On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:37:46 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]> wrote:
..
.."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
..news
[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:38 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <
[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:
[email protected]...
..> .> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:33:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
..<
[email protected]>
..> .wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .>
..> .> .> The point is that mountain bikers LIE. CONSTANTLY! Thanks for
..helping
..> .me
..> .> .prove
..> .> .> my case against mountain biking. If mountain bikers are that
..dangerous
..> .to
..> .> .> THEMSELVES, then they are just as dangerous to other people and
..> .wildlife,
..> .> .and
..> .> .> mountain biking deserves to be banned. You have the right to destroy
..> .> .yourself,
..> .> .> but not anyone else.
..> .> .>
..> .> .
..> .> .There is no logical link to what injuries a bike rider might give
..himself
..> .> .and what he might do to others that use the same trail.
..> .>
..> .> Yes, there is. People who aren't careful are dangerous to everyone
..around
..> .them.
..> .>
..> .
..> .However remote the truth might be in what you say, you have no evidence
..to
..> .support your silly assertion.
..> .
..> .
..> .
..> .> For example, cars
..> .> .run over pedestrians all the time, but I have never in my life come
..close
..> .to
..> .> .hitting a hiker while driving my Jeep offroad. I have crashed my Jeep
..on
..> .> .more than one occasion and exposed myself to injuries that thankfully
..I
..> .> .didn't actually receive. But, in none of those instances, or any other
..> .> .instance, have I ever operated my machine in a manner which is
..hazardous
..> .to
..> .> .pedestrians on the trail.
..> .> .
..> .> .A mountain bike rider can easily hurt himself each and every time he
..gets
..> .on
..> .> .his bike, but never pose a threat to anybody but himself.
..> .>
..> .> That's a blatant LIE -- nothing new for you.
..> .
..> .Please provide a cite.
..>
..>
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm.
..> ===
..
..Mike, you ignorant ****! That ruling says that the NPS is within its bounds
..to regulate all manner of traffic within its properties. It is reasonable
..that the NPS consider the comfort and safety of all visitors, not just one
..group. And, when making such consideration of all groups, it may turn out
..that one group or another will think they are adversely affected, but too
..bad. The NPS is burdened with protection of the greatest number of visitors,
..not pandering to a minority.
..
..It seems to me that if you want to hike in peaceful solitude, maybe you
..should restrict your hiking to NPS properties. Since bikes are not allowed,
..then you should be able to hike in peace and quiet.
..
..Just for your own edification, the NPS is not required to block bicycle
..access to its properties, it is only allowed to if it thinks it may be
..necessary for the greater good of the overall visitor base. I know you don't
..like to get bogged down by fact, but reality is harsh sometimes.
You missed the point by a mile. You said a mountain biker "never pose a threat
to anybody but himself". That case documented hundreds of complaints from hikers
and equestrians who were endangered by bikers. Learn to read.
===
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