Why Do Mountain Bikers Always LIE???



Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery <[email protected]> wrote:

>l am an avid mountain biker and l strongly disagree with your Ph.d . subject.
In your section about Brown's Woods you imply that every mountain biker builds their own trails,
cuts the existing trails, deystroys the environment and so on.

You guys are such LIARS! Here is what I ACTUALLY said: "However mountain bikers illegally built 4
1/2 additional miles of trail ("bikers have gouged more than six miles of trail, up to 30 feet wide
and a foot or more deep in spots" (Loren Lown, PCCB Natural Resources Specialist, 1996))." You
completely falsified what I said. IN MY EXPERIENCE, EVERY mountain biker lies. A LOT! You just
proved my point again.

> It is so very unfortunate that there are in fact, mountain bikers who do that.
However, the majority of the mountain bike community does not behave in this manner at all. I would
dare say there are mountain bikers that are more conservative about these issues than you yourself
are. The way you stereotyped mountain bikers would be like saying that no Muslim should be allowed
to live because the people who hijacked planes on September 11, were Muslims.

EVERY mountain biker:

1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing wildlife, driving wildlife out of its habitat, and
making the experience of nature very dangerous and unpleasant for other trail users.
2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: riding off-trail,
speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes.
3. Every mountain biker I have talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently! You just proved my
point again.
4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a minority, but actually a
LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law.
5. Every mountain biker travels several times as far and as fast as a hiker, inpacting that much
more wildlife habitat.

l hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a constructive, enjoyable and
healthy sport.

>It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's only enjoyable
for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have to experience them. If
you want to participate in a "constructive, enjoyable and healthy sport", I suggest that you try
road biking.

Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it.

>Sincerely,

>Zac Mowery

===
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
 
M

Michael Paul

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery <[email protected]> wrote:
>

And yet, this appears in the paper this morning. I'm sure all those hikers walking over the
Sequoia's root system were probably just Mountain Bikers at heard and that's what really caused
the damage.

I'll throw some bullets for those who don't want to read the whole article

It's possible that foot traffic around the base of the trees and erosion along the creek damaged
their shallow roots.

It's also possible that a trail built more than 50 years ago (my comment here, i'm sure the trail
was cut over 50 years ago by renegade freeriders) diverted too much water toward the trees,
loosening the soil.

I'm especially fond of this quote by Michelle Jasperson, associate director of the National Parks
Conservation Association's Pacific regional office. "But what can we do, fence off every park?
That's just not logical."

Visitors may have doomed 2 giant sequoias

Foot traffic among reasons cited for fall

By Brian Skoloff ASSOCIATED PRESS

April 6, 2003

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK - Standing upright, they reached 30 stories into the sky. For more than 1,000
years, the two giant sequoia trees thrived in the Mariposa Grove along Yosemite National Park's
southern border.

When they fell several weeks ago, a hole the size of a jetliner opened in the forest canopy.

It may be months before park biologists determine what did in the trees. It appears that one sequoia
growing near a creek collapsed and toppled the other.

It's possible that foot traffic around the base of the trees and erosion along the creek damaged
their shallow roots. It's also possible that a trail built more than 50 years ago diverted too much
water toward the trees, loosening the soil.

"We just don't know yet," said park ranger Deb Schweizer.

Park officials have tried to protect the big trees, fencing off some of the larger sequoias. Long
gone are the days when a truck-sized hole could be carved through a living sequoia, such as the
grove's Tunnel Tree, which collapsed in 1969. Rangers now know that even a hug leaves acid from
human hands that can eat away at the bark.

"We just need to find a balance," Schweizer said. "We may be loving them to death."

Between 1855 and 1864, about 653 people visited the grove. Now, more than a million people each year
walk among the world's oldest and largest trees, which grow naturally only on the western slopes of
California's Sierra Nevada.

Though more visitors means additional tourist dollars, park managers here and elsewhere struggle to
find a balance between protection and exploitation. Managers say that task has been tougher since
the September 2001 terrorist attacks because resources have been diverted from wild land stewardship
to homeland security.

In Yellowstone National Park, it's the fight over snowmobile access to the backcountry. Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, the nation's most visited with 9 million tourists annually, sits in a haze
of air pollution, in part because of all the vehicles on park roads. Managers at Virgin Islands
National Park struggle to protect fragile coral reefs, while in Alaska's Denali National Park and
Preserve, some fear degradation from motorized access.

"It's really a fine line," said Michelle Jasperson, associate director of the National Parks
Conservation Association's Pacific regional office. "But what can we do, fence off every park?
That's just not logical."

Last year, 277 million people visited the National Park Service's 388 parks, monuments and historic
sites. In 1960, there were just 80 million visits.

"You end up with a conflict between the philosophy of preserving things versus providing more
recreation," said David Barna, the park service's top spokesman in Washington. "Our dream is that
everyone in America can stand on this mountain and see this beautiful scenery, but our worst
nightmare is that everyone decides to do it on the same day."

The challenge for park managers, he said, is to learn from the past and understand the
changing future.

Rangers used to feed bears in front of the tourists at Yellowstone, where Old Faithful Inn, a
national historic landmark with 327 guest rooms, was built near the great geyser in 1903.

"If we were doing it over, we wouldn't do that," Barna said. "We say we'll preserve these places for
future generations and provide for visitor use and access, but those two things conflict. Any time
you want to build a parking lot in a park, you're satisfying half the needs, but you're also
impairing the resources."

In many parks, officials are taking steps to reverse the human impact.

The controversial $441 million Yosemite Valley Plan calls for, among other things, reducing parking
spaces and improving a shuttle bus system. Officials say it would ultimately result in a park with
fewer facilities but a better visitor experience.

