Tom Stienstra: "Gridlock in wild areas: Time for new policies"

On 12 Dec 2006 17:40:35 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

As president bush does every thing he can to stop the US from passing
legislation that would limit the amount of CO2 into the World's atmosphere,
Vande-monkey is bashing a couple of people who I feel love the environment
and want to be part of it their own respective way.

Vande-monkey was frightened by some mean-old mountain biker 8 years ago.
He has been on a crusade ever since to try to get those mean-old mountain
bikers from scaring him again. Bet he has night mares from that initial
incident.

Mike,
So many people already ignore you, you appear to have a good heart and
good intent, but man, you are a fool if you actually believe that you have
convinced ONE mountain biker from never riding it again.

Stop wasting your time here and go be productive, because I am.

PLONK

Good riddance. You have nothing to offer but lies. Your post above is
a perfect example. You know NOTHING about me and why I oppose mountain
biking, in spite of it being spelled out clearly on my web site. But
you have to be able to read words of more than one syl-la-ble.
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:36:49 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:17:35 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:46:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).
1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.
Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.
Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.
Mike, conferences are not
forums for serious peer-review
(as in "get this **** out of
here", which is surely what
everyone in those forums was
thinking). Questions are
generally directed at
elucidating details of the
studies. In any case, these
are NOT PEER-REVIEWED
Idiot. What do you think a conference IS???? It is, by its very nature
one massive peer review, by LOTS more than 3 reviewers! I passed with
flying colors. You, of course, weren't even there.
Mike, it is an exhibition of
current research in the field,
meant to bring together
scientists of like interests
to foster the sharing of
ideas, along with networking
among business execs and those
that do pure research.

Because the content of the
talk is not given prior to
accepting abstracts, it may
not be judged prior to being
accepted or rejected. The
merits of your talk therefore
have nothing to do with it
being accepted.
BS. You can tell from the abstract if it is worthwhile, otherwise they
would require the entire paper.

In the conference, it is poor
etiquette to disparage a talk.
I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.

No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.

You read my specifics. You
just didn't un-der-stand them.
Moron.


So much so that I know you're
totally full of ****.

Vague answers like that only prove that you don't know what you are
talking about.

Clearly you just can't
com-pre-hend my answers of
more than one syl-la-ble. Idiot.


It is also a waste of time.
Questions are dedicated - as I
previously mentioned - to
clarification, asking what the
next steps are, and for
suggestions for things to try
or look at. Basically, you
should know if you're full of
****. Generally, scientists
will have already published or
be in the process of
publishing the material that
they speak about. This in
general ensures that the
content is of a suitable
caliber for delivering at a
conference. You obviously do
not fit this criterion.

Stop trying to snow the people
here who are not familiar with
how a conference works, and
how peer-review through
published literature is the
only meaningful benchmark.


, as you
are well aware. End of story.
You present opinion, and
nothing more. Try DOING
RESEARCH. You are not a
scientist, and by calling
yourself one you insult the
entire community.

2. "Comparable" is not a scientific term. ANY two objects are
"comparable". It means nothing.
Obviously the meaning I
implied was "similar".
Grasping at straws, as usual.
Nope, "similar" is ALSO not scientific. It is not quantitative. Thanks
for demonstrating your total ignorance of science.
Well, first of all, comparable
and similar are both
acceptable in this context,
despite your semantic
flailing. You may argue over
the details, but both are
acceptable to imply that
effects are on the same order
of magnitude, and therefore
comparable and similar.

Secondly, I don't need to
defend myself as a scientist
in this situation. You do,
however, if you wish to attain
any credibility. (Hint: you
have none). I will say,
however, I was first published
in a peer-reviewed journal at
much less than half your age.
So your argument holds no water.

But what can one
expect from someone afraid to use his real name?! Stand up and be a
man!
Mike, I - unlike you - have a
career in science ahead of me.
God forbid some freaking
lunatic like you decide to do
something stupid.

Need I point out the irony in
you pointing out that you are
a man ?!

Try a
dictionary, asshole.

