Why People Mountain Bike: "the adventure of the ride is what gets my juices flowing"

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:52:13 -0700, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:40:37 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:46:17 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:32:34 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:37:35 -0700, cc wrote:
I suggest that it's at least 5 -10 times as harmful. That's certainly
significant. That's based on relative distance travelled.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
So, how far and how many times a week does the average hiker travel and
how far and how many times a week does a mountain biker travel? Also,
post where you secured this information...
You tell me. Do your homework.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Ok. I will bite. Searching the newsgroups and reading hiker comments the
average hike is 10 miles with longer hikes up to 30 miles.
BS. But even if we accept your figures, I studies mountain biking ride
announcements. They averaged 27 miles & went from 8 to 112 miles (in a
single day). So even if we accept your bogus figures, mountain bikers
travel 3 times as far as hikers, and thus have at least 3 times the
impacts.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Using the above data we both have acquired, and following your
determination that mountain biking has 3 time the impact of hiking
because mountain bikers travel 3 time the distance of hikers:

We of course need therein to consider the number of hikers vs the number
of mountain bikers.

There are 55 million hikers and 10 million mountain bikers. Applying our
collective assumptions which includes similar number of times hikers and
bikers get to venture out;

The overall impact of hiking is much greater since there are a 5 to 1
ratio of hikers to bikers.

Irrelevant. Ethics applies to individuals, not crowds. If you can
reduce your impact by hiking rather than mountain biking, you SHOULD.
Not that you know anything about ethics.

Mike, you can't make an argument based on the numbers of miles traveled
per biker and then reject one based on how many hikers there are
compared to bikers. You make no sense!

Go back to studying eating habits.

Ask your mommie to explain it to you.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:57:21 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:40:37 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:46:17 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:32:34 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:37:35 -0700, cc wrote:
I suggest that it's at least 5 -10 times as harmful. That's certainly
significant. That's based on relative distance travelled.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
So, how far and how many times a week does the average hiker travel and
how far and how many times a week does a mountain biker travel? Also,
post where you secured this information...
You tell me. Do your homework.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Ok. I will bite. Searching the newsgroups and reading hiker comments the
average hike is 10 miles with longer hikes up to 30 miles.
BS. But even if we accept your figures, I studies mountain biking ride
announcements. They averaged 27 miles & went from 8 to 112 miles (in a
single day). So even if we accept your bogus figures, mountain bikers
travel 3 times as far as hikers, and thus have at least 3 times the
impacts.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Using the above data we both have acquired, and following your
determination that mountain biking has 3 time the impact of hiking
because mountain bikers travel 3 time the distance of hikers:

We of course need therein to consider the number of hikers vs the number
of mountain bikers.

There are 55 million hikers and 10 million mountain bikers. Applying our
collective assumptions which includes similar number of times hikers and
bikers get to venture out;

The overall impact of hiking is much greater since there are a 5 to 1
ratio of hikers to bikers.

Irrelevant. Ethics applies to individuals, not crowds. If you can
reduce your impact by hiking rather than mountain biking, you SHOULD.
Not that you know anything about ethics.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


Ethics are irrelevant to applicability of a group's fundamental moral
code. I am one of the 55 million hikers and one of the 10 million
bikers, thus our evaluation above indicates I should mountain bike more
and hike less to reduce overall impact.

If you stop mountain biking, you will reduce your impacts, and hence
the total impact of all humans. This isn't rocket science. You have no
control over anyone else.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:57:21 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:40:37 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:46:17 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:32:34 -0400, ChainSmoker
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:37:35 -0700, cc wrote:
I suggest that it's at least 5 -10 times as harmful. That's certainly
significant. That's based on relative distance travelled.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
So, how far and how many times a week does the average hiker travel and
how far and how many times a week does a mountain biker travel? Also,
post where you secured this information...
You tell me. Do your homework.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Ok. I will bite. Searching the newsgroups and reading hiker comments the
average hike is 10 miles with longer hikes up to 30 miles.
BS. But even if we accept your figures, I studies mountain biking ride
announcements. They averaged 27 miles & went from 8 to 112 miles (in a
single day). So even if we accept your bogus figures, mountain bikers
travel 3 times as far as hikers, and thus have at least 3 times the
impacts.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Using the above data we both have acquired, and following your
determination that mountain biking has 3 time the impact of hiking
because mountain bikers travel 3 time the distance of hikers:

We of course need therein to consider the number of hikers vs the number
of mountain bikers.

There are 55 million hikers and 10 million mountain bikers. Applying our
collective assumptions which includes similar number of times hikers and
bikers get to venture out;

The overall impact of hiking is much greater since there are a 5 to 1
ratio of hikers to bikers.
Irrelevant. Ethics applies to individuals, not crowds. If you can
reduce your impact by hiking rather than mountain biking, you SHOULD.
Not that you know anything about ethics.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Ethics are irrelevant to applicability of a group's fundamental moral
code. I am one of the 55 million hikers and one of the 10 million
bikers, thus our evaluation above indicates I should mountain bike more
and hike less to reduce overall impact.

If you stop mountain biking, you will reduce your impacts, and hence
the total impact of all humans. This isn't rocket science. You have no
control over anyone else.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Yes, that is true. Stopping any and all activity (hiking, biking, etc)
will reduce impact. What you and I agree upon is that the per unit
distance impact for hiking and biking is the same.