Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Mike Vandeman, May 15, 2004.

  1. Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    March 5, 2004

    1. Why do people mountain bike?
    a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in the same
    amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain constant pressure
    on land managers, to open more and more trails to bikes. Of course, all of these
    trails are already open to them, if they choose to walk. They also frequently
    claim that closing trails to bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could
    only be true if they were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk.
    There's nothing inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like
    to save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace automobile
    use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token, replacing hiking with
    mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
    b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see, rather than
    the quality of their experience. While riding a bike, especially over terrain as
    rough as a trail, one has to be constantly paying attention to not crashing.
    That make it almost impossible to notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels
    the ground, hears all the sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop
    instantly, if he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on
    stimulation. A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the
    same stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
    travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several times as
    far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal box.)
    c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail, especially a
    trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not familiar with, is very
    challenging. (But if mountain biking is the high point of your week, as it seems
    to be for many mountain bikers, you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of
    the bike!)
    d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and competing
    with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives people to spend more
    money on their bike, and ride it harder and more often. Racing, up to and
    including the Olympics, drives a lot of mountain biking. Of course, it is also
    extremely harmful to the parks and natural areas that are used for practice! It
    is hard to think of any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting,
    that is as harmful as mountain biking.

    2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the attraction for
    participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain bikes and mountain biking
    accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make a lot of money from
    promoting mountain biking. Even some auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote
    and sponsor mountain biking, and try to use its popularity to sell more cars.
    The tourism industry also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.

    3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip into the
    soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They also create V-shaped
    grooves that make walking difficult or even dangerous. The mechanical advantage
    given by the gears and ball bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several
    times as fast as a hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this
    results in vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
    (shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops, starts, and
    turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
    Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other bikes, so that they could
    withstand the greater forces they were subject to on rough trails. These same
    forces, therefore, are being applied to the trails! To give a definite number,
    the winner of a 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the
    speed limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
    b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small animals
    and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost impossible to avoid
    killing countless animals and plants on and under the trail. They have to pay
    attention to controlling the bike, and can't afford to look carefully at what is
    on the trail, especially when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see,
    for example, a snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
    hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by crossing on
    stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other hand, simply ride right
    through the creek bed, crushing any animals or plants that happen to be there.
    Mountain biking magazines are full of photos of mountain bikers throwing up
    spray, as they barrel through creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and
    plants as they ride across streams, they ride through streams stirring up
    sediment. The sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
    life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects, amphibians,
    and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to sediment in water.
    c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a hiker. This
    translates into several times the impacts, both on the trail and on the wildlife
    (to say nothing of the other trail users). Existing parklands are already
    inadequate to protect the wildlife that live there. When they are crisscrossed
    by mountain bikers and legal or illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more
    inadequate. Mountain bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more.
    Have you ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes in
    a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives wildlife further
    from the resources that they need to survive, including water, food, and mates.
    d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each other on
    narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain biking also result in
    more habitat destruction, as trails are widened by bikers (or by hikers and
    equestrians jumping out of their way).
    e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and consequently
    exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to place, resulting in the
    spread of exotic invasive species, such as weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
    f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the trails and
    hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and equestrians fear for their
    safety, and don’t enjoy sharing the trails with bikes. (The mountain bikers
    claim that they are simply being selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually
    they have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes
    that are a problem!)
    g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere, teach children
    and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable.
    This undoubtedly has a negative effect on people's treatment of nature.
    h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have been
    resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a plastic matrix or
    other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in Pleasanton Ridge Regional
    Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's hard to imagine that this will have
    a beneficial effect on the park and its wildlife….

    4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
    than hiking. Is that true? If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you
    find that they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking,
    but only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the studies are
    correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it would still follow that
    mountain biking has far greater impact per person, since mountain bikers
    typically travel so much farther than hikers. Besides overlooking distances
    travelled, those "studies" almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't
    study mountain biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed.
    Actually, the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
    we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of the two
    is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning hiking. We are only
    considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the only relevant question is,
    "Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course, it is!) There is only one truly
    scientific study that I know of that compares the impacts of hiking and
    mountain biking. It found that mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than
    hiking (Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects
    of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American
    Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press. Wisdom
    et al. 2).

    5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for wildlife
    protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal Utility District
    (in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California). They both restrict bicycles
    to paved roads, where they can't do much harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed
    to enjoy their sport for over a hundred years, without riding off-road.

    6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked open.
    Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the ground by
    mountain bikers.

    7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
    mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently because they think
    it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that mountain bikers have exactly
    the same access to trails that everyone else has! It is only their bikes that
    are banned. If mountain bikers were really being discriminated against, they
    could easily go to court to gain access. However … they already have access to
    every trail in the world!

    8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a taxpayer!
    The public has the right, through its elected representatives, to restrict how
    land is used. A federal court has already ruled that there is no right to
    mountain bike. It is a privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason
    (such as safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails (see
    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).

    9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
    maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat both directly (by
    killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the size of the
    intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover, mountain bikers favor trails that
    are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and full of obstacles that provide thrills for
    mountain bikers. Such designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the
    trail) and make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
    maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be necessary, if
    bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the main reason why trail
    maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by hikers require hardly any
    maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles to a park greatly increases its cost
    of maintenance. Nothing is really "free", including trail construction and
    maintenance. (How does the saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)

    10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
    summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust in a cell phone,
    than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural areas are already one of the
    safest places you can be. In over 50 years of hiking and backpacking, I have
    never witnessed any situation requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural
    areas partly for solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces
    of machinery, we would stay in the city!

    ===
    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. Mike,

    I don't know why you posted this here if for no other reason but to get
    the folks here upset.
    Your article is full of lies and assumptions that lump all mountbikers
    into a group that you
    picks the worst examples in an attempt to label us all as Destroyers of
    nature. Taken your
    approach to a subject. I could say with equal authority that humans are
    bad because:

    * The kill anything for pleasure
    * They Rape, Murder, Steal, lie, cheat
    * Love Porn and anything carnal
    * Pollute the planet, Destroy Rain forests
    * They are all greedy
    * Driver SUV's for pleasure and to intimidate others.
    * Get the point.....

