Is Mike Andaman finally dead?

"John B." wrote in message ...

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:07:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
wrote:
[...]

You are a flatulent hippopotamus, that and nothing more! But thanks for repeating my entire post. That way many who have kill filed me will read my words of wisdom which they would otherwise miss to their everlasting sorrow.

My God! You can't be insinuating that people actually dare to kill
file you and ignore your intelligent and timely pleas to stay off the
trails and thus preserve them for the few that spend a casual Sunday
strolling over a mile or so on a public trail and your efforts to deny
these, public, trails to all others.

Yes, sad to say, there are many who refuse to be enlightened. It is their loss of course. In the meantime I soldier on like the good soldier I am. However, most of that kill filing nonsense is ancient history. I do not think there is anyone left on this newsgroup these days except for a couple of assholes who favor cycling on hiking trails despite my best efforts to educate them. SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI!


Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

Cycling and motorcycling on a hiking trail are not that
dissimilar. They have more in common than do cycling and hiking. What do they
have in common you ask? Wheels! And those wheels put you in a different universe
than walking.

You can say it until you're blue in the face ... but it doesn't make it true. On your fallacious logic, Elephants and people are the same ... both have legs. The biggest determinant of impact is power and weight ... so anything human powered is going to have a similar impact.

Axiomatically, no, it's not a conflict.* A conflict can only
exist between people.

Conflicts can exist between any two things that people do. You
are a word dumb idiot!

Only if the people involved see it as a conflict. If they don't then it's not. And, since the universe is NOT, despite what you may believe, purely present to satisfy you one has to take an overall perspective.

That YOU find it conflicting is YOUR problem.

You will find it your problem some day when a hiker whips your
dumb ass for being on a trail on a bike.

More with the implied threats of violence ? Nice approach - and completely pointless since hikers are, on average, older, less fit and weaker than riders.

I didn't say it would be 'a conflict', I said it should be
restricted because of impact on other users and the environment.* That's
not the same.

Whether you say it or not, it clearly would be a conflict for any number of
reasons. Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending to be
stupid?

Ah, I see. If you can't understand then it must be stupid. Let me make it simpler for you.

Unlike you, I believe that a reasonable accomodation has to be made for most, not all, users. As such, whilst I might not like something I acknowledge others' rights to pursue their own agenda.

So, no, I don't see it as "a conflict".

Mr. Vandeman’s posts are all about conflicts. His reasons for
opposing bikes on trails is more general and far reaching than mine. I have
zeroed in on the one thing that concerns me the most ... the conflicts (both
physical and mental) between various trail users. Equestrians and hikers are
being scared off the trails because of all the close calls that bikers like you
cause. Bikers scare off other trail users. It is why I have nothing but contempt
for the whole lot of you.

Ah, so you want your 'mental conflicts' to be a valid rationale to ban a user group ? That's where I always thought this was going ... there just aren't rational reasons to ban mountainbikes from most trails. So, you want the fact that it upsets your sensibilities to provide a rationale to ban bikes.

And where is your evidence that hikers are being scared off trails ? You've postulated this enough times but you've provided no evidence to back it up. Same with the 'daily occurrence' of collisions which you quoted and, funnily enough, you couldn't back up either.

As I said, you are fully entitled to your view. You just aren't entitled to enforce it on anyone else.

You might hate and resent it, the vast majority don't care one
whit.

This is what happens when you read nothing but biker
propaganda. Your brain turns to mush.

No, Ed, bereft facts you just look like a small child saying "It's not true" whilst going purple in the face. If you think it's propaganda then, fine, go ahead and prove that with some real evidence. You hate it, I hike with others who don't care. So, our personal experience is different.

So, you can easily make your case by showing that hiking use has massively decreased on shared use trails. Now, do you have any such evidence ?

It is the impact on other users that is critical. That is what
it is about with bicycles too. The reason you can’t see it is because you want
to do what you want to do for your own selfish reasons. Please don’t ever talk
to me about how considerate you are of other trail users. Just being on a trail
with a bike is the ultimate rudeness.

We disagree completely.

I act with respect to other users ... and expect to get it in return. There is nothing I can do that would satisfy you ... I could get off my bike and wait until you have slowly perambulated past and it would still not satisfy you ... because you are not looking for an accomodation or to behave in a manner that implies that you understand the social construct.

Ed, my distinctions are based on quantifiable differences.*
Not, like yours, simply on your perceptions as to what is aesthetic and
right.* Weight, power, noise and speed; all orders of magnitude different
for a motorcycle and all within pretty close proximity for hikers and
bikers.

The order of magnitude is somewhat different, but bicycles and
motorcycles have much in common when it comes to conflicts with hikers and
equestrians.

You're going in circles ... you already addressed this above. And, as I said, if the distinction is legs vs wheels then the great new sport of Elephant racing is coming to a trail near you shortly ... and I trust you won't object based on your position ?

ions to bicycles being on trails as you
do for motorcycles being on trails - and pretty much for the same reasons too.
Very odd that you can’t see this from my perspective.

I can absolutely see it from your perspective; I understand fully where you are coming from. However, and this is the part you keep missing, you have no factual basis for your position so you're not convincing me.

Let's keep it really simple ...

I want to ride

You don't want bikes on the trail at all

I am prepared to adapt my behaviour to minimise my impact on your enjoyment; you are prepared to concede not one iota.

Your only rationale for banning bikes, fundamentally, comes down to your preference.

So, if it's simply perception, why should yours trump mine ? Particularly when the evidence suggests that others are quite happy to share.

Hikers do not like bikers on trails for multiple reasons.
Nothing you can ever say is going to change that.

So you keep saying ... without backing it up. Most don't care.

Popular hiking trails are being ruined all over the US by
bikers. Only very remote trails in the hinterlands are still unsullied by
bikers.

Only because your definition of 'ruined' is that they have bikes on them. Relax, enjoy and stop worrying about others so much.

Riders no more want to run into you than you want them to do so.

It is not possible to enjoy a trail when you are in fear of a
cyclist running you over. Once a few hikers and/or equestrians are killed by
bikers, things will rapidly began to change about where cyclists can
ride.

It's an irrational fear Ed. You cited 'daily collisions' earlier in the thread and that may be your perception. However, when I searched online guess what ? Nothing.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?

