Is Mike Vandeman finally dead?

[Scully]

I haven't seen any posts from him for a while.

[sms88]

On 10/1/2012 12:13 AM, Scully wrote:
> I haven't seen any posts from him for a while.

I suspect that, like most of us, you've had him filtered out for so long
that you forgot about your filters.

[Edward Dolan]

"sms88" wrote in message news:k4ccii$365$1...@dont-email.me...

Mr. Vandeman is active in other mediums which he and I consider more
worthwhile. Usenet is for anonymous idiots like you.

But speaking of being finally dead, why don't you and sms88 go fuck
yourselves to death. That would be good riddance to bad rubbish!

Ed Dolan the Great

[Jym Dyer]

=v= He emailed something to the ebbc-talk email list
just a few days ago:

http://lists.ebbc.org/pipermail/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org/2012-October/011110.html

Share and Enjoy,
<_Jym_>

[Pete Puma]

Yes, let's all grow vegetables and violence will go away.
Wow.

[Len McGoogle]

On Oct 1, 3:13 am, "Scully" <nob...@slug.sluggish.net> wrote:
> I haven't seen any posts from him for a while.

He seems to have stopped cross-posting and sticks to alt.mountain-bike

[you]

In article
<6d79dc40-cee7-4b86...@k21g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

True enough, but his little Butt-Buddy is still lurking around.....
You remember him... That little freak from the UP...

[Edward Dolan]

"you" wrote in message news:you-5E24D7.1...@news.starband.net...

Anything that gets posted to RBS (the only newsgroup I monitor) of a
scurrilous nature will get an appropriate reply from yours truly. I never
let rascally mountain bikers have the last word since all their words are
composed of nothing but lies and slanders. Whenever I read a report about
how a mountain biker has come to grief while riding a hiking trail, I
rejoice and suspect there might be a God after all!

Ed Dolan the Great

[Trey Duc]

In article <dc82$508f16ad$d8106f5c$23...@KNOLOGY.NET>

I thought it was pretty darned funny when Mikey got put in the
cross-bar hotel for a little bit. Maybe you were his bung-mate?

[you]

In article
<73734c890f6bab1b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,

Naw, Eddie is just another Mikey wanna-be... hanger On....

[Edward Dolan]

"Trey Duc" wrote in message
news:73734c890f6bab1b...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...

"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:

> Anything that gets posted to RBS (the only newsgroup I monitor) of a
> scurrilous nature will get an appropriate reply from yours truly. I never
> let rascally mountain bikers have the last word since all their words are
> composed of nothing but lies and slanders. Whenever I read a report about
> how a mountain biker has come to grief while riding a hiking trail, I
> rejoice and suspect there might be a God after all!
>
> Ed Dolan the Great

>> I thought it was pretty darned funny when Mikey got put in the
cross-bar hotel for a little bit. Maybe you were his bung-mate?

I wouldn’t know anything at all about what goes on in prison, but obviously
you are some kind of expert on the subject. Maybe you could give us your
personal jailhouse experiences and thereby educate us. And please don't
spare us any details. We want to know it all!

Ed Dolan the Great

[Edward Dolan]

"you" wrote in message news:you-F1C78A.1...@news.starband.net...

> > "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:

> > Anything that gets posted to RBS (the only newsgroup I monitor) of a
> > scurrilous nature will get an appropriate reply from yours truly. I
> > never
> > let rascally mountain bikers have the last word since all their words
> > are
> > composed of nothing but lies and slanders. Whenever I read a report
> > about
> > how a mountain biker has come to grief while riding a hiking trail, I
> > rejoice and suspect there might be a God after all!
> >
> > Ed Dolan the Great
>
> > > I thought it was pretty darned funny when Mikey got put in the
> cross-bar hotel for a little bit. Maybe you were his bung-mate?

> Naw, Eddie is just another Mikey wanna-be... hanger On....

I would at least have brains enough to use an "I", not a fucking "you" if I
wanted to be anonymous. "you" is not only a coward, but an idiot. But that
is par for the course with all mountain bikers that ride their bikes on
hiking trails. Now go fuck yourself like a good lad and quite bothering the
honorable members of this noble newsgroup.

Ed Dolan the Great

[you]

In article <b2bf3$51328256$d8106f5c$94...@KNOLOGY.NET>,

"Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:

> > Naw, Eddie is just another Mikey wanna-be... hanger On....
>
> I would at least have brains enough to use an "I", not a fucking "you" if I
> wanted to be anonymous. "you" is not only a coward, but an idiot. But that
> is par for the course with all mountain bikers that ride their bikes on
> hiking trails. Now go fuck yourself like a good lad and quite bothering the
> honorable members of this noble newsgroup.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great

I see Uncle Eddie, is still haunting the Newsgroups, even though his
Mentor Mikey, has left foe enviers unKnown....
It is to be Noted... among the annals of the Internet, that Eddie hasn't
learned to write in a civil prose, as of yet... Still as uncouth as
ever, and uneducated in written conversation conventions.... typical of
the type... Just Say'en.....

[Edward Dolan]

"you" wrote in message news:you-140F5C.1...@news.starband.net...

The only group I am haunting is RBS in order to take care of brain dead
idiots like you. Other than that, Mr.Vandeman is a true believer in his
cause. I merely want to keep mountain bikers off of hiking trails. That is
the difference between us ... if you even know how to make distinctions.

I will write civil prose if and when the occasion ever presents itself. So
far all I have ever had to deal with are assorted asshole mountain bikers
like you who think they can come on this newsgroup and say any fool thing
that enters their minuscule brains.

Let me leave you with one final thought. Whenever a mountain biker either
hurts himself or better yet kills himself riding his bike on a hiking trail,
I rejoice. Just one less moron in the world. Ideally hikers should be free
to sweep mountain bikers off of hiking trails by any means necessary. Fuck
‘em all I say! There is never any excuse for riding your bike on a hiking
trail. The world is full of all kinds of roads. Find one and ride on it to
your heart’s content, but leave hiking trails to hikers.

Ed Dolan the Great

[Jym Dyer]

> Mikey, has left foe enviers unKnown....

=v= I got email from him about a week ago. The last *public*
missive that I'm aware of can be found here:

http://lists.ebbc.org/pipermail/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org/2013-January/011181.html

It's just a .sig file, but from the "Subject:" line I presume
he was referring to a particular comic strip from that day that
said tiresome and unfunny things about bicyclists.
<_Jym_>

[Edward Dolan]

wrote in message
news:7b661ae2-eee1-4267...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:13:33 AM UTC-5, Scully wrote:
> I haven't seen any posts from him for a while.

>> I got one, just today....crazy!

Mr. Vandeman is very active in other forums these days. Usenet newsgroups
are for idiots like you and me. Anyone with any brains has long left these
groups which are incapable of supporting monitors. The result is that you
always end up with a group composed of nothing but morons, imbeciles and
other assorted mental defectives.

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

[Miguel]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:24:56 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

I am sure that you are correct; and you have done a fine job of
proving your assertions.
--
cheers,

Miguel

[Edward Dolan]

"Miguel" wrote in message
news:tiv0p8d29cic51gl5...@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 May 2013 15:24:56 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>wrote in message
>news:7b661ae2-eee1-4267...@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:13:33 AM UTC-5, Scully wrote:
>> I haven't seen any posts from him for a while.
>
>>> I got one, just today....crazy!
>
>Mr. Vandeman is very active in other forums these days. Usenet newsgroups
>are for idiots like you and me. Anyone with any brains has long left these
>groups which are incapable of supporting monitors. The result is that you
>always end up with a group composed of nothing but morons, imbeciles and
>other assorted mental defectives.

>> I am sure that you are correct; and you have done a fine job of
proving your assertions.

It is a thankless job to have to take on all the idiots and morons who post
to UseNet newsgroups, but someone had to do it. I resolved from day one that
I was not going to let the lowest common denominator of our species have the
last word on RBS. Nay, I decided I was going to have the last word no matter
to what depths I had to descend. Well, I have been to Hell and back many
times and the only thing I have learned is that idiocy goes on forever. It
can neither be abolished nor even ameliorated. All that can be done about it
is to damn it for the rot that it is. That is what I have done. It is simply
a question of who can outlast whom – idiots or a genius and Great Saint like
me!

[Miguel]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:43:01 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>

Perhaps "Don Quixote on a bicycle" is a more appropriate title.
--
cheers,

Miguel

[Edward Dolan]

"Miguel" wrote in message
news:dptap8dj299vqchbi...@4ax.com...

If you were to go back and have a look at RBS and the other cycling
newsgroups from 10 or more years ago, you would not connect them to the low
state to which they have presently fallen. When newsgroups were new there
was great hope for them but without monitors they simply don’t work.

The last straw that destroyed RBS were the ongoing battles between mountain
bikers and those opposed to mountain biking on hiking trails. But RBS and
the other cycling newsgroups were on a serious decline long before that.

Some of us more outspoken types do not like monitors because they definitely
limit what you can say. However, without monitors you end up with just
completely asinine posts. I think the social networks like Facebook have
largely replaced newsgroups. It was a grand experiment which was doomed to
failure, but it actually work quite well in the earliest years.
Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. Hence the
necessity of monitors even if it does limit freedom of speech.

[Miguel]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:14:50 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>

>If you were to go back and have a look at RBS and the other cycling
>newsgroups from 10 or more years ago, you would not connect them to the low
>state to which they have presently fallen. When newsgroups were new there
>was great hope for them but without monitors they simply don’t work.
>
>The last straw that destroyed RBS were the ongoing battles between mountain
>bikers and those opposed to mountain biking on hiking trails. But RBS and
>the other cycling newsgroups were on a serious decline long before that.
>

Yes, I've heard these laments for the good old days but unfortunately
I was here then and there were as many horse's asses then as there is
now. The difference was that people tended to ignore the more
obnoxious and less informed denizen.

>Some of us more outspoken types do not like monitors because they definitely
>limit what you can say. However, without monitors you end up with just
>completely asinine posts. I think the social networks like Facebook have
>largely replaced newsgroups. It was a grand experiment which was doomed to
>failure, but it actually work quite well in the earliest years.
>Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. Hence the
>necessity of monitors even if it does limit freedom of speech.
>

Unfortunately the title of bad apple, horse's ass, or any other
nomenclature you wish to use, is highly dependent on the point of
view. I'm sure that the cyclists have a totally different view of who
is wearing the black hats and who the white than the valiant defenders
of the (publicly owned) trails.

>Ed Dolan the Great
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great

--
cheers,

Miguel

[Edward Dolan]

"Miguel"  wrote in message news:8j4cp8t8kq22ke0k4...@4ax.com...

[...]

 

> Unfortunately the title of bad apple, horse's ass, or any other

nomenclature you wish to use, is highly dependent on the point of

view. I'm sure that the cyclists have a totally different view of who

is wearing the black hats and who the white than the valiant defenders

of the (publicly owned) trails.

 

The fact of a trail being publicly owned is irrelevant to the management of it as is point of view. If everyone is free to do whatever they want on public trails, then all you have is the “tragedy of the commons” ... which always results in the destruction of the resource. The problem is that the management of the trails is not being intelligently done. Mountain biking and hiking on the same trails is a usage conflict. If we had intelligent managers, it would never be permitted.

[Miguel]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:34:00 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

I see, private individuals "taking over" a publicly owned facility and
demanding that certain others not use it.

I remember some years ago certain folks attempting to "taker over"
public schools and demanding that no children of a certain color could
attend "their" school.

--
cheers,

Miguel

[Edward Dolan]

"Miguel"  wrote in message news:a1idp81vcb2o1bhgd...@4ax.com...

 

On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:34:00 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

 

>"Miguel"  wrote in message news:8j4cp8t8kq22ke0k4...@4ax.com...

>[...]

>

>> Unfortunately the title of bad apple, horse's ass, or any other

>nomenclature you wish to use, is highly dependent on the point of

>view. I'm sure that the cyclists have a totally different view of who

>is wearing the black hats and who the white than the valiant defenders

>of the (publicly owned) trails.

>

>The fact of a trail being publicly owned is irrelevant to the management of it as is point of view. If everyone is free to do whatever they want on public trails, then all you have is the “tragedy of the commons” ... which always results in the destruction of the resource. The problem is that the management of the trails is not being intelligently done. Mountain biking and hiking on the same trails is a usage conflict. If we had intelligent managers, it would never be permitted.

 

>>> I see, private individuals "taking over" a publicly owned facility and

demanding that certain others not use it.

 

Every square inch of land in the United States, whether private or public, is being managed. In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted authority. Private individuals do not ever “take over” anything. What an absurd notion!

 

>>> I remember some years ago certain folks attempting to "taker over"

public schools and demanding that no children of a certain color could

attend "their" school.

 

Same thing with public schools as with public land. They are being managed by constituted authority. If you don’t like how they are being managed, you are free to petition for change ... or better yet change the constituted authority by legal means. That is what politics is all about.

 

My original post remains uncontested. I do not like the way our public lands are being managed. They are being managed stupidly. In fact, the managers are so stupid that I believe only a change of managers will ever lead to more intelligent decisions about how the land is used.

 

Mr. Vandeman is doing what he can to change the way our public lands are being managed. It is the god damn fucking mountain bikers who engage in every illegality to get their way by force. I am not in the least confused about who are the white hats and who are the black hats. That you are says volumes about where you are coming from.

[Miguel]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 21:52:37 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

>"Miguel" wrote in message news:a1idp81vcb2o1bhgd...@4ax.com...
>
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:34:00 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Miguel" wrote in message news:8j4cp8t8kq22ke0k4...@4ax.com...
>>[...]
>>
>>> Unfortunately the title of bad apple, horse's ass, or any other
>>nomenclature you wish to use, is highly dependent on the point of
>>view. I'm sure that the cyclists have a totally different view of who
>>is wearing the black hats and who the white than the valiant defenders
>>of the (publicly owned) trails.
>>
>>The fact of a trail being publicly owned is irrelevant to the management of it as is point of view. If everyone is free to do whatever they want on public trails, then all you have is the “tragedy of the commons” ... which always results in the destruction of the resource. The problem is that the management of the trails is not
being intelligently done. Mountain biking and hiking on the same trails is a usage conflict. If we had intelligent managers, it would never be permitted.
>
>>>> I see, private individuals "taking over" a publicly owned facility and
>demanding that certain others not use it.
>
>Every square inch of land in the United States, whether private or public, is being managed. In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted authority. Private individuals do not ever “take over” anything. What an absurd notion!
>

Your argument seem to be circular - you seem to see a need to protect
trails from the destructive bikers but than you proceed to state that

"In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted

authority" which would appear to admit that there is a responsible
agency to control the use thereof, which seems to indicate that the
appointed bodies aren't doing their job and thus private citizens must
leap into the fray.

What's next? A march on Washington to dispute the whiskey tax?

>>>> I remember some years ago certain folks attempting to "taker over"
>public schools and demanding that no children of a certain color could
>attend "their" school.
>
>Same thing with public schools as with public land. They are being managed by constituted authority. If you don’t like how they are being managed, you are free to petition for change ... or better yet change the constituted authority by legal means. That is what politics is all about.
>

I see. When the governor of a state stands in the door of an
establishment with an axe handle in his hands as says, "they will not
pass" that is a legal means?

>My original post remains uncontested. I do not like the way our public lands are being managed. They are being managed stupidly. In fact, the managers are so stupid that I believe only a change of managers will ever lead to more intelligent decisions about how the land is used.
>

I see... you don't agree with the authorities and thus they are
stupid. My guess is that there are more than a few who do not agree
with your thesis and will anoint you with exactly the same
description.

>Mr. Vandeman is doing what he can to change the way our public lands are being managed. It is the god damn fucking mountain bikers who engage in every illegality to get their way by force. I am not in the least confused about who are the white hats and who are the black hats. That you are says volumes about where you are coming
from.
>

You are certainly correct. I don't agree with you and thus I'm
damned.... which speaks volumes for your arguments.

>Ed Dolan the Great
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great

--
cheers,

Miguel

[Edward Dolan]

"Miguel"  wrote in message news:kgnep8d80epdualme...@4ax.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

>Every square inch of land in the United States, whether private or public, is being managed. In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted authority. Private individuals do not ever “take over” anything. What an absurd notion!

 

>> Your argument seem to be circular - you seem to see a need to protect

trails from the destructive bikers but than you proceed to state that

"In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted

authority" which would appear to admit that there is a responsible

agency to control the use thereof, which seems to indicate that the

appointed bodies aren't doing their job and thus private citizens must

leap into the fray.

 

Private citizens are free to petition for change in any number of ways. My point from the beginning was that the managers of our public lands are doing a piss poor job. They are being irresponsible and need to be replaced. Mountain bikers are simply taking advantage of nincompoops. What is needed of course is more public input from hikers. If we can’t change the policies, then we must change the policy makers.

 

>> What's next? A march on Washington to dispute the whiskey tax?

 

>>>> I remember some years ago certain folks attempting to "taker over"

>public schools and demanding that no children of a certain color could

>attend "their" school.

>

>Same thing with public schools as with public land. They are being managed by constituted authority. If you don’t like how they are being managed, you are free to petition for change ... or better yet change the constituted authority by legal means. That is what politics is all about.

 

>> I see. When the governor of a state stands in the door of an

establishment with an axe handle in his hands as says, "they will not

pass" that is a legal means?

 

It may or may not be a legal means. If the governor had won election to national office, who knows what our policy would be. The beauty of a functioning democracy is that nothing is ever written in stone. Things can change, not always to the liking of a liberal progressive like yourself.

 

>My original post remains uncontested. I do not like the way our public lands are being managed. They are being managed stupidly. In fact, the managers are so stupid that I believe only a change of managers will ever lead to more intelligent decisions about how the land is used.

 

>> I see... you don't agree with the authorities and thus they are

stupid. My guess is that there are more than a few who do not agree

with your thesis and will anoint you with exactly the same

description.

 

Mountain biking is a johnny come lately to the trails. Whether it remains is ultimately up to the public to decide. What is needed is more input by hikers. The authorities are only temporary custodians. What has been changed can be unchanged.

 

>Mr. Vandeman is doing what he can to change the way our public lands are being managed. It is the god damn fucking mountain bikers who engage in every illegality to get their way by force. I am not in the least confused about who are the white hats and who are the black hats. That you are says volumes about where you are coming from.

 

>> You are certainly correct. I don't agree with you and thus I'm

damned.... which speaks volumes for your arguments.

 

Mr. Vandeman and I have never yet heard a good argument for permitting mountain biking on hiking trails. Until we do, we shall remain steadfast in our opposition to this inappropriate use of hiking trails. I rejoice every time a mountain biker is killed or injured while biking on a hiking trail. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

[Miguel]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:39:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>"Miguel" wrote in message news:kgnep8d80epdualme...@4ax.com...
>
>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>Every square inch of land in the United States, whether private or public, is being managed. In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted authority. Private individuals do not ever “take over” anything. What an absurd notion!
>
>>> Your argument seem to be circular - you seem to see a need to protect
>trails from the destructive bikers but than you proceed to state that
>"In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted
>authority" which would appear to admit that there is a responsible
>agency to control the use thereof, which seems to indicate that the
>appointed bodies aren't doing their job and thus private citizens must
>leap into the fray.
>
>Private citizens are free to petition for change in any number of ways. My point from the beginning was that the managers of our public lands are doing a piss poor job. They are being irresponsible and need to be replaced. Mountain bikers are simply taking advantage of nincompoops. What is needed of course is more public input
from hikers. If we can’t change the policies, then we must change the policy makers.
>

Of course, it goes without saying.

But, given that the cyclists apparently are not denizens of some
foreign country or recent immigrants from Mars it would seem that they
equally have a right to partition their government for improved
treatment.

In fact, if this incredible amount of damage is being done that you
and yours appear to argue is a fact than perhaps the cyclists form the
majority of the users and therefore, democratically speaking, they are
entitled to favored treatment.

So, perhaps the solution is simple - ban the loud mouthed hikers and
let the majority enjoy their rights under a democratic government.

--
cheers,

Miguel

[Edward Dolan]

"Miguel"  wrote in message news:sn5gp890ecift82mi...@4ax.com...

 

On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:39:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

 

>"Miguel"  wrote in message news:kgnep8d80epdualme...@4ax.com...

>

>Edward Dolan wrote:

>

>>Every square inch of land in the United States, whether private or public, is being managed. In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted authority. Private individuals do not ever “take over” anything. What an absurd notion!

>

>>> Your argument seem to be circular - you seem to see a need to protect

>trails from the destructive bikers but than you proceed to state that

>"In the case of public lands, it is being managed by constituted

>authority" which would appear to admit that there is a responsible

>agency to control the use thereof, which seems to indicate that the

>appointed bodies aren't doing their job and thus private citizens must

>leap into the fray.

>

>Private citizens are free to petition for change in any number of ways. My point from the beginning was that the managers of our public lands are doing a piss poor job. They are being irresponsible and need to be replaced. Mountain bikers are simply taking advantage of nincompoops. What is needed of course is more public input from hikers. If we can’t change the policies, then we must change the policy makers.

>

>>>> Of course, it goes without saying.

 

>>>> But, given that the cyclists apparently are not denizens of some

foreign country or recent immigrants from Mars it would seem that they

equally have a right to partition their government for improved

treatment.

 

I don’t blame the mountain bikers for wanting to take advantage of a situation. It is the land managers I blame. They are clearly nincompoops!

 

>>>> In fact, if this incredible amount of damage is being done that you

and yours appear to argue is a fact than perhaps the cyclists form the

majority of the users and therefore, democratically speaking, they are

entitled to favored treatment.

 

Biking and hiking on the same trails is an incompatible use. Cyclists need their own trails which they can damage as much as they please. As you can see from this, I am not a purist on the issue of environmental damage like Mr. Vandeman is. By the way, cyclists on trails are in fact a small minority compared to hikers. Always have been and always will be.

 

>>>> So, perhaps the solution is simple - ban the loud mouthed hikers and

let the majority enjoy their rights under a democratic government.

 

It is not majority rule. Hiking trails are for hikers. If you had ever kept up with Mr. Vandeman’s many posts, you would realize how dangerous cycling on hiking trails is. Maybe the liability issue will eventually kick in and result in some lawsuits against the land managers.

 

Let me leave you with a sobering thought. It is not love that makes the world go around, it is hate that makes the world go around. The day is not far off when the hatred that hikers feel for cyclists on their sacred trails is going to manifest itself in some murders. At that point even the nincompoop land managers will have to sit up and take notice.

 

The major error you are committing is not recognizing that hiking and cycling on the same trails is an incompatible use. The two cannot coexist peacefully.  What cyclists do on a trail is a form of desecration from the hiker’s viewpoint.There will always be this conflict. It is not resolvable.

[Blackblade]

> I don’t blame the mountain bikers for wanting to take advantage of a situation. It is the land managers I blame. They are clearly nincompoops!

Why ? Because they disagree with you ? As public servants they should, and largely do, serve the public. Thus, if the public want to ride their bikes on trails then it is completely correct that this use is accommodated.

> Biking and hiking on the same trails is an incompatible use.

Says who ? I am sure that some conflict exists; conflict exists in any arena where people are forced to share resources.

However, to make such a bald assertion is not supportable.

Different types of trails may, or indeed may not, support mixed use … but to state that it’s always the case is nonsense. The South Downs Way, and many other famous trails, is multi traffic and I am not aware of conflict. Most of Scotland is now multi-use with, again, minimal conflict.

Sure, a downhill MTB trail is not a safe place to walk and certain rocky scrambles uphill are impossible on a MTB. So, yes, there is a safety issue in some circumstances that might prevent shared use but, in general, shared use can be quite sensibly applied.

>By the way, cyclists on trails are in fact a small minority compared to hikers.

Not the case. I can point you to many locations where it’s the other way around.

> Always have been and always will be.

You have a crystal ball or can see the future ? If mountain biking continues growing at its current rate this won’t be the case for too much longer.

> It is not majority rule. Hiking trails are for hikers. If you had ever kept up with Mr. Vandeman’s many posts, you would realize how dangerous cycling on hiking trails is. Maybe the liability issue will eventually kick in and result in some lawsuits against the land managers.

No, axiomatically, in a democracy public resources are for the use of the public. The very statement ‘Hiking Trails’ implies some a-priori ownership of said trail by a specific group which is not, and never was, the case. The trails do not ‘belong’ to hikers who are then doing all other groups a favour in providing access. The trails belong to the public and the public can decide to what use they are put.

And, citing the criminal Mike Vandeman as a source is not very credible. However, in the following thread on alt.mountain-bike as you can see ...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.mountain-bike/Ks8H1vdhJ6g/0KXsYu_iyJ8J

.. using a reasonable methology it is estimated that there are around 0.00123 fatalities per million miles travelled by mountainbike vs automobile fatalities at approximately 1.5 per million miles. So, cycling on hiking trails is a LOT safer than riding in a car … an activity that the vast majority of people in the US are quite happy to contemplate daily. So, no, mountain biking is not dangerous when compared with most activities.

> Let me leave you with a sobering thought. It is not love that makes the world go around, it is hate that makes the world go around. The day is not far off when the hatred that hikers feel for cyclists on their sacred trails is going to manifest itself in some murders. At that point even the nincompoop land managers will have to sit up and take notice.

I fear you are projecting. Would some hikers prefer that bikes were banned from their favourite trails ? Of course. Is this fair ? No ! Would most sane, reasonable people concede that everyone has, within reason, an equal right to use public natural resources ? Yes.

Therefore, they don’t hate cyclists and many many people now conduct both activites. There may well be a tiny minority that feel this way but they are the lunatic fringe and will, I hope, be dealt with by the authorities in the usual way. Most people are reasonable, they see the fairness of sharing resources and mitigate it with a sensible approach to using particular trails.

> The major error you are committing is not recognizing that hiking and cycling on the same trails is an incompatible use. The two cannot coexist peacefully. What cyclists do on a trail is a form of desecration from the hiker’s viewpoint. There will always be this conflict. It is not resolvable.

This simply isn’t true. The vast majority of the world manages to get on fine with sharing without major conflict. There may be some diehards who won’t accept this but they are a very small minority. The conflict will resolve itself as the younger generation, who have grown up always seeing bikes, people and horses together, grows to maturity. It’s a temporary issue occasioned by change and the fact that, yes, for some it's an unwelcome change.

[Blackblade]

> Mr. Vandeman and I have never yet heard a good argument for
> permitting mountain biking on hiking trails. Until we do, we shall remain
> steadfast in our opposition to this inappropriate use of hiking trails.

And, in your mind, you never will. Your mind is closed on the subject, don't know if quite as irretrievably as the criminal Vandeman, but you will discount any argument advanced to support the proposition.