Yes. This has been amply established.
===
===
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
===
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
===
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
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:31:40 -0500, "S Curtiss"
You are lying again. I have seen numerous parks where hikers &
equestrians were driven out by the presence of mountain bikers.

Anecdotal and meaningless.

BS. Anecdotal evidence was enough to win the 1994 federal lawsuit
against IMBA and close trails to bikes.
Which has been largely overturned due to the access of REAL information.

Whatever that means. The fact remains that there is no right to
mountain bike, as decided by the federal court. Any land manager who
wants to can close trails to bikes, and many have. E.g. Yosemite
National Park. Squirm all you want, it won't change that fact.

It means you ignored the total CONTEXT as shown below BECAUSE you KNOW you
can not refute the TOTAL statement.
It means you cling to an antiquated court decision that has been re-written
within the context of acrual information.
Yosemite, which has been noted before, has never been open to off-road
cycling and is one of the unique areas which has unique designations.
However, by citing Yosemite you should also note that merely a few miles
away is an abundance of trails which are OPEN to off-road cycling through
much of the same type of terrain, viewsheds and vegetation that is
"protected" in Yosemite.

Now - try to engage that tiny mind and respond to comments in total rather
than splitting the context in your feeble attempts at making a point.

The
BLM, NFS and even the Sierra Club recognize the validity of off-road
cycling
and the cooperative efforts between user groups.
It is now 2006 (2007) and you cling to the past which has been changed
with
the light of actual information. You claim "science" and throw out 12 year
old information and anecdotal nonsense...?
PATHETIC!


Your opinions automatically suspect cycling with
total disregard to any other factors.

(most National Parks do not
allow off-road cycling). It is the more local and available public
access
land that is attracting people with a wide variety of outdoor options.
Your attempt to throw cycling under the bus as a cause for National
Parks'
decline is simply a stupid gesture of impotence.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:36:49 -0800, cc wrote:
BS. You can tell from the abstract if it is worthwhile, otherwise they
would require the entire paper.

In the conference, it is poor
etiquette to disparage a talk.

I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
CLAIMING you have no questions challenging your OPINIONS in these forums is
NOT the same as having WRITTEN REVIEW and COMMENT recorded on your
statements. If you provide no review by others in attendance which can be
verified then you are merely saying "because I say so..." which is
completely unacceptable as a standard of validity.

Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.

No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.

NO specifics on peer review of your comments...? A sure sign YOU are a LIAR!

So much so that I know you're
totally full of ****.

Vague answers like that only prove that you don't know what you are
talking about.
Vague references to conferences that you invited yourself to from a "call
for papers" with more vague answers about your comments and a lack of
questions of them from people we can not verify show you are simply padding
your statements with unsubstantiated comments.


Secondly, I don't need to
defend myself as a scientist
in this situation. You do,
however, if you wish to attain
any credibility. (Hint: you
have none). I will say,
however, I was first published
in a peer-reviewed journal at
much less than half your age.
So your argument holds no water.

And "cc" is absolutely correct. It is YOU, MV, that is claiming scientific
credibility within your OPINIONS without so much as a second scientific
review of your OPINIONS to show any validity. It is YOU that is claiming all
findings contrary to your OPINIONS are "junk science". It is YOU that is
claiming scientific credibility merely from a "call for papers" 15 minute
presentation at a conference with several other activities and presentations
offered at the same time as yours showing your audience was much smaller
than you allege by simply referencing the conference as a whole. It is YOU
that makes claims contrary to more recent information, more recent land
decisions, and more recent efforts of cooperation. It is YOU that posts
every injury you can find that can even remotely by tied to cycling while
ignoring similar stories involving hikers or equestrians. It is YOU that has
gleefully posted in favored response to terrorist trappings along trails
causing injury. It is YOU that must prove credibility. And in over 8 years
of posting - you have NOT.

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:36:49 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:17:35 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:46:32 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:12:06 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:00:02 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:23:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:14:05 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:44:36 -0800, cc wrote:

Roberto Baggio wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
There are several things wrong with Tom Stienstra's approach:

2. Allowing bikes on trails forces land managers to either (a) build
more trails, thus destroying more wildlife habitat or (b) kick hikers
off of some of their trails, in order to cater to a small minority of
recreationists (mountain bikers). Neither is fair or wise.
So being fair to minorities is a bad thing?

