Incredible Damage from Moab Mountain Bike Races



M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:40 GMT, "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>
>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html
>> --
>> 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.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>
>
>
> What's up wack job Vandy ??? If you even bothered to look at what you
>post the photos of the race are from 2003. If you bothered to look at any of
>the photos you would have noticed the people who took them are on mountain
>bikes also.


Right. Even mountain bikers are horrified by the destructiveness of
that event. What's your point?
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:40 GMT, "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>
>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html
>> --
>> 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.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>
>
>
> What's up wack job Vandy ??? If you even bothered to look at what you
>post the photos of the race are from 2003. If you bothered to look at any of
>the photos you would have noticed the people who took them are on mountain
>bikes also.


Right. Even mountain bikers are horrified by the destructiveness of
that event. What's your point?
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 5 Nov 2007 11:43:56 -0800, JD <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 4, 2:36 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>
>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html

>
>
>Tell us something we don't know, dipshit. The author of that article
>runs a mountain bike tour company and is a friend of mine. In fact, I
>was with him the day the damage was surveyed right before he wrote
>it. That creep Lard Knight of Granny Gear Productions almost got his
>ass kicked the very same day. If he had taken one step closer to Lee,
>he would have been eating sand.


So you guys can't even control your own peers? What good are you?

>JD

--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 5 Nov 2007 11:43:56 -0800, JD <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 4, 2:36 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>
>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html

>
>
>Tell us something we don't know, dipshit. The author of that article
>runs a mountain bike tour company and is a friend of mine. In fact, I
>was with him the day the damage was surveyed right before he wrote
>it. That creep Lard Knight of Granny Gear Productions almost got his
>ass kicked the very same day. If he had taken one step closer to Lee,
>he would have been eating sand.


So you guys can't even control your own peers? What good are you?

>JD

--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 5 Nov 2007 11:43:56 -0800, JD <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 4, 2:36 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>
>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html

>
>
>Tell us something we don't know, dipshit. The author of that article
>runs a mountain bike tour company and is a friend of mine. In fact, I
>was with him the day the damage was surveyed right before he wrote
>it. That creep Lard Knight of Granny Gear Productions almost got his
>ass kicked the very same day. If he had taken one step closer to Lee,
>he would have been eating sand.


So you guys can't even control your own peers? What good are you?

>JD

--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
J

Jeff Strickland

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

>>
>>The fact is (or, facts are) that a trail 2 ft wide and 1 mile long
>>consumes
>>about 0.0004% of the square mile that it passes through. You should note
>>that
>>the trail pictures you posted shows a Park Service access road. Using this
>>road for a bike route makes perfect sense to everybody but you and the
>>author of the article.

>
> Thanks you for displaying your hopeless ignorance for the entire world
> to see. You are uneducable.



Me? You're the one with a PhD and can't do simple math. You look at several
hundred square miles and complain about the effects of visitors on a space
that is the equivelent of a few residential lots. You are the ignorant one,
sir.

PS
My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
along that path, which is why the route is located there.

I suggest the author is a bit misguided, my apology is that I placed him in
the same boat as Mike. He is not like Mike, even if I do not agree with his
argument.


NOW FOR THE MATH THAT MIKE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
A square mile equals 640 acres. One acre equals 43,560 square feet. A mile
is 5,260 feet long. A trail that is 2 feet wide and one mile long equals
10,520 square feet, or 0.24 acres, which is equal to 0.00037% of a square
mile. If the trail was ten times wider, the impact on the square mile would
still only amount to 0.0037% of the square mile through which it passes.

Now, it is impossible for a rational being to suggest that 100% any given
route is an environmental disaster, either real or in the making, therefore
it must be concluded that bicycle riding is for the most part an
environmental non-event.

It's all in the math. Run the numbers, Mike, and you will see just how
insignificant your little crusade really is. You will never save the world
by going after 0.0004% of what ails it.
 
J

Jeff Strickland

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

>>
>>The fact is (or, facts are) that a trail 2 ft wide and 1 mile long
>>consumes
>>about 0.0004% of the square mile that it passes through. You should note
>>that
>>the trail pictures you posted shows a Park Service access road. Using this
>>road for a bike route makes perfect sense to everybody but you and the
>>author of the article.