There are several valid propositions to support it;

1. People are entitled to use a public resource; it does not belong to any one activity group

2. Environmental impact, whilst hotly contested by some, is broadly equivalent to other low-impact uses so the activity cannot be banned on that basis

3. It is a low risk (0.000123 fatalities per million miles travelled [US figures estimated]) activity and highly beneficial to cardiovascular health

4. It cannot be tenable to ban it simply because it is a 'new' use and will discomfort some existing users. On that basis, as has already been pointed out, slavery, misogyny, racism and homophobia would all be justifiable.

5. Sensible and equitable trail sharing IS possible ... despite assertions to the contrary. Not on all trails ... but on most.

6. Getting people off their backsides and exercising in the countryside is good for their health and good for their appreciation of, and thus consideration for, nature.

> I rejoice every time a mountain biker is killed or injured while biking on a
> hiking trail. Good riddance to bad rubbish !

"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine own were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." - John Donne

To rejoice in another's death or injury, when that person has not wronged you, is to become rather less human.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:bc289c2b-2a4b-40c3...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan writes:

 

Have been gone from this newsgroup for awhile as my ISP cancelled serving Usenet newsgroups. They say it is too costly to carry the newsgroups as they get very low usage by just a few who post voluminous messages. In other words, it is not cost effective. Have gotten news.eternal-september.org and will see how it works.

 

> I don’t blame the mountain bikers for wanting to take advantage of a situation. It is the land managers I blame. They are clearly nincompoops!

 

>> Why ?  Because they disagree with you ?  As public servants they should, and largely do, serve the public.  Thus, if the public want to ride their bikes on trails then it is completely correct that this use is accommodated.

 

It is an incorrect use since the two modes of use are incompatible with one another. The land managers need to prioritize the publics they serve. The trails can’t be all things to all men.

 

> Biking and hiking on the same trails is an incompatible use.

 

>> Says who ?  I am sure that some conflict exists; conflict exists in any arena where people are forced to share resources.

 

The conflict is serious and can never be resolved to the satisfaction of hikers.

 

>> However, to make such a bald assertion is not supportable. 

 

It is only the mountain bikers who are infringing on hiking trails which from time immemorial have been reserved for hikers and equestrians.

 

>> Different types of trails may, or indeed may not, support mixed use … but to state that it’s always the case is nonsense.  The South Downs Way, and many other famous trails, is multi traffic and I am not aware of conflict.  Most of Scotland is now multi-use with, again, minimal conflict.

 

Mountain bikers are making hiking trails impossible for hikers. You simply have no idea how much bikers are hated on hiking trails. Mountain bikers need to get their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. It is a no brainier!

 

>> Sure, a downhill MTB trail is not a safe place to walk and certain rocky scrambles uphill are impossible on a MTB.  So, yes, there is a safety issue in some circumstances that might prevent shared use but, in general, shared use can be quite sensibly applied.

 

It is not just a safety issue, it is an esthetic issue. If you had any esthetic sense you would factor that into the equation also.

 

>By the way, cyclists on trails are in fact a small minority compared to hikers.

 

>> Not the case.  I can point you to many locations where it’s the other way around.

 

I am sure you are right in some instances. Hikers have been scared away by the mountain bikers. 

 

> Always have been and always will be.

 

>> You have a crystal ball or can see the future ?  If mountain biking continues growing at its current rate this won’t be the case for too much longer.

 

Mountain biking on hiking trails is actually quite dangerous. That alone is going to reign it in. I believe mountain biking has already peaked.

 

> It is not majority rule. Hiking trails are for hikers. If you had ever kept up with Mr. Vandeman’s many posts, you would realize how dangerous cycling on hiking trails is. Maybe the liability issue will eventually kick in and result in some lawsuits against the land managers.

 

>> No, axiomatically, in a democracy public resources are for the use of the public.  The very statement ‘Hiking Trails’ implies some a-priori ownership of said trail by a specific group which is not, and never was, the case.  The trails do not ‘belong’ to hikers who are then doing all other groups a favour in providing access.  The trails belong to the public and the public can decide to what use they are put.

 

Democracy does not work well in all instances. What the public wants cannot always be given. We depend on managers to manage, not to give in cravenly to the threats of certain publics just because they make the most noise. You probably think people have the right to assemble and demonstrate in the public square too!

 

>> And, citing the criminal Mike Vandeman as a source is not very credible.  However, in the following thread on alt.mountain-bike as you can see ...

 

Mr. Vandeman is only disliked by certain types of mountain bikers. He is liked by hikers and others who value wilderness and nature.. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of mountain biking on hiking trails and wilderness values.

[...]

 

> Let me leave you with a sobering thought. It is not love that makes the world go around, it is hate that makes the world go around. The day is not far off when the hatred that hikers feel for cyclists on their sacred trails is going to manifest itself in some murders. At that point even the nincompoop land managers will have to sit up and take notice.

 

>> I fear you are projecting.  Would some hikers prefer that bikes were banned from their favourite trails ?  Of course.  Is this fair ?  No !  Would most sane, reasonable people concede that everyone has, within reason, an equal right to use public natural resources ?  Yes. 

 

The correct answer to your first assertion is yes and the correct answer to your second assertion is no. Glad I was able to enlighten you. No charge!.

 

>> Therefore, they don’t hate cyclists and many many people now conduct both activites.  There may well be a tiny minority that feel this way but they are the lunatic fringe and will, I hope, be dealt with by the authorities in the usual way.  Most people are reasonable, they see the fairness of sharing resources and mitigate it with a sensible approach to using particular trails.

 

How can you share when what is being shared is contested. It has to go one way or the other.If mountain bikers win and take over all the hiking trails, hikers will have to confine their walking activities to city streets. That is pretty much all I do these days myself. What is at stake is wilderness itself and all natural beauty. Mountain bikers have no regard for these things and will destroy them for mere sport. How utterly revolting!

 

> The major error you are committing is not recognizing that hiking and cycling on the same trails is an incompatible use. The two cannot coexist peacefully.  What cyclists do on a trail is a form of desecration from the hiker’s viewpoint.  There will always be this conflict. It is not resolvable.

 

>> This simply isn’t true.  The vast majority of the world manages to get on fine with sharing without major conflict.  There may be some diehards who won’t accept this but they are a very small minority.  The conflict will resolve itself as the younger generation, who have grown up always seeing bikes, people and horses together, grows to maturity.  It’s a temporary issue occasioned by change and the fact that, yes, for some it's an unwelcome change.

 

Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is far from over.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:d866b0d1-161b-4da2...@googlegroups.com...

 

> Mr. Vandeman and I have never yet heard a good argument for

> permitting mountain biking on hiking trails. Until we do, we shall remain

> steadfast in our opposition to this inappropriate use of hiking trails.

 

>> And, in your mind, you never will.  Your mind is closed on the subject, don't know if quite as irretrievably as the criminal Vandeman, but you will discount any argument advanced to support the proposition.

 

>> There are several valid propositions to support it;

 

>> 1. People are entitled to use a public resource; it does not belong to any one activity group

 

All public resources must be managed. They cannot be managed to please everyone. Hiking trails are best managed to please just one group – hikers! What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

 

>> 2. Environmental impact, whilst hotly contested by some, is broadly equivalent to other low-impact uses so the activity cannot be banned on that basis

 

We have all seen trails that have been ruined by mountain bikers. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on that subject.

 

>> 3. It is a low risk (0.000123 fatalities per million miles travelled [US figures estimated]) activity and highly beneficial to cardiovascular health

 

ERs are being flooded with injuries and fatalities from mountain biking on hiking trails. If you had even an ounce of common sense you would know how dangerous it is. Some extreme jerks are even encouraging children to take up the sport.

 

>> 4. It cannot be tenable to ban it simply because it is a 'new' use and will discomfort some existing users.  On that basis, as has already been pointed out, slavery, misogyny, racism and homophobia would all be justifiable.

 

Mountain biking has been around long enough to come to some conclusions about it. It is not that new!

 

>> 5. Sensible and equitable trail sharing IS possible ... despite assertions to the contrary.  Not on all trails ... but on most.

 

Even if it were possible, I would be against it on esthetic grounds. Mountain biking is a sport, hiking is a religion. The two things don’t go together.

 

>> 6. Getting people off their backsides and exercising in the countryside is good for their health and good for their appreciation of, and thus consideration for, nature.

 

I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads hereabouts. Minnesota has thousands of miles of such roads and are ideal for mountain bikes. Mountain bikers are hardly ever are in a  position to appreciate nature. They are always going too fast. You have to go slow to appreciate and to consider nature.

 

> I rejoice every time a mountain biker is killed or injured while biking on a

> hiking trail. Good riddance to bad rubbish !

 

>> "No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine own were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." - John Donne

 

>> To rejoice in another's death or injury, when that person has not wronged you, is to become rather less human.

 

It is brute reality. Get used to it. We hikers hate mountain bikers on our sacred trails. Get your own trails and stay off of ours!

[John B.]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:04:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:
>
A great deal snipped

>Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers
on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers
never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the
hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is
far from over.

I see, I think. You are saying that hikers own the trails, or at least
you imply that when you refer to trails as "their trails".

Now I don't know what y'all have out there in California but back east
the trails are part of either national or state forests and are
"owned" by the citizenry. In fact I worked two summers for the Forest
Service when I was in High school and I know damned well that my pay
check wasn't signed by a pack of hikers.

So, if the trails in California are also part of either national or
state parks or forests then, quite simply, you either don't know what
you are talking about when you rant and rave about bikers being on
"their trails", or you are deliberately lying about the situation.

Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a
different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
refer to the trails as "their's".

>
>Ed Dolan the Great
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Blackblade]

> All public resources must be managed. They cannot be managed
> to please everyone. Hiking trails are best managed to please just one group –
> hikers! What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Why must they be managed purely to please hikers ? How on earth do you justify that ?

> We have all seen trails that have been ruined by mountain
> bikers. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on that subject.

I have jousted with Vandeman several times. He writes nonsense and he has, in alt.mountain-bike, admitted actions that, despite all his protestations, show that he was correctly convicted of battery. I tried debating in a reasonable fashion with him but his inane conversation inevitably degenerates into calling everyone liars when they point out the gaping flaws in his assertions or logic. If that's your 'expert' I suggest you find a better one PDQ.

> ERs are being flooded with injuries and fatalities from
> mountain biking on hiking trails. If you had even an ounce of common sense you
> would know how dangerous it is. Some extreme jerks are even encouraging children
> to take up the sport.

Do you understand maths ? If there are close to 50 million people riding in the US then, even for a very low risk activity, there will be a fair number of injuries and even some fatalities. However, statistically, the risk is way lower than driving ... and is also way lower than dying of ischaemic heart disease which is an order of magnitude higher. Bottom line, you are far LESS likely to die if you take up mountain biking as opposed to sit on your butt in front of the TV.

> Even if it were possible, I would be against it on esthetic
> grounds. Mountain biking is a sport, hiking is a religion. The two things don’t
> go together.

Says who ? This is an assertion without any factual backup. I accept that it is what you feel ... but feelings are not normally valid reasons to take policy decisions.

> I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads
> hereabouts. Minnesota has thousands of miles of such roads and are ideal for
> mountain bikes. Mountain bikers are hardly ever are in a  position to
> appreciate nature. They are always going too fast. You have to go slow to
> appreciate and to consider nature.

Two rebuttals. 1. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, it is not for anyone to determine how others enjoy nature and, 2. Mountain bikes go slowly uphill and stop periodically ... giving ample opportunity to enjoy the environment.

> It is brute reality. Get used to it. We hikers hate mountain
> bikers on our sacred trails. Get your own trails and stay off of
> ours!

It's YOUR reality. I very much doubt there are too many others who feel that way. It's as inapplicable to the overall situation as my stating that, where I live, hike and ride there is no animosity. It's a personal experience; what evidence do you have that others share your hatred ?

And, even if they did, such emotional baggage is not valid grounds for making any kind of decision. That needs cool heads and logic ... not emotive rabble rousing.

[Blackblade]

> The conflict is serious and can never be resolved to the
> satisfaction of hikers.

Why should the conflict be resolved only to the satisfaction of the hikers ? Hikers don't own the trails ... they are certainly entitled to a voice but not more than anyone else. Many of the trails were actually created by pack animals ... I doubt you would accept that equestrians 'own' them.

The very term 'hiking trail' implies ownership. They are NOT hiking trails ... they are trails. Some may be appropriate only for hiking, some only for biking and some for mixed use ... but that is a different matter and doesn't convey ownership. The use can be changed.

> It is only the mountain bikers who are infringing on hiking
> trails which from time immemorial have been reserved for hikers and
> equestrians.

No, they were not reserved for one special interest group. They were reserved for people ... and people historically chose to use them for certain activities.

> Mountain bikers are making hiking trails impossible for
> hikers. You simply have no idea how much bikers are hated on hiking trails.
> Mountain bikers need to get their own trails entirely separated from hiking
> trails. It is a no brainier!

If it's a no brainer then prove it. How come Swinley Forest, where I mostly ride, has no biker/hiker conflicts despite shared use of all but a handful of more extreme trails ? Some trails are recommended for hiking and others for biking but both are permitted. The recommendation determines who gives way.

I don't see any hatred ...

> It is not just a safety issue, it is an esthetic issue. If you
> had any esthetic sense you would factor that into the equation
> also.

But, with respect, aesthetics are highly subjective ... axiomatically so. Personally, I really can't see the issue ... even when hiking. How does the addition of a mountain bike to a person materially change the aesthetic ? I could actually understand that you might want solitude ... I do periodically and, yes, I would then prefer not to be disturbed by anyone. However, I acknowledge that there simply isn't enough world to go around for us all to have our own bit ... we have to share.

> Mountain biking on hiking trails is actually quite dangerous.
> That alone is going to reign it in. I believe mountain biking has already
> peaked.

I reiterate ... 0.00123 per million miles travelled ... that's VERY safe.

> Democracy does not work well in all instances. What the public
> wants cannot always be given. We depend on managers to manage, not to give in
> cravenly to the threats of certain publics just because they make the most
> noise. You probably think people have the right to assemble and demonstrate in
> the public square too!

I agree ... to some degree. Democracy can, for example, lead to the oppression of minorities. That's why we have fundamental rights to safeguard individual freedoms. There are very few unfettered rights; as you say, the right to demonstrate in the public square is contingent on other considerations too.

However, what DOES work is the clear principle that public resources are managed for the benefit of the public. Managers, whilst being employed to manage, are required to consider what is overall in the public interest. You are asking for the managers to accord hiking some 'special' status; that's not their job.

> Mr. Vandeman is only disliked by certain types of mountain
> bikers. He is liked by hikers and others who value wilderness and nature.. Mr.
> Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of mountain biking on
> hiking trails and wilderness values.

He spouts idiocy regularly and litters his arguments with ad-hominem, circular logic, false dichotomies and blatant lies. On top of that he asks for empathy whilst displaying none himself and gleefully celebrating any injury or death of those with whom he disagrees. Since he has not confined his activities to the online sphere and has been convicted of violent offenses I strongly suggest you find a better 'expert'.

> How can you share when what is being shared is contested. It
> has to go one way or the other.If mountain bikers win and take over all the
> hiking trails, hikers will have to confine their walking activities to city
> streets. That is pretty much all I do these days myself. What is at stake is
> wilderness itself and all natural beauty. Mountain bikers have no regard for
> these things and will destroy them for mere sport. How utterly
> revolting!

Where to start ? So many assertions with so few supporting facts.

We are all forced to share the world. No choice whether you like it or not. You can contest what is a fair allocation, but you can't contest the requirement to share.

To validate your statement about it being either hiker or biker you would have to first prove that mixed use is not possible. Since I can refer you to many locations where it works fine I think you will struggle to prove that premise.

I am sure that SOME mountainbikers have no regard for nature. I very much doubt they are the majority. I am similarly sure that SOME hikers are there for reasons other than appreciating nature ... and the volume of litter left behind at certain locations would support that conclusion.

Speaking personally, I adore being out in the natural environment ... sometimes I wish to appreciate it slowly, at other times faster.

> Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain
> bikers on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something
> mountain bikers never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has
> far more support among the hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to
> save our trails is far from over.

If you really want to pick a pointless fight then so be it. I would suggest it's a waste of time but it's your funeral. I will continue to ride, and hike, and to deal courteously with other users of the trails. I will also work, with them, to make sure that the trails are maintained for all our enjoyment.

I think you fail to realise that the hiker/biker dichotomy is receding. Riders sometimes hike and hikers sometimes ride.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:6ce3r8lnb0s7l87a2...@4ax.com...

 

On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:04:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

>

>> A great deal snipped

 

A great pity for sure since all my words are precious jewels.

 

>Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers

on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers

never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the

hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is

far from over.

 

 

>> I see, I think. You are saying that hikers own the trails, or at least

you imply that when you refer to trails as "their trails".

 

>> Now I don't know what y'all have out there in California but back east

the trails are part of either national or state forests and are

"owned" by the citizenry. In fact I worked two summers for the Forest

Service when I was in High school and I know damned well that my pay

check wasn't signed by a pack of hikers.

 

It doesn't matter in the slightest who owns the land. What matters is how it is managed. Your pay check was not signed by me, one of your so-called “owners”. It was signed by a manager/administrator. They in effect own the land for all practical purposes.

 

>> So, if the trails in California are also part of either national or

state parks or forests then, quite simply, you either don't know what

you are talking about when you rant and rave about bikers being on

"their trails", or you are deliberately lying about the situation.

 

So every lunatic group that comes down the pike can lay claim to use hiking trails for any purpose whatsoever. Is that your view?

 

Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!

 

>> Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,

refer to the trails as "their's".

 

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:b5b7806f-2d15-4a9e...@googlegroups.com...

 

> The conflict is serious and can never be resolved to the

> satisfaction of hikers.

 

>> Why should the conflict be resolved only to the satisfaction of the hikers ?  Hikers don't own the trails ... they are certainly entitled to a voice but not more than anyone else.  Many of the trails were actually created by pack animals ... I doubt you would accept that equestrians 'own' them.

 

Mountain biking is a Johnny-come-lately to the trails. They should never have been permitted anywhere near them. I blame the managers for being gutless cowards and mindless idiots.

 

>> The very term 'hiking trail' implies ownership.  They are NOT hiking trails ... they are trails.  Some may be appropriate only for hiking, some only for biking and some for mixed use ... but that is a different matter and doesn't convey ownership.  The use can be changed.

 

I do not want mountain bikes anywhere near MY trails! Mixed use can never be ideal. And indeed, use can be changed.

 

> It is only the mountain bikers who are infringing on hiking

> trails which from time immemorial have been reserved for hikers and

> equestrians.

 

>> No, they were not reserved for one special interest group.  They were reserved for people ... and people historically chose to use them for certain activities.

 

I wonder why I never saw any motorcycles or cars/jeeps on trails. They always seem restricted to primitive roads at best. You probably wouldn’t mind seeing all-terrain vehicles on trails either. Hey, the more the merrier! God Damn People should always get what they want!

 

> Mountain bikers are making hiking trails impossible for

> hikers. You simply have no idea how much bikers are hated on hiking trails.

> Mountain bikers need to get their own trails entirely separated from hiking

> trails. It is a no brainier!

 

>> If it's a no brainer then prove it.  How come Swinley Forest, where I mostly ride, has no biker/hiker conflicts despite shared use of all but a handful of more extreme trails ?  Some trails are recommended for hiking and others for biking but both are permitted.  The recommendation determines who gives way.

 

When bikers use a trail, hikers are scared off of it. That why you don’t see any hikers.

 

>> I don't see any hatred ...

 

When folks are recreating they do not want to murder anyone. It creates too many complications.

 

> It is not just a safety issue, it is an esthetic issue. If you

> had any esthetic sense you would factor that into the equation

> also.

 

>> But, with respect, aesthetics are highly subjective ... axiomatically so.  Personally, I really can't see the issue ... even when hiking.  How does the addition of a mountain bike to a person materially change the aesthetic ?  I could actually understand that you might want solitude ... I do periodically and, yes, I would then prefer not to be disturbed by anyone.  However, I acknowledge that there simply isn't enough world to go around for us all to have our own bit ... we have to share.

 

You would not understand an esthetic if it jumped up and bit you in the elbow. There is enough world to go around for hikers if we can get the g.d. bikers off of our trails.

 

> Mountain biking on hiking trails is actually quite dangerous.

> That alone is going to reign it in. I believe mountain biking has already

> peaked.

 

>> I reiterate ... 0.00123 per million miles travelled ... that's VERY safe.

 

Go over your bars just once and you can end up with a spinal energy from which you will never recover. What the hell on earth is worth that!

 

> Democracy does not work well in all instances. What the public

> wants cannot always be given. We depend on managers to manage, not to give in

> cravenly to the threats of certain publics just because they make the most

> noise. You probably think people have the right to assemble and demonstrate in

> the public square too!

 

>> I agree ... to some degree.  Democracy can, for example, lead to the oppression of minorities.  That's why we have fundamental rights to safeguard individual freedoms.  There are very few unfettered rights; as you say, the right to demonstrate in the public square is contingent on other considerations too.

 

Ideally there should never be any right for anyone to demonstrate in the public square without permission from the proper authorities. Frankly, the way things are going, I am more worried about oppression of the majority, not any minorities.

 

>> However, what DOES work is the clear principle that public resources are managed for the benefit of the public.  Managers, whilst being employed to manage, are required to consider what is overall in the public interest.  You are asking for the managers to accord hiking some 'special' status; that's not their job.

 

Managers should not be turning what has been traditional upside down just because a new group comes down the pike demanding special consideration. Managers need to manage intelligently, not stupidly.

 

> Mr. Vandeman is only disliked by certain types of mountain

> bikers. He is liked by hikers and others who value wilderness and nature.. Mr.

> Vandeman is the foremost expert in the world on the impact of mountain biking on

> hiking trails and wilderness values.

 

>> He spouts idiocy regularly and litters his arguments with ad-hominem, circular logic, false dichotomies and blatant lies.  On top of that he asks for empathy whilst displaying none himself and gleefully celebrating any injury or death of those with whom he disagrees.  Since he has not confined his activities to the online sphere and has been convicted of violent offenses I strongly suggest you find a better 'expert'.

 

Mr. Vandeman asks for no quarter and gives no quarter. He and I are alike that way. However, I am not a purist like him. The world has been going to hell ever since I have been part of it and I do not see it ever getting any better. Maybe a huge asteroid will hit the earth soon and we can all go the way of the dinosaurs. Mr. Vandeman knows more about the impact of bicycles on trails than any man alive.

 

> How can you share when what is being shared is contested. It

> has to go one way or the other.If mountain bikers win and take over all the

> hiking trails, hikers will have to confine their walking activities to city

> streets. That is pretty much all I do these days myself. What is at stake is

> wilderness itself and all natural beauty. Mountain bikers have no regard for

> these things and will destroy them for mere sport. How utterly

> revolting!

 

>> Where to start ?  So many assertions with so few supporting facts.

 

>> :: We are all forced to share the world.  No choice whether you like it or not.  You can contest what is a fair allocation, but you can't contest the requirement to share.

 

>> To validate your statement about it being either hiker or biker you would have to first prove that mixed use is not possible.  Since I can refer you to many locations where it works fine I think you will struggle to prove that premise.

 

Very many locations which originally had a mixed use have been taken over by bikers. Hikers cannot coexist with bikers on trails. Get your own g.d. trails!

 

>> I am sure that SOME mountainbikers have no regard for nature.  I very much doubt they are the majority.  I am similarly sure that SOME hikers are there for reasons other than appreciating nature ... and the volume of litter left behind at certain locations would support that conclusion.

 

As usual, you are neglecting the esthetic. Hikers move slowly, bikers move fast. That makes all the difference.

 

>> Speaking personally, I adore being out in the natural environment ... sometimes I wish to appreciate it slowly, at other times faster.

 

If you appreciated it slowly, you would walk. In other words, you would be a hiker. All mountain bikers want is thrills and spills.

 

> Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain

> bikers on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something

> mountain bikers never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has

> far more support among the hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to

> save our trails is far from over.

 

>> If you really want to pick a pointless fight then so be it.  I would suggest it's a waste of time but it's your funeral.  I will continue to ride, and hike, and to deal courteously with other users of the trails.  I will also work, with them, to make sure that the trails are maintained for all our enjoyment.

 

Mountain biking has already peaked. It is on its way out. It will be my pleasure to give it a swift kick in the ass on its way out.

 

>> I think you fail to realise that the hiker/biker dichotomy is receding.  Riders sometimes hike and hikers sometimes ride.

 

When I ride my bike I am always on some kind of road. I am NEVER on a trail.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:0e632b32-0073-4d8f...@googlegroups.com...

 

> All public resources must be managed. They cannot be managed

> to please everyone. Hiking trails are best managed to please just one group –

> hikers! What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

 

>> Why must they be managed purely to please hikers ?  How on earth do you justify that ?

 

Hikers aren’t pleased when they have to step aside for cyclists or worse, get hit by them.

 

> We have all seen trails that have been ruined by mountain

> bikers. Mr. Vandeman is the expert on that subject.

 

>> I have jousted with Vandeman several times.  He writes nonsense and he has, in alt.mountain-bike, admitted actions that, despite all his protestations, show that he was correctly convicted of battery.  I tried debating in a reasonable fashion with him but his inane conversation inevitably degenerates into calling everyone liars when they point out the gaping flaws in his assertions or logic.  If that's your 'expert' I suggest you find a better one PDQ.

 

I know My Vandeman a thousand times better than you do. What you have to say about him is water off a duck’s back to me.

 

> ERs are being flooded with injuries and fatalities from

> mountain biking on hiking trails. If you had even an ounce of common sense you

> would know how dangerous it is. Some extreme jerks are even encouraging children

> to take up the sport.

 

>> Do you understand maths ?  If there are close to 50 million people riding in the US then, even for a very low risk activity, there will be a fair number of injuries and even some fatalities.  However, statistically, the risk is way lower than driving ... and is also way lower than dying of ischaemic heart disease which is an order of magnitude higher.  Bottom line, you are far LESS likely to die if you take up mountain biking as opposed to sit on your butt in front of the TV.

 

There are not 50 million cyclists riding mountain bikes on hiking trails. People die of heart disease after living a long life. Those cyclists who do ride their bikes on hiking trails are at high risk of injury and even death. If you had any common sense you would know that.

 

> Even if it were possible, I would be against it on esthetic

> grounds. Mountain biking is a sport, hiking is a religion. The two things don’t

> go together.

 

>> Says who ?  This is an assertion without any factual backup.  I accept that it is what you feel ... but feelings are not normally valid reasons to take policy decisions.

 

You must be blind and deaf as well as senseless. Mountain bikers and hikers are on trails for entirely different reasons. I am too weary to bother to explain those differences to someone who refuses to acknowledge that they even exist.

