Another idiot mountain biker!

[EdwardDolan]

Blackblade has no problem with 16 year old girls meeting with mishaps on trails. Hell Bells, the loutish mountain biker probably thinks it is a healthy recreation. He thinks that because he is an idiot.

 

 

"Healthful family sport"? Yeah, right.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10324413/Mountain-biker-in-hospital-with-spinal-injuries

 

Mountain biker in hospital with spinal injuries

 

Last updated 17:52 29/07/2014

 

A mountainbike rider is in Rotorua Hospital with spinal injuries

after a fall in Whakarewarewa Forest.

 

The 16-year-old Rotorua girl injured her spine in a fall and had to

be flown to hospital.

 

The Rotorua-based BayTrust rescue helicopter was sent to help

ambulance crew at 3pm.

 

Due to the rugged terrain it was decided to airlift the patient out

of the area.

 

"Obviously ambulance staff treat any spinal injuries pretty

seriously," pilot Barry Vincent said.

 

"The idea of bouncing her along the road in the back of the ambulance

was not deemed to be the right thing to do ... to prevent any

possible further damage."

 

She was flown to Rotorua Hospital in a comfortable condition.

 

A Rotorua Hospital spokeswoman said the girl arrived in a stable

condition and was awaiting test results.

 

Whakarewarewa is touted as having one of the oldest mountainbike

networks in the country, with varying topography and fantastic scenery.

 

It has about 130 kilometres of trails for beginners and family groups

through to ones suited to experts looking for extreme action.

 

 

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn fucking bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

 

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”

~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),

from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

 

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

 

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

 

Ed Dolan the Great

aka

Saint Edward the Great

 

 

[EdwardDolan]

What follows of course could never happen to an experienced mountain biker like Blackblade.  And he will think that right up to the point where it happens to him. That is the way of it with all the idiot mountain bikers. Stupid is as Stupid does. The only cure for what ails them is death!

 

 

If an "experienced mountain biker" can die

mountain biking, what hope is there for the rest of them???

 

http://wtvr.com/2014/07/28/fatal-mountain-bike-crash/

 

Experienced mountain biker killed in crash on Virginia trail

 

Posted 12:10 pm, July 28, 2014, by Scott Wise

 

ALBEMARLE COUNTY, Va. ­ John R. Potter, 50, of

Charlottesville, died Saturday while riding a

mountain bike on trails at Walnut Creek Park off

Old Lynchburg Road in southern Albemarle County.

 

Potter was riding with a friend Saturday

afternoon when he was killed, police said.

 

“The victim appears to have fallen from the bike

and struck an object, believed to be a rock,

which resulted in a traumatic and fatal injury,”

Albemarle County Police Department spokeswoman

Carter Johnson wrote in an email. “Both the

victim and his friend were experienced mountain

bikers. Both were wearing helmets.”

 

While the Albemarle County Police Department is

investigating the crash, police said foul play was not suspected.

[Blackblade]

> What follows of course could never happen to an experienced
> mountain biker like Blackblade.  And he will think that right up to the
> point where it happens to him. That is the way of it with all the idiot mountain
> bikers. Stupid is as Stupid does. The only cure for what ails them is
> death!

Anyone can die, anytime, of a myriad of causes. Here's a recent one who died pursuing your chosen activity ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/30/hiker-dies-in-grand-canyon/ ).

If you doubt this type "hiker dies" into Google and wonder at the sheer number of results ... over 1.5 million !

Set against the number of hikes taking place, it is of course miniscule, but you don't bother to ever reference that when you talk about biking fatalities and injuries.

I have always said that biking is RELATIVELY safe, not absolutely safe ... nothing is.

However, now that you know that people die whilst hiking I trust you will, of course, be eschewing the activity henceforth.

[sloc...@invalid.com]

You might also add that a substantial number of folks die falling out
of bed.... perhaps DingBat will stop sleeping?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:67d79f21-c2a5-4e1e...@googlegroups.com...

How did the hiker die?  Why the hell don’t you post like I do – giving a few details?

 

Biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous as all the reports in the media attest. Only idiots like you refuse to acknowledge the truth; It is why I consider you little better that an accomplice to murder.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:ktn2u9tpcse35jf16...@4ax.com...

Fuck you too Asshole!

 

Post content or get lost. What an Asshole!

 

Now go fuck yourself and quit bothering the honorable members of this noble newsgroup.

[Blackblade]

> > What follows of course could never happen to an experienced
>
> > mountain biker like Blackblade. And he will think that right up
> to the
>
> > point where it happens to him. That is the way of it with all the
> idiot mountain
>
> > bikers. Stupid is as Stupid does. The only cure for what ails them is
>
>
> > death!
>
>
>
> >> Anyone can die, anytime, of a myriad of causes. Here's a
> recent one who died pursuing your chosen activity (
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/30/hiker-dies-in-grand-canyon/
> ).
>
>
>
> >> If you doubt this type "hiker dies" into Google and wonder at the
> sheer number of results ... over 1.5 million !
>
>
>
> >> Set against the number of hikes taking place, it is of course
> miniscule, but you don't bother to ever reference that when you talk about
> biking fatalities and injuries.
>
>
>
> >> I have always said that biking is RELATIVELY safe, not absolutely
> safe ... nothing is.
>
>
>
> >> However, now that you know that people die whilst hiking I trust
> you will, of course, be eschewing the activity henceforth.
>
>
>
> How did the hiker die? Why the hell don't you post like

> I do - giving a few details?

>
>
>
> Biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous as all the
> reports in the media attest. Only idiots like you refuse to acknowledge the
> truth; It is why I consider you little better that an accomplice to
> murder.

If all you care about is media reports then consider this ... if you type 'Hiker Dies' into Google.com then you get 1.5million results. If you type 'Mountainbiker Dies' then you get 500k results.

If you are stupid enough to believe that this tells you anything about the risk involved with these activities then you are never going to understand a damn thing.

And, you are advocating displacing mountainbikers onto roads where their risk of serious injury and death is massively higher than on trails ... so don't lecture me on promoting risky activities.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:70786d54-2576-4544...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> How did the hiker die?  Why the hell don't you post like

> I do - giving a few details?

>

> Biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous as all the

> reports in the media attest. Only idiots like you refuse to acknowledge the

> truth; It is why I consider you little better that an accomplice to

> murder.

 

>> If all you care about is media reports then consider this ... if you type 'Hiker Dies' into Google.com then you get 1.5million results.  If you type 'Mountainbiker Dies' then you get 500k results.

 

>> If you are stupid enough to believe that this tells you anything about the risk involved with these activities then you are never going to understand a damn thing.

 

You are too stupid to know anything at all about data. I want to know how a hiker dies. Each and every time it will be because of something outstandingly stupid or else something entirely freakish. How do mountain bikers die? They die doing what the sport dictates they do – riding fast on hiking trails. It is not something outstandingly stupid or freakish. It is an every day type of thing. The only stupidity is riding a bike on a hiking trail in the first place, but that is inherent to the sport.

 

>> And, you are advocating displacing mountainbikers onto roads where their risk of serious injury and death is massively higher than on trails ... so don't lecture me on promoting risky activities.

 

Bikers have to choose their roads carefully as not all roads are suitable for cycling. However, mountain bikes can be ridden on forestry fire roads and other primitive roads which pose little or no danger. Mountain bikers come to grief simply from hitting obstacles in the trail. This kind of stupidity passes all understanding.

[Blackblade]

> > How did the hiker die? Why the hell don't you post like
>
> > I do - giving a few details?
>
> >
>
> > Biking on hiking trails is extremely dangerous as all the
>
> > reports in the media attest. Only idiots like you refuse to
> acknowledge the
>
> > truth; It is why I consider you little better that an accomplice to
>
>
> > murder.
>
>
>
> >> If all you care about is media reports then consider this ... if
> you type 'Hiker Dies' into Google.com then you get 1.5million results. If
> you type 'Mountainbiker Dies' then you get 500k results.
>
>
>
> >> If you are stupid enough to believe that this tells you anything
> about the risk involved with these activities then you are never going to
> understand a damn thing.
>
>
>
> You are too stupid to know anything at all about data. I want
> to know how a hiker dies. Each and every time it will be because of something
> outstandingly stupid or else something entirely freakish. How do mountain bikers

> die? They die doing what the sport dictates they do - riding fast on hiking

> trails. It is not something outstandingly stupid or freakish. It is an every day
> type of thing. The only stupidity is riding a bike on a hiking trail in the
> first place, but that is inherent to the sport.

So, there are 1.5 MILLION freakishly unlikely incidents ? I don't think so Ed. I refer you back to the Lake District Mountain Rescue report for 2013 ... very easy to summarise hiking accidents into major categories just as one can for mountainbiking. Slips/trips/falls caused by terrain, physical problems caused by weather or health, getting lost and inadequate equipment or skills were the main categories. Eminently predictable, not freakish at all.

You persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in failing to accept that nature is not 'safe' .. irrespective of the activity.

> >> And, you are advocating displacing mountainbikers onto roads where
> their risk of serious injury and death is massively higher than on trails ... so
> don't lecture me on promoting risky activities.
>
> Bikers have to choose their roads carefully as not all roads
> are suitable for cycling. However, mountain bikes can be ridden on forestry fire
> roads and other primitive roads which pose little or no danger. Mountain bikers
> come to grief simply from hitting obstacles in the trail. This kind of stupidity
> passes all understanding.

Hikers also fall off cliffs, break bones tripping over rocks and get trapped due to weather. Is that stupid too ??

So, you know what, I will take a perfectly rational decision and decide to continue riding trails for all the reasons I've already outlined and because it is far safer than riding on the road.

For that very reason, I do allow my children to ride on trails ... I don't let them ride on the road. A small error off road may result in a fall, bruises or, at worst, a broken bone. A small error on the road, if in proximity to a car, can easily result in death.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:9bdac323-0378-41ec...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> You are too stupid to know anything at all about data. I want

> to know how a hiker dies. Each and every time it will be because of something

> outstandingly stupid or else something entirely freakish. How do mountain bikers

> die? They die doing what the sport dictates they do - riding fast on hiking

> trails. It is not something outstandingly stupid or freakish. It is an every day

> type of thing. The only stupidity is riding a bike on a hiking trail in the

> first place, but that is inherent to the sport.

 

>> So, there are 1.5 MILLION freakishly unlikely incidents ?  I don't think so Ed.  I refer you back to the Lake District Mountain Rescue report for 2013 ... very easy to summarise hiking accidents into major categories just as one can for mountainbiking.  Slips/trips/falls caused by terrain, physical problems caused by weather or health, getting lost and inadequate equipment or skills were the main categories.  Eminently predictable, not freakish at all.

 

Everyone in the universe thinks they can walk a trail. Most can of course, but some folks are idiots and make elementary mistakes. Slips and trips that just naturally go with a hike don’t count. Falls are never caused by the terrain, they are caused by stupidity. As usual, you are conflating climbing with hiking.  Health and weather conditions are freakish and can happen to anyone at any time. Getting lost seldom results in death. The only skill and equipment needed for a hike are two legs that work and a functioning brain. Reread my paragraph above to get a clue.

 

>> You persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in failing to accept that nature is not 'safe' .. irrespective of the activity.

 

Nature is almost 100% safe if you stay on the trail and look where you are going. Only idiots come to grief. On the other hand, very smart mountain bikers frequently come to grief because of what they are doing ... riding their bike on a hiking trail. No special dumbness is required other than the original dumbness of doing something you should not be doing.

 

> >> And, you are advocating displacing mountainbikers onto roads where

> their risk of serious injury and death is massively higher than on trails ... so

> don't lecture me on promoting risky activities.

>

> Bikers have to choose their roads carefully as not all roads

> are suitable for cycling. However, mountain bikes can be ridden on forestry fire

> roads and other primitive roads which pose little or no danger. Mountain bikers

> come to grief simply from hitting obstacles in the trail. This kind of stupidity

> passes all understanding.

 

>> Hikers also fall off cliffs, break bones tripping over rocks and get trapped due to weather.  Is that stupid too ??

 

Yes, hikers can be stupid, but nothing much ever happens to smart hikers. On the other hand, everything always happens to even smart bikers when they ride their bikes on hiking trails.

 

>> So, you know what, I will take a perfectly rational decision and decide to continue riding trails for all the reasons I've already outlined and because it is far safer than riding on the road.

 

>> For that very reason, I do allow my children to ride on trails ... I don't let them ride on the road.  A small error off road may result in a fall, bruises or, at worst, a broken bone.  A small error on the road, if in proximity to a car, can easily result in death.

