New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:00:00


.Dear All,
.
.I have followed this (& alt.mb) for several years and would like to
.clarify something.  I am a mountain biker, climber, hiker, backpacker,
.paddler, fisherman, skier, and Ph.D. bioscientist.  I am sick of the
.bashing that mountain bikers take in this and other newsgroups.

Then why don't you answer the complaints about mountain bikers?

 I have
.seen these "bashers" out on the trail.  Given my participation in all of
.the above activities, I am sensitive to each groups needs &
.perspectives.  Not all mountain bikers are destructive insensitive speed
.freaks.

That's not what the discussion is about, if you haven't been listening.
That is only a small part of it. The primary reason for opposing mountain
biking (and the other destructive sports you mentioned) is that they
destroy wildlife habitat and drive wildlife out of their homes and away
from the resources they need.

 Many of us are not.  I would also like to argue the case that
.many hikers have made concerning the destructive nature of MBing in our
.Nat'l Forests.
.
.Realize that the mere presence of a human in any forested area will be
.destructive to some extent.

Yes! That is exactly the point! And MTBs make it MUCH easier for humans to
get into wildlife habitat, and go farther and faster.

  If mountain bikers:
.1)stick to designated singletracks/routes and only do so when conditions
.are not wet and muddy and

They never obey that one!

.2)do not skid and

That is a physical impossibility, and never happens.

.3) give way to all pedestrian and horse traffic and

That doesn't happen, either! Hikers and equestrians are being driven out of
the parks by bikers, who make the experience of being in the wilds VERY
unpleasant, if not to say dangerous.

.4) do not litter

Any vehicle makes it easier to carry lots of stuff, thereby increasing
litter. I know, because I pick it up.

.then their impact through an area will be minimal.

That is pure biologically ignorant BS. You should stick to subjects that
you know something about! Like maybe DNA?

.Furthermore, as a hiker I support designated areas which restrict all
.bikes. But I also support multi-use areas which do permit bikes.

WHY?????????

 Sure
.there are destructive mountain bikers, and they are the people that
.these "bashers" are referring to.

Not true. ALL mountain bikers ride off-road, and ALL ride in wildlife
habitat.

  But all MBers need not suffer as a
.consequence of some irresponsible ones. Every mountain biker I consider
.a friend is extremely sensitive to the fragility of the areas we use.
.On the other hand, many hikers are responsible, but some do litter,
.create and leave burn scars from camp fires, give their food up to bears
.(which will lead to bear death), fail to bury their excrement, urinate
.near waterways etc...But is the whole world bashing the hiking community
.for the acts of these insolents?  I think not.

Maybe they SHOULD!

.This mountain bike bashing attitude will only serve to reinforce the
.continuation of bike restrictions in many of our forested areas in this
.USA.

Good! It is better for the wildlife.

  We must all come out from our narrow mental enclaves and work
.together (as non-motorized recreationalists) to ensure that each group
.acts responsibly.  Feel free to comment.

===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:00:00

.You hit the nail on the head, my man.  If we can keep impact to
.a minimum by riding responsibly, then the naysayers will have
.nothing to complain about (except for the extremely moronic).
.However, if the Mountain Dew crew keeps acting irresponsibly in
.our sport, then it will continue to be seriously bashed in a
.most extreme manner.

You BOTH missed the point -- the same point I have been making for the last
5 years. The sweetest, most polite mountain biker still rides off-road in
wildlife habitat, and hence harms habitat and wildlife. You continue to
ignore this, because you don't know anything about biology. Or maybe
because you know I am RIGHT!
===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Sun, 23 Apr 2000 04:00:00


Quote:

> .You hit the nail on the head, my man.  If we can keep impact to
> .a minimum by riding responsibly, then the naysayers will have
> .nothing to complain about (except for the extremely moronic).
> .However, if the Mountain Dew crew keeps acting irresponsibly in
> .our sport, then it will continue to be seriously bashed in a
> .most extreme manner.

> You BOTH missed the point -- the same point I have been making for
the last
> 5 years. The sweetest, most polite mountain biker still rides
off-road in
> wildlife habitat, and hence harms habitat and wildlife. You continue
to
> ignore this, because you don't know anything about biology. Or maybe
> because you know I am RIGHT!

Yes, bikers _do_ ride off-road, in wildlife habitats.  Hikers don't
ride, but they do walk in those same habitats.  If the argument is the
preservation of those habitats, the answer is simple: don't let
_anyone_ enter them.  Period.  End of problem.