 

> I have a mountain bike myself which I ride on the gravel roads

> hereabouts. Minnesota has thousands of miles of such roads and are ideal for

> mountain bikes. Mountain bikers are hardly ever are in a  position to

> appreciate nature. They are always going too fast. You have to go slow to

> appreciate and to consider nature.

 

>> Two rebuttals.  1. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, it is not for anyone to determine how others enjoy nature and, 2. Mountain bikes go slowly uphill and stop periodically ... giving ample opportunity to enjoy the environment.

 

I am telling you that mountain bikers do hurt hikers just by their very presence on a trail. Mountain bikers are not there to enjoy the environment, They are there for thrills and spills. A group of mountain bikers is like a gang of hoodlums. Equestrians hate the lot of you even more than hikers.

 

> It is brute reality. Get used to it. We hikers hate mountain

> bikers on our sacred trails. Get your own trails and stay off of

> ours!

 

>> It's YOUR reality.  I very much doubt there are too many others who feel that way.  It's as inapplicable to the overall situation as my stating that, where I live, hike and ride there is no animosity.  It's a personal experience; what evidence do you have that others share your hatred ?

 

I am on a list of recipients of emails which more than back up every word of mine. It may be that you there in Scotland have found a special place where all is peace. But it is strife and rancor in most of America. There is no getting along with one another such as you experience.

 

>> And, even if they did, such emotional baggage is not valid grounds for making any kind of decision.  That needs cool heads and logic ... not emotive rabble rousing.

 

It is going to get far more emotional and when it does the managers of our public lands are going to get a comeuppance. They will be forced to develop trails solely for bikers if that is what everyone wants. Hikers and bikers cannot coexist on the same trails.

[John B.]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:21:44 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>"John B." wrote in message news:6ce3r8lnb0s7l87a2...@4ax.com...
>
>On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:04:53 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>> A great deal snipped
>
>A great pity for sure since all my words are precious jewels.
>
>>Nope ... mountain biking has to go! Hikers hate mountain bikers
>on their trails. Most are too gentlemanly (something mountain bikers
>never are) to speak out. Mr. Vandeman has far more support among the
>hiking community than you can imagine. The fight to save our trails is
>far from over.
>
>
>>> I see, I think. You are saying that hikers own the trails, or at least
>you imply that when you refer to trails as "their trails".
>
>>> Now I don't know what y'all have out there in California but back east
>the trails are part of either national or state forests and are
>"owned" by the citizenry. In fact I worked two summers for the Forest
>Service when I was in High school and I know damned well that my pay
>check wasn't signed by a pack of hikers.
>
>It doesn't matter in the slightest who owns the land. What matters is how it is managed. Your pay check was not signed by me, one of your so-called �owners�. It was signed by a manager/administrator. They in effect own the land for all practical purposes.
>
>>> So, if the trails in California are also part of either national or
>state parks or forests then, quite simply, you either don't know what
>you are talking about when you rant and rave about bikers being on
>"their trails", or you are deliberately lying about the situation.
>
>So every lunatic group that comes down the pike can lay claim to use hiking trails for any purpose whatsoever. Is that your view?
>
>Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!

And this is defined where? In what document?

Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to
prove a point that is simply not true.

>>> Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a
>different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
>refer to the trails as "their's".
>
>Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don�t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.
>

So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public
facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:vj26r81v7j723hljm...@4ax.com...

 

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:21:44 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

[...]

 

>Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!

 

>> And this is defined where? In what document?

 

Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.

 

>> Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to

prove a point that is simply not true.

 

It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.

 

>>> Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

>different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,

>refer to the trails as "their's".

>

>Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.

>

 

>> So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public

facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks

who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

 

I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.

 

Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

[John B.]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>"John B." wrote in message news:vj26r81v7j723hljm...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:21:44 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!
>

You are amazingly uninformed. Since "time immemorial" trails were
simply pathways used by animals. Your claims simply illustrate just
how little you really know about the subject.

>>> And this is defined where? In what document?
>
>Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.
>

I ask you again, in what document is this defined?

But more important your statement simply illustrates your ignorance of
the matter. Or perhaps you are too young to remember the sierra club
activities in trying to ban horses from wilderness areas?

>>> Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to
>prove a point that is simply not true.
>
>It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.
>

There is no "god given right" for anyone, there are simply man made
laws and regulations.

>>>> Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a
>>different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
>>refer to the trails as "their's".
>>
>>Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.
>>

Pure souls? Convicted criminals seems to be a far more accurate
description.

>
>>> So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public
>facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
>who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.
>
>I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.
>

I see, and your qualifications? Other than you self proclaimed
beatification I have not been appraised of any specific qualifications
that you might have.

>Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
>
>Ed Dolan the Great
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Blackblade]

>Hikers aren’t pleased when they have to step aside for cyclists or worse, get hit by them.

It’s a major imposition to have to step aside for a few seconds ? What do they do when they encounter runners or hikers coming the other way ? There are minimal collisions between hikers and riders.

>I know My Vandeman a thousand times better than you do. What you have to say >about him is water off a duck’s back to me.

Who you choose to associate with is your funeral. But you will forgive me, I trust, when you write the words ‘pure soul’ and I fall off my chair laughing. By behaving as he does he massively weakens your case ... but, hey, choose your own representatives ... even if they are incompetent, criminal and laughable.

>There are not 50 million cyclists riding mountain bikes on hiking trails. People die of heart disease after living a long life. Those cyclists who do ride their bikes on hiking trails are at high risk of injury and even death. If you had any common sense you would know that.

The Parks and Recreation department estimated there were 43.5million about five years ago. IMBA says there are 50m now. Follow the thread I referenced where I backed up the numbers. Mountain biking is not wholly safe ... I’m not saying that ... but the odds of death are very very low. And, no, if you don’t exercise then your chances of dying, young, from heart disease are high. Common sense is frequently wrong ... you need numbers and data.

>You must be blind and deaf as well as senseless. Mountain bikers and hikers are on trails for entirely different reasons. I am too weary to bother to explain those differences to someone who refuses to acknowledge that they even exist.

It’s immaterial. You don’t get to impose on others how they enjoy nature. I think you’re wrong about why people are there but the reality is that their motivation is not for you to approve or disapprove anyway.

>I am telling you that mountain bikers do hurt hikers just by their very presence on a trail. Mountain bikers are not there to enjoy the environment, They are there for thrills and spills. A group of mountain bikers is like a gang of hoodlums. Equestrians hate the lot of you even more than hikers.

This is all emotion and perception. If you thought about it logically for five seconds you would realise the absurdity of this statement as a justification for your proposition. You can fix the problem by taking a deep breath ... and changing your attitude. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why others should have to be denied access for your sensibilities.

>I am on a list of recipients of emails which more than back up every word of mine. It may be that you there in Scotland have found a special place where all is peace. But it is strife and rancor in most of America. There is no getting along with one another such as you experience.

You find what you seek. Only those who ARE bothered are going to communicate with you. There are tens of millions of hikers in the US ... how many emails do you have ? Unless you put things into perspective then its simply selective sampling.

>It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.

In a democracy, axiomatically, all PEOPLE have the same rights to share public resources. Desecrate is an emotionally charged term.

>Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

I’m sure this is true for some. But it’s not a rational justification for banning bikers. It’s a justification for telling getting people to learn to live and let live.

>It is going to get far more emotional and when it does the managers of our public lands are going to get a comeuppance. They will be forced to develop trails solely for bikers if that is what everyone wants. Hikers and bikers cannot coexist on the same trails.

I think you’re wrong. My prediction is that, in a short while, there will be minimal conflict. You keep stating that Hikers and Bikers can’t coexist ... but you can’t refute the fact that it works fine in many places. So, axiomatically, it IS possible. Not everywhere, I’m sure, but in most locations. As was pointed out, not so long ago hikers were trying to get equestrians banned ... now, you’re working with them. Things change.

Overall, I think I do understand where you’re coming from ... and why you think that the trails can’t be shared. But, if you really think about it, all your arguments stem from a perception that the trails belong to hikers ... which isn’t, and was not ever, the case ... and an aesthetic sensibility. But, the problem is not then the bikers; who are as entitled to use the trails as you are ... you’re both people ... but with your perception. I hesitate to say ‘take a chill pill’ but, really, that is what it comes down to.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:ael7r8h90nst6k23b...@4ax.com...

 

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

 

>>Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!

>

>>> You are amazingly uninformed. Since "time immemorial" trails were

simply pathways used by animals. Your claims simply illustrate just

how little you really know about the subject.

 

How far back do you want to go, you confounded dolt! All of my life trails have been reserved for such as myself. It is only very recently that g.d. bikes have been permitted on trails.

 

>>> And this is defined where? In what document?

>

>Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.

>

>>> I ask you again, in what document is this defined?

 

Do your own research. I have got better things to do than supply you with documents.

 

>>> But more important your statement simply illustrates your ignorance of

the matter. Or perhaps you are too young to remember the sierra club

activities in trying to ban horses from wilderness areas?

 

That would have been a good thing to have done also. Bravo the Sierra Club!

 

When I was young like you I knew next to nothing about anything. Now that I am old, I know everything about everything. That is what 80 years of life does to one.

 

>>> Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to

>prove a point that is simply not true.

>

>It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.

>

 

>>> There is no "god given right" for anyone, there are simply man made

laws and regulations.

 

At long last, a statement that I can agree with! What man has made, man can unmake.

 

>>>> Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a

>>different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,

>>refer to the trails as "their's".

>>

>>Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.

>>

 

>>> Pure souls? Convicted criminals seems to be a far more accurate

description.

 

Mr. Vandeman is as innocent of all transgressions as the driven snow. Further, he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are.

 

>

>>> So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public

>facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks

>who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.

>

>I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.

>

 

>>> I see, and your qualifications? Other than you self proclaimed

beatification I have not been appraised of any specific qualifications

that you might have.

 

You apparently are not aware of just how GREAT I am? I urge you to study my signature. I am not only GREAT, but HOLY besides.

 

More seriously, I defer to Mr. Vandeman on any and all issues of qualifications. He is a genius!

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:a6404168-759f-46b0...@googlegroups.com...

 

>Hikers aren’t pleased when they have to step aside for cyclists or worse, get hit by them.

 

>> It’s a major imposition to have to step aside for a few seconds ?  What do they do when they encounter runners or hikers coming the other way ?  There are minimal collisions between hikers and riders.

 

I hiked thousands of miles of trails in the western US when I was young and never encountered any runners. What are they? Hikers encountering one another on a trail is an occasion to greet one another. There does not have to be many collisions between hikers and bikers. Just a single collision can be extremely serious or even fatal.

>I know My Vandeman a thousand times better than you do. What you have to say >about him is water off a duck’s back to me.

 

>> Who you choose to associate with is your funeral.  But you will forgive me, I trust, when you write the words ‘pure soul’ and I fall off my chair laughing.  By behaving as he does he massively weakens your case ... but, hey, choose your own representatives ... even if they are incompetent, criminal and laughable.

 

Mr. Vandeman has all the scholarlty qualifications to be considered an expert, but more importantly he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are. I use the words "pure soul” to refer to his mission to cleanse our environment of all polluters, like mountain bikers for instance. I am not so extreme as him ... which is nothing to brag about in this day and age when everything is going to hell in a hand basket.

 

>There are not 50 million cyclists riding mountain bikes on hiking trails. People die of heart disease after living a long life. Those cyclists who do ride their bikes on hiking trails are at high risk of injury and even death. If you had any common sense you would know that.

 

>> The Parks and Recreation department estimated there were 43.5million about five years ago.  IMBA says there are 50m now.  Follow the thread I referenced where I backed up the numbers.  Mountain biking is not wholly safe ... I’m not saying that ... but the odds of death are very very low.  And, no, if you don’t exercise then your chances of dying, young, from heart disease are high.  Common sense is frequently wrong ... you need numbers and data.

 

I only need a few bad experiences with mountain bikers on a trail to know where I stand. Statistical data lies about everything most of the time just like polls do. You need to get some reality into your thinking. Further, many parks and recreation areas have created special trails for bicycling. I have no objection to that provided that other trails are available solely for hikers. Hikers will always have the best trails. Even idiots know that much.

 

>You must be blind and deaf as well as senseless. Mountain bikers and hikers are on trails for entirely different reasons. I am too weary to bother to explain those differences to someone who refuses to acknowledge that they even exist.

 

>> It’s immaterial.  You don’t get to impose on others how they enjoy nature.  I think you’re wrong about why people are there but the reality is that their motivation is not for you to approve or disapprove anyway.

 

Their motivation determines their behavior. It should be a prime a consideration by land managers.  However, It is their behavior that I object to the most. But I just plain don’t like bikes on trails. It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

>I am telling you that mountain bikers do hurt hikers just by their very presence on a trail. Mountain bikers are not there to enjoy the environment, They are there for thrills and spills. A group of mountain bikers is like a gang of hoodlums. Equestrians hate the lot of you even more than hikers.

 

>> This is all emotion and perception.  If you thought about it logically for five seconds you would realise the absurdity of this statement as a justification for your proposition.  You can fix the problem by taking a deep breath ... and changing your attitude.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why others should have to be denied access for your sensibilities.

 

Yes, indeed ... it is all emotion and perception – yours to be precise.

 

“It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?” – Ed Dolan

 

>I am on a list of recipients of emails which more than back up every word of  mine. It may be that you there in Scotland have found a special place where all is peace. But it is strife and rancor in most of America. There is no getting along with one another such as you experience.

 

>>You find what you seek.  Only those who ARE bothered are going to communicate with you.  There are tens of millions of hikers in the US ... how many emails do you have ?  Unless you put things into perspective then its simply selective sampling.

 

The list that I am on is the only one that counts. Your worship of numbers (data) marks you as an ignoramus who is easily swayed by lies.

 

>It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.

 

>> In a democracy, axiomatically, all PEOPLE have the same rights to share public resources.  Desecrate is an emotionally charged term.

 

What mountain bikers do on trails is indeed a desecration. Managers determine what rights people have to share public resources. I suppose the game of politics is the final arbiter, but it seldom ever gets to that level. Broadly speaking, people never have the right to share equally in public resources, Where did you ever get a crazy idea like that?

 

>Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

 

>> I’m sure this is true for some.  But it’s not a rational justification for banning bikers.  It’s a justification for telling getting people to learn to live and let live.

 

When an incompatible use is involved, it is not possible to reconcile the conflict. The mountain biking situation just keeps getting worse and worse. Education is not the answer to most things. The answer to most things is force majeure. It is the reason we have police forces and military forces.

 

>It is going to get far more emotional and when it does the managers of our public lands are going to get a comeuppance. They will be forced to develop trails solely for bikers if that is what everyone wants. Hikers and bikers cannot coexist on the same trails.

 

>> I think you’re wrong.  My prediction is that, in a short while, there will be minimal conflict.  You keep stating that Hikers and Bikers can’t coexist ... but you can’t refute the fact that it works fine in many places.  So, axiomatically, it IS possible.  Not everywhere, I’m sure, but in most locations.  As was pointed out, not so long ago hikers were trying to get equestrians banned ... now, you’re working with them.  Things change.

 

We hikers do not like equestrians much either if truth be told, but at least we can coexist as long as there are not too many of them. Bikers can easily take over trails so that no one else can use them. Frankly I do not mind cyclists in the low lying flatlands where the trail is broad. But high mountain trails are not for cyclists any more than they are for motorcyclists.

 

The incompatible use idea extends to things other than just physical contact. It most powerfully extends to what you are there for in the first place and what is your mindset. Mountain bikers are there for fun and games; hikers are there for contemplation of nature and natural beauty. These things never go together.

 

>> Overall, I think I do understand where you’re coming from ... and why you think that the trails can’t be shared.  But, if you really think about it, all your arguments stem from a perception that the trails belong to hikers ... which isn’t, and was not ever, the case ... and an aesthetic sensibility.  But, the problem is not then the bikers; who are as entitled to use the trails as you are ... you’re both people ... but with your perception.  I hesitate to say ‘take a chill pill’ but, really,  that is what it comes down to.

 

Maybe you would not object to motorcyclists on the trails either? After all, they are god damn people too and have a perfect right to the use of a public resource just like everyone else?

 

I believe the trails are for hikers and are not for bikers. That has always been the tradition until recently. The fact that we are all people is totally irrelevant. Everything under the sun must be managed for ideally best use. Permitting bikes on trails is a worse use.

 

I think the present situation will have to get worse before it gets better. The compromise will be that bikers will get their own trails separated from hiking trails. It is just a matter of time.

[John B.]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:40:14 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>"John B." wrote in message news:ael7r8h90nst6k23b...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Hiking trails have from time immemorial been reserved for hikers and equestrians. It is still that way in Wilderness Areas and in most National Parks. Mountain biking on hiking trails is an incompatible use. Mountain bikers need their own trails entirely separated from hiking trails. Hiking trails do indeed belong to hikers!
>>
>>>> You are amazingly uninformed. Since "time immemorial" trails were
>simply pathways used by animals. Your claims simply illustrate just
>how little you really know about the subject.
>
>How far back do you want to go, you confounded dolt! All of my life trails have been reserved for such as myself. It is only very recently that g.d. bikes have been permitted on trails.

Apparently a lot further than you do.

I see. Your opposition to bicycles is based on the supposition that
you are somehow important enough the warrant the closing of public
owned property to only you and your like?

You are just another bigot confuses his desires with reality.

>>>> And this is defined where? In what document?
>>
Wilderness Areas specifically exclude any mode of travel other than by
foot and horseback. It is why I want more and more areas to be given
Wilderness status. The National Parks are not as solid on this issue
as they should be. That is because many bureaucrats are gutless
cowards and do not always stand up for what is right.
>>

I see. because the bureaucrats do not act as you wish them too THEY
are at fault. Or in other words you consider yourself as some sort of
later day messiah placed on earth to save the trails.

You are not only a bigot but a fool.

>>>> I ask you again, in what document is this defined?
>
>Do your own research. I have got better things to do than supply you with documents.

It is obvious that you cannot justify your statements with anything
remotely resembling fact.

>>>> But more important your statement simply illustrates your ignorance of
>the matter. Or perhaps you are too young to remember the sierra club
>activities in trying to ban horses from wilderness areas?
>
>That would have been a good thing to have done also. Bravo the Sierra Club!

That would "have been"? It happened, and you, the Savour of the Trails
are too ignorant to know the history of your "Keep the trails for us"
movement.

>When I was young like you I knew next to nothing about anything. Now that I am old, I know everything about everything. That is what 80 years of life does to one.

So tell me, when were you born. You allude to eighty years of life but
are surprisingly ignorant of events that occurred during your supposed
lifetime.

>>>> Or is this argument simply made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to
>>prove a point that is simply not true.
>>
>>It is as true as thinking mountain bikers have some god given right to desecrate trails.
>>
>>>> There is no "god given right" for anyone, there are simply man made
>laws and regulations.
>
>At long last, a statement that I can agree with! What man has made, man can unmake.
>
>>>>> Of course, if the trails are on private property than it is quite a
>>>different proposition and the owners of the property can, of course,
>>>refer to the trails as "their's".
>>>
>>>Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to exclude bikes from all off-road areas. Frankly, I don’t give a good god damn what private owners of property do with their land. Mountain bikers should seek out such owners in which to develop their own trails.
>>>
>
>>>> Pure souls? Convicted criminals seems to be a far more accurate
>description.
>
>Mr. Vandeman is as innocent of all transgressions as the driven snow. Further, he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are.

Of course, that is why the courts ruled as they did.

But certainly you and your ilk need to argue that the courts were
wrong as to do otherwise would mean that your thesis is wrong and that
you are two more stray dogs barking at the moon.

>>
>>>> So, you feel competent to speak for all of those who use public
>>facilities. the arrogance is frightening. I'm reminded of the folks
>>who attempted to solve the Jewish problem.
>>
>>I am as competent as anyone else, most particularly you.
>>
>
>>>> I see, and your qualifications? Other than you self proclaimed
>beatification I have not been appraised of any specific qualifications
>that you might have.
>
>You apparently are not aware of just how GREAT I am? I urge you to study my signature. I am not only GREAT, but HOLY besides.

I have already alluded to your self proclaimed beatification. I
remember by grandson shouting loudly, "Look at me, Look at me, while
handing by his knees from a tree limb and his sister saying, "You are
not wonderful".

>More seriously, I defer to Mr. Vandeman on any and all issues of qualifications. He is a genius!

And a criminal.

>>Mountain bikers are not bothered much by hikers when using the trails, but hikers are bothered very much by bikers. That is what you fail to understand. Until you do, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.
>>
>>Ed Dolan the Great
>>aka
>>Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

>"John B."  wrote in message news:ael7r8h90nst6k23b...@4ax.com...

>

>On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

>wrote:

[...]

 

>> I see. Your opposition to bicycles is based on the supposition that

you are somehow important enough the warrant the closing of public

owned property to only you and your like?

 

>> You are just another bigot confuses his desires with reality.

 

Now the name calling begins as I knew it would. Mountain bikers and those who defend them are all of a type. I have given you a half dozen reasons why there is no place for bikes on hiking trails. You are the only one here who confuses his desires with reality. No wonder Mr. Vandeman calls you out for the scoundrels that you are!

[...]

 

>> I see. because the bureaucrats do not act as you wish them too THEY

are at fault. Or in other words you consider yourself as some sort of

later day messiah placed on earth to save the trails.

 

You don’t see shit! Compared to you I am the second wisest man in the world, Mr. Vandeman being the wisest of course.

 

>> You are not only a bigot but a fool.

 

And you are a mountain biker (the ultimate insult) who trespasses on hiking trails. I hope you go over your handle bars while riding on a trail and suffer spinal paralysis. It is no good wishing that you would land on your head since that part of your anatomy is as tough as your ass. Paralysis will be good for you as it will give you time to think on all your sins and ask forgiveness of Mother Earth.

 

>>>> I ask you again, in what document is this defined?

>

>Do your own research. I have got better things to do than supply you with documents.

 

>> It is obvious that you cannot justify your statements with anything

remotely resembling fact.

 

The only thing that is obvious is that you are even lazier than I am.

 

>>>> But more important your statement simply illustrates your ignorance of

>the matter. Or perhaps you are too young to remember the sierra club

>activities in trying to ban horses from wilderness areas?

>

>That would have been a good thing to have done also. Bravo the Sierra Club!

 

>> That would "have been"? It happened, and you, the Savour of the Trails

are too ignorant to know the history of your "Keep the trails for us"

movement.

 

I lost interest in the Sierra Club long ago. They made too many compromises with the truth. They were not purists like Mr. Vandemann ... who is the true “Savior of the Trails”.

 

>When I was young like you I knew next to nothing about anything. Now that I am old, I know everything about everything. That is what 80 years of life does to one.

 

>> So tell me, when were you born. You allude to eighty years of life but

are surprisingly ignorant of events that occurred during your supposed

lifetime.

 

I only pay attention to the important things of life ... like the contemplation of my navel.

[...]

 

>You apparently are not aware of just how GREAT I am? I urge you to study my signature. I am not only GREAT, but HOLY besides.

 

>> I have already alluded to your self proclaimed beatification.  I

remember by grandson shouting loudly, "Look at me, Look at me, while

handing by his knees from a tree limb and his sister saying, "You are

not wonderful".

 

It is important to have some manufactured personas in order to deal with fools like you. Moreover, unlike you, I use my full real name. That is because when I kick ass I want whose ever ass I am kicking to know my name. I do not hide behind any kind of anonymity. Just another reason why I am GREAT and you aren’t.

[...]

[John B.]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:39:21 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

>>"John B." wrote in message news:ael7r8h90nst6k23b...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:02:37 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
>>wrote:
>[...]
>
>>> I see. Your opposition to bicycles is based on the supposition that
>you are somehow important enough the warrant the closing of public
>owned property to only you and your like?
>
>>> You are just another bigot confuses his desires with reality.
>
>Now the name calling begins as I knew it would. Mountain bikers and those who defend them are all of a type. I have given you a half dozen reasons why there is no place for bikes on hiking trails. You are the only one here who confuses his desires with reality. No wonder Mr. Vandeman calls you out for the scoundrels that you are!
>[...]

Ah yes, but of course you did say:
write:

How far back do you want to go, you confounded dolt! All of my life
trails have been reserved for such as myself.

and you wrote

When I was young like you I knew next to nothing about anything.

and you wrote

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to
exclude bikes

and you wrote

You apparently are not aware of just how GREAT I am? I urge you to
study my signature. I am not only GREAT, but HOLY besides.

and you wrote

More seriously, I defer to Mr. Vandeman on any and all issues of
qualifications. He is a genius!

And you wrote

You don’t see shit! Compared to you I am the second wisest man in the
world

But you object to the title of a bigot?

Well, what do you prefer? Perhaps, "a prejudiced person who is
intolerant of any opinions differing from his own". It seems to
describe you perfectly.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Blackblade]

>I hiked thousands of miles of trails in the western US when I was young and never encountered any runners. What are they? Hikers encountering one another on a trail is an occasion to greet one another. There does not have to be many collisions between hikers and bikers. Just a single collision can be extremely serious or even fatal.

So why are hiker/biker encounters not an opportunity to greet each other too. Where I ride that’s the standard interaction … “Hi there, have a good day”.

I completely accept that a collision could be serious … particularly in a remote location … but it’s incredibly rare. If we stopped all activities based on a remote risk then we would not fly, drive or travel. There are ‘reasonable’ risks in life.

>Mr. Vandeman has all the scholarlty qualifications to be considered an expert, but more importantly he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are. I use the words "pure soul” to refer to his mission to cleanse our environment of all polluters, like mountain bikers for instance. I am not so extreme as him ... which is nothing to brag about in this day and age when everything is going to hell in a hand basket.

I was tempted to let this slide … but when you wrote that he has scholarly qualifications I had to respond. He has no RELEVANT qualifications whatsoever and, after his one success in getting into a very tangential publication (Urban Heptology), he has had precisely zero subsequent work published. He does himself, and your cause, no good as far as I can see. But, as I said, it’s your choice. I would suggest that your honesty about WHY you don’t want mountainbikers on the trails is far more relevant, and meritorious, than Vandeman’s.

In the way that you use it, the most apt synonym for ‘Pure Soul’ would be monomaniacal sociopath.

>I only need a few bad experiences with mountain bikers on a trail to know where I stand. Statistical data lies about everything most of the time just like polls do. You need to get some reality into your thinking. Further, many parks and recreation areas have created special trails for bicycling. I have no objection to that provided that other trails are available solely for hikers. Hikers will always have the best trails. Even idiots know that much.

I think that your view is common; anecdote is powerful and personal experience even more so. However, as I suspect you realise, it’s also fundamentally suspect and leads to all kinds of prejudices. Statistics can be mis-used, as can most tools, but measuring what is really going on is essential if you want to know the truth.

I think that some degree of split is perfectly rational … in some cases. I would not wish to hike on a downhill mtb trail for sure either. In locations where alternative trails are feasible then, sure, why not. However, that won’t ever be the case for all trails so some degree of sharing is essential. Long, remote trails are not going to be created twice and, given the low usage, this would make no sense anyway.

