WHOOPS! ANOTHER Dead Mountain Biker!

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:08:33 PM UTC+12, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:42:42 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

Whats more mate I have asked you dozens of times to provide scientific evidence showing the negative impacts of mountain biking in NZ or more particular Rotorua, which you have criticised in the past.



I'm so glad that you stuck your neck out once again, demonstrating just how dumb you really are. I guarantee that there is no published research proving that hydrogen atoms in New Zealand OR Rotorua have a just one electron (or, if you prefer, that all humans have two legs). Most SANE people will assume that since they have just one electron in most of the world, the same holds in New Zealand AND Rotorua. DUH!



Why do you keep coming back, over and over, when you get deservedly trounced every single time????? Idiot. I guess you can't help yourself....



You continue to ignore the question repeatedly, which demonstrates to me that you have nothing. Your approach is similar to creationists who when confronted with the truth regarding evolution turn a blind eye. How does it feel to be ignorant Vandeman? Did you sit postgraduate papers in ignorance studies?

Ahhhh Mikey. Your rhetorical reply just indicates to me how ignorant you when it comes to our environmental issues and our legislation. Please keep up your stupid responses. You are doing a great job in promoting mountain biking in New Zealand as well as providing much needed entertainment. By the way have you ever considered a career in hollywood or acting? I am sure Peter Jackson could find use for you as a troll in the next hobbit movie.

You obviously never went to high school, where the rest of us learned that a guy on a a large piece of machinery travelling at high speed will have a much larger effect on the trail & people in its way than a hiker. DUH!!!!! Idiot. You forgot that the bike weighs a lot, and has knobby tires, which are designed to rip up the soil. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the billionth time just how STOOPID (i.e., worse than stupid) and dishonest mountain bikers are.

You obviously never went to physics ... score an F !

Me plus bike equals a 12.5% increase over me alone - negligible increase.

And, if I ride down a hill vs walk down it then I will impart MORE energy into the trail walking than riding if I don't brake ! The bike will convert the potential energy to kinectic whereas the walker will have to push hard into the trail to avoid losing control.

So, go back to school and learn some physics before you spout more nonsense

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:17:27 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
You obviously never went to high school, where the rest of us learned that a guy on a a large piece of machinery travelling at high speed will have a much larger effect on the trail & people in its way than a hiker. DUH!!!!! Idiot. You forgot that the bike weighs a lot, and has knobby tires, which are designed to rip up the soil. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the billionth time just how STOOPID (i.e., worse than stupid) and dishonest mountain bikers are.



You obviously never went to physics ... score an F !



Me plus bike equals a 12.5% increase over me alone - negligible increase.



And, if I ride down a hill vs walk down it then I will impart MORE energy into the trail walking than riding if I don't brake ! The bike will convert the potential energy to kinectic whereas the walker will have to push hard into the trail to avoid losing control.



So, go back to school and learn some physics before you spout more nonsense

Thanks for demonstrating mountain bikers' dishonesty for the billionth time.. Only a fool would ride without EVER braking. Or TURNING, which imparts centrifugal force to the trail. You conveniently FORGOT that, right? Idiot. I suspect that you've also underestimated the weight of the average bike and the weight of the average mountain biker. You would never make it as a scientist, with your thumb on the scale....

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:56:30 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:17:27 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:

You obviously never went to high school, where the rest of us learned that a guy on a a large piece of machinery travelling at high speed will have a much larger effect on the trail & people in its way than a hiker. DUH!!!!! Idiot. You forgot that the bike weighs a lot, and has knobby tires, which are designed to rip up the soil. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the billionth time just how STOOPID (i.e., worse than stupid) and dishonest mountain bikers are.







You obviously never went to physics ... score an F !







Me plus bike equals a 12.5% increase over me alone - negligible increase.







And, if I ride down a hill vs walk down it then I will impart MORE energy into the trail walking than riding if I don't brake ! The bike will convert the potential energy to kinectic whereas the walker will have to push hard into the trail to avoid losing control.







So, go back to school and learn some physics before you spout more nonsense



Thanks for demonstrating mountain bikers' dishonesty for the billionth time. Only a fool would ride without EVER braking. Or TURNING, which imparts centrifugal force to the trail. You conveniently FORGOT that, right? Idiot. I suspect that you've also underestimated the weight of the average bike and the weight of the average mountain biker. You would never make it as a scientist, with your thumb on the scale....

Do learn to read Michael ... it gets very tiring correcting your errors.

Did I say 'average' biker ? I don't believe I did. I quoted my own actual figures (200lb me, 25lb bike).

Did I say I 'never' brake ? I don't believe I did.

It is true that if I don't brake for a while and then do so heavily that the area where I brake incurs a significant force. If I walk down the same hill then I apply more force to the hill but arrive at the bottom with very little kinetic energy to lose later.

All that is happening is that the energy is being dissipated at different parts of the trail ... but it's only 12.5% more energy to start with AND, because air resistance goes up as the square of speed, I will dissipate much more in friction with the air if I travel faster on my bike.

So, unless you can break the laws of physics and start creating energy it is axiomatically true that the 'work' done on the trail ... to cause erosion, soil translation etc etc ... comes from the same human body and is therefore always going to be substantially equal. It will differ in type but not in scale.

And guess what, that's exactly what all the research finds.

To be accused, by you, of trying to 'slant' research is very very funny. Can you say hypocrite ????