    It is unfortunate that you are so biased that you didn't take the time
    to get your facts strait and publish fair assessment
    of moutainbikers. I wish I had the time to point out all of the silly
    things you state as absolute fact, but it would
    be as waste of my time because people like you will never look at
    anything objectively.

    -Steve (MTBt at large)

    Mike Vandeman wrote:

    >Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    >Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    >March 5, 2004
    >
    >1. Why do people mountain bike?
    >a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in the same
    >amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain constant pressure
    >on land managers, to open more and more trails to bikes. Of course, all of these
    >trails are already open to them, if they choose to walk. They also frequently
    >claim that closing trails to bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could
    >only be true if they were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk.
    >There's nothing inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like
    >to save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace automobile
    >use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token, replacing hiking with
    >mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
    >b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see, rather than
    >the quality of their experience. While riding a bike, especially over terrain as
    >rough as a trail, one has to be constantly paying attention to not crashing.
    >That make it almost impossible to notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels
    >the ground, hears all the sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop
    >instantly, if he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on
    >stimulation. A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the
    >same stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
    >travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several times as
    >far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal box.)
    >c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail, especially a
    >trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not familiar with, is very
    >challenging. (But if mountain biking is the high point of your week, as it seems
    >to be for many mountain bikers, you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of
    >the bike!)
    >d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and competing
    >with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives people to spend more
    >money on their bike, and ride it harder and more often. Racing, up to and
    >including the Olympics, drives a lot of mountain biking. Of course, it is also
    >extremely harmful to the parks and natural areas that are used for practice! It
    >is hard to think of any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting,
    >that is as harmful as mountain biking.
    >
    >2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the attraction for
    >participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain bikes and mountain biking
    >accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make a lot of money from
    >promoting mountain biking. Even some auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote
    >and sponsor mountain biking, and try to use its popularity to sell more cars.
    >The tourism industry also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.
    >
    >3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    >a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip into the
    >soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They also create V-shaped
    >grooves that make walking difficult or even dangerous. The mechanical advantage
    >given by the gears and ball bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several
    >times as fast as a hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this
    >results in vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
    >(shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops, starts, and
    >turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
    >Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other bikes, so that they could
    >withstand the greater forces they were subject to on rough trails. These same
    >forces, therefore, are being applied to the trails! To give a definite number,
    >the winner of a 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the
    >speed limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
    >b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small animals
    >and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost impossible to avoid
    >killing countless animals and plants on and under the trail. They have to pay
    >attention to controlling the bike, and can't afford to look carefully at what is
    >on the trail, especially when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see,
    >for example, a snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
    >hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by crossing on
    >stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other hand, simply ride right
    >through the creek bed, crushing any animals or plants that happen to be there.
    >Mountain biking magazines are full of photos of mountain bikers throwing up
    >spray, as they barrel through creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and
    >plants as they ride across streams, they ride through streams stirring up
    >sediment. The sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
    >life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects, amphibians,
    >and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to sediment in water.
    >c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a hiker. This
    >translates into several times the impacts, both on the trail and on the wildlife
    >(to say nothing of the other trail users). Existing parklands are already
    >inadequate to protect the wildlife that live there. When they are crisscrossed
    >by mountain bikers and legal or illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more
    >inadequate. Mountain bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more.
    >Have you ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes in
    >a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives wildlife further
    >from the resources that they need to survive, including water, food, and mates.
    >d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each other on
    >narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain biking also result in
    >more habitat destruction, as trails are widened by bikers (or by hikers and
    >equestrians jumping out of their way).
    >e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and consequently
    >exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to place, resulting in the
    >spread of exotic invasive species, such as weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
    >f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the trails and
    >hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and equestrians fear for their
    >safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails with bikes. (The mountain bikers
    >claim that they are simply being selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually
    >they have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes
    >that are a problem!)
    >g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere, teach children
    >and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable.
    >This undoubtedly has a negative effect on people's treatment of nature.
    >h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have been
    >resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a plastic matrix or
    >other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in Pleasanton Ridge Regional
    >Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's hard to imagine that this will have
    >a beneficial effect on the park and its wildlife....
    >
    >4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
    >than hiking. Is that true? If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you
    >find that they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking,
    >but only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the studies are
    >correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it would still follow that
    >mountain biking has far greater impact per person, since mountain bikers
    >typically travel so much farther than hikers. Besides overlooking distances
    >travelled, those "studies" almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't
    >study mountain biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed.
    >Actually, the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
    >we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of the two
    >is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning hiking. We are only
    >considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the only relevant question is,
    >"Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course, it is!) There is only one truly
    >scientific study that I know of that compares the impacts of hiking and
    >mountain biking. It found that mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than
    >hiking (Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects
    >of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American
    >Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press. Wisdom
    >et al. 2).
    >
    >5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for wildlife
    >protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal Utility District
    >(in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California). They both restrict bicycles
    >to paved roads, where they can't do much harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed
    >to enjoy their sport for over a hundred years, without riding off-road.
    >
    >6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked open.
    >Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the ground by
    >mountain bikers.
    >
    >7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
    >mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently because they think
    >it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that mountain bikers have exactly
    >the same access to trails that everyone else has! It is only their bikes that
    >are banned. If mountain bikers were really being discriminated against, they
    >could easily go to court to gain access. However ... they already have access to
    >every trail in the world!
    >
    >8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a taxpayer!
    >The public has the right, through its elected representatives, to restrict how
    >land is used. A federal court has already ruled that there is no right to
    >mountain bike. It is a privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason
    >(such as safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails (see
    >http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).
    >
    >9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
    >maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat both directly (by
    >killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the size of the
    >intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover, mountain bikers favor trails that
    >are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and full of obstacles that provide thrills for
    >mountain bikers. Such designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the
    >trail) and make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
    >maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be necessary, if
    >bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the main reason why trail
    >maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by hikers require hardly any
    >maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles to a park greatly increases its cost
    >of maintenance. Nothing is really "free", including trail construction and
    >maintenance. (How does the saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)
    >
    >10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
    >summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust in a cell phone,
    >than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural areas are already one of the
    >safest places you can be. In over 50 years of hiking and backpacking, I have
    >never witnessed any situation requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural
    >areas partly for solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces
    >of machinery, we would stay in the city!
    >
    >===
    >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. Chuck W

    Chuck W Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > March 5, 2004
    >

    <SNIP Textbook Examples of Straw-man logic>

    Everyone mark this post. No doubt it is what you will be referred back to
    for months to come if you ask MV any question of interest. You will almost
    certainly be responded to with :

    1. IRRELEVANT!

    or

    2. I have already answered that in my FAQ.

    What you will not get is a straight-forward response.