At Zion National Park in Utah, a plan put into place four seasons ago to reduce traffic by providing
shuttle buses has led to the return of abundant wildlife in the upper canyon. A mountain lion with
three cubs was sighted recently in an area once busy with automobiles.

Beginning next winter in Yellowstone, snowmobile users will have to get reservations to enter the
park and most will have to be accompanied by commercial guides. The plan also sets daily limits,
along with noise and emissions standards.

"It strikes a balance between phasing out all snowmobile use and unlimited use as we've had in the
past," said park spokeswoman Cheryl Matthews.

In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which suffers some of the worst pollution in the park
system, managers are considering a plan to use shuttle buses in the popular Cades Cove area, where 2
million tourists a year drive the 11-mile scenic loop.

At Virgin Islands National Park and Coral Reef National Monument, where more than a million visitors
a year explore the underwater ecosystem, boaters dropped anchor wherever they liked until a few
years ago, often damaging the fragile reefs. The park has since spent several hundred thousand
dollars - raised by private foundations - to install 215 moorings.

"Now we're watching the sea grass beds come back," superintendent John King said. "It's helping
reverse the trend of declining resources."

Another stress on park resources is the need for additional security measures to protect against
potential terror attacks. Visitors are screened at seven park sites, from the Washington Monument to
New York's Federal Hall, where George Washington was sworn into office. Eleven park sites are along
international borders, which must be monitored.

Responding to the increased security measures, required under federal terror alerts, costs the park
service about $2 million a month, Barna said.

Back on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada, Yosemite ranger Schweizer stands at the base of one
of the fallen giant sequoias and marvels at how their weaknesses, in fact, saved them from the ax
more than a century ago.

When logging companies began to cut sequoias in the 1860s, they discovered that the wood was so
fragile that the trees splintered as they fell. Sections were used for grape stakes, pencils,
shingles and toothpicks, but loggers stopped cutting them by 1900.

"They're pretty noble things, pretty impressive," Schweizer said. "And there is just something about
people that makes them want to connect with these trees."
 
W

Westie

Guest
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >l am an avid mountain biker and l strongly disagree with your Ph.d .
subject.
> In your section about Brown's Woods you imply that every mountain biker
builds
> their own trails, cuts the existing trails, deystroys the environment and
so on.
>
> You guys are such LIARS! Here is what I ACTUALLY said: "However mountain
bikers
> illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles of trail ("bikers have gouged more
than
> six miles of trail, up to 30 feet wide and a foot or more deep in spots"
(Loren
> Lown, PCCB Natural Resources Specialist, 1996))." You completely falsified
what
> I said. IN MY EXPERIENCE, EVERY mountain biker lies. A LOT! You just
proved my
> point again.
>
> > It is so very unfortunate that there are in fact, mountain bikers who do
that.
> However, the majority of the mountain bike community does not behave in
this
> manner at all. I would dare say there are mountain bikers that are more conservative about these
> issues than you yourself are. The way you
stereotyped
> mountain bikers would be like saying that no Muslim should be allowed to
live
> because the people who hijacked planes on September 11, were Muslims.
>
> EVERY mountain biker:
>
> 1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing wildlife, driving
wildlife out
> of its habitat, and making the experience of nature very dangerous and unpleasant for other
> trail users.
> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: riding off-trail,
> speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes.
> 3. Every mountain biker I have talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently!
You
> just proved my point again.
> 4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a
minority,
> but actually a LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law.
> 5. Every mountain biker travels several times as far and as fast as a
hiker,
> inpacting that much more wildlife habitat.
>
> l hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a constructive, enjoyable
> and healthy sport.
>
> >It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's only
enjoyable
> for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have
to
> experience them. If you want to participate in a "constructive, enjoyable
and
> healthy sport", I suggest that you try road biking.
>
> Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it.
>
>
> >Sincerely,
>
> >Zac Mowery
>
> ===
> 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

Yeah, yeah, Mike. Yawn. If that's a big enough lie to shout about then you've got bigger problems
than I thought. Of course you don't ever lie yourself, misquote people, massage statistics, talk
off-topic, avoid questions, use flawed circular arguments, abuse people if they corner you and
generally act like a deranged activist all the time either.
--
Westie
 
T

Titan Point

Guest
On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 06:05:04 +0000, Michael Paul wrote:

> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
> And yet, this appears in the paper this morning. I'm sure all those hikers walking over the
> Sequoia's root system were probably just Mountain Bikers at heard and that's what really caused
> the damage.
>
> I'll throw some bullets for those who don't want to read the whole article
>
> It's possible that foot traffic around the base of the trees and erosion along the creek damaged
> their shallow roots.
>
> It's also possible that a trail built more than 50 years ago (my comment here, i'm sure the trail
> was cut over 50 years ago by renegade freeriders) diverted too much water toward the trees,
> loosening the soil.
>
> I'm especially fond of this quote by Michelle Jasperson, associate director of the National Parks
> Conservation Association's Pacific regional office. "But what can we do, fence off every park?
> That's just not logical."
>
>
>
> Visitors may have doomed 2 giant sequoias
>
>
> Foot traffic among reasons cited for fall
>
> By Brian Skoloff ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> April 6, 2003
>
>
> YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK - Standing upright, they reached 30 stories into the sky. For more than
> 1,000 years, the two giant sequoia trees thrived in the Mariposa Grove along Yosemite National
> Park's southern border.
>
> When they fell several weeks ago, a hole the size of a jetliner opened in the forest canopy.

...thus allowing secondary growth and more biodiversity for a while. Its a natural balancing act.
>
> It may be months before park biologists determine what did in the trees. It appears that one
> sequoia growing near a creek collapsed and toppled the other.

