Bikes should be restricted to paved roads!

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, May 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. To the editor:

    Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are simply
    a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, that there are no substantive issues. In fact,
    the conflict has very little to do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because if
    you remove the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They are no
    different from anybody else.

    The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
    erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
    V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the
    experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to
    watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more
    subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to
    get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15
    to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed
    wildlife habitat!

    In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
    children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.

    Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these
    large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing. And there
    will be no problem "getting along"!

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
    Tags:


  2. Danny

    Danny Guest

    Damn.. following that logic furhter, we should all go back to living in caves and eating berries...

    But, then you would just be mad because we chased Yogi Bear out of his home..

    Sigh..

    Maybe we should create a giant blender and turn ourselves back into primordal soup...

    I want to be bean with bacon...

    Danny

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > To the editor:
    >
    > Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them
    and
    > other proups are simply a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other
    words,
    > that there are no substantive issues. In fact, the conflict has very
    little to
    > do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because if you
    remove
    > the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
    are
    > no different from anybody else.
    >
    > The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby
    tires,
    > greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to
    be on
    > or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult
    and
    > dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, un-artificial nature
    > that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone
    to
    > watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace,
    and
    > quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more important in the long run,
    bikes make
    > it much easier for more people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out
    the
    > wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles
    long -- FAR
    > farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed wildlife habitat!
    >
    > In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers,
    especially
    > older hikers and children, off of the trails in many parks, which have
    turned
    > into velodromes for bikers.
    >
    > Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite
    National
    > Park. Without these large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all
    enjoy
    > the trails on an equal footing. And there will be no problem "getting
    along"!
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  3. Tom Medara

    Tom Medara Guest

    > I want to be bean with bacon...
    >
    > Danny
    >
    >
    Wouldn't that offend the Jewish and Muslim members of the primordial goo?
     
  4. Danny

    Danny Guest

    Hmmm... Excellent point...

    In that case.. I want to be lentil soup then.. yeah, that's it.. lentils... with a few new
    potatoes....

    (not that I have anything against the old ones mind you...)

    Danny

    "Tom Medara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > >
    > > I want to be bean with bacon...
    > >
    > > Danny
    > >
    > >
    > Wouldn't that offend the Jewish and Muslim members of the primordial goo?
     
  5. MTBScottie

    MTBScottie Guest

    "Danny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Damn.. following that logic furhter, we should all go back to living in caves and eating
    > berries...
    >
    > But, then you would just be mad because we chased Yogi Bear out of his home..
    >
    > Sigh..
    >
    > Maybe we should create a giant blender and turn ourselves back into primordal soup...
    >
    > I want to be bean with bacon...
    >
    > Danny
    >
    >
    >
    > "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > To the editor:
    > >
    > > Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them
    > and
    > > other proups are simply a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other
    > words,
    > > that there are no substantive issues. In fact, the conflict has very
    > little to
    > > do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because if you
    > remove
    > > the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
    > are
    > > no different from anybody else.
    > >
    > > The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby
    > tires,
    > > greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to
    > be on
    > > or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult
    > and
    > > dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, un-artificial nature
    > > that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone
    > to
    > > watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace,
    > and
    > > quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more important in the long run,
    > bikes make
    > > it much easier for more people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out
    > the
    > > wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles
    > long -- FAR
    > > farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed wildlife habitat!
    > >
    > > In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers,
    > especially
    > > older hikers and children, off of the trails in many parks, which have
    > turned
    > > into velodromes for bikers.
    > >
    > > Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite
    > National
    > > Park. Without these large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all
    > enjoy
    > > the trails on an equal footing. And there will be no problem "getting
    > along"!
    > >
    > > ===
    > > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    > >
    > > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    The "large pieces of machinery" bit is the best!
     
  6. I always thought Mikey was a shill for the Asphalt Pavers Association.

    He constantly discredits anti-road-building environmentalists by pretending to be one of them while
    spouting absolute crap, then he turns around and advocates paved roads only for one of the
    healthiest, lowest- impact forms of transportation available.

