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 Vandeman finally dead?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 9th 13, 05:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

Hikers arenít pleased when they have to step aside for cyclists or worse, get hit by them.

Itís a major imposition to have to step aside for a few seconds ? What do they do when they encounter runners or hikers coming the other way ? There are minimal collisions between hikers and riders.

I know My Vandeman a thousand times better than you do. What you have to say about him is water off a duckís back to me.


Who you choose to associate with is your funeral. But you will forgive me, I trust, when you write the words Ďpure soulí and I fall off my chair laughing. By behaving as he does he massively weakens your case ... but, hey, choose your own representatives ... even if they are incompetent, criminal and laughable.

There are not 50 million cyclists riding mountain bikes on hiking trails. People die of heart disease after living a long life. Those cyclists who do ride their bikes on hiking trails are at high risk of injury and even death. If you had any common sense you would know that.


The Parks and Recreation department estimated there were 43.5million about five years ago. IMBA says there are 50m now. Follow the thread I referenced where I backed up the numbers. Mountain biking is not wholly safe ... Iím not saying that ... but the odds of death are very very low. And, no, if you donít exercise then your chances of dying, young, from heart disease are high. Common sense is frequently wrong ... you need numbers and data.

You must be blind and deaf as well as senseless. Mountain bikers and hikers are on trails for entirely different reasons. I am too weary to bother to explain those differences to someone who refuses to acknowledge that they even exist.


Itís immaterial. You donít get to impose on others how they enjoy nature. I think youíre wrong about why people are there but the reality is that their motivation is not for you to approve or disapprove anyway.

I am telling you that mountain bikers do hurt hikers just by their very presence on a trail. Mountain bikers are not there to enjoy the environment, They are there for thrills and spills. A group of mountain bikers is like a gang of hoodlums. Equestrians hate the lot of you even more than hikers.


This is all emotion and perception. If you thought about it logically for five seconds you would realise the absurdity of this statement as a justification for your proposition. You can fix the problem by taking a deep breath ... and changing your attitude. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why others should have to be denied access for your sensibilities.

I am on a list of recipients of emails which more than back up every word of mine. It may be that you there in Scotland have found a special place where all is peace. But it is strife and rancor in most of America. There is no getting along with one another such as you experience.


You find what you seek. Only those who ARE bothered are going to communicate with you. There are tens of millions of hikers in the US ... how many emails do you have ? Unless you put things into perspective then its simply selective sampling.

It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.


In a democracy, axiomatically, all PEOPLE have the same rights to share public resources. Desecrate is an emotionally charged term.

Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.


Iím sure this is true for some. But itís not a rational justification for banning bikers. Itís a justification for telling getting people to learn to live and let live.

It is going to get far more emotional and when it does the managers of our public lands are going to get a comeuppance. They will be forced to develop trails solely for bikers if that is what everyone wants. Hikers and bikers cannot coexist on the same trails.


I think youíre wrong. My prediction is that, in a short while, there will be minimal conflict. You keep stating that Hikers and Bikers canít coexist ... but you canít refute the fact that it works fine in many places. So, axiomatically, it IS possible. Not everywhere, Iím sure, but in most locations. As was pointed out, not so long ago hikers were trying to get equestrians banned ... now, youíre working with them. Things change.

Overall, I think I do understand where youíre coming from ... and why you think that the trails canít be shared. But, if you really think about it, all your arguments stem from a perception that the trails belong to hikers ... which isnít, and was not ever, the case ... and an aesthetic sensibility. But, the problem is not then the bikers; who are as entitled to use the trails as you are ... youíre both people ... but with your perception. I hesitate to say Ďtake a chill pillí but, really, that is what it comes down to.
Ads
  #2  
Old June 9th 13, 10:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Hikers arenít pleased when they have to step aside for cyclists or worse, get hit by them.


Itís a major imposition to have to step aside for a few seconds ? What do they do when they encounter runners or hikers coming the other way ? There are minimal collisions between hikers and riders.


I hiked thousands of miles of trails in the western US when I was young and never encountered any runners. What are they? Hikers encountering one another on a trail is an occasion to greet one another. There does not have to be many collisions between hikers and bikers. Just a single collision can be extremely serious or even fatal.

I know My Vandeman a thousand times better than you do. What you have to say about him is water off a duckís back to me.


Who you choose to associate with is your funeral. But you will forgive me, I trust, when you write the words Ďpure soulí and I fall off my chair laughing. By behaving as he does he massively weakens your case ... but, hey, choose your own representatives ... even if they are incompetent, criminal and laughable.


Mr. Vandeman has all the scholarlty qualifications to be considered an expert, but more importantly he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are. I use the words "pure soulĒ to refer to his mission to cleanse our environment of all polluters, like mountain bikers for instance. I am not so extreme as him ... which is nothing to brag about in this day and age when everything is going to hell in a hand basket.

There are not 50 million cyclists riding mountain bikes on hiking trails. People die of heart disease after living a long life. Those cyclists who do ride their bikes on hiking trails are at high risk of injury and even death. If you had any common sense you would know that.