 

There is nothing rational about wanting to do something that is dangerous. Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on trails. I wonder how you will react when one of your children meet an untimely death from cycling on a hiking trail. Will it have been worth it? Surely there are city streets and bike paths that are safe for your children to ride their bikes on. You are old enough to know better, but children never are. They are abysmally ignorant about everything under the sun and need your protection and guidance. You need to rethink what you are doing!

[Blackblade]

"Falls are never caused by the terrain" !!!!! In that case, why so many falls on trails in comparison with pavements ?

"Health and weather conditions are freakish and can happen to anyone at any time." Thank you ... some sense at last. And ... if you can force your brain to actually follow the logic rather than darting off elsewhere as usual ... what is the logical result of such a statement ? That there will be a lot more hiker deaths than pavement walkers ... because, to restate my point which you are now belatedly and probably unintentionally agreeing with, nature isn't safe. On a trail, you are frequently not able to get immediate aid so the consequences are far more serious.

> >> You persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in failing to
> accept that nature is not 'safe' .. irrespective of the activity.
>
> Nature is almost 100% safe if you stay on the trail and look
> where you are going. Only idiots come to grief. On the other hand, very smart
> mountain bikers frequently come to grief because of what they are doing ...
> riding their bike on a hiking trail. No special dumbness is required other than
> the original dumbness of doing something you should not be doing.

Nature is nowhere near 100% safe ... nothing in life is 100% safe and nature is a long way from that. Your premise that only idiots come to grief on the trails is not borne out by the data ... read the Mountain Rescue report ... loads of examples of people suffering a break because of tripping on terrain and then the situation is exacerbated because they cannot just call an ambulance and be driven immediately to the nearest hospital.

> > >> And, you are advocating displacing mountainbikers onto roads
> where
>
> > their risk of serious injury and death is massively higher than on
> trails ... so
>
> > don't lecture me on promoting risky activities.
>
> >
>
> > Bikers have to choose their roads carefully as not all roads
>
> > are suitable for cycling. However, mountain bikes can be ridden on
> forestry fire
>
> > roads and other primitive roads which pose little or no danger.
> Mountain bikers
>
> > come to grief simply from hitting obstacles in the trail. This kind of
> stupidity
>
> > passes all understanding.
>
>
>
> >> Hikers also fall off cliffs, break bones tripping over rocks and
> get trapped due to weather. Is that stupid too ??
>
> Yes, hikers can be stupid, but nothing much ever happens to
> smart hikers. On the other hand, everything always happens to even smart bikers
> when they ride their bikes on hiking trails.

Just plain wrong Ed. There is no data to support either of these hypotheses ...as you well know.

> >> So, you know what, I will take a perfectly rational decision and
> decide to continue riding trails for all the reasons I've already outlined and
> because it is far safer than riding on the road.
>
> >> For that very reason, I do allow my children to ride on trails ...
> I don't let them ride on the road. A small error off road may result in a
> fall, bruises or, at worst, a broken bone. A small error on the road, if
> in proximity to a car, can easily result in death.
>
> There is nothing rational about wanting to do something that
> is dangerous. Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on
> trails. I wonder how you will react when one of your children meet an untimely
> death from cycling on a hiking trail. Will it have been worth it? Surely there
> are city streets and bike paths that are safe for your children to ride their
> bikes on. You are old enough to know better, but children never are. They are
> abysmally ignorant about everything under the sun and need your protection and
> guidance. You need to rethink what you are doing!

"Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on trails" ... what total and utter nonsense. The data clearly shows that city streets are orders of magnitude more dangerous than trails for children. I am taking the path that minimises the risk to my children.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:b151cb0b-b10f-4bf2...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Everyone in the universe thinks they can walk a trail. Most

> can of course, but some folks are idiots and make elementary mistakes. Slips and

> trips that just naturally go with a hike don't count. Falls are never caused by

> the terrain, they are caused by stupidity. As usual, you are conflating climbing

> with hiking.  Health and weather conditions are freakish and can happen to

> anyone at any time. Getting lost seldom results in death. The only skill and

> equipment needed for a hike are two legs that work and a functioning brain.

> Reread my paragraph above to get a clue.

 

>> "Falls are never caused by the terrain" !!!!!  In that case, why so many falls on trails in comparison with pavements ?

 

There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the trail. Climbing is a different affair altogether.

 

>> "Health and weather conditions are freakish and can happen to anyone at any time."   Thank you ... some sense at last.  And ... if you can force your brain to actually follow the logic rather than darting off elsewhere as usual ... what is the logical result of such a statement ?  That there will be a lot more hiker deaths than pavement walkers ... because, to restate my point which you are now belatedly and probably unintentionally agreeing with, nature isn't safe.  On a trail, you are frequently not able to get immediate aid so the consequences are far more serious.

 

All too true, but what a hiker is doing is not stupid. What a biker is doing on IS stupid. It is why his kind of accidents and deaths are always the same – hitting an obstacle in the trail and doing a header over the handlebars. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

 

> >> You persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in failing to

> accept that nature is not 'safe' .. irrespective of the activity.

>

> Nature is almost 100% safe if you stay on the trail and look

> where you are going. Only idiots come to grief. On the other hand, very smart

> mountain bikers frequently come to grief because of what they are doing ...

> riding their bike on a hiking trail. No special dumbness is required other than

> the original dumbness of doing something you should not be doing.

 

>>> Nature is nowhere near 100% safe ... nothing in life is 100% safe and nature is a long way from that.  Your premise that only idiots come to grief on the trails is not borne out by the data ... read the Mountain Rescue report ... loads of examples of people suffering a break because of tripping on terrain and then the situation is exacerbated because they cannot just call an ambulance and be driven immediately to the nearest hospital.

 

Well, that used to be a worry of mine too in the good old days, but I think now everyone carries a cell phone. But the kind of accidents that befall hikers are the same as the kind of accidents that befall cyclists on roads, i.e., they are inherent to what you are doing and have been from time immemorial. They are not stupid accidents, although they can be caused by stupidity, but mountain biker accidents are sui generis stupid. They are caused by doing something that one should not be doing in the first instance. For example, I can have an accident riding my mountain bike on a gravel road, maybe because of my own stupidity, but it is not sui generis stupid. After all, I am riding my bike on a road which is what both the bike and road were designed for. That is not true of bikes on trails. A bike on a trail is like a fish out of water. A hiker walking a trail is doing what both the hiker and the trail were desgined for.

[...]

 

>> Yes, hikers can be stupid, but nothing much ever happens to

> smart hikers. On the other hand, everything always happens to even smart bikers

> when they ride their bikes on hiking trails.

 

>>> Just plain wrong Ed.  There is no data to support either of these hypotheses ...as you well know.

 

I only know what I read in the newspapers – and what my own experiences have taught me.

[...]

 

> There is nothing rational about wanting to do something that

> is dangerous. Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on

> trails. I wonder how you will react when one of your children meet an untimely

> death from cycling on a hiking trail. Will it have been worth it? Surely there

> are city streets and bike paths that are safe for your children to ride their

> bikes on. You are old enough to know better, but children never are. They are

> abysmally ignorant about everything under the sun and need your protection and

> guidance. You need to rethink what you are doing!

 

>>> "Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on trails" ... what total and utter nonsense.  The data clearly shows that city streets are orders of magnitude more dangerous than trails for children.  I am taking the path that minimises the risk to my children.

 

Children, unlike teenagers, have an inherent sense of danger, so the deaths are less, but I have several reports of 10 year old children meeting with death from biking on a trail. I will see if I can find them and post them here. Teenagers are into all kinds of foolishness and biking on trails fits right into that. They are very much at risk since they are being governed by their gonads and not their undeveloped brains.

 

Children should not be in the streets with cars ever. However teenagers will venture anywhere and everywhere. They need to learn how to ride in the streets. That is your job to teach them what is safe and what is unsafe. Flopping them off on trails is no answer to anything. They will ride in the streets – until they get a car and then they will never ride a bicycle again. It is the way of the world.

[Blackblade]

> > Everyone in the universe thinks they can walk a trail. Most
>
> > can of course, but some folks are idiots and make elementary mistakes.
> Slips and
>
> > trips that just naturally go with a hike don't count. Falls are never
> caused by
>
> > the terrain, they are caused by stupidity. As usual, you are
> conflating climbing
>
> > with hiking. Health and weather conditions are freakish and can
> happen to
>
> > anyone at any time. Getting lost seldom results in death. The only
> skill and
>
> > equipment needed for a hike are two legs that work and a functioning
> brain.
>
> > Reread my paragraph above to get a clue.
>
>
>
> >> "Falls are never caused by the terrain" !!!!! In that case,
> why so many falls on trails in comparison with pavements ?
>
> There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the
> trail. Climbing is a different affair altogether.

Sometimes I am astounded at the rubbish you write. "There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the trail" !!!!! Really ????

Since people manage to fall over on level pavements are you really trying to claim that a rough, rock-strewn trail has no higher level of risk ?

> >> "Health and weather conditions are freakish and can happen to
> anyone at any time." Thank you ... some sense at last. And ...
> if you can force your brain to actually follow the logic rather than darting off
> elsewhere as usual ... what is the logical result of such a statement ?
> That there will be a lot more hiker deaths than pavement walkers ... because, to
> restate my point which you are now belatedly and probably unintentionally
> agreeing with, nature isn't safe. On a trail, you are frequently not able
> to get immediate aid so the consequences are far more serious.
>
> All too true, but what a hiker is doing is not stupid. What a
> biker is doing on IS stupid. It is why his kind of accidents and deaths are

> always the same - hitting an obstacle in the trail and doing a header over the
> handlebars. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Why is the hiker not also stupid by your logic ? Neither the hiker nor the biker needs to be there. They are accepting a higher level of risk than would pertain walking a pavement. When the hiker trips over a root or rock on the trail and breaks his/her ankle ... stupid stupid stupid !

Or, why don't you admit that there is no logic to your position whatsoever; choosing to ride a trail is no more stupid than choosing to hike it. Both inherently involve a degree of risk (yes, I accept slightly higher for the biker but not very much) that you don't have to accept if you eschew the activity.

What do you think a mountainbike is designed for Ed ? Now who's being stupid ?

Mountainbikes were specifically designed to deal with the obstacles encountered on trails.

So, yes, if one chose to go hiking in street shoes on a rough trail one could be called stupid. If one chose to take a road bike on a rough trail one could be called stupid. But taking a mountainbike into the environment for which it was explicitly designed is no more stupid than donning walking boots.

> >> Yes, hikers can be stupid, but nothing much ever happens to
>
> > smart hikers. On the other hand, everything always happens to even
> smart bikers
>
> > when they ride their bikes on hiking trails.
>
> >>> Just plain wrong Ed. There is no data to support either
> of these hypotheses ...as you well know.
>

> I only know what I read in the newspapers - and what my own
> experiences have taught me.

"everything always happens to even smart bikers". Guess what Ed ... we are not all dead from serious accidents ... so your reading and experience is clearly wrong.

> > There is nothing rational about wanting to do something that
>
> > is dangerous. Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from
> cycling on
>
> > trails. I wonder how you will react when one of your children meet an
> untimely
>
> > death from cycling on a hiking trail. Will it have been worth it?
> Surely there
>
> > are city streets and bike paths that are safe for your children to
> ride their
>
> > bikes on. You are old enough to know better, but children never are.
> They are
>
> > abysmally ignorant about everything under the sun and need your
> protection and
>
> > guidance. You need to rethink what you are doing!
>
> >>> "Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on
> trails" ... what total and utter nonsense. The data clearly shows that
> city streets are orders of magnitude more dangerous than trails for
> children. I am taking the path that minimises the risk to my
> children.
>
> Children, unlike teenagers, have an inherent sense of danger,
> so the deaths are less, but I have several reports of 10 year old children
> meeting with death from biking on a trail. I will see if I can find them and
> post them here.

You have several reports ... I'm sure you do ... but you didn't say that there are SOME tragic accidents ... you said children REGULARLY meet with the grim reaper. You have no data to backup that proposition whatsoever and should withdraw it.

> Children should not be in the streets with cars ever. However
> teenagers will venture anywhere and everywhere. They need to learn how to ride
> in the streets. That is your job to teach them what is safe and what is unsafe.
> Flopping them off on trails is no answer to anything. They will ride in the

> streets - until they get a car and then they will never ride a bicycle again. It

> is the way of the world.

So which is it Ed ? You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Should I teach my children to ride on the streets or should they never be in the streets with cars ever ? Unless and until the streets are empty of cars riding them involves sharing the roadspace with cars.