So, one tree fell and hit another? Do trees fall when there's no-one around?
>
> It's possible that foot traffic around the base of the trees and erosion along the creek damaged
> their shallow roots. It's also possible that a trail built more than 50 years ago diverted too
> much water toward the trees, loosening the soil.
>
> "We just don't know yet," said park ranger Deb Schweizer.
>
>

> Park officials have tried to protect the big trees, fencing off some of the larger sequoias. Long
> gone are the days when a truck-sized hole could be carved through a living sequoia, such as the
> grove's Tunnel Tree, which collapsed in 1969. Rangers now know that even a hug leaves acid from
> human hands that can eat away at the bark.
>
Tree huggers may be tree killers...oh dear.

> "We just need to find a balance," Schweizer said. "We may be loving them to death."
>
> Between 1855 and 1864, about 653 people visited the grove. Now, more than a million people each
> year walk among the world's oldest and largest trees, which grow naturally only on the western
> slopes of California's Sierra Nevada.
>
> Though more visitors means additional tourist dollars, park managers here and elsewhere struggle
> to find a balance between protection and exploitation. Managers say that task has been tougher
> since the September 2001 terrorist attacks because resources have been diverted from wild land
> stewardship to homeland security.
>
> In Yellowstone National Park, it's the fight over snowmobile access to the backcountry. Great
> Smoky Mountains National Park, the nation's most visited with 9 million tourists annually, sits in
> a haze of air pollution, in part because of all the vehicles on park roads. Managers at Virgin
> Islands National Park struggle to protect fragile coral reefs, while in Alaska's Denali National
> Park and Preserve, some fear degradation from motorized access.
>
> "It's really a fine line," said Michelle Jasperson, associate director of the National Parks
> Conservation Association's Pacific regional office. "But what can we do, fence off every park?
> That's just not logical."
>
> Last year, 277 million people visited the National Park Service's 388 parks, monuments and
> historic sites. In 1960, there were just 80 million visits.
>
> "You end up with a conflict between the philosophy of preserving things versus providing more
> recreation," said David Barna, the park service's top spokesman in Washington. "Our dream is that
> everyone in America can stand on this mountain and see this beautiful scenery, but our worst
> nightmare is that everyone decides to do it on the same day."
>
> The challenge for park managers, he said, is to learn from the past and understand the
> changing future.
>
> Rangers used to feed bears in front of the tourists at Yellowstone, where Old Faithful Inn, a
> national historic landmark with 327 guest rooms, was built near the great geyser in 1903.
>
> "If we were doing it over, we wouldn't do that," Barna said. "We say we'll preserve these places
> for future generations and provide for visitor use and access, but those two things conflict. Any
> time you want to build a parking lot in a park, you're satisfying half the needs, but you're also
> impairing the resources."
>
> In many parks, officials are taking steps to reverse the human impact.
>
> The controversial $441 million Yosemite Valley Plan calls for, among other things, reducing
> parking spaces and improving a shuttle bus system. Officials say it would ultimately result in a
> park with fewer facilities but a better visitor experience.

This seems like a good idea.
>
> At Zion National Park in Utah, a plan put into place four seasons ago to reduce traffic by
> providing shuttle buses has led to the return of abundant wildlife in the upper canyon. A mountain
> lion with three cubs was sighted recently in an area once busy with automobiles.

Bravo!
>
> Beginning next winter in Yellowstone, snowmobile users will have to get reservations to enter the
> park and most will have to be accompanied by commercial guides. The plan also sets daily limits,
> along with noise and emissions standards.

Sensible. I think that snowmobiles are fun but they are noisy and messy.
>
> "It strikes a balance between phasing out all snowmobile use and unlimited use as we've had in the
> past," said park spokeswoman Cheryl Matthews.
>
> In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which suffers some of the worst pollution in the park
> system, managers are considering a plan to use shuttle buses in the popular Cades Cove area, where
> 2 million tourists a year drive the 11-mile scenic loop.

11 miles? Make 'em walk. Or perhaps they could use mountain bikes......
>
> At Virgin Islands National Park and Coral Reef National Monument, where more than a million
> visitors a year explore the underwater ecosystem, boaters dropped anchor wherever they liked until
> a few years ago, often damaging the fragile reefs. The park has since spent several hundred
> thousand dollars - raised by private foundations - to install 215 moorings.
>
> "Now we're watching the sea grass beds come back," superintendent John King said. "It's helping
> reverse the trend of declining resources."

Excellent. I hope they make people pay to stop at the moorings to recoup the cost.
>
> Another stress on park resources is the need for additional security measures to protect against
> potential terror attacks. Visitors are screened at seven park sites, from the Washington Monument
> to New York's Federal Hall, where George Washington was sworn into office. Eleven park sites are
> along international borders, which must be monitored.
>
> Responding to the increased security measures, required under federal terror alerts, costs the
> park service about $2 million a month, Barna said.
>
> Back on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada, Yosemite ranger Schweizer stands at the base of
> one of the fallen giant sequoias and marvels at how their weaknesses, in fact, saved them from the
> ax more than a century ago.
>
> When logging companies began to cut sequoias in the 1860s, they discovered that the wood was so
> fragile that the trees splintered as they fell. Sections were used for grape stakes, pencils,
> shingles and toothpicks, but loggers stopped cutting them by 1900.
>
> "They're pretty noble things, pretty impressive," Schweizer said. "And there is just something
> about people that makes them want to connect with these trees."

Yes, they're impressive (I went to Big Basin in 2001 and saw them for myself) but they're also
fragile. Perhaps a few sequoias may fall so that many can be preserved. They're the old living
things on the planet and deserve respect.
 