> But I just plain don’t like bikes on trails. It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

I got the message about your feelings on the matter; but can you not, at least logically, accept that these are subjective ? You feel it strongly, I can see that, but not everyone does and your views should not take precedence over others’ valid right to use natural resources as they see fit too.

I think, also, that you’re missing the point about use; the trails were, frequently, NOT created purely for hiking use. They were created by animals, by trade and for transport purposes in many cases.

I am a hiker and a biker. In my youth I hiked all over North Wales with my father. Now, I prefer to ride, but I do still hike too. My son prefers hiking, my daughter riding. How is it ‘selfish’ to want to use the same trail for both activities ? Is it any less ‘selfish’ than you saying that you want them exclusively for your activity ?

>Yes, indeed ... it is all emotion and perception – yours to be precise.

No, I’m rather less emotional; if you could produce objective, reviewed data that proved me wrong I would accept it.

>“It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?” – Ed Dolan

It’s not incompatible; you’ve asserted that many times but I have shown that it works fine in some areas. How is it ‘selfish’ to want to use one’s chosen form of transport to experience that scarce resource ? Is it not more selfish to wish to restrict others’ enjoyment ? Roads are a completely different experience … and not attractive to those of us who wish to continue to enjoy nature.

>The list that I am on is the only one that counts. Your worship of numbers (data) marks you as an ignoramus who is easily swayed by lies.

I disagree. My open-ness to being persuaded by real data is, I would suggest, the only rational approach to this. If you get messianic then there is no solution; the reality is that we will end up with some trails being single use and others being shared. If all parties are prepared to approach this in a less prejudiced manner it’s more likely that the outcome will be successful. For example; there is a voluntary moratorium on riding on Snowdon at certain times. And that was agreed because people were reasonable and prepared to accommodate each other.

>What mountain bikers do on trails is indeed a desecration. Managers determine what rights people have to share public resources. I suppose the game of politics is the final arbiter, but it seldom ever gets to that level. Broadly speaking, people never have the right to share equally in public resources, Where did you ever get a crazy idea like that?

“In the modern representative democracy, ‘public property’ is said to be owned by the people as a commons or held in trust by the government for common benefit.” …

>When an incompatible use is involved, it is not possible to reconcile the conflict. The mountain biking situation just keeps getting worse and worse. Education is not the answer to most things. The answer to most things is force majeure. It is the reason we have police forces and military forces.

You keep stating that it’s incompatible. You don’t verify this other than by asserting that you don’t like it. How do your perceptions determine reality ?
I would assert, by reference to successful projects, that in most cases it’s completely compatible. In the rare cases where it is not then separate trails may be the answer.

I would also be careful about asserting that it’s incompatible; if the situation, as you imply, is that there are more and more mountainbikers then if they become the majority users then your intransigent stand of “It’s us or them” will result in hikers leaving the trails.

>We hikers do not like equestrians much either if truth be told, but at least we can coexist as long as there are not too many of them. Bikers can easily take over trails so that no one else can use them. Frankly I do not mind cyclists in the low lying flatlands where the trail is broad. But high mountain trails are not for cyclists any more than they are for motorcyclists.

If you can co-exist with a tonne of horseflesh I would contend you can deal with 20 – 30 lbs of mountainbike.

>The incompatible use idea extends to things other than just physical contact. It most powerfully extends to what you are there for in the first place and what is your mindset. Mountain bikers are there for fun and games; hikers are there for contemplation of nature and natural beauty. These things never go together.

I just don’t agree. I can sit on an aeons old rock and contemplate the ephemeral nature of life … without requiring that everyone else does the same. I might decry the mentality of those that get to the top of a mountain and go to the gift shop rather than enjoy the view … but they don’t spoil my enjoyment.

>Maybe you would not object to motorcyclists on the trails either? After all, they are god damn people too and have a perfect right to the use of a public resource just like everyone else?

I would accept that they have some rights to enjoy natural resources. However, given the damage that they do, even in small numbers, I can completely accept that they have to be restricted for the common good.

>I believe the trails are for hikers and are not for bikers. That has always been the tradition until recently. The fact that we are all people is totally irrelevant. Everything under the sun must be managed for ideally best use. Permitting bikes on trails is a worse use.

Better and worse are more emotive terms. Better and worse for whom ? If ten people want to ride a trail and only three want to hike it then which use is the better one ? There’s no logical basis for preferring hiking in such a circumstance.

You can ‘believe’ that this is the case … I don’t. Therefore, since we disagree the only fair arbiter is to look at the facts. If it is acceptable to bring a tonne of horseflesh along then it certainly must be acceptable to bring a mountainbike.

>I think the present situation will have to get worse before it gets better. The compromise will be that bikers will get their own trails separated from hiking trails. It is just a matter of time.

In some cases, that may be the best solution … I agree. In others, not so. However, unless both ‘sides’ accept the others’ valid concerns and wishes then reaching an accommodation is difficult.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:ctcbr8tbepkdsi9l8...@4ax.com...

[...]

 

>>> You are just another bigot confuses his desires with reality.

>

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

>Now the name calling begins as I knew it would. Mountain bikers and those who defend them are all of a type. I have given you a half dozen reasons why there is no place for bikes on hiking trails. You are the only one here who confuses his desires with reality. No wonder Mr. Vandeman calls you out for the scoundrels that you are!

[...]

 

Ah yes, but of course you did say:

write:

 

How far back do you want to go, you confounded dolt! All of my life

trails have been reserved for such as myself.

 

and you wrote

 

When I was young like you I knew next to nothing about anything.

 

and you wrote

 

Only pure souls like Mr. Vandeman care enough about nature to want to

exclude bikes

 

and you wrote

 

You apparently are not aware of just how GREAT I am? I urge you to

study my signature. I am not only GREAT, but HOLY besides.

 

and you wrote

 

More seriously, I defer to Mr. Vandeman on any and all issues of

qualifications. He is a genius!

 

And you wrote

 

You don’t see shit! Compared to you I am the second wisest man in the

world

 

>> It is always a pleasure to see my words of wisdom repeated for the enlightenment of the world. What you seem not to understand is that you are a name caller, like all mountain bikers, whereas all I do is state the simple facts of life.

 

But you object to the title of a bigot?

 

>> Bigot is one of those words that politically correct liberals like you throw around whenever you are stumped. I am surprised you did not call me a racist and a homophobe besides since those are also favorite politically correct words for liberals like you. I am an old fashion kind of guy. I simple call others what they are ... assholes, numbskulls and blackguards.

 

Well, what do you prefer? Perhaps, "a prejudiced person who is

intolerant of any opinions differing from his own". It seems to

describe you perfectly.

 

>> Why would I tolerate opinions other than my own when my opinions are right and all other opinions are wrong. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain works.

 

>> Can I ever be persuaded to change my mind about anything? Of course, but only by the most reasonable argument. I have never yet changed my mind about anything by being called a bigot. Mr. Vandeman makes all the sense in the world to me; you make no sense at all.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:89b7a440-f6bf-4792...@googlegroups.com...

 

>I hiked thousands of miles of trails in the western US when I was young and never encountered any runners. What are they? Hikers encountering one another on a trail is an occasion to greet one another. There does not have to be many collisions between hikers and bikers. Just a single collision can be extremely serious or even fatal.

 

>> So why are hiker/biker encounters not an opportunity to greet each other too.  Where I ride that’s the standard interaction … “Hi there, have a good day”.

 

When I hike and meet a biker I am in fear of my life. I am going slow, he is going fast.

 

>> I completely accept that a collision could be serious … particularly in a remote location … but it’s incredibly rare.  If we stopped all activities based on a remote risk then we would not fly, drive or travel.  There are ‘reasonable’ risks in life.

 

The greatest risk of mountain biking on single track trails is that the biker will crash all by himself without any help from a hiker. Even so, it is an incompatible use to have hikers and bikers on the same trails.

 

>Mr. Vandeman has all the scholarlty qualifications to be considered an expert, but more importantly he is a gentleman, something that mountain bikers never are. I use the words "pure soul” to refer to his mission to cleanse our environment of all polluters, like mountain bikers for instance. I am not so extreme as him ... which is nothing to brag about in this day and age when everything is going to hell in a hand basket.

 

>> I was tempted to let this slide … but when you wrote that he has scholarly qualifications I had to respond.  He has no RELEVANT qualifications whatsoever and, after his one success in getting into a very tangential publication (Urban Heptology), he has had precisely zero subsequent work published.  He does himself, and your cause, no good as far as I can see.  But, as I said, it’s your choice.  I would suggest that your honesty about WHY you don’t want mountainbikers on the trails is far more relevant, and meritorious, than Vandeman’s.

 

Mr. Vandeman is a purist. We need types like him to see how far short we fall from the ideal. As far as I know, you cannot get a Ph.D. without doing some scholarly work. Who cares whether it is relevant or not. He is a man with a mission and it is good for us to be confronted with a viewpoint pushed to the extreme. Most of us are only too ready to compromise with the less than the ideal.

 

>> In the way that you use it, the most apt synonym for ‘Pure Soul’ would be monomaniacal sociopath.

 

>I only need a few bad experiences with mountain bikers on a trail to know where I stand. Statistical data lies about everything most of the time just like polls do. You need to get some reality into your thinking. Further, many parks and recreation areas have created special trails for bicycling. I have no objection to that provided that other trails are available solely for hikers. Hikers will always have the best trails. Even idiots know that much.

 

>> I think that your view is common; anecdote is powerful and personal experience even more so.  However, as I suspect you realise, it’s also fundamentally suspect and leads to all kinds of prejudices.  Statistics can be mis-used, as can most tools, but measuring what is really going on is essential if you want to know the truth.

 

>> I think that some degree of split is perfectly rational … in some cases.  I would not wish to hike on a downhill mtb trail for sure either.  In locations where alternative trails are feasible then, sure, why not.  However, that won’t ever be the case for all trails so some degree of sharing is essential.  Long, remote trails are not going to be created twice and, given the low usage, this would make no sense anyway.

 

Yes, the low usage is what works best, but we cannot count on that condition persisting forever. However, some trails in some parts of the country are frequently quite crowded with both hikers and bikers. That should be our template, not a trail that no one uses.

> But I just plain don’t like bikes on trails. It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

 

>> I got the message about your feelings on the matter; but can you not, at least logically, accept that these are subjective ?  You feel it strongly, I can see that, but not everyone does and your views should not take precedence over others’ valid right to use natural resources as they see fit too.

 

My viewpoint will increasingly become dominant as conflicts grow between hikers and bikers on trails.

 

>> I think, also, that you’re missing the point about use; the trails were, frequently, NOT created purely for hiking use.  They were created by animals, by trade and for transport purposes in many cases.

 

How they were originally created is not relevant. They have been traditionally reserved for hikers and equestrians once the era of recreation began about a hundred years ago.

 

>> I am a hiker and a biker.  In my youth I hiked all over North Wales with my father.  Now, I prefer to ride, but I do still hike too.  My son prefers hiking, my daughter riding.  How is it ‘selfish’ to want to use the same trail for both activities ?  Is it any less ‘selfish’ than you saying that you want them exclusively for your activity ?

 

Bikers will need their own trails, if not quite yet, then eventually. It is a conflicting use.

>Yes, indeed ... it is all emotion and perception – yours to be precise.

 

>> No, I’m rather less emotional; if you could produce objective, reviewed data that proved me wrong I would accept it.

 

>“It is an incompatible use of a scarce resource. There are millions of miles of roads of various grades suitable for cycling. It is god damn selfish of you to want to horn in on the few trails that exist for another use. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?” – Ed Dolan

 

>> It’s not incompatible; you’ve asserted that many times but I have shown that it works fine in some areas.  How is it ‘selfish’ to want to use one’s chosen form of transport to experience that scarce resource ?  Is it not more selfish to wish to restrict others’ enjoyment ?  Roads are a completely different experience … and not attractive to those of us who wish to continue to enjoy nature.

 

A bicycle is a mechanical contraption designed for road use, You can best enjoy nature by walking through it, not by cycling through it. The fact is that I don’t believe that nature can be enjoyed via cycling – unless you are stopped! Maybe some else’s chosen form of transport is a motorcycle. Do you want those mechanical contraptions on trails too?

 

>The list that I am on is the only one that counts. Your worship of numbers (data) marks you as an ignoramus who is easily swayed by lies.

 

>> I disagree.  My open-ness to being persuaded by real data is, I would suggest, the only rational approach to this.  If you get messianic then there is no solution; the reality is that we will end up with some trails being single use and others being shared.  If all parties are prepared to approach this in a less prejudiced manner it’s more likely that the outcome will be successful.  For example; there is a voluntary moratorium on riding on Snowdon at certain times.  And that was agreed because people were reasonable and prepared to accommodate each other.

 

No one cares about statistical data expect statisticians. Personal experience on the trails is the be all and end all. The trouble with mountain bikers is that they are mostly slobs only one step removed from being hooligans.

 

>What mountain bikers do on trails is indeed a desecration. Managers determine what rights people have to share public resources. I suppose the game of politics is the final arbiter, but it seldom ever gets to that level. Broadly speaking, people never have the right to share equally in public resources, Where did you ever get a crazy idea like that?

 

>> “In the modern representative democracy, ‘public property’ is said to be owned by the people as a commons or held in trust by the government for common benefit.” …

 

The mangers who act for the government are the only ones that count. The general public is lucky if anyone ever considers it. It is usually just a very specific public that matters.

>When an incompatible use is involved, it is not possible to reconcile the conflict. The mountain biking situation just keeps getting worse and worse. Education is not the answer to most things. The answer to most things is force majeure. It is the reason we have police forces and military forces.

 

>> You keep stating that it’s incompatible.  You don’t verify this other than by asserting that you don’t like it.  How do your perceptions determine reality ?

I would assert, by reference to successful projects, that in most cases it’s completely compatible.  In the rare cases where it is not then separate trails may be the answer.

 

Time will tell how compatible any of this sharing of trails is. I say it is an incompatible use. You say it isn’t. But even if it isn’t, it SHOULD BE! Hikers like me, of which there are many, do not want to share our trails with bikers.

 

>> I would also be careful about asserting that it’s incompatible; if the situation, as you imply, is that there are more and more mountainbikers then if they become the majority users then your intransigent stand of “It’s us or them” will result in hikers leaving the trails.

 

That is exactly what will happen to hikers like me! Hikers like you will put up with anything apparently. How about motorcycles sharing the trails with you also?

>We hikers do not like equestrians much either if truth be told, but at least we can coexist as long as there are not too many of them. Bikers can easily take over trails so that no one else can use them. Frankly I do not mind cyclists in the low lying flatlands where the trail is broad. But high mountain trails are not for cyclists any more than they are for motorcyclists.

 

>> If you can co-exist with a tonne of horseflesh I would contend you can deal with 20 – 30 lbs of mountainbike.

 

It is the speed of a bicycle that I object to the most as well as the attitudes that mountain bikers bring to nature.

 

>The incompatible use idea extends to things other than just physical contact. It most powerfully extends to what you are there for in the first place and what is your mindset. Mountain bikers are there for fun and games; hikers are there for contemplation of nature and natural beauty. These things never go together.

 

>> I just don’t agree.  I can sit on an aeons old rock and contemplate the ephemeral nature of life … without requiring that everyone else does the same.  I might decry the mentality of those that get to the top of a mountain and go to the gift shop rather than enjoy the view … but they don’t spoil my enjoyment.

 

Moving slowly along a trail induces an appreciation of nature in spite of ourselves.  Moving fast on a bike does not.

>Maybe you would not object to motorcyclists on the trails either? After all, they are god damn people too and have a perfect right to the use of a public resource just like everyone else?

 

>> I would accept that they have some rights to enjoy natural resources.  However, given the damage that they do, even in small numbers, I can completely accept that they have to be restricted for the common good.

 

Yes, of course, It all comes down to what interests are valued. I do not value the interests of mountain bikers just as you do not value the interests of motorcyclists.

 

>I believe the trails are for hikers and are not for bikers. That has always been the tradition until recently. The fact that we are all people is totally irrelevant. Everything under the sun must be managed for ideally best use. Permitting bikes on trails is a worse use.

 

>> Better and worse are more emotive terms.  Better and worse for whom ?  If ten people want to ride a trail and only three want to hike it then which use is the better one ?  There’s no logical basis for preferring hiking in such a circumstance.

 

What anyone wants to do is irrelevant if trails are being managed for best use (not majority use). How about what motorcyclists want to do? Should they not be given the same consideration as mountain bikers.

 

>> You can ‘believe’ that this is the case … I don’t.  Therefore, since we disagree the only fair arbiter is to look at the facts.  If it is acceptable to bring a tonne of horseflesh along then it certainly must be acceptable to bring a mountainbike.

 

How about bringing a motorcycle?

 

>I think the present situation will have to get worse before it gets better. The compromise will be that bikers will get their own trails separated from hiking trails. It is just a matter of time.

 

>> In some cases, that may be the best solution … I agree.  In others, not so.  However, unless both ‘sides’ accept the others’ valid concerns and wishes then reaching an accommodation is difficult.

 

You need to rethink the trails with respect to motorcycles. Your claim that they damage the trails is weak. So do mountain bikes. I want to see your justification for motorcycles on trails. Then maybe I will listen to your justification for bicycles on trails.

[John B.]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:52:51 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

I see, you decline the title "Bigot" but seize on the description
which I copied from a dictionary. Very strange, as you see I looked up
the word "bigot" and simply cut and pasted the description to my post.

So essentially you glory in the attributes of a bigot but decline to
be described as such.... because it is politically incorrect.

So, while you to act the part you decline the description, and perhaps
a better way to describe you is "an individual who refuses to face
reality".

>>> Can I ever be persuaded to change my mind about anything? Of course, but only by the most reasonable argument. I have never yet changed my mind about anything by being called a bigot. Mr. Vandeman makes all the sense in the world to me; you make no sense at all.
>
>Ed Dolan the Great
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Blackblade]

 When I hike and meet a biker I am in fear of my life. I am going slow, he is going fast.

Really ? Every time ? Most riders don’t show consideration ? Your experiences are very different to mine.

 Mr. Vandeman is a purist. We need types like him to see how far short we fall from the ideal. As far as I know, you cannot get a Ph.D. without doing some scholarly work. Who cares whether it is relevant or not. He is a man with a mission and it is good for us to be confronted with a viewpoint pushed to the extreme. Most of us are only too ready to compromise with the less than the ideal.

You said “Mr Vandeman has all the scholarly qualification to be considered an expert” in a previous post in this thread. That is simply untrue as you concede here since relevance of qualifications IS important. That he might be an expert in other areas is entirely immaterial to THIS topic. He is no expert in the topic which we are discussing ... just someone with a rather extreme set of views.

 Yes, the low usage is what works best, but we cannot count on that condition persisting forever. However, some trails in some parts of the country are frequently quite crowded with both hikers and bikers. That should be our template, not a trail that no one uses.

Of course, conflict is minimal on low use paths ... a point I think made earlier. High use, narrow paths are always going to cause issues and, yes, in many cases separate paths are probably the best solution in such cases. My point is simply that there cannot be a blanket solution; there has to be one that works for the users and the trail conditions and those vary.

I suspect that in some senses we are not so far apart; I would not want sensitive terrain to be doubly impacted by creating separate trails. I would prefer there that we compromise.

 But I just plain don’t like bikes on trails...
 My viewpoint will increasingly become dominant as conflicts grow between hikers and bikers on trails.

I doubt it ... but we will see won’t we ? I think conflicts will fall over time because more and more people hike and ride. There is not the fundamental dichotomy between the two groups which you suppose.


 How they were originally created is not relevant. They have been traditionally reserved for hikers and equestrians once the era of recreation began about a hundred years ago.
I would content it’s highly relevant. It speaks to the fact that any notion of them being ‘owned’ by hikers is erroneous. They may have commonly been used by hikers for a significant period but, prior to that, they had other users. Hence, there is no axiomatic entitlement to them for any specific group.

 Bikers will need their own trails, if not quite yet, then eventually. It is a conflicting use.

In most cases this is simply not the case. Co-existence is perfectly possible other than in a small number of situations.

 A bicycle is a mechanical contraption designed for road use

And a mountain bike is a mechanical contraption derived from a road cycle and designed for off-road use.

 You can best enjoy nature by walking through it, not by cycling through it. The fact is that I don’t believe that nature can be enjoyed via cycling – unless you are stopped! Maybe some else’s chosen form of transport is a motorcycle. Do you want those mechanical contraptions on trails too?

Enjoyment is subjective, not objective. Thus, you cannot state that there is a ‘best’ way to enjoy nature. Only that, for you, it’s the best way. Axiomatically, others can decide that what is best for them differs from your perceptions.

As regards motorcycles, that one is, I concede, tricky. I would contend that some access should be provided BUT it must be limited because of the degree of damage caused.

 No one cares about statistical data expect statisticians. Personal experience on the trails is the be all and end all. The trouble with mountain bikers is that they are mostly slobs only one step removed from being hooligans.

Ad hominem is usually a signal that you’re losing the argument.

 The mangers who act for the government are the only ones that count. The general public is lucky if anyone ever considers it. It is usually just a very specific public that matters.

So are you arguing that YOU should be part of that specially considered group ?

 Time will tell how compatible any of this sharing of trails is. I say it is an incompatible use. You say it isn’t. But even if it isn’t, it SHOULD BE! Hikers like me, of which there are many, do not want to share our trails with bikers.

So, having earlier decried it you are now appealing to scale ? That there are lots of people like you should justify your position ? Yet, earlier, you were saying that democracy didn’t work and that even if they were the majority mountain bikers should be banned. Let’s get it straight one way or other; is use democratic or autocratic and, if the latter, who gets to decide and why.

 That is exactly what will happen to hikers like me! Hikers like you will put up with anything apparently. How about motorcycles sharing the trails with you also?

That is exactly what I think will happen. How could I object to mountainbikers whilst hiking ? It would by massively hypocritical.

 It is the speed of a bicycle that I object to the most as well as the attitudes that mountain bikers bring to nature.

Speed ipso-facto or speed around you ? The latter would be unacceptable to me too so we don’t disagree there.

 Yes, of course, It all comes down to what interests are valued. I do not value the interests of mountain bikers just as you do not value the interests of motorcyclists.

Not true. Where did I suggest that motorbikes should be totally banned ? I simply said that due to the damage they cause to trails and the environment their use had to be strictly controlled. I have ridden motorcycles since I was 15 and race them (on a track, not trails) so I’m certainly not anti.

 What anyone wants to do is irrelevant if trails are being managed for best use (not majority use). How about what motorcyclists want to do? Should they not be given the same consideration as mountain bikers.

I think, ultimately, this does come down to a few relatively simple factors;

- Individual enjoyment
- Impact on others’ enjoyment
- Impact on the environment

The first is positive and the latter two negative in ‘scoring’ the impact of a given activity on overall benefit. If one were to score activities then I would ascribe them the following scores.

Activity Enjoyment Group Impact Environmental Impact
Hiking 10 1 1
Equestrian 10 6 6
Mountainbiking 10 4 2
Motorcycling 10 8 10

Maximising overall benefit is then going to be an optimisation based on number of participants of each sport ... to maximise overall ‘benefit’. And, therein lies my fundamental justification of why ALL activities should be provided some degree of access ... but the more they disturb the overall group and the more they impact the environment the more their use should be restricted. But, as you can see, using this methodology you would end up with mountain bikes being permitted a lot more access than equestrians ... because they cause a lot less damage and are used by far more people.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:o62ir89g813po3apc...@4ax.com...

 

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:52:51 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

[...]

>>> Bigot is one of those words that politically correct liberals like you throw around whenever you are stumped. I am surprised you did not call me a racist and a homophobe besides since those are also favorite politically correct words for liberals like you. I am an old fashion kind of guy. I simple call others what they are ... assholes, numbskulls and blackguards.

>

>Well, what do you prefer? Perhaps, "a prejudiced person who is

>intolerant of any opinions differing from his own". It seems to

>describe you perfectly.

>

>>> Why would I tolerate opinions other than my own when my opinions are right and all other opinions are wrong. There is definitely something wrong with the way your brain works.

 

I see, you decline the title "Bigot" but seize on the description

which I copied from a dictionary. Very strange, as you see I looked up

the word "bigot" and simply cut and pasted the description to my post.

 

So essentially you glory in the attributes of a bigot but decline to

be described as such.... because it is politically incorrect.

 

>>>>> “Bigot” is name calling as everyone in the world well knows including you. The last thing you want to do is get into a name calling contest with me. That is the one thing that I am a world class expert at since I have no inhibitions when it comes to using words however I please.

 

So, while you to act the part you decline the description, and perhaps

a better way to describe you is "an individual who refuses to face

reality".

 

>>>>> The only reality to be faced is that mountain bikers need to get the hell off of our trails!

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:14842a16-55d9-42e8...@googlegroups.com...

 

> When I hike and meet a biker I am in fear of my life. I am going slow, he is going fast.

 

>> Really ?  Every time ?  Most riders don’t show consideration ?  Your experiences are very different to mine.

 

Bikes, no matter how slow they are going (showing consideration?), are always going much faster than walkers. It is like comparing cars and bikes on the road – another very basic incompatibility ... and for the same reason.

 

> Mr. Vandeman is a purist. We need types like him to see how far short we fall from the ideal. As far as I know, you cannot get a Ph.D. without doing some scholarly work. Who cares whether it is relevant or not. He is a man with a mission and it is good for us to be confronted with a viewpoint pushed to the extreme. Most of us are only too ready to compromise with the less than the ideal.

 

>> You said “Mr Vandeman has all the scholarly qualification to be considered an expert” in a previous post in this thread.  That is simply untrue as you concede here since relevance of qualifications IS important.  That he might be an expert in other areas is entirely immaterial to THIS topic.  He is no expert in the topic which we are discussing ... just someone with a rather extreme set of views.

 

He is an expert at scholarship. That is what getting a Ph.D is all about, He has chosen to concentrate his intellectual activities on this particular topic. That makes him head and shoulders beyond you and me.

 

> Yes, the low usage is what works best, but we cannot count on that condition persisting forever. However, some trails in some parts of the country are frequently quite crowded with both hikers and bikers. That should be our template, not a trail that no one uses.

 

>> Of course, conflict is minimal on low use paths ... a point I think made earlier.  High use, narrow paths are always going to cause issues and, yes, in many cases separate paths are probably the best solution in such cases.  My point is simply that there cannot be a blanket solution; there has to be one that works for the users and the trail conditions and those vary. 

 

I do not want individual land managers making their own decisions. That have already proven that they are nincompoops and are not to be trusted. I want a blanket decision made at the highest level that hiking trails are reserved solely for hikers – period! Bikers can get their own trails entirely separated from hikers.