So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road and they will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives and stay fit and healthy.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:1e2e2df4-7de3-4d14...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the

> trail. Climbing is a different affair altogether.

 

>> Sometimes I am astounded at the rubbish you write.  "There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the trail" !!!!!  Really ????

 

>> Since people manage to fall over on level pavements are you really trying to claim that a rough, rock-strewn trail has no higher level of risk ?

 

A trip here and there will not result in a serious injury to a hiker whereas a fall on a bike will.

 

> >> "Health and weather conditions are freakish and can happen to

> anyone at any time."   Thank you ... some sense at last.  And ...

> if you can force your brain to actually follow the logic rather than darting off

> elsewhere as usual ... what is the logical result of such a statement ? 

> That there will be a lot more hiker deaths than pavement walkers ... because, to

> restate my point which you are now belatedly and probably unintentionally

> agreeing with, nature isn't safe.  On a trail, you are frequently not able

> to get immediate aid so the consequences are far more serious.

>

> All too true, but what a hiker is doing is not stupid. What a

> biker is doing IS stupid. It is why his kind of accidents and deaths are

> always the same - hitting an obstacle in the trail and doing a header over the

> handlebars. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

 

>> Why is the hiker not also stupid by your logic ?  Neither the hiker nor the biker needs to be there.  They are accepting a higher level of risk than would pertain walking a pavement.  When the hiker trips over a root or rock on the trail and breaks his/her ankle ... stupid stupid stupid !

 

>> Or, why don't you admit that there is no logic to your position whatsoever; choosing to ride a trail is no more stupid than choosing to hike it.  Both inherently involve a degree of risk (yes, I accept slightly higher for the biker but not very much) that you don't have to accept if you eschew the activity.

 

Hiker accidents on trails are not serious. They are trivial. That is not true of biker accidents on trails.

[...]

 

> >>> Nature is nowhere near 100% safe ... nothing in life is 100%

> safe and nature is a long way from that.  Your premise that only idiots

> come to grief on the trails is not borne out by the data ... read the Mountain

> Rescue report ... loads of examples of people suffering a break because of

> tripping on terrain and then the situation is exacerbated because they cannot

> just call an ambulance and be driven immediately to the nearest hospital.

>

> Well, that used to be a worry of mine too in the good old

> days, but I think now everyone carries a cell phone. But the kind of accidents

> that befall hikers are the same as the kind of accidents that befall cyclists on

> roads, i.e., they are inherent to what you are doing and have been from time

> immemorial. They are not stupid accidents, although they can be caused by

> stupidity, but mountain biker accidents are sui generis stupid. They are caused

> by doing something that one should not be doing in the first instance. For

> example, I can have an accident riding my mountain bike on a gravel road, maybe

> because of my own stupidity, but it is not sui generis stupid. After all, I am

> riding my bike on a road which is what both the bike and road were designed for.

> That is not true of bikes on trails. A bike on a trail is like a fish out of

> water. A hiker walking a trail is doing what both the hiker and the trail were

> desgined for.

 

>> What do you think a mountainbike is designed for Ed ?  Now who's being stupid ?

 

>> Mountainbikes were specifically designed to deal with the obstacles encountered on trails.

 

>> So, yes, if one chose to go hiking in street shoes on a rough trail one could be called stupid.  If one chose to take a road bike on a rough trail one could be called stupid.  But taking a mountainbike into the environment for which it was explicitly designed is no more stupid than donning walking boots.

 

Just because some some morons “designed” a bike for trails, and other morons like you decide to ride trails, does not mean they really work well on trails. But even if they did, that doesn't to go to the core of my argument of why bikes need to be banned from ALL hiking trails.

[...]

 

> >>> "Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from cycling on

> trails" ... what total and utter nonsense.  The data clearly shows that

> city streets are orders of magnitude more dangerous than trails for

> children.  I am taking the path that minimises the risk to my

> children.

>

> Children, unlike teenagers, have an inherent sense of danger,

> so the deaths are less, but I have several reports of 10 year old children

> meeting with death from biking on a trail. I will see if I can find them and

> post them here.

 

>> You have several reports ... I'm sure you do ... but you didn't say that there are SOME tragic accidents ... you said children REGULARLY meet with the grim reaper.  You have no data to backup that proposition whatsoever and should withdraw it.

 

Any parent that allows his children to ride a bike on a hiking trail should suffer the loss of the child to paralysis or death. Admittedly, teenagers cannot be controlled.and will do stupid things despite the best parenting.

 

> Children should not be in the streets with cars ever. However

> teenagers will venture anywhere and everywhere. They need to learn how to ride

> in the streets. That is your job to teach them what is safe and what is unsafe.

> Flopping them off on trails is no answer to anything. They will ride in the

> streets - until they get a car and then they will never ride a bicycle again. It

> is the way of the world.

 

>> So which is it Ed ?  You contradict yourself in the same paragraph.  Should I teach my children to ride on the streets or should they never be in the streets with cars ever ?  Unless and until the streets are empty of cars riding them involves sharing the roadspace with cars.

 

>> So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road and they will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives and stay fit and healthy.

 

You deserve to have your children suffer paralysis or death from your foolishness. Your kind of dumbness passes all comprehension.

[Blackblade]

> > There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the
>
> > trail. Climbing is a different affair altogether.
>
> >> Sometimes I am astounded at the rubbish you write. "There is
> no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the trail" !!!!! Really
> ????
>
> >> Since people manage to fall over on level pavements are you really
> trying to claim that a rough, rock-strewn trail has no higher level of risk
> ?
>
> A trip here and there will not result in a serious injury to a
> hiker whereas a fall on a bike will.

That's not what you said Ed. You said "There is no danger of a fall provided a hiker stays on the trail". That's total and utter rubbish and you should retract it.

Then why are there MORE hiker fatalities than bikers Ed ? Death doesn't sound trivial to me.

No, it doesn't go to the core of your argument. But your core argument is completely flawed. It's not an argument at all in fact, it's simply a statement of your opinion which, as you previously admitted, means nothing.

You have yet to come up with a rational reason to suggest that one recreation, hiking, should be universally preferred to another, mountainbiking. Remember, as you said, opinions don't count ... it's rational arguments that do.

> > >>> "Children regularly meet with the grim reaper from
> cycling on
>
> > trails" ... what total and utter nonsense. The data clearly
> shows that
>
> > city streets are orders of magnitude more dangerous than trails for
>
>
> > children. I am taking the path that minimises the risk to my
>
>
> > children.
>
> >
>
> > Children, unlike teenagers, have an inherent sense of danger,
>
> > so the deaths are less, but I have several reports of 10 year old
> children
>
> > meeting with death from biking on a trail. I will see if I can find
> them and
>
> > post them here.
>
> >> You have several reports ... I'm sure you do ... but you didn't
> say that there are SOME tragic accidents ... you said children REGULARLY meet
> with the grim reaper. You have no data to backup that proposition
> whatsoever and should withdraw it.
>
> Any parent that allows his children to ride a bike on a hiking
> trail should suffer the loss of the child to paralysis or death. Admittedly,
> teenagers cannot be controlled.and will do stupid things despite the best
> parenting.

That's it ... you are way over the line. No parent should ever suffer the loss of a child and any sociopath who thinks it's acceptable to opine otherwise deserves to die in serious pain.

> > Children should not be in the streets with cars ever. However
>
> > teenagers will venture anywhere and everywhere. They need to learn how
> to ride
>
> > in the streets. That is your job to teach them what is safe and what
> is unsafe.
>
> > Flopping them off on trails is no answer to anything. They will ride
> in the
>
> > streets - until they get a car and then they will never ride a bicycle
> again. It
>
> > is the way of the world.
>
> >> So which is it Ed ? You contradict yourself in the same
> paragraph. Should I teach my children to ride on the streets or should
> they never be in the streets with cars ever ? Unless and until the streets
> are empty of cars riding them involves sharing the roadspace with cars.
>
> >> So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road and they
> will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives and stay fit and
> healthy.
>
> You deserve to have your children suffer paralysis or death
> from your foolishness. Your kind of dumbness passes all
> comprehension.

If you think it's appropriate to suggest to a parent that their children die then you are so far removed from decent society that you should be taken out and shot like the rabid dog that you are.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:0109037e-63fb-4c25...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Hiker accidents on trails are not serious. They are trivial.

> That is not true of biker accidents on trails.

 

>> Then why are there MORE hiker fatalities than bikers Ed ?  Death doesn't sound trivial to me.

 

That can’t be true unless hikers outnumber bikers 1000 to 1.

[...]

 

> Just because some some morons "designed" a bike for trails,

> and other morons like you decide to ride trails, does not mean they really work

> well on trails. But even if they did, that doesn't to go to the core of my

> argument of why bikes need to be banned from ALL hiking trails.

 

>> No, it doesn't go to the core of your argument.  But your core argument is completely flawed.  It's not an argument at all in fact, it's simply a statement of your opinion which, as you previously admitted, means nothing.

 

>> You have yet to come up with a rational reason to suggest that one recreation, hiking, should be universally preferred to another, mountainbiking.  Remember, as you said, opinions don't count ... it's rational arguments that do.

 

Until you can resolve the irreconcilable conflict that exists between hikers and bikers on trails both as to means and purpose, your so-called rationality is as flawed as you are. Try to get focused if that is even remotely possible.

[...]

 

> Any parent that allows his children to ride a bike on a hiking

> trail should suffer the loss of the child to paralysis or death. Admittedly,

> teenagers cannot be controlled.and will do stupid things despite the best

> parenting.

 

>> That's it ... you are way over the line.  No parent should ever suffer the loss of a child and any sociopath who thinks it's acceptable to opine otherwise deserves to die in serious pain.

 

The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and when you kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don’t come crying to me. After all, I told you so!

[...]

 

> >> So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road and they

> will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives and stay fit and

> healthy.

>

> You deserve to have your children suffer paralysis or death

> from your foolishness. Your kind of dumbness passes all

> comprehension.

 

>> If you think it's appropriate to suggest to a parent that their children die then you are so far removed from decent society that you should be taken out and shot like the rabid dog that you are.

 

“The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and when you kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don’t come crying to me. After all, I told you so!” – Ed Dolan

[EdwardDolan]

"Phil W Lee"  wrote in message news:vtnv4a5437fat3qbr...@4ax.com...

 

Blackblade <mcole...@gmail.com> considered Tue, 28 Oct 2014

02:30:15 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

[...]

 

>If you think it's appropriate to suggest to a parent that their children die then you are so far removed from decent society that you should be taken out and shot like the rabid dog that you are.

 

>> Far too quick.

He should expire over a period of days or weeks, stranded on one of

his precious trails with a broken leg and no cellphone coverage.

 

>> Of course, we expect him to refuse aid from any passing cyclist, on a

matter of principle.

 

Blackblade is the only potential child killer here, and if you are also encouraging biking on hiking trails, then you are a potential child killer too. I, on the other hand, am as pure as the driven snow. After all, what I am doing is simply warning about the dangers of biking on hiking trails. It is just part of My being a Great Saint.

 

What is truly funny is that Blackblade won’t care much if he breaks his leg (or his head) riding his bike on a hiking trail, but he does seem to mind if the same thing were to happen to his children. If he were consistent, he would expect the same for everybody who does what he does. Like I said, very funny character, this Blackblade!

[Blackblade]

> > Hiker accidents on trails are not serious. They are trivial.
> > That is not true of biker accidents on trails.
>
> >> Then why are there MORE hiker fatalities than bikers Ed ?
> Death doesn't sound trivial to me.
>
> That can't be true unless hikers outnumber bikers 1000 to
> 1.

Facts are facts Ed ... deal with them. There are MORE hiker fatalities reported on google than mountainbiking ones. And, given that there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone there clearly can't be 1,000 hikers for every biker.

> > Just because some some morons "designed" a bike for trails,
> > and other morons like you decide to ride trails, does not mean they
> really work
> > well on trails. But even if they did, that doesn't to go to the core
> of my
> > argument of why bikes need to be banned from ALL hiking trails.
>
> >> No, it doesn't go to the core of your argument. But your
> core argument is completely flawed. It's not an argument at all in fact,
> it's simply a statement of your opinion which, as you previously admitted, means
> nothing.
>
> >> You have yet to come up with a rational reason to suggest that one
> recreation, hiking, should be universally preferred to another,
> mountainbiking. Remember, as you said, opinions don't count ... it's
> rational arguments that do.
>
> Until you can resolve the irreconcilable conflict that exists
> between hikers and bikers on trails both as to means and purpose, your so-called
> rationality is as flawed as you are. Try to get focused if that is even remotely
> possible.