Oh, but wait, the bikers do more damage?  Sorry, I don't buy that.  An
irresponsible hiker can do far more damage than a responsible biker.
Unless you're able to show that hiking, just by virtue of not
involving a bike, has some magical, msytical property that absolutely
prevents the person hiking from being able to do something
irresponsible, then the argument seems to be one of pure idealism.

Maybe I've misunderstood your comments.  If so, please feel free to
correct me.  Are you or are you not saying that hiking has some
magical mechanism which prevents hikers from ever doing anything you
consider damaging?

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Craig Thral » Mon, 24 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
> I have
> .seen these "bashers" out on the trail.  Given my participation in all of
> .the above activities, I am sensitive to each groups needs &
> .perspectives.  Not all mountain bikers are destructive insensitive speed
> .freaks.
> That's not what the discussion is about, if you haven't been listening.
> That is only a small part of it.

No, actually it seems to be the majority of your topics...you even talk
about it later in your post:

 > .3) give way to all pedestrian and horse traffic and

Quote:

> That doesn't happen, either! Hikers and equestrians are being driven out
of
> the parks by bikers, who make the experience of being in the wilds VERY
> unpleasant, if not to say dangerous.

Oh, yeah!  Me and my MTB gang are going wilding this weekend...anybody want
to come?  We're gonna go scare some hikers and horses...just look for a
group of rowdy bikers riding only wet trails and skidding down every section
we can.

EVERY time I see a hiker, I slow to the slowest speed I can physically ride
at.  If I see an equestrian, I stop, dismount and wait for the horse to walk
by.  EVERY time.  I obey the "No Bike" signs, and don't ride when the trails
are wet and off-limits to riders.  I love to ride off-road, and will not be
a part of the stereotypes you try to sell to those who don't know any
better.

Craig

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00

On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:22:38 -0700, "Kelsey Bjarnason"



.>
.> .You hit the nail on the head, my man.  If we can keep impact to
.> .a minimum by riding responsibly, then the naysayers will have
.> .nothing to complain about (except for the extremely moronic).
.> .However, if the Mountain Dew crew keeps acting irresponsibly in
.> .our sport, then it will continue to be seriously bashed in a
.> .most extreme manner.
.>
.> You BOTH missed the point -- the same point I have been making for
.the last
.> 5 years. The sweetest, most polite mountain biker still rides
.off-road in
.> wildlife habitat, and hence harms habitat and wildlife. You continue
.to
.> ignore this, because you don't know anything about biology. Or maybe
.> because you know I am RIGHT!
.
.Yes, bikers _do_ ride off-road, in wildlife habitats.  Hikers don't
.ride, but they do walk in those same habitats.  If the argument is the
.preservation of those habitats, the answer is simple: don't let
._anyone_ enter them.  Period.  End of problem.

Of course. But to REDUCE IMPACTS, it still makes sense to ban VEHICLES
(INCLUDING ANIMALS USED AS VEHICLES), because VEHICLES greatly increase
impacts.

.Oh, but wait, the bikers do more damage?  Sorry, I don't buy that.  An
.irresponsible hiker can do far more damage than a responsible biker.

On average, bikers do more damage. MUCH more.

.Unless you're able to show that hiking, just by virtue of not
.involving a bike, has some magical, msytical property that absolutely
.prevents the person hiking from being able to do something
.irresponsible, then the argument seems to be one of pure idealism.

BS. It is scientific fact.

.Maybe I've misunderstood your comments.  If so, please feel free to
.correct me.  Are you or are you not saying that hiking has some
.magical mechanism which prevents hikers from ever doing anything you
.consider damaging?

You already know that I never said that. In fact, I am one of the few
people in the WORLD advocating human-free 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00


.  I am a long-time hiker and lived in the Denver area for many years. I
.saw my favorite trails become race tracks for racing, clattering,
.machines. Where before I had been able to walk quietly and meditatively
.on the trail, I now had to constantly be watching behind my back and
.around the next corner to avoid being run over by a speeding biker. And
.many of these folks were not there because of a love of nature and the
.country. Many were there because they had found a nice new race track
.that they could push their limits on. I have been hit by speeding
.bikers, run off the trail, had bikers speed by me at breakneck speeds as
.they yelled "Get out of the way!", and generally had my hiking
.experience ruined. Pretty soon I, and many others, just abandoned our
.beloved trails.
.  Since then, I have tried mountain biking as the only way to enjoy the
.trails I loved in the area.

You make no sense! Why join the people destroying the environment and the
hikers's experience??? You must know by now that it is NOT POSSIBLE to
enjoy nature from the top of a bike, any more than you can "enjoy nature"
from a motor vehicle. It is just a way of getting somewhere faster and with
less effort, making mountain bikers' claim to be interested in exercise a
JOKE.