    --
    [email protected] is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
    <http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html
     
  7. So you're saying: "If everyone would act exactly like me we'd all get along."

    That's the same thought process that gave us the English-Irish problem, the destruction of the 500
    nations, and the Arab-Irraeli problem, to name just three. The next step, of course, is to "kill all
    the infidels." Sorry, dude - it's been tried. It doesn't work. You're an extremeist, and the sooner
    you recognize that, the sooner you'll realize you can't win.

    "A monster never sees a monster in the mirror."
    - J. Michael Straczynski

    Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > To the editor:
    >
    > Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are
    > simply a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, that there are no substantive issues.
    > In fact, the conflict has very little to do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners.
    > Because if you remove the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
    > are no different from anybody else.
    >
    > The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
    > erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
    > V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the
    > experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to
    > watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more
    > subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to
    > get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15
    > to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed
    > wildlife habitat!
    >
    > In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
    > children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.
    >
    > Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these
    > large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing. And
    > there will be no problem "getting along"!
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  8. So you're saying: "If everyone would act exactly like me we'd all get along."

    That's the same thought process that gave us the English-Irish problem, the destruction of the 500
    nations, and the Arab-Israeli problem, to name just three. The next step, of course, is to "kill all
    the infidels." Sorry, dude - it's been tried. It doesn't work. You're an extremeist, and the sooner
    you recognize that, the sooner you'll realize you can't win.

    "A monster never sees a monster in the mirror."
    - J. Michael Straczynski

    Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > To the editor:
    >
    > Mountain bikers would love us to believe that the conflicts between them and other proups are
    > simply a matter of failure to "get along" -- in other words, that there are no substantive issues.
    > In fact, the conflict has very little to do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners.
    > Because if you remove the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They
    > are no different from anybody else.
    >
    > The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with knobby tires, greatly accelerate
    > erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to be on or under the trail. The tires create
    > V-shaped grooves that are difficult and dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the
    > experience of real, un-artificial nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to
    > watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and quiet. And, more
    > subtle, but probably more important in the long run, bikes make it much easier for more people to
    > get into wildlife habitat, driving out the wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15
    > to 60 miles long -- FAR farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed
    > wildlife habitat!
    >
    > In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, especially older hikers and
    > children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned into velodromes for bikers.
    >
    > Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite National Park. Without these
    > large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all enjoy the trails on an equal footing. And
    > there will be no problem "getting along"!
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  9. On Mon, 26 May 2003 16:34:47 GMT, "Danny" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Damn.. following that logic furhter, we should all go back to living in .caves and eating
    berries...

    Sure, like there is no other alternative.... Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain
    bikers are.

    .But, then you would just be mad because we chased Yogi Bear out of his .home.. . .Sigh.. . .Maybe
    we should create a giant blender and turn ourselves back into .primordal soup... . .I want to be
    bean with bacon... . .Danny . . . ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    .news:[email protected]... .> To the editor: .> .> Mountain bikers would
    love us to believe that the conflicts between them .and .> other proups are simply a matter of
    failure to "get along" -- in other .words, .> that there are no substantive issues. In fact, the
    conflict has very .little to .> do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because if
    you .remove .> the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They .are .> no
    different from anybody else. .> .> The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes, especially with
    knobby .tires, .> greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that happen to .be on
    .> or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult .and .> dangerous to
    walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, .> un-artificial nature that most of us
    are seeking. The bikes force everyone .to .> watch out for their safety, when they would prefer to
    enjoy nature, peace, .and .> quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more important in the long run,
    .bikes make .> it much easier for more people to get into wildlife habitat, driving out .the .>
    wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles .long -- FAR .> farther than a
    hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed .> wildlife habitat! .> .> In the San
    Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers, .especially .> older hikers and children,
    off of the trails in many parks, which have .turned .> into velodromes for bikers. .> .> Bikes
    should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in Yosemite .National .> Park. Without these
    large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all .enjoy .> the trails on an equal footing. And
    there will be no problem "getting .along"! .> .> === .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat
    that is off-limits to .> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 .> years
    fighting auto dependence and road construction.) .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande .

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  10. On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:29:06 GMT, "Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Engineer"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    .So you're saying: "If everyone would act exactly like me we'd all get .along." . .That's the same
    thought process that gave us the English-Irish problem, .the destruction of the 500 nations, and the
    Arab-Irraeli problem, to .name just three. The next step, of course, is to "kill all the .infidels."
    Sorry, dude - it's been tried. It doesn't work. You're an .extremeist, and the sooner you recognize
    that, the sooner you'll realize .you can't win.

    So the people who run Yosemite National Park are "extremists"? Because my policy is identical to
    theirs.... Idiot.

    ."A monster never sees a monster in the mirror."
    . - J. Michael Straczynski . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> To the editor: .> .> Mountain bikers would
    love us to believe that the conflicts between them and .> other proups are simply a matter of
    failure to "get along" -- in other words, .> that there are no substantive issues. In fact, the
    conflict has very little to .> do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because
    if you remove .> the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They are
    .> no different from anybody else. .> .> The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes,
    especially with knobby tires, .> greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that
    happen to be on .> or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult and
    .> dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, .> un-artificial
    nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to .> watch out for their safety,
    when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and .> quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more
    important in the long run, bikes make .> it much easier for more people to get into wildlife
    habitat, driving out the .> wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles
    long -- FAR .> farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed .>
    wildlife habitat! .> .> In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers,
    especially .> older hikers and children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned .>
    into velodromes for bikers. .> .> Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in
    Yosemite National .> Park. Without these large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all
    enjoy .> the trails on an equal footing. And there will be no problem "getting along"! .> .> ===
    .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to .> humans ("pure habitat").
    Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 .> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  11. On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:29:43 GMT, "Grieg Pedersen, Information Systems Engineer"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    .So you're saying: "If everyone would act exactly like me we'd all get .along."

    Can you read? No, I'm saying we should follow the policy of Yosemite National Park.

    .That's the same thought process that gave us the English-Irish problem, .the destruction of the 500
    nations, and the Arab-Israeli problem, to .name just three. The next step, of course, is to "kill
    all the .infidels." Sorry, dude - it's been tried. It doesn't work. You're an .extremeist, and the
    sooner you recognize that, the sooner you'll realize .you can't win. . ."A monster never sees a
    monster in the mirror."
    . - J. Michael Straczynski . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> To the editor: .> .> Mountain bikers would
    love us to believe that the conflicts between them and .> other proups are simply a matter of
    failure to "get along" -- in other words, .> that there are no substantive issues. In fact, the
    conflict has very little to .> do with "getting along" with each other, i.e., manners. Because
    if you remove .> the BICYCLES, we have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers. They are
    .> no different from anybody else. .> .> The problem is the bicycles themselves. Bikes,
    especially with knobby tires, .> greatly accelerate erosion, killing any plants and animals that
    happen to be on .> or under the trail. The tires create V-shaped grooves that are difficult and
    .> dangerous to walk on. The presence of bikes ruins the experience of real, .> un-artificial
    nature that most of us are seeking. The bikes force everyone to .> watch out for their safety,
    when they would prefer to enjoy nature, peace, and .> quiet. And, more subtle, but probably more
    important in the long run, bikes make .> it much easier for more people to get into wildlife
    habitat, driving out the .> wildlife. Bikers advertize their rides as being from 15 to 60 miles
    long -- FAR .> farther than a hiker normally travels. That represents a lot of disturbed .>
    wildlife habitat! .> .> In the San Francisco Bay Area, mountain bikers have driven hikers,
    especially .> older hikers and children, off of the trails in many parks, which have turned .>
    into velodromes for bikers. .> .> Bikes should be restricted to paved roads, as is the rule in
    Yosemite National .> Park. Without these large pieces of machinery on our trails, we can all
    enjoy .> the trails on an equal footing. And there will be no problem "getting along"! .> .> ===
    .> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to .> humans ("pure habitat").
    Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 .> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    .> .> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  12. Matt J

    Matt J Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]cbell.net> wrote
    > On Mon, 26 May 2003 16:34:47 GMT, "Danny" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .Damn.. following that logic furhter, we should all go back to living in .caves and eating
    > berries...
    >
    > Sure, like there is no other alternative.... Thanks for demonstrating just what IDIOTS mountain
    > bikers are.

    You just got through saying on the original post that it wasn't a problem with the bikers
    themselves, that it was with the vehicles. What do you really feel? Why spend all the energy bashing
    people - do something about it, have an open mind! You've got some valid points, if you'd just le
    more open to others' opinions. Matt
     
  13. "Matt J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote
    > > On Mon, 26 May 2003 16:34:47 GMT, "Danny" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > .Damn.. following that logic furhter, we should all go back to living
    in
    > > .caves and eating berries...
    > >
    > > Sure, like there is no other alternative.... Thanks for demonstrating
    just what
    > > IDIOTS mountain bikers are.
    >
    > You just got through saying on the original post that it wasn't a problem with the bikers
    > themselves, that it was with the vehicles. What do you really feel? Why spend all the energy
    > bashing people - do something about it, have an open mind! You've got some valid points, if you'd
    > just le more open to others' opinions. Matt

    Don't encourage him, he has no valid points in the grand scheme of things. His valid points are very
    narrow and are only true in a tiny portion of the total number of trail miles.

    Given an legally made trail that is 5 or 10 miles long, Mike's valid point only covers about 30
    feet. Given an illegally made trail, he may be correct, but how many miles of illegal trails are
    on the ground? Usually an illegal trail is a spur or loop route that is a shortcut to connect
    sections of legal trails, but this is a policing matter that should be addressed by other means
    than Mike proposes.

    Mike's real agenda is to close everything that is not a paved road, and if you follow his agenda
    through to its full conclusion, he would close all trails to pedestrians as well as bicycles. There
    is no room for his sort of rhetoric in the discussion of proper land management.
     
  14. Danny

    Danny Guest

    "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > (snip) Mike's real agenda is to close everything that is not a paved road, and if you follow his
    > agenda through to its full conclusion, he would close all trails to pedestrians as well as
    > bicycles. There is no room for his sort
    of
    > rhetoric in the discussion of proper land management.

    Actually, followed through... he would even close the paved roads as well. Then would come industry,
    utilities, etc.. et al... Eventually, everything would get in his way..

    Maybe we will get lucky and the nurses will not allow him computer time this Saturday.

    Danny
     
  15. Sredford

    Sredford Guest

    Bikers can be a pain to hikers but it's not usually the other way around, though I did see some
    angry bikers in our area who were hitting black tacks left on the trail by an angry hiker -
    pretty vicious.

    My pet peeves with bikers are similar to those of mountain joggers: My wife and I hike in Southern
    California and most the trails have a descent drop on one side. If a biker corners a blind turn too
    fast or a runner is going too fast down hill, then they could easily knock us off the trail. Since
    my wife is pregnant (and still doing 10 mile hikes at 6 months - brag brag :), I always take the
    lead and force bikers and runners to take the cliff-edge side of the trail when the pass. I haven't
    seen one loose control yet, but I really don't want to be there if/when it does happen. To be clear,
    some of the young runners are more out of control than the bikers.

    The really cool bikers in our area stop completely and let uphill hikers pass (in CA-National Forest
    trails, those heading uphill have right-of-way over those going downhill, bikers are to yield to
    hikers, both of which yield to horses/mules/donkeys). These type of bikers are few and far between
    but I am always impressed when I see them. The bike tires do cause a lot of erosion - not as much as
    a horse, but way more than hikers. Bikers also cause fatigue damage to those rubber water run-offs
    that hikers just step over.

    The worst bikers try to force hikers onto the shoulder and pass on the inside. 99% of the time I
    won't budge from the inside and I don't feel one bit bad about that. I'm not about to put my life in
    jeopardy because the bikers/runners want to feel safer while they scream around a turn -- if they
    took a spill right then, I have no desire to be their human guard rail - most likely a hiker on the
    outside edge would be knocked off and killed while the biker/runner would live in a collision where
    the hiker was impacted by the biker/runner.

    The runners never stop and they can be way out of control going downhill. (Unleashed dogs are a
    problem too if they get aggressive. I've had to pull a knife three times for self-protection from
    unleashed dogs - the owners freak out and then I tell the owners to read the signs at the trailheads
    that say "LEASHED DOG ONLY".)

    I don't mind sharing certain trails but I appreciate that some are reserved only for hiking (though
    joggers never seem to think they are doing anything different, and some bikers ignore these signs
    such as those on the PCH trail).

    Mostly, I appreciate a level of common sense and safety. To be perfectly honest, the runners are
    often worse than the bikers. On a trail with no cliff-type hazards, this isn't as big of a deal,
    except for the erosion issue (which is an issue), but bikers that pass too fast are like the
    motorcycle riders who split lanes in traffic (i.e. one day an accident is going to happen,
    especially if the speeds are radically different). Hikers really shouldn't have to deal with these
    kinds of threats, and I'm sure there have been and will be lawsuits over bikers or even runners who
    are just going too fast and injure or kill a hiker.

    The moral of this story is SLOW DOWN when there are people present, slow down when you can't see
    around a turn, slow down on paths that can kill you if you fall, and slow down so you don't know off
    other people and kill them too.

    I also do rock climbing, but everything we do in rock climbing is way safer than the bikers and
    runners. I hear of more mountain bikers dying every year than rock climbers and hikers combined
    (don't know about runners). Many bikers and arms-flailing-runners are honestly not very safety
    conscious for others and that upsets me more than anything. Any rock climber worth his/her salt is
    very safety conscious. The erosion stuff is a problem too, trails are ruined so much faster because
    of bikers skidding their tires because their going too fast to start with.
     
  16. Gary S .

    Gary S . Guest

    On 6 Jun 2003 01:45:25 -0700, [email protected] (SRedford) wrote:

    >Bikers can be a pain to hikers but it's not usually the other way around, though I did see some
    >angry bikers in our area who were hitting black tacks left on the trail by an angry hiker -
    >pretty vicious.
    >
    Unfortunately, one anti-MB "activist" has managed to prevent all discussion here with his
    mono-maniacal, repetitive, irrational ranting and lecturing.

    Activist is in quotes because he doesn't actually do anything besides lecture and rant, waving a
    30-year-old PhD in Psychology as though that qualifies him as an expert in environmental issues.

    He applauds trail sabotage like the example you give, although does not specifically say he does
    it himself.

    He has done more to harm the environment and environmental movement than dozens of mountain bikers.

    Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear)
    ------------------------------------------------
    at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

    Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
     
  17. Sorni

    Sorni Guest

    "SRedford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > The bike tires do cause a lot of erosion - not as much as a horse, but way
    more than hikers.

    You just lost any and all credibility. Have you ever seen a slightly soft trail after even *one*
    horse plows through it? When there are many equines, the trail's integrity can be destoyed in five
    minutes (and that's being generous).

    Bill "as for bikers/hikers: tires roll; feet plant, twist, grind and push off" S.
     
  18. > My pet peeves with bikers are similar to those of mountain joggers: My wife and I hike in Southern
    > California and most the trails have a descent drop on one side. If a biker corners a blind turn
    > too fast or a runner is going too fast down hill, then they could easily knock us off the trail.
    > Since my wife is pregnant (and still doing 10 mile hikes at 6 months - brag brag :), I always take
    > the lead and force bikers and runners to take the cliff-edge side of the trail when the pass. I
    > haven't seen one loose control yet, but I really don't want to be there if/when it does happen. To
    > be clear, some of the young runners are more out of control than the bikers.
    >

    I agree with your sentiment, but trail ettiquette is to Keep Right.

    Your habit of forcing opposing traffic to take the cliff-side route is dangerous to you and your
    wife because this can cause them to Keep Left instead of Keep Right, and the unnatural change
    without notice will eventually lead to a problem for somebody. If you drove the same way, there
    would be anarchy on the highways.
     
  19. > Actually, followed through... he would even close the paved roads as
    well.
    > Then would come industry, utilities, etc.. et al... Eventually,
    everything
    > would get in his way..
    >

    Yes, followed through to the extreme limits, his agenda is to erase all evidence of human existance
    from the Earth

    > Maybe we will get lucky and the nurses will not allow him computer time
    this
    > Saturday.
    >

    We can only hope ...
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...