    -Chuck W
     
  4. Brett Jaffee

    Brett Jaffee Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > b. (But if mountain biking is the
    > high point of your week, as it seems to be for many mountain bikers,
    > you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of the bike!)


    And the high point of your week is.....?
     
  5. On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:50:06 GMT, Steve Douglas <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..Mike,
    ..
    ..I don't know why you posted this here if for no other reason but to get
    ..the folks here upset.
    ..Your article is full of lies and assumptions that lump all mountbikers
    ..into a group that you
    ..picks the worst examples in an attempt to label us all as Destroyers of
    ..nature. Taken your
    ..approach to a subject. I could say with equal authority that humans are
    ..bad because:
    ..
    .. * The kill anything for pleasure
    .. * They Rape, Murder, Steal, lie, cheat
    .. * Love Porn and anything carnal
    .. * Pollute the planet, Destroy Rain forests
    .. * They are all greedy
    .. * Driver SUV's for pleasure and to intimidate others.
    .. * Get the point.....
    ..
    ..It is unfortunate that you are so biased that you didn't take the time
    ..to get your facts strait and publish fair assessment
    ..of moutainbikers. I wish I had the time to point out all of the silly
    ..things you state as absolute fact, but it would
    ..be as waste of my time because people like you will never look at
    ..anything objectively.

    But more importantly, because you CAN'T refute a single statement! You had the
    time to write BS, but you don't have the "time" to tell the truth? Right.

