you.

I do KNOW that all serious hikers agree with me.

No, Ed, you DON'T. You've never conducted, as you confessed, any kind of survey or research to confirm this and that's the only way you would know. Supportive emails from fellow travellers are not sufficient evidence.

Nope - just anyone who wants to connect with nature by moving
slowly on their own two legs. Small groups are OK, but large groups are almost
as bad as bikers.

My point exactly. You want to police how people choose to enjoy nature. That's none of your business.

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.

I use Mr. Vandeman as an appeal to common sense, something
that all mountain bikers completely lack.

Vandeman and common sense don't apply in the same sentence.

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.

Nope, he is the expert by sheer dint of interest in the topic.
Furthermore, he perseveres. Folks like you and me come and go, but Mr.
Vandeman remains.

News Flash; you DON'T get to be an expert in anything just by being interested and keeping at it. If that were the case then many demagogues would be rather happy.

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.

I have never yet been bested by anyone in an argument on a
newsgroup.

I think I've done it repeatedly. I've pointed out the numerous logical flaws in your arguments (appeal to authority, circular logic and the like) not to mention the fact that you have no factual backup to your premises and axioms.

You don't want to see that ... but I trust to others' intelligence to do so..

Hells Bells, if I'm wrong, I will simply agree with my opponent.

Rubbish. I've caught you out directly contradicting yourself but you still won't concede.

When
it comes time to resort to invective, we shall indeed see who is the expert. I
have an excellent track record in that regard.

And you're proud of that are you ? I regard profanity as vulgar and beneath me and I certainly wouldn't write it in a public forum.

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.

But you are a hiker in dowdy old England. You have to come to
California to see what is happening on the trails there and which no doubt will
soon be happening on trails everywhere. I have hiked with other hikers and they
all agree with my sentiments - exactly. We do not want bicycles on our
trails.

If all your arguments pertain only to California then, to be candid, I don't really care. But I very much doubt that this is what you mean ... you don't write "death to (Californian) mountainbiking" in your signature do you ?

And, if you really don't understand that the tiny number of people with whom you hike ... and I know it has to be tiny because you like solitude and eschew large groups ... cannot count as representative of a community encompassing tens (and globally hundreds) of millions then we should stop now because you simply don't have enough intelligence to hold a reasoned argument.

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.

It is not a matter of fairness, but of what is the best use.
Trails were clearly developed for people walking (and horses walking), not for
bicycles with wheels. Roads are for that.

Yes, Ed, it IS a matter of fairness. The general population pays for, and indeed owns through the government, the resources to which we are referring.. Most of the trails were, as you well know, instituted for travel and trade historically and are now a recreation resource for the people. So, no, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that your preferred use is 'best' and thereby exclude everyone else.

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.

All any of us can ever know are the local trails.

If you weren't so close minded to facts and data, instead preferring your personal perspective on matters, then you would understand that you CAN know something about the whole world. It just requires you to read.

However, if you concede that you only know about your local trails then I suggest you desist from commenting that you 'know' that hikers in my locale resent bikers. You haven't the faintest clue how they feel.

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.

But that is precisely what mountain bikers like to do at every
opportunity.

No, it's not ... and even if it were physics and motion also mean that it takes about 5 times as long to go up as to go down. That's why many mountainbikers prefer to travel across.


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 !

But let's say you have eternal life.

No, Ed, let's not ... because it's not true. Your point was incorrect ... either have the guts to admit it or just drop the topic because this is getting silly.

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.

It is more a sport the way it is being done. All sports could
be considered recreations, but that says nothing about how dangerous some of
them are compared to others. I have never heard of hiking having a
sporting/racing side?

Trail running ? Orienteering ? Ringing any bells ??

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.

Just because you do not see any conflicts doesn't mean they
aren't there. On a single track trail hikers will have to get out of your way.
They will also resent your speed. Hikers like me will resent WHY you are there
in the first place. Many of the conflicts are not immediately obvious, but they
are there just the same.

Ed, you've admitted you only know your own, local trails ... so you haven't the faintest idea how people feel on mine. And resenting why I'm there is your problem ... in a democracy people don't get banned because others resent them. There's a nasty word for that.