More Abusive Email from a Typical Mountain Biker

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:04:01 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote in message :

[snip perfectly reasonable message from retired park ranger]

Looks to me like Ranger Grisak was bending over backwards to be fair
to you. Not many people would treat a bigot like you with such
courtesy.

The closing remark is in fact a suggestion that your equilibrium might
be restored by doing what you claim to love most, retreating into the
wilderness for a while.

But we all know that, as the bear said, you're not here for the
hunting...

Guy

Hmm, we just had another study published in the UK on the incidence of
obesity amongst school kids... certainly not the first, but disturbing in
it's conclusions none the less.

With child obesity jumping 50 percent between 1995 and 2002 in England
(http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...IN-OBESITY.xml)
it seems to me that any form of exercise that captures the imagination of
young people should be encouraged.

Whilst mountain biking does have an environmental impact on a micro scale
(as does walking/hiking/horse riding and any other activity man does,
particularly in large numbers in convenient areas near cities), in
comparison to the damage caused by industry, it is relatively small. A few
individuals on their bikes are don't seem likely to cause the Antarctic to
thaw, destroy the world's marine ecosystems or result in the next pea
soup fog.

I am in support of fragile or noteworthy areas being off-bounds
to bikes. In fact, I support the notion that such areas should be
inaccessible to all trail uses, as any human intervention (other than
that sanctioned by an appropriate body for research) will have a
detrimental impact. However, I cannot see why trails near urban areas that
have been used by others users for tens, perhaps hundreds of years should
not be shared by mountain bikers.

For me, mountain biking is a perfectly legitimate way to get some fresh
air, exercise and adrenalin. I realise that bikes are not a natural
part of the environment and they may perturb some of the other more
sensitive trail users. That's one reason why I ride respectfully
and always allow them to pass first. However, putting mountain bikers on
the spot on this matter seems to smack of double-standards as not many of
the other trail users seem to worry about taking the latest and greatest
gore-tex clothes, cell-phones or aluminium trekking-poles with them, none
of which could be considered natural in any way.

Mike's basic tenant is that mountain biking off-road in any
situation causes damage to the environment. This seems unacceptable to
him. I on the other hand think that a minor impact is acceptable in the
interests of maintaining (or returning to) a healthy human population for
which exercise is a way of life.

The environment is in grave danger, but not from the threat of mountain
biking. On the one hand I admire Mike's tenacity to fight for the
environment, on the other I despair the direction he has taken, which
seems to be to tackle the least pressing issues first.

If he would fight the important battles, he may well find allies amongst
mountain bikers that would help him reduce auto dependence, lobby to
reduce air pollution, encourage industry/individuals to reduce energy
consumption and shout for clean fuel technologies. However, until then, he
will continue to repeat a banal argument about something that, in 20-30
years when the climate has changed considerably, will not be of the
slightest relevance. To me, this does not seem a great use of his time.

If things go unabated, within a short period of time (on an evolutionary
scale), much of what he is trying to protect may well perish as the
climate changes. In the mean time, the unhealthy lifestyles that many lead
well cause a lot of suffering for unfortunate individuals at a great deal
of cost to taxpayers (or in the USA, health insurance premiums) in the
drugs and medical treatment. As far as I can see, very few of those issues
are going be due to fat tyres.

Sam.

Sam Williams wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:04:01 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:29:33 GMT, Mike Vandeman
wrote in message :

[snip perfectly reasonable message from retired park ranger]

Looks to me like Ranger Grisak was bending over backwards to be fair
to you. Not many people would treat a bigot like you with such
courtesy.

The closing remark is in fact a suggestion that your equilibrium might
be restored by doing what you claim to love most, retreating into the
wilderness for a while.

But we all know that, as the bear said, you're not here for the
hunting...

Guy


Hmm, we just had another study published in the UK on the incidence of
obesity amongst school kids... certainly not the first, but disturbing in
it's conclusions none the less.
snip rational pleasant suggestions and observations
taxayers (or in the USA, health insurance premiums) in the
drugs and medical treatment. As far as I can see, very few of those issues
are going be due to fat tyres.

Sam.

Nice, Sam. But we know this, he knows this, the rest of the bloody
world knows this. But he doesn't take any notice and you may as well
**** into the wind as try to argue with MV. Don't say we didn't warn
you. I was once like you too.
--
Westie