You're not just delusional - you're also a bigot.
No, just honest -- something mountain bikers wouldn't understand.

Do you want me to spell it out
for you, moron? Describing
negative experiences with
mountain bikers is being
honest. Extrapolating those
experiences to EVERY mountain
biker is bigotry.
Nope, it's called "observation".
Again, you have done nothing
to demonstrate anything but
wild speculation. Observation
does in no case warrant such
ridiculous extrapolation or
zealous rhetoric. If you were
a scientist, you would realize
this. Obviously, you are not.
Observations are the foundation of science. DUH!
Yes, but only when applied
within the framework of a
scientific methodology (which
has been employed in various
studies that show mountain
biking to be of comparable
impact to hiking).
1. That's a LIE. Those studies were all seriously flawed, as you well
know.
Again, you mistake your
opinion of the studies with
one that is relevant. Your
voice is meaningless, as we
have established.
Nine international scientific conferences that heard my paper would
disagree. NOT ONE of the scientists found any flaw in my paper, either
then or now.
Mike, conferences are not
forums for serious peer-review
(as in "get this **** out of
here", which is surely what
everyone in those forums was
thinking). Questions are
generally directed at
elucidating details of the
studies. In any case, these
are NOT PEER-REVIEWED
Idiot. What do you think a conference IS???? It is, by its very nature
one massive peer review, by LOTS more than 3 reviewers! I passed with
flying colors. You, of course, weren't even there.
Mike, it is an exhibition of
current research in the field,
meant to bring together
scientists of like interests
to foster the sharing of
ideas, along with networking
among business execs and those
that do pure research.

Because the content of the
talk is not given prior to
accepting abstracts, it may
not be judged prior to being
accepted or rejected. The
merits of your talk therefore
have nothing to do with it
being accepted.
BS. You can tell from the abstract if it is worthwhile, otherwise they
would require the entire paper.

In the conference, it is poor
etiquette to disparage a talk.
I'm not talking about disparaging. When people find holes in the talk
or research, they ask a question about it. It happens all the time.
But not after my talk. NOT ONE person has ever found anything
questionable in my talk OR paper, either before, during, or after the
talk. I always ask questions or make comments if I think there is
something wrong with the research. So do other people. So my paper has
been peer-reviewed by HUNDREDS of scientists. And passed with flying
colors. You are just demonstrating that you haven't a clue about
scientific conferences.
Wrong answer, bucko. I am
intimately familiar with them.

No specifics, conveniently! A sure sign of a LIAR.

So much so that I know you're
totally full of ****.

Vague answers like that only prove that you don't know what you are
talking about.


Mike, you do realize that you're only fooling yourself, right?

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 17:40:35 GMT, Chris Foster
wrote:

As president bush does every thing he can to stop the US from passing
legislation that would limit the amount of CO2 into the World's atmosphere,
Vande-monkey is bashing a couple of people who I feel love the environment
and want to be part of it their own respective way.

Vande-monkey was frightened by some mean-old mountain biker 8 years ago.
He has been on a crusade ever since to try to get those mean-old mountain
bikers from scaring him again. Bet he has night mares from that initial
incident.

Mike,
So many people already ignore you, you appear to have a good heart and
good intent, but man, you are a fool if you actually believe that you have
convinced ONE mountain biker from never riding it again.

Stop wasting your time here and go be productive, because I am.

PLONK

Good riddance. You have nothing to offer but lies. Your post above is
a perfect example. You know NOTHING about me and why I oppose mountain
biking, in spite of it being spelled out clearly on my web site. But
you have to be able to read words of more than one syl-la-ble.

No, Mike, YOU haven't provided ONE good reason for disliking mountain
biking. Put up or shut up.

snip
Actually, the US Constitution is the only document that gives US citizens
any 'rights' in the United States. If you think I am wrong, fly to Cuba
and start spewing your bull **** there, see how long you end up in
prison.