Trails are for people. What's the matter ? Can't empathise with others wanting to experience them differently ?

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Cycling and motorcycling on a hiking trail are not that
dissimilar. They have more in common than do cycling and hiking. What do they
have in common you ask? Wheels! And those wheels put you in a different universe
than walking.

You can say it until you're blue in the face ... but it doesn't make it true. On your fallacious logic, Elephants and people are the same .... both have legs. The biggest determinant of impact is power and weight ... so anything human powered is going to have a similar impact.

The biggest determinant is speed. Even an idiot knows that much.
[...]

Mr. Vandeman’s posts are all about conflicts. His reasons for
opposing bikes on trails is more general and far reaching than mine. I have
zeroed in on the one thing that concerns me the most ... the conflicts (both
physical and mental) between various trail users. Equestrians and hikers are
being scared off the trails because of all the close calls that bikers like you
cause. Bikers scare off other trail users. It is why I have nothing but contempt
for the whole lot of you.

Ah, so you want your 'mental conflicts' to be a valid rationale to ban a user group ? That's where I always thought this was going ... there just aren't rational reasons to ban mountainbikes from most trails. So, you want the fact that it upsets your sensibilities to provide a rationale to ban bikes.

Why bother with trails in the first place? It all has to do with purpose. Are you there to experience nature or to have fun and games. The latter purpose is sufficient to ban you from trails. What you want is an amusement park.

When one attends a church, a certain attitude is required. If you lack the attitude, then you have no business being in a church, Nature and its trails work the same way. Without the proper attitude, purpose, mentality ... you have no right to be on a trail. What you want is an amusement park.

And where is your evidence that hikers are being scared off trails ? You've postulated this enough times but you've provided no evidence to back it up. Same with the 'daily occurrence' of collisions which you quoted and, funnily enough, you couldn't back up either.

Mr. Vandeman provides plenty of evidence in his reports on various trail issues, something you will never get from mountain biker organizations.

As I said, you are fully entitled to your view. You just aren't entitled to enforce it on anyone else.

Why not? You are enforcing your view on others. It is going to be about who has the most political power as to which view finally prevails.

You might hate and resent it, the vast majority don't care one
whit.

This is what happens when you read nothing but biker
propaganda. Your brain turns to mush.

No, Ed, bereft facts you just look like a small child saying "It's not true" whilst going purple in the face. If you think it's propaganda then, fine, go ahead and prove that with some real evidence. You hate it, I hike with others who don't care. So, our personal experience is different.

What evidence is required when all any mountain biker ever does is see and hear what he wants to see and hear. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

So, you can easily make your case by showing that hiking use has massively decreased on shared use trails. Now, do you have any such evidence ?

Hikers and equestrians are complaining all over the US about their encounters with bikers on trails. Get your own evidence!

It is the impact on other users that is critical. That is what
it is about with bicycles too. The reason you can’t see it is because you want
to do what you want to do for your own selfish reasons. Please don’t ever talk
to me about how considerate you are of other trail users. Just being on a trail
with a bike is the ultimate rudeness.

We disagree completely.

I act with respect to other users ... and expect to get it in return. There is nothing I can do that would satisfy you ... I could get off my bike and wait until you have slowly perambulated past and it would still not satisfy you ... because you are not looking for an accomodation or to behave in a manner that implies that you understand the social construct.

I do not want bicycles on hiking trails. It is an abomination! If you understood the social contract properly, you would never ride your bike on hiking trails. But you are a savage and a barbarian. Bikers on hiking trails are little better than hooligans and gangsters. I would like to see them all in Hell. Get your own trails.

Ed, my distinctions are based on quantifiable differences.
Not, like yours, simply on your perceptions as to what is aesthetic and
right. Weight, power, noise and speed; all orders of magnitude different
for a motorcycle and all within pretty close proximity for hikers and
bikers.

The order of magnitude is somewhat different, but bicycles and
motorcycles have much in common when it comes to conflicts with hikers and
equestrians.

You're going in circles ... you already addressed this above. And, as I said, if the distinction is legs vs wheels then the great new sport of Elephant racing is coming to a trail near you shortly ... and I trust you won't object based on your position ?

The distinction is not only wheels vs.legs, but what a difference that makes with regard to speed. It creates an incompatible use.
[...]

Let's keep it really simple ...

I want to ride

You don't want bikes on the trail at all

I am prepared to adapt my behaviour to minimise my impact on your enjoyment; you are prepared to concede not one iota.

Your only rationale for banning bikes, fundamentally, comes down to your preference.

You just went off the track. My reasons for banning bikes are based on many factors which have previously been discussed in this thread.
[...]

It is not possible to enjoy a trail when you are in fear of a
cyclist running you over. Once a few hikers and/or equestrians are killed by
bikers, things will rapidly began to change about where cyclists can
ride.

It's an irrational fear Ed. You cited 'daily collisions' earlier in the thread and that may be your perception. However, when I searched online guess what ? Nothing.

You need to get on Mr. Vandeman’s recipient list. The only irrational element here is your rejection of common sense. Walking a trail and cycling a trail is an incompatible use. It results in conflicts.

Here is just one of many reports from Mr. Vandeman which I receive on a regular basis. If you read more of this truth and less of biker lies, you would come to your senses, unless you are brain dead. I am assuming you have heard of Marin County, an area just north of San Francisco.