M

Michael Dart

Guest
I dunno about everyone else but I can't sleep standing up. ;^)

Mike
 
S

Stephen Baker

Guest
MV says:

>> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: riding off-trail,
>> speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes.

Translation from VandeSpeak to English:- Since I only ever walk off-trail or on trails closed to
bikes, then the above is true. If they are riding on trails that are legal, then they must not be
mountain-bikers. Speeding is a function of proceeding at a pace faster than I can walk, thus they
all speed.

HTH
 
G

<<<<<< ]] Gun_d

Guest
<snip> EVERY mountain biker:
>
> 1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing wildlife, driving
wildlife out
> of its habitat, and making the experience of nature very dangerous and unpleasant for other
> trail users.

Every PERSON who goes off-road (weather by foot, bike, unicycle, horseback, dirtbike, pogostick,
snowshoe, ski, or any other means) has a severe impact on the fragile nature surrounding them. Even
if you were to walk barefoot on a pre-exhisting deer trail, you world break limbs off plants, and
drive wildlife away from the scent. The second part of the argument is subjective. What is
dangerous? Hiking in itself is dangerous. Biking is dangerous. Everything is dangerous, especially
when off-road, and with others around you. The last part is even more subjective. I find it
unpleasent when there is ANY others in the vicinity when I hike and bike. If I hear talking,
grunting, moaning, breathing, chains shifting or any other human made noise, it is unpleasent to me.
But while I find it so, I realize that there are going to be others on the trails. I may not enjoy
hearing the chatter of Cub Scouts and watching them cut switchbacks and scramble off trail, but they
have a right to be in the woods also. If they are breaking rules, I bring it up with the leader or
the ranger.

> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: riding off-trail,
> speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes.

I have also seen this and it is upsetting. But there are many other trail users breaking the law.
Hikers constantly cut switchbacks and deviate from the marked trail, horseback riders riding two
abrest on a singletrack, etc. The law is the law. If you're not supposed to be there, don't be
there. Stay on the trail. And don't cut switchbacks.

> 3. Every mountain biker I have talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently!
You
> just proved my point again.

Every PERSON I have ever talked to has lied. Period. Sorry it happens. Some lie without realizing
they are lying. They may have thought they heard, or read one thing when what was stated is another.

> 4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a
minority,
> but actually a LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law.

This is very unfortuniate. But I beleive that many are un educated on the law. This is no excuse for
the behaivior and IMBA and many other local orginazitions are working on how to educate the
population of cyclist who ride off-road, the proper laws and rules, so that cyclists and other trail
users can co-exhist safely.

> 5. Every mountain biker travels several times as far and as fast as a
hiker,
> inpacting that much more wildlife habitat.

This is half true. Length is ditermed by the trail. If a trail is ten miles, then ten miles of trail
is impacted. Speed has much less impact on the trail than the trail itself. Wildlife are less afraid
of a mountainbiker riding throught the woods than a hiker walking. The hikers presence is known by
wildlife more in advance and the presence if felt longer. A deer scared off by a hike may not return
for a couple of hours, while a deer frightened off by a cyclist may return in a fraction of that.

> l hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a constructive, enjoyable
> and healthy sport.
>
> >It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's only
enjoyable
> for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have
to
> experience them. If you want to participate in a "constructive, enjoyable
and
> healthy sport", I suggest that you try road biking.

NOTHING is enjoyable by wildlife. It would rather we never go into it. Other Trail users have to
learn to get along with and respect other trail users. Trail users have to realize that not all
trails are good for all activities. All trail users must learn the rules of the trail. and respect
when an area is closed off to them. Period.

As for road cycling, that is what I do. I havn't ridden a MTB off road in 5 years. I get more
harrassmnet from other road users than I have from other trail users while mountain biking.

> Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it.

Thank you.
 
S

Simon

Guest
"<<<<<< ]] gun_dog99 [[ >>>>>>" <||||||| woof-woof |||||> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| <snip> EVERY mountain biker:
| >
| > 1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing wildlife, driving
| wildlife out
| > of its habitat, and making the experience of nature very dangerous and unpleasant for other
| > trail users.
|
| Every PERSON who goes off-road (weather by foot, bike, unicycle,
horseback,
| dirtbike, pogostick, snowshoe, ski, or any other means) has a severe
impact
| on the fragile nature surrounding them. Even if you were to walk barefoot
on
| a pre-exhisting deer trail, you world break limbs off plants, and drive wildlife away from the
| scent. The second part of the argument is
subjective.
| What is dangerous? Hiking in itself is dangerous. Biking is dangerous. Everything is dangerous,
| especially when off-road, and with others around you. The last part is even more subjective. I
| find it unpleasent when
there
| is ANY others in the vicinity when I hike and bike. If I hear talking, grunting, moaning,
| breathing, chains shifting or any other human made
noise,
| it is unpleasent to me. But while I find it so, I realize that there are going to be others on the
| trails. I may not enjoy hearing the chatter of
Cub
| Scouts and watching them cut switchbacks and scramble off trail, but they have a right to be in
| the woods also. If they are breaking rules, I bring
it
| up with the leader or the ranger.
|
| > 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the
law:
| > riding off-trail, speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes.
|
| I have also seen this and it is upsetting. But there are many other trail users breaking the law.
| Hikers constantly cut switchbacks and deviate from the marked trail, horseback riders riding two
| abrest on a singletrack,
etc.
| The law is the law. If you're not supposed to be there, don't be there.
Stay
| on the trail. And don't cut switchbacks.
|
| > 3. Every mountain biker I have talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently!
| You
| > just proved my point again.
|
| Every PERSON I have ever talked to has lied. Period. Sorry it happens.
Some
| lie without realizing they are lying. They may have thought they heard, or read one thing when
| what was stated is another.
|
| > 4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a
| minority,
| > but actually a LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law.
|
| This is very unfortuniate. But I beleive that many are un educated on the law. This is no excuse
| for the behaivior and IMBA and many other local orginazitions are working on how to educate the
| population of cyclist who ride off-road, the proper laws and rules, so that cyclists and other
| trail users can co-exhist safely.
|
| > 5. Every mountain biker travels several times as far and as fast as a
| hiker,
| > inpacting that much more wildlife habitat.
|
| This is half true. Length is ditermed by the trail. If a trail is ten
miles,
| then ten miles of trail is impacted. Speed has much less impact on the
trail
| than the trail itself. Wildlife are less afraid of a mountainbiker riding throught the woods than
| a hiker walking. The hikers presence is known by wildlife more in advance and the presence if felt
| longer. A deer scared
off
| by a hike may not return for a couple of hours, while a deer frightened
off
| by a cyclist may return in a fraction of that.
|
| > l hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a constructive, enjoyable
| > and healthy sport.
| >
| > >It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's only
| enjoyable
| > for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have
| to
| > experience them. If you want to participate in a "constructive,
enjoyable
| and
| > healthy sport", I suggest that you try road biking.
|
| NOTHING is enjoyable by wildlife. It would rather we never go into it.
Other
| Trail users have to learn to get along with and respect other trail users. Trail users have to
| realize that not all trails are good for all
activities.
| All trail users must learn the rules of the trail. and respect when an
area
| is closed off to them. Period.
|
| As for road cycling, that is what I do. I havn't ridden a MTB off road in
5
| years. I get more harrassmnet from other road users than I have from other trail users while
| mountain biking.
|
|
| > Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it.
|
| Thank you.
|
No thank-you......... a very well put response that I am sure will either be ignored by mike or not
understood.

Simon
 
M

Mx-Pilot

Guest
drunk ATV'ers are the worst.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >l am an avid mountain biker and l strongly disagree with your Ph.d .
subject.
> In your section about Brown's Woods you imply that every mountain biker
builds
> their own trails, cuts the existing trails, deystroys the environment and
so on.
>
> You guys are such LIARS! Here is what I ACTUALLY said: "However mountain
bikers
> illegally built 4 1/2 additional miles of trail ("bikers have gouged more
than
> six miles of trail, up to 30 feet wide and a foot or more deep in spots"
(Loren
> Lown, PCCB Natural Resources Specialist, 1996))." You completely falsified
what
> I said. IN MY EXPERIENCE, EVERY mountain biker lies. A LOT! You just
proved my
> point again.
>
> > It is so very unfortunate that there are in fact, mountain bikers who do
that.
> However, the majority of the mountain bike community does not behave in
this
> manner at all. I would dare say there are mountain bikers that are more conservative about these
> issues than you yourself are. The way you
stereotyped
> mountain bikers would be like saying that no Muslim should be allowed to
live
> because the people who hijacked planes on September 11, were Muslims.
>
> EVERY mountain biker:
>
> 1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing wildlife, driving
wildlife out
> of its habitat, and making the experience of nature very dangerous and unpleasant for other
> trail users.
> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: riding off-trail,
> speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes.
> 3. Every mountain biker I have talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently!
You
> just proved my point again.
> 4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a
minority,
> but actually a LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law.
> 5. Every mountain biker travels several times as far and as fast as a
hiker,
> inpacting that much more wildlife habitat.
>
> l hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a constructive, enjoyable
> and healthy sport.
>
> >It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's only
enjoyable
> for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have
to
> experience them. If you want to participate in a "constructive, enjoyable
and
> healthy sport", I suggest that you try road biking.
>
> Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it.
>
>
> >Sincerely,
>
> >Zac Mowery
>
> ===
> 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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 06:05:04 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery
<[email protected]> wrote: .> . .And yet, this appears in the paper this morning. I'm sure all
those hikers .walking over the Sequoia's root system were probably just Mountain Bikers at .heard
and that's what really caused the damage.

Just like a mountain biker! You actually BELIEVE that when hikers do something wrong, that makes
mountain biking okay! ROTFL
===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:02:11 +1200, "Westie" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> >l am an avid mountain biker and l strongly disagree with your
Ph.d . .subject. .> In your section about Brown's Woods you imply that every mountain biker .builds
.> their own trails, cuts the existing trails, deystroys the environment and .so on. .> .> You guys
are such LIARS! Here is what I ACTUALLY said: "However mountain .bikers .> illegally built 4 1/2
additional miles of trail ("bikers have gouged more .than .> six miles of trail, up to 30 feet wide
and a foot or more deep in spots" .(Loren .> Lown, PCCB Natural Resources Specialist, 1996))." You
completely falsified .what .> I said. IN MY EXPERIENCE, EVERY mountain biker lies. A LOT! You just
.proved my .> point again. .> .> > It is so very unfortunate that there are in fact, mountain bikers
who do .that. .> However, the majority of the mountain bike community does not behave in .this .>
manner at all. I would dare say there are mountain bikers that are more .> conservative about these
issues than you yourself are. The way you .stereotyped .> mountain bikers would be like saying that
no Muslim should be allowed to .live .> because the people who hijacked planes on September 11, were
Muslims. .> .> EVERY mountain biker: .> .> 1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing
wildlife, driving .wildlife out .> of its habitat, and making the experience of nature very
dangerous and .> unpleasant for other trail users. .> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds
of them) has broken the law: .> riding off-trail, speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes. .>
3. Every mountain biker I have talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently! .You .> just proved my
point again. .> 4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a .minority, .>
but actually a LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law. .> 5. Every mountain biker travels
several times as far and as fast as a .hiker, .> inpacting that much more wildlife habitat. .> .> l
hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a .> constructive, enjoyable and
healthy sport. .> .> >It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's only .enjoyable
.> for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have .to .> experience them.
If you want to participate in a "constructive, enjoyable .and .> healthy sport", I suggest that you
try road biking. .> .> Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it. .> .> .> >Sincerely, .>
.> >Zac Mowery .> .> === .> 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 . .Yeah, yeah, Mike. Yawn. If that's a big
enough lie to shout about then .you've got bigger problems than I thought. Of course you don't ever
lie .yourself, misquote people, massage statistics, talk off-topic, avoid .questions, use flawed
circular arguments, abuse people if they corner you .and generally act like a deranged activist all
the time either.