 You are right that many MBs are responsible
.and decent folks. Some are into backcountry touring.However, there still
.are those who use the trails as a race track and only that. Maybe the
.solution lies, as you say, with designating certain areas as "Hiking
.Only" areas and others as multiple use areas.
.  However, I must be on the side of increased regulation of MBs, because
.their presence usually ruins the outdoor experience for most hikers,
.myself included. Hiking is not about fearfully walking the trails,
.vigilantly peering ahead and behind in order to avoid being run over by
.a clattering, speeding crazy ripping down the trail at breakneck speed
.on an MB.
.S.
.
.
.
.
.>  Dear All,
.>
.> I have followed this (& alt.mb) for several years and would like to
.> clarify something.  I am a mountain biker, climber, hiker, backpacker,
.> paddler, fisherman, skier, and Ph.D. bioscientist.  I am sick of the
.> bashing that mountain bikers take in this and other newsgroups.  I
.> have seen these "bashers" out on the trail.  Given my participation in
.> all of the above activities, I am sensitive to each groups needs &
.> perspectives.  Not all mountain bikers are destructive insensitive
.> speed freaks.  Many of us are not.  I would also like to argue the
.> case that many hikers have made concerning the destructive nature of
.> MBing in our Nat'l Forests.
.>
.> Realize that the mere presence of a human in any forested area will be
.> destructive to some extent.  If mountain bikers:
.> 1)stick to designated singletracks/routes and only do so when
.> conditions are not wet and muddy and
.> 2)do not skid and
.> 3) give way to all pedestrian and horse traffic and
.> 4) do not litter
.>
.> then their impact through an area will be minimal.
.> Furthermore, as a hiker I support designated areas which restrict all
.> bikes. But I also support multi-use areas which do permit bikes. Sure
.> there are destructive mountain bikers, and they are the people that
.> these "bashers" are referring to.  But all MBers need not suffer as a
.> consequence of some irresponsible ones. Every mountain biker I
.> consider a friend is extremely sensitive to the fragility of the areas
.> we use.   On the other hand, many hikers are responsible, but some do
.> litter, create and leave burn scars from camp fires, give their food
.> up to bears (which will lead to bear death), fail to bury their
.> excrement, urinate near waterways etc...But is the whole world bashing
.> the hiking community for the acts of these insolents?  I think not.
.>
.> This mountain bike bashing attitude will only serve to reinforce the
.> continuation of bike restrictions in many of our forested areas in
.> this USA.  We must all come out from our narrow mental enclaves and
.> work together (as non-motorized recreationalists) to ensure that each
.> group acts responsibly.  Feel free to comment.
.>
.>
.

===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00

.
.
.
.> .  If you live in a large metro area like Denver, what kind of peace would you
.> expect to find on
.> trails close by?  YOU LIVE IN A HEAVILY POPULATED AREA.
.
.Actually, before mountain biking, the trails in Jefferson County were a great
.resource and, except for weekends, were a great recreation source and quite
.uncrowded.

Exactly: bikes make it MUCH easier to get into wildlife habitat, increasing
the number of people in all areas of the parks, especially remote areas.

 The problem would be lessened with separate trail designations but
.this was not being enacted.
.
.> If you don't care for certain user groups who are allowed to be on
.> certain trails in your area, then don't use those trails.
.
.  The mountain bikes were on every trail near town, except in Boulder. Imagine
.walking up a trail and seeing 4 mountain bikes having a downhill race coming
.straight at you at 30mph plus, being driven off the trail, and witnessing one of
.them crash on a nearby curve.

Why should ANY natural area have to put up with such destructive use???

.>
.> Also, the "clattering" Mt Dew drinking fools racing on multi-use trails
.> could probably use a stick through their spokes.   It's too bad that just a
.> few have to
.> ruin things for everyone, especially their own user group.
.
.Agreed. Mountain bikes are great

For the bikers only. Not for wildlife or other trail users!

but need to be regulated in the interest of
.fairness.
.S.
.

===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00



.Our biggest problem along the front range is not bikers, its overcrowding. I live
.and hike on the hiker only trails in Boulder, no bikes, EVER! I see more and more
.trash, cig butts, beer bottles ... than ever. I would agree that JeffCo trails have
.a large number of bikers on them, but in the last 10 years, every trail user has
.increased significantly.

I wonder how many hikers are there precisely because they were driven off
the other trails.... Without bikes, the trails would be A LOT less crowded!

.I would love to ride the bike path and not risk an accident from hikers and their
.dogs (and the leash across the trail). But I don't believe it is reasonable to blame
.that on walkers. It is crowding plain and simple.

No, bikes CAUSE crowding. Just like CARS CAUSE crowding at all
destinations.

.Remember, before mountain biking, there were thousands less people in JeffCo, bikers
.and hikers alike.
.
.
.>
.> > .  If you live in a large metro area like Denver, what kind of peace would you
.> > expect to find on
.> > trails close by?  YOU LIVE IN A HEAVILY POPULATED AREA.
.>
.> Actually, before mountain biking, the trails in Jefferson County were a great
.> resource and, except for weekends, were a great recreation source and quite
.> uncrowded. The problem would be lessened with separate trail designations but
.> this was not being enacted.
.>
.> > If you don't care for certain user groups who are allowed to be on
.> > certain trails in your area, then don't use those trails.
.>
.>   The mountain bikes were on every trail near town, except in Boulder. Imagine
.> walking up a trail and seeing 4 mountain bikes having a downhill race coming
.> straight at you at 30mph plus, being driven off the trail, and witnessing one of
.> them crash on a nearby curve.
.>
.> >
.> > Also, the "clattering" Mt Dew drinking fools racing on multi-use trails
.> > could probably use a stick through their spokes.   It's too bad that just a
.> > few have to
.> > ruin things for everyone, especially their own user group.
.>
.> Agreed. Mountain bikes are great but need to be regulated in the interest of
.> fairness.
.> S.
.

===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:00:00



.> I have
.> .seen these "bashers" out on the trail.  Given my participation in all of
.> .the above activities, I am sensitive to each groups needs &
.> .perspectives.  Not all mountain bikers are destructive insensitive speed
.> .freaks.
.
.> That's not what the discussion is about, if you haven't been listening.
.> That is only a small part of it.
.
.No, actually it seems to be the majority of your topics...you even talk
.about it later in your post:
.
. > .3) give way to all pedestrian and horse traffic and
.>
.> That doesn't happen, either! Hikers and equestrians are being driven out
.of
.> the parks by bikers, who make the experience of being in the wilds VERY
.> unpleasant, if not to say dangerous.
.
.Oh, yeah!  Me and my MTB gang are going wilding this weekend...anybody want
.to come?  We're gonna go scare some hikers and horses...just look for a
.group of rowdy bikers riding only wet trails and skidding down every section
.we can.
.
.EVERY time I see a hiker, I slow to the slowest speed I can physically ride
.at.

That's nice, but it doesn't remove the unpleasantness of sharing a natural
area with LARGE PIECES OF MACHINERY.

  If I see an equestrian, I stop, dismount and wait for the horse to walk
.by.  EVERY time.  I obey the "No Bike" signs, and don't ride when the trails
.are wet and off-limits to riders.  I love to ride off-road, and will not be
.a part of the stereotypes you try to sell to those who don't know any
.better.

But what do you do when you see bikers doing those things???

Also, youy are still covering a lot more territory than a hiker, and thus
disturbing wildlife and destroying habitat a lot more.

.Craig

===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Kelsey Bjarnaso » Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:00:00

[snips]


Quote:
> .Yes, bikers _do_ ride off-road, in wildlife habitats.  Hikers don't
> .ride, but they do walk in those same habitats.  If the argument is
the
> .preservation of those habitats, the answer is simple: don't let
> ._anyone_ enter them.  Period.  End of problem.

> Of course. But to REDUCE IMPACTS, it still makes sense to ban
VEHICLES
> (INCLUDING ANIMALS USED AS VEHICLES), because VEHICLES greatly
increase
> impacts.

If the goal is to _reduce_ impact, don't let anyone in unless they've
demonstrated proper behaviour in similar non-regulated areas.  If they
have, fine, let 'em in - bikes or not.  (Hey, _you_ want to reduce,
_you_ deal with the headaches. :) )

If the goal is to _remove_ impact, don't let anyone in.

Quote:
> .Oh, but wait, the bikers do more damage?  Sorry, I don't buy that.
An
> .irresponsible hiker can do far more damage than a responsible
biker.

> On average, bikers do more damage. MUCH more.

I didn't say "on average", did I?  Reread it.

Quote:
> .Unless you're able to show that hiking, just by virtue of not
> .involving a bike, has some magical, msytical property that
absolutely
> .prevents the person hiking from being able to do something
> .irresponsible, then the argument seems to be one of pure idealism.

> BS. It is scientific fact.

It's a scientific fact that there is some magical force that prevents
an irresponsible hiker doing more damage than a responsible biker?
Hmm... since science doesn't _do_ magic, I don't see how you can
support this.