"Share the trail", the motto currently favored by mountain bikers (and
modeled after
their "share the road"), is intended to suggest that hikers and
horsemen are simply
selfish in not wanting bikes to be allowed on trails on public lands.
They accuse us
of being unwilling to "share" as if we were talking about children
sharing toys in a
sandbox. The clear reason for our objections is SAFETY. On the winding
trails and steep hills that characterize the public lands of Marin
County, mountain bikes pose an unacceptable risk of injury to other
users. Trails are where hikers and horsemen go to escape the speeding
bikes that have legal access to every fire road on public land in
Marin. Trails are the last refuge of the non-biking public.
When bikes are permitted on trails, the reality is that other users
get hurt. Even "near misses" cause lasting fears. What follows is not
"share the trail" where all the children play peacefully in the same
sandbox. What really happens is that the nonbiker public (especially
seniors and people with young
children) are "displaced"- driven out of public lands in fear for
their own safety. China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe for
other users. There are no "user conflicts" in China Camp State Park or
in the San Pedro Mountain Preserve any more because hikers and
horsemen simply {continued on page 6} Hikers and horsemen of all ages
have shared trails on Marin's public lands without problems for
decades because both groups travel slowly both uphill and downhill.
Modern mountain bikes are "vehicles" driven by gravity and a thirst
for thrills.
Unlike bicycles of an earlier era, they are capable of handling
extreme terrain at high speed. The bikers who want to ride trails are
seeking challenges-not the peace and tranquility that our public open
spaces were created to preserve. For many riders, especially young
riders, "throwing dirt" is what it is all about. We don't allow
motorcycles, dirt bikes or four-wheelers on our public lands for the
very good reason that they destroy the environment and the peace and
tranquility that are the very purpose of public open spaces. Modern
mountain bikes present the same risks to the environment and to other
users as do motorized vehicles. Even on fire roads they present a
hazard to hikers and horsemen. They certainly do not belong on trails
in our public open spaces. The public officials responsible for
establishing trail policies on public lands have an obligation to see
to it that our public open spaces are not turned into private "bike
parks", and that no user group is permitted to threaten the safety of
other users. - Delos Putz, San Geronimo

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?

Trails are for people. What's the matter ? Can't empathise with others wanting to experience them differently ?

Roads are for cyclists. What's the matter? Brain dead?

“Walking a trail and cycling a trail is an incompatible use. It results in conflicts.” - Ed Dolan

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

You can say it until you're blue in the face ... but it doesn't
make it true.* On your fallacious logic, Elephants and people are the same
... both have legs.* The biggest determinant of impact is power and weight
... so anything human powered is going to have a similar impact.

The biggest determinant is speed. Even an idiot knows that
much.

You're spinning so fast you must be getting dizzy. Make up your mind. Two posts ago the biggest determinant was legs vs wheels.

Your arguments are all over the place.

Ah, so you want your 'mental conflicts' to be a valid rationale to
ban a user group ?* That's where I always thought this was going ... there
just aren't rational reasons to ban mountainbikes from most trails.* So,
you want the fact that it upsets your sensibilities to provide a rationale to
ban bikes.

Why bother with trails in the first place? It all has to do
with purpose. Are you there to experience nature or to have fun and games.. The
latter purpose is sufficient to ban you from trails. What you want is an
amusement park.

Since it is PUBLIC land you don't get to determine how others enjoy it. If it were private then it would be different but it's not. There is nothing inherently wrong with some people wishing to use a public resource for recreation and, in any case, hiking is a recreation too.

When one attends a church, a certain attitude is required. If
you lack the attitude, then you have no business being in a church, Nature and
its trails work the same way. Without the proper attitude, purpose, mentality
... you have no right to be on a trail. What you want is an amusement
park.

There is a big difference Ed. A church is a private space dedicated for a particular use. Trails are a public resource which therefore, axiomatically, have to be shared by the public.

And where is your evidence that hikers are being scared off trails
?* You've postulated this enough times but you've provided no evidence to
back it up. Same with the 'daily occurrence' of collisions which you quoted and,
funnily enough, you couldn't back up either.

Mr. Vandeman provides plenty of evidence in his reports on
various trail issues, something you will never get from mountain biker
organizations.

Vandeman provides no evidence; he is a lobbyist, not a researcher. Challenge him to provide facts to back-up his assertions and, lo and behold, nothing emerges. His 'evidence' is simply personal anecdote which, as any intelligent person will tell you, is practically worthless.

As I said, you are fully entitled to your view.* You just
aren't entitled to enforce it on anyone else.*

Why not? You are enforcing your view on others. It is going to
be about who has the most political power as to which view finally
prevails.

No, Ed, I'm not forcing my view on you. I am not seeking to ban your activity nor you from the trails. I am not seeking to intimidate you or to disrupt your enjoyment. If I encounter a hiker on the trails I behave with courtesy and don't speed past them.

You, on the other hand, have a messianic antipathy to bikes on the trail irrespective of the impact, or lack thereof, that they have on you.

So, you can easily make your case by showing that hiking use has
massively decreased on shared use trails.* Now, do you have any such
evidence ?

Hikers and equestrians are complaining all over the US about
their encounters with bikers on trails. Get your own evidence!

I did Ed. I referred you to a research paper which you declined to read. You're the one who has provided no external verification for his position.

Come on, if there are really 'daily collisions' which you asserted earlier surely you can find an external report to back that up. There are at least 365 collisions per year in one small area and you can't post me one external report on that ? Then, you wonder why I won't accept your statement.

I act with respect to other users ... and expect to get it in
return.* There is nothing I can do that would satisfy you ... I could get
off my bike and wait until you have slowly perambulated past and it would still
not satisfy you ... because you are not looking for an accomodation or to behave
in a manner that implies that you understand the social construct.

I do not want bicycles on hiking trails. It is an
abomination!* If you understood the social contract properly, you would
never ride your bike on hiking trails. But you are a savage and a barbarian.
Bikers on hiking trails are little better than hooligans and gangsters. I would
like to see them all in Hell. Get your own trails.

And, there we get to the core of your position ... which is simply that you don't like it. I would imagine that, somewhere, there are a group of people who view your religious views as an abomination. Should they be permitted to execute you for your apostasy ?

The social construct requires an understanding that you are not entitled to impose your views on someone else.

I am NOT seeking to impose mine on you; you can feel how you wish about bikes on trails. You ARE seeking to impose yours on me in that you wish to ban my riding on publicly owned land.

You just went off the track. My reasons for banning bikes are
based on many factors which have previously been discussed in this
thread.

No, Ed, I didn't. Re-read the thread. You have flailed around with all kinds of justifications but none of them withstood an onslaught of evidence and facts. Bikes too fast; average speed only twice that of a hiker and, provided that passing happens at slow speed, irrelevant. Daily collisions; no evidence provided to support this whatsoever. Driving hikers off the trails; no evidence provided to support this whatsoever.

And, as you stated above, you made your position clear when you called bikes on trails an abomination. Your position is in no way fact based; it's your view pure and simple.

You need to get on Mr. Vandeman’s recipient list. The only
irrational element here is your rejection of common sense. Walking a trail and
cycling a trail is an incompatible use. It results in conflicts.