 

>> I suspect that in some senses we are not so far apart; I would not want sensitive terrain to be doubly impacted by creating separate trails.  I would prefer there that we compromise.

 

> But I just plain don’t like bikes on trails...

 My viewpoint will increasingly become dominant as conflicts grow between hikers and bikers on trails.

 

>> I doubt it ... but we will see won’t we ?  I think conflicts will fall over time because more and more people hike and ride.  There is not the fundamental dichotomy between the two groups which you suppose.

 

I hike and bike myself in equal measure  - but I do not bike on trails. What I do others can do!

 

What follows is the same old basis of disagreement which is best deleted and not gone over ad infinitum.

[...]

 

> Yes, of course, It all comes down to what interests are valued. I do not value the interests of mountain bikers just as you do not value the interests of motorcyclists.

 

>> Not true.  Where did I suggest that motorbikes should be totally banned ?  I simply said that due to the damage they cause to trails and the environment their use had to be strictly controlled.  I have ridden motorcycles since I was 15 and race them (on a track, not trails) so I’m certainly not anti.

 

Anyone who thinks motorcycles should not be banned from trails used by hikers is not only stupid, but crazy. I can’t imagine a land manger hanging onto his job if he thought it was a good idea to have motorcycles on trails used by hikers and equestrians. On the other hand I would not mind in the least if motorcycles and bikes were to share the same trails, since they are both nothing but public nuisances away from roads and streets.

 

> What anyone wants to do is irrelevant if trails are being managed for best use (not majority use). How about what motorcyclists want to do? Should they not be given the same consideration as mountain bikers.

 

>> I think, ultimately, this does come down to a few relatively simple factors;

 

>> - Individual enjoyment

>> - Impact on others’ enjoyment

>> - Impact on the environment

 

>> The first is positive and the latter two negative in ‘scoring’ the impact of a given activity on overall benefit.  If one were to score activities then I would ascribe them the following scores.

 

>> Activity Enjoyment Group Impact Environmental Impact

>> Hiking            10 1 1

>> Equestrian    10 6 6

>> Mountainbiking    10 4 2

>> Motorcycling    10 8 10

 

A good addition to the discussion I must admit! And you must admit also that you cannot go by the enjoyment factor alone. The group impact factor is by far the most important to me although Mr. Vandeman concentrates more on the environmental impact factor.

 

Both mountain biking and motorcycling should be rated 10 on group impact. I have also seen trails near Aspen that have been totally ruined for hiking by bicycles.

 

>> Maximising overall benefit is then going to be an optimisation based on number of participants of each sport ... to maximise overall ‘benefit’.  And, therein lies my fundamental justification of why ALL activities should be provided some degree of access ... but the more they disturb the overall group and the more they impact the environment the more their use should be restricted.  But, as you can see, using this methodology you would end up with mountain bikes being permitted a lot more access than equestrians ... because they cause a lot less damage and are used by far more people.

 

I do not agree about maximizing and optimization for a majority of the public regardless of what is thought to be an overall benefit. That way lies bedlam! You manage for best use regardless of what the public wants. Best use of wilderness and natural beauty is its preservation. Hikers walking do the least damage to that value whereas vehicles with wheels do the most damage.

 

Equestrian use has never bothered me much. They are few and far between to begin with and they move slowly and quietly through the wilderness. They also have the same mindset as hikers. Mountain bikers fail on all these crucial points.They are on the trails for fun and games which I consider a violation of the wilderness ethic. Such natural areas were never intended for that kind of use. All they need is a recreational park which could easily be provided by commercial resorts.

[John B.]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:09:02 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

Ah Now I understand, they are YOUR trails, all of them, everywhere. So
I imagine that you also foot the bill for pioneering them in the first
place and now maintaining them.

Well, given that scenario I suggest that you erect gates and keep the
damned trespassers out of YOUR trails.

Which makes me wonder what all your posts are about. After all, if you
own a property you can erect gates and fences to keep the unwanted
out. But instead you post to Usenet Ad nauseam.

Or perhaps this is the only way you have to gain the admiration of
your fellows.

>>Ed Dolan the Great
>>aka
>>Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:v9ior81h9kf7fjvhi...@4ax.com...

 

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:09:02 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

[...]

 

“The only reality to be faced is that mountain bikers need to get the hell off of our trails!” – Ed Dolan

 

> Ah Now I understand, they are YOUR trails, all of them, everywhere. So

I imagine that you also foot the bill for pioneering them in the first

place and now maintaining them.

 

You do not understand shit and never have. By “our” trails I mean of course those trails which have traditionally been reserved for hikers from time immemorial. I have already explained to you what I mean by “time immemorial” but you are so dense that I will no doubt have to explain it to you for a second time just as I have to do with everything else. No more repeated explanations for you! Learn to read more broadly. I am highly educated and refuse to write down just for the sake of idiots who pounce on words stupidly.

 

> Well, given that scenario I suggest that you erect gates and keep the

damned trespassers out of YOUR trails.

 

>Which makes me wonder what all your posts are about. After all, if you

own a property you can erect gates and fences to keep the unwanted

out. But instead you post to Usenet Ad nauseam.

 

Just for the record, my posts are about fun and games. Absolutely nothing can ever be accomplished on an unmoderated newsgroup. It is strictly a forum for useless and inane activity which we prove every time we post a message. The minute this is no longer any fun, I will leave Usenet forever.

 

> Or perhaps this is the only way you have to gain the admiration of

your fellows.

 

Mr. Vandeman and I could care less what this newsgroup or any other group of our ‘fellows’ think of us. We admire each other which is quite sufficient unto the day. It is why we are GREAT and you aren’t.

[Blackblade]

> He is an expert at scholarship. That is what getting a Ph.D is
> all about, He has chosen to concentrate his intellectual activities on this
> particular topic. That makes him head and shoulders beyond you and
> me.

Why ? I have a PhD too. Vandeman does NOT behave as a scientist; he spouts propaganda and, when inconvenient facts are interjected, resorts to calling everyone liars. I have beaten him repeatedly in debate simply be focussing on facts rather than doctrine.

> I do not want individual land managers making their own
> decisions. That have already proven that they are nincompoops and are not to be
> trusted. I want a blanket decision made at the highest level that hiking trails
> are reserved solely for hikers – period! Bikers can get their own trails
> entirely separated from hikers.

As a statement of what you want, this is fine. As long as you understand that you will have to compromise and won’t get 100% of what you want.

> I hike and bike myself in equal measure - but I do not
> bike on trails. What I do others can do!

They can, but they don’t wish to. Unless you can make a case beyond historic use and perception you aren’t going to get too far justifying this as a regime.

> What follows is the same old basis of disagreement which is
> best deleted and not gone over ad infinitum.

Agreed.

> Anyone who thinks motorcycles should not be banned from trails
> used by hikers is not only stupid, but crazy. I can’t imagine a land manger
> hanging onto his job if he thought it was a good idea to have motorcycles on
> trails used by hikers and equestrians.

I did not say motorcycles should be permitted on trails. I said that they deserved SOME access to public natural resources … but restricted heavily due to intra-usergroup incompatibility and environmental impact.

> A good addition to the discussion I must admit! And you must
> admit also that you cannot go by the enjoyment factor alone. The group impact
> factor is by far the most important to me although Mr. Vandeman concentrates
> more on the environmental impact factor.
>
> Both mountain biking and motorcycling should be rated 10 on
> group impact. I have also seen trails near Aspen that have been totally ruined
> for hiking by bicycles.

Well, this is where we partially diverge. I think you are taking your (and Vandeman’s) rather more extreme positions and projecting them on to other hikers. The weighting needs to be done rather more scientifically than I have done it here based on real data, not supposition or anecdote. Put enough people, bikes, horses or anything else through a small area and the impact will be significant. Trails which can stand low usage will start to erode rapidly.

> I do not agree about maximizing and optimization for a
> majority of the public regardless of what is thought to be an overall benefit.
> That way lies bedlam! You manage for best use regardless of what the public
> wants. Best use of wilderness and natural beauty is its preservation. Hikers
> walking do the least damage to that value whereas vehicles with wheels do the
> most damage.

Then here we disagree completely. Public resources axiomatically are in trust for the public and should be managed for the good of all … as far as possible. There is no universal, objective best … only subjective. Which is why your best and mine diverge.

Objetively, you’re wrong too … motorcycles, then equestrians do the greatest damage to the trails … that much at least is proven. Hikers and bikers cause very similar levels of impact; unsurprising really since, at its core, to impact requires energy. Hikers are bikers are using the same engine, the human body, so the energy output is the same.

> Equestrian use has never bothered me much. They are few and
> far between to begin with and they move slowly and quietly through the
> wilderness. They also have the same mindset as hikers. Mountain bikers fail on
> all these crucial points.They are on the trails for fun and games which I
> consider a violation of the wilderness ethic. Such natural areas were never
> intended for that kind of use. All they need is a recreational park which could
> easily be provided by commercial resorts.

Well, personally, when hiking I am far more disturbed by a tonne of unpredictable horse than I am by a mountainbiker. But, having argued that perception shouldn’t be equated with objective fact, I won’t labour that point too hard. We agree to differ.

But, where I disagree strongly is in your classification of mountainbikers. They are people with all the diverse motivations as any other group. Some will be there to enjoy nature, others to set personal best times and others simply to get fit and healthy with friends. You are axiomatically entitled to your view of what the “Wilderness Ethic” entails … but you have to understand that not everyone shares it. And, you would concede I imagine that there is a huge difference between a remote trail in the mountains which is rarely used and a near-urban country park.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:406bdac9-ab1b-4513...@googlegroups.com...

 

> He is an expert at scholarship. That is what getting a Ph.D is

> all about, He has chosen to concentrate his intellectual activities on this

> particular topic. That makes him head and shoulders beyond you and

> me.

 

>> Why ?  I have a PhD too.  Vandeman does NOT behave as a scientist; he spouts propaganda and, when inconvenient facts are interjected, resorts to calling everyone liars.  I have beaten him repeatedly in debate simply be focussing on facts rather than doctrine.

 

Mr. Vandeman seems to have devoted his life to this topic. Have you? Have I? Of course not. We both have other fish to fry. You and I are just interlopers with notions off the top of our heads. Further, as you well know, facts are never the be all and end all of a discussion. Facts have to be interpreted and put in their proper place. I trust Mr. Vandeman to interpret the facts better than you and I. Also he has a superior doctrine to all others, one with which I mostly agree, but not entirely.

 

> I do not want individual land managers making their own

> decisions. That have already proven that they are nincompoops and are not to be

> trusted. I want a blanket decision made at the highest level that hiking trails

> are reserved solely for hikers – period! Bikers can get their own trails

> entirely separated from hikers.

 

>> As a statement of what you want, this is fine.  As long as you understand that you will have to compromise and won’t get 100% of what you want.

 

> I hike and bike myself in equal measure  - but I do not

> bike on trails. What I do others can do!

 

>> They can, but they don’t wish to.  Unless you can make a case beyond historic use and perception you aren’t going to get too far justifying this as a regime.

 

Historic use trumps everything else. Cycling on trails is a new use. Get your own trails!

 

> What follows is the same old basis of disagreement which is

> best deleted and not gone over ad infinitum.

 

>> Agreed.

 

> Anyone who thinks motorcycles should not be banned from trails

> used by hikers is not only stupid, but crazy. I can’t imagine a land manger

> hanging onto his job if he thought it was a good idea to have motorcycles on

> trails used by hikers and equestrians.

 

>> I did not say motorcycles should be permitted on trails. I said that they deserved SOME access to public natural resources … but restricted heavily due to intra-usergroup incompatibility and environmental impact.

 

> A good addition to the discussion I must admit! And you must

> admit also that you cannot go by the enjoyment factor alone. The group impact

> factor is by far the most important to me although Mr. Vandeman concentrates

> more on the environmental impact factor.

>

> Both mountain biking and motorcycling should be rated 10 on

> group impact. I have also seen trails near Aspen that have been totally ruined

> for hiking by bicycles.

 

>> Well, this is where we partially diverge.  I think you are taking your (and Vandeman’s) rather more extreme positions and projecting them on to other hikers.   The weighting needs to be done rather more scientifically than I have done it here based on real data, not supposition or anecdote.  Put enough people, bikes, horses or anything else through a small area and the impact will be significant.  Trails which can stand low usage will start to erode rapidly.

 

> I do not agree about maximizing and optimization for a

> majority of the public regardless of what is thought to be an overall benefit.

> That way lies bedlam! You manage for best use regardless of what the public

> wants. Best use of wilderness and natural beauty is its preservation. Hikers

> walking do the least damage to that value whereas vehicles with wheels do the

> most damage.

 

>> Then here we disagree completely.  Public resources axiomatically are in trust for the public and should be managed for the good of all … as far as possible.  There is no universal, objective best … only subjective.  Which is why your best and mine diverge.

 

The natural world has been going to hell ever since mankind has been using it for his own purposes. What is left of the natural world should be preserved in as pristine a shape as possible. The Middle East was once the Garden of Eden. Now it is a hell on earth (mainly a desert) due to mankind’s usage of it for several thousand years. Given your view, the entire world will come to resemble the Middle East. Mr. Vandeman is far more correct in taking the long view than you are.

 

Progress is always one step forward and two steps backward due to unintended consequences ... which mankind has never been smart enough to figure out in advance. We do indeed disagree completely.

 

>> Objetively, you’re wrong too … motorcycles, then equestrians do the greatest damage to the trails … that much at least is proven.  Hikers and bikers cause very similar levels of impact; unsurprising really since, at its core, to impact requires energy.  Hikers are bikers are using the same engine, the human body, so the energy output is the same.

 

Mr. Vandeman is the expert on what various modes of travel do to the environment. Equestrians are few and far between and always have been. Bicycles are ubiquitous and a plague on trails. There is really no comparison. Your energy equivalence makes no sense to me.

 

> Equestrian use has never bothered me much. They are few and

> far between to begin with and they move slowly and quietly through the

> wilderness. They also have the same mindset as hikers. Mountain bikers fail on

> all these crucial points.They are on the trails for fun and games which I

> consider a violation of the wilderness ethic. Such natural areas were never

> intended for that kind of use. All they need is a recreational park which could

> easily be provided by commercial resorts.

 

>> Well, personally, when hiking I am far more disturbed by a tonne of unpredictable horse than I am by a mountainbiker.  But, having argued that perception shouldn’t be equated with objective fact, I won’t labour that point too hard.  We agree to differ.

 

>> But, where I disagree strongly is in your classification of mountainbikers.  They are people with all the diverse motivations as any other group.  Some will be there to enjoy nature, others to set personal best times and others simply to get fit and healthy with friends.  You are axiomatically entitled to your view of what the “Wilderness Ethic” entails … but you have to understand that not everyone shares it.  And, you would concede I imagine that there is a huge difference between a remote trail in the mountains which is rarely used and a near-urban country park.

 

The above is a weak argument at best. Mountain bikers who want to bike in wilderness areas are there for fun and games. Cyclists in flat land parks are indeed a different breed and do not pose much of a threat since such areas are not much desired by hikers. I have seen motorcycles on high mountain trails above tree line. It is sacrilegious for any kind of mechanical contrivance to be in such an area including bicycles. I want iron clad prohibitions forbidding all such contrivances from trespassing in such areas. Designated Wilderness Areas do just that, but it needs to be extended to all high alpine areas as well as all pristine natural areas. Most National Parks have got it about right.

 

It is no good saying that some trails are remote and will not be used much. Those are precisely the kind of trails that die hard mountain bikers seek out. They ride in groups seeing who can out do one another in feats of daring do. They destroy the tranquility that should be the hallmark of entering a natural world of the wild and the beautiful. Such areas are not playgrounds for fools; they are cathedrals for spiritual renewal in a world of increasing noise and pollution. We should tread softly and quietly in such areas leaving nothing but footprints.

[Blackblade]

> Mr. Vandeman seems to have devoted his life to this topic.
> Have you? Have I? Of course not. We both have other fish to fry. You and I are
> just interlopers with notions off the top of our heads. Further, as you well
> know, facts are never the be all and end all of a discussion. Facts have to be
> interpreted and put in their proper place. I trust Mr. Vandeman to interpret the
> facts better than you and I. Also he has a superior doctrine to all others, one
> with which I mostly agree, but not entirely.

If Vandeman had REALLY devoted his life to it; done proper research, studied and published then I would accord him a lot more credit. He's done none of those things; he's a lobbyist with an agenda.

> Historic use trumps everything else. Cycling on trails is a
> new use. Get your own trails!

If historic use trumps everything then vacate all the trails that were made for pack. The reality is that things move on ... new use of all kinds of resources are arising.

> The natural world has been going to hell ever since mankind
> has been using it for his own purposes. What is left of the natural world should
> be preserved in as pristine a shape as possible. The Middle East was once the
> Garden of Eden. Now it is a hell on earth (mainly a desert) due to
> mankind’s usage of it for several thousand years. Given your
> view, the entire world will come to resemble the Middle East. Mr. Vandeman is far more correct in taking the long view than you are.

And hiking vs mountain biking is entirely immaterial to this argument. Both are minimally impacting activities ...

> Mr. Vandeman is the expert on what various modes of travel do
> to the environment. Equestrians are few and far between and always have been.
> Bicycles are ubiquitous and a plague on trails. There is really no comparison.

You may consider him such. I consider him a lobbyist who is quite prepared to lie, distort and vent.

However, you do make one valid point here; the issue is NOT really the difference in impact between one hiker and one biker ... the difference in the way they impact the environment is negligible. The issue is one simply of numbers; it doesn't matter whether people ride or hike ... lots of them will cause environmental damage and erosion. The issue is the size of the population accessing a given resource.

> Your energy equivalence makes no sense to me.

Basic physics. To move anything (typically soil, vegetation etc) you have to exert a force. Force x Distance = Energy expended (also known as work done). Thus, since the 'engine' for a bike and a hike are the same the energy outputs are also the same. The way that energy impacts on the trail may be different but the total will be equivalent. Thus, somewhat counter intuitively, if you ride down a hill without braking vs walk down it then you impact MORE by walking because you convert the potential energy to kinetic on the bike whereas you convert the potential energy to work done on the trail when you walk. (Slight simplification but the basic premise is correct)

> The above is a weak argument at best. Mountain bikers who want
> to bike in wilderness areas are there for fun and games. Cyclists in flat land
> parks are indeed a different breed and do not pose much of a threat since such
> areas are not much desired by hikers. I have seen motorcycles on high mountain
> trails above tree line. It is sacrilegious for any kind of mechanical
> contrivance to be in such an area including bicycles. I want iron clad
> prohibitions forbidding all such contrivances from trespassing in such areas.
> Designated Wilderness Areas do just that, but it needs to be extended to all
> high alpine areas as well as all pristine natural areas. Most National Parks
> have got it about right.

One man's believer is another's infidel. Once you move to the quasi-religious I think that you're emoting ... not reasoning.

> It is no good saying that some trails are remote and will not
> be used much. Those are precisely the kind of trails that die hard mountain
> bikers seek out. They ride in groups seeing who can out do one another in feats
> of daring do. They destroy the tranquility that should be the hallmark of
> entering a natural world of the wild and the beautiful. Such areas are not
> playgrounds for fools; they are cathedrals for spiritual renewal in a world of
> increasing noise and pollution. We should tread softly and quietly in such areas
> leaving nothing but footprints.

... or tyre prints. There really is no difference. Not every rider wants to do tricks and race ...

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:1988727f-196b-4aba...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Mr. Vandeman seems to have devoted his life to this topic.

> Have you? Have I? Of course not. We both have other fish to fry. You and I are

> just interlopers with notions off the top of our heads. Further, as you well

> know, facts are never the be all and end all of a discussion. Facts have to be

> interpreted and put in their proper place. I trust Mr. Vandeman to interpret the

> facts better than you and I. Also he has a superior doctrine to all others, one

> with which I mostly agree, but not entirely.

 

>> If Vandeman had REALLY devoted his life to it; done proper research, studied and published then I would accord him a lot more credit.  He's done none of those things; he's a lobbyist with an agenda.

 

Even a lobbyist has to know a hell of lot more than you and I know. Further, you do not have an agenda? I sure do have an agenda, but I am way too lazy to ever lobby for it – other than to post desultory messages to a useless newsgroup like this.

 

> Historic use trumps everything else. Cycling on trails is a

> new use. Get your own trails!

 

>> If historic use trumps everything then vacate all the trails that were made for pack.  The reality is that things move on ... new use of all kinds of resources are arising.

 

New uses require new solutions.

 

> The natural world has been going to hell ever since mankind

> has been using it for his own purposes. What is left of the natural world should

> be preserved in as pristine a shape as possible. The Middle East was once the

> Garden of Eden. Now it is a hell on earth (mainly a desert) due to

> mankind’s usage of it for several thousand years. Given your

> view, the entire world will come to resemble the Middle East. Mr. Vandeman is far more correct in taking the long view than you are.

 

>> And hiking vs mountain biking is entirely immaterial to this argument.  Both are minimally impacting activities ...

 

Yes, overall in the grand scheme of things, but not to the users of the trails. Mr. Vandeman has a superior mindset to yours. In other words, a better agenda.

 

> Mr. Vandeman is the expert on what various modes of travel do

> to the environment. Equestrians are few and far between and always have been.

> Bicycles are ubiquitous and a plague on trails. There is really no comparison.

 

>> You may consider him such.  I consider him a lobbyist who is quite prepared to lie, distort and vent.

 

He tells the truth better than any mountain biker who ever lived. It is the mountain bikers who lie, distort and vent.

 

>> However, you do make one valid point here; the issue is NOT really the difference in impact between one hiker and one biker ... the difference in the way they impact the environment is negligible.  The issue is one simply of numbers; it doesn't matter whether people ride or hike ... lots of them will cause environmental damage and erosion.  The issue is the size of the population accessing a given resource.

 

Agreed! It is where I part company with Mr. Vandeman. I would set aside whatever resources mountain bikers need for their fun and games as long as they stay the fuck off of our sacred hiking trails.

 

> Your energy equivalence makes no sense to me.

 

>> Basic physics.  To move anything (typically soil, vegetation etc) you have to exert a force.  Force x Distance = Energy expended (also known as work done).  Thus, since the 'engine' for a bike and a hike are the same the energy outputs are also the same.  The way that energy impacts on the trail may be different but the total will be equivalent.  Thus, somewhat counter intuitively, if you ride down a hill without braking vs walk down it then you impact MORE by walking because you convert the potential energy to kinetic on the bike whereas you convert the potential energy to work done on the trail when you walk. (Slight simplification but the basic premise is correct)

 

It is basically the kind of tracks that you leave – footprints vs. wheel tracks. Wheel tracks can ruin a trail for hikers.

 

> The above is a weak argument at best. Mountain bikers who want

> to bike in wilderness areas are there for fun and games. Cyclists in flat land

> parks are indeed a different breed and do not pose much of a threat since such

> areas are not much desired by hikers. I have seen motorcycles on high mountain

> trails above tree line. It is sacrilegious for any kind of mechanical

> contrivance to be in such an area including bicycles. I want iron clad

> prohibitions forbidding all such contrivances from trespassing in such areas.

> Designated Wilderness Areas do just that, but it needs to be extended to all

> high alpine areas as well as all pristine natural areas. Most National Parks

> have got it about right.

 

>> One man's believer is another's infidel.  Once you move to the quasi-religious I think that you're emoting ... not reasoning.

 

Mountain bikers pursuit of fun and games in a natural setting is a religion to them. It is a despicable pursuit and needs be relegated to abandoned urban dumpsites where they could consort with rats and cockroaches. To Hell with them!

 

> It is no good saying that some trails are remote and will not

> be used much. Those are precisely the kind of trails that die hard mountain

> bikers seek out. They ride in groups seeing who can out do one another in feats

> of daring do. They destroy the tranquility that should be the hallmark of

> entering a natural world of the wild and the beautiful. Such areas are not

> playgrounds for fools; they are cathedrals for spiritual renewal in a world of

> increasing noise and pollution. We should tread softly and quietly in such areas

> leaving nothing but footprints.

 

>> ... or tyre prints.  There really is no difference.  Not every rider wants to do tricks and race ...

 

Too many riders do. Consort with your own type. Your mindset is closer to that of bikers than hikers. Paradise is closed to you – unless and until you walk with reverence when confronted with a pristine natural area.

[Blackblade]

> Even a lobbyist has to know a hell of lot more than you and I
> know. Further, you do not have an agenda? I sure do have an agenda, but I am way
> too lazy to ever lobby for it – other than to post desultory messages to a
> useless newsgroup like this.

I disagree. A lobbyist is not interested in reason, research or objective fact ... he's just lobbying for what he wants and, since he's prepared to lie, distort and glory in others' misfortune to try and achieve that I despise him.

> New uses require new solutions.

Agree completely. But, in some instances, that new solution is going to be sharing.

> Yes, overall in the grand scheme of things, but not to the
> users of the trails. Mr. Vandeman has a superior mindset to yours. In other
> words, a better agenda.

Your opinion. I suspect most would disagree with it.

> He tells the truth better than any mountain biker who ever
> lived. It is the mountain bikers who lie, distort and vent.

Slide on over to alt.mountain-bike and try and read with an open mind; it's not the mountainbikers who are calling everyone else liars and refusing to provide backup for their conclusions (in general).

> Mountain bikers pursuit of fun and games in a natural setting
> is a religion to them. It is a despicable pursuit and needs be relegated to
> abandoned urban dumpsites where they could consort with rats and cockroaches. To
> Hell with them!

Well, I could say ... "Some hikers' aesthetic sensibilities are such that they would rather that they, alone, are entitled to experience the natural world in their prescribed way and seek to legislate all others out. To hell with them."

But what I will say is you need to compromise. Extreme views on one side generate extreme views on the other.

> Too many riders do. Consort with your own type. Your mindset
> is closer to that of bikers than hikers. Paradise is closed to you – unless and
> until you walk with reverence when confronted with a pristine natural
> area.

I can find my own paradise thanks. And, yes, it includes both with a preference for riding over hiking now. But it used to be the other way around.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:97e05bfc-780f-4093...@googlegroups.com...

 

> Even a lobbyist has to know a hell of lot more than you and I

> know. Further, you do not have an agenda? I sure do have an agenda, but I am way

> too lazy to ever lobby for it – other than to post desultory messages to a

> useless newsgroup like this.

 

>> I disagree.  A lobbyist is not interested in reason, research or objective fact ... he's just lobbying for what he wants and, since he's prepared to lie, distort and glory in others' misfortune to try and achieve that I despise him.

 

Lobbyists usually know more than whomever they are petitioning. In fact, lobbyists end up frequently writing the legislation. Imagine what a better world it would be if Mr. Vandeman were writing legislation on protecting the environment. Let us kneel in prayer and beg for such an eventuality.

[...]