No, I don't.
===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:44:36 +0200, "Titan Point" <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 06:05:04 +0000, Michael Paul wrote: . . .> "Mike Vandeman"
<[email protected]> wrote in message .> news:[email protected]... .>> At
07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery <[email protected]> wrote: .>> .>> .> And yet, this appears in
the paper this morning. I'm sure all those .> hikers walking over the Sequoia's root system were
probably just .> Mountain Bikers at heard and that's what really caused the damage. .> .> I'll throw
some bullets for those who don't want to read the whole .> article .> .> It's possible that foot
traffic around the base of the trees and erosion .> along the creek damaged their shallow roots. .>
.> It's also possible that a trail built more than 50 years ago (my comment .> here, i'm sure the
trail was cut over 50 years ago by renegade .> freeriders) diverted too much water toward the trees,
loosening the .> soil. .> .> I'm especially fond of this quote by Michelle Jasperson, associate .>
director of the National Parks Conservation Association's Pacific .> regional office. "But what can
we do, fence off every park? That's just .> not logical." .> .> .> .> Visitors may have doomed 2
giant sequoias .> .> .> Foot traffic among reasons cited for fall .> .> By Brian Skoloff .>
ASSOCIATED PRESS .> .> April 6, 2003 .> .> .> YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK - Standing upright, they
reached 30 stories into .> the sky. For more than 1,000 years, the two giant sequoia trees thrived
.> in the Mariposa Grove along Yosemite National Park's southern border. .> .> When they fell
several weeks ago, a hole the size of a jetliner opened .> in the forest canopy. . ....thus allowing
secondary growth and more biodiversity for a while. Its a .natural balancing act. .> .> It may be
months before park biologists determine what did in the trees. .> It appears that one sequoia
growing near a creek collapsed and toppled .> the other. . .So, one tree fell and hit another? Do
trees fall when there's no-one .around? .> .> It's possible that foot traffic around the base of the
trees and erosion .> along the creek damaged their shallow roots. It's also possible that a .> trail
built more than 50 years ago diverted too much water toward the .> trees, loosening the soil. .> .>
"We just don't know yet," said park ranger Deb Schweizer. .> .> . .> Park officials have tried to
protect the big trees, fencing off some of .> the larger sequoias. Long gone are the days when a
truck-sized hole .> could be carved through a living sequoia, such as the grove's Tunnel .> Tree,
which collapsed in 1969. Rangers now know that even a hug leaves .> acid from human hands that can
eat away at the bark. .> .Tree huggers may be tree killers...oh dear. . .> "We just need to find a
balance," Schweizer said. "We may be loving them .> to death." .> .> Between 1855 and 1864, about
653 people visited the grove. Now, more .> than a million people each year walk among the world's
oldest and .> largest trees, which grow naturally only on the western slopes of .> California's
Sierra Nevada. .> .> Though more visitors means additional tourist dollars, park managers .> here
and elsewhere struggle to find a balance between protection and .> exploitation. Managers say that
task has been tougher since the .> September 2001 terrorist attacks because resources have been
diverted .> from wild land stewardship to homeland security. .> .> In Yellowstone National Park,
it's the fight over snowmobile access to .> the backcountry. Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
the nation's most .> visited with 9 million tourists annually, sits in a haze of air .> pollution,
in part because of all the vehicles on park roads. Managers .> at Virgin Islands National Park
struggle to protect fragile coral reefs, .> while in Alaska's Denali National Park and Preserve,
some fear .> degradation from motorized access. .> .> "It's really a fine line," said Michelle
Jasperson, associate director .> of the National Parks Conservation Association's Pacific regional
.> office. "But what can we do, fence off every park? That's just not .> logical." .> .> Last year,
277 million people visited the National Park Service's 388 .> parks, monuments and historic sites.
In 1960, there were just 80 million .> visits. .> .> "You end up with a conflict between the
philosophy of preserving things .> versus providing more recreation," said David Barna, the park
service's .> top spokesman in Washington. "Our dream is that everyone in America can .> stand on
this mountain and see this beautiful scenery, but our worst .> nightmare is that everyone decides to
do it on the same day." .> .> The challenge for park managers, he said, is to learn from the past
and .> understand the changing future. .> .> Rangers used to feed bears in front of the tourists at
Yellowstone, .> where Old Faithful Inn, a national historic landmark with 327 guest .> rooms, was
built near the great geyser in 1903. .> .> "If we were doing it over, we wouldn't do that," Barna
said. "We say .> we'll preserve these places for future generations and provide for .> visitor use
and access, but those two things conflict. Any time you want .> to build a parking lot in a park,
you're satisfying half the needs, but .> you're also impairing the resources." .> .> In many parks,
officials are taking steps to reverse the human impact. .> .> The controversial $441 million
Yosemite Valley Plan calls for, among .> other things, reducing parking spaces and improving a
shuttle bus .> system. Officials say it would ultimately result in a park with fewer .> facilities
but a better visitor experience. . .This seems like a good idea. .> .> At Zion National Park in
Utah, a plan put into place four seasons ago to .> reduce traffic by providing shuttle buses has led
to the return of .> abundant wildlife in the upper canyon. A mountain lion with three cubs .> was
sighted recently in an area once busy with automobiles. . .Bravo! .> .> Beginning next winter in
Yellowstone, snowmobile users will have to get .> reservations to enter the park and most will have
to be accompanied by .> commercial guides. The plan also sets daily limits, along with noise and .>
emissions standards. . .Sensible. I think that snowmobiles are fun but they are noisy and messy. .>
.> "It strikes a balance between phasing out all snowmobile use and .> unlimited use as we've had in
the past," said park spokeswoman Cheryl .> Matthews. .> .> In Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
which suffers some of the worst .> pollution in the park system, managers are considering a plan to
use .> shuttle buses in the popular Cades Cove area, where 2 million tourists a .> year drive the
11-mile scenic loop. . .11 miles? Make 'em walk. Or perhaps they could use mountain bikes...... .>
.> At Virgin Islands National Park and Coral Reef National Monument, where .> more than a million
visitors a year explore the underwater ecosystem, .> boaters dropped anchor wherever they liked
until a few years ago, often .> damaging the fragile reefs. The park has since spent several hundred
.> thousand dollars - raised by private foundations - to install 215 .> moorings. .> .> "Now we're
watching the sea grass beds come back," superintendent John .> King said. "It's helping reverse the
trend of declining resources." . .Excellent. I hope they make people pay to stop at the moorings to
recoup .the cost. .> .> Another stress on park resources is the need for additional security .>
measures to protect against potential terror attacks. Visitors are .> screened at seven park sites,
from the Washington Monument to New York's .> Federal Hall, where George Washington was sworn into
office. Eleven park .> sites are along international borders, which must be monitored. .> .>
Responding to the increased security measures, required under federal .> terror alerts, costs the
park service about $2 million a month, Barna .> said. .> .> Back on the western slopes of the Sierra
Nevada, Yosemite ranger .> Schweizer stands at the base of one of the fallen giant sequoias and .>
marvels at how their weaknesses, in fact, saved them from the ax more .> than a century ago. .> .>
When logging companies began to cut sequoias in the 1860s, they .> discovered that the wood was so
fragile that the trees splintered as .> they fell. Sections were used for grape stakes, pencils,
shingles and .> toothpicks, but loggers stopped cutting them by 1900. .> .> "They're pretty noble
things, pretty impressive," Schweizer said. "And .> there is just something about people that makes
them want to connect .> with these trees." . .Yes, they're impressive (I went to Big Basin in 2001
and saw them for .myself) but they're also fragile. Perhaps a few sequoias may fall so that .many
can be preserved. They're the old living things on the planet

