And, unlike you, I don't claim to represent anyone

... other than myself.

You are as good a representative of the Asshole mountain biker

as exists on this forum.

Ah, more ad hominem to try and distract from the
substance.

I am telling you what you represent as far as this group goes.

You do have a penchant for assuming that everyone agrees with you.

You argued that MEANS and PURPOSE were the key
determinents ... yet you now concede that it's OK to have family groups, trail
runners, rambling clubs and the like .. just not bikes. So, you've
effectively refuted your own position.

Those others are not doing what a trail is best suited for as
far as purpose is concerned, but at least they are moving on their own two legs
without any mechanical contrivance. They are in fact partially fulfilling the
purpose of what a trail is for. Bikers are violating BOTH means and purpose
which is why they have no business being on a trail at all.

That's not what you said Ed ... never mind, I'm used to you dancing around now, I'll just make a mental note that it's just the bikes, not the activity as far as you're concerned.

As you define 'serious' hikers most would not qualify ...
so you are, axiomatically, a tiny and unrepresentative group.

Nonsense! Why would anyone go for a walk in the woods or the
mountains or the desert if he did not want to connect with nature. There has got
to be something wrong with the way your brain functions.

Your definition was someone seeking solitude, so all groups are out, and looking to commune with nature in a suitably reverential manner. So, I think you'll find you have quite effectively disenfranchised the vast majority of the hiking population most of whom, I've notice, seem to prefer to hike in groups.

Ah yes, he does indeed make things happen. He

makes court cases happen in which he gets found guilty of battery and
banned

from the trails. A great example of activism ... in how NOT to
do

it.



More calumny.



No, publicly documented fact. Look it up.



Only Assholes bring up irrelevancies. Mr. Vandeman is a
scholar and a gentleman.

It's germane to the point if you then use him for Appeal to Authority logic ... which you do. He has zero authority since he has no qualifications in the topic to which he pretends competence and is a proven criminal.

Those are things I am not. Mr. Vandeman is the foremost
expert in the world on the impact of cycling on trails.

He's gone and done research on it has he ? I think not. He does shoddy reviews on real researchers papers ... but no original research himself. He's a lobbyist ... not an impartial expert.

I am not an expert on
anything ... except at kicking dumb asses like yours.

If that's what you claim as your standard for expertise I would hate to see how you perform in any other field of endeavour.

No, I don't care that I inconvenience a tiny, selfish
minority such as you who would deny me any access whatsoever. Even if I
don't inconvenience you physically you find my mere presence intolerable .... so,
sorry, that's YOUR problem not mine.

I have already told you that I am typical of most hikers,
serious or otherwise. We simply do not want you on our trails - unless you are
willing to walk them like everybody else. You have to play by our rules; we do
not have to play by your rules.

Ed, you can SAY that you're typical of most hikers until you're blue in the face. I simply don't believe you because you have absolutely nothing to backup that statement and, moreover, it directly contravenes my experience .... and I am also a hiker.

There is no earthly reason why one group, such as you, should get to dictate access to all others. That's what I mean about being selfish ... you want it all, just for you and you're not prepared to share.


As I said before, I will interact reasonably with
reasonable people. You are clearly unreasonable and impermeable to reason
... so since I can't reach any kind of compromise with you I am left with no
choice but to just ignore you. As I said, it's your problem not mine and
you reap what you sow.

I have stated my position and the reasons for it clearly
enough for even a moron like you to follow. Further, my position is that of all
hikers.

You have stated your position and your reasons ... certainly ... you've done precisely nothing to prove that it is the position of all hikers and, since I am a hiker, I can immediately disprove your statement anyway.

You have indeed stated your position which reeks of nothing but the
swinishness of a usurper and interloper. Hikers and equestrians do not want to
put up with the intrusion of bikers on their trails. It is rife with conflicts,
both real and potential ... and is at its base level a conflict of both means
and purpose.