    ..-Steve (MTBt at large)
    ..
    ..Mike Vandeman wrote:
    ..
    ..>Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    ..>Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    ..>March 5, 2004
    ..>
    ..>1. Why do people mountain bike?
    ..>a. They say that using a bike allows them to get much farther, in the same
    ..>amount of time, than they can by walking. They also maintain constant pressure
    ..>on land managers, to open more and more trails to bikes. Of course, all of these
    ..>trails are already open to them, if they choose to walk. They also frequently
    ..>claim that closing trails to bikes "excludes" them from the parks. This could
    ..>only be true if they were unable to walk. Of course, they are able to walk.
    ..>There's nothing inherently wrong with bicycling instead of walking; we all like
    ..>to save energy, when it's appropriate. Use of a bicycle to replace automobile
    ..>use is obviously beneficial. However, by the same token, replacing hiking with
    ..>mountain biking is obviously not beneficial.
    ..>b. They are interested in the quantity of nature they can see, rather than
    ..>the quality of their experience. While riding a bike, especially over terrain as
    ..>rough as a trail, one has to be constantly paying attention to not crashing.
    ..>That make it almost impossible to notice much else. By contrast, a hiker feels
    ..>the ground, hears all the sounds and smells all the odors of nature and can stop
    ..>instantly, if he/she finds something interesting. The brain thrives on
    ..>stimulation. A biker has to travel several times as far as a hiker, to get the
    ..>same stimulation as a hiker. (And, by the same token, motorcyclists have to
    ..>travel several times as far as a bicyclist, and an auto user several times as
    ..>far as a motorcyclist, since they are enclosed in a metal box.)
    ..>c. They are interested in thrills. Riding a bike on a trail, especially a
    ..>trail containing many obstacles, or a trail one is not familiar with, is very
    ..>challenging. (But if mountain biking is the high point of your week, as it seems
    ..>to be for many mountain bikers, you must be leading a pretty dull life, off of
    ..>the bike!)
    ..>d. They are interested in building mountain biking skills and competing
    ..>with other mountain bikers. The thrill of racing drives people to spend more
    ..>money on their bike, and ride it harder and more often. Racing, up to and
    ..>including the Olympics, drives a lot of mountain biking. Of course, it is also
    ..>extremely harmful to the parks and natural areas that are used for practice! It
    ..>is hard to think of any other (legal) use of public lands, other than hunting,
    ..>that is as harmful as mountain biking.
    ..>
    ..>2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking? Besides the attraction for
    ..>participants, manufacturers and retailers of mountain bikes and mountain biking
    ..>accessories, as well as "adventure" travel guides, make a lot of money from
    ..>promoting mountain biking. Even some auto manufacturers (e.g. Subaru) promote
    ..>and sponsor mountain biking, and try to use its popularity to sell more cars.
    ..>The tourism industry also promotes mountain biking, among other attractions.
    ..>
    ..>3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    ..>a. Most obvious is the acceleration of erosion. Knobby tires rip into the
    ..>soil, loosening it and allowing rain to wash it away. They also create V-shaped
    ..>grooves that make walking difficult or even dangerous. The mechanical advantage
    ..>given by the gears and ball bearings allow a mountain biker to travel several
    ..>times as fast as a hiker. Given their increased weight (rider plus bike), this
    ..>results in vastly increased momentum, and hence much greater horizontal
    ..>(shearing) forces on the soil. (Witness the skid marks from stops, starts, and
    ..>turns.) According to Newton, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
    ..>Mountain bikes were built much stronger than other bikes, so that they could
    ..>withstand the greater forces they were subject to on rough trails. These same
    ..>forces, therefore, are being applied to the trails! To give a definite number,
    ..>the winner of a 20-mile race here in Briones Regional Park averaged 13 MPH (the
    ..>speed limit is 15 MPH -- where were the park rangers?).
    ..>b. A hiker must be very careful not to accidentally step on small animals
    ..>and plants on the trail. For a mountain biker, it is almost impossible to avoid
    ..>killing countless animals and plants on and under the trail. They have to pay
    ..>attention to controlling the bike, and can't afford to look carefully at what is
    ..>on the trail, especially when travelling fast. And even if they happen to see,
    ..>for example, a snake, it is hard for them to stop in time to avoid killing it. A
    ..>hiker, when crossing a creek, will try to avoid getting wet, by crossing on
    ..>stepping stones or logs. Mountain bikers, on the other hand, simply ride right
    ..>through the creek bed, crushing any animals or plants that happen to be there.
    ..>Mountain biking magazines are full of photos of mountain bikers throwing up
    ..>spray, as they barrel through creeks. Not only do bikes destroy animals and
    ..>plants as they ride across streams, they ride through streams stirring up
    ..>sediment. The sediment in the water interferes with the oxygen uptake by aquatic
    ..>life, for example, killing fish- and frog eggs. Young fish, insects, amphibians,
    ..>and aquatic microorganisms are extremely sensitive to sediment in water.
    ..>c. Bikes also allow people to travel several times as far as a hiker. This
    ..>translates into several times the impacts, both on the trail and on the wildlife
    ..>(to say nothing of the other trail users). Existing parklands are already
    ..>inadequate to protect the wildlife that live there. When they are crisscrossed
    ..>by mountain bikers and legal or illegal trails, their habitat becomes even more
    ..>inadequate. Mountain bikers frequently advertise rides of 20-50 miles or more.
    ..>Have you ever tried to walk that far in a day? In other words, allowing bikes in
    ..>a park greatly increases human presence in that park and drives wildlife further
    ..>from the resources that they need to survive, including water, food, and mates.
    ..>d. Due to their width and speed, bikes can't safely pass each other on
    ..>narrow trails. Therefore, policies that permit mountain biking also result in
    ..>more habitat destruction, as trails are widened by bikers (or by hikers and
    ..>equestrians jumping out of their way).
    ..>e. Knobby mountain bike tires are ideal for carrying mud, and consequently
    ..>exotic plants, fungi, and other organisms from place to place, resulting in the
    ..>spread of exotic invasive species, such as weeds and Sudden Oak Death.
    ..>f. Mountain biking is driving the very young and old off of the trails and
    ..>hence out of the parks. Even able-bodied hikers and equestrians fear for their
    ..>safety, and don't enjoy sharing the trails with bikes. (The mountain bikers
    ..>claim that they are simply being selfish and "unwilling to share", but actually
    ..>they have no problem sharing trails with mountain bikers; it is only their bikes
    ..>that are a problem!)
    ..>g. Mountain bikes, which are obviously built to go anywhere, teach children
    ..>and anyone else who sees them that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable.
    ..>This undoubtedly has a negative effect on people's treatment of nature.
    ..>h. In order to mitigate bike-caused erosion, park managers have been
    ..>resorting to extreme measures -- even in some cases putting a plastic matrix or
    ..>other exotic material under the trail (e.g. in Pleasanton Ridge Regional
    ..>Preserve, near Pleasanton, California)! It's hard to imagine that this will have
    ..>a beneficial effect on the park and its wildlife....
    ..>
    ..>4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
    ..>than hiking. Is that true? If you read the "studies" that make that claim, you
    ..>find that they don't really compare the impacts of hiking and mountain biking,
    ..>but only the impacts per foot. If, for a moment, we assume that the studies are
    ..>correct in their having equivalent impacts per foot, it would still follow that
    ..>mountain biking has far greater impact per person, since mountain bikers
    ..>typically travel so much farther than hikers. Besides overlooking distances
    ..>travelled, those "studies" almost all ignore impacts on wildlife. And they don't
    ..>study mountain biking under normal conditions -- only at a very slow speed.
    ..>Actually, the comparison with hiking is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if
    ..>we planned to allow only one of the two, and were considering which of the two
    ..>is more harmful. In fact, no one is considering banning hiking. We are only
    ..>considering adding mountain biking. Therefore, the only relevant question is,
    ..>"Is mountain biking harmful"? (Of course, it is!) There is only one truly
    ..>scientific study that I know of that compares the impacts of hiking and
    ..>mountain biking. It found that mountain biking has a greater impact on elk than
    ..>hiking (Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects
    ..>of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American
    ..>Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press. Wisdom
    ..>et al. 2).
    ..>
    ..>5. Where should mountain biking allowed? A couple of role models for wildlife
    ..>protection are Yosemite National Park and East Bay Municipal Utility District
    ..>(in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California). They both restrict bicycles
    ..>to paved roads, where they can't do much harm. Somehow bicyclists have managed
    ..>to enjoy their sport for over a hundred years, without riding off-road.
    ..>
    ..>6. What should the policy be on trails? Closed to bikes, unless marked open.
    ..>Signs that say "No Bikes" are quickly and repeatedly ripped out of the ground by
    ..>mountain bikers.
    ..>
    ..>7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
    ..>mountain bikers? Mountain bikers love to say this, apparently because they think
    ..>it will gain them some sympathy. The truth is that mountain bikers have exactly
    ..>the same access to trails that everyone else has! It is only their bikes that
    ..>are banned. If mountain bikers were really being discriminated against, they
    ..>could easily go to court to gain access. However ... they already have access to
    ..>every trail in the world!
    ..>
    ..>8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a taxpayer!
    ..>The public has the right, through its elected representatives, to restrict how
    ..>land is used. A federal court has already ruled that there is no right to
    ..>mountain bike. It is a privilege, and any land manager who gives a good reason
    ..>(such as safety or protecting the environment) can keep bikes off of trails (see
    ..>http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm).
    ..>
    ..>9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
    ..>maintenance? Trail construction destroys wildlife habitat both directly (by
    ..>killing plants and animals) and indirectly (by reducing the size of the
    ..>intervening "islands" of habitat). Moreover, mountain bikers favor trails that
    ..>are "twisty" (sinuous), bumpy, and full of obstacles that provide thrills for
    ..>mountain bikers. Such designs increase habitat destruction (by lengthening the
    ..>trail) and make the trails less useful for hikers and equestrians. Trail
    ..>maintenance sounds good, until you realize that it would hardly be necessary, if
    ..>bikes weren't allowed there. The mountain bikers are the main reason why trail
    ..>maintenance is necessary! Trails used only by hikers require hardly any
    ..>maintenance. Therefore, admitting bicycles to a park greatly increases its cost
    ..>of maintenance. Nothing is really "free", including trail construction and
    ..>maintenance. (How does the saying go? "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts"?)
    ..>
    ..>10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
    ..>summon help in the event of an emergency? I would rather trust in a cell phone,
    ..>than a speeding mountain biker. Besides, natural areas are already one of the
    ..>safest places you can be. In over 50 years of hiking and backpacking, I have
    ..>never witnessed any situation requiring emergency aid. Most people go to natural
    ..>areas partly for solitude. If we wanted to be around large, fast-moving pieces
    ..>of machinery, we would stay in the city!
    ..>
    ..>===
    ..>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
     
  6. Bert L.am

    Bert L.am Guest

  7. Jason

    Jason Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > March 5, 2004
    >
    > 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    >


    It is a lot of fun.

    > 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?


    It is a lot of fun.

    > 3. What harm does mountain biking do?


    Eventually the bike chain wears down and needs to be replaced. Thats the
    most siginifcant harm done. Also, occasionally some nutcase will freak out
    and barrage news groups with B.S. (his name is M.V.).


    > 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental

    impact
    > than hiking. Is that true?


    Yes, anyone who says otherwise is a known LIAR.

    >
    > 5. Where should mountain biking allowed?


    On sanctioned trails, paved roads, M.V.'s lawn.

    > 6. What should the policy be on trails?


    Have fun!

    >
    > 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but

    not
    > mountain bikers?


    Yep, might as well say "no blacks allowed"

    > 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a

    taxpayer!

    Sure you do, on sanctioned public trails, it's legal!

    >
    > 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and

    trail
    > maintenance?


    Yeah, not to mention how much tland they preserve from being torn down to
    construct strip malls and gas stations!

    > 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to

    quickly
    > summon help in the event of an emergency?


    Yep, plus they often carry water and tools etc.

    > ===
    > 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. On Mon, 17 May 2004 09:11:04 -0500, "Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    ..> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    ..> March 5, 2004
    ..>
    ..> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    ..>
    ..
    ..It is a lot of fun.

    That's not a good excuse to allow the destruction of wildlife habitat.

    ..> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?
    ..
    ..It is a lot of fun.
    ..
    ..> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    ..
    ..Eventually the bike chain wears down and needs to be replaced. Thats the
    ..most siginifcant harm done. Also, occasionally some nutcase will freak out
    ..and barrage news groups with B.S. (his name is M.V.).
    ..
    ..
    ..> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
    ..impact
    ..> than hiking. Is that true?
    ..
    ..Yes, anyone who says otherwise is a known LIAR.

    You don't have any scientific evidence for that. The only scientific study ever
    done on this issue found that bikers have greater impacts than hikers.

    ..> 5. Where should mountain biking allowed?
    ..
    ..On sanctioned trails, paved roads, M.V.'s lawn.
    ..
    ..> 6. What should the policy be on trails?
    ..
    ..Have fun!
    ..
    ..>
    ..> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but
    ..not
    ..> mountain bikers?
    ..
    ..Yep, might as well say "no blacks allowed"
    ..
    ..> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands? I am a
    ..taxpayer!
    ..
    ..Sure you do, on sanctioned public trails, it's legal!
    ..
    ..>
    ..> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and
    ..trail
    ..> maintenance?
    ..
    ..Yeah, not to mention how much tland they preserve from being torn down to
    ..construct strip malls and gas stations!
    ..
    ..> 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to
    ..quickly
    ..> summon help in the event of an emergency?
    ..
    ..Yep, plus they often carry water and tools etc.

    Like a hiker really needs tools.... Right. Actually, mountain bikers are more
    likely to be the one needing help, since they are more often injured, and more
    seriously.
    ===
    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. Jonesy

    Jonesy Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > March 5, 2004
    >
    > 1. Why do people mountain bike?


    It's fun, good exercise, gets people away from the stress of workaday
    life, allows people to see and experience nature, and helps people
    understand the joys of using and maintaining simple, elegant machines.

    > 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?


    See 1.), above.

    > 3. What harm does mountain biking do?


    About the same harm per mile as hiking, and the same kinds of harm.

    > 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
    > than hiking. Is that true?


    No. Mountain biking actually does less aggregate harm, because there
    are many fewer mountain bikers than hikers. In addition, many trails
    are hiker-only, while very few are restricted to only mountain biking.
    Hiking is more widespread, and has many more participants, and thus
    is much more harmful to the environment.

    > 5. Where should mountain biking allowed?


    On trails open to mountain bikes, and on paved roads.

    > 6. What should the policy be on trails?


    Bikers should yield to all other users on multi-use trails. Bikes
    should always stay on the trail, and bikers should always remain in
    control of their bikes and not skid or otherwise damage the trail.
    Bikers should only use trails open to bikes.

    > 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
    > mountain bikers?


    If the trail system is on private land, or cannot support bicycle
    traffic, no. Otherwise, yes.

    > 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands?


    Only in the parts approved for use by those on bikes. Bikes are not
    approved in National Parks, for instance.

    > 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
    > maintenance?


    Among other things, mountain bikers also keep land from being
    developed or paved over. They often advocate for retaining lands as
    undeveloped, or use private timber land for trail systems (as opposed
    to public forests).

    > 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
    > summon help in the event of an emergency?


    In rugged places without cell phone reception, a mountain biker might
    be the difference between life and death. While this event might be
    rare, the possiblity is real. More than that, mountain bikers often
    carry tools and small amounts of minor medical supplies. For minor,
    non-life-threatening injuries, a mountain biker's kit could help bring
    comfort to an injured trail user.

    Thank you for allowing me to honestly answer your questions,

    Robert F. Jones
     
  10. Jason

    Jason Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > March 5, 2004
    >
    > 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    > Snip <
    > ===
    > 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


    Mike, asking yourself these questions in the mirror over and over does not
    make them "Frequently Asked Questions," just stupid ones.
     
  11. Sweety

    Sweety Guest

    Yeah!!! I heard all that stuff on Art Bell. Must be
    true....whirrrrrrrrrrchurnnnnnnnnnnnspinnnnnn



    hahahahahahaahahahahahahaaha

    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    morons ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the last 900
    Years fighting idiots and cretins.)
     
  12. On 17 May 2004 10:03:47 -0700, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

    ..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    ..> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    ..> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    ..> March 5, 2004
    ..>
    ..> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    ..
    ..It's fun, good exercise, gets people away from the stress of workaday
    ..life, allows people to see and experience nature, and helps people
    ..understand the joys of using and maintaining simple, elegant machines.

    So does hiking. That doesn't explain why people mountain bike (hint: they are
    too LAZY to walk).

