The Joys & Pleasures of Cycling on Trails

So, you LOST the argument that there were thousands of collisions
in a given location because the data showed that there weren't.

Better luck next time.

All this business about winning and losing makes you look like
the child that you are. Like all of politics, there is no winning or losing,
just who has the better argument ... and how many you are able to persuade that
you have the better argument.

I'm more than happy to subject myself to the wisdom of our fellow group participants ... I'm just pointing out the gaping holes in your logic.

You were happy to assert that you never lost a few posts ago ... having been shown that this isn't the case are you indulging in diversionary tactics again ?

There is absolutely NO objective justification for this
position. You simply happen to like what pertained during this
period ...
that's not any kind of basis to allocate PUBLIC resources.

It is not only what I happen to like but what should BE since

it is the BEST allocation of resources.

Oh do get over yourself ... it's getting tiresome. You might
believe it's the best use but you can't justify it other than because it's what
you like. It's circular logic and appeal to authority ... two fundamental
logical errors.

The only thing that is getting tiresome to me is that I have
to keep going over and over why bikes do not belong on trails used by hikers. It
is a conflict of MEANS and PURPOSE. If you do not know what I mean by that by
now, then you are truly hopeless.

I am finding you similarly tiresome ... because you seem to believe that just because YOU hold a certain opinion or feel a certain way that this, axiomatically, should be accepted as valid by everyone else without the slightest objective justification.

Your MEANS and PURPOSE are not mine ... nor are they those of a trails runner, or a rambling group or a family party or a packing company.

So, I understand fully what you mean by that ... but I reject it utterly as any basis for allocating shares to a public resource.

You're my superior ??? !!! I don't think so.

Hikers are superior to bikers when on trails ... or even when
on bike paths for that matter. Were you born in a barn?

Wonderful non-sequitur ... as the Duke of Wellington said "Just because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse". But, no, thanks for asking ... I wasn't born in a barn. Fortunately, for me, I was born into a house where my parents taught me to think and to analyse carefully ... and to question anyone unable to backup their position with logic and facts.

You meet the dictionary definition of irrational on this issue Ed
... which was why I posted it. Even if there is no conflict and nothing
happens you still have an issue with the bike even being there. It's like
my saying that I don't want my neighbour in his garden because it disturbs my
peace of mind.

Your mere presence on a trail with a bike is a happening
(mental torture) and a conflict (potential).

To you. Which is therefore YOUR problem, not mine. If your brain goes into a fugue at the mere sight of a bike then you need some help. We're not talking about any actual conflict here .. simply your fragile mental state.

I think you meant to say you do not
want YOUR neighbor in YOUR garden because it destroys YOUR peace of mind. Glad I
was able to straighten you out on that.

No, Ed, you weren't able to straighten it out. The reason I said neighbour in HIS garden is because I was making a point. The trails belong to me as much as to you so I am in 'MY' garden and your peace of mind is being destroyed. Get help.

California is always in the forefront of every unfavorable
development in the world and the trails there are full of bedlam thanks to
mountain bikers. If you tell me your trails are crowded, then I believe you. I
do note that many of my reports of accidents come from England so you cannot
claim that there are no conflicts.

Do get your facts straight. You are confusing accidents with conflicts ... two completely different things. Secondly, I never said there were no conflicts ... I just said that I hadn't had any in three years riding.

What is NOT going to work are bikes on trails used by hikers.

So you keep saying. Yet you posted videos showing it working fine and I have had no conflict using multi-use trails where I live. So, clearly, it works fine in some places. Probably in most.

The countryside is already consumed by roads ... and that is where bikes can be
ridden. Trails are reserved exclusively for hikers.

I think what you meant to write Ed is "I want to reserve trails for me and, possibly, a very small number of individuals who have the necessary reverent attitude. Bikers, hikers in groups, trail runners, family groups and anyone I don't like is banned." Thank goodness you're a spent force reduced to raging impotently on newsgroups like this.