No, bristlecone pines and some other plants are older.

and .deserve respect.

===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On 07 Apr 2003 12:05:28 GMT, [email protected] (Stephen Baker) wrote:

.MV says: . .>> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: .>>
riding off-trail, speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes. . .Translation from VandeSpeak to
English:- .Since I only ever walk off-trail or on trails closed to bikes, then the above .is true.
If they are riding on trails that are legal, then they must not be .mountain-bikers. Speeding is a
function of proceeding at a pace faster than I .can walk, thus they all speed.

You guys are pathetic. Speeding = > 15 MPH. Illegal biking is obvious; the signs say "No Bikes".

.HTH

===
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
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 07:49:50 -0500, "<<<<<< ]] gun_dog99 [[ >>>>>>" <||||||| woof-woof |||||> wrote:

.<snip> EVERY mountain biker: .> .> 1. Rides off-road, accelerating erosion, killing wildlife,
driving .wildlife out .> of its habitat, and making the experience of nature very dangerous and .>
unpleasant for other trail users. . .Every PERSON who goes off-road (weather by foot, bike,
unicycle, horseback, .dirtbike, pogostick, snowshoe, ski, or any other means) has a severe impact
.on the fragile nature surrounding them.

Of course. But mountain bikers have a much greater impact than hikers. For one thing, they ride
several times as far as hikers hike. For example, I just saw a ride advertized as having been 22
miles. I have never in my life hiked that far in a day.

Even if you were to walk barefoot on .a pre-exhisting deer trail, you world break limbs off plants,
and drive .wildlife away from the scent. The second part of the argument is subjective. .What is
dangerous? Hiking in itself is dangerous.

BS. Hikers don't endanger other hikers. Mountain bikers endanger EVERYONE.

Biking is dangerous. .Everything is dangerous, especially when off-road, and with others around
.you. The last part is even more subjective. I find it unpleasent when there .is ANY others in the
vicinity when I hike and bike. If I hear talking, .grunting, moaning, breathing, chains shifting or
any other human made noise, .it is unpleasent to me. But while I find it so, I realize that there
are .going to be others on the trails. I may not enjoy hearing the chatter of Cub .Scouts and
watching them cut switchbacks and scramble off trail, but they .have a right to be in the woods
also. If they are breaking rules, I bring it .up with the leader or the ranger.

As I am bringing this up to you. But you are denying it.

.> 2. Every mountain biker I have seen (hundreds of them) has broken the law: .> riding off-trail,
speeding, or riding on trails closed to bikes. . .I have also seen this and it is upsetting. But
there are many other trail .users breaking the law.

So what? That doesn't make mountain biking okay! DUH!

Hikers constantly cut switchbacks and deviate from .the marked trail, horseback riders riding two
abrest on a singletrack, etc. .The law is the law. If you're not supposed to be there, don't be
there. Stay .on the trail. And don't cut switchbacks. . .> 3. Every mountain biker I have
talked/emailed with has lied. Frequently! .You .> just proved my point again. . .Every PERSON I
have ever talked to has lied. Period. Sorry it happens. Some .lie without realizing they are lying.
They may have thought they heard, or .read one thing when what was stated is another.