Quote:
> .Maybe I've misunderstood your comments.  If so, please feel free to
> .correct me.  Are you or are you not saying that hiking has some
> .magical mechanism which prevents hikers from ever doing anything
you
> .consider damaging?

> You already know that I never said that. In fact, I am one of the
few
> people in the WORLD advocating human-free areas.

No, I don't know that; a minute ago you were calling magic "science".
 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Mike Vandem » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 01:45:51 -0700, "Kelsey Bjarnason"

.[snips]
.

.
.> .Yes, bikers _do_ ride off-road, in wildlife habitats.  Hikers don't
.> .ride, but they do walk in those same habitats.  If the argument is
.the
.> .preservation of those habitats, the answer is simple: don't let
.> ._anyone_ enter them.  Period.  End of problem.
.>
.> Of course. But to REDUCE IMPACTS, it still makes sense to ban
.VEHICLES
.> (INCLUDING ANIMALS USED AS VEHICLES), because VEHICLES greatly
.increase
.> impacts.
.
.If the goal is to _reduce_ impact, don't let anyone in unless they've
.demonstrated proper behaviour in similar non-regulated areas.  If they
.have, fine, let 'em in - bikes or not.  (Hey, _you_ want to reduce,
._you_ deal with the headaches. :) )

The bikes cause the largest part of the damage, so then need to be banned,
just like the National Park Service just banned snowmobiles from most of
its parks.

.If the goal is to _remove_ impact, don't let anyone in.

I am working on that. YOU aren't, hypocrite.

===
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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/
More!: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Jeffrey W. Rya » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Organization: World Without Cars

> Newsgroups:
> rec.backcountry,alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,sci.environment,rec.animals
> .wildlife
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:04:07 GMT
> Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

> That's not what the discussion is about, if you haven't been listening.
> That is only a small part of it. The primary reason for opposing mountain
> biking (and the other destructive sports you mentioned) is that they
> destroy wildlife habitat and drive wildlife out of their homes and away
> from the resources they need.

Drivers drink and get drunk and kill people.. No one should drive anymore,
not even in mass transit situations. Driving should be banned. Guys***
women...guys should be banned.

Mike, you generalize way to much and***people off. Making people angry
and having a lack of compassion makes me wonder how genuine your beliefs are
for the environment. Seems you focus is to obtain self glorification, rather
than trying to establish sane and open lines of communication to forge a
solution we can all live with. You aren't ever going to see bikes banned.
Deal with it. Not now, not ever. You're a fool. Period. And yes, that's name
calling.:D

Jeffrey

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Jeffrey W. Rya » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Organization: World Without Cars

> Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.backcountry,rec.bicycles.soc,sci.environment
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:04:08 GMT
> Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

> The sweetest, most polite mountain biker still rides off-road in
> wildlife habitat, and hence harms habitat and wildlife. You continue to
> ignore this, because you don't know anything about biology. Or maybe
> because you know I am RIGHT!

Everything dies Mike. Get a grip and stop crying. To expect that we will one
day wipe out all life, and the earth will no longer exist and replenish
itself is quite arrogant. If you a true reverence for nature, you'd know
that nature cannot be destroy by us...it created us, and it can take us out
of the game anytime soon.

Jeffrey

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Jeffrey W. Rya » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Organization: World Without Cars

> Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.backcountry,rec.bicycles.soc,sci.environment
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:08:03 GMT
> Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

> .Unless you're able to show that hiking, just by virtue of not
> .involving a bike, has some magical, msytical property that absolutely
> .prevents the person hiking from being able to do something
> .irresponsible, then the argument seems to be one of pure idealism.

> BS. It is scientific fact.

I've seen hikers litter. You turn.

Jeffrey

 
 
 

New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

Post by Jeffrey W. Rya » Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Organization: World Without Cars

> Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,sci.environment
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:08:04 GMT
> Subject: Re: New perspective on mountain bikers bad rap

> You make no sense! Why join the people destroying the environment and the
> hikers's experience??? You must know by now that it is NOT POSSIBLE to
> enjoy nature from the top of a bike, any more than you can "enjoy nature"
> from a motor vehicle. It is just a way of getting somewhere faster and with
> less effort, making mountain bikers' claim to be interested in exercise a
> JOKE.

So you have this argument, justifying hikers...

Then here...

Quote:
>> don't let
>> ._anyone_ enter them.  Period.  End of problem.

> Of course.

You agree with the poster that no one should enter, just to suit the
argument. Can you come up with a solid stance on anything? Do you need some
fiber?

Jeffrey