The Parks and Recreation department estimated there were 43.5million about five years ago. IMBA says there are 50m now. Follow the thread I referenced where I backed up the numbers. Mountain biking is not wholly safe ... Iím not saying that ... but the odds of death are very very low. And, no, if you donít exercise then your chances of dying, young, from heart disease are high. Common sense is frequently wrong .... you need numbers and data.


I only need a few bad experiences with mountain bikers on a trail to know where I stand. Statistical data lies about everything most of the time just like polls do. You need to get some reality into your thinking. Further, many parks and recreation areas have created special trails for bicycling. I have no objection to that provided that other trails are available solely for hikers. Hikers will always have the best trails. Even idiots know that much.

You must be blind and deaf as well as senseless. Mountain bikers and hikers are on trails for entirely different reasons. I am too weary to bother to explain those differences to someone who refuses to acknowledge that they even exist.


Itís immaterial. You donít get to impose on others how they enjoy nature. I think youíre wrong about why people are there but the reality is that their motivation is not for you to approve or disapprove anyway.


Their motivation determines their behavior. It should be a prime a consideration by land managers. However, It is their behavior that I object to the most. But I just plain donít like bikes on trails. It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. Whatís the matter? Canít walk?

I am telling you that mountain bikers do hurt hikers just by their very presence on a trail. Mountain bikers are not there to enjoy the environment, They are there for thrills and spills. A group of mountain bikers is like a gang of hoodlums. Equestrians hate the lot of you even more than hikers.


This is all emotion and perception. If you thought about it logically for five seconds you would realise the absurdity of this statement as a justification for your proposition. You can fix the problem by taking a deep breath ... and changing your attitude. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why others should have to be denied access for your sensibilities.


Yes, indeed ... it is all emotion and perception Ė yours to be precise.

ďIt is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. Whatís the matter? Canít walk?Ē Ė Ed Dolan

I am on a list of recipients of emails which more than back up every word of mine. It may be that you there in Scotland have found a special place where all is peace. But it is strife and rancor in most of America. There is no getting along with one another such as you experience.


You find what you seek. Only those who ARE bothered are going to communicate with you. There are tens of millions of hikers in the US .... how many emails do you have ? Unless you put things into perspective then its simply selective sampling.


The list that I am on is the only one that counts. Your worship of numbers (data) marks you as an ignoramus who is easily swayed by lies.

It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.


In a democracy, axiomatically, all PEOPLE have the same rights to share public resources. Desecrate is an emotionally charged term.


What mountain bikers do on trails is indeed a desecration. Managers determine what rights people have to share public resources. I suppose the game of politics is the final arbiter, but it seldom ever gets to that level. Broadly speaking, people never have the right to share equally in public resources, Where did you ever get a crazy idea like that?

Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.


Iím sure this is true for some. But itís not a rational justification for banning bikers. Itís a justification for telling getting people to learn to live and let live.


When an incompatible use is involved, it is not possible to reconcile the conflict. The mountain biking situation just keeps getting worse and worse. Education is not the answer to most things. The answer to most things is force majeure. It is the reason we have police forces and military forces.

It is going to get far more emotional and when it does the managers of our public lands are going to get a comeuppance. They will be forced to develop trails solely for bikers if that is what everyone wants. Hikers and bikers cannot coexist on the same trails.


I think youíre wrong. My prediction is that, in a short while, there will be minimal conflict. You keep stating that Hikers and Bikers canít coexist ... but you canít refute the fact that it works fine in many places. So, axiomatically, it IS possible. Not everywhere, Iím sure, but in most locations. As was pointed out, not so long ago hikers were trying to get equestrians banned ... now, youíre working with them. Things change.


We hikers do not like equestrians much either if truth be told, but at least we can coexist as long as there are not too many of them. Bikers can easily take over trails so that no one else can use them. Frankly I do not mind cyclists in the low lying flatlands where the trail is broad. But high mountain trails are not for cyclists any more than they are for motorcyclists.

The incompatible use idea extends to things other than just physical contact. It most powerfully extends to what you are there for in the first place and what is your mindset. Mountain bikers are there for fun and games; hikers are there for contemplation of nature and natural beauty. These things never go together.

Overall, I think I do understand where youíre coming from ... and why you think that the trails canít be shared. But, if you really think about it, all your arguments stem from a perception that the trails belong to hikers ... which isnít, and was not ever, the case .... and an aesthetic sensibility. But, the problem is not then the bikers; who are as entitled to use the trails as you are ... youíre both people ... but with your perception. I hesitate to say Ďtake a chill pillí but, really, that is what it comes down to.


Maybe you would not object to motorcyclists on the trails either? After all, they are god damn people too and have a perfect right to the use of a public resource just like everyone else?

I believe the trails are for hikers and are not for bikers. That has always been the tradition until recently. The fact that we are all people is totally irrelevant. Everything under the sun must be managed for ideally best use. Permitting bikes on trails is a worse use.

I think the present situation will have to get worse before it gets better. The compromise will be that bikers will get their own trails separated from hiking trails. It is just a matter of time.

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? Blackblade Social Issues 17 June 15th 13 10:53 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 10:32 AM.


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.