Is Mountain Biking Healthful Exercise?

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:30:40 PM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are doing nothing but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & have no time to "enjoy scenery". Every once in a while, a mountain biker accidentally tells the truth & admits that. You aren't that honest. You've never heard of peripheral vision ?????

bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it.

bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it.

You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment.

Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?

On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:
bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?

You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:

bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?



You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.


When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013.

Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic.

You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office.

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:



bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?







You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.





When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013.



Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic.



You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office.

BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active.

You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire.

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote:







bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ?















You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot.











When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013.







Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic.







You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office.



BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active.


You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire.


Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong.

First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking.

Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception.

Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in?

Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one.

Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours.

And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:54:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote: On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ? You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot. When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013. Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic. You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office. BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active. You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire. Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong. First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking. Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception. Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous.. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in? Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one. Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours. And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?

I didn't get anything wrong. Perpiheral vision is subconscious, and doesn't constitute "enjoying nature" -- the topic of this conversation. OF COURSE a driver can turn his attention to his rear view or side view mirrors, since roads are smooth and straight -- absolutely the opposite of a trail. It's interesting that you'd use a totally irrelevant example. It shows your utter dishonesty. If a mountain biker tried that, he would likely crash in a couple of seconds. Even a driver doesn't spend much time looking in his mirrors. He has to pay attention to the road ahead. You guys sure are gluttons for punishment! You keep losing, no matter how often you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. No one is fooled, of course. It is well known that mountain bikers lie continually (i.e., as long ad their lips are moving).

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50:30 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:54:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote: On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ? You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot. When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013. Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic. You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office. BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active. You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire. Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong. First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking. Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception. Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in? Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one. Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours. And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?



I didn't get anything wrong. Perpiheral vision is subconscious, and doesn't constitute "enjoying nature" -- the topic of this conversation. OF COURSE a driver can turn his attention to his rear view or side view mirrors, since roads are smooth and straight -- absolutely the opposite of a trail. It's interesting that you'd use a totally irrelevant example. It shows your utter dishonesty. If a mountain biker tried that, he would likely crash in a couple of seconds. Even a driver doesn't spend much time looking in his mirrors. He has to pay attention to the road ahead. You guys sure are gluttons for punishment! You keep losing, no matter how often you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. No one is fooled, of course. It is well known that mountain bikers lie continually (i.e., as long ad their lips are moving)..

Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.

Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.

Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking. Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.

My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.

You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?

Are you going to answer my question about vampires?

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:03:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:50:30 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:54:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:



On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:54:02 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:01:43 PM UTC-8, wrote: On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:13:22 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 2:48:34 AM UTC-8, Blackblade wrote: bs. It you turn your attention to anything but the trail in front of you, you will CRASH. DUH! Anyone who rides a bike knows that. But only mountain bikers LIE about it. You can concentrate on the trail AND appreciate the environment. Or do you contend that it is the same to cycle down a motorway as a country lane ? You forgot, I guess, that you are talking to a Ph.D. in Psychology. It it physically impossible to pay attention to two things at the same time. Only an idiot would pay attention to the scenery, because they would most likely immediately crash! Even on a smooth paved street, it is risky. Trails are generally random, which is why mountain bikers so often crash, EVEN WHEN THEY GIVE THE TRAIL THEIR FULL ATTENTION! Idiot. When you wrote your dissertation, did you use a lot of references from 1933 and earlier? Because that's pretty much the same thing as you trying to apply your 40 year-old degree in 2013. Blackblade is absolutely correct, and you are wrong. The task of mountain biking requires processing a combination of central and peripheral cues. Go look up Egeth and Yantis' (1997) and Muller and Rabbit's (1989) work on peripheral cues for some background on the topic. You should brush up a bit. There have been a lot of interesting advances in Psychology since Nixon left office. BS. Humans haven't evolved the ability to multi-process since 1973. Mountain bikers don't need "peripheral cues"; they need to focus on the trail in front of their front tire, period. Any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash. The mountain biker that an antelope ran into proved that. His peripheral vision wasn't active. You guys are sure gluttons for punishment. You are doomed to lose, every time. Because you simply refuse to tell the truth! The truth to a mountain biker is like salt on a vampire. Wow, Mike. It's amazing how someone can write so little and get so much wrong. First, nobody said humans can "multi-process;" so stop adding it back into the conversation. There's a huge distinction between what I wrote and multitasking. Second, a bike rider would no more "focus on the trail in front of their front tire" than a hiker would stare at his feet while walking. There are numerous important cues other than what is on the trail in front of the front tire. The fact that you don't see that shows how little you understand biking and how the task aligns with human perception. Third, your statement, "any attention given to the periphery would take attention from the trail, leading to a crash," is totally ridiculous. Seriously, how can you possibly defend such an idiotic statement? How do drivers check their mirrors or read road signs in the alternate reality you seem to live in? Fourth, again, your understanding of the task and research in psychology over the past 40 years is lacking. Perception of peripheral cues is an essential part of the task, as demonstrated by decades of research. Your ignorance of the field and lack of education doesn't change that. I encourage you to review the articles I recommended and stop insulting qualified psychologists by claiming to be one. Fifth, the rider points to the antelope a few seconds before impact and watches it approach before it hits him at a 90-degree angle. Again, if you understood anything about bike riding, you would see that he clearly braces for the impact. The video demonstrates my point, not yours. And finally... Refresh my memory: what, exactly, is putting salt on a vampire supposed to accomplish?