BS. I have never met anyone lie so much as mountain bikers. They HAVE to lie, because they refuse to
admit the damage that they do.

.> 4. Even IMBA has a scientific study on its web site proving that not a .minority, .> but actually
a LARGE MAJORITY of mountain bikers break the law. . .This is very unfortuniate. But I beleive that
many are un educated on the .law.

This was right in front of a SIGN explaining the law ("Don't ride through the creek").

This is no excuse for the behaivior and IMBA and many other local .orginazitions are working on how
to educate the population of cyclist who .ride off-road, the proper laws and rules, so that
cyclists and other trail .users can co-exhist safely.

They CAN'T. Bikes are inherently unsafe on trails. That's why mountain bikers get hurt so often.

.> 5. Every mountain biker travels several times as far and as fast as a .hiker, .> inpacting that
much more wildlife habitat. . .This is half true. Length is ditermed by the trail.

Nonsense. If they trail isn't liong enough for them, they ride another as well.

If a trail is ten miles, .then ten miles of trail is impacted. Speed has much less impact on the
trail .than the trail itself.

BS. Getting hit by a bike at 15 MPH is much worse than at 5 MPH.

Wildlife are less afraid of a mountainbiker riding .throught the woods than a hiker walking. The
hikers presence is known by .wildlife more in advance and the presence if felt longer. A deer
scared off .by a hike may not return for a couple of hours, while a deer frightened off .by a
cyclist may return in a fraction of that.

Proof? That is nonsense. There's nothing to prevent the biker getting off their bike and therefore
becoming a hiker.

.> l hope that you could come to the realization that mountain biking is a .> constructive,
enjoyable and healthy sport. .> .> >It is very similar to dirt biking in its destructiveness. It's
only .enjoyable .> for mountain bikers, NOT for the wildlife and other trail users who have .to .>
experience them. If you want to participate in a "constructive, enjoyable .and .> healthy sport", I
suggest that you try road biking. . .NOTHING is enjoyable by wildlife. It would rather we never go
into it. Other .Trail users have to learn to get along with and respect other trail users.

I respect other trail users. It's only BIKES I want to ban.

.Trail users have to realize that not all trails are good for all activities. .All trail users must
learn the rules of the trail. and respect when an area .is closed off to them. Period. . .As for
road cycling, that is what I do. I havn't ridden a MTB off road in 5 .years. I get more harrassmnet
from other road users than I have from other .trail users while mountain biking.

Tough. Don't take it out on wildlife, by invading their habitat on a bike.

.> Try honesty for a change. You'll get farther with it. . .Thank you. .

===
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
 
P

Peterh

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 06:05:04 GMT, "Michael Paul" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>.news:[email protected]... .> At 07:25 PM 4/6/03 -0700, Zac Mowery
><[email protected]> wrote: .> . .And yet, this appears in the paper this morning. I'm sure all
>those hikers .walking over the Sequoia's root system were probably just Mountain Bikers at .heard
>and that's what really caused the damage.
>
>Just like a mountain biker!
>
Has it been established that Michael is a biker or is it merely your heartfelt desire to think of
him as one?

>You actually BELIEVE that when hikers do something wrong,
>
He never equated one thing with another. Sloppy thinking, not even good enough to be a
logical fallacy.

>that makes mountain biking okay! ROTFL
>
>
>
Pete H

The best thing to do with a stupid remark is to not hear it.
R. Heinlein
 
P

Peterh

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:

>.Yeah, yeah, Mike. Yawn. If that's a big enough lie to shout about then .you've got bigger problems
>than I thought. Of course you don't ever lie .yourself, misquote people, massage statistics, talk
>off-topic, avoid .questions, use flawed circular arguments, abuse people if they corner you .and
>generally act like a deranged activist all the time either.
>
>No, I don't.
>
>
>
We can also add denial to Westie's list of your accomplishments.

Pete H

--
The best thing to do with a stupid remark is to not hear it.
R. Heinlein
 
P

Peterh

Guest
Mike Vandeman wrote:

>You guys are pathetic. Speeding = > 15 MPH. Illegal biking is obvious; the signs say "No Bikes".
>
>
>
>
You jump from velocity (where is it written that greater than 15 mph is speeding?) to posted areas.
These are two separate areas of concern but it's unproductive and unltimately futile trying to
equate them.

Pete H

--
The best thing to do with a stupid remark is to not hear it.
R. Heinlein
 
M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 20:13:33 -0400, PeterH <[email protected]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .>You guys are pathetic. Speeding = > 15 MPH. Illegal biking is obvious; the
signs .>say "No Bikes". .> .> .> .> .You jump from velocity (where is it written that greater than
15 mph is .speeding?)

Every park that I know of, e.g. East Bay Regional Park District. And they are being generous. 15 MPH
is very dangerous for other trail users.

to posted areas. These are two separate areas of concern but
.it's unproductive and unltimately futile trying to equate them.

Who's equating them? Mountain bikers simply violate every law that gets in the way of what they want
to do! Is that so hard to understand???

BTW, that's another LIE. Thanks for proving my point for me.

.Pete H

===
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
 
J

Jim

Guest
I think everyone breaks the law and lies some what, last week I followed a Superior Court Judge I
know, doing 52mph in a 45 mph zone....
 
G

Graham Haller

Guest
MV said:-

> Of course. But mountain bikers have a much greater impact than hikers. For
one
> thing, they ride several times as far as hikers hike. For example, I just
saw a
> ride advertized as having been 22 miles. I have never in my life hiked
that far
> in a day.

What a light weight. Not much of a hiker either are you.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads