Re: Why Can't Mike Vandeman EVER Tell the Truth?

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 01:45:03 GMT, Michael Halliwell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Michael Halliwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:qOW6g.130434$P01.27134@pd7tw3no...
>> [...]
>>
>>>Actually, a great success story of shared trails is the River Valley Trail
>>>system in Edmonton, Alberta. There are trails of all sorts (paved,
>>>multi-use and single track...even a few where horses may be found) winding
>>>their way throughout the green spaces connected to the river and creek
>>>system in the city. Many parks and off-leash dog areas also connect in.
>>>
>>>Surprisingly, there are very few complains for a metro area of over 1
>>>million people. It is just one example of how people can share the trails
>>>and generally get along.
>>>
>>>Michael Halliwell
>>
>>
>> Urban trails for multiple use are the greatest idea to come down the pike
>> since sliced bread. I love them and anyone can use them as far as I am
>> concerned.
>>
>> But that is not what this discussion has been about. We are arguing about
>> basically singletrack trails in natural areas. These kind of trails do not
>> lend themselves very well to multiple use because they were all originally
>> just hiking trails. Some of them can be developed for multiple use, but very
>> many of them can't be. If and when there is ever too great a conflict
>> between bikers and hikers, the resolution should always favor the hikers.
>> When bikes are banned from hiking trails of the singletrack variety, I
>> rejoice.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>> aka
>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>
>Ed,
>
>Unfortunately, the trail system in Edmonton goes far beyond just
>multiuse trails....yes, there are paved and gravel paths for the masses,
>but there are also an amazing number of single track paths in the same
>system. Granted, most urban systems are intended for multiple user
>groups, but the fact remains that when properly managed, single track
>trail systems can be used by hikers (walkers) and cyclists with a
>minimum of conflict.

Yeah, after all the hikers who don't like being around large pieces of
MACHINERY in the wilderness have been driven away.

>Michael Halliwell
>
===
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

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 7 May 2006 15:38:02 -0400, "S Curtiss"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Exactly, which is why BIKES don't belong on traila. They can't share
>>> responsibility, nor anything else.
>>>
>>Opinion. No basis in actual fact. Represents a statement of
>>generalization.
>>Useless.
>
> That your name is "S Curtiss" is only your OPINION, not a fact. You
> can't prove it.
> ===
I have birth certificate, social security card and driver's liscense. I must
have proved to someone that actually has the authority to determine. You do
not and therefore do not matter. Just like always.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 6 May 2006 00:04:13 -0400, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Anyone with any common sense knows that cycling causes much more damage
>>>> than any number of hikers.
>>
>>> Nope - Actual impact studies do not reflect this. The perception of other
>>> recreationist opinions to other users is much more a component. The
>>> irresponsible actions of a few cyclists should not condemn the entire
>>> group of participants just as the irresponsible actions of a few hikers
>>> should not condemn the entire group of participants. If that is your
>>> logic, stop hiking as it obvious you also leave trash, venture off trail,
>>> disturb and cause harm to wildlife.
>>
>> Yes, a lot of hikers are indeed slobs and cretins. That is why I never
>> refer to myself as a hiker. I am a walker. Like Thoreau, I simply like to
>> stroll about in a natural area and look at the butterflies.
>>
>> However, a critical difference between slob hikers and slob cyclists is
>> that hikers are few and far between whereas bikers are as common as mud.
>> Sheer numbers count after all.
>Supposition. Do you have a "user study"? What area? Time frame? Over what
>period? Over how many miles?

If you don't, you should shut up with the hypocrisy.

>>> But cycling causes more than just physical damage to
>>>> the trails. More importantly, it disturbs my peace of mind to encounter
>>>> a bunch of idiot cyclists out on the trail frolicking about when I am
>>>> trying to commune with nature.
>>>
>>> So it is your selfish desire to experience something your way and not
>>> allow someone else to experience it in their way. You believe yourself
>>> and your experience to be above anyone else? There are places off limits
>>> to bikes. Many of them. Have at it. There are places that allow bikes.
>>> There are places that allow both activities at the same time. Why should
>>> your experience that you can obtain from "no bike" areas cross over into
>>> other areas that are multi-use and recreational?
>>
>> Bikes need some kind of road, no matter how rough. Bikes do not belong on
>> a footpath with walkers. Elementary, my dear Watson!
>Elementary opinion. Shared access is a reality and a success in many areas.
>>
>>> In short, they are where they don't belong. Let them
>>>> find their own space among the crowds and the autos, not in the sacred
>>>> expanses of my beloved solitary wilderness.
>>>
>>> "sacred expanses of my beloved solitary wilderness..."? First of all, it
>>> is not "yours". Second, bicycles are not allowed in "wilderness areas".
>>> Third, I encourage you to go someplace to be "solitary". Perhaps you and
>>> Mikey can go off and be all "brokeback" while the rest of us carry on.
>>
>> I am glad that you agree with me that bikes do not belong in a Wilderness
>> Area. But they also do not belong on footpaths no matter where those
>> footpaths are located.
>Designated areas, multi-use, recreation areas. Many of these areas utilize
>shared trails with minimal conflict as users grow more accustomed to the
>encounters.

BS. You mean as hikers are driven off the trails, doe to conflicts
with mountain bikers.

>> One of the very main reasons for going to a wilderness or natural area is
>> to get away from people, especially slobs like you who want to push your
>> way into every space where you are not wanted. If you are on a bike, then
>> find yourself some kind of road somewhere. We do not want you on our
>> sacred footpaths. They are reserved for solitary walkers like me.
>>
>In Wilderness areas... yes. In most of the National Forest lands... yes.
>However, in some areas... bicyclists have shared use with other users.
>Cooperative efforts and real information over myth is making more of these
>areas sustainable. Either do not hike in areas where bikes are allowed, or
>get used to seeing them. We have to get used to slowing or stopping
>completely, dismounting at times and other accomodations for other trail
>users.
>You want to call me a "slob" for stressing cooperation and trail access in
>recreation areas... fine. Just proves even more your "the Great" sig is
>self-assigned and not earned.

You continue to miss the point. Maybe if you'd tell the truth, you
might get some respect, but not until then.
===
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