Your "preferred activity" is incompatible with hiking. You are
not being reasonable at all.

No Ed, it is not incompatible. I do you no harm whatsoever in using
the same trail as you as long as I don't endanger you or force you off the
trail.

You actually do both of the above. You are deaf and blind as
to what your presence on a bike on a trail means for walkers. It we can't
educate you, we will have to police you.

There's no 'we' Ed ... it's just you and a bunch of fanatics. You've made it very clear how you feel about bikes on trails and I've made it similarly clear that, since you don't care about what I want, I don't care about you either.

I will engage, reasonably, with reasonable people but not with fanatics.

What absolutely nonsense. If I had no regard for the
solitude experience sought by some hikers then I would aggressively demand
access everywhere. I'm not asking for that precisely because I accept that
some people are seeking a different experience. I have some empathy and am
therefore prepared to compromise, you are not ... so who is the one being
selfish and intransigent ?

ALL hikers require solitude. That is one of the essentials of
the hiking experience. Otherwise, why not go for a walk in the streets of New
York or London.

What about the ramblers association and their organised group walks ? What about family groups ?

YOU require solitude ... clearly not everyone does so your position is fundamentally flawed. All hikers do NOT require solitude ... some do, sometimes.

The only compromise you can make is to get the hell off of
hiking trails with your bike. My compromise is that you can get your own trails
as long as they are not anywhere near my hiking trails. What a cyclist wants to
experience on a trail is not anything like what a hiker wants to experience.

And it is precisely this attitude ... "go away, I want what I want and I won't compromise in any meaningful sense" ... that creates conflict and, ultimately, results in you losing more. Your Canute-like obduracy is guaranteed to motivate people to fight this attitude and campaign for access.

I've referred to it in the past but I would suggest, again, that you look at the voluntary arrangements between hiking groups and mountainbiking groups that exist. Where people are reasonable and accept that they have different viewpoints and desires ... but are forced to share the same resource to achieve those desires ... and do so in a reasonable manner then the outcomes are far far better than those occasioned by conflict.

Go on, I dare you ... challenge your own preconceptions and
actually ask a random selection of trail users rather than just lurk on the
internet and trawl for conflict.

Reports from the field in the media are all the proof anyone
ever needs as to what the problems are.

Hilarious ... really ??

Since you are unable to explain these
accidents and deaths, it would seem that you have the problem and only resort to
numbers as an excuse and a distraction.

Explain ? What do you mean explain ? I've said, repeatedly, that accidents will occur ... as they do in any field of endeavour. I've even posted links to reports on the details of the nature and occurrence of different types of accident. Let's cut to the chase ... things go wrong, people make mistakes ... accidents happen. Same for hiking, biking, walking down the stairs ... or the street, Mark Shand would vouch for that if he were still here.

The US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every 2
weeks. That makes it 3.65 million rides PER DAY in the US alone. You
are wrong ... AGAIN !

Are they riding on trails? Most likely they are riding on
roads and city streets. You are never able to make any sense of numbers. Good
thing for you that I am always able to provide the essential information as to
what the numbers might mean.

Ed, if those are the numbers FOR THE US ALONE then assuming the rest of the world rides the same amount that would equate to 85million rides a day. Even if only 5% ride on trails that's still over 4 million rides a day.

These numbers are estimates and assumptions ... but predicated on facts regarding the number and frequency in the US.

So, no, you are not able to provide information on what the numbers might mean because you never bother to work it out. What this says is that there are millions of rides (as I originally stated) every day and very few accidents and fatalities as a result of that ... so a low risk activity overall.

So you, who refuses to share, are accusing me of being
selfish. Nice ! And rather illogical.

Totally rational, totally unselfish and totally logical NOT to
want to share that which CAN'T be shared. Now all you need is to get a brain so
you can see the intelligence of it.

Of course trails can be shared ... they are shared every day ... and you posted videos showing them being shared with no conflict. You are also happy to share with equestrians. So, no, you are being illogical, selfish and irrational.