    ..> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?
    ..
    ..See 1.), above.
    ..
    ..> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    ..
    ..About the same harm per mile as hiking, and the same kinds of harm.
    ..
    ..> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
    ..> than hiking. Is that true?
    ..
    ..No. Mountain biking actually does less aggregate harm, because there
    ..are many fewer mountain bikers than hikers. In addition, many trails
    ..are hiker-only, while very few are restricted to only mountain biking.
    .. Hiking is more widespread, and has many more participants, and thus
    ..is much more harmful to the environment.
    ..
    ..> 5. Where should mountain biking allowed?
    ..
    ..On trails open to mountain bikes, and on paved roads.
    ..
    ..> 6. What should the policy be on trails?
    ..
    ..Bikers should yield to all other users on multi-use trails.

    But, in fact, they never do! They force everyone else to jump off the trail, and
    complain if they don't jump far enough or fast enough.

    Bikes
    ..should always stay on the trail, and bikers should always remain in
    ..control of their bikes and not skid or otherwise damage the trail.
    ..Bikers should only use trails open to bikes.
    ..
    ..> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
    ..> mountain bikers?
    ..
    ..If the trail system is on private land, or cannot support bicycle
    ..traffic, no. Otherwise, yes.

    Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.

    ..> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands?
    ..
    ..Only in the parts approved for use by those on bikes. Bikes are not
    ..approved in National Parks, for instance.

    BS. There IS no right to mountain bike.

    ..> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
    ..> maintenance?
    ..
    ..Among other things, mountain bikers also keep land from being
    ..developed or paved over.

    BS. "I just wanna bike there!" is not a persuasive argument.

    They often advocate for retaining lands as
    ..undeveloped, or use private timber land for trail systems (as opposed
    ..to public forests).

    Yes, ineffectively. Selfish arguments aren't persuasive.

    ..> 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
    ..> summon help in the event of an emergency?
    ..
    ..In rugged places without cell phone reception, a mountain biker might
    ..be the difference between life and death.

    That's right: they could KILL you, by running into you or pushing you off a
    cliff.

    While this event might be
    ..rare, the possiblity is real. More than that, mountain bikers often
    ..carry tools and small amounts of minor medical supplies. For minor,
    ..non-life-threatening injuries, a mountain biker's kit could help bring
    ..comfort to an injured trail user.

    On the other hand, it won't be much comfort to a hiker run into by a mountain
    biker.

    ..Thank you for allowing me to honestly answer your questions,

    I am still waiting to see one shred of honesty from a mountain biker. ANY
    mountain biker.

    ..Robert F. Jones

    ===
    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
     
  13. Lou W

    Lou W Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 17 May 2004 10:03:47 -0700, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
    >
    > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > .> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > .> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > .> March 5, 2004
    > .>
    > .> 1. Why do people mountain bike?


    Same reason I hike or ride a horse........because I/they can and want
    too!

    > .
    > .It's fun, good exercise, gets people away from the stress of workaday
    > .life, allows people to see and experience nature, and helps people
    > .understand the joys of using and maintaining simple, elegant machines.
    >
    > So does hiking. That doesn't explain why people mountain bike (hint: they

    are
    > too LAZY to walk).
    >
    > .> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?
    > .
    > .See 1.), above.


    Bacause they can/want too....same as hiking etc.

    > .
    > .> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    > .
    > .About the same harm per mile as hiking, and the same kinds of harm.
    > .
    > .> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental

    impact
    > .> than hiking. Is that true?
    > .
    > .No. Mountain biking actually does less aggregate harm, because there
    > .are many fewer mountain bikers than hikers. In addition, many trails
    > .are hiker-only, while very few are restricted to only mountain biking.
    > . Hiking is more widespread, and has many more participants, and thus
    > .is much more harmful to the environment.
    > .
    > .> 5. Where should mountain biking allowed?
    > .
    > .On trails open to mountain bikes, and on paved roads.


    Share the road/trail
    > .
    > .> 6. What should the policy be on trails?


    Be excellent to each other

    > .
    > .Bikers should yield to all other users on multi-use trails.



    Depends on the situation....ever tried not yeilding to the mules on the
    GC corridor trails?

    >
    > But, in fact, they never do! They force everyone else to jump off the

    trail, and
    > complain if they don't jump far enough or fast enough.


    Blanket statement. Doesnt wash.

    >
    > Bikes
    > .should always stay on the trail, and bikers should always remain in
    > .control of their bikes and not skid or otherwise damage the trail.
    > .Bikers should only use trails open to bikes.


    By that logic the same should apply to hikers etc. Do not let those boots
    slip folks.
    > .
    > .> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,

    but not
    > .> mountain bikers?


    Yes


    > .
    > .If the trail system is on private land, or cannot support bicycle
    > .traffic, no. Otherwise, yes.
    >
    > Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.


    Wrong. Blanket statment again.


    >
    > .> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands?
    > .
    > .Only in the parts approved for use by those on bikes. Bikes are not
    > .approved in National Parks, for instance.
    >
    > BS. There IS no right to mountain bike


    As there is no right to take a shit in the woods or hike for that
    matter.


    >
    > .> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction

    and trail
    > .> maintenance?
    > .
    > .Among other things, mountain bikers also keep land from being
    > .developed or paved over.
    >
    > BS. "I just wanna bike there!" is not a persuasive argument.
    >
    > They often advocate for retaining lands as
    > .undeveloped, or use private timber land for trail systems (as opposed
    > .to public forests).
    >
    > Yes, ineffectively. Selfish arguments aren't persuasive.


    Pot, Kettle, Black


    >
    > .> 10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to

    quickly
    > .> summon help in the event of an emergency?
    > .
    > .In rugged places without cell phone reception, a mountain biker might
    > .be the difference between life and death.
    >
    > That's right: they could KILL you, by running into you or pushing you off

    a
    > cliff.






    >
    > While this event might be
    > .rare, the possiblity is real. More than that, mountain bikers often
    > .carry tools and small amounts of minor medical supplies. For minor,
    > .non-life-threatening injuries, a mountain biker's kit could help bring
    > .comfort to an injured trail user.
    >
    > On the other hand, it won't be much comfort to a hiker run into by a

    mountain
    > biker.
    >
    > .Thank you for allowing me to honestly answer your questions,
    >
    > I am still waiting to see one shred of honesty from a mountain biker. ANY
    > mountain biker.