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:35:17 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:56:30 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote: On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:17:27 AM UTC-7, Blackblade wrote: You obviously never went to high school, where the rest of us learned that a guy on a a large piece of machinery travelling at high speed will have a much larger effect on the trail & people in its way than a hiker. DUH!!!!! Idiot. You forgot that the bike weighs a lot, and has knobby tires, which are designed to rip up the soil. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating for the billionth time just how STOOPID (i.e., worse than stupid) and dishonest mountain bikers are. You obviously never went to physics ... score an F ! Me plus bike equals a 12.5% increase over me alone - negligible increase. And, if I ride down a hill vs walk down it then I will impart MORE energy into the trail walking than riding if I don't brake ! The bike will convert the potential energy to kinectic whereas the walker will have to push hard into the trail to avoid losing control. So, go back to school and learn some physics before you spout more nonsense Thanks for demonstrating mountain bikers' dishonesty for the billionth time. Only a fool would ride without EVER braking. Or TURNING, which imparts centrifugal force to the trail. You conveniently FORGOT that, right? Idiot. I suspect that you've also underestimated the weight of the average bike and the weight of the average mountain biker. You would never make it as a scientist, with your thumb on the scale.... Do learn to read Michael ... it gets very tiring correcting your errors. Did I say 'average' biker ? I don't believe I did. I quoted my own actual figures (200lb me, 25lb bike).

Unless you use averages, your personal data is irrelevant.

Did I say I 'never' brake ? I don't believe I did.

In the example you gave, you had remaining kinetic energy at the end of your trip, implying that you never stop. Idiot.

It is true that if I don't brake for a while and then do so heavily that the area where I brake incurs a significant force. If I walk down the same hill then I apply more force to the hill but arrive at the bottom with very little kinetic energy to lose later. All that is happening is that the energy is being dissipated at different parts of the trail ... but it's only 12.5% more energy to start with AND, because air resistance goes up as the square of speed, I will dissipate much more in friction with the air if I travel faster on my bike. So, unless you can break the laws of physics and start creating energy it is axiomatically true that the 'work' done on the trail ... to cause erosion, soil translation etc etc ... comes from the same human body and is therefore always going to be substantially equal. It will differ in type but not in scale. And guess what, that's exactly what all the research finds. To be accused, by you, of trying to 'slant' research is very very funny. Can you say hypocrite ????

You continue to ignore that mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers, multiplying your impacts several times. You are basically totally dishonest. My analysis is unbiased. Yours is worthless.

If your analysis is unbiased then why hasn't it been published in conservation biology, environmental conservation or biodiversity and conservation or another top journAl? Maybe there is a reason why it has not been published in a top journal - it is worthless.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:38:10 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
If your analysis is unbiased then why hasn't it been published in conservation biology, environmental conservation or biodiversity and conservation or another top journAl? Maybe there is a reason why it has not been published in a top journal - it is worthless.

As you well know, even if it were published, you still wouldn't accept it, because you aren't honest. You still haven't accepted my paper which WAS published!: Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

That is hardly a well known publication old chum. It is very obscure. What's more the article contains little empirical evidence to support your claims. Do you know what science is old chum? You seem to be struggling with it. Maybe you should go get a phd in conservation biology, do some real field research then get published in an esteemed journal.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 3:59:01 AM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:38:10 PM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:

If your analysis is unbiased then why hasn't it been published in conservation biology, environmental conservation or biodiversity and conservation or another top journAl? Maybe there is a reason why it has not been published in a top journal - it is worthless.



As you well know, even if it were published, you still wouldn't accept it, because you aren't honest. You still haven't accepted my paper which WAS published!: Vandeman, Michael J. ), 2008. The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Amphibians and Reptiles. In Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 3:155-156; expanded version also available at http://mjvande.nfshost.com/herp.htm.

This was Mike's one, and only so far, success in getting into publication. He wrote the piece in 2005 and it was published in 2008. It's two pages of page-filler in a book which is almost entirely unrelated to natural resource management. The piece itself is worthless on every level; it begs the question from the start and is basically a standard Vandeman diatribe about mountain biking with added bits about amphibians and reptiles (so as to get in the book).

Since that mighty oeuvre ... deafening silence :-)

Back to school Mr Vandeman. You need to learn some physics.

Unless you use averages, your personal data is irrelevant.

Depends on the context ... as an example, which is what it was, of the difference of what happens if I take two different actions, hike or bike, it's absolutely fine.

Did I say I 'never' brake ? I don't believe I did.

In the example you gave, you had remaining kinetic energy at the end of your trip, implying that you never stop. Idiot.

Oh do learn to read. I said 'if I ride down a hill...' then I will have kinetic energy at the bottom. This is a simple statement of fact. Engage brain before touching keyboard please.

You continue to ignore that mountain bikers travel several times as far as hikers, multiplying your impacts several times. You are basically totally dishonest. My analysis is unbiased. Yours is worthless.

Actually, no, I said nothing about distance you will note. However, answer me this very simple question ... "Why can an elite rider travel further and faster in an hour than an elite runner ?".

The answer to that question, since they produce the same power and expend the same energy (roughly) in that time, is that the bike encounters far less friction. Once a bike is rolling you don't have to push so hard to maintain speed as a bike 'stores' kinetic energy whereas a runner (or walker) needs to push again each step.

Equal and opposite reaction; so the friction that is applied to the rider or hiker also applies back to the trail.

To call your analysis unbiased is hilarious. You are probably the most biased person I've ever encountered. The physics I'm stating here is correct .... go and look it up if you don't understand it.

It's not a substitute for proper research on impacts; but it does explain why you would expect that hikers and bikers impact would be broadly similar (same power output) and horses and motorcycles much higher (much higher power output). Which is exactly what the research does show.

QED