 

> He [Mr. Vandeman] tells the truth better than any mountain biker who ever

> lived. It is the mountain bikers who lie, distort and vent.

 

>> Slide on over to alt.mountain-bike and try and read with an open mind; it's not the mountainbikers who are calling everyone else liars and refusing to provide backup for their conclusions (in general).

 

Mountain bikers are your ultimate lobbyists. They are constantly petitioning for access to trails to which they have no right. They are nothing but interlopers. Get your own trails!

 

The reason that Mr. Vandeman is short with mountain bikers is because he knows everything there is to know on the subject and mountain bikers know next to nothing. Such a vast gulf breeds a justifiable contempt.

 

> Mountain bikers pursuit of fun and games in a natural setting

> is a religion to them. It is a despicable pursuit and needs be relegated to

> abandoned urban dumpsites where they could consort with rats and cockroaches. To

> Hell with them!

 

>> Well, I could say ... "Some hikers' aesthetic sensibilities are such that they would rather that they, alone, are entitled to experience the natural world in their prescribed way and seek to legislate all others out.  To hell with them."

 

Mountain bikers can’t walk?

 

>> But what I will say is you need to compromise.  Extreme views on one side generate extreme views on the other.

 

What extreme views? You are the ones who are horning in where you are not wanted. Get your own trails.

 

> Too many riders do. Consort with your own type. Your mindset

> is closer to that of bikers than hikers. Paradise is closed to you – unless and

> until you walk with reverence when confronted with a pristine natural

> area.

 

>> I can find my own paradise thanks.  And, yes, it includes both with a preference for riding over hiking now.  But it used to be the other way around.

 

How pleasant can it be knowing that hikers hate your guts for being on their trails with a bike. Get your own trails.

[Blackblade]

> Imagine what a better world it would be if Mr. Vandeman were writing legislation
> on protecting the environment. Let us kneel in prayer and beg for such an
> eventuality.

For you, maybe. For everyone else it would be a nightmare. Fortunately, as he's a convicted criminal, I think it's highly unlikely.

> Mountain bikers are your ultimate lobbyists. They are
> constantly petitioning for access to trails to which they have no right. They
> are nothing but interlopers. Get your own trails!

You've not once justified why hikers alone have a right to the trails. You're just asking for your preferred activity to be prioritised over all others.

> The reason that Mr. Vandeman is short with mountain bikers is
> because he knows everything there is to know on the subject and mountain bikers
> know next to nothing. Such a vast gulf breeds a justifiable contempt.

Now I am really laughing. Seriously, if he's your expert he's doing a useless job of promoting his agenda. He makes ridiculous claims and then, when the logical and factual errors are pointed out, reverts to calling everyone liars. The net effect of that is that he reads like a loon.

> Mountain bikers can’t walk?

Why should they ? There's nothing wrong with riding.

> What extreme views? You are the ones who are horning in where
> you are not wanted. Get your own trails.

The view that your activity, and your activity alone, is the 'right' way to experience nature and that all others should be prohibited. The trails 'belong' to everyone ... not any one user group. You're trying to shanghai public resources for a small, select group's exclusive use.

> How pleasant can it be knowing that hikers hate your guts for
> being on their trails with a bike. Get your own trails.

Well, given the interaction I experience this is just untrue. People are friendly and accomodating in the main. I am more than happy to ignore the monomaniacal, selfish minority; their discomfort doesn't bother me one iota.

[myaq...@gmail.com]

It is called Bigotry, i.e., "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of
any opinions differing from his own" although he objects to the
terminology. So perhaps "Fanatic" is a more politically correct term,
i.e., a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause).
As Winston Churchill is said to have once stated, "A fanatic is one
who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", which seems
to describe his actions.

But in any case he espouses the actions of a convicted criminal which
makes him, at best, a fool.

--
CFheers,

Miguel

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:17f16dd6-fa7d-41be...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Imagine what a better world it would be if Mr. Vandeman were writing legislation

> on protecting the environment. Let us kneel in prayer and beg for such an

> eventuality.

 

>> For you, maybe.  For everyone else it would be a nightmare.  Fortunately, as he's a convicted criminal, I think it's highly unlikely.

 

> Mountain bikers are your ultimate lobbyists. They are

> constantly petitioning for access to trails to which they have no right. They

> are nothing but interlopers. Get your own trails!

 

>> You've not once justified why hikers alone have a right to the trails.  You're just asking for your preferred activity to be prioritised over all others.

 

Cyclists have no more right to the trails than motorcyclists - and for the same reasons.

 

> The reason that Mr. Vandeman is short with mountain bikers is

> because he knows everything there is to know on the subject and mountain bikers

> know next to nothing. Such a vast gulf breeds a justifiable contempt.

 

>> Now I am really laughing.  Seriously, if he's your expert he's doing a useless job of promoting his agenda.  He makes ridiculous claims and then, when the logical and factual errors are pointed out, reverts to calling everyone liars.  The net effect of that is that he reads like a loon.

 

Both Mr. Vandeman and I have the same contempt for mountain bikers. We are regard them as despoilers of wilderness. If and when they mange to kill themselves riding their bikes on hiking trails, I will be only too glad to make the necessary journey to their grave site to piss on their headstones. It will be good riddance to bad rubbish!

 

> Mountain bikers can’t walk?

 

>> Why should they ?  There's nothing wrong with riding.

 

Both Mr. Vandeman and I have given you half a dozen reasons why it is not only wrong, but sinful. God Damn their rotten souls to Hell!

 

> What extreme views? You are the ones who are horning in where

> you are not wanted. Get your own trails.

 

>> The view that your activity, and your activity alone, is the 'right' way to experience nature and that all others should be prohibited.  The trails 'belong' to everyone ... not any one user group.  You're trying to shanghai public resources for a small, select group's exclusive use.

 

The trails do not belong to everyone; they only belong to those whose activities are permitted by legal authority. Bicycles no more belong on trails than do motorcycles. Get your own fucking trails designed specifically for your special use.

 

> How pleasant can it be knowing that hikers hate your guts for

> being on their trails with a bike. Get your own trails.

 

>> Well, given the interaction I experience this is just untrue.  People are friendly and accomodating in the main.  I am more than happy to ignore the monomaniacal, selfish minority; their discomfort doesn't bother me one iota.

 

It will began to bother you when you find your trails sabotaged and perhaps your life threatened. What needs to happen to you is for a motorcyclist to run over you on a trail. Then maybe you will began to see that trails can not be all things to all people.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:ddkhs81d1p2gjq6bu...@4ax.com...

[...]

 

> It is called Bigotry, i.e., "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of

any opinions differing from his own" although he objects to the

terminology. So perhaps "Fanatic" is a more politically correct term,

i.e.,  a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause).

As Winston Churchill is said to have once stated, "A fanatic is one

who can't change his mind and won't change the subject", which seems

to describe his actions.

 

You have just described Blackblade and all mountain bikers perfectly.

 

> But in any case he espouses the actions of a convicted criminal which

makes him, at best, a fool.

 

That whole issue was discussed extensively and disposed of many months ago on other threads in other forums. Suffice it to say that it was the mountain bikers who were the criminals and Mr. Vandeman came out of the contretemps as pure as the driven snow. It was nothing but a tempest in a teapot to begin with which only cads like yourself harp on to no effect. No wonder Mr. Vandeman calls all those like yourself liars!

 

The only fools here are those who persist in thinking they have a right to bike on hiking trails. The only criminals here are those who in fact do bike on hiking trails. In a sane universe all such scoundrels would be condemned and consigned to the lower circles of Hell.

[Blackblade]

> >> You've not once justified why hikers alone have a right to the
> trails.  You're just asking for your preferred activity to be prioritised
> over all others.
>
> Cyclists have no more right to the trails than motorcyclists -
> and for the same reasons.

I provided a logical framework to justify WHY I thought that moutainbikers, and NOT motorcycles, should be permitted on the majority (not all) of trails.

> Both Mr. Vandeman and I have the same contempt for mountain bikers. We are
> regard them as despoilers of wilderness. If and when they mange to kill
> themselves riding their bikes on hiking trails, I will be only too glad to make
> the necessary journey to their grave site to piss on their headstones. It will
> be good riddance to bad rubbish!

This is all emotion ... I cannot deny that you feel it ... but I am not, I'm afraid, going to give it much credence absent logic and facts to back it up. I'm sorry, but your sensibilities don't justify banning a significant part of the trail-using population.

> Both Mr. Vandeman and I have given you half a dozen reasons
> why it is not only wrong, but sinful. God Damn their rotten souls to
> Hell!

Actually, no, if you read back you will find that what you have given me are the same emotional statements as to WHY you don't like it ... and gone from there to saying it should not be permitted because of that.

> The trails do not belong to everyone; they only belong to
> those whose activities are permitted by legal authority. Bicycles no more belong
> on trails than do motorcycles. Get your own fucking trails designed specifically
> for your special use.

So, by your own logic, mountain bikers are doing exactly the right thing in getting the rules changed. If you can't come up with a reason for banning them beyond the fact that you don't like it, then I would contend that they SHOULD be permitted on most trails.

> It will began to bother you when you find your trails
> sabotaged and perhaps your life threatened. What needs to happen to you is for a
> motorcyclist to run over you on a trail. Then maybe you will began to see that
> trails can not be all things to all people.

Ah, so now you are indirectly advocating terrorism ? To advance a position that you can only justify based on feelings and aesthetics. You come across as reasonably intelligent so I have to ask whether you really mean that or if it's just bombast because this is, as you point out, all hot air anyway.

[Blackblade]

> That whole issue was discussed extensively and disposed of
> many months ago on other threads in other forums. Suffice it to say that it was
> the mountain bikers who were the criminals and Mr. Vandeman came out of the
> contretemps as pure as the driven snow. It was nothing but a tempest in a teapot
> to begin with which only cads like yourself harp on to no effect. No wonder Mr.
> Vandeman calls all those like yourself liars!

Vandeman, in a thread on alt.mountain-bike, admitted actions that justified his conviction for battery. He did not own the land and was not authorised to conduct any kind of enforcement. As such, his actions were criminal as defined by law.

So, yes, the issue was 'disposed of' some while ago ... in a court of law. Vandeman was definitely guilty of his crimes.

> The only fools here are those who persist in thinking they
> have a right to bike on hiking trails. The only criminals here are those who in
> fact do bike on hiking trails. In a sane universe all such scoundrels would be
> condemned and consigned to the lower circles of Hell.

In your opinion ... duly noted ... but most would disagree. In Scotland, the right to roam now extends to hikers, bikers, canoeists and equestrians ... those activities are all permitted by right across most land in the country. Motorised activities are not.

You are required to;
- Take responsibility for your own actions
- Respect the interests of others
- Care for the environment

This sounds much more sane to me than pseudo-religious ranting.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:9084b40c-92dd-4f79...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> That whole issue was discussed extensively and disposed of

> many months ago on other threads in other forums. Suffice it to say that it was

> the mountain bikers who were the criminals and Mr. Vandeman came out of the

> contretemps as pure as the driven snow. It was nothing but a tempest in a teapot

> to begin with which only cads like yourself harp on to no effect. No wonder Mr.

> Vandeman calls all those like yourself liars!

 

>> Vandeman, in a thread on alt.mountain-bike, admitted actions that justified his conviction for battery.  He did not own the land and was not authorised to conduct any kind of enforcement.  As such, his actions were criminal as defined by law.

 

>> So, yes, the issue was 'disposed of' some while ago ... in a court of law.  Vandeman was definitely guilty of his crimes.

 

The issue was disposed of to my satisfaction. The mountain bikers were behaving like they always do (hooligans) and Mr. Vandeman was the gentleman he has always been. He was definitely guilty of nothing except encountering a couple of biker thugs. It behooves all hikers to go armed when walking in the wilderness. You never know when you may encounter a biker and need a weapon to defend yourself.

 

> The only fools here are those who persist in thinking they

> have a right to bike on hiking trails. The only criminals here are those who in

> fact do bike on hiking trails. In a sane universe all such scoundrels would be

> condemned and consigned to the lower circles of Hell.

 

>> In your opinion ... duly noted ... but most would disagree.  In Scotland, the right to roam now extends to hikers, bikers, canoeists and equestrians ... those activities are all permitted by right across most land in the country.  Motorised activities are not.

 

And why not motorized activities? They have the same rights you have according to your way of thinking (after all don’t the public trails belong to everyone equally). You are guilty of what you accuse me of by denying the trails to motorcyclists.

 

In any event, I am disputing your so-called rights. The land managers are blooming idiots. This was my original complaint and it still stands. Any right you may have to bike on hiking trails needs to be revoked. Hiking trails are for hikers. Get your own trails!

[...]

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:5c1409fb-54cd-48b6...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Cyclists have no more right to the trails than motorcyclists -

> and for the same reasons.

 

>> I provided a logical framework to justify WHY I thought that moutainbikers, and NOT motorcycles, should be permitted on the majority (not all) of trails.

 

Your bias against motorcycles is showing. I have the same bias against bikes. Any motorcyclist who wanted to ride trails would disagree with you.

 

> Both Mr. Vandeman and I have the same contempt for mountain bikers. We are

> regard them as despoilers of wilderness. If and when they mange to kill

> themselves riding their bikes on hiking trails, I will be only too glad to make

> the necessary journey to their grave site to piss on their headstones. It will

> be good riddance to bad rubbish!

 

>> This is all emotion ... I cannot deny that you feel it ... but I am not, I'm afraid, going to give it much credence absent logic and facts to back it up.  I'm sorry, but your sensibilities don't justify banning a significant part of the trail-using population.

 

Anyone who can walk is free to use the trails. Those who have special uses (like bikers and motorcyclists) need to have their own trails. I can’t ever recall seeing a bicycle on a trail some 30 years ago. Those truly were the good old days!

 

> Both Mr. Vandeman and I have given you half a dozen reasons

> why it is not only wrong, but sinful. God Damn their rotten souls to

> Hell!

 

>> Actually, no, if you read back you will find that what you have given me are the same emotional statements as to WHY you don't like it ... and gone from there to saying it should not be permitted because of that.

 

Mr. Vandeman is the world’s foremost expert on how trails should be used. I do not bother to repeat his posts on the subject. I supplement Mr. Vandeman by going for the gut and doing whatever ass kicking is necessary ... something that all mountain bikers do constantly. With me, it is all tit for tat.

 

> The trails do not belong to everyone; they only belong to

> those whose activities are permitted by legal authority. Bicycles no more belong

> on trails than do motorcycles. Get your own fucking trails designed specifically

> for your special use.

 

>> So, by your own logic, mountain bikers are doing exactly the right thing in getting the rules changed.  If you can't come up with a reason for banning them beyond the fact that you don't like it, then I would contend that they SHOULD be permitted on most trails.

 

Mr. Vandeman has given at least a half dozen reasons why bikes do not belong on trails. Your reasons for banning motorcycles from trails could easily be considered frivolous and any motorcyclist who wanted to ride his machine on trails would disagree with you. Whatever rules are in effect now can be changed. Of course, we may have to get smarter land managers. The dumbbells in charge now cannot manage their own asses.

 

> It will began to bother you when you find your trails

> sabotaged and perhaps your life threatened. What needs to happen to you is for a

> motorcyclist to run over you on a trail. Then maybe you will began to see that

> trails can not be all things to all people.

 

>> Ah, so now you are indirectly advocating terrorism ?  To advance a position that you can only justify based on feelings and aesthetics.  You come across as reasonably intelligent so I have to ask whether you really mean that or if it's just bombast because this is, as you point out, all hot air anyway.

 

Mountain bikers have the feelings of brutes and the aesthetics of savages. Unlike them, I am civilized.

 

It is inevitable that conflicts over trail usage will result in violence. It is just a matter of time. In fact, in the near future you may want to kill that motorcyclist that runs over you on a trail.

[Blackblade]

> The issue was disposed of to my satisfaction. The mountain
> bikers were behaving like they always do (hooligans) and Mr. Vandeman was the
> gentleman he has always been. He was definitely guilty of nothing except
> encountering a couple of biker thugs. It behooves all hikers to go armed when
> walking in the wilderness. You never know when you may encounter a biker and
> need a weapon to defend yourself.

Hmmm ... once you start saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong ... despite the evidence" you are usually starting down a rather unpleasant route.

Vandeman didn't need to 'defend himself' ... he was there to seek confrontation. He is very lucky that the people he encountered did not react too aggressively.

> And why not motorized activities? They have the same rights
> you have according to your way of thinking (after all don’t the public trails
> belong to everyone equally). You are guilty of what you accuse me of by denying
> the trails to motorcyclists.

I didn't say it was an unqualified, unfettered right. I'm not anti-motorcycle ... I AM a motorcyclist and have been for decades. The much much higher power output of motorised vehicles does serious environmental damage. The equal (one human) power of hikers and bikers means similar impact. To manage for the majority needs have to be balanced. Therefore, I would support SOME access for motorcyclists but not much.

> In any event, I am disputing your so-called rights. The land
> managers are blooming idiots. This was my original complaint and it still
> stands. Any right you may have to bike on hiking trails needs to be revoked.
> Hiking trails are for hikers. Get your own trails!

You never owned them in the first place; there is no such thing as a 'hiking' trail ... only a trail. Use is a separate issue.

[Blackblade]

> Your bias against motorcycles is showing. I have the same bias
> against bikes. Any motorcyclist who wanted to ride trails would disagree with
> you.

I have no bias against motorcyles ... I ride one and have done for decades. And, there is a difference between bias, which is an IRRATIONAL prejudice, as opposed to a reasoned and logical approach. Motorcycles are much more damaging to the environment so their use must be much more tightly controlled.

> Anyone who can walk is free to use the trails. Those who have
> special uses (like bikers and motorcyclists) need to have their own trails. I
> can’t ever recall seeing a bicycle on a trail some 30 years ago. Those truly
> were the good old days!

<sigh>. Any justification beyond your feelings ?

> Mr. Vandeman is the world’s foremost expert on how trails
> should be used. I do not bother to repeat his posts on the subject. I supplement
> Mr. Vandeman by going for the gut and doing whatever ass kicking is necessary
> ... something that all mountain bikers do constantly. With me, it is all tit for
> tat.

Vandeman is an idiot who hurts your cause. And, as mentioned already, I would suggest that on the subject of ass kicking you might be a bit more circumspect. Those that start fights frequently lose them.

> Mr. Vandeman has given at least a half dozen reasons why bikes
> do not belong on trails. Your reasons for banning motorcycles from trails could
> easily be considered frivolous and any motorcyclist who wanted to ride his
> machine on trails would disagree with you. Whatever rules are in effect now can
> be changed. Of course, we may have to get smarter land managers. The dumbbells
> in charge now cannot manage their own asses.

Oh yes, Vandeman has provided a few reasons but since they are not borne out by objective research or science he has little credibility. The impacts of mountain biking and hiking are broadly similar on the environment for the obvious reason that the 'engine' doing the impacting is the same. You don't magically produce more power on a bicycle ... you just convert more of it to forward movement.

A motorcycle, even a relatively low powered one, will produce 60 - 100 times the power of a person ... and that energy is going into the trails and damaging the environment. The difference between motorised an non-motorised is logical and backed up by science and research.

And, remember, I AM a motorcyclist ... so I'm not in any way biased against them. It's great fun ... but way too damaging to the environment to allow in most areas.

> Mountain bikers have the feelings of brutes and the aesthetics
> of savages. Unlike them, I am civilized.

Yet you are the one advocating war, conflict and violence ! A strange approach for a civilised man.

[myaq...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:40:40 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

I believe that your last statement illustrates the validity of your
thesis. According to you, those with whom you disagree are "blooming
idiots".

However, this attitude rather opens the door to the opposite opinion,
that you, who disagrees with the land management authorities and as
well, the U.S. legal system, are a "blooming idiot".

Which, of course, reduces your argument to a simple difference of
opinion rather like Chicken Little running about in the barn yard and
shouting, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!


--
CFheers,

Miguel

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:d619a847-a368-4b97...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> And why not motorized activities? They have the same rights

> you have according to your way of thinking (after all don’t the public trails

> belong to everyone equally). You are guilty of what you accuse me of by denying

> the trails to motorcyclists.

 

>> I didn't say it was an unqualified, unfettered right.  I'm not anti-motorcycle ... I AM a motorcyclist and have been for decades.  The much much higher power output of motorised vehicles does serious environmental damage.  The equal (one human) power of hikers and bikers means similar impact.  To manage for the majority needs have to be balanced.  Therefore, I would support SOME access for motorcyclists but not much.

 

If you have ever ridden your motorcycle on a trail, then you are too far gone to have anything sensible to say about about bikes on trails. You do not understand what trails are for in the first place. They most definitely are not for what you think they are for. See the posts of Mr. Vandeman to get a clue.

 

> In any event, I am disputing your so-called rights. The land

> managers are blooming idiots. This was my original complaint and it still

> stands. Any right you may have to bike on hiking trails needs to be revoked.

> Hiking trails are for hikers. Get your own trails!

 

>> You never owned them in the first place; there is no such thing as a 'hiking' trail ... only a trail.  Use is a separate issue.

 

We did own them in the first place, a sanctioned use that was embedded in the rules and regulations of every manager in the land. The only ones committing criminal trespass are you and yours. If our land managers weren’t such idiots, you and yours would never have been permitted anywhere near our sacred hiking trails. Mr. Vandeman is on the side of the angels, you are on the side of the devil. My hat is white, yours is indeed black – Blackblade!

 

It will take some time to get bikers off our sacred trails, but it will happen because of irreconcilable conflicts. You are far from being in the majority. Mountain biking is a fad and will go the way of all fads. Hiking also has its ups and downs but it is like the music of Beethoven -  it will always be with us.

[EdwardDolan]

wrote in message news:ksqms8p6fmc5hf0jq...@4ax.com...

 

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:40:40 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

[...]

 

>In any event, I am disputing your so-called rights. The land managers are blooming idiots. This was my original complaint and it still stands. Any right you may have to bike on hiking trails needs to be revoked. Hiking trails are for hikers. Get your own trails!

>[...]

 

>> I believe that your last statement illustrates the validity of your

thesis. According to you, those with whom you disagree are "blooming

idiots".

 

Any manager who would permit cycling along with hiking on a single track trail is an idiot. The facts speak for themselves.

 

>> However, this attitude rather opens the door to the opposite opinion,

that you, who disagrees with the land management authorities and as

well, the U.S. legal system, are a "blooming idiot".

 

I have tradition from time immemorial on my side. All the mountain bikers have on their side are the blooming idiots ...  all of whom can be replaced.  The legal system is never the last word. What is the last word? Politics!

 

>> Which, of course, reduces your argument to a simple difference of

opinion rather like Chicken Little running about in the barn yard and

shouting, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

There is right opinion and there is wrong opinion. There is smart opinion and there is stupid opinion. Anyone who thinks all opinions are equal is ... well, a blooming idiot!

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:0caa9bb6-dfdc-4482...@googlegroups.com...

 

> Your bias against motorcycles is showing. I have the same bias

> against bikes. Any motorcyclist who wanted to ride trails would disagree with

> you.

 

>> I have no bias against motorcyles ... I ride one and have done for decades.  And, there is a difference between bias, which is an IRRATIONAL prejudice, as opposed to a reasoned and logical approach.  Motorcycles are much more damaging to the environment so their use must be much more tightly controlled.

 

You oppose motorcycles on trails because of the damage they do to the trails? You are beginning to sound like Mr. Vandeman. I oppose bikes on trails for esthetic reasons and for moral reasons. You are out of my league entirely.

[...]

 

> Mr. Vandeman is the world’s foremost expert on how trails

> should be used. I do not bother to repeat his posts on the subject. I supplement

> Mr. Vandeman by going for the gut and doing whatever ass kicking is necessary

> ... something that all mountain bikers do constantly. With me, it is all tit for

> tat.

 

>> Vandeman is an idiot who hurts your cause.  And, as mentioned already, I would suggest that on the subject of ass kicking you might be a bit more circumspect.  Those that start fights frequently lose them.

 

I have never lost a fight in my life. If you convince me I am wrong, I simply change my course. How likely is that I wonder? In the meantime I go to my grave convinced in the rightness of my cause and in its eventual outcome – bikes will be prohibited from single track trails used by walkers for the same reason that bikes are not permitted on Interstate highways and should not be on any highways without shoulders, no matter what the legalities are.

 

> Mr. Vandeman has given at least a half dozen reasons why bikes

> do not belong on trails. Your reasons for banning motorcycles from trails could

> easily be considered frivolous and any motorcyclist who wanted to ride his

> machine on trails would disagree with you. Whatever rules are in effect now can

> be changed. Of course, we may have to get smarter land managers. The dumbbells

> in charge now cannot manage their own asses.

 

>> Oh yes, Vandeman has provided a few reasons but since they are not borne out by objective research or science he has little credibility.  The impacts of mountain biking and hiking are broadly similar on the environment for the obvious reason that the 'engine' doing the impacting is the same.  You don't magically produce more power on a bicycle ... you just convert more of it to forward movement.

 

The above is an irrelevant argument. The impacts you are speaking of don’t matter to me. What matters to me is the impact of bikers and hikers on each others psyches. Until you grapple with that all is for naught on the trail damage issue which is a separate issue and a minor one at that.

 

The one thing I would add is that the forward movement via a bicycle you mention is a basic conflict which destroys the hiking experience for a walker. Until you understand this we are just talking past one another.

[...]

 

> Mountain bikers have the feelings of brutes and the aesthetics

> of savages. Unlike them, I am civilized.

 

>> Yet you are the one advocating war, conflict and violence !  A strange approach for a civilised man.

 

The best way to prevent war is to be heavily armed and to be ready to use it if necessary. That is what has kept the peace in Europe ever since the end of WWII thanks to the US and no thanks to the lost British Empire and its other weak sisters on the continent. The Falklands War with Argentina was your finest moment in recent memory.

 

Mountain bikers provoke fear and hatred just by being on trails used by hikers. You arouse our anger at your peril!

[Blackblade]

> There is right opinion and there is wrong opinion. There is
> smart opinion and there is stupid opinion. Anyone who thinks all opinions are
> equal is ... well, a blooming idiot!

Indeed ... and given that opinion is notoriously unreliable and partisan that's why we look at the facts that backup the opinion.

[Blackblade]

> I have never lost a fight in my life. If you convince me I am
> wrong, I simply change my course. How likely is that I wonder? In the meantime I
> go to my grave convinced in the rightness of my cause and in its eventual
> outcome – bikes will be prohibited from single track trails used by walkers for
> the same reason that bikes are not permitted on Interstate highways and should
> not be on any highways without shoulders, no matter what the legalities
> are.

I think, for the reasons I've stated, that you're wrong. Time will tell which of us is right.

> The above is an irrelevant argument. The impacts you are
> speaking of don’t matter to me. What matters to me is the impact of bikers and
> hikers on each others psyches. Until you grapple with that all is for naught on
> the trail damage issue which is a separate issue and a minor one at that.

