Why don't mountain bikers get it?

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, Jun 8, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. At 11:44 AM 6/8/03 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in the woods
    now?

    No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a motor vehicle, I would
    expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural world.
    ===
    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Dante Catoni

    Dante Catoni Guest

    Bikes and cars are part of the natural world. Humans are animals and are part of nature. Birds build
    nests and beavers build dams. Just about all creatures build things, some more sophisticated than
    others. I personally built up an '87 Cutlass with a 461 cubic inch big block Olds. It's so fast and
    loud sometimes it even scares me. If I drive it really easy on the highway it might get 10 mpg. That
    doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for others in the natural world. After all if the track is really
    far away instead of driving it there I'll just tow it with my SUV.

    Dante

    > No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a
    motor
    > vehicle, I would expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural
    world.
     
  3. What about, when I'm walking, people go past me on ATV's(who towed them to the trail with their
    SUV's)? Are they ok?

    On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Mike Vandeman wrote:

    > At 11:44 AM 6/8/03 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in the woods
    > now?
    >
    > No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a motor vehicle, I would
    > expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural world.
    > ===
    > 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
     
  4. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Then what give humans the right to build structures on the planet? If you have a dwelling you are
    destroying the planet as much as mountain bikers are. "Dante Catoni" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]...
    > Bikes and cars are part of the natural world. Humans are animals and are part of nature. Birds
    > build nests and beavers build dams. Just about all creatures build things, some more sophisticated
    > than others. I personally built up an '87 Cutlass with a 461 cubic inch big block Olds. It's so
    > fast and loud sometimes it even scares me. If I drive it really easy on the highway it might get
    > 10 mpg. That doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for others in the natural world. After all if the
    > track is really far away instead of driving it there I'll just tow it with my SUV.
    >
    > Dante
    >
    > > No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a
    > motor
    > > vehicle, I would expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural
    > world.
    >
    >
     
  5. Shadow

    Shadow Guest

    "Dante Catoni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Bikes and cars are part of the natural world.

    No they're not. They're part of the industrialized world.

    --
    Shadow Made In Canada, eh.
     
  6. Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > At 11:44 AM 6/8/03 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in the woods
    >
    > now?
    >
    > No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a motor vehicle, I would
    > expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural world.

    Wrong again. Most of the ppl I know who don't drive make that choice because driving in their big,
    loud cities is a pain. They would no more go out in the backcountry than I would go to Queens.
     
  7. "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > At 11:44 AM 6/8/03 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in the
    woods
    > now?
    >
    > No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a
    motor
    > vehicle, I would expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural
    world.
    > ===

    Yes, you can ride your bike in the woods, but please observe trail restrictions. Mike has an
    unreasonable view of the world, he would like to see all human life exterminated, as thought
    exterminating humans would be environmentally sound.
     
  8. Cuz we don't WANT it. Why don't YOU get it?
     
  9. Motorpsycho

    Motorpsycho Guest

    Passing laws to save the wilderness/environment/wetland/habitat (plug in your favorite cause here)
    misses the real issue.

    When one cave man urinates in a stream, there is no problem. When X billion humans dump their waste
    in the rivers, it's a problem.

    China has figured out the real problem. We may dislike their solution, but at least they are
    addressing the issue. We've still got our heads burried in the sand. Everywhere you look there are
    warning signs, so no one looks anymore.

    It's not the fact that there are bikes in the woods, it's the fact that there are a lot of bikes in
    the woods and more every day.
     
  10. > It's not the fact that there are bikes in the woods, it's the fact that there are a lot of bikes
    > in the woods and more every day.

    It's not the bikes in the woods, it's the people. It matters not if the people are on foot or on a
    bike, they are in the woods. It doesn't even matter, usually, if the people are in motor vehicle, it
    only matters that they are there. (I agree that there are places where motor vehicles ought not be
    due to damage that has been done, but most of the places I go are under threat of closure with no
    apparent damage at all, other than the existance of the road itself.)

    As more and more public lands are closed to public access, the public is crammed into smaller and
    smaller areas, increasing the impact upon those areas.
     
  11. On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:29:04 -0300, "Randal R. Gray" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .What about, when I'm walking, people go past me on ATV's(who towed them to .the trail with their
    SUV's)? Are they ok?

    Stupid question.

    .On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> At 11:44 AM 6/8/03 -0300, "Randal R. Gray"
    <[email protected]> wrote: .> >I don't own a motorized vehicle, am I allowed to ride my bike in
    the woods .> now? .> .> No, of course not. You can walk, like everyone else. If you don't own a
    motor .> vehicle, I would expect that you'd have more sympathy for the natural world. .> === .> 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 .> .>

    ===
    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
     
  12. On 10 Jun 2003 11:07:16 -0700, [email protected] (MotorPsycho) wrote:

    .Passing laws to save the wilderness/environment/wetland/habitat (plug .in your favorite cause here)
    misses the real issue. . .When one cave man urinates in a stream, there is no problem. When X
    .billion humans dump their waste in the rivers, it's a problem. . .China has figured out the real
    problem. We may dislike their .solution, but at least they are addressing the issue. We've still got
    .our heads burried in the sand. Everywhere you look there are warning .signs, so no one looks
    anymore. . .It's not the fact that there are bikes in the woods, it's the fact .that there are a lot
    of bikes in the woods and more every day.

    BS. Even ONE mountain bike kills animals and plants and drives wildlife out of its habitat.
    ===
    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
     
  13. On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:23:12 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .> .> It's not the fact that there are bikes in the woods, it's the fact .> that there are a lot of
    bikes in the woods and more every day. . .It's not the bikes in the woods, it's the people. It
    matters not if the .people are on foot or on a bike, they are in the woods. It doesn't even .matter,
    usually, if the people are in motor vehicle, it only matters that .they are there.

    BS. Bikes allow people to travel several times as far, thus doing several times as much damage.

    (I agree that there are places where motor vehicles ought .not be due to damage that has been
    done, but most of the places I go are .under threat of closure with no apparent damage at all,
    other than the .existance of the road itself.) . .As more and more public lands are closed to
    public access, the public is .crammed into smaller and smaller areas, increasing the impact upon
    those .areas. . . . .

    ===
    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
     
  14. SilverTongue

    SilverTongue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I relate a lot with Mike. I myself am all for animal rights, and support Greenpeace and the like. Humans are destroying this world. I mean, 10mpg??? Fuel consumption like that should be illegal. I detest the American 'gas guzzler' culture. I myself have a car, so I can't say I'm no polluter either, but it is kinder at least with 45mpg. I ain't a millionaire either, or I'd buy electric or gas cars, or deaisel and convert it to run off vegetable oil. But most people in the world with 1million would probably buy A Dodge Viper, with like 5mpg.

    But I don't really agree with banning mountain bikes. Sure, I'd say at least half the world must be undisturbed, but you've got to have some cycle paths. I don't think the impact of cycle paths is that bad on the environment, I mean where I live, my cycle path is constantly being overgrown (can't think how many times thorns growing across the path have acted like stingers to my tyres!). Cycle paths mean some people will use bikes rather than cars, and gives people something to do, limiting yob culture at least. But the amount of cycle paths must not get out of hand.
     
  15. On 16 Jun 2003 05:30:35 +0950, SilverTongue <[email protected]> wrote:

    .I relate a lot with Mike. I myself am all for animal rights, and support .Greenpeace and the like.
    Humans are destroying this world. I mean, .10mpg??? Fuel consumption like that should be illegal. I
    detest the .American 'gas guzzler' culture. I myself have a car, so I can't say I'm .no polluter
    either, but it is kinder at least with 45mpg. I ain't a .millionaire either, or I'd buy electric or
    gas cars, or deaisel and .convert it to run off vegetable oil. But most people in the world with
    .1million would probably buy A Dodge Viper, with like 5mpg. . .But I don't really agree with banning
    mountain bikes. Sure, I'd say at .least half the world must be undisturbed, but you've got to have
    some .cycle paths.

    We DO: they are called "roads". I am quite familiar with transportation activists like you who don't
    have a clue about wildlife issues.

    I don't think the impact of cycle paths is that bad on the .environment, I mean where I live, my
    cycle path is constantly being .overgrown (can't think how many times thorns growing across the
    path .have acted like stingers to my tyres!). Cycle paths mean some people .will use bikes rather
    than cars, and gives people something to do, .limiting yob culture at least. But the amount of
    cycle paths must not .get out of hand.

    You don't give any facts or reasons, just your opinion. Learn something about conservation biology,
    before you put your foot in your mouth again.
    ===
    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
     
  16. Dashi Toshii

    Dashi Toshii Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 16 Jun 2003 05:30:35 +0950, SilverTongue
    <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > .I relate a lot with Mike. I myself am all for animal rights, and support .Greenpeace and the
    > like. Humans are destroying this world. I mean, .10mpg??? Fuel consumption like that should be
    > illegal. I detest the .American 'gas guzzler' culture. I myself have a car, so I can't say I'm .no
    > polluter either, but it is kinder at least with 45mpg. I ain't a .millionaire either, or I'd buy
    > electric or gas cars, or deaisel and .convert it to run off vegetable oil. But most people in the
    > world with .1million would probably buy A Dodge Viper, with like 5mpg. . .But I don't really agree
    > with banning mountain bikes. Sure, I'd say at .least half the world must be undisturbed, but
    > you've got to have some .cycle paths.
    >
    > We DO: they are called "roads". I am quite familiar with transportation activists like you who
    > don't have a clue about wildlife issues.

    Don't try to talk common sense with Micky boy, he is quite mad you know!

    Dashii
     
  17. SilverTongue

    SilverTongue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Mike, you have to be the most arrogant person I've ever seen on the net! Anyone who isn't exactly the same as you, you regard as wrong or stupid. Even me, who seems to be the person closest to agreeing with you on this website, you still slag me off.

    I know about environmental and wildlife issues, why do you accuse me of being ignorant when you don't know what I know? I've taken environmental science in college, and am going to do environmental earth science in Uni, so I'll know even more then. For my career, I wanna be like a conservationist, glaciologist, or anything to do with environmental issues. Think before judging others as ignorant and lesser than you. I hate humans generally as it is, but don't you show even the slightest slack for them?
     
  18. SilverTongue says:

    >Hey Mike, you have to be the most arrogant person I've ever seen on the net!

    <snip oratory>

    >I hate humans generally as it is, but don't you show even the slightest slack for them?

    Easy to see how he got _his_ handle. ;-P

    Steve
     
  19. Adam

    Adam Guest

    Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... -8<- snip ->8-
    > You don't give any facts or reasons, just your opinion. Learn something about conservation
    > biology, before you put your foot in your mouth again.
    -8<- snip ->8-

    Classic! Mike, I hearby award you the order of the black pot...

    Adam...
     
  20. > BS. Even ONE mountain bike kills animals and plants and drives wildlife
    out of
    > its habitat.
    > ===

    You are full of crap.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...