Here is just one of many reports from Mr. Vandeman which I
receive on a regular basis. If you read more of this truth and less of biker
lies, you would* come to your senses, unless you are brain dead. I am
assuming you have heard of Marin County, an area just north of San
Francisco.

"Share the trail", the motto currently favored by mountain bikers
(and
.... snipped ...

So, an email from ONE user is your evidence ? That's it ? An opinion piece with no facts to backup anything ? No reference to any actual incidents although lots of arguments about safety.

If this is the standard of your evidence no wonder you're losing the battle..

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?

Trails are for people.* What's the matter ?* Can't
empathise with others wanting to experience them differently ?

Roads are for cyclists. What's the matter? Brain
dead?

Far from it ... which is why I won't accept your opinion, bereft facts, as having any validity.

“Walking a trail and cycling a trail is an
incompatible use. It results in conflicts.” -* Ed Dolan

"Experience the trails in the way you wish. Show consideration to other users so as not to mar their experience and ensure you leave the environment undisturbed so that others may also experience it in future." - Blackblade

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

You can say it until you're blue in the face ... but it doesn't
make it true. On your fallacious logic, Elephants and people are the same
... both have legs. The biggest determinant of impact is power and weight
... so anything human powered is going to have a similar impact.

The biggest determinant is speed. Even an idiot knows that
much.

Your arguments are all over the place.

I am convinced you are not able to think an issue through. What is it that wheels do that legs do not do? Wheels are orders of magnitude faster. Different speeds on a narrow twisting trail are dangerous. It is a conflict.

Ah, so you want your 'mental conflicts' to be a valid rationale to
ban a user group ? That's where I always thought this was going ... there
just aren't rational reasons to ban mountainbikes from most trails. So,
you want the fact that it upsets your sensibilities to provide a rationale to
ban bikes.

Why bother with trails in the first place? It all has to do
with purpose. Are you there to experience nature or to have fun and games. The
latter purpose is sufficient to ban you from trails. What you want is an
amusement park.

Since it is PUBLIC land you don't get to determine how others enjoy it. If it were private then it would be different but it's not. There is nothing inherently wrong with some people wishing to use a public resource for recreation and, in any case, hiking is a recreation too.

I have said this before, but I have to say everything at least a dozen times to get through to you. Not all recreations are created equal. The fact that the resource is public means absolutely nothing. It still has to be managed for best use.

When one attends a church, a certain attitude is required. If
you lack the attitude, then you have no business being in a church, Nature and
its trails work the same way. Without the proper attitude, purpose, mentality
... you have no right to be on a trail. What you want is an amusement
park.

There is a big difference Ed. A church is a private space dedicated for a particular use. Trails are a public resource which therefore, axiomatically, have to be shared by the public.

The great cathedrals of Europe are treated as public resources. Nothing has to be shared just because it is public. A hiking trail is also for a particular use – walking by human beings, not a playground for yahoos!

And where is your evidence that hikers are being scared off trails
? You've postulated this enough times but you've provided no evidence to
back it up. Same with the 'daily occurrence' of collisions which you quoted and,
funnily enough, you couldn't back up either.

Mr. Vandeman provides plenty of evidence in his reports on
various trail issues, something you will never get from mountain biker
organizations.

Vandeman provides no evidence; he is a lobbyist, not a researcher. Challenge him to provide facts to back-up his assertions and, lo and behold, nothing emerges. His 'evidence' is simply personal anecdote which, as any intelligent person will tell you, is practically worthless.

Mr. Vandeman has done research on the impact of cycling on trails and wildlife which has been published and widely disseminated and he is also a first class reporter of what is transpiring all over the world on this issue. In fact, he is the world's foremost expert on the subject. Like you, I do not think much of personal anecdote, but if they are numerous enough, then you have to at least give them a look. His reports on the dangers of mountain biking on trails are anything but anecdotal. They constitute a flood of information, all very factual and evidential. The only ignorant lout here is you.

As I said, you are fully entitled to your view. You just
aren't entitled to enforce it on anyone else.

Why not? You are enforcing your view on others. It is going to
be about who has the most political power as to which view finally
prevails.

No, Ed, I'm not forcing my view on you. I am not seeking to ban your activity nor you from the trails. I am not seeking to intimidate you or to disrupt your enjoyment. If I encounter a hiker on the trails I behave with courtesy and don't speed past them.

What you intend and what you actually effect are two different things. It is a conflict of use which is irreconcilable. All the courtesy in the world will not make up for the fact that you should not be on a trail with a bicycle if it is also being used by hikers. Get your own trails.
[...]

I act with respect to other users ... and expect to get it in
return. There is nothing I can do that would satisfy you ... I could get
off my bike and wait until you have slowly perambulated past and it would still
not satisfy you ... because you are not looking for an accomodation or to behave
in a manner that implies that you understand the social construct.

I do not want bicycles on hiking trails. It is an
abomination! If you understood the social contract properly, you would
never ride your bike on hiking trails. But you are a savage and a barbarian.
Bikers on hiking trails are little better than hooligans and gangsters. I would
like to see them all in Hell. Get your own trails.

And, there we get to the core of your position ... which is simply that you don't like it. I would imagine that, somewhere, there are a group of people who view your religious views as an abomination. Should they be permitted to execute you for your apostasy ?

I don’t like it for the many reasons previously gone over in this thread.

The social construct requires an understanding that you are not entitled to impose your views on someone else.

My views are superior to your views, therefore they should prevail.

I am NOT seeking to impose mine on you; you can feel how you wish about bikes on trails. You ARE seeking to impose yours on me in that you wish to ban my riding on publicly owned land.

By riding your bike on trails, you are effectively excluding others from doing what they want to do. Try to get real!

You just went off the track. My reasons for banning bikes are
based on many factors which have previously been discussed in this
thread.

No, Ed, I didn't. Re-read the thread. You have flailed around with all kinds of justifications but none of them withstood an onslaught of evidence and facts. Bikes too fast; average speed only twice that of a hiker and, provided that passing happens at slow speed, irrelevant. Daily collisions; no evidence provided to support this whatsoever. Driving hikers off the trails; no evidence provided to support this whatsoever.

And, as you stated above, you made your position clear when you called bikes on trails an abomination. Your position is in no way fact based; it's your view pure and simple.

You need to get on Mr. Vandeman’s recipient list. The only
irrational element here is your rejection of common sense. Walking a trail and
cycling a trail is an incompatible use. It results in conflicts.

Here is just one of many reports from Mr. Vandeman which I
receive on a regular basis. If you read more of this truth and less of biker
lies, you would come to your senses, unless you are brain dead. I am
assuming you have heard of Marin County, an area just north of San
Francisco.

"Share the trail", the motto currently favored by mountain bikers
(and
.... snipped ...

So, an email from ONE user is your evidence ? That's it ? An opinion piece with no facts to backup anything ? No reference to any actual incidents although lots of arguments about safety.

If this is the standard of your evidence no wonder you're losing the battle.

Apparently Marin County does not exist. Maybe even California does not exist? You are beneath contempt. **** your so-called facts and evidence, none of which you would recognize if they jumped up and bit you in your dumb ass. Until you take on every one of the objections mention in the article, it is just going to get posted over and over. Here it is again for your perusal and the perusal of all the dumb ass mountain bikers who think they have a right to ride their bikes on hiking trails.

"Share the trail", the motto currently favored by mountain bikers (and
modeled after
their "share the road"), is intended to suggest that hikers and
horsemen are simply
selfish in not wanting bikes to be allowed on trails on public lands.
They accuse us
of being unwilling to "share" as if we were talking about children
sharing toys in a
sandbox. The clear reason for our objections is SAFETY. On the winding
trails and steep hills that characterize the public lands of Marin
County, mountain bikes pose an unacceptable risk of injury to other
users. Trails are where hikers and horsemen go to escape the speeding
bikes that have legal access to every fire road on public land in
Marin. Trails are the last refuge of the non-biking public.
When bikes are permitted on trails, the reality is that other users
get hurt. Even "near misses" cause lasting fears. What follows is not
"share the trail" where all the children play peacefully in the same
sandbox. What really happens is that the nonbiker public (especially
seniors and people with young
children) are "displaced"- driven out of public lands in fear for
their own safety. China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe for
other users. There are no "user conflicts" in China Camp State Park or
in the San Pedro Mountain Preserve any more because hikers and
horsemen simply {continued on page 6} Hikers and horsemen of all ages
have shared trails on Marin's public lands without problems for
decades because both groups travel slowly both uphill and downhill.
Modern mountain bikes are "vehicles" driven by gravity and a thirst
for thrills.
Unlike bicycles of an earlier era, they are capable of handling
extreme terrain at high speed. The bikers who want to ride trails are
seeking challenges-not the peace and tranquility that our public open
spaces were created to preserve. For many riders, especially young
riders, "throwing dirt" is what it is all about. We don't allow
motorcycles, dirt bikes or four-wheelers on our public lands for the
very good reason that they destroy the environment and the peace and
tranquility that are the very purpose of public open spaces. Modern
mountain bikes present the same risks to the environment and to other
users as do motorized vehicles. Even on fire roads they present a
hazard to hikers and horsemen. They certainly do not belong on trails
in our public open spaces. The public officials responsible for
establishing trail policies on public lands have an obligation to see
to it that our public open spaces are not turned into private "bike
parks", and that no user group is permitted to threaten the safety of
other users. - Delos Putz, San Geronimo

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t
walk?
[...]

“Walking a trail and cycling a trail is an
incompatible use. It results in conflicts.” - Ed Dolan

"Experience the trails in the way you wish. Show consideration to other users so as not to mar their experience and ensure you leave the environment undisturbed so that others may also experience it in future." – Blackblade

“Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?” – Ed Dolan

“Walking a trail and cycling a trail is an incompatible use. It results in conflicts.” - Ed Dolan

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...
[...]

It is notable that the only person he cites as having complaints about
conflicts is the one who has a criminal record for provoking them.

You and your petty observation are yesteryear’s news, which I delt with very effectively at the time as did Mr. Vandeman of course. But it is always good to hear from the peanut gallery even though it is nothing but the usual twaddle. I wonder if you could be sued for slander?

You should attempt a virtuous life like mine. Note how forbearing, kind and gentle I always am and only go off the track when confronted with a ******* like you. Thankfully, most of your ilk have left this noble newsgroup with its honorable members for greener pastures elsewhere. Surely Facebook is more your style. You might try Twitter too, oh ye of little words and fewer thoughts.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

I am convinced you are not able to think an issue through.
What is it that wheels do that legs do not do? Wheels are orders of magnitude
faster. Different speeds on a narrow twisting trail are dangerous. It is a
conflict.

This is getting very frustrating; you keep citing the same points without justifying anything. WHY is it a conflict ?

There is no conflict provided that passing is done at a sensible speed. Why do you care what speed a mountainbiker does elsewhere provided they pass you slowly and with consideration ? The answer is that you're a zealot and, as I opined before, I could stop and wait for you to pass before continuing and you would still not be satisfied.

I already conceded that not all trails could be shared use; a narrow, downhill trail, for example, would not be safe. But on most trails there is no issue.

I have said this before, but I have to say everything at least
a dozen times to get through to you. Not all recreations are created equal. The
fact that the resource is public means absolutely nothing. It still has to be
managed for best use.

And I have said before, but it appears it will never dawn on you that YOUR opinion as to which recreations should be permitted is not accepted by most others. Your opinion is not worth more than that of anyone else.

There is a big difference Ed.* A church is a private space
dedicated for a particular use.* Trails are a public resource which
therefore, axiomatically, have to be shared by the public.

The great cathedrals of Europe are treated as public
resources. Nothing has to be shared just because it is public. A hiking trail is
also for a particular use – walking by human beings, not a playground for
yahoos!

Again with your opinion ... which I don't accept. You don't get to decide how others can use a public space. You might have a very high opinion of yourself, oh mr great saint, but I doubt it's shared by many others.

Mr. Vandeman has done research on the impact of cycling on
trails and wildlife which has been published and widely disseminated and he is
also a first class reporter of what is transpiring all over the world on this
issue. In fact, he is the world's foremost expert on the subject. Like you, I do
not think much of personal anecdote, but if they are numerous enough, then you
have to at least give them a look. His reports on the dangers of mountain biking
on trails are anything but anecdotal. They constitute a flood of information,
all very factual and evidential. The only ignorant lout here is you.

I've read Vandeman's stuff ... and I completely stand by my characterisation of it as lobbying, not research. Vandeman has not researched anything .... he simply trawls the internet and argues pointlessly on forums. If he had done research then he would have, as the research piece to which I referred you earlier does, gone out and tested the hypotheses. He does none of that because the risk with testing is that you might find out you are wrong. Neither Vandeman, nor you it appears, are prepared to put your opinions to the test.

You think there are loads of collisions ? Go and do a survey and find out how many. Then I might have a bit more respect for you.

No, Ed, I'm not forcing my view on you.* I am not seeking to
ban your activity nor you from the trails.* I am not seeking to intimidate
you or to disrupt your enjoyment.* If I encounter a hiker on the trails I
behave with courtesy and don't speed past them.

What you intend and what you actually effect are two different
things. It is a conflict of use which is irreconcilable. All the courtesy in the
world will not make up for the fact that you should not be on a trail with a
bicycle if it is also being used by hikers. Get your own trails.

As I said, you are a zealot. Behaviour doesn't really matter to you does it ? You simply don't want bikes there. I am sorry for you but not to the extent that I would desist just to satisfy your illogical opinions.

My views are superior to your views, therefore they should
prevail.

Says you. Give me one objectively factual reason why I should accept such an assertion. Bereft that, I disagree and think my approach and views are more tolerant, inclusive and rooted in logic than your diatribes.

I am NOT seeking to impose mine on you; you can feel how you wish
about bikes on trails.* You ARE seeking to impose yours on me in that you
wish to ban my riding on publicly owned land.

By riding your bike on trails, you are effectively excluding
others from doing what they want to do. Try to get real!

How Ed ? I invited you to provide evidence that hikers are deserting trails. You, unsurprisingly, cited nothing to back it up because ... it's not happening. You seem to live in an echo chamber whereby no-one ever challenges the core assertions. When challenged you have nothing.

Apparently Marin County does not exist. Maybe even California
does not exist? You are beneath contempt. **** your so-called facts and
evidence, none of which you would recognize if they jumped up and bit you in
your dumb ass. Until you take on every one of the objections mention in the
article, it is just going to get posted over and over. Here it is again for your
perusal and the perusal of all the dumb ass mountain bikers who think they have
a right to ride their bikes on hiking trails.

You can post it as many times as you like; won't improve it. It's an opinion piece ... nothing more. Are there any facts as to how many collisions there have been ... no, didn't think so.

And, if you bother to read the research paper that I referenced, you will find that it does address the objections and, by measuring what actually happens, determines that it is a perception, not a reality. There are not lots of hiker/biker conflicts and collisions; it's just not happening. You can state it as many times as you like but real research says it's not true.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

I am convinced you are not able to think an issue through.
What is it that wheels do that legs do not do? Wheels are orders of magnitude
faster. Different speeds on a narrow twisting trail are dangerous. It is a
conflict.

This is getting very frustrating; you keep citing the same points without justifying anything. WHY is it a conflict ?

There is no conflict provided that passing is done at a sensible speed. Why do you care what speed a mountainbiker does elsewhere provided they pass you slowly and with consideration ? The answer is that you're a zealot and, as I opined before, I could stop and wait for you to pass before continuing and you would still not be satisfied.

Mountain bikers do not have any sense, something you prove with your every post. I do not want bikes on trails for any number of reasons. Differing speeds is just one reason.

I already conceded that not all trails could be shared use; a narrow, downhill trail, for example, would not be safe. But on most trails there is no issue.

There are many issues on ALL trails.

I have said this before, but I have to say everything at least
a dozen times to get through to you. Not all recreations are created equal. The
fact that the resource is public means absolutely nothing. It still has to be
managed for best use.

And I have said before, but it appears it will never dawn on you that YOUR opinion as to which recreations should be permitted is not accepted by most others. Your opinion is not worth more than that of anyone else.

A superior opinion is always worth more than an inferior opinion. It is why we do not pay any attention to mountain biker opinions on the trails issue.

There is a big difference Ed. A church is a private space
dedicated for a particular use. Trails are a public resource which
therefore, axiomatically, have to be shared by the public.

The great cathedrals of Europe are treated as public
resources. Nothing has to be shared just because it is public. A hiking trail is
also for a particular use – walking by human beings, not a playground for
yahoos on bicycles!

Again with your opinion ... which I don't accept. You don't get to decide how others can use a public space. You might have a very high opinion of yourself, oh mr great saint, but I doubt it's shared by many others.

You still here? Why are you still here? Have doubts about your opinions on the trails issue? Must have or you wouldn’t still be here. I am 100% convinced of the rightness of my position ... which will prevail in the end. Folks in years to come will look back on what bikers like you had to say about riding on trails and laugh at your self-serving conceits.

Mr. Vandeman has done research on the impact of cycling on
trails and wildlife which has been published and widely disseminated and he is
also a first class reporter of what is transpiring all over the world on this
issue. In fact, he is the world's foremost expert on the subject. Like you, I do
not think much of personal anecdote, but if they are numerous enough, then you
have to at least give them a look. His reports on the dangers of mountain biking
on trails are anything but anecdotal. They constitute a flood of information,
all very factual and evidential. The only ignorant lout here is you.

I've read Vandeman's stuff ... and I completely stand by my characterisation of it as lobbying, not research. Vandeman has not researched anything ... he simply trawls the internet and argues pointlessly on forums. If he had done research then he would have, as the research piece to which I referred you earlier does, gone out and tested the hypotheses. He does none of that because the risk with testing is that you might find out you are wrong. Neither Vandeman, nor you it appears, are prepared to put your opinions to the test.

How much research does anyone have to do? He has done at least one, which is more than you and I have done. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on this issue, most certainly not any mountain biker like you. Mountain bikers are thugs and hooligans. You are in very bad company. Are you perhaps a criminal yourself?

You think there are loads of collisions ? Go and do a survey and find out how many. Then I might have a bit more respect for you.

A close call is as bad as a collision. You are bereft of any common sense.

No, Ed, I'm not forcing my view on you. I am not seeking to
ban your activity nor you from the trails. I am not seeking to intimidate
you or to disrupt your enjoyment. If I encounter a hiker on the trails I
behave with courtesy and don't speed past them.

What you intend and what you actually effect are two different
things. It is a conflict of use which is irreconcilable. All the courtesy in the
world will not make up for the fact that you should not be on a trail with a
bicycle if it is also being used by hikers. Get your own trails.

As I said, you are a zealot. Behaviour doesn't really matter to you does it ? You simply don't want bikes there. I am sorry for you but not to the extent that I would desist just to satisfy your illogical opinions.

You are basically an outlaw who only for the present is getting away with murder. That is all due for a correction in time.

My views are superior to your views, therefore they should
prevail.

Says you. Give me one objectively factual reason why I should accept such an assertion. Bereft that, I disagree and think my approach and views are more tolerant, inclusive and rooted in logic than your diatribes.

Since you think all recreations are equal, it only follows that you also think all opinions are equal. Fortunately, it has never been that way and it never will be. Majorities count for nothing everywhere in the world. Only the elites matter – and it is clear you are far from belonging to any elite. We hikers and equestrians belong to an elite; you mountain bikers belong to the hoi-polloi.

I am NOT seeking to impose mine on you; you can feel how you wish
about bikes on trails. You ARE seeking to impose yours on me in that you
wish to ban my riding on publicly owned land.

By riding your bike on trails, you are effectively excluding
others from doing what they want to do. Try to get real!

How Ed ? I invited you to provide evidence that hikers are deserting trails. You, unsurprisingly, cited nothing to back it up because ... it's not happening. You seem to live in an echo chamber whereby no-one ever challenges the core assertions. When challenged you have nothing.

“China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe for
other users. – Delos Putz”

Apparently Marin County does not exist. Maybe even California
does not exist? You are beneath contempt. **** your so-called facts and
evidence, none of which you would recognize if they jumped up and bit you in
your dumb ass. Until you take on every one of the objections mention in the
article, it is just going to get posted over and over. Here it is again for your
perusal and the perusal of all the dumb ass mountain bikers who think they have
a right to ride their bikes on hiking trails.

You can post it as many times as you like; won't improve it. It's an opinion piece ... nothing more. Are there any facts as to how many collisions there have been ... no, didn't think so.

"Share the trail", the motto currently favored by mountain bikers (and
modeled after
their "share the road"), is intended to suggest that hikers and
horsemen are simply
selfish in not wanting bikes to be allowed on trails on public lands.
They accuse us
of being unwilling to "share" as if we were talking about children
sharing toys in a
sandbox. The clear reason for our objections is SAFETY. On the winding
trails and steep hills that characterize the public lands of Marin
County, mountain bikes pose an unacceptable risk of injury to other
users. Trails are where hikers and horsemen go to escape the speeding
bikes that have legal access to every fire road on public land in
Marin. Trails are the last refuge of the non-biking public.
When bikes are permitted on trails, the reality is that other users
get hurt. Even "near misses" cause lasting fears. What follows is not
"share the trail" where all the children play peacefully in the same
sandbox. What really happens is that the nonbiker public (especially
seniors and people with young
children) are "displaced"- driven out of public lands in fear for
their own safety. China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe for
other users. There are no "user conflicts" in China Camp State Park or
in the San Pedro Mountain Preserve any more because hikers and
horsemen simply {continued on page 6} Hikers and horsemen of all ages
have shared trails on Marin's public lands without problems for
decades because both groups travel slowly both uphill and downhill.
Modern mountain bikes are "vehicles" driven by gravity and a thirst
for thrills.
Unlike bicycles of an earlier era, they are capable of handling
extreme terrain at high speed. The bikers who want to ride trails are
seeking challenges-not the peace and tranquility that our public open
spaces were created to preserve. For many riders, especially young
riders, "throwing dirt" is what it is all about. We don't allow
motorcycles, dirt bikes or four-wheelers on our public lands for the
very good reason that they destroy the environment and the peace and
tranquility that are the very purpose of public open spaces. Modern
mountain bikes present the same risks to the environment and to other
users as do motorized vehicles. Even on fire roads they present a
hazard to hikers and horsemen. They certainly do not belong on trails
in our public open spaces. The public officials responsible for
establishing trail policies on public lands have an obligation to see
to it that our public open spaces are not turned into private "bike
parks", and that no user group is permitted to threaten the safety of
other users. - Delos Putz, San Geronimo

To your minor ****ing point since you do not know how to peruse anything:

“China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe for
other users. – Delos Putz” – Ed Dolan

And, if you bother to read the research paper that I referenced, you will find that it does address the objections and, by measuring what actually happens, determines that it is a perception, not a reality. There are not lots of hiker/biker conflicts and collisions; it's just not happening. You can state it as many times as you like but real research says it's not true.

Anything you want me to read has got to be posted in this forum. The gist of the research paper you are referring to based on what you did provide is that all the conclusions drawn from the propositions were screwy as hell and made absolutely no sense at all.

Here is a nice summary of where I am coming from:

“Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are
inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to
mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996:
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain
bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes.
They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why
isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more
harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and
that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle
the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven
studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2)
in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to
come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously
avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did
not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et
al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently
incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain
biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them,
but scientifically, they are worthless.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills
small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife
and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches
kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's
good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this
5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous:
http://mjvande.nfshost.com/mtb_dangerous.htm .”

Now why don’t you be a good mountain biker boy and quit bothering the honorable members of this noble newsgroup. We are fed up with your juvenile nonsensical arguments. If and when you ever grow up, then come back and visit us. We are adults here and do not appreciate adolescent foolishness.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

And I have said before, but it appears it will never dawn on you
that YOUR opinion as to which recreations should be permitted is not accepted by
most others.* Your opinion is not worth more than that of anyone
else.

A superior opinion is always worth more than an inferior
opinion. It is why we do not pay any attention to mountain biker opinions on the
trails issue.

I agree, a superior opinion, based on facts, logic and research is massively more valuable than one individual's fact-free diatribes. It is why I don't pay much attention to anyone who can't justify their assertions. If you want me to really take what you say seriously then provide facts to backup your opinions. Without that, your opinion is inferior and not worth consideration.

You still here? Why are you still here? Have doubts about your
opinions on the trails issue? Must have or you wouldn’t still be here. I am 100%
convinced of the rightness of my position ... which will prevail in the end.

Because it's moderately entertaining and distracting ... occasionally.

I try not to have opinions; I try to have positions based on facts that I am prepared to change if the facts change.

Folks in years to come will look back on what bikers like you had to say about
riding on trails and laugh at your self-serving conceits.

I doubt it. Folks in years to come will be used to bikes and it will be a non-issue. The current trajectory is against you. However, let's revisit in a decade and see where we are ...

How much research does anyone have to do?

Sufficient to actually prove their case.

You think there are loads of collisions ?* Go and do a survey
and find out how many.* Then I might have a bit more respect for you.

A close call is as bad as a collision. You are bereft of any
common sense.

More twisting Ed. You can't stick to any one position can you ? And the reason is that, yet again, you have no facts to backup what you stated regarding collisions. So, now, you have to move the goalposts yet again.

As I said, you are a zealot.* Behaviour doesn't really matter
to you does it ?* You simply don't want bikes there.* I am sorry for
you but not to the extent that I would desist just to satisfy your illogical
opinions.

You are basically an outlaw who only for the present is
getting away with murder. That is all due for a correction in time.

Keep telling yourself that ... if it provides you any comfort.

Since you think all recreations are equal, it only follows
that you also think all opinions are equal.

Logical fallacies of the first order.

I never said all recreations are equal ... in fact I produced a table rating them earlier in this thread.

And, irrespective of the outcome of the first axiom it does not prove the second.

All opinions are, I would say clearly, not equal. I think mine are better than yours because I can back them up logically.

Fortunately, it has never been that
way and it never will be. Majorities count for nothing everywhere in the world.
Only the elites matter – and it is clear you are far from belonging to any
elite. We hikers and equestrians belong to an elite; you mountain bikers belong
to the hoi-polloi

I'll let the two other CEOs in our group know that they're part of the proletariat on your behalf :-)).

I don't care who you think you are and how hubristic your pronouncements; you're not convincing me and I doubt you'll convince many others.

“China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de
facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe
for
other users. – Delos Putz”

This is evidence is it Ed ?

This is an assertion. Go and prove it and then I might give it some credence. Anyone can say anything.

The gist of the research paper you are referring to based on what you did
provide is that all the conclusions drawn from the propositions were screwy as
hell and made absolutely no sense at all.

How do you know that if you didn't bother to read it Ed ? Pathetic.

Here is a nice summary of where I am coming from:

“Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are
inanimate objects and...

I trust you hike without any inanimate objects then. What nonsense.

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

And I have said before, but it appears it will never dawn on you
that YOUR opinion as to which recreations should be permitted is not accepted by
most others. Your opinion is not worth more than that of anyone
else.

A superior opinion is always worth more than an inferior
opinion. It is why we do not pay any attention to mountain biker opinions on the
trails issue.

I agree, a superior opinion, based on facts, logic and research is massively more valuable than one individual's fact-free diatribes. It is why I don't pay much attention to anyone who can't justify their assertions. If you want me to really take what you say seriously then provide facts to backup your opinions. Without that, your opinion is inferior and not worth consideration.

Anyone who bikes on a hiking trail is a scoundrel and not even worth the time to discuss ANYTHING. You have no moral credibility and I regard you as little better than a common criminal.

You still here? Why are you still here? Have doubts about your
opinions on the trails issue? Must have or you wouldn’t still be here. I am 100%
convinced of the rightness of my position ... which will prevail in the end.

Because it's moderately entertaining and distracting ... occasionally.

I try not to have opinions; I try to have positions based on facts that I am prepared to change if the facts change.

What a laugh! You have nothing but opinions, the same as me and everyone else in the world.
[...]

Since you think all recreations are equal, it only follows
that you also think all opinions are equal.

Logical fallacies of the first order.

I never said all recreations are equal ... in fact I produced a table rating them earlier in this thread.

You were equating cycling on trails with walking on trails, both recreations. Now I know why Mr. Vandeman is always calling you and your ilk liars.

And, irrespective of the outcome of the first axiom it does not prove the second.

All opinions are, I would say clearly, not equal. I think mine are better than yours because I can back them up logically.

Your logic is as screwy as your opinions ... which logically follows come to think of it!

Fortunately, it has never been that
way and it never will be. Majorities count for nothing everywhere in the world.
Only the elites matter – and it is clear you are far from belonging to any
elite. We hikers and equestrians belong to an elite; you mountain bikers belong
to the hoi-polloi

I'll let the two other CEOs in our group know that they're part of the proletariat on your behalf :-)).

I don't care who you think you are and how hubristic your pronouncements; you're not convincing me and I doubt you'll convince many others.

Everyday conflicts will eventually settle the issue in favor of excluding bikes from trails that are used by hikers and equestrians.

“China Camp State Park and large portions of Mt.
Tamalpais are prime examples of public lands that have become de
facto
private "bike parks" because mountain bikers have made them unsafe
for
other users. – Delos Putz”

This is evidence is it Ed ?

This is an assertion. Go and prove it and then I might give it some credence. Anyone can say anything.

Yes, it is evidence, you moron, unless the person is lying through his teeth. He is citing a specific park which is a hell of lot more than you have ever done.

The gist of the research paper you are referring to based on what you did
provide is that all the conclusions drawn from the propositions were screwy as
hell and made absolutely no sense at all.

How do you know that if you didn't bother to read it Ed ? Pathetic.

I am lazy; you are useless!

Here is a nice summary of where I am coming from:

“Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are
inanimate objects and...

I trust you hike without any inanimate objects then. What nonsense.

The only nonsense perpetrated here is your selective editing, ever the mark of a scoundrel.

Mr. Vandeman has a rather peculiar view of bikes I must admit. I say simply mountain biker and assume that all the world knows what I mean by that (except for maybe an idiot like you). Mr. Vandeman likes to make distinctions and is more against the bike than the person riding the bike. He thinks once you get the biker off the bike that he can be admitted to the world of humankind and be permitted to walk the trails. That is because he is a gentleman. He is not an ass kicker like me. I KNOW that mountain bikers are assholes and total jerks and deserve no consideration whatsoever under any conditions. Mountain bikers deserve contempt and that is what I give them whether they are on or off their bikes.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great