I understand your point; but argueing from perception is doomed to failure. People's perceptions differ and, absent objective fact, there is no way to prioritise one over another.

> The one thing I would add is that the forward movement via a
> bicycle you mention is a basic conflict which destroys the hiking experience for
> a walker. Until you understand this we are just talking past one
> another.

No, not really. I fully understand your position ... but it is your position and it is a perception. That's not a basis for making decisions.

> Mountain bikers provoke fear and hatred just by being on
> trails used by hikers. You arouse our anger at your peril!

I suggest it's the other way around. Mountain bikers are, on average, younger, fitter and stronger than hikers. If it were to get physical there is little doubt then who would win.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:6a453a45-c783-4db2...@googlegroups.com...

Facts are subject to interpretation. They are no more reliable than opinion. In the end, everything comes down to personal judgment based on one’s total life experiences. Thus spake Zarathustra.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:a431371e-898c-4051...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> I have never lost a fight in my life. If you convince me I am

> wrong, I simply change my course. How likely is that I wonder? In the meantime I

> go to my grave convinced in the rightness of my cause and in its eventual

> outcome – bikes will be prohibited from single track trails used by walkers for

> the same reason that bikes are not permitted on Interstate highways and should

> not be on any highways without shoulders, no matter what the legalities

> are.

 

>> I think, for the reasons I've stated, that you're wrong.  Time will tell which of us is right.

 

Well, in the long run we are all of us dead – and the universe goes on without us just fine.

 

> The above is an irrelevant argument. The impacts you are

> speaking of don’t matter to me. What matters to me is the impact of bikers and

> hikers on each others psyches. Until you grapple with that all is for naught on

> the trail damage issue which is a separate issue and a minor one at that.

 

>> I understand your point; but argueing from perception is doomed to failure.  People's perceptions differ and, absent objective fact, there is no way to prioritise one over another.

 

Yes, it finally reduces to politics. Who has the power to impose their will on others. Normally it is superior types like myself who prevail, but admittedly not always. Sometimes the barbarians like you win. Look at what happened to the Roman Empire.

 

> The one thing I would add is that the forward movement via a

> bicycle you mention is a basic conflict which destroys the hiking experience for

> a walker. Until you understand this we are just talking past one

> another.

 

>> No, not really.  I fully understand your position ... but it is your position and it is a perception.  That's not a basis for making decisions.

 

It is as good as any other reason for making decisions.

 

How would you like to be cycling on a single track trail that is also being used by motorcycles? Forget the damage to the trail issue. How would you like it? If you would not mind it then I propose you are truly a simpleton. The truth is that until you can handle motorized vehicles sharing single track trails with hikers and bikers, you have not dealt with the problem at all and there is no reason why anyone should take any of your arguments seriously.

 

A sane person would not like motorcycles on a single track trail used by bicycles any more than a sane person would like bicycles on a single track trail used by hikers. Try to get a clue! The solution of course is to get your own god damn fucking trails!

 

Perceptions matter enormously and in the end are just about the only thing that matters. Mr. Vandeman buttresses his position with factual arguments. I do not need to do that. All I have to do is point out what fools men are based on my superior moral and aesthetic perceptions. That is why I am Great ... and you aren’t.

 

> Mountain bikers provoke fear and hatred just by being on

> trails used by hikers. You arouse our anger at your peril!

 

>> I suggest it's the other way around.  Mountain bikers are, on average, younger, fitter and stronger than hikers.  If it were to get physical there is little doubt then who would win.

 

Everyone is equal since the invention of firearms. It is just a question of who hates who more. I think hikers hate bikers more than the reverse. Fear and hatred is a tough combination to beat.

 

Happy Trails!

[Blackblade]

> >> I think, for the reasons I've stated, that you're wrong. 
> Time will tell which of us is right.
>
> Well, in the long run we are all of us dead – and the universe
> goes on without us just fine.

Somewhat nihilistic ... but correct :-)

> Yes, it finally reduces to politics. Who has the power to
> impose their will on others. Normally it is superior types like myself who
> prevail, but admittedly not always. Sometimes the barbarians like you win. Look
> at what happened to the Roman Empire.

You are mighty quick to define yourself as a 'superior type'. What attributes do you posses that would justify this ?

> >> No, not really.  I fully understand your position ... but it
> is your position and it is a perception.  That's not a basis for making
> decisions.
>
> It is as good as any other reason for making
> decisions.

No, to argue that you are 'superior' and to then descend to this inanity won't do. Either you can justify your position with facts and logic or you can't. The hallmark of all 'superior people' is that they can transcend their own perceptions. Clearly, you haven't quite got there.

> How would you like to be cycling on a single track trail that
> is also being used by motorcycles? Forget the damage to the trail issue. How
> would you like it? If you would not mind it then I propose you are truly a
> simpleton. The truth is that until you can handle motorized vehicles sharing
> single track trails with hikers and bikers, you have not dealt with the problem
> at all and there is no reason why anyone should take any of your arguments
> seriously.

Why should I forget the damage to the trail issue ? It's a key facet. It's like the Monty Python sketch ... "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Also, you keep trying to equate motorcycles and bicycles. The gap between them is an order of magnitude larger than between a biker and a hiker. Even a low powered bike is around 60-100 times more powerful than a person. Hikers and bikers share the same power output ... it's just people. So, you are trying to equate bringing an external power source, orders of magnitude higher than human muscle power, with an individual using their muscle power more efficiently.

> A sane person would not like motorcycles on a single track
> trail used by bicycles any more than a sane person would like bicycles on a
> single track trail used by hikers. Try to get a clue! The solution of course is
> to get your own god damn fucking trails!

This is provably untrue. I ride shared trails most of the time; I have had ZERO conflict in the entire two years I've been riding regularly. Periodically, motorcyclists try to use the trails ... they are reported to the police by both the riders and the hikers. You're trying to equate the two to amplify your argument but it's simply not valid. A motorised vehicle is very different from a human powered one.

> Perceptions matter enormously and in the end are just about
> the only thing that matters. Mr. Vandeman buttresses his position with factual
> arguments. I do not need to do that. All I have to do is point out what fools
> men are based on my superior moral and aesthetic perceptions. That is why I am
> Great ... and you aren’t.

In your own mind maybe. You're welcome to be supreme emperor and lord high panjandrum there.

Vandeman's factual arguments are pathetic ... because he has precious few facts to back them up.

> Everyone is equal since the invention of firearms. It is just
> a question of who hates who more. I think hikers hate bikers more than the
> reverse. Fear and hatred is a tough combination to beat.

Fortunately, I live in a country where firearms are only permitted to authorised police and military ... and acquired by serious criminals. Since most riders and hikers are not members of these constituencies muscle power would prevail were it to ever come to that. However, as I already said, I just don't see the hatred on either side; most hikers and bikers get along fine.

> Happy Trails!

If you could find it in yourself to say that other than ironically you might have more peace of mind.

[Blackblade]

> Facts are subject to interpretation. They are no more reliable
> than opinion. In the end, everything comes down to personal judgment based on
> one’s total life experiences. Thus spake Zarathustra.

Facts and premises can, with logic, lead to conclusions. They are a LOT more reliable than perception which is ephemeral.

And the over-arching premise of Zarathustra is the concept of the overman (Ubermensch) ... and to become one, Nietsche opined that one had to OVERCOME emotional perception and master oneself.

So, if you would really aspire to your tagline, perhaps you should reread and rethink ?

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:dfdcca0c-b8cb-4902...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Facts are subject to interpretation. They are no more reliable

> than opinion. In the end, everything comes down to personal judgment based on

> one’s total life experiences. Thus spake Zarathustra.

 

>> Facts and premises can, with logic, lead to conclusions.  They are a LOT more reliable than perception which is ephemeral.

 

Logic is unreliable and can be as screwed up just as the facts frequently are. Your faith in rationality (reason) is misplaced. The US loses out all over the world because we base our policies on those very qualities that you extoll. It is why we win all our battles but lose all our wars. I KNOW I do not like cycling on my sacred trails. That trumps everything else!

 

>> And the over-arching premise of Zarathustra is the concept of the overman (Ubermensch) ... and to become one, Nietsche opined that one had to OVERCOME emotional perception and master oneself.

 

> So, if you would really aspire to your tagline, perhaps you should reread and rethink ?

 

I use the “Thus spake Zarathustra” as an announcement from on high so as to foreclose all further discussion. I don’t give a damn what that nut Nietzsche ever said about anything ... nor am I a Zoroastrian. Think of me as the God (Jehovah) of the Old Testament and you will have it right.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:4421d409-58d7-43b1...@googlegroups.com...

 

> >> I think, for the reasons I've stated, that you're wrong. 

> Time will tell which of us is right.

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Well, in the long run we are all of us dead – and the universe

> goes on without us just fine.

 

>> Somewhat nihilistic ... but correct :-)

 

> Yes, it finally reduces to politics. Who has the power to

> impose their will on others. Normally it is superior types like myself who

> prevail, but admittedly not always. Sometimes the barbarians like you win. Look

> at what happened to the Roman Empire.

 

>> You are mighty quick to define yourself as a 'superior type'.  What attributes do you posses that would justify this ?

 

I am basing my claims to superiority on what I have been able to read of the posts of mountain bikers on this newsgroup. Mr. Vandeman is also infinitely superior, but he is too much the gentleman to ever say so.  However, I am not a gentleman, at least not when it comes to taking on mountain bikers who strike me as hooligans and scoundrels. With me it is tit for tat.

 

> >> No, not really.  I fully understand your position ... but it

> is your position and it is a perception.  That's not a basis for making

> decisions.

>

> It is as good as any other reason for making

> decisions.

 

>> No, to argue that you are 'superior' and to then descend to this inanity won't do.  Either you can justify your position with facts and logic or you can't.  The hallmark of all 'superior people' is that they can transcend their own perceptions.  Clearly, you haven't quite got there.

 

Your faith in “facts and logic’ is pitiful. You are deluded. Until you develop a proper contempt for ‘facts and logic’ you are wandering in a wilderness. I feel sorry for you!

 

> How would you like to be cycling on a single track trail that

> is also being used by motorcycles? Forget the damage to the trail issue. How

> would you like it? If you would not mind it then I propose you are truly a

> simpleton. The truth is that until you can handle motorized vehicles sharing

> single track trails with hikers and bikers, you have not dealt with the problem

> at all and there is no reason why anyone should take any of your arguments

> seriously.

 

>> Why should I forget the damage to the trail issue ?  It's a key facet.  It's like the Monty Python sketch ... "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

 

As a cyclist riding your bicycle on a single track hiking trail I know you don’t give a damn about damage to the trails. If I were Mr. Vandeman I would now be calling you a liar.

 

>> Also, you keep trying to equate motorcycles and bicycles.  The gap between them is an order of magnitude larger than between a biker and a hiker.  Even a low powered bike is around 60-100 times more powerful than a person.  Hikers and bikers share the same power output ... it's just people.  So, you are trying to equate bringing an external power source, orders of magnitude higher than human muscle power, with an individual using their muscle power more efficiently.

 

Hikers move SLOWLY on a trail; bikers move FAST on a trail. Your power output equivalents are irrelevant and immaterial. Someone riding a bicycle and someone walking have absolutely nothing in common which is why they cannot be on the same trail together any more than a cyclist can be on the same trail with a motorcyclist. It’s about speed, not power output (although what it is really about are the psyches of the users, i.e., what is the trail being used for – appreciation of nature or a speed track for fun and games).

 

You choose your facts and you choose your logic to suit your argument. And then you say that ‘facts and logic’ is what you go by.  My perceptions are infinitely superior to your ‘facts and logic’.

 

> A sane person would not like motorcycles on a single track

> trail used by bicycles any more than a sane person would like bicycles on a

> single track trail used by hikers. Try to get a clue! The solution of course is

> to get your own god damn fucking trails!

 

>> This is provably untrue.  I ride shared trails most of the time; I have had ZERO conflict in the entire two years I've been riding regularly.  Periodically, motorcyclists try to use the trails ... they are reported to the police by both the riders and the hikers.  You're trying to equate the two to amplify your argument but it's simply not valid.  A motorised vehicle is very different from a human powered one.

 

They are not all that different. They are in fact equivalent for the purpose of how a hiking trail is be used. Unless and until you permit motorcycles on single track trails, you are nothing but a hypocrite.

[...]

 

By the way, when you eliminate some text from a previous post you should so indicate it by using [...]. It is dishonest not to do so.

 

> Everyone is equal since the invention of firearms. It is just

> a question of who hates who more. I think hikers hate bikers more than the

> reverse. Fear and hatred is a tough combination to beat.

 

>> Fortunately, I live in a country where firearms are only permitted to authorised police and military ... and acquired by serious criminals.  Since most riders and hikers are not members of these constituencies muscle power would prevail were it to ever come to that.  However, as I already said, I just don't see the hatred on either side; most hikers and bikers get along fine.

 

Hey, hear no evil and see no evil ... and maybe it won‘t happen. You are an ostrich living in Fantasyland!

 

As far as I know Scotland is as fucked up as any other area of the world. Muscle power has gone the way of the Dodo Bird. Never bring your muscles (or even a knife) to a gunfight. You will lose every time.

 

> Happy Trails!

 

>> If you could find it in yourself to say that other than ironically you might have more peace of mind.

 

Happy trails have also gone the way of the Dodo Bird ever since mountain bikers have fucked the trails with their odious presence.

[Blackblade]

> Logic is unreliable and can be as screwed up just as the facts
> frequently are. Your faith in rationality (reason) is misplaced. The US loses
> out all over the world because we base our policies on those very qualities that
> you extoll. It is why we win all our battles but lose all our wars. I KNOW I do
> not like cycling on my sacred trails. That trumps everything else!

Only for you. What you 'know' does nothing to sway anyone else.

> I use the “Thus spake Zarathustra” as an announcement from on
> high so as to foreclose all further discussion. I don’t give a damn what that
> nut Nietzsche ever said about anything ... nor am I a Zoroastrian. Think of me
> as the God (Jehovah) of the Old Testament and you will have it
> right.

Well, in your own mind it might foreclose all future discussion. For everyone who doesn't accept that you are Vox Dei it carries precious little weight.

However, I suggest you don't use aphorisms when you don't understand the connotations fully ... actions somewhat typical of a fallible individual not an omniscient, god-like being.

[Blackblade]

> > Yes, it finally reduces to politics. Who has the power to
> > impose their will on others. Normally it is superior types like myself
> > who prevail, but admittedly not always. Sometimes the barbarians like you
> > win. Look at what happened to the Roman Empire.

Your definition of 'superior' and 'barbarian' differ from mine ... and from those in the dictionary. I'm the one extolling logic and reason, you're arguing from your own perceptions and emotions. Which is superior which base ?

> I am basing my claims to superiority on what I have been able
> to read of the posts of mountain bikers on this newsgroup. Mr. Vandeman is also
> infinitely superior, but he is too much the gentleman to ever say so. 
> However, I am not a gentleman, at least not when it comes to taking on mountain
> bikers who strike me as hooligans and scoundrels. With me it is tit for
> tat.

Well, you're entitled to your own, somewhat elevated, opinion of yourself. Fortunately, I'm not required to share it. And my opinions of Vandeman I couldn't fully write down without violating my more civilised inclinations against profanity.

> > >> No, not really.  I fully understand your position ...
> but it
>
> > is your position and it is a perception.  That's not a basis for
> making
>
> > decisions.
>
> >
>
> > It is as good as any other reason for making
>
> > decisions.

Only for making YOUR decisions ... not for those affecting anyone else.

> Your faith in “facts and logic’ is pitiful. You are deluded.
> Until you develop a proper contempt for ‘facts and logic’ you are wandering in a
> wilderness. I feel sorry for you!

Well, I feel sorry for you. Until you can transcend your base instincts to believe that you are right regardless of the facts there is little that can be done for you and you certainly aren't either great or superior. Learn to look at the world objectively, as far as possible, rather than through the prism of your own narrow perspectives.

> > How would you like to be cycling on a single track trail that
>
> > is also being used by motorcycles? Forget the damage to the trail
> issue. How
>
> > would you like it? If you would not mind it then I propose you are
> truly a
>
> > simpleton. The truth is that until you can handle motorized vehicles
> sharing
>
> > single track trails with hikers and bikers, you have not dealt with
> the problem
>
> > at all and there is no reason why anyone should take any of your
> arguments
>
> > seriously.

I already tackled this ... the difference between motorcycles and bicycles is power ... and hence speed too. The differential is huge. The average differential between mountainbikers and hikers is 2-3 times faster ... not the 10-20 of a motorbike.

That said, in some circumstances and on some trails it would be appropriate to share.

> As a cyclist riding your bicycle on a single track hiking
> trail I know you don’t give a damn about damage to the trails. If I were Mr.
> Vandeman I would now be calling you a liar.

Why ? Despite Vandeman's rantings all the physics and rantings suggest that the environmental impact, overall, is about the same for bikes and hikers. Mountainbiking is a minimally impacting activity ... except where usage gets very high but that's the same for hiking too.

> Hikers move SLOWLY on a trail; bikers move FAST on a trail.
> Your power output equivalents are irrelevant and immaterial. Someone riding a
> bicycle and someone walking have absolutely nothing in common which is why they
> cannot be on the same trail together any more than a cyclist can be on the same
> trail with a motorcyclist. It’s about speed, not power output (although what it
> is really about are the psyches of the users, i.e., what is the trail being used
> for – appreciation of nature or a speed track for fun and games).

Bikers typically move faster, true, but not by that much overall. A factor of 2-3 times the speed of a hiker would by typical. That's not very fast. You are, I suspect, falling for the trap of forgetting that the differential between climbing and descending speed on a mountainbike is very high ... we come downhill MUCH faster than we go up.

Some bikers are there for fun and games, some to see nature and some for a bit of both.

> You choose your facts and you choose your logic to suit your
> argument. And then you say that ‘facts and logic’ is what you go by.  My
> perceptions are infinitely superior to your ‘facts and logic’.

In your own, slightly deluded, consciousness no doubt. Given that I'm more interested in convincing others and am open to debate I prefer my approach.

> Hey, hear no evil and see no evil ... and maybe it won‘t
> happen. You are an ostrich living in Fantasyland!

No, I'm relating MY experience. Given your focus on perception, rather than facts, that's MY perception ... and reality.

> As far as I know Scotland is as fucked up as any other area of
> the world. Muscle power has gone the way of the Dodo Bird. Never bring your
> muscles (or even a knife) to a gunfight. You will lose every time.

The rest of the world is not quite so extensively equipped with guns ... fortunately.

PS. I'm not Scottish nor do I live there ... I just cite it as another good example of equal access which works very well.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:c9ccc2ba-07d4-40ad...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> Logic is unreliable and can be as screwed up just as the facts

> frequently are. Your faith in rationality (reason) is misplaced. The US loses

> out all over the world because we base our policies on those very qualities that

> you extoll. It is why we win all our battles but lose all our wars. I KNOW I do

> not like cycling on my sacred trails. That trumps everything else!

 

>> Only for you.  What you 'know' does nothing to sway anyone else.

 

My ‘perceptions’ are superior to yours. That is all that is happening here.

 

> I use the “Thus spake Zarathustra” as an announcement from on

> high so as to foreclose all further discussion. I don’t give a damn what that

> nut Nietzsche ever said about anything ... nor am I a Zoroastrian. Think of me

> as the God (Jehovah) of the Old Testament and you will have it

> right.

 

>> Well, in your own mind it might foreclose all future discussion.  For everyone who doesn't accept that you are Vox Dei it carries precious little weight.

 

>> However, I suggest you don't use aphorisms when you don't understand the connotations fully ... actions somewhat typical of a fallible individual not an omniscient, god-like being.

 

We Great Ones use anything any damn way we please. However, for lesser lights like yourself, I do indeed advise that you follow your own advice.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:da0998f7-b413-426a...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> > Yes, it finally reduces to politics. Who has the power to

> > impose their will on others. Normally it is superior types like myself

> > who prevail, but admittedly not always. Sometimes the barbarians like you

> > win. Look at what happened to the Roman Empire.

 

>>> Your definition of 'superior' and 'barbarian' differ from mine ... and from those in the dictionary.  I'm the one extolling logic and reason, you're arguing from your own perceptions and emotions.  Which is superior which base ?

 

You are arguing from YOUR logic and reason. My perceptions are based on MY logic and reason. I am sure glad I was able to clear that up for you!

 

As for emotions, I bring mine out into the open. You hide your emotions because you are ashamed of them.

 

> I am basing my claims to superiority on what I have been able

> to read of the posts of mountain bikers on this newsgroup. Mr. Vandeman is also

> infinitely superior, but he is too much the gentleman to ever say so. 

> However, I am not a gentleman, at least not when it comes to taking on mountain

> bikers who strike me as hooligans and scoundrels. With me it is tit for

> tat.

 

>>> Well, you're entitled to your own, somewhat elevated, opinion of yourself.  Fortunately, I'm not required to share it.  And my opinions of Vandeman I couldn't fully write down without violating my more civilised inclinations against profanity.

 

You are as biased and prejudiced as the most downtrodden third world peasant. You also hide behind politically correct thinking like all those who follow the crowd. A few ‘damns’ and ‘hells’ would do you good!

 

You are the one who is profaning the world with your views on trails. My views and Mr. Vandeman’s views on trails are in accordance with the sacred precepts stemming from God’s creation. Saint Edward is a Great Saint and is free to take liberties with the language. No profaners should ever be free to take liberties with God’s creation like you and your ilk do. God has reserved a special place in Hell for mountain bikers who ride their bikes on single track trails that are for hikers.

[...] 

 

> Your faith in “facts and logic’ is pitiful. You are deluded.

> Until you develop a proper contempt for ‘facts and logic’ you are wandering in a

> wilderness. I feel sorry for you!

 

>>> Well, I feel sorry for you.  Until you can transcend your base instincts to believe that you are right regardless of the facts there is little that can be done for you and you certainly aren't either great or superior.  Learn to look at the world objectively, as far as possible, rather than through the prism of your own narrow perspectives.

 

“Your faith in ‘facts and logic’ is pitiful.”  – Ed Dolan

 

> > How would you like to be cycling on a single track trail that

>

> > is also being used by motorcycles? Forget the damage to the trail

> issue. How

>

> > would you like it? If you would not mind it then I propose you are

> truly a

>

> > simpleton. The truth is that until you can handle motorized vehicles

> sharing

>

> > single track trails with hikers and bikers, you have not dealt with

> the problem

>

> > at all and there is no reason why anyone should take any of your

> arguments

>

> > seriously.

 

>>> I already tackled this ... the difference between motorcycles and bicycles is  power ... and hence speed too.  The differential is huge.  The average differential between mountainbikers and hikers is 2-3 times faster ... not the 10-20 of a motorbike.

 

The speed differences are significant. Your argument is not serious. You have just made my point for me. Try to get real! 

 

>>> That said, in some circumstances and on some trails it would be appropriate to share.

 

Nope, never! Obviously, you can’t think straight on this issue because you do not know what single track trails are for.

 

The reason you do not understand what is at issue is because you are a barbarian and a simpleton. You have no more respect for trail integrity than you have for the PURPOSE of a trail. If you did, you would know that there can never be any sharing of trails when the different users are at cross purposes.

 

> As a cyclist riding your bicycle on a single track hiking

> trail I know you don’t give a damn about damage to the trails. If I were Mr.

> Vandeman I would now be calling you a liar.

 

>>> Why ?   Despite Vandeman's rantings all the physics and rantings suggest that the environmental impact, overall, is about the same for bikes and hikers.  Mountainbiking is a minimally impacting activity ... except where usage gets very high but that's the same for hiking too.

 

The damage to the trails is a nonissue for me as I am sure it is for you too. So why discuss it? Mr. Vandeman is the world class expert on that particular subject. Take it up with him.

 

> Hikers move SLOWLY on a trail; bikers move FAST on a trail.

> Your power output equivalents are irrelevant and immaterial. Someone riding a

> bicycle and someone walking have absolutely nothing in common which is why they

> cannot be on the same trail together any more than a cyclist can be on the same

> trail with a motorcyclist. It’s about speed, not power output (although what it

> is really about are the psyches of the users, i.e., what is the trail being used

> for – appreciation of nature or a speed track for fun and games).

 

>>> Bikers typically move faster, true, but not by that much overall.  A factor of 2-3 times the speed of a hiker would by typical.  That's not very fast.  You are, I suspect, falling for the trap of forgetting that the differential between climbing and descending speed on a mountainbike is very high ... we come downhill MUCH faster than we go up.

 

>>> Some bikers are there for fun and games, some to see nature and some for a bit of both.

 

I can see I am having some impact on your thinking. Before you know it, you will be as one with Mr. Vandeman and myself!

 

> You choose your facts and you choose your logic to suit your

> argument. And then you say that ‘facts and logic’ is what you go by.  My

> perceptions are infinitely superior to your ‘facts and logic’.

 

>>>In your own, slightly deluded, consciousness no doubt.  Given that I'm more interested in convincing others and am open to debate I prefer my approach.

 

The only poor slobs you are convincing is your fellow bikers; you are not convincing anyone else of anything.

 

You have not handled the motorized vehicles using single track trails at all well nor have you even discussed what a trail is FOR? Both issues must be dealt with or your “bikes on trails” argument is fatally flawed. Is not your logic and reason up to the task?

 

> Hey, hear no evil and see no evil ... and maybe it won‘t

> happen. You are an ostrich living in Fantasyland!

 

>>> No, I'm relating MY experience.  Given your focus on perception, rather than facts, that's MY perception ... and reality.

 

“You are an ostrich living in Fantasyland!” – Ed Dolan

 

> As far as I know Scotland is as fucked up as any other area of

> the world. Muscle power has gone the way of the Dodo Bird. Never bring your

> muscles (or even a knife) to a gunfight. You will lose every time.

 

>>> The rest of the world is not quite so extensively equipped with guns ... fortunately.

 

>>> PS. I'm not Scottish nor do I live there ... I just cite it as another good example of equal access which works very well.

 

Yes, like all mountain bikers you prefer to remain secretive and anonymous. It is only Mr. Vandeman and I who are open about ourselves. That ought to tell you something right there!

[John B.]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:13:00 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

So ultimately your arguments are reduced to "I'm right, you're wrong".
Rather reminiscent of the 3rd grade school yard, isn't it.

The only question then becomes, "how old are you anyway?". The answer
will demonstrate whether you are: Too young to have any experience in
the matter, or simply another bigoted fanatic like the Klu Klux Klan.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:k5g9t89llpmo9b10b...@4ax.com...

 

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:13:00 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

 

>"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:c9ccc2ba-07d4-40ad...@googlegroups.com...

