Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druri.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!hogpc!houxe!drutx!druri!isiw From: isiw@druri.UUCP Newsgroups: net.bicycle Subject: Mountain Bikes - One Rider's Reply Message-ID: <945@druri.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 19:19:52 EDT Article-I.D.: druri.945 Posted: Thu Oct 11 19:19:52 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 04:48:58 EDT Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 38 >From **NSC** Thu Oct 11 17:15 MDT 1984 >From **NSC** Thu Oct 11 17:15 MDT 1984 forwarded by **NSC** >From dht Thu Oct 11 17:17 MDT 1984 remote from druxq Status: R > ...there are long, flat trails along river valleys that would be > candidates for such transportation [mountain bikes]. Erosion would > be minimal, foot traffic is low since the trails are pretty darn > BORING [emphasis added] compared to those on more mountainous terrain... 1. "River valleys" - yeah, right. Why do you think they call 'em "MOUNTAIN bikes"? 2. "BORING" - the only assumption one can draw here is that if you were such a dim bulb as to buy a mountain bike in the first place ("Hey, Jim Bob, where's the durn motor on this thang?"), then you won't have enough snap, crackle, pop to realize that it's a "boring" trail ("Yeehah! That shore is some purty mud over thar! An' look at th' size a them skeeters! Shore are a sight fer sore eyes!"). Your prejudices are showing... 3. "Erosion would be minimal" - D+, Failed To Show Work. I have yet to see anything other than conjecture and hearsay on the damaging effects of mountain bikes on the environment. Facts, gentlemen, facts. Just assuming that they're like jeeps and dirtbikes only illuminates an underlying bias. There's an old saying - "Don't knock it 'til you tried it." If you guys spent a day on a mountain bike I think you'd be more understanding and a little less itchy on the trigger. Sigh. Davis Tucker ATT-IS Denver, CO