There is no irreconcilable conflict Ed. You don't speak for all hikers ... you just speak for yourself and a small number of similar zealots.

> > Any parent that allows his children to ride a bike on a hiking
> > trail should suffer the loss of the child to paralysis or death.
> Admittedly,
> > teenagers cannot be controlled.and will do stupid things despite the
> best
> > parenting.
>
> >> That's it ... you are way over the line. No parent should
> ever suffer the loss of a child and any sociopath who thinks it's acceptable to
> opine otherwise deserves to die in serious pain.
>
> The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and when you
> kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don't come crying to
> me. After all, I told you so!

You are a sociopath. Get help.

> > >> So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road and
> they
>
> > will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives and
> stay fit and
>
> > healthy.
>
> >
>
> > You deserve to have your children suffer paralysis or death
>
> > from your foolishness. Your kind of dumbness passes all
>
> > comprehension.
>
>
>
> >> If you think it's appropriate to suggest to a parent that their
> children die then you are so far removed from decent society that you should be
> taken out and shot like the rabid dog that you are.
>
> "The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and
> when you kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don't come

> crying to me. After all, I told you so!" - Ed Dolan

You are a sociopath. Get help.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:62d019c4-673a-42fb...@googlegroups.com...

 

> > Hiker accidents on trails are not serious. They are trivial.

> > That is not true of biker accidents on trails.

>

> >> Then why are there MORE hiker fatalities than bikers Ed ? 

> Death doesn't sound trivial to me.

>

> That can't be true unless hikers outnumber bikers 1000 to

> 1.

 

>>>> Facts are facts Ed ... deal with them.  There are MORE hiker fatalities reported on google than mountainbiking ones.  And, given that there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone there clearly can't be 1,000 hikers for every biker.

 

I suspect there are 10,000 hikers for every biker.

 

> > Just because some some morons "designed" a bike for trails,

> > and other morons like you decide to ride trails, does not mean they

> really work

> > well on trails. But even if they did, that doesn't to go to the core

> of my

> > argument of why bikes need to be banned from ALL hiking trails.

>

> >> No, it doesn't go to the core of your argument.  But your

> core argument is completely flawed.  It's not an argument at all in fact,

> it's simply a statement of your opinion which, as you previously admitted, means

> nothing.

>

> >> You have yet to come up with a rational reason to suggest that one

> recreation, hiking, should be universally preferred to another,

> mountainbiking.  Remember, as you said, opinions don't count ... it's

> rational arguments that do.

>

> Until you can resolve the irreconcilable conflict that exists

> between hikers and bikers on trails both as to means and purpose, your so-called

> rationality is as flawed as you are. Try to get focused if that is even remotely

> possible.

 

>>>> There is no irreconcilable conflict Ed.  You don't speak for all hikers ... you just speak for yourself and a small number of similar zealots.

 

I am speaking for all serious hikers. You are speaking for all moronic bikers.

 

> > Any parent that allows his children to ride a bike on a hiking

> > trail should suffer the loss of the child to paralysis or death.

> Admittedly,

> > teenagers cannot be controlled.and will do stupid things despite the

> best

> > parenting.

>

> >> That's it ... you are way over the line.  No parent should

> ever suffer the loss of a child and any sociopath who thinks it's acceptable to

> opine otherwise deserves to die in serious pain.

>

> The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and when you

> kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don't come crying to

> me. After all, I told you so!

 

>>>> You are a sociopath.  Get help.

 

You don’t care if children kill themselves biking on hiking trails ... as long as they are not your children. Hypocrite!

 

> > >> So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road and

> they

>

> > will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives and

> stay fit and

>

> > healthy.

>

> >

>

> > You deserve to have your children suffer paralysis or death

>

> > from your foolishness. Your kind of dumbness passes all

>

> > comprehension.

>

> 

>

> >> If you think it's appropriate to suggest to a parent that their

> children die then you are so far removed from decent society that you should be

> taken out and shot like the rabid dog that you are.

>

> "The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and

> when you kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don't come

> crying to me. After all, I told you so!" - Ed Dolan

 

>>>> You are a sociopath.  Get help.

 

“You don’t care if children kill themselves biking on hiking trails ... as long as they are not your children. Hypocrite!” – Ed Dolan

[Blackblade]

> > > Hiker accidents on trails are not serious. They are trivial.
>
>
> > > That is not true of biker accidents on trails.
>
> >
>
> > >> Then why are there MORE hiker fatalities than bikers Ed
> ?
>
> > Death doesn't sound trivial to me.
>
> >
>
> > That can't be true unless hikers outnumber bikers 1000 to
>
> > 1.
>
>
>
> >>>> Facts are facts Ed ... deal with them. There are
> MORE hiker fatalities reported on google than mountainbiking ones. And,
> given that there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone there clearly
> can't be 1,000 hikers for every biker.
>
> I suspect there are 10,000 hikers for every
> biker.

You suspected that there were between 100,000 and 1,000,000 when you wrote your idiotic post in another thread. In both cases you're talking nonsense since there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone ... therefore requiring there to be 500 BILLION hikers for your statement to be correct. Idiot.

No, you're not. Idiot. There are millions of hikers in the world, including me, and you've interacted with a tiny and not statistically significant minority.

I speak for no-one but myself.

> > > Any parent that allows his children to ride a bike on a hiking
> > > trail should suffer the loss of the child to paralysis or death.

> > Admittedly,
>
> > > teenagers cannot be controlled.and will do stupid things despite
> the
>
> > best
>
> > > parenting.
>
> >
>
> > >> That's it ... you are way over the line. No parent
> should
>
> > ever suffer the loss of a child and any sociopath who thinks it's
> acceptable to
>
> > opine otherwise deserves to die in serious pain.
>
> >
>
> > The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and when you
>
> > kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things, don't come
> crying to
>
> > me. After all, I told you so!
>
>
>
> >>>> You are a sociopath. Get help.
>
> You don't care if children kill themselves biking on hiking
> trails ... as long as they are not your children. Hypocrite!

Don't try and put words in my mouth. To live is to accept a degree of risk; all parents know that. We try and mitigate the risk as much as possible.

You are a sociopath because you WANT it to happen.

> > > >> So, I will teach them to ride much more safely off road
> and
>
> > they
>
> >
>
> > > will be able to enjoy the natural environment their whole lives
> and
>
> > stay fit and
>
> >
>
> > > healthy.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You deserve to have your children suffer paralysis or death
>
>
> >
>
> > > from your foolishness. Your kind of dumbness passes all
>
> >
>
> > > comprehension.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> If you think it's appropriate to suggest to a parent that
> their
>
> > children die then you are so far removed from decent society that you
> should be
>
> > taken out and shot like the rabid dog that you are.
>
> >
>
> > "The only screwball over the line is yourself. If and
>
> > when you kill your children by encouraging them to do stupid things,
> don't come
>
> > crying to me. After all, I told you so!" - Ed Dolan
>
> >>>> You are a sociopath. Get help.
>
> "You don't care if children kill themselves biking on

> hiking trails ... as long as they are not your children. Hypocrite!" - Ed
> Dolan

You are a sociopath because you want it to happen.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:3ba7cfb6-8368-43ad...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

>> I suspect there are 10,000 hikers for every

> biker.

 

>>> You suspected that there were between 100,000 and 1,000,000 when you wrote your idiotic post in another thread.  In both cases you're talking nonsense since there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone ... therefore requiring there to be 500 BILLION hikers for your statement to be correct.  Idiot.

 

I am Bugs Bunny and you are Elmer Fudd.

[...]

 

> You don't care if children kill themselves biking on hiking

> trails ... as long as they are not your children. Hypocrite!

 

>>> Don't try and put words in my mouth.  To live is to accept a degree of risk; all parents know that.  We try and mitigate the risk as much as possible.

 

>>> You are a sociopath because you WANT it to happen.

 

To tell you the truth I wouldn’t mind it if happened to you because you should know better. But the worst thing you are doing is encouraging your children to bike on hiking trails. Your children deserve better than that because they were born innocent of your idiotic ideas. Why not turn them over to their mother who may have a proper concern for their safety. You are a bankrupt in the department of morality.

[Blackblade]

> >> I suspect there are 10,000 hikers for every
> > biker.
>
> >>> You suspected that there were between 100,000 and 1,000,000
> when you wrote your idiotic post in another thread. In both cases you're
> talking nonsense since there are 50 million mountainbikers in the US alone ...
> therefore requiring there to be 500 BILLION hikers for your statement to be
> correct. Idiot.
>
> I am Bugs Bunny and you are Elmer Fudd.

No, I think Bugs Bunny can count and do basic maths - unlike you.

> > You don't care if children kill themselves biking on hiking
> > trails ... as long as they are not your children. Hypocrite!
>
> >>> Don't try and put words in my mouth. To live is to
> accept a degree of risk; all parents know that. We try and mitigate the
> risk as much as possible.
>
> >>> You are a sociopath because you WANT it to happen.
>
> To tell you the truth I wouldn't mind it if happened to you
> because you should know better. But the worst thing you are doing is encouraging
> your children to bike on hiking trails. Your children deserve better than that
> because they were born innocent of your idiotic ideas. Why not turn them over to
> their mother who may have a proper concern for their safety. You are a bankrupt
> in the department of morality.

How is it immoral to have them undertake a LESS RISKY activity (mountainbiking) instead of a MORE RISKY one (road cycling) ?

Stop pretending you care one iota; you don't care whether riding on the road is riskier or not, you simply want what you want and sod everyone else.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:75ea1e72-d7e7-4152...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> I am Bugs Bunny and you are Elmer Fudd.

 

>> No, I think Bugs Bunny can count and do basic maths - unlike you.

 

It is what the numbers mean that count.

[...]

 

> To tell you the truth I wouldn't mind it if happened to you

> because you should know better. But the worst thing you are doing is encouraging

> your children to bike on hiking trails. Your children deserve better than that

> because they were born innocent of your idiotic ideas. Why not turn them over to

> their mother who may have a proper concern for their safety. You are a bankrupt

> in the department of morality.

 

>> How is it immoral to have them undertake a LESS RISKY activity (mountainbiking) instead of a MORE RISKY one (road cycling) ?

 

You have got it exactly backwards. Kids should not be on high speed highways of course, but most city streets are safe – and kids will ride them whether you like it or not.

 

>> Stop pretending you care one iota; you don't care whether riding on the road is riskier or not, you simply want what you want and sod everyone else.

 

Riding on the road may well be somewhat risky, but that is what bicycles were designed to do from the very beginning. Riding bikes on trails is a recent phenomenon and quite a bit more dangerous. I am a great advocate of bike trails as being the safest way to ride. But a hiking trail is NOT a bike trail.

[Blackblade]

> > I am Bugs Bunny and you are Elmer Fudd.
>
> >> No, I think Bugs Bunny can count and do basic maths - unlike
> you.
>
> It is what the numbers mean that count.

Indeed it is. And what the numbers mean is that you are, yet again, provably wrong because there are not sufficient people in the whole world for your statement to be true.

> > To tell you the truth I wouldn't mind it if happened to you
> > because you should know better. But the worst thing you are doing is
> encouraging
> > your children to bike on hiking trails. Your children deserve better
> than that
> > because they were born innocent of your idiotic ideas. Why not turn
> them over to
> > their mother who may have a proper concern for their safety. You are a
> bankrupt
> > in the department of morality.
>
> >> How is it immoral to have them undertake a LESS RISKY activity
> (mountainbiking) instead of a MORE RISKY one (road cycling) ?
>
> You have got it exactly backwards. Kids should not be on high

> speed highways of course, but most city streets are safe - and kids will ride

> them whether you like it or not.
>
> >> Stop pretending you care one iota; you don't care whether riding
> on the road is riskier or not, you simply want what you want and sod everyone
> else.
>
> Riding on the road may well be somewhat risky, but that is
> what bicycles were designed to do from the very beginning. Riding bikes on
> trails is a recent phenomenon and quite a bit more dangerous. I am a great
> advocate of bike trails as being the safest way to ride. But a hiking trail is
> NOT a bike trail.

No, Ed, you're stating quite the contrary to what all media reports and data show. There are an order of magnitude higher serious and fatal accidents on the road than on the trail. The road, with the presence of 1-2 ton vehicles travelling at much higher speeds than bikes or people means that accidents are a lot more serious.

In my area 35 cyclists have died on the roads in the last five years. There has been 1 trail fatality ... and he suffered a heart attack.

But, as ever, you will ignore this because your fundamental intention is not to get to the truth, or to discuss rationally ... you just want to portray mountainbiking as highly dangerous so that you have some patina of respectability and logic to cover your anti-mountainbike sociopathy.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:90dab779-6a46-4e2e...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Riding on the road may well be somewhat risky, but that is

> what bicycles were designed to do from the very beginning. Riding bikes on

> trails is a recent phenomenon and quite a bit more dangerous. I am a great

> advocate of bike trails as being the safest way to ride. But a hiking trail is

> NOT a bike trail.

 

>> No, Ed, you're stating quite the contrary to what all media reports and data show.  There are an order of magnitude higher serious and fatal accidents on the road than on the trail.  The road, with the presence of 1-2 ton vehicles travelling at much higher speeds than bikes or people means that accidents are a lot more serious.

 

>> In my area 35 cyclists have died on the roads in the last five years.  There has been 1 trail fatality ... and he suffered a heart attack.

 

>> But, as ever, you will ignore this because your fundamental intention is not to get to the truth, or to discuss rationally ... you just want to portray mountainbiking as highly dangerous so that you have some patina of respectability and logic to cover your anti-mountainbike sociopathy.

 

I will give you that cycling on roads is fairly dangerous, but that is what bikes were designed to do from the beginning. Even so cycling on hiking trails is also dangerous as the media reports attest.

 

Mr. Vandeman is opposed to cycling on hiking trails for good and sufficient reasons of his own. My one and only complaint about the matter is that cyclists ruin trails for me. They are doing a sport and I am doing a contemplation of nature. I want to connect with something primeval. I am trying to connect with reasons which go to my explanation for life and for my being on this planet. Your grandfather would understand what I am doing. When I am hiking in the wilderness I am essentially in a religious mode. I am seeking God even though I know He does not exist. How does this compare to what you are doing?

 

I think you are almost on the point of understanding why anyone would undertake a hike except to try to connect to something primeval. Your sport has no place here.                         

[Blackblade]

> > Riding on the road may well be somewhat risky, but that is
> > what bicycles were designed to do from the very beginning. Riding
> bikes on
> > trails is a recent phenomenon and quite a bit more dangerous. I am a
> great
> > advocate of bike trails as being the safest way to ride. But a hiking
> trail is
> > NOT a bike trail.
>
> >> No, Ed, you're stating quite the contrary to what all media
> reports and data show.  There are an order of magnitude higher serious and
> fatal accidents on the road than on the trail.  The road, with the presence
> of 1-2 ton vehicles travelling at much higher speeds than bikes or people means
> that accidents are a lot more serious.
>
> >> In my area 35 cyclists have died on the roads in the last five
> years.  There has been 1 trail fatality ... and he suffered a heart
> attack.
>
> >> But, as ever, you will ignore this because your fundamental
> intention is not to get to the truth, or to discuss rationally ... you just want
> to portray mountainbiking as highly dangerous so that you have some patina of
> respectability and logic to cover your anti-mountainbike sociopathy.
>
> I will give you that cycling on roads is fairly dangerous, but
> that is what bikes were designed to do from the beginning. Even so cycling on
> hiking trails is also dangerous as the media reports attest.

Nothing in this life is 'safe' ... safety doesn't exist in an absolute sense anywhere. Mark Shand died falling over on a sidewalk and thousands die every year falling over in the shower or down the stairs.

According to your precious media reports more people die hiking than mountainbiking.

However, mountainbiking is relatively safe at 1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures and an order of magnitude less dangerous than riding on the road.

> Mr. Vandeman is opposed to cycling on hiking trails for good
> and sufficient reasons of his own.

And I should care what a convicted criminal and sociopath thinks why ??

> My one and only complaint about the matter is
> that cyclists ruin trails for me.

Exactly ... I get it fully ... you really don't like bikes being there. However, that is not and cannot be a rationale to thereby ban everyone else from the trails just so as not to upset your experience.

Just think what the implications would be if this was a valid objection; there would be no more music, sport, films or gays ... because all of those things really upset some people who view them as profane.

I'm prepared to compromise and agree that some trails are 'quiet' and for those who wish to contemplate nature in the way that you enjoy ... but to expect to annexe the entire trails network is frankly ridiculous.

> They are doing a sport and I am doing a
> contemplation of nature. I want to connect with something primeval. I am trying
> to connect with reasons which go to my explanation for life and for my being on
> this planet.

I I I. Why is your contemplation of nature more laudable than others enjoyment of a sport (and not everyone riding a mountainbike is actually doing so for sport ... some view it simply as an alternative means of getting into nature) ?

You are still undertaking a recreation because you want to, not because you have to ... and are seeking to prioritise your wishes over all others.

> I think you are almost on the point of understanding why
> anyone would undertake a hike except to try to connect to something primeval.
> Your sport has no place
> here.                         

I understand the desire for an extinction of self and the contemplation of something perceived as absolute against the ephemeral. What I don't understand, not even a little bit, is why you think that this should entitle you to the entire trails network.

Family groups aren't doing what you're doing. Trail runners aren't doing what you're doing. Equestrians aren't doing what you're doing.

I'm sorry, you can have some of the trails network for your quiet contemplation but not the whole lot.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:f0144c0b-c2da-4142...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> I will give you that cycling on roads is fairly dangerous, but

> that is what bikes were designed to do from the beginning. Even so cycling on

> hiking trails is also dangerous as the media reports attest.

 

>>> Nothing in this life is 'safe' ... safety doesn't exist in an absolute sense anywhere.  Mark Shand died falling over on a sidewalk and thousands die every year falling over in the shower or down the stairs.

 

>>> According to your precious media reports more people die hiking than mountainbiking.

 

>>> However, mountainbiking is relatively safe at 1.54 injuries per 1,000 exposures and an order of magnitude less dangerous than riding on the road.

 

Considerations of safety depend on what is being compared.  Mountain biking is much more dangerous than walking on a sidewalk if allowances are made for age differences and other relevant factors such as infirmity. The same holds true for hiking vs. mountain biking. Simply no comparison!   

 

 

> Mr. Vandeman is opposed to cycling on hiking trails for good

> and sufficient reasons of his own.

 

>>> And I should care what a convicted criminal and sociopath thinks why ??

 

I consider you a criminal and a sociopath (that is what all mountain bikers are) which is why I don’t give a damn what you think.

 

> My one and only complaint about the matter is

> that cyclists ruin trails for me.

 

>>> Exactly ... I get it fully ... you really don't like bikes being there.  However, that is not and cannot be a rationale to thereby ban everyone else from the trails just so as not to upset your experience.

 

My experience is the universal reason why people walk on trails in a natural setting.    

 

>>> Just think what the implications would be if this was a valid objection; there would be no more music, sport, films or gays ... because all of those things really upset some people who view them as profane.

 

Every activity and interest has its reason for being. If it can be shared by others not so committed, that is fine, but if it can’t be shared because of inherent conflict, then it need not be shared.

 

>>> I'm prepared to compromise and agree that some trails are 'quiet' and for those who wish to contemplate nature in the way that you enjoy ... but to expect to annexe the entire trails network is frankly ridiculous.

 

Alll trails used by hikers need to be for hikers only. Bikers need to get their own trails.

 

> They are doing a sport and I am doing a

> contemplation of nature. I want to connect with something primeval. I am trying

> to connect with reasons which go to my explanation for life and for my being on

> this planet.

 

>>> I I I.  Why is your contemplation of nature more laudable than others enjoyment of a sport (and not everyone riding a mountainbike is actually doing so for sport ... some view it simply as an alternative means of getting into nature) ?

 

We all know by now what bikers are doing on trails. They are engaging in a sport and have zero interest in any contemplation of nature.

 

>>> You are still undertaking a recreation because you want to, not because you have to ... and are seeking to prioritise your wishes over all others.

 

Not all recreations are equal. Some are far superior to others and should be promoted by a civilized society as contributing to the public good.

 

> I think you are almost on the point of understanding why

> anyone would undertake a hike except to try to connect to something primeval.

> Your sport has no place

> here.                         

 

>>> I understand the desire for an extinction of self and the contemplation of something perceived as absolute against the ephemeral.  What I don't understand, not even a little bit, is why you think that this should entitle you to the entire trails network.

 

>>> Family groups aren't doing what you're doing.  Trail runners aren't doing what you're doing.  Equestrians aren't doing what you're doing.

 

I believe only trail runners are not doing what I am doing. They are just as dumb as mountain bikers.

 

>>> I'm sorry, you can have some of the trails network for your quiet contemplation but not the whole lot.

 

Hikers and bikers cannot share trails. It is an inherent conflict of both use and purpose.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 1, 2014 at 6:38:42 PM UTC-7, Edward Dolan wrote:
> Blackblade has no problem with 16 year old girls meeting with
> mishaps on trails. Hell Bells, the loutish mountain biker probably thinks it is
> a healthy recreation. He thinks that because he is an idiot.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Healthful family sport"? Yeah, right.
>
>
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10324413/Mountain-biker-in-hospital-with-spinal-injuries
>
>
>
> Mountain biker in hospital with spinal injuries
>
>
>
> Last updated 17:52 29/07/2014
>
>
>
> A mountainbike rider is in Rotorua Hospital with spinal injuries
>
> after a fall in Whakarewarewa Forest.
>
>
>
> The 16-year-old Rotorua girl injured her spine in a fall and had to
>
> be flown to hospital.
>
>
>
> The Rotorua-based BayTrust rescue helicopter was sent to help
>
> ambulance crew at 3pm.
>
>
>
> Due to the rugged terrain it was decided to airlift the patient out
>
> of the area.
>
>
>
> "Obviously ambulance staff treat any spinal injuries pretty
>
> seriously," pilot Barry Vincent said.
>
>
>
> "The idea of bouncing her along the road in the back of the ambulance
>
>
> was not deemed to be the right thing to do ... to prevent any
>
> possible further damage."
>
>
>
> She was flown to Rotorua Hospital in a comfortable condition.
>
>
>
> A Rotorua Hospital spokeswoman said the girl arrived in a stable
>
> condition and was awaiting test results.
>
>
>
> Whakarewarewa is touted as having one of the oldest mountainbike
>
> networks in the country, with varying topography and fantastic
> scenery.
>
>
>
> It has about 130 kilometres of trails for beginners and family groups
>
>
> through to ones suited to experts looking for extreme action.

>
>
>
>
>
> Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by

> hikers - unless they want to get off their god damn fucking bikes and walk like

> everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when
> they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to
> mountain biking!
>
>
>
> "Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground."
>
> ~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
>
> from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"
>
>
>
> Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
>
>
>
> Trails are for walking. What's the matter? Can't walk?
>
>
>
> Ed Dolan the Great

On a mountainbike you most certainly can hurt yourself. But you can also achieve more exercise in a much shorter period of time than with any road bike.

If you're a cycle commuter you could care less but most high end cyclists are in it for the exercise and recreation and to tell you the truth I'm getting tired of cars taking passes at me. I don't see any of this on the trails.

[EdwardDolan]

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by

> hikers - unless they want to get off their god damn fucking bikes and walk like

> everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when

> they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to

> mountain biking!

>

> Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

>

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

 

>> On a mountainbike you most certainly can hurt yourself. But you can also achieve more exercise in a much shorter period of time than with any road bike.

 

There are hundreds of other ways you can get all the exercise any sane person would ever want without trespassing on hiking trails with a god damn fucking bike. Maybe go to a gym for a couple of hours. I pity those poor Tour de France riders who apparently do not get enough exercise on their road bikes.

 

>> If you're a cycle commuter you could care less but most high end cyclists are in it for the exercise and recreation and to tell you the truth I'm getting tired of cars taking passes at me. I don't see any of this on the trails.

 

You need to find some roads where motor vehicle traffic is rare or nonexistent. If you prefer a mountain bike, then ride your bike on gravel roads. There is never any traffic on those kind of roads. When you ride your bike on hiking trails, you are interfering with the enjoyment of the trail by hikers and equestrians as well as creating an unsafe situation for them. You should be able to get plenty of exercise and enjoyment by riding your bike on roads. Look around you. Not all roads are equal. I bet I could find half a dozen roads in your locale that would be safe for cycling.

 

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

 

 

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Tell you what Ed - the trails aren't yours. They AREN'T for hiking only. They are for the use of THE PUBLIC and that includes mountain bikers who for the most part are kids who do not know how to behave around people. If you don't like the way they behave talk to your local park ranger.

You sound like one of the idiots that put signs up on a bridge across a deep stream that said "no bicycles on bridge".

[John B.]