>

>Edward Dolan wrote:

>

>> Logic is unreliable and can be as screwed up just as the facts

>> frequently are. Your faith in rationality (reason) is misplaced. The US loses

>> out all over the world because we base our policies on those very qualities that

>> you extoll. It is why we win all our battles but lose all our wars. I KNOW I do

>> not like cycling on my sacred trails. That trumps everything else!

>

>>> Only for you.  What you 'know' does nothing to sway anyone else.

>

>My ‘perceptions’ are superior to yours. That is all that is happening here.

>

>> I use the “Thus spake Zarathustra” as an announcement from on

>> high so as to foreclose all further discussion. I don’t give a damn what that

>> nut Nietzsche ever said about anything ... nor am I a Zoroastrian. Think of me

>> as the God (Jehovah) of the Old Testament and you will have it

>> right.

>

>>> Well, in your own mind it might foreclose all future discussion.  For everyone who doesn't accept that you are Vox Dei it carries precious little weight.

>

>>> However, I suggest you don't use aphorisms when you don't understand the connotations fully ... actions somewhat typical of a fallible individual not an omniscient, god-like being.

>

>We Great Ones use anything any damn way we please. However, for lesser lights like yourself, I do indeed advise that you follow your own advice.

 

>>>> So ultimately your arguments are reduced to "I'm right, you're wrong".

Rather reminiscent of the 3rd grade school yard, isn't it.

 

I have given many reasons in the course of this thread for why I think the way I do. However, in the end it becomes a matter of point of view which no facts or logic has anything to do with. It also nothing to do with the 3rd grade and everything to do with being honest about an argument. You should try it (being honest) yourself sometime.

 

>>>> The only question then becomes, "how old are you anyway?". The answer

will demonstrate whether you are: Too young to have any experience in

the matter, or simply another bigoted fanatic like the Klu Klux Klan.

 

I spent 10 years of my life doing nothing but hiking out West (this was in the 60s and 70s), a real treat for someone from Minnesota. This was full time hiking with only a few months off for the winters .In all that time I never encountered any bicycles on the trails. Now it is possible to encounter bicycles on trails above tree line in remote locations. Am I a fanatic? You bet I am when it comes to caring for mother nature.

 

Your reference to the KKK escapes me. They no doubt thought they were being just and fair and doing God’s work, just like you probably think that too about yourself. In reality, according to my lights, you are desecrating wilderness values and destroying a hiking-walking culture which you are too stupid to ever have appreciated. It is the way of all barbarians, to destroy something for which you have no understanding.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:da0998f7-b413-426a...@googlegroups.com...

[...]

 

> I already tackled this ... the difference between motorcycles and bicycles is  power ... and hence speed too.  The differential is huge.  The average differential between mountainbikers and hikers is 2-3 times faster ... not the 10-20 of a motorbike.

 

> That said, in some circumstances and on some trails it would be appropriate to share.

 

I am going to address the above in more detail here than in my original response.

 

Any speed differential at all is disastrous to the purpose of a trail. I can bicycle around the local lake here in about 15 minutes. It takes me a couple of hours to walk around the lake. Bicycles are speed demons compared to walking, whether on streets or on trails. The difference between walking and cycling is about the same as the difference between cycling and motoring. Therefore if it is fine to have bicycles on trails designed for walking then it is fine to have motorized vehicles on such trails also.

 

Motorcycles and ATV users will claim that they can negotiate hiking trails just fine, as good as any mountain biker ... and like mountain bikers they will attempt to prove it even if it kills them. You have NOT disposed of my argument for permitting motorcycles on hiking trails. All you have done is stated some blather about speed and power differentials. The fact that there are these differentials is fatal to your point of view. A bicycle is a mechanical contraption the same as a motorized vehicle is a mechanical contraption. Neither of them have anything in common with a walking human being.

 

Like you, I am both a walker and a cyclist. When you are doing these two very different activities, you are not in the same frame of mind. And your purpose is different for each. Riding a motorcycle is as different from riding a bike as anything can be. To equate all these very different activities is to make a mush of things. You have mustered facts and a logic which simply don’t apply. The only thing these 3 different activies have in common is motion. That either qualifies them for trails or it doesn’t. You can‘t have it just for bicycles and not for motorcycles and not at the same time be a hypocrite.

 

I have made my discriminations based on facts that matter and a logic that applies. Speed and power differentials compared to walking do indeed matter enormously. However, what matters most to me is the purpose of a trail and the frame of mind we bring to it, but that is another discussion for another day.

[John B.]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 00:50:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>
wrote:

I see. In the 60's and 70's I can only assume that you were sponging
from your parents to allow you to spend all your time on the trails.
Have you ever worked or have you lived your life sponging from others?

>Your reference to the KKK escapes me. They no doubt thought
they were being just and fair and doing God’s work, just like you
probably think that too about yourself. In reality, according to my
lights, you are desecrating wilderness values and destroying a
hiking-walking culture which you are too stupid to ever have
appreciated. It is the way of all barbarians, to destroy something for
which you have no understanding.
>

Simple. The KKK are probably the widest known group of bigots.

>Ed Dolan the Great
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Blackblade]

> I am going to address the above in more detail here than in my
> original response.

And since we've gone beyond the "I'm superior therefore I'm right" diatribe it's worth responding to.

> Any speed differential at all is disastrous to the purpose of
> a trail. I can bicycle around the local lake here in about 15 minutes. It takes
> me a couple of hours to walk around the lake. Bicycles are speed demons compared
> to walking, whether on streets or on trails. The difference between walking and
> cycling is about the same as the difference between cycling and motoring.
> Therefore if it is fine to have bicycles on trails designed for walking then it
> is fine to have motorized vehicles on such trails also.

OK, I do accept the basic premise regarding speed differentials. However, you are forgetting that if ALL are allowed on the trail then the differential between walkers and motorcycles is too extreme and dangerous.

> Motorcycles and ATV users will claim that they can negotiate
> hiking trails just fine, as good as any mountain biker ... and like mountain
> bikers they will attempt to prove it even if it kills them. You have NOT
> disposed of my argument for permitting motorcycles on hiking trails. All you
> have done is stated some blather about speed and power differentials. The fact
> that there are these differentials is fatal to your point of view. A bicycle is
> a mechanical contraption the same as a motorized vehicle is a mechanical
> contraption. Neither of them have anything in common with a walking human
> being.

Here I disagree. A bicycle is NOT a motorised vehicle. Its power source is the human body, just the same as a walker. For me, this is the critical distinction ... external powered or human powered.

That there is a differential, provided it's not too great, is not a rationale to ban users. If it were then running on the trail would not be permitted.

> Like you, I am both a walker and a cyclist. When you are doing
> these two very different activities, you are not in the same frame of mind. And
> your purpose is different for each. Riding a motorcycle is as different from
> riding a bike as anything can be. To equate all these very different activities
> is to make a mush of things. You have mustered facts and a logic which simply
> don’t apply. The only thing these 3 different activies have in common is motion.
> That either qualifies them for trails or it doesn’t. You can‘t have it just for
> bicycles and not for motorcycles and not at the same time be a
> hypocrite.

I have said, all along, that I am not an absolutist.

A narrow singletrack would get ripped to shreds simply by one motorcyclist .. yet it can sustain hikers and bikers quite comfortably provided numbers are not too great.

A fire road, used as a trail, probably could accomodate some motorised traffic.

So, no, I'm not asking for special dispensation for mountainbikers over other user groups; I'm arguing that everyone is entitled to some degree of accomodation of their wishes ... but that such accomodation has to be managed depending on the circumstances. I won't reiterate my 'greatest good' matrix ... but you get the idea.

> I have made my discriminations based on facts that matter and
> a logic that applies. Speed and power differentials compared to walking do
> indeed matter enormously. However, what matters most to me is the purpose of a
> trail and the frame of mind we bring to it, but that is another discussion for
> another day.

And, funnily enough, I do understand and respect it not least because, sometimes, I go to remote places for that extinction of self. Should there be 'quiet' places that are for contemplation ... yes. Should it be the entire trail network ... no.

What I can't accept is that there are absolutist applications ... the reality is that accomodations need to be made, it is morally imperative that they are, but they need to be for the overall greatest good.

[EdwardDolan]

"John B."  wrote in message news:gglat8darau952bef...@4ax.com...

 

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 00:50:18 -0500, "EdwardDolan" <edo...@iw.net>

wrote:

[...]

 

>I have given many reasons in the course of this thread for why I think the way I do. However, in the end it becomes a matter of point of view which no facts or logic has anything to do with. It also nothing to do with the 3rd grade and everything to do with being honest about an argument. You should try it (being honest) yourself sometime.

>

>>>>> The only question then becomes, "how old are you anyway?". The answer

>will demonstrate whether you are: Too young to have any experience in

>the matter, or simply another bigoted fanatic like the Klu Klux Klan.

>

>I spent 10 years of my life doing nothing but hiking out West (this was in the 60s and 70s),

a real treat for someone from Minnesota. This was full time hiking

with only a few months off for the winters .In all that time I never

encountered any bicycles on the trails. Now it is possible to

encounter bicycles on trails above tree line in remote locations. Am I

a fanatic? You bet I am when it comes to caring for mother nature.

>

 

>> I see. In the 60's and 70's I can only assume that you were sponging

from your parents to allow you to spend all your time on the trails.

Have you ever worked or have you lived your life sponging from others?

 

Not everyone who comes into this world is condemn to work by the sweat of his brow for a living. However, it is best if most do in fact submit to the slavery of a job. Otherwise they tend to get into mischief and lay waste their lives.

 

>Your reference to the KKK escapes me. They no doubt thought

they were being just and fair and doing God’s work, just like you

probably think that too about yourself. In reality, according to my

lights, you are desecrating wilderness values and destroying a

hiking-walking culture which you are too stupid to ever have

appreciated. It is the way of all barbarians, to destroy something for

which you have no understanding.

>

 

>> Simple. The KKK are probably the widest known group of bigots.

 

It all depends on your point of view. Some folks think Hitler was a a bigot, but he had the support of the entire German nation, at least for so long as he was winning.

 

I can see that you are a simpleton. I urge you to take some time off from your labors at work in order to broaden your perspective. Leisure has its uses too.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:f869cc81-a052-4d83...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> I am going to address the above [speed differential] in more detail here than in my

> original response.

 

>> And since we've gone beyond the "I'm superior therefore I'm right" diatribe it's worth responding to.

 

That is just a tag line to put others in their proper place.

 

> Any speed differential at all is disastrous to the purpose of

> a trail. I can bicycle around the local lake here in about 15 minutes. It takes

> me a couple of hours to walk around the lake. Bicycles are speed demons compared

> to walking, whether on streets or on trails. The difference between walking and

> cycling is about the same as the difference between cycling and motoring.

> Therefore if it is fine to have bicycles on trails designed for walking then it

> is fine to have motorized vehicles on such trails also.

 

>> OK, I do accept the basic premise regarding speed differentials.  However, you are forgetting that if ALL are allowed on the trail then the differential between walkers and motorcycles is too extreme and dangerous.

 

I am arguing that ANY speed differential is extreme and dangerous.

 

> Motorcycles and ATV users will claim that they can negotiate

> hiking trails just fine, as good as any mountain biker ... and like mountain

> bikers they will attempt to prove it even if it kills them. You have NOT

> disposed of my argument for permitting motorcycles on hiking trails. All you

> have done is stated some blather about speed and power differentials. The fact

> that there are these differentials is fatal to your point of view. A bicycle is

> a mechanical contraption the same as a motorized vehicle is a mechanical

> contraption. Neither of them have anything in common with a walking human

> being.

 

>> Here I disagree.  A bicycle is NOT a motorised vehicle.  Its power source is the human body, just the same as a walker.  For me, this is the critical distinction ... external powered or human powered.

 

But a bicycle is a MECHANICAL contraption. That is the critical distinction.  It means there is a power and speed differential that matters. The human power is not the same nor is the speed. I believe even walkers traditionally could not have any kind of wheeled vehicles (like a wagon) to help with their transport of gear.

 

>> That there is a differential, provided it's not too great, is not a rationale to ban users.  If it were then running on the trail would not be permitted.

 

I do not like runners on trails either. It has more to do with their purpose than their speed. It is a stupid use of a trail. However, you are making a relevant point.

 

> Like you, I am both a walker and a cyclist. When you are doing

> these two very different activities, you are not in the same frame of mind. And

> your purpose is different for each. Riding a motorcycle is as different from

> riding a bike as anything can be. To equate all these very different activities

> is to make a mush of things. You have mustered facts and a logic which simply

> don’t apply. The only thing these 3 different activies have in common is motion.

> That either qualifies them for trails or it doesn’t. You can‘t have it just for

> bicycles and not for motorcycles and not at the same time be a

> hypocrite.

 

> I have said, all along, that I am not an absolutist. 

 

> A narrow singletrack  would get ripped to shreds simply by one motorcyclist .. yet it can sustain hikers and bikers quite comfortably provided numbers are not too great.

 

Motorcyclists would say that whatever harm they do to a trail is not much different than what cyclists do to a trail. Further, you are couching your argument by how much use a trail is going to get. You have to assume maximum use the way things are going.

 

> A fire road, used as a trail, probably could accomodate some motorised traffic.

 

Yes, I agree, but fire roads are truly roads and not trails. I think Mr. Vandeman would probably disagree but, like you, I am not an absolutist.

 

>> So, no, I'm not asking for special dispensation for mountainbikers over other user groups; I'm arguing that everyone is entitled to some degree of accomodation of their wishes ... but that such accomodation has to be managed depending on the circumstances.  I won't reiterate my 'greatest good' matrix ... but you get the idea.

 

I think we could get along with each other sharing a trail, but very many mountain bikers have an attitude about bikes and trails that make it impossible to share.

 

> I have made my discriminations based on facts that matter and

> a logic that applies. Speed and power differentials compared to walking do

> indeed matter enormously. However, what matters most to me is the purpose of a

> trail and the frame of mind we bring to it, but that is another discussion for

> another day.

 

>> And, funnily enough, I do understand and respect it not least because, sometimes, I go to remote places for that extinction of self.  Should there be 'quiet' places that are for contemplation ... yes.  Should it be the entire trail network ... no.

 

Designated Wilderness Areas do have trails that off limits to everyone except walkers. And thank God for that! The National Parks are pretty restrictive too. It is mainly the National Forests which are screwed up because of their ‘multiple use’ concepts. The BLM is hopeless! They let everyone do whatever the hell they want.

 

>> What I can't accept is that there are absolutist applications ... the reality is that accomodations need to be made, it is morally imperative that they are, but they need to be for the overall greatest good.

 

The overall greatest good is not what it is about. It is about the optimum use of a scarce resource. There need be no accommodations for all since that would not be the optimum. There are zillions of miles of roads of every description which can ‘accommodate’ cyclists without infringing on natural and wilderness areas. Such areas should be reserved for walkers only. That is the BEST use!

[Blackblade]

> I am arguing that ANY speed differential is extreme and
> dangerous.

Speed differentials are the fundamental cause of encounters; axiomatically so. If everyone travelled at the same speed then no one would ever be overtaken.

However, to argue that a relatively small speed differential is extreme is, I would suggest, going too far. If riders speed by hikers then, of course, that's unacceptable, rude and dangerous.

> But a bicycle is a MECHANICAL contraption. That is the
> critical distinction.  It means there is a power and speed differential
> that matters. The human power is not the same nor is the speed. I believe even
> walkers traditionally could not have any kind of wheeled vehicles (like a wagon)
> to help with their transport of gear.

A bike is indeed a mechanical contraption. However, there is NO power differential between a hiker and a rider; they are both powered by one human being. Bikes convert more of that power output to forward movement, that's fundamentally how they work, and that translates to more speed but there's no more power (unless the rider is a lot fitter than the hiker).

> Motorcyclists would say that whatever harm they do to a trail
> is not much different than what cyclists do to a trail. Further, you are
> couching your argument by how much use a trail is going to get. You have to
> assume maximum use the way things are going.

But that's just not factually true; one motorcycle can completely rip up a trail ... not surprising really since it's producing 30-60 times the power of a bike and weighs a lot more.

You do make a relevant point about use though; excessive use of any trail by too many people is going to wreck it ... irrespective of what they do there.

> I think we could get along with each other sharing a trail,
> but very many mountain bikers have an attitude about bikes and trails that make
> it impossible to share.

I suspect that we could and I decry rude and dangerous behaviour on trails. Personally, I'm not so interested in others' goals in being there but I am interested in how they interact; we all need to show each other consideration and tolerance.

> The overall greatest good is not what it is about. It is about
> the optimum use of a scarce resource. There need be no accommodations for all
> since that would not be the optimum. There are zillions of miles of roads of
> every description which can ‘accommodate’ cyclists without infringing on natural
> and wilderness areas. Such areas should be reserved for walkers only. That is
> the BEST use!

Well, would the overall greatest good not include impact on the environment and preservation of the resource for future generations ? So, yes, scarce resources do need to be husbanded carefully ... but 'BEST use' ?? That's a value judgement and one that others don't necessarily share.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:153eb42d-001b-4d18...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> I am arguing that ANY speed differential is extreme and

> dangerous.

 

>> Speed differentials are the fundamental cause of encounters; axiomatically so.  If everyone travelled at the same speed then no one would ever be overtaken.

 

>> However, to argue that a relatively small speed differential is extreme is, I would suggest, going too far.  If riders speed by hikers then, of course, that's unacceptable, rude and dangerous.

I have already told you that there is no comparison between a person walking and a person riding a bike. They are different universes! Just as is a person riding a bike compared to a person driving a car. Different universes!

 

> But a bicycle is a MECHANICAL contraption. That is the

> critical distinction.  It means there is a power and speed differential

> that matters. The human power is not the same nor is the speed. I believe even

> walkers traditionally could not have any kind of wheeled vehicles (like a wagon)

> to help with their transport of gear.

 

>> A bike is indeed a mechanical contraption.  However, there is NO power differential between a hiker and a rider; they are both powered by one human being.  Bikes convert more of that power output to forward movement, that's fundamentally how they work, and that translates to more speed but there's no more power (unless the rider is a lot fitter than the hiker).

 

The power doesn't matter, the speed does. A cyclist will always be moving considerably faster than a walker. You remind me of Tom Sherman, a civil engineer on this newsgroup from its glory days, who was always making distinctions that didn't matter.

 

> Motorcyclists would say that whatever harm they do to a trail

> is not much different than what cyclists do to a trail. Further, you are

> couching your argument by how much use a trail is going to get. You have to

> assume maximum use the way things are going.

 

>> But that's just not factually true; one motorcycle can completely rip up a trail ... not surprising really since it's producing 30-60 times the power of a bike and weighs a lot more.

 

But a motorcyclist will claim that he will run his machine so as not to do any damage to the trail, the same claim that cyclists make. We do know that everyone lies, don’t we?

 

>> You do make a relevant point about use though; excessive use of any trail by too many people is going to wreck it ... irrespective of what they do there.

 

Hikers do the least damage of anyone – period!

 

> I think we could get along with each other sharing a trail,

> but very many mountain bikers have an attitude about bikes and trails that make

> it impossible to share.

 

>> I suspect that we could and I decry rude and dangerous behaviour on trails.  Personally, I'm not so interested in others' goals in being there but I am interested in how they interact; we all need to show each other consideration and tolerance.

 

Cyclists behave the way they do because of the activity they are engaged in – riding a bike. Hikers behave the way they do because of the activity they are engaged in -  walking. The two groups are NOT doing the same thing at all. That is because they are doing what they are doing with different PURPOSES in mind. The GOALS of why you are there in the first place are supreme and override everything else. You and I are talking about two different aspects of the subject.

 

I don’t blame cyclists for how they ride their bikes, whether on trails or on streets. You forget I am a cyclist myself. I understand the psychology of riding a bike. I am also a walker. The two activities have nothing in common other than forward movement. Your mindset while you are doing these two very different activities is what matters – and the mindset is as different as can be. It is the reason why cities have sidewalks for walkers and bike lanes for cyclists. – and natural areas have trails for hikers. There can be no sharing of trails. Trails are for walkers.

 

You might argue that bike paths are shared trails, but they only work provided they never get crowded. Furthermore, bike paths are truly designed for bicycles and are not ideal for walkers since they are invariably boring after a mile or two. The idea that we can all share a trail is bonkers. It is absolutely the worst idea ever to come down the pike. The only thing it achieves is to create hatred of our fellow man who is doing something different than what we are doing. A pox on all such nonsense!

 

> The overall greatest good is not what it is about. It is about

> the optimum use of a scarce resource. There need be no accommodations for all

> since that would not be the optimum. There are zillions of miles of roads of

> every description which can ‘accommodate’ cyclists without infringing on natural

> and wilderness areas. Such areas should be reserved for walkers only. That is

> the BEST use!

 

>> Well, would the overall greatest good not include impact on the environment and preservation of the resource for future generations ?  So, yes, scarce resources do need to be husbanded carefully ... but 'BEST use' ??  That's a value judgement and one that others don't necessarily share.

 

You never let the hoi-polloi determine much of anything let alone the best use of a scarce resource. Those judgments are made by superior types like myself and Mr. Vandeman who have some sophistication about mankind and the earth we live on. Value judgments are indeed what it is all about. You should start making some yourself if you want to stay in the game and be taken seriously.

[Blackblade]

> I have already
> told you that there is no comparison between a person walking and a person
> riding a bike. They are different universes! Just as is a person riding a bike
> compared to a person driving a car. Different universes!

Yeah, but we all have the same universe to share so, unless every activity is to have its own, unique space then we are going to have to find a way to share at least some of the resources.

> The power doesn't matter, the speed does. A cyclist will
> always be moving considerably faster than a walker. You remind me of Tom
> Sherman, a civil engineer on this newsgroup from its glory days, who was always
> making distinctions that didn't matter.

I disagree. The distinction is critical ... human powered contraptions are, by their fundamental nature, going to impact to a similar degree. The second you allow in power then the damage caused rises by an order of magnitude.

> But a motorcyclist will claim that he will run his machine so
> as not to do any damage to the trail, the same claim that cyclists make. We do
> know that everyone lies, don’t we?

But they can't ... the weight and power mitigate against that too much. I know this because I AM a motorcyclist.

> Cyclists behave the way they do because of the activity they
> are engaged in – riding a bike. Hikers behave the way they do because of the
> activity they are engaged in -  walking. The two groups are NOT doing the
> same thing at all. That is because they are doing what they are doing with
> different PURPOSES in mind. The GOALS of why you are there in the first place
> are supreme and override everything else. You and I are talking about two
> different aspects of the subject.

I think you're oversimplifying. Runners are after a time. Campers are trying to reach a location. Birdwatchers are wandering around trying to find interesting creatures to observe. Lost souls are trying to reconnect to reality :-).

Each person's goals are indeed different; but they don't necessarily segment by mode of transport which is, I think, your contention.

> You never let the hoi-polloi determine much of anything let
> alone the best use of a scarce resource. Those judgments are made by superior
> types like myself and Mr. Vandeman who have some sophistication about mankind
> and the earth we live on. Value judgments are indeed what it is all about. You
> should start making some yourself if you want to stay in the game and be taken
> seriously.

As has been said, "I am not a man of the people; but I am a man for the people". Clearly, intelligent use strategies are required and a mass is ill-equipped to make an intelligent decision. However, as I think I said before, any decision by that nut Vandeman would not be one I could support. You should disassociate yourself in my opinion; beneath the bluster you have more intelligence and are certainly a much more coherent debater.

[EdwardDolan]

"Blackblade"  wrote in message news:edec7840-f8c5-455b...@googlegroups.com...

 

Edward Dolan wrote:

 

> I have already

> told you that there is no comparison between a person walking and a person

> riding a bike. They are different universes! Just as is a person riding a bike

> compared to a person driving a car. Different universes!

 

>> Yeah, but we all have the same universe to share so, unless every activity is to have its own, unique space then we are going to have to find a way to share at least some of the resources.

 

We can share fire roads of a certain width, but not narrow single track trails.

 

> The power doesn't matter, the speed does. A cyclist will

> always be moving considerably faster than a walker. You remind me of Tom

> Sherman, a civil engineer on this newsgroup from its glory days, who was always

> making distinctions that didn't matter.

 

>> I disagree.  The distinction is critical ... human powered contraptions are, by their fundamental nature, going to impact to a similar degree.  The second you allow in power then the damage caused rises by an order of magnitude.

 

But I do not care about damage to the trails. That is Mr. Vandeman’s issue. My issue is the speed differentials. Try to stay focused on that why don’t you.

 

> But a motorcyclist will claim that he will run his machine so

> as not to do any damage to the trail, the same claim that cyclists make. We do

> know that everyone lies, don’t we?

 

>> But they can't ... the weight and power mitigate against that too much.  I know this because I AM a motorcyclist.

 

Small motorcycles and scooters if run slowly and carefully would do no more damage than bicycles do.

 

> Cyclists behave the way they do because of the activity they

> are engaged in – riding a bike. Hikers behave the way they do because of the

> activity they are engaged in -  walking. The two groups are NOT doing the

> same thing at all. That is because they are doing what they are doing with

> different PURPOSES in mind. The GOALS of why you are there in the first place

> are supreme and override everything else. You and I are talking about two

> different aspects of the subject.

 

>> I think you're oversimplifying.  Runners are after a time.  Campers are trying to reach a location.  Birdwatchers are wandering around trying to find interesting creatures to observe.  Lost souls are trying to reconnect to reality :-).

 

But they are all moving along the trail SLOWLY. That is what matters. It means no one is going to run over anyone. What are cyclists doing? They are doing their thrills a minute kind of ride.

 

>> Each person's goals are indeed different; but they don't necessarily segment by mode of transport which is, I think, your contention.

 

It doesn’t matter what a walker’s goals are, The process of walking creates it own mood which is singular and unique to walking. Walkers are not into spills and thrills. That distinction falls only to cyclists.

 

> You never let the hoi-polloi determine much of anything let

> alone the best use of a scarce resource. Those judgments are made by superior

> types like myself and Mr. Vandeman who have some sophistication about mankind

> and the earth we live on. Value judgments are indeed what it is all about. You

> should start making some yourself if you want to stay in the game and be taken

> seriously.

 

>> As has been said, "I am not a man of the people; but I am a man for the people".  Clearly, intelligent use strategies are required and a mass is ill-equipped to make an intelligent decision.  However, as I think I said before, any decision by that nut Vandeman would not be one I could support.  You should disassociate yourself in my opinion; beneath the bluster you have more intelligence and are certainly a much more coherent debater.

 

Mr. Vandeman is pure. I am not. I am more like you, corrupted by the realities of human life on this earth. But we need pure souls like Mr. Vandeman. He upholds standards to which we should all strive however impossible they are to achieve. In reality, what you are mostly put off with about him is his manner, but if you had ever been subjected to the insults and indignities that he has had from mountain bikers you would end up hating the whole breed too. Politeness and civility is wasted on them.