I didn't get anything wrong. Perpiheral vision is subconscious, and doesn't constitute "enjoying nature" -- the topic of this conversation. OF COURSE a driver can turn his attention to his rear view or side view mirrors, since roads are smooth and straight -- absolutely the opposite of a trail. It's interesting that you'd use a totally irrelevant example. It shows your utter dishonesty. If a mountain biker tried that, he would likely crash in a couple of seconds. Even a driver doesn't spend much time looking in his mirrors. He has to pay attention to the road ahead. You guys sure are gluttons for punishment! You keep losing, no matter how often you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. No one is fooled, of course. It is well known that mountain bikers lie continually (i.e., as long ad their lips are moving).



Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.

I never said the difference is speed, idiot. It's speed, being on top of a bike, being on unpredictable trails, etc.

Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.

Through a telescope. If he were on a mountain bike, his peripheral vision would be useless.

Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.

Prove it. That's just your asserton, with no basis in fact.

Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.

You keep changing the subject, because you can't bear to admit that you are just WRONG.

My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.

BS. Mountain bikes don't have rear view mirrors, or any other mirrors. Since roads are guaranteed to be as straight and smooth as possible, it's safe to glance away for a second. That's not true for mountain biking, because trails aren't straight or smooth. They are very hazardous for anyone ON A BIKE, because of that. That's why serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace for mountain bikers.

You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?

There's no difference.

Are you going to answer my question about vampires?

As soon as you start telling the truth -- which I know is never going to happen.

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:35:32 PM UTC-5, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:03:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:

Using your psychophysics background, how about you tell me the speed ceiling at which one can no longer "enjoy nature." Since hikers can enjoy it and mountain bikers can't, and you claim the difference is speed, tell me the speed I have to stay below. I want to make sure I do it right.

I never said the difference is speed, idiot. It's speed, being on top of a bike, being on unpredictable trails, etc.

"As to the beautiful scenery, only hikers & equestrians are able to enjoy it. Mountain bikers are DOING NOTHING but looking at the trail directly in front of them, & HAVE NO TIME to "enjoy scenery"." (emphasis mine)

So it was about time (affected by speed, obviously). Now it's about a few other things as well. Why don't you take some time to collect your "thoughts" and get back to me on this one.

Silly man, you don't get to define "enjoying nature" for anyone but yourself. It's subjective. Or do you think you can quantify "enjoyment" for me? And no, idiot, peripheral vision isn't "subconscious." Ask any astronomer how he looks at the stars.

Through a telescope. If he were on a mountain bike, his peripheral vision would be useless.

Really, Mike? Using peripheral vision to look at the stars is a basic example of conscious use of peripheral vision taught in just about every undergraduate perception class and well known by every amateur stargazer. Clearly, I was giving your education WAY too much credit.

http://dailyuw.com/archive/2008/04/0...s#.UPAimuS_J8E

Again, hardly "subconscious." Did you buy your Ph.D from an ad in the back of Rolling Stone?

Your responses are an ever-increasing testament of your complete ignorance of mountain biking. Maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.


Prove it. That's just your asserton, with no basis in fact.

Are you suggesting a mountain biker would be equally effective riding while looking through a toilet paper tube as without? This would still easily allow him to see the trail in front of his front tire, after all.

I shouldn't have to explain the difference between foveal and peripheral vision to someone who claims to have a Ph.D in psychology. Go read a chapter on visual perception in an undergraduate textbook and get back to me.

The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that mountain biking ONLY requires foveal vision. Feel free to consult one of your archaic textbooks.

Again, that is a fact you clearly can't grasp because you don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). That's amazingly irresponsible for someone attempting to make objective observations about mountain biking, but it explains why you can't get a publication on the topic in a refereed journal.

You keep changing the subject, because you can't bear to admit that you are just WRONG.

You don't understand mountain biking (not to mention human perception of motion). Therefore, you are ignorant of the fact that maintaining awareness beyond the "trail in front of their front tire" is an essential part of mountain biking.

My driving example was just fine. It's your experience that's limited. Roads aren't always smooth and straight, and they include numerous external hazards, like other cars. Glancing at a mirror requires maintaining awareness of the changing conditions of the road ahead. Likewise, analogous scanning patterns constantly occur while riding a bike.

BS. Mountain bikes don't have rear view mirrors, or any other mirrors. Since roads are guaranteed to be as straight and smooth as possible, it's safe to glance away for a second. That's not true for mountain biking, because trails aren't straight or smooth. They are very hazardous for anyone ON A BIKE, because of that. That's why serious accidents and even deaths are commonplace for mountain bikers.

So now we're down to one second. Fascinating.

Based on what you are saying, I could put on a clown costume and stand next to the trail, and I would be completely invisible to a mountain biker because he'd be focusing on the trail in front of his tire. I would, however, exist in his "subconscious" in my clown disguise, according to you.

Trail conditions vary. Some sections are quite straight and smooth. Some smooth sections even go for many miles uphill, limiting speed and allowing well over two seconds to enjoy the scenery.

You've also now moved from the biker crashing "immediately" to "a couple of seconds" after turning attention from the trail ahead. What's the time frame going to be in your next response?

There's no difference.

Only to someone dumber than a bag of rocks. Or a liar. Which are you?

im·me·di·ate·ly (Adverb)
1. At once; instantly.
2. Without any intervening time or space.

That's not "a couple of seconds," dolt.

Are you going to answer my question about vampires?

As soon as you start telling the truth -- which I know is never going to happen.

As I've demonstrated, you are the one lying in this thread, Mike.

So what does putting salt on a vampire do? And why are you afraid to answer the question?