Mountain Bikers Are Happy to Ride Amidst Extreme Air Pollution!

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:17:59 -0000, Jon_C
wrote:

On Sep 13, 11:23 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:54:27 -0700, "chasw"
wrote:

I'm not against bicycles, liar. I'm against the inappropriate use of
bikes to destroy wildlife and wildlife habitat. DUH!
...

So are you saying the bike track under the freeway is an inappropriate
use of
bikes that will destroy wildlife and wildlife habitat? Am I missing
your point?

Sorry you can't walk and chew gum at the same type.

Also a question: Wouldn't the drivers up on the freeway be exposed to
more polution than the riders below? Surely, assuming there's a slight
breeze blowing (and assuming it's not blowing vertically downwards),
the track 100 foot below the freeway would be relatively polution free.

Who knows? Most pollutants are heavier than air, and will go down.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Sorry you can't walk and chew gum at the same type.

...and I'm sorry you can't produce a coherant arguement. I'll follow
the advice here and quit wasting my time.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:48:10 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..

Hmmm. Not one mention of the MULTI-LANE FREEWAY right above them. In
denial?


You, Michael J. Vandeman, should be heralding this as the proper use of
land, and a good place where mountain bikes ought to be used.

Unlike YOU, I would never recommend that mountain bikers put
themselves in harm's way. Obviously, I care more about them than they
care about THEMSELVES. I have always recommended that bikes be
restricted to pavement.



I don't recommend anything, much less putting oneself in danger. But, if
soembody wants to ride his bike on dirt, I see nothing wrong with it as a
general rule. (I happen to accept the idea that there are a few among us
that harm stuff either out of ignorance or just plain spite, but the vast
majority are careful, cautious, and courteous.)

You do not care about anything except your own selfish interest. When a bike
path is set up in a place where the environment cound not be harmed any
further, it seems to me this would be a good place to hold out as a shining
example of where you think the only place -- besides the sidewalk -- where
mountain bikes should be operated. Your issue is NOT the safety of bicycle
riders, and it is very disengenous of you to hold yourself out as the safety
monitor for the community.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:15:18 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:48:10 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...

Hmmm. Not one mention of the MULTI-LANE FREEWAY right above them. In
denial?


You, Michael J. Vandeman, should be heralding this as the proper use of
land, and a good place where mountain bikes ought to be used.

Unlike YOU, I would never recommend that mountain bikers put
themselves in harm's way. Obviously, I care more about them than they
care about THEMSELVES. I have always recommended that bikes be
restricted to pavement.



I don't recommend anything, much less putting oneself in danger. But, if
soembody wants to ride his bike on dirt, I see nothing wrong with it as a
general rule. (I happen to accept the idea that there are a few among us
that harm stuff either out of ignorance or just plain spite, but the vast
majority are careful, cautious, and courteous.)

You do not care about anything except your own selfish interest. When a bike
path is set up in a place where the environment cound not be harmed any
further, it seems to me this would be a good place to hold out as a shining
example of where you think the only place -- besides the sidewalk -- where
mountain bikes should be operated. Your issue is NOT the safety of bicycle
riders, and it is very disengenous of you to hold yourself out as the safety
monitor for the community.

Then why am I the ONLY one pointing out the hazard of mountain biking
under a freeway??? Obviously, because I'm the only one who cares. YOU
sure don't! You just proved it.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sep 21, 9:46 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

You do not care about anything except your own selfish interest. When a bike
path is set up in a place where the environment cound not be harmed any
further, it seems to me this would be a good place to hold out as a shining
example of where you think the only place -- besides the sidewalk -- where
mountain bikes should be operated. Your issue is NOT the safety of bicycle
riders, and it is very disengenous of you to hold yourself out as the safety
monitor for the community.

Then why am I the ONLY one pointing out the hazard of mountain biking
under a freeway??? Obviously, because I'm the only one who cares. YOU
sure don't! You just proved it.

Jeff, of course anyone else can see that you care - you recognize that
it's up to the individual user to measure the risk for *himself*, and
then decide whether the risk is worth it. Mike ignores the fact that
life is full of risks - every moment of every day, including when you
lie asleep in bed, there is risk. Riding a bike on pavement in the
city is PACKED FULL of risk, including possible crashes, dog attacks,
and yes, even air pollution.

And you're right - Mike's disingenuity and utter lack of intelligent
pragmatism is only thinly veiled, especially here.

Bruce Jensen

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:31:12 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On Sep 21, 9:46 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

You do not care about anything except your own selfish interest. When a bike
path is set up in a place where the environment cound not be harmed any
further, it seems to me this would be a good place to hold out as a shining
example of where you think the only place -- besides the sidewalk -- where
mountain bikes should be operated. Your issue is NOT the safety of bicycle
riders, and it is very disengenous of you to hold yourself out as the safety
monitor for the community.

Then why am I the ONLY one pointing out the hazard of mountain biking
under a freeway??? Obviously, because I'm the only one who cares. YOU
sure don't! You just proved it.

Jeff, of course anyone else can see that you care - you recognize that
it's up to the individual user to measure the risk for *himself*, and
then decide whether the risk is worth it. Mike ignores the fact that
life is full of risks - every moment of every day, including when you
lie asleep in bed, there is risk. Riding a bike on pavement in the
city is PACKED FULL of risk, including possible crashes, dog attacks,
and yes, even air pollution.

And you're right - Mike's disingenuity and utter lack of intelligent
pragmatism is only thinly veiled, especially here.

Bruce Jensen

Thanks for demonstrating once again what idiots mountain bikers are.
OF COURSE mountain bikers are free to kill themselves, and do. The
point is that they are too stupid to know when they are at risk. So
I'm helping them by pointing out the facts, which you continue to
deny.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande