On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:59:38 GMT, hall <
[email protected]> wrote:
. .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:35:02 GMT, hall <
[email protected]> wrote: .>
.> . .> .Mike, if your are so dedicated to the banning of MTB on the grounds of .> .preventing
injury and death of your fellow man (and woman), how come .> .this is the only activity you are
trying to ban? .> .> It isn't, liar. One minute looking at my web site would tell you that. I am .>
especially opposed to auto use and road construction. . .No Mike. What other activity are you trying
to ban "on the grounds of .preventing injury and death of your fellow man (and woman)"? I had a
.look at your page and though it simple to see that there are many things .you'd like to ban, I did
not find a single reference to banning .activities on the grounds of safety. Not one!
Then you didn't read much, did you? But what's wrong with banning mountain biking on the basis of
safety, as well as all the other reasons?
Of course, I did not read .everything, but i spent more than "One minute" looking for it. Show me
.wrong and I'll agree to being uninformed, but do not call me a liar .unless you have a solid
ground for your claims!
You lied because you made an assertion ("this is the only activity you are trying to ban") without
knowing it to be true. I also just proved it to be false. By the way, you said NOTHING in that
statement about safety as a reason.
.> Smoking kills more .> .people than biking does. Alcohol kills more people than biking does. .> .>
I oppose both of those, but I focus on other things because those ones are .> obvious, and plenty of
people are already working on those. . .And since you are here fighting for wildlife, the rest of us
don't have .to bother?
Is that your excuse?
.> .Drunk driving kills more third persons than biking does. Even secondary .> .smoking does more
harm to bystanders than biking does. Not to mention .> .the the effects of liberal gun laws (I know,
I know, guns don't kill .> .people, morons with guns kill people, but I do believe the guns help).
.> . .> .If you are so interested in saving lives, Why not go after any of the .> .other risks
meantioned above? .> .> That's easy: I DO. Your effort to distract people from the harm that
mountain .> biking does is duly noted. .> . .Mike, Mike, Mike. Do I really have to use the LIAR word
here? I have .never said that mountain biking is a "safe" activity, and I sure don't .try to
distract people from it's dangers. If i thought it to be safe, .why would I never get on my bike
without protective gear (helmet, .kneepads etc) and why would i never go trail riding without
company? . .But you will never hear me say the mountain biking per se is dangerous.
That's your dishonesty.
.The thing is, when on the trail, I can ride as slowly and safely as I .wish, and with the absence
of cars, I only have adjust my speed to the .terrain in order to be well out of harms way. I do not
risk injury .simply by biking!
You aren't the only one whose safety is threatened! Yoou kill animals & plants, regardless of how
slowly you ride (and I doubt that you ride slowly).
If I increase the speed, pushing myself to my limits, .the risk of a crash increases but I am still
the only factor I have to .consider. . .It's when one go beyond the limits of ones capacity that
safety is .compromised and this is not linked to biking. This holds for any .activity that involves
a risk. Skiing, car driving, swimming, running, .claimbing chairs to change that broken lightbulb
and even hiking is .dangerous if one don't know (and overstep) the boundaries of ones capacity. .
.> .Oh, and by the way, I'd say that biking actually saves lives, as you .> .cannot combine smoking
with an even half decent performance as a biker. .> .> Street biking is enough to do that. This is
not a reason for allowing bikes off .> of pavement. .> .> .Risk of cancer greatly reduced, risk of
fatal accident slightly .> .increased, thus a positive total effect. (and then there is the effect
.> .of cardio-vascular exercise, bone density increase, etc) .> .> Good. Now stay on pavement. .
.Well, no thank you. As you yourself put it: "Streets that allow the .presence of motor vehicles
will never be safe." (From your own website. .See, I've read at least parts of it!), so I will not
be safe there .either.
That is up to you. You aren't mountain biking for safety reasons. Two different destinations
are involved!
Not unless motorised vehicles are banned and I doubt that will .happen anytime soon. . .In contrast
to the trail, the roads are used by cars and so my safety no .longer depends only on me to adjust
my speed and riding to the .conditions I am in. Sharing the road with others mean that I have to
.rely on others to adjust their speed to the current condition and that .they obey the traffic
regulations. Unfortunatly, this is not always the .case. Biking on roads have caused me two
accident due to car drivers .that did not follow regulations (one ignored a stop sign, another made
a .right turn right in front of me without signaling) and more close calls .than I care to count.
Then ride where there is no auto traffic, as I do.
.As a small trivia, I've never suffered anything worse than a bruising on .the trail and even that
is a rare event. I've had far worse injuries on .paved roads.
Then WALK. But don't sacrifice wildlife.
.regards ./hall
===
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
).