Actually, when you think about it the hikers were the ones that
trampled the pristine wilderness, that they appear to worship, in
order to make the trails that they now so defiantly defend.

One might, since the hikers were the original despoilers who made it
possible for the bilkers to follow, think that one who defends the
wilderness should be castigating the hikers before to taking offence
with the bikers.
--
cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:bca4ebc6-2807-481f...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

> >> On a mountainbike you most certainly can hurt yourself. But you

> can also achieve more exercise in a much shorter period of time than with any

> road bike.

 

Ed Dolan wrote:

> There are hundreds of other ways you can get all the exercise

> any sane person would ever want without trespassing on hiking trails with a god

> damn fucking bike. Maybe go to a gym for a couple of hours. I pity those poor

> Tour de France riders who apparently do not get enough exercise on their road

> bikes.

>

> >> If you're a cycle commuter you could care less but most high end

> cyclists are in it for the exercise and recreation and to tell you the truth I'm

> getting tired of cars taking passes at me. I don't see any of this on the

> trails.

>

> You need to find some roads where motor vehicle traffic is

> rare or nonexistent. If you prefer a mountain bike, then ride your bike on

> gravel roads. There is never any traffic on those kind of roads. When you ride

> your bike on hiking trails, you are interfering with the enjoyment of the trail

> by hikers and equestrians as well as creating an unsafe situation for them. You

> should be able to get plenty of exercise and enjoyment by riding your bike on

> roads. Look around you. Not all roads are equal. I bet I could find half a dozen

> roads in your locale that would be safe for cycling.

 

>>>> Tell you what Ed - the trails aren't yours. They AREN'T for hiking only. They are for the use of THE PUBLIC and that includes mountain bikers who for the most part are kids who do not know how to behave around people. If you don't like the way they behave talk to your local park ranger.

 

The trails are indeed mine and those like me who want to walk them. Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon and one of the worst ideas ever to come down the pike. It is prohibited in Wilderness Areas and for good reason. If you could depend on the common sense of civilized folks, you would never see a bike on a trail meant and designed for walkers (hikers). Unfortunately, we are living in an idiot culture where barbarians like you rule. By the way, in case you didn’t know it, kids are now being injured and killed in record numbers trying to ride their bikes on single track trails. You are little better than a murderer for encouraging this kind of trail use.

 

>>>> You sound like one of the idiots that put signs up on a bridge across a deep stream that said "no bicycles on bridge".

 

The only idiotrs on this newsgroup are folks like you do do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. If you had even half a brain, you would know that the sign meant “no riding bicycles on bridge”. In other words, walk your bike across the bridge just as you would do it at a busy intersection with lots of motor vehicle traffic.

 

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

 

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

 

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota.

 

 

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:oldvjbde9d1kst3kn...@4ax.com...

[...]

 

Ed Dolan wrote:

 

>> You need to find some roads where motor vehicle traffic is

>> rare or nonexistent. If you prefer a mountain bike, then ride your bike on

>> gravel roads. There is never any traffic on those kind of roads. When you ride

>> your bike on hiking trails, you are interfering with the enjoyment of the trail

>> by hikers and equestrians as well as creating an unsafe situation for them. You

>> should be able to get plenty of exercise and enjoyment by riding your bike on

>> roads. Look around you. Not all roads are equal. I bet I could find half a dozen

>> roads in your locale that would be safe for cycling.

[...]

 

> Actually, when you think about it the hikers were the ones that

trampled the pristine wilderness, that they appear to worship, in

order to make the trails that they now so defiantly defend.

 

Hikers have the least impact on trails of any other users – period! That is well-known and proven. Read the Great Mike Vandeman to get a clue about the impact of bikes on trails and wildlife. He is the foremost expert in the world on the subject. However, my main objection is not to whatever damage bikes do to trails, but rather to the fact that they disturb the tranquility of hikers who are trying to connect to nature in a sensible way. It is an incompatible use of a rare and vanishing resource.  

 

> One might, since the hikers were the original despoilers who made it

possible for the bilkers to follow, think that one who defends the

wilderness should be castigating the hikers before to taking offence

with the bikers.

 

There have always been other despoilers of wilderness long before mankind appeared on the scene. Geology 101. The fact remains that trails were developed to serve hikers about a hundred and fifty years ago. It was almost contemporaneous with the creation of the National Parks. The idea was not to bar humans from wilderness, but to bring humans to the wilderness with the least possible impact. In a world of increasing urbanization, anyone who does not appreciate this rather simple aim is a barbarian. Are you a barbarian?

 

There are plenty of rough roads for mountain bikes to traverse without impinging on hiking trails meant and designed for hikers.

 

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

 

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

 

[news16]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:05 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

>
> The trails are indeed mine and those like me who want to walk them.
> Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon

Lol, since "you" didn't use them for much beyond the local village,
plenty of other "vehicles" have used them for millenium. Bicyles for over
100 years. What is more recent in recreational walking/hiking/trekking.

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 03:28:00 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

The Long Trail, the oldest hiking trail in the country, was conceived
in 1910 and construction actually started in 1912. It took nearly 20
years to complete.

The trail was conceived, built and is now maintained by The Green
Mountain Club so it is logical that they should have some authority
over the trail.

On the other hand, the Western trails seem to be largely built using
public money and logically for the benefit of the public.

The Pacific Crest Trail, for example, was first proposed by Clinton C.
Clarke, as a trail running from Mexico to Canada along the crest of
the mountains in California, Oregon, and Washington, and was defined
in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson with the National Trails System
Act.

The Act created a series of National trails "to promote the
preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and
appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas and historic resources of
the Nation. Note the words, "public access to, travel within, and
enjoyment"

It would appear that the bulk of the Western trails were built with
public money and intended for the enjoyment of the public. There is no
mention in the NTS act of the admission or exclusion of any specific
portion of the "Public".
--
cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"news16"  wrote in message news:ni0ho0$n4c$5...@dont-email.me...

Who is talking about millenniums? I am talking about the past 100 to 150 years. Try to stay focused if that is even remotely possible for you. These were the kind of trails that were designed and constructed for walkers (hikers), not bicycles. They are called recreational trails. They are mostly single track and were not meant or designed for bicycles.

 

“Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon ...” – Ed Dolan

 

Mountain bikes have wheels, Wheels are for roads.

 

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

 

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

 

 

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:js58kblfoif5i93pg...@4ax.com...

>>> As if all “publics” are one and the same! Maybe the trails should be open to motorcycles and ATVs as well as bicycles. The former are motorized, the latter is mechanized. It is a slippery slope to allow one public and not allow another public. All land, whether public or private, has to be managed for best use which normally means that only certain publics are allowed to use it subject to regulations.

 

>>> Until recently, public lands with single track trails were managed for walkers (hikers), which was clearly best use. That meant all mechanized vehicles were excluded as well as all motorized vehicles. If you are going to allow mechanized vehicles (bicycles) on single track trails, then you must allow motorized vehicles (motorcycles) on single track trails too. After all, they are both part of the “public.” Now perhaps you begin to see what kind of idiocy you are actually advocating.

 

>>> Bikers and hikers on the same trail is an irreconcilable conflict of both use and purpose. If you want trails for bikes, they must be entirely separate from trails for hikers. Hikers no more want to share a trail with cyclists (mountain bikers) than they do with motorcyclists and ATVers.

[news16]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:52:16 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

> "news16" wrote in message news:ni0ho0$n4c$5...@dont-email.me...
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:05 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:
>
>> The trails are indeed mine and those like me who want to walk them.
>> Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon
>
>>> Lol, since "you" didn't use them for much beyond the local village,
> plenty of other "vehicles" have used them for millenium. Bicyles for
> over 100 years. What is more recent in recreational
> walking/hiking/trekking.
>
> Who is talking about millenniums? I am talking about the past 100 to 150
> years. Try to stay focused if that is even remotely possible for you.
> These were the kind of trails that were designed and constructed for
> walkers (hikers), not bicycles. They are called recreational trails.
> They are mostly single track and were not meant or designed for
> bicycles.
>
> “Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon ...” – Ed Dolan

Lol, your head is in the right place. fLUSH.

>

[EdwardDolan]

"news16" wrote in message news:ni3jro$n4a$1...@dont-email.me...

You dumbshited, sister-groping, crotch-sniffing, dick-guzzling,
puss-nibbling, fuck-headed assclown!

You shanky-assed, cattle-molesting, armpit-licking, shit-gobbling,
pimple-nibbling, butt-brained cockweasel!

You knuckleheaded, brother-raping, jock strap-smelling, tit-sucking,
boil-nibbling, cunt-brained cock jockey!

You candy-assed, donkey-fucking, armpit-slurping, ass-munching,
pimple-popping, butt-headed masked gimp!

You pussy-whipped, brother-humping, shit-smelling, toe jam-sucking,
zit-nibbling, butt-brained cockweasel!

You pussy-whipped, cattle-raping, crotch-slurping, ass-munching,
hemorrhoid-nibbling, cock-brained wankstain!

You clusterfucked, cousin-molesting, panty-licking, rectal-sucking,
puss-chewing, cock-brained cum bubble!

You anal-invading, chicken-molesting, jock strap-licking, shit-gobbling,
zit-nibbling, wank-headed sausage jockey!

You knuckleheaded, stray dog-raping, armpit-licking, tit-sucking,
zit-popping, cock-headed palooka!

You clusterfucked, grandma-raping, asshole-licking, tit-guzzling,
zit-popping, dick-faced dingbat!

You window licking, brother-fondling, jock strap-slurping, rectal-gobbling,
boil-chewing, fuck-headed fucktard!

You clusterfucked, cousin-groping, asshole-smelling, shit-munching,
puss-popping, dick-brained fucktard!

You knuckleheaded, monkey-fondling, panty-licking, cum-guzzling,
boil-chewing, butt-faced cockweasel!

Fucking Regards,

[news16]

> Ed Dolan the Whack-A-Doddle - Minnesota



Limp spaghetti.

[EdwardDolan]

"news16"  wrote in message news:ni5qsm$n4a$2...@dont-email.me...

 

On Wed, 25 May 2016 13:07:04 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

[...]

 

>> “Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon ...” – Ed Dolan

[...]

 

>>> Limp spaghetti.

 

You smarmy lagerlout git.  You bloody woofter sod.  Bugger off, pillock.

You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish

foot-licking twit.  You dankish clack-dish plonker.  You gormless

crook-pated tosser.  You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce.  You

cockered bum-bailey poofter.  You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting

naff.  You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb.  You dread-bolted

fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

 

Fucking Regards,

 

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

 

[John B.]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:52:16 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

Actually the U.S., the Long Trail, in Vermont, the first recreational
hiking tail in the U.S. was conceived in 1910, work was initiated on
it in 1912 and it was finished in 1930, so your grandiose cries about
100 - 150 year old trails is incorrect.

As an intrepid, and outspoken, trail hound such as your good self
would certainly know the history of trails in America we can only
assume that either you are deliberately prevaricating, of alternately,
aren't the great pundit that you claim to be.

In short sir. You are full of shit.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:49ndkb9unr5cu5bfc...@4ax.com...

 

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:52:16 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

[...]

 

> Who is talking about millenniums? I am talking about the past 100 to 150 years. Try to stay focused if that is even remotely possible for you. These were the kind of trails that were designed and constructed for walkers (hikers), not bicycles. They are called recreational trails. They are mostly single track and were not meant or designed for bicycles.

 

>> Actually the  U.S., the Long Trail, in Vermont, the first recreational

hiking tail in the U.S. was conceived in 1910, work was initiated on

it in 1912 and it was finished in 1930, so your grandiose cries about

100 - 150 year old trails is incorrect.

 

The only incorrect bozo here is yourself. Recreational hiking trails were developed in the first National Park and it spread from there. Look up the date of   the establishment of the first National Park, i.e., Yellowstone. There were of course trails in place for equestrians from time immemorial. These trails were not intended ever for bicycles. They were of course ideal for hikers. That is why humans walking and those riding horses share the trails to this very day. The interlopers are the mountain bikers, a scurrilous lot of trash humans if ever there was one.

 

By the way, I have hiked many sections of the Long Trail in Vermont. It is nothing special, but still not bad for an Eastern State.

 

>> As an intrepid, and outspoken, trail hound such as your good self

would certainly know the history of trails in America we can only

assume that either you are deliberately prevaricating, of alternately,

aren't the great pundit that you claim to be.

 

I am even Greater than I claim to be, but what would a pipsqueak like you know about Greatness.

 

>> In short sir. You are full of shit.

 

The only folks full of shit around here are mountain bikers like you. When they fall and break their bones, I rejoice. When the manage to kil themselves, I doubly rejoice. It is always good riddance to bad rubbish. Death to mountain biking!

 

“Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon ...” – Ed Dolan

 

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

 

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

 

Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

 

.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 11:25:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>"John B." wrote in message news:49ndkb9unr5cu5bfc...@4ax.com...
>
>On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:52:16 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Who is talking about millenniums? I am talking about the past 100 to 150 years. Try to stay focused if that is even remotely possible for you. These were the kind of trails that were designed and constructed for walkers (hikers), not bicycles. They are called recreational trails. They are mostly single track and were not meant or designed for bicycles.
>
>>> Actually the U.S., the Long Trail, in Vermont, the first recreational
>hiking tail in the U.S. was conceived in 1910, work was initiated on
>it in 1912 and it was finished in 1930, so your grandiose cries about
>100 - 150 year old trails is incorrect.
>
>The only incorrect bozo here is yourself. Recreational hiking trails were developed in the first National Park and it spread from there. Look up the date of the establishment of the first National Park, i.e., Yellowstone. There were of course trails in place for equestrians from time immemorial. These trails were not intended ever for bicycles. They were of course ideal for hikers. That is why humans walking and those riding horses share the trails to this very day. The interlopers are the mountain bikers, a scurrilous lot of trash humans if ever there was one.

You are certainly correct. As noted in the park literature:

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a New Deal relief agency for
young men, played a major role between 1933 and 1942 in developing
Yellowstone facilities. CCC projects included reforestation,
campground development of many of the park's trails and campgrounds,
trail construction, fire hazard reduction, and fire-fighting work. The
CCC built the majority of the early visitor centers, campgrounds and
the current system of park roads.[47]

>By the way, I have hiked many sections of the Long Trail in Vermont. It is nothing special, but still not bad for an Eastern State.

Do you want a medal? Apparently you are one of a few hundred thousand.
My parents, myself and my younger brother hiked part of the trail in
1947. We also climbed Mt. Washington, on foot.

>>> As an intrepid, and outspoken, trail hound such as your good self
>would certainly know the history of trails in America we can only
>assume that either you are deliberately prevaricating, of alternately,
>aren't the great pundit that you claim to be.
>
>I am even Greater than I claim to be, but what would a pipsqueak like you know about Greatness.
>
>>> In short sir. You are full of shit.
>
>The only folks full of shit around here are mountain bikers like you. When they fall and break their bones, I rejoice. When the manage to kil themselves, I doubly rejoice. It is always good riddance to bad rubbish. Death to mountain biking!
>
>“Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon ...” – Ed Dolan

So what? Hiking on trails as a recreation is a relatively recent
phenomena. Why, by 1915 (5 years after the Long Trail was thought of)
1,000 autos a year were entering Yellowstone park. Nearly 3 auto a
day. Why the place must have been packed. Wall to wall hikers.

>Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
>Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

I see. would you care to comment on the original Cumberland Gap trail,
trail or the California Trail, or the Oregon Trail, or the Mormon
Trail. I suppose that all those folk who went to California walked the
whole way.

Or perhaps you might try looking "trail" up in the dictionary. Mine
(Oxford) gives a number of definitions but (I am amazed) never
mentions what does over it. I also remember so called "Ski trails"
than we skied cross country over (in the winter time).

In short, no matter how you snort and bray it is obvious that you
simply don't know what you are talking about.

>
>Ed Dolan the Great – Minnesota

Ed Dolan, the fool.
>.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[news16]

On Tue, 31 May 2016 17:25:19 +0700, John B. wrote:

> I see. would you care to comment on the original Cumberland Gap trail,
> trail or the California Trail, or the Oregon Trail, or the Mormon Trail.
> I suppose that all those folk who went to California walked the whole
> way.

seems to be fairly standard that some one walked. OTOH, the movies have
totally ignored those multi-bench wagons for passengers.
>

[John B.]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 03:27:41 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

I'm sure that some of them walked but I suspect that they depended on
a wagon for food, water and other support items. Pretty hard to carry
enough supplies for a 2,000 mile stroll on your back.
--
cheers,

John B.

[news16]

I'm very sure that you'll get a few people claiming that they lived off
the land as they passed through.

FWIW, there is evidence in this country that may people provided
overnight services for people walking to the gold rushes. For them, being
prepared meant having your own pick, shovel sieves, buckets and wheel
barrows, or a supply of cash to purchase them along the way.

In any case, "trail" was a multi-use term for what ever means of
conveyance they used. End of 19th Century, two families of my ancestors
used a single horse dray to move family belongings to a new area over a
1,000 miles away whilst the family walked. The fathers had previously
ridden bicycles there for the selection ballot.

[John B.]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:05:16 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>

wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 11:10:16 +0700, John B. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 03:27:41 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 May 2016 17:25:19 +0700, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see. would you care to comment on the original Cumberland Gap trail,
>>>> trail or the California Trail, or the Oregon Trail, or the Mormon
>>>> Trail.
>>>> I suppose that all those folk who went to California walked the whole
>>>> way.
>>>
>>>seems to be fairly standard that some one walked. OTOH, the movies have
>>>totally ignored those multi-bench wagons for passengers.
>>>>
>> I'm sure that some of them walked but I suspect that they depended on a
>> wagon for food, water and other support items. Pretty hard to carry
>> enough supplies for a 2,000 mile stroll on your back.
>
>I'm very sure that you'll get a few people claiming that they lived off
>the land as they passed through.

Certainly a wagon train would do some hunting, or herd some animals
intended for food along with them. But single person, living off the
land? I really doubt it. You have the clothes on your back, a pack
basket, a rifle and enough lead and gun powder to last 2,000 miles.

In the mid 1880's it took a wagon train an average of about 160 days
to get to California, or about 12 miles a day and I'd doubt that a
single person walking would be much faster.

On a wagon there several people to do the work. When you stop the man
will take care of the animals while the woman gets a meal ready, the
kids will have run about all day looking for fuel. There is a water
barrel on the wagon for dry days. If you twisted your ankle you could
ride in the wagon. If you got sick there was always someone to help
you. If you are alone you have to do it all yourself.

>FWIW, there is evidence in this country that may people provided
>overnight services for people walking to the gold rushes. For them, being
>prepared meant having your own pick, shovel sieves, buckets and wheel
>barrows, or a supply of cash to purchase them along the way.

Overnight service? I doubt that. Service in Missouri certainly and
once you arrived in California but in between there was nothing. The
first White Man to see the Great Salt Lake was in 1824 the first
settlers arrived in 1847.

>In any case, "trail" was a multi-use term for what ever means of
>conveyance they used. End of 19th Century, two families of my ancestors
>used a single horse dray to move family belongings to a new area over a
>1,000 miles away whilst the family walked. The fathers had previously
>ridden bicycles there for the selection ballot.

That likely wasn't that strange. People did with what they had, and
were probably just as happy as anyone today.

The typical wagon used crossing the U.S. was apparently not the huge
Conestoga wagons used Back East that could carry 5 tons of cargo, but
smaller, lighter wagons that could be hauled out of a hole by the
team.

I did read that there were recommended supplies that amounted to about
400 lbs. per wagon and it is likely that most of the immigrants
weren't all that well to do so I doubt where there were any pianos to
be hauled :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:qrnqkbd6ci4ckstmg...@4ax.com...

 

On Thu, 26 May 2016 11:25:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

 

>"John B."  wrote in message news:49ndkb9unr5cu5bfc...@4ax.com...

>

>On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:52:16 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

>wrote:

>[...]

>

>> Who is talking about millenniums? I am talking about the past 100 to 150 years. Try to stay focused if that is even remotely possible for you. These were the kind of trails that were designed and constructed for walkers (hikers), not bicycles. They are called recreational trails. They are mostly single track and were not meant or designed for bicycles.

>

>>> Actually the  U.S., the Long Trail, in Vermont, the first recreational

>hiking tail in the U.S. was conceived in 1910, work was initiated on

>it in 1912 and it was finished in 1930, so your grandiose cries about

>100 - 150 year old trails is incorrect.

>

>The only incorrect bozo here is yourself. Recreational hiking trails were developed in the first National Park and it spread from there. Look up the date of   the establishment of the first National Park, i.e., Yellowstone. There were of course trails in place for equestrians from time immemorial. These trails were not intended ever for bicycles. They were of course ideal for hikers. That is why humans walking and those riding horses share the trails to this very day. The interlopers are the mountain bikers, a scurrilous lot of trash humans if ever there was one.

 

You are certainly correct. As noted in the park literature:

 

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a New Deal relief agency for

young men, played a major role between 1933 and 1942 in developing

Yellowstone facilities. CCC projects included reforestation,

campground development of many of the park's trails and campgrounds,

trail construction, fire hazard reduction, and fire-fighting work. The

CCC built the majority of the early visitor centers, campgrounds and

the current system of park roads.[47]

 

>>>> Equestrian trails preceded hiking trails, but of course were always avaible for hikers.

 

>By the way, I have hiked many sections of the Long Trail in Vermont. It is nothing special, but still not bad for an Eastern State.

 

Do you want a medal? Apparently you are one of a few hundred thousand.

My parents, myself and my younger brother hiked part of the trail in

1947. We also climbed Mt. Washington, on foot.

 

>>>>> Next, you will want to be mentioning the Appalachian Trail I suppose and how you climbed Mt. Kahtadin!

 

>>> As an intrepid, and outspoken, trail hound such as your good self

>would certainly know the history of trails in America we can only

>assume that either you are deliberately prevaricating, of alternately,

>aren't the great pundit that you claim to be.

>

>I am even Greater than I claim to be, but what would a pipsqueak like you know about Greatness.

>

>>> In short sir. You are full of shit.

>

>The only folks full of shit around here are mountain bikers like you. When they fall and break their bones, I rejoice. When the manage to kil themselves, I doubly rejoice. It is always good riddance to bad rubbish. Death to mountain biking!

>

>“Cycling on trails is a recent phenomenon ...” – Ed Dolan

 

So what? Hiking on trails as a recreation is a relatively recent

phenomena. Why, by 1915 (5 years after the Long Trail was thought of)

1,000 autos a year were entering Yellowstone park. Nearly 3 auto a

day. Why the place must have been packed. Wall to wall hikers.

 

>>>>> Hiking on trails, whether for recreation or any other purpose, is NOT a recent phenomenon. It has been around for as long as there were trails to be hiked. That is not true of cycling on trails. It is very recent and has been controversial from the first day. Hikers have always regarded bikes on trails as an abomination. Why? Because it is a conflict of use and purpose.

 

>Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

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

 

I see. would you care to comment on the original Cumberland Gap trail,

trail or the California Trail, or the Oregon Trail, or the Mormon

Trail. I suppose that all those folk who went to California walked the

whole way.

 

>>>>> Those kind of trails are not the topic of discussion here (as you damn well know). We are talking about recreational trails designed and purposed for walkers who want to connect with nature. Bikers destroy this purpose since they are using the trails for sport.

 

Or perhaps you might try looking "trail" up in the dictionary. Mine

(Oxford) gives a number of definitions but (I am amazed) never

mentions what does over it. I also remember so called "Ski trails"

than we skied cross country over (in the winter time).

 

>>>>> You are being absurd in your definition of trails. Maybe some fellow idiots can follow you, but My Greatness clearly sees you for the dissembling  fool that you are. Learn to focus. You have a very bad diarrhea of the brain.

 

In short, no matter how you snort and bray it is obvious that you

simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

>>>>> The only braying jackass here is yourself.

 

>>>>> Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

 

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

 

[EdwardDolan]

"news16"  wrote in message news:nilknd$18l$7...@dont-email.me...

Totally different “trails” have been introduced into this discussion ... for what purpose totally escapes me!

[news16]

Agreed, futitle attempt as educating you to reality.

[John B.]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:09:08 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>
wrote:

Somewhere I read a description of reality - "Reality is all in the
mind. Reality can be whatever you want it to be."

Apparently it is true.... at least in some cases.
--
cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"news16"  wrote in message news:nio80k$18l$1...@dont-email.me...

 

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 08:01:02 -0500, EdwardDolan wrote:

[...]

 

> Totally different “trails” have been introduced into this discussion ...

> for what purpose totally escapes me!

 

>> Agreed, futitle [futile] attempt as educating you to reality.

 

I expect stupidity from the likes of you, but irrelevancy is a bonus. Next you will want to bring up the price of tea in China.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:ihavkbp4897o273s7...@4ax.com...

 

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:09:08 -0000 (UTC), news16 <new...@woa.com.au>

wrote:

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

>> Totally different “trails” have been introduced into this discussion ...