    And I am waiting for you to quit using blanket statements......most folks
    that have done the requsite work to attain a phd
    would realize this


    >
    > .Robert F. Jones
    >
    > ===
    > 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
     
  14. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...
    >
    >
    >Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    >Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    >March 5, 2004
    >
    >1. Why do people mountain bike?


    For fun


    >2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?


    All the people having fun.

    >3. What harm does mountain biking do?


    Usually harm is done to the bike and rider when they crash.

    >4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental impact
    >than hiking. Is that true?


    If done responsibly, yes.

    >5. Where should mountain biking allowed?


    Where ever it is safe to do.

    >6. What should the policy be on trails?


    Same as for other users.

    >7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails, but not
    >mountain bikers?


    Yes. Horses can do much more damage than a responsibly riden MTB.

    >8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands?


    If done responsibly, yes.

    >9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and
    >trail maintenance?


    Some do, some don't.

    >10. But don't mountain bikers provide added safety, by being able to quickly
    >summon help in the event of an emergency?


    Maybe. A cell phone would probably do the same, assuming you can get a
    signal. I never hear this reason.

    ---------------
    Alex
     
  15. Jonesy

    Jonesy Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On 17 May 2004 10:03:47 -0700, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
    >
    > .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > .> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > .> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > .> March 5, 2004
    > .>
    > .> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    > .
    > .It's fun, good exercise, gets people away from the stress of workaday
    > .life, allows people to see and experience nature, and helps people
    > .understand the joys of using and maintaining simple, elegant machines.
    >
    > So does hiking. That doesn't explain why people mountain bike (hint: they are
    > too LAZY to walk).


    Your opinion on the work ethic of mountain bike riders is irrelevant.
    In some cases, it is actually harder to ride a bike than walk on
    particular sections of trail. As far as outdoor activities go, one
    size doesn't fit all. Hiking <> mountain biking.

    > .> 6. What should the policy be on trails?
    > .
    > .Bikers should yield to all other users on multi-use trails.
    >
    > But, in fact, they never do!


    As you are often quick to point out to others, this is a LIE. I
    *always* yield to other trail users. Gladly.

    > They force everyone else to jump off the trail, and
    > complain if they don't jump far enough or fast enough.


    Another lie. Do not bring up "your experinece" in this - biased
    anecdotal evidence is not indicative of the entire population, or
    every encounter.


    > .If the trail system is on private land, or cannot support bicycle
    > .traffic, no. Otherwise, yes.
    >
    > Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.


    What does that have to do with bicycle traffic?

    > .> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands?
    > .
    > .Only in the parts approved for use by those on bikes. Bikes are not
    > .approved in National Parks, for instance.
    >
    > BS. There IS no right to mountain bike.


    Pedantically speaking, you are correct. But as long as mountain
    biking is allowed, the priviledge is extended to mountain bikers to
    bike on the trails. This is also the case with hikers in some areas
    of the NPS.

    > .> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction and trail
    > .> maintenance?
    > .
    > .Among other things, mountain bikers also keep land from being
    > .developed or paved over.
    >
    > BS. "I just wanna bike there!" is not a persuasive argument.


    A lie. The rationale or persuasivness of the argument to you has no
    bearing on whether or not the mountain biker community is successful
    in keeping lands from being developed.

    > They often advocate for retaining lands as
    > .undeveloped, or use private timber land for trail systems (as opposed
    > .to public forests).
    >
    > Yes, ineffectively. Selfish arguments aren't persuasive.


    Moscow Mt., ID is privately owned, and the trail system is maintained
    exclusively by MTBers for MTBer and hikers. This land may eventually
    be logged, but it is unlikely that it will be developed. This is due
    to cooperation between the Bennett Lumber Co. and MAMBA.

    Funny, MTBer arguments are the first ones listened to in those
    circles...

    > .In rugged places without cell phone reception, a mountain biker might
    > .be the difference between life and death.
    >
    > That's right: they could KILL you, by running into you or pushing you off a
    > cliff.


    Since this has never happened, the suggestion is a non sequitur at
    best. A red herring otherwise.

    > While this event might be
    > .rare, the possiblity is real. More than that, mountain bikers often
    > .carry tools and small amounts of minor medical supplies. For minor,
    > .non-life-threatening injuries, a mountain biker's kit could help bring
    > .comfort to an injured trail user.
    >
    > On the other hand, it won't be much comfort to a hiker run into by a mountain
    > biker.


    Strawman. Please use logic when attempting to refute an argument.

    > .Thank you for allowing me to honestly answer your questions,
    >
    > I am still waiting to see one shred of honesty from a mountain biker. ANY
    > mountain biker.



    "For minor, non-life-threatening injuries, a mountain biker's kit
    could help bring comfort to an injured trail user."

    This statement is 100% true, and completely honest, and from a MTBer.
    --
    Bob Jones
     
  16. On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:30:55 -0700, "Lou W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ..
    .."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:[email protected]
    ..> On 17 May 2004 10:03:47 -0700, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
    ..>
    ..> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ..news:<[email protected]>...
    ..> .> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    ..> .> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    ..> .> March 5, 2004
    ..> .>
    ..> .> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    ..
    .. Same reason I hike or ride a horse........because I/they can and want
    ..too!

    And because they are too lazy to walk.

