

Better to have a futile hobby than a reprehensible pastime of
ruining trails for hikers by desecrating wilderness and natural areas with the
loathsome presence of a bicycle.


Oh for goodness sake. How is the presence of a bicycle loathsome ? This is emotive rubbish. A bicycle no more 'desecrates' the wilderness than hiking boots, a backpack or a tent.

Nonsense! Everyone in the world now knows where you stand
although, like all liberal cowards, you choose to remain anonymous, never using
your real name. Only Mr. Vandeman and I have the courage of our
convictions.


I am happy to stand behind what I've said and it's pretty easy to find out my identity if you want to. However, it's totally immaterial to the argument.
  #9  
Old July 30th 13, 07:14 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Everyone in the world knows what a hiking trail is, except you
apparently.


Oh do they ? So, please enlighten me, how am I to determine a 'hiking trail' to which only the Sainted Ed and his compatriots are permitted access and a 'regular trail' which is to be shared ? I can, tracker like, look at some kind of spoor to determine which is which ?


Hiking trails exist in natural areas and are easily negotiable by humans on foot. Bike paths exist in developed areas and are designed for wheels mainly. Always glad to help out the mentally impaired.

Bicycles go much faster than anyone can walk, whether on a
street or on a trail. Many hikers have been struck by cyclists while hiking on
trails.


How many ? It's easy to assert this but, bereft facts, it's anecdote and hearsay. There have been NO reported hiker/biker accidents in, for example, Swinley Forest in the last two years and most trails are shared there.


It is becoming more and more a daily experience of hikers having just one close call after another. Come to Aspen and find out for yourself. A mountain biker just killed himself the other day on a trail at Vail. That indeed was good news! You should be reading Mr. Vandeman’s emails/newsletters instead of mountain biker **** magazines.

What matters is the speed of the walker, not anything else.
Glad we finally agree on something! Now we just need to get bicycles off trails
the same as we got motorcycles off trails – and for the same reason - speed
differentials.


We didn't agree Ed ... provided that cyclists go past hikers at a slow speed and permit them space what does it matter what speed they do elsewhere ?


It is also a matter of aesthetics .... which I know is beyond you!
[...]

What works “just fine” for you does not work so fine for most
others. Come to Aspen, Colorado sometime to get a clue!


I already agreed with you that a case by case basis for deciding what works is required. You have to take into account numbers of people, type of the trail and many other factors. I have never been messianic that all trails should be shared.


An enlightened public will come to see this sooner than you
think, most especially when hikers and equestrians start suffering

injuries
and deaths from the activities of mountain bikers. We both agree that

it will
be a political process that decides the issue.


Well, for this to happen, there would have to be significant numbers of hiker/biker and biker/equestrian incidents. Your pal Vandeman trawls the net feverishly to find such encounters and highlight them but he comes up with barely any relative to the numbers of bikers and hikers.


Mr. Vandeman finds dozens of such incidents on a monthly basis – more than enough to give everyone pause. What he finds equally significant are the high numbers of mountain bikers who injure and kill themselves riding on trails without any help from hikers. I will admit it makes for boring reading because the accidents are always the same. At least hikers when they have accidents make for more interesting reading.

Better to have a futile hobby than a reprehensible pastime of
ruining trails for hikers by desecrating wilderness and natural areas with the
loathsome presence of a bicycle.


Oh for goodness sake. How is the presence of a bicycle loathsome ? This is emotive rubbish. A bicycle no more 'desecrates' the wilderness than hiking boots, a backpack or a tent.


Bicycles can be on their own trails totally separated from hikers. Then indeed who cares!

Nonsense! Everyone in the world now knows where you stand
although, like all liberal cowards, you choose to remain anonymous, never using
your real name. Only Mr. Vandeman and I have the courage of our
convictions.


I am happy to stand behind what I've said and it's pretty easy to find out my identity if you want to. However, it's totally immaterial to the argument.


It’s easy to stand behind what you say when you are anonymous. It is what all cowards and knaves do on the Internet.