>> for what purpose totally escapes me!

>

>Agreed, futitle attempt as educating you to reality.

 

>>> Somewhere I read a description of reality - "Reality is all in the

mind. Reality can be whatever you want it to be."

 

>>> Apparently it is true.... at least in some cases.

 

The subject under discussion was recreational trails as used by hikers and bikers, not the Oregon Trail, which as far as I know was a pioneer trek to the West in covered wagons - and written about rather well by Francis Parkman. Reality is NOT whatever you want it to be nor is it all in the mind. If you think that it is, then you need to see a shrink.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

There are dirt roads that are used by the park services etc. to bring in maintenance gear and such and these are usually the roads that the majority of mountain bikers use. Single track is usually used by kids who like to think of themselves as "advanced" riders but these same single tracks are usually not used by hikers since they like to go straight up or straight down.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Tell us Ed - do you also want to deny the trail use to equestrians? What about those dog walkers who walk their Rottweilers that like to eat your leg?

What you want is a singular use of trails on the idiotic premise that because a trail was first blazed by Indians on foot 300 years ago no one else is allowed on it.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Ed - I'm almost 72 and I'll bet that you wouldn't say that to my face.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

300,000 people started on the gold rush. Only 50,000 made it to California, most died of starvation and disease. Of that 50,000 less than half survived one year.

There weren't any hotels along the way.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:002bcfbb-e30c-408e...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

> There are dirt roads that are used by the park services etc. to bring in maintenance gear and such and these are usually the roads that the majority of mountain bikers use. Single track is usually used by kids who like to think of themselves as "advanced" riders but these same single tracks are usually not used by hikers since they like to go straight up or straight down.

 

Any kind of road, no matter how primitive, is suitable for mountain bikes and I have no objection to anyone riding such roads. Single track trails are different though. They are designed and purposed for hikers. A trail that goes straight up and down is more for climbing than hiking. Kids are being misled on just how dangerous single track trails are. The injuries and even deaths from trying to ride such trails is a national scandal. I could be posting hundreds of articles here on this newsgroup on all the injuries and deaths being suffered by mountain bikers, but it gets boring after awhile since the accidents are all the same.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:17038dfd-8659-4bb2...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

Probably not because I couldn’t remember 99% of it.

 

But I give what I receive. When it comes to invective I am in a class by myself. Best to be civil when dealing with someone of My Greatness.

 

As for saying anything to your face, I am conceal and carry and would not hesitate to shoot if threatened. If you weren’t such an Asshole, you would know that words can’t hurt anybody.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:2ec3d66e-c274-4cc7...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

> Tell us Ed - do you also want to deny the trail use to equestrians? What about those dog walkers who walk their Rottweilers that like to eat your leg?

 

I would prefer that equestrians have their own trails, but tradition has sanctioned their use along side that of hikers. Anyone walking a dog on a trail used by the public must have the dog on a leash. Any dog that tried to bite my leg would forthwith be shot dead.

 

> What you want is a singular use of trails on the idiotic premise that because a trail was first blazed by Indians on foot 300 years ago no one else is allowed on it.

 

A trail can be used by anyone who is willing to walk since that it is what recreational single track trails were designed and purposed for. It has nothing to do with what Indians were doing hundreds of years ago. Mountain bikers need their own trails where they can engage in their sport to their heart’s content without interfering with what hikers use trails for. The PURPOSE of a trail is what limits who can use it.

 

Maybe you could tell us what you think the purpose of a trail is?

 

Ed Dolan the Great -  Minnesota.

[John B.]

The original "Mountain Bike" riders rode on the so called "fire roads"
on Mt. Tamalpais and, as a general statement, were down hill rides.
The Repack run, for instance, was a decent of about 1300 ft in a two
mile run. The usual practice was to haul the bicycles up loaded on a
truck.

As far as I know the first riders, guys like Gary Fisher, started
riding these trails and roads in the mid 1970's so it would seem
logical that after forty years, if Dolan's argument are correct, that
the bicycles should have pretty well destroyed the roads by now.

But they haven't.
--
cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:q474lb13k3gptgkru...@4ax.com...

 

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:09:18 -0700 (PDT), cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

 

>There are dirt roads that are used by the park services etc. to bring in maintenance gear and such and these are usually the roads that the majority of mountain bikers use. Single track is usually used by kids who like to think of themselves as "advanced" riders but these same single tracks are usually not used by hikers since they like to go straight up or straight down.

 

>> The original "Mountain Bike" riders rode on the so called "fire roads"

on Mt. Tamalpais and, as a general statement, were down hill rides.

The Repack run, for instance, was a decent of about 1300 ft in a two

mile run. The usual practice was to haul the bicycles up loaded on a

truck.

 

>> As far as I know the first riders, guys like Gary Fisher, started

riding these trails and roads in the mid 1970's so it would seem

logical that after forty years, if Dolan's argument are correct, that

the bicycles should have pretty well destroyed the roads by now.

 

Bicycles do not destroy roads, they destroy trails. But aside from the damage they do to trails (Mike Vandeman is the world’s foremost expert on this aspect of the problem), they do much more damage to the tranquility of hikers who are walking a trail in order to appreciate nature. All that mountain bikers are doing is raising hell and screwing around. And fuck them all the way to Hell and back for their total disregard of hikers and equestrians, for whom the trails were established in the first place.

 

By the way, anyone who would go up a mountain in a motor vehicle for the purpose of going down the mountain in a bicycle is a slob and a jerk. Downhill skiers are the same kind of jerks. Note that hikers work the same muscles whether going up or down. In fact, you only earn the right to go down by going up under your own power. If you can’t manage it, then stay the hell home and look at TV all day and half the night. Who needs the likes of you in the wilderness with your infernal mechanical and motorized contraptions.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Ed - let me reiterate - there is NOTHING deigned strictly for pedestrians if it used public money unless they pass a specific measure so declaring it.

You don't like mountain bikers? Tough. I don't like hikers that will be walking three abreast across a wide trail but I don't have the unmitigated gall to say that they don't have a right to do so.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:6b6a0c92-1713-49eb...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

> > There are dirt roads that are used by the park services etc. to bring

> in maintenance gear and such and these are usually the roads that the majority

> of mountain bikers use. Single track is usually used by kids who like to think

> of themselves as "advanced" riders but these same single tracks are usually not

> used by hikers since they like to go straight up or straight down.

>

> Edward Dolan wrote:  

>

> Any kind of road, no matter how primitive, is suitable for

> mountain bikes and I have no objection to anyone riding such roads. Single track

> trails are different though. They are designed and purposed for hikers. A trail

> that goes straight up and down is more for climbing than hiking. Kids are being

> misled on just how dangerous single track trails are. The injuries and even

> deaths from trying to ride such trails is a national scandal. I could be posting

> hundreds of articles here on this newsgroup on all the injuries and deaths being

> suffered by mountain bikers, but it gets boring after awhile since the accidents

> are all the same.

>

>>> Ed - let me reiterate - there is NOTHING deigned strictly for pedestrians if it used public money unless they pass a specific measure so declaring it.

 

What is needed are more specific measures strictly prohibiting mountain bikes on trails that are used by hikers. If you were civilized instead of being the barbarian that you obviously are, you would not have to have laws telling you what is what. Designated Wilderness Areas specifically prohibit all kinds of uses. And there are always regulations governing just about everything under the sun, public money or no public money.

 

>>> You don't like mountain bikers? Tough. I don't like hikers that will be walking three abreast across a wide trail but I don't have the unmitigated gall to say that they don't have a right to do so.

 

You don’t belong on a bike on any trail used by hikers no matter how many abreast they are. 

 

Here is a report for you to read from the real world about how trails are supposedly being shared.    

 

http://idahostatejournal.com/members/biker-injures-senior-citizen-in-pocatello-then-leaves-her-behind/article_b820e2d6-641b-5796-9782-fdde9bb7d502.html

Biker injures senior citizen in Pocatello, then leaves her behind

By David Ashby das...@journalnet.com
Jun 3, 2016
David Ashby/Idaho State Journal

Muriel Roberts doesn’t let a concussion or a
broken arm stop her from tending to the garden at
her Pocatello home. Roberts was injured by an
unidentified mountain biker on a City Creek trail
last Sunday. The bicyclist left without making
sure Roberts was able to stand or walk.

As Muriel Roberts laid on the ground, she was
dizzy and a sharp pain radiated from her left arm.

“I tried to stop, I tried to stop,” a nearby man
on a mountain bike said to her.

At the time, Roberts wasn’t too sure what had just happened.

The whole incident occurred on Sunday morning at
approximately 10 a.m. Roberts, a longtime
Pocatello resident, went to visit the City Creek
trails west of town to see the blooming wildflowers.

As she walked along the Lower City Creek Trail
near its junction with the Bench Trail, a
mountain biker emerged, seemingly out of nowhere.
She heard the distinct sounds of clicking gears
and tried to get out of the way, but there wasn’t enough time.

Her memory is a bit fuzzy, but she was either
struck by the biker or run off the trail.

“It was at a point where I could not see up the
trail, and the person could not see me down the trail,” Roberts said.

The incident occurred on a section of the Lower
City Creek Trail where bikers are supposed to
only pedal uphill. The downhill route is reserved
for those on foot. There are signs notifying trail users of this rule.

“I was so pleased nobody was going to be coming
down at me,” Roberts laughs. “But that didn’t happen.”

The biker who Roberts had the unfortunate
encounter with was incredibly apologetic. But as
she lied on the ground trying to regain her
composure, she tried to find her eyeglasses. Then
she found her broken eyewear ­ the biker was standing on them.

“So I yelled at him for that, too,” she said. “I
was pretty nasty, I have to admit.”

The panicked mountain biker, who Roberts said was
a college-aged man who was clad in red and white
clothes and helmet, didn’t offer much assistance
to the injured woman. According to Roberts, he
never tried to see if she could stand up or walk on her own accord.

“I’ll wait for you at the bottom,” the man said
as he pedaled away, leaving the injured and
discombobulated Roberts to fend for herself.

Luckily, there were plenty of other trail users
who were more than happy to offer assistance to
the senior citizen trying to balance herself and
make her way back to the lower parking lot.

“I met so many nice people up there,” she said.
“They all offered to walk with me.”

Roberts remembers meeting one family with a
middle school boy who told her that his
grandmother had fallen off her bike once and
received a nasty scrape. Then the boy told
Roberts, “You are really tough,” and gave her a big bear hug.

“Can you imagine that ­ a middle school boy just
hugging an older lady like that?” Roberts said.

As she made her way back to the parking lot, she
was a bit apprehensive because she thought the
mountain biker she had the encounter with would
be there waiting for her. Roberts felt she should
apologize for swearing at him earlier.

However, she never got the chance. The biker was nowhere to be found.

A trip to Physicians Immediate Care revealed that
Roberts had suffered a concussion and a fractured
bone near her left wrist. Though the doctors were
able to put her arm in a cast, the next few days were scary for Roberts.

“In the middle of the night, I woke up,
nauseated, and with vertigo,” Roberts wrote to a
friend shortly after the incident at City Creek.
“I have had vertigo episodes in the past, after a
concussion. Was up every couple of hours all night, throwing up.”

She spent her 79th birthday on Tuesday getting a
CT scan and lying in bed. Luckily, there was no
significant or long-term damage to her brain, and
Alameda Vision Center was able to fix her glasses in 10 minutes.

“It’s not fun being sore, blind and crippled,” she said.

It’s been a little less than a week since Roberts
had her unfortunate encounter with the mountain
biker at City Creek, but the former educational
tester is recovering. She said she has received
overwhelming support from the local mountain
bikers and trail enthusiasts who had heard her story.

She recently found out that somebody nominated
her home for a NeighborWorks Pocatello Curb
Appeal Award. Despite the black cast on her left
wrist, she immediately starting pruning some of
her iris flowers in her front yard on Friday evening.

Roberts said there’s probably no way to identify
the biker who injured her and then left her
behind. And even if the biker is identified,
Bannock County Sheriff Lorin Nielsen said there
probably won’t be any criminal charges that can
be filed because it would be too difficult to
prove there was a deliberate intent to injure Roberts.

However, if the biker is identified and located,
Nielsen said Roberts could certainly pursue a lawsuit.

“They could sue him for pain and suffering, as
well as the financial costs of the injuries,” Nielsen said.

But as she tells people her story and does her
usual volunteer work around Pocatello, Roberts
said she can’t believe she was left behind with such disregard.

“The worst part was him leaving me there not
knowing what my condition was,” she said. “He had
a moral responsibility. I could have died up there.”