Horses are not mentioned in the Constitution, so they don't have any
rights at all.


Oh, yes they do!!!!!!!!!

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mister Ed.

Go right to the source and ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mister Ed.

People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mr. Ed will never speak unless he has something to say

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?

Well listen to this: "I'm Mister Ed."

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote:



Mountain bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.



Neither do hiking shoes.



Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.



No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal damage to trails



Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.



That "lie" is backed up by scientists who are accredited and publish in peer-reviewed journals.



Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)



Mike, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You know the references I am referring to very well, as you've cited them in the pieces of trash you continually post here.



(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)



It's on your site. Try reading YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.



Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut up.



Wilson and Seney is published in MRD, which is peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS. Don't you read the **** you write, Mike?



"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words, it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal. Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is: This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected. In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant". If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common sense.

Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney:



“The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of the relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant.  



 



The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a series of indicator variables improved the model performance.”

and later when discussing the multiple regression model:


“…ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of the variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of the different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their contributions confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%) had the most impact.  Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller contributions.”


Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and didn't account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model escape you?






Just because you don't agree with the *actual research* doesn't change it. How can you be so blind? I mean, everything you say flies in the face of real science. Your idiotic thread on cell phones causing cancer, for example. You cannot argue with data! Yet you continue your flaming diatribes . . with no results except for a rather large peanut gallery telling you to take a hike . . or drop off the planet.



You do not, and your



opinion is therefore meaningless. Get the picture?



=== 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



=== 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



=== 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

Mike Vandeman wrote:

On 12 Dec 2006 17:18:12 GMT, Chris Foster wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote in



On 12 Dec 2006 13:35:05 GMT, Chris Foster wrote:



Mike Vandeman wrote in



On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:38:50 GMT, "JP" wrote:



"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message news...



On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:52:02 GMT, "JP" wrote:



\Bikes don't habve any rights. Hikers do.



Specious nonsense. Bikes do not ride without a cyclist atop. Cyclists have rights. Idiot.



Idiot. As I said, bikes have no rights.



Neither do horses. If an equestrian cannot control their animal they do not belong in public. LIAR!!! 3. Bikes are no more harmful to the environment than pedestrian use, in fact hikers like wider trails.



You know that's a lie.



Not so. Pedestrian traffic in the woods is not always single file. The footprint of the bike is cushioned by a wide tire, lessening the impact of human weight on the surface. In addition the bicycle rolls along the surface, it doesn't travel in a series of impacts like the pedestrian.



Tire knobs DO impact the ground, and continually puncture it. Tires have less total surface area on the ground than feet, hence exert greater PRESSURE. DUH!



You really should take a couple of Physics classes. Then you would see just how stupid you sound here



Since you are being VAGUE, it's easy to tell that you haven't a clue about physics. I got straight As in Honore Physics at the greatest university in the world. What about you? Idiot.



Are you and I going to brag about out respective PhD? Mine is from University of Illinois in Electrical Engineering. I took EVERY physics class they offer. You took physics for non-technical majors I presume?



Can't you read? HONORS Physics. The one taken by math & science majors. Obviously a simple concept like "pressure" wasn't covered in your classes. Or you forgot the information. Or you are simply LYING, which is the most likely answer.

How about IMPACT loading, Mike, or wasn't that covered in your Physics class(es)?  Mechanics of Deformable Bodies...No?

A rolling load (a la bike tire) may exhibit higher average ground pressure for the average contact area, but the mechanism of application negates that difference when compared to the impact loading of a foot going up and down.  Add to that the changing surface area (heel, full foot, ball of foot versus the uniform rolling contact patch of a tire) and you've got a heck of a lot more dynamic loading problem than just mass over a fixed area. At a decent walk, the impact loading can double or even triple the force applied to the soil by a hiker when compared to a biker.  Heck, even Nike recognized this when they promoted a running shoe to negate the 6x the person's weight applied to the feet at a run. Oh, but that's right....that's APPLIED mathematics, rather than the pure and idealized math that you did.






I can provide you with a list of physics classes I took. Can you? If so , do so, else, shut up.