However, I am not 'aligned' to anyone. I'm simply stating my opinions.


What I don’t like is that you did not focus on what matters
- the speed differential ... and the engine which makes noise. In other
words, it is a contraption just like a bicycle is a contraption. Motorcycles in
essence are motorized bicycles plus a bit of noise. Sorry you do not have the
brains to see what is so obvious to the rest of the world.


Now you're just getting silly and undermining your own argument. If what matters is speed and noise then motorcycles are, as I've stated and proven, a completely different category to mountainbikes which are much slower and largely silent. If that distinction is what matters to you then you've just argued to treat motorcycles and mountainbikes differently.


What motorcycles and bicycles have in common is that they are both mechanical contrivances. That right there is enough to disqualify them from my sacred trails. What they also have in common is the ‘fun and games’ mentality of their operators. What I would like to see is the sharing of trails between bicycles and motorcycles. Let the slaughter begin. The rats vs. the cockroaches!

Unlit you can justify motorized vehicles using the trails the
same as bicycles, you are and remain a hypocrite.


No, if I were to do so then I would be a hypocrite since I DON'T believe that they should be permitted to do so. The key distinction is one of power source; I don't believe any non-human power source has the same rights to access.


It is NOT the power source that matters. What matters is the mechanical contrivance. It is this mechanical contrivance which results in disparate views of wilderness and natural areas and therefore the attitudes we bring to the experience. The one and only reason for trails in this day and age is for an appreciation of nature. There are no other purposes for trails that are suited for hikers. Get your own trails and use them for whatever other purposes you want.

Mr. Vandeman is a Saint almost
on my level. The only person here wearing a black hat is you –
Blackblade!


Very funny. I would note that saints are usually beatified by the church, not themselves, since humility is usually a key characteristic.


A Great Saint like Myself is beyond the reach of a mere church. We exist on an equal level with God Almighty.

Like all liberal know nothings you would like to think it is
just a matter of different views, never once stooping to considerations of right
and wrong, good and evil, the sacred and the profane.


Why would you assume that I'm a liberal or supporter of relativism ? I'm not. That I can accept that others, such as you, hold differing views doesn't mean that I think your viewpoint has equal merit. I don't.


I can spot and smell a liberal from a mile away. It is one of the hallmarks of a Genius like Me!

I endeavour to be polite and courteous in argument but don't mistake that for weakness. Your right and wrong and good and evil are not mine and I don't accept them.


You bring up the same old rot over and over. What is polite about that?

I think your arguments are largely circular and, essentially, come down to personal preference. As such, you're the one reverting to views, not me.


The only arguments that are circular are your own self-serving ones for doing what you want to do regardless of how it affects anyone else. But like all liberals, you know only your own justifications in your limited skewed view of the world.

It is why I am a Great
Saint and you are a mere sinner. My view will prevail in the end. All that
needs to happen is for a few cyclists to kill a few hikers while “doing their
thing” on a trail.


So, the Great Saint would like some fatalities to support his position. Not very saintly.


It is just a matter of time human nature being what it is.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #10  
Old July 30th 13, 07:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Mon, 29 Jul 2013
01:37:17 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

pointless argument snipped

We all know the criminal vandalman and his disciple are beyond reason,

and that they believe themselves to be above the law.
There's no need to give their bull**** any credibility by arguing with
them in public. Just killfile the morons and move on.

Not even Blackblade will read your crap and he is on your side. But I must admit at least Blackblade puts up an argument, however poor, which is more than a clueless sap like you could ever do. Now go **** yourself and quit bothering the honorable members of this noble newsgroup.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great
 




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
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? EdwardDolan Social Issues 6 July 4th 13 07:56 PM
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? Blackblade Social Issues 3 June 8th 13 07:54 AM
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? you Mountain Biking 5 March 11th 13 03:02 AM
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? Mike Vandeman[_4_] Mountain Biking 0 October 30th 12 08:17 PM
Is Mike Vandeman finally dead? Jym Dyer Mountain Biking 1 October 19th 12 12:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.