    ..> .It's fun, good exercise, gets people away from the stress of workaday
    ..> .life, allows people to see and experience nature, and helps people
    ..> .understand the joys of using and maintaining simple, elegant machines.
    ..>
    ..> So does hiking. That doesn't explain why people mountain bike (hint: they
    ..are
    ..> too LAZY to walk).
    ..>
    ..> .> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?
    ..> .
    ..> .See 1.), above.
    ..
    .. Bacause they can/want too....same as hiking etc.
    ..
    ..> .
    ..> .> 3. What harm does mountain biking do?
    ..> .
    ..> .About the same harm per mile as hiking, and the same kinds of harm.
    ..> .
    ..> .> 4. Mountain bikers claim that their sport has no greater environmental
    ..impact
    ..> .> than hiking. Is that true?
    ..> .
    ..> .No. Mountain biking actually does less aggregate harm, because there
    ..> .are many fewer mountain bikers than hikers. In addition, many trails
    ..> .are hiker-only, while very few are restricted to only mountain biking.
    ..> . Hiking is more widespread, and has many more participants, and thus
    ..> .is much more harmful to the environment.
    ..> .
    ..> .> 5. Where should mountain biking allowed?
    ..> .
    ..> .On trails open to mountain bikes, and on paved roads.
    ..
    .. Share the road/trail
    ..> .
    ..> .> 6. What should the policy be on trails?
    ..
    .. Be excellent to each other
    ..
    ..> .
    ..> .Bikers should yield to all other users on multi-use trails.
    ..
    ..
    .. Depends on the situation....ever tried not yeilding to the mules on the
    ..GC corridor trails?
    ..
    ..>
    ..> But, in fact, they never do! They force everyone else to jump off the
    ..trail, and
    ..> complain if they don't jump far enough or fast enough.
    ..
    .. Blanket statement. Doesnt wash.
    ..
    ..>
    ..> Bikes
    ..> .should always stay on the trail, and bikers should always remain in
    ..> .control of their bikes and not skid or otherwise damage the trail.
    ..> .Bikers should only use trails open to bikes.
    ..
    .. By that logic the same should apply to hikers etc. Do not let those boots
    ..slip folks.
    ..> .
    ..> .> 7. Isn't it discriminatory to allow hikers and equestrians on trails,
    ..but not
    ..> .> mountain bikers?
    ..
    .. Yes

    In what way?

    ..> .If the trail system is on private land, or cannot support bicycle
    ..> .traffic, no. Otherwise, yes.
    ..>
    ..> Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.
    ..
    .. Wrong. Blanket statment again.

    And TRUE.

    ..> .> 8. Don't I have a right to mountain bike on all public lands?
    ..> .
    ..> .Only in the parts approved for use by those on bikes. Bikes are not
    ..> .approved in National Parks, for instance.
    ..>
    ..> BS. There IS no right to mountain bike
    ..
    .. As there is no right to take a shit in the woods or hike for that
    ..matter.

    Sure there is.

    ..> I am still waiting to see one shred of honesty from a mountain biker. ANY
    ..> mountain biker.
    ..
    ..
    ..And I am waiting for you to quit using blanket statements......most folks
    ..that have done the requsite work to attain a phd
    ..would realize this

    Generalizations are fine. They are one of the goals of science.
    ===
    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
     
  17. Westie

    Westie Guest

    Jonesy wrote:
    > Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    >> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    >> March 5, 2004
    >>
    >> 1. Why do people mountain bike?

    >
    > It's fun, good exercise, gets people away from the stress of workaday
    > life, allows people to see and experience nature, and helps people
    > understand the joys of using and maintaining simple, elegant machines.
    >
    >> 2. What is driving the sport of mountain biking?

    >
    > See 1.), above.


    I'd just like to note that advances in technology especially in recent years
    has increased the 'fun' aspect of mountain bikes. Shock absorbing
    suspension, lightweight frame materials, frame designs and tyres have
    contributed to making biking easier, better and more 'fun'.
    --
    Westie
    (Replace 'invalid' with 'yahoo' when replying.)
     
  18. Jason

    Jason Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:30:55 -0700, "Lou W" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .
    > ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > .news:[email protected]
    > .> On 17 May 2004 10:03:47 -0700, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
    > .>
    > .> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > .news:<[email protected]>...
    > .> .> Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking
    > .> .> Michael Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > .> .> March 5, 2004
    > .> .>
    > .> .> 1. Why do people mountain bike?
    > .
    > . Same reason I hike or ride a horse........because I/they can and want
    > .too!
    >
    > And because they are too lazy to walk.
    >


    This is my favorite stupid quote from M.V. What a dunce he is to think that
    bikers are lazy. Mountain biking is much more work than hiking, and
    CERTAINLY much more work thansitting on the couch watching T.V., as many
    people do all day.

    It is OBVIOUS M.V. fell off his bike when his mom removed his training
    wheels (at 23 years old), and now he has a phobia of all things with two
    wheels.
     
  19. Mike Vandeman (who seems really pissed off that everyone else won't conform
    to his version of reality) potificates:
    > Neither. Mountain bikers are ALWAYS allowed on trails, liar.


    Here in the state of Colorado, we have "wilderness" areas where motorized
    vehicles and mountain bikes are not permitted.


    > .> 9. Don't mountain bikers do some good things, like trail construction

    and trail
    > .> maintenance?
    > .
    > .Among other things, mountain bikers also keep land from being
    > .developed or paved over.
    >
    > BS. "I just wanna bike there!" is not a persuasive argument.


    Especially when the receiving party has closed his/her mind to any sort of
    arguement whatsoever...

    (Conclusion: The end of thought. See also: Faith.)


    > I am still waiting to see one shred of honesty from a mountain biker. ANY
    > mountain biker.


    You mean you are waiting for someone provide a response that conforms with
    your reality tunnel. For someone who claims a Ph.D. in psychology, you show
    a frightening lack of understanding of humans...


    > 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.)


    (Well, I should offer some restraint here, but fuck it, I'm tired and the
    coffee hasn't kicked in.) You want some progress in your anti-human
    eco-terrorism movement? Do us all a favor, take your own advice, gather
    your friends together, and DRINK THE FUCKING COOL AID!

    -Mike
     
  20. Mike Vandeman (projecting his own neurosis on the rest of us) declares:

    > And because they are too lazy to walk.
    > hint: they are too LAZY to walk
    > See above.


    Do you REALLY think this way? Laziness??? Last time I pedaled my ass over
    12,000 feet, laziness was the last thing on my mind.


    > .And I am waiting for you to quit using blanket statements......most folks
    > .that have done the requsite work to attain a phd
    > .would realize this
    >
    > Generalizations are fine. They are one of the goals of science.


    Now this just seems like complete nonsense. I'm sure we could hold hands
    and come up with hundreds of goals of science, but generalizations....
    Hitler made gross generalizations about the Jews and although I'm sure you
    have the same feelings towards much of humanity, science has nothing to do
    with it.

    I would describe one of the goals of science as developing more and more
    *accurate* models to describe the universe. While a few physicists have
    dreams of coming up with the ultimate generalization combining quantum
    mechanics with relativity into a Grand Unified Theory, I would argue that
    the quest will prove useless and we will learn that we need many, many
    models - selecting the best fit for a given situation.

    -Mike
     
Loading...
Loading...