Your continues rants don't make it so. LIAR!!!



4. Mountain bikes don't teach kids to beat on nature, that's anouther BS LIE.



Yes, they do. That's exactly what they do.



Nonsense LIAR. That is a self serving opinion.



5. Being able to ride a mopuntain bike is not evidence of being able to walk. Floyd Landis, who won the TDF, would be unable to walk a mile on a hiking trail.



So what? He can still walk.



The point is he can't. He hobbles in severe pain. But you really don't care. This is not about access wilderness, protection of nature or and of the rest of your phony hypothesis. Pure and simple, you are anti bike for reasons yet undisclosed. When you stop lying perhaps real dialogue can ensue.



Irrelevant. Horses, like many other animals, evolved in North America and have a right to be here. Bikes have NO rights.



Horses are plains aniimals. Their "rights" are not the topic of discussion. The destruction they cause to trails is the point you conveniently evade. That is the result of the rider directing the animal where it does not belong. The bike rider can use trails responsibly, the horse rider cannot. Additionally the bike rider can always control his bicycle. Not so the horse rider. But your lies ignore that. Doesn't matter really. You are a solitary voice, impotent in your quest. The only attention you get is here, in AMB. What a pathetic way to spend your time. Gotta go. I'm bored with you now. Yawn..............................



=== 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



=== 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



=== 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

Michael Halliwell wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:13:07 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:45:32 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:14:21 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:25:06 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:43:12 -0800, cc wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:11:18 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:


Mike Vandeman wrote:

Mountain
bikes are inanimate objects and have no rights.

Neither do hiking shoes.

Maybe if you didn't wear shoes, you'd have a leg to stand on.
Otherwise, you are just being a hypocrite.

No, the point is that - by engaging in an activity shown to do equal
damage to trails

Repeating that lie doesn't make it true.


That "lie" is backed up by
scientists who are accredited
and publish in peer-reviewed
journals.

Name ONE such scientist. (Hint: you can't.)

Mike, I'm not going to do your
homework for you. You know the
references I am referring to
very well, as you've cited
them in the pieces of trash
you continually post here.

(Just as I said: you can't!!!!!)

It's on your site. Try reading
YOUR OWN bibliography, moron.

Then you should have no trouble finding a peer-reviewed study, IF one
exists. You CAN'T, which is why you haven't answered. Put up or shut
up.

Wilson and Seney is published
in MRD, which is
peer-reviewed. AMONG OTHERS.
Don't you read the **** you
write, Mike?


"Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is the leading
interdisciplinary and development-oriented journal " In other words,
it is PRO-DEVELOPMENT, NOT an unbiased scientific journal.

Even "peer-reviewed" studies can be full of CRAP, as that one is:

This study is frequently cited by mountain bikers as proof that
mountain biking doesn't cause more impact than hiking. But it has a
number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors
used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by
the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment
yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of
each plot", which they claim "correlates with erosion" (they don't say
what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good
measure of erosion. For example, if a large rock were dislodged, the
very weak "simulated rainfall" wouldn't be capable of transporting it
into the collecting tray; only very fine particles would be collected.
In fact, they admit that the simulator's "small size … meant that the
kinetic energy of the simulated rainfall events was roughly one-third
that of natural rainstorms". Another reason to suspect that the
measurements aren't valid is that "none of the relationships between
water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil moisture, trail
roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant".

If they used a VALID measure of erosion, explain why there was no
correlation with slope! Everyone knows that erosion increases with
slope. That has been shown by other studies, although it's also common
sense.


Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are
intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney:

“The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of the
relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent soil
moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically significant.



The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a series
of indicator variables improved the model performance.”

and later when discussing the multiple regression model:

“…ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of the
variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of the
different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their contributions
confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%) had the
most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller
contributions.”


Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and didn't
account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model escape you?

Woah there, Michael. That is a
LOT of big words for MV to
absorb. Especially at once !

You know, considering MV
claims he is an "expert" in
statistics, such an
"oversight" might lead one to
believe he's biased. No . . . .