>
> Thanks you for displaying your hopeless ignorance for the entire world
> to see. You are uneducable.



Me? You're the one with a PhD and can't do simple math. You look at several
hundred square miles and complain about the effects of visitors on a space
that is the equivelent of a few residential lots. You are the ignorant one,
sir.

PS
My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
along that path, which is why the route is located there.

I suggest the author is a bit misguided, my apology is that I placed him in
the same boat as Mike. He is not like Mike, even if I do not agree with his
argument.


NOW FOR THE MATH THAT MIKE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
A square mile equals 640 acres. One acre equals 43,560 square feet. A mile
is 5,260 feet long. A trail that is 2 feet wide and one mile long equals
10,520 square feet, or 0.24 acres, which is equal to 0.00037% of a square
mile. If the trail was ten times wider, the impact on the square mile would
still only amount to 0.0037% of the square mile through which it passes.

Now, it is impossible for a rational being to suggest that 100% any given
route is an environmental disaster, either real or in the making, therefore
it must be concluded that bicycle riding is for the most part an
environmental non-event.

It's all in the math. Run the numbers, Mike, and you will see just how
insignificant your little crusade really is. You will never save the world
by going after 0.0004% of what ails it.
 
J

Jeff Strickland

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

>>
>>The fact is (or, facts are) that a trail 2 ft wide and 1 mile long
>>consumes
>>about 0.0004% of the square mile that it passes through. You should note
>>that
>>the trail pictures you posted shows a Park Service access road. Using this
>>road for a bike route makes perfect sense to everybody but you and the
>>author of the article.

>
> Thanks you for displaying your hopeless ignorance for the entire world
> to see. You are uneducable.



Me? You're the one with a PhD and can't do simple math. You look at several
hundred square miles and complain about the effects of visitors on a space
that is the equivelent of a few residential lots. You are the ignorant one,
sir.

PS
My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
along that path, which is why the route is located there.

I suggest the author is a bit misguided, my apology is that I placed him in
the same boat as Mike. He is not like Mike, even if I do not agree with his
argument.


NOW FOR THE MATH THAT MIKE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
A square mile equals 640 acres. One acre equals 43,560 square feet. A mile
is 5,260 feet long. A trail that is 2 feet wide and one mile long equals
10,520 square feet, or 0.24 acres, which is equal to 0.00037% of a square
mile. If the trail was ten times wider, the impact on the square mile would
still only amount to 0.0037% of the square mile through which it passes.

Now, it is impossible for a rational being to suggest that 100% any given
route is an environmental disaster, either real or in the making, therefore
it must be concluded that bicycle riding is for the most part an
environmental non-event.

It's all in the math. Run the numbers, Mike, and you will see just how
insignificant your little crusade really is. You will never save the world
by going after 0.0004% of what ails it.
 
M

Mike

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:40 GMT, "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>>
>>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html
>>> --
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>
>>
>>
>> What's up wack job Vandy ??? If you even bothered to look at what you
>>post the photos of the race are from 2003. If you bothered to look at any
>>of
>>the photos you would have noticed the people who took them are on mountain
>>bikes also.

>
> Right. Even mountain bikers are horrified by the destructiveness of
> that event. What's your point?



It seems the point went right over your head as always. These people were
" horrified" by the damage done from riding a mountain bike across said
terrain. The same people proceed to ride mountain bikes out on the same
terrain to take photos of the damage caused by others on mountain bikes.
Pot- Kettle- Black

The second point is that the photos were taken FOUR YEARS ago. What does
the land look like TODAY ???


> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:40 GMT, "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>>
>>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html
>>> --
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>
>>
>>
>> What's up wack job Vandy ??? If you even bothered to look at what you
>>post the photos of the race are from 2003. If you bothered to look at any
>>of
>>the photos you would have noticed the people who took them are on mountain
>>bikes also.

>
> Right. Even mountain bikers are horrified by the destructiveness of
> that event. What's your point?



It seems the point went right over your head as always. These people were
" horrified" by the damage done from riding a mountain bike across said
terrain. The same people proceed to ride mountain bikes out on the same
terrain to take photos of the damage caused by others on mountain bikes.
Pot- Kettle- Black

The second point is that the photos were taken FOUR YEARS ago. What does
the land look like TODAY ???


> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
M

Mike

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:18:40 GMT, "Mike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> This is simply horrifying.....
>>>
>>> http://www.dreamride.com/24hrrace2.html
>>> --
>>> 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.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>>
>>
>>
>> What's up wack job Vandy ??? If you even bothered to look at what you
>>post the photos of the race are from 2003. If you bothered to look at any
>>of
>>the photos you would have noticed the people who took them are on mountain
>>bikes also.

>
> Right. Even mountain bikers are horrified by the destructiveness of
> that event. What's your point?



It seems the point went right over your head as always. These people were
" horrified" by the damage done from riding a mountain bike across said
terrain. The same people proceed to ride mountain bikes out on the same
terrain to take photos of the damage caused by others on mountain bikes.
Pot- Kettle- Black

The second point is that the photos were taken FOUR YEARS ago. What does
the land look like TODAY ???


> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
J

JD

Guest
On Nov 6, 9:23 am, "jeff doucheland" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
> but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
> Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
> and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
> that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
> matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
> time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
> resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
> landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
> in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
> As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
> such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
> historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
> along that path, which is why the route is located there.
>
> I suggest the author is a bit misguided



You're demented. You obviously don't know jack **** about the
Colorado Plateau Desert. You've obviously never been to the location
in question. You also didn't read the article very carefully either.
No soup for you, dumbass.

JD
 
J

JD

Guest
On Nov 6, 9:23 am, "jeff doucheland" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
> but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
> Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
> and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
> that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
> matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
> time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
> resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
> landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
> in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
> As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
> such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
> historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
> along that path, which is why the route is located there.
>
> I suggest the author is a bit misguided



You're demented. You obviously don't know jack **** about the
Colorado Plateau Desert. You've obviously never been to the location
in question. You also didn't read the article very carefully either.
No soup for you, dumbass.

JD
 
J

JD

Guest
On Nov 6, 9:23 am, "jeff doucheland" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
> but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
> Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
> and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
> that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
> matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
> time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
> resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
> landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
> in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
> As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
> such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
> historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
> along that path, which is why the route is located there.
>
> I suggest the author is a bit misguided



You're demented. You obviously don't know jack **** about the
Colorado Plateau Desert. You've obviously never been to the location
in question. You also didn't read the article very carefully either.
No soup for you, dumbass.

JD
 
S

Siskuwihane

Guest
On Nov 6, 12:23 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> >>The fact is (or, facts are) that a trail 2 ft wide and 1 mile long
> >>consumes
> >>about 0.0004% of the square mile that it passes through. You should note
> >>that
> >>the trail pictures you posted shows a Park Service access road. Using this
> >>road for a bike route makes perfect sense to everybody but you and the
> >>author of the article.

>
> > Thanks you for displaying your hopeless ignorance for the entire world
> > to see. You are uneducable.

>
> Me? You're the one with a PhD and can't do simple math. You look at several
> hundred square miles and complain about the effects of visitors on a space
> that is the equivelent of a few residential lots. You are the ignorant one,
> sir.
>
> PS
> My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
> but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
> Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
> and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
> that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
> matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
> time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
> resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
> landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
> in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
> As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
> such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
> historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
> along that path, which is why the route is located there.
>
> I suggest the author is a bit misguided, my apology is that I placed him in
> the same boat as Mike. He is not like Mike, even if I do not agree with his
> argument.
>
> NOW FOR THE MATH THAT MIKE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
> A square mile equals 640 acres. One acre equals 43,560 square feet. A mile
> is 5,260 feet long. A trail that is 2 feet wide and one mile long equals
> 10,520 square feet, or 0.24 acres, which is equal to 0.00037% of a square
> mile. If the trail was ten times wider, the impact on the square mile would
> still only amount to 0.0037% of the square mile through which it passes.
>
> Now, it is impossible for a rational being to suggest that 100% any given
> route is an environmental disaster, either real or in the making, therefore
> it must be concluded that bicycle riding is for the most part an
> environmental non-event.
>
> It's all in the math. Run the numbers, Mike, and you will see just how
> insignificant your little crusade really is. You will never save the world
> by going after 0.0004% of what ails it.



A mile is 5,280 feet long.
 
S

Siskuwihane

Guest
On Nov 6, 12:23 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> >>The fact is (or, facts are) that a trail 2 ft wide and 1 mile long
> >>consumes
> >>about 0.0004% of the square mile that it passes through. You should note
> >>that
> >>the trail pictures you posted shows a Park Service access road. Using this
> >>road for a bike route makes perfect sense to everybody but you and the
> >>author of the article.

>
> > Thanks you for displaying your hopeless ignorance for the entire world
> > to see. You are uneducable.

>
> Me? You're the one with a PhD and can't do simple math. You look at several
> hundred square miles and complain about the effects of visitors on a space
> that is the equivelent of a few residential lots. You are the ignorant one,
> sir.
>
> PS
> My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
> but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
> Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
> and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
> that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
> matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
> time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
> resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
> landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
> in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
> As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
> such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
> historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
> along that path, which is why the route is located there.
>
> I suggest the author is a bit misguided, my apology is that I placed him in
> the same boat as Mike. He is not like Mike, even if I do not agree with his
> argument.
>
> NOW FOR THE MATH THAT MIKE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
> A square mile equals 640 acres. One acre equals 43,560 square feet. A mile
> is 5,260 feet long. A trail that is 2 feet wide and one mile long equals
> 10,520 square feet, or 0.24 acres, which is equal to 0.00037% of a square
> mile. If the trail was ten times wider, the impact on the square mile would
> still only amount to 0.0037% of the square mile through which it passes.
>
> Now, it is impossible for a rational being to suggest that 100% any given
> route is an environmental disaster, either real or in the making, therefore
> it must be concluded that bicycle riding is for the most part an
> environmental non-event.
>
> It's all in the math. Run the numbers, Mike, and you will see just how
> insignificant your little crusade really is. You will never save the world
> by going after 0.0004% of what ails it.



A mile is 5,280 feet long.
 
S

Siskuwihane

Guest
On Nov 6, 12:23 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> >>The fact is (or, facts are) that a trail 2 ft wide and 1 mile long
> >>consumes
> >>about 0.0004% of the square mile that it passes through. You should note
> >>that
> >>the trail pictures you posted shows a Park Service access road. Using this
> >>road for a bike route makes perfect sense to everybody but you and the
> >>author of the article.

>
> > Thanks you for displaying your hopeless ignorance for the entire world
> > to see. You are uneducable.

>
> Me? You're the one with a PhD and can't do simple math. You look at several
> hundred square miles and complain about the effects of visitors on a space
> that is the equivelent of a few residential lots. You are the ignorant one,
> sir.
>
> PS
> My apologies to the author, he appears to actually support mountain biking
> but has a problem with the level of bike riding in this particular place.
> Having said that, I must assume that his objection is that the participants
> and spectators damage the dirt alongside the exsiting route. I would suggest
> that his objections are misguided in this instance because as a practical
> matter, routes like these are historical and have been there for a very long
> time, and they are where they are because they signify the path of least
> resistance -- horse drawn wagons will take the easiest route across the
> landscape, these routes remain and become trails for the migrants to follow
> in cars and trucks, then become Park Service Roads to access remote areas.
> As park service roads, they fulfill the needs of recreatioinal travelers,
> such as the author of the article. The point being, that if the route is
> historical, then it is where it is because the vegitation was already sparse
> along that path, which is why the route is located there.
>
> I suggest the author is a bit misguided, my apology is that I placed him in
> the same boat as Mike. He is not like Mike, even if I do not agree with his
> argument.
>
> NOW FOR THE MATH THAT MIKE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
> A square mile equals 640 acres. One acre equals 43,560 square feet. A mile
> is 5,260 feet long. A trail that is 2 feet wide and one mile long equals
> 10,520 square feet, or 0.24 acres, which is equal to 0.00037% of a square
> mile. If the trail was ten times wider, the impact on the square mile would
> still only amount to 0.0037% of the square mile through which it passes.
>
> Now, it is impossible for a rational being to suggest that 100% any given
> route is an environmental disaster, either real or in the making, therefore
> it must be concluded that bicycle riding is for the most part an
> environmental non-event.
>
> It's all in the math. Run the numbers, Mike, and you will see just how
> insignificant your little crusade really is. You will never save the world
> by going after 0.0004% of what ails it.



A mile is 5,280 feet long.