Oh, so it's 'swinishness' to ask to share some of the trails is it ? Trails for which I pay every bit as much as you. I give up on you ... you simply won't see what the vast majority can see ... that it's simple fairness.

Neither Mr. Vandeman nor myself are eaten up with anything

No ? I would suggest you reread your own postings
before making such an absurd statement. What comes across, clearly, is a
visceral and illogical hatred of mountainbiking which is wholly
disproportionate.

It is entirely appropriate. You and your ilk have ruined the
hiking experience, something that many generations have enjoyed in peace for
well over a hundred years.

How can you possibly justify that statement ? The Wilderness is still entirely yours, the vast majority of trails you won't see more than 1-2 bikes in an entire day. You're making a mountain out of a molehill ... presumably just because your local trails are rather more crowded.

Sure, a rider screaming downhill at high speed is not conducive to sharing trails with hikers ... but that's not the majority experience on trails.

Others who are walking a trail are partially fulfilling the
purpose of a trail even if they are not on my high level. When you are walking a
trail you are moving slowly enough so that you can't but help notice your
surroundings. Very many causal hikers eventually turn into serious hikers.. What
destroys the experience for all hikers are those on bikes who do not have a clue
about what trails are for and that is why they can violate the ethic of the
trail by their means also - a contraption on wheels. My argument is all about
purpose and only secondarily about means.

Your argument is all over the place ...
As I also showed, if you rode a long ride EVERY WEEK

of your life your odds of killing yourself mountainbiking would still
be around

0.5%.



You really have to work at it to manage to kill yourself

That's funny Ed ... you wrote that death was a near
inevitability about three posts ago. Changed your mind again or just
forgotten what you said last ?

It would be an inevitability if you did it long enough - like
100 or 1000 years maybe. That would never be true of hiking.

Ah, more diversionary tactics ... that's not what you said ... and death is an inevitability whatever you do within about 100 years !

1.54 per thousand exposures ... less risky than many other
sports. Not risk free.

Hiking is not a sport. It is a pastime. Mountain biking is a
sport - which is why it has no place on trails being used by others as a
pastime.

Hiking is a recreation, as is mountainbiking. Just as both disciplines have their sporting/racing sides so do both have their simple, get out in the mountains aspects too.

Bit of a context error there Ed ... you're trying to
compare downhill bike-park riding and equate it to trails riding ... two
completely different endeavours. That's like trying to equate equestrian
trail riding with steeplechasing.

No, it is what bikers like to do here in the US. They may go
up the hill slowly, but they like to go down the hill as fast as possible.. I
suspect this is true everywhere, even in dowdy old England. All the accidents
are happening on just ordinary hiking trails.

Yet the article you were quoting had nothing to do with hiking trails ... it was all about riding in a bike park.

So, yes, a bit of reading and understanding of the topic
would be well in order. If you weren't so viscerally against all
mountainbiking on principle you would realise that, just like horseriding, there
are many different forms with very different risk profiles.

Mountain biking here in the US has been taken over by
professional organizations and associations. They are hell bent on just one
thing - more access to trails. They simply don't give a damn about anything
else. They rule the roost, not more quiet types like yourself. Former President
Bush likes to ride his bike off-road on trails. He is no more a yahoo than you
are, but he sets a bad example just the same, just like you do.

If you think about this some more then you might, just maybe, have suddenly seen the light. I completely understand that no-one wants to go hiking on a trail that has bikers appearing at over 20mph dressed in full armour. That's an accident waiting to happen and not enjoyable for either party.

But, just like other activities, there are many different types. If what you're saying is that you object to public trails being used for downhill racing then I agree with you completely. Whilst I confess to occasionally enjoying such riding for a day or two I only ever do it in bike parks.

However, my contention is that neither Mr Bush nor I am doing anything wrong in wanting to share a trail for the sheer enjoyment of being out and about with friends in the natural world. I just don't see the conflict there.

My ride on Saturday was with a group of 8 other friends. We encountered two equestrian groups, lots of dog walkers and a few other bikes. There simply was no conflict with anyone.