ANOTHER Mountain Biker Death



Again Mikey you shift the debate. This whole thread started because you
noted someone who was an avid cyclist (both road and mt.) died in his home
from a heart attack and from that you incorrectly surmised that mt. biking
had no net health benefit. Thus, my comments were specific to your spurious
claim. The small number of the 8.2 million mt. bikers (1 million plus
hardcore riders) that die each year (I said less than 20 but actually it is
less than 10) directly due to mt. biking (dying in your house from a heart
attack is not dying from mt. biking - only you would make such a claim). I
provided ample evidence from medical science that points out the health
benefits from improving ones mental acuity, psychological, improving cardiac
fitness, lowering the bad cholesterol while raising the good and so and so
on. The loss of less than 10 individuals a year some of whom would have
died from other causes anyway (car crashes, cancer, aids, etc. - check the
actuarial tables before you make some insane comment) in no way detracts
from the net health benefit of mt. biking. Almost all mt. bikers who suffer
some injury (in my case a bruised elbow and a few bruises and finished the
ride and was riding the next day after each incident) were riding within a
few days of their injury. Those that suffered more serious injuries such as
broken bones (the most common brake for a cyclist is the collarbone then
wrist, or in some cases a fractured hip) are up and riding and gaining
fitness within a few weeks of the break - in many cases I am aware within 2
weeks. I had one friend 10 years ago get hit by a car, break his hip, and 6
weeks later completed a 200 mile rode ride (Tour of Two Forest out of
Lancaster). Cyclist (and people in general) are resilient. The only people
who never get back on the bike are those handful of individuals that
suffered very serious and crippling injuries - like those that die this is a
very small number. So in the end, the injury simply results in some forced
rest and the cyclist is back on the back as soon as they can balance the
bike gaining fitness once again. So your assertion that their is no net
health benefit from mt. biking is so stupid it is laughable - btw an
exercise physiologist (Ph.D.) was at my house last night and when I showed
him your email he spit beer (a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale - very good
this year) through his nose he laughed so hard.

Get the discussion right - this was strictly about net health benefit, your
attempt to shift this into your spurious claims regarding ecological affects
is another debate that is pointless to engage in a dialogue with you as you
act as blindly and as much on faith as George W. Bush (btw how much of your
writings on the subject have found their way into peered reviewed journals -
let me help you - zero) . So you can try and shift the debate again which is
your standard ploy when you realize that you have exceedee even the normal
level of stupidness for you - why don't you take on a cause that is having
true serious affects on bio-diversity - namely the level of development that
continues to eat up and fragment habitat?

I will think about how laughable you are on my 25 mile fast pace lunch time
road ride where I will have a 12.5 times greater likelihood of dying than if
I choose to do a equally long (time wise) MT. bike ride.

Toodles moron.
 
Oops I made a mistake I will have a 70 times greater (not 12.5 times as I
mistakenly quoted) chance of dying on my lunch time road ride than if I
choose to do a mt. bike ride.
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:14:13 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>According to the US Census statistics for 2006, there were 8.2 million mt.
>>bikers who rode at least 6 times that year. Based on studies of rode
>>cyclist which number about 36 million the same year, 5.6 million of those
>>cyclist rode at least 5000 miles over 110 days (hardcore); if you assume
>>that roughly the same proportion of the 8.2 million are serious hardcore,
>>than there are about 1 million hardcore mt bikers and if you add folks who
>>ride at least 50 days than you probably need to add another 1 to 1.5 million
>>(the latter is my speculation and quite reasonable) all other numbers are
>>gov statistics you moron.
>>
>>Also gov stats report about 700 road cyclist are killed each year by cars
>>(give or take a few) and you can add another dozen or two on top of that who
>>die from operator error. You pretty much list all of the mt. bike deaths
>>plus some that are not such as the motorcyclist a month or so ago, the
>>latest case where he died in his house (again not speculation but in the
>>news reports) and we find ourselves dealing with less than 20 deaths a year
>>attributed to mt. biking. So 1 million hardcore mt. bikers and another 7
>>million that ride something less than 110 days a year but greater than 6
>>(again real numbers) and 20 deaths (if I underestimated you idiot then prove
>>it - and you know you cannot). Your logic is silly one death is one death.
>>In ecology we have compensatory mortality and additive mortality. Which %
>>of the individuals would have died early from some other cause like a car
>>accident (compensatory)? A disproportionate number of the deaths are boys
>>18 to 25 (now there is a surprise) who seem to be dedicated in finding new
>>ways to kill themselves (again gov statistics).
>>
>>Also, you try and shift the debate about what is really your agenda to stop
>>mt. biking, because you know you lack any case.

>
> BS. The proof is at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
>
> My argument is specific to
>>your statement that mt. biking has no net health benefit.

>
> You deliberately ignored bodily injury and harm to wildlife and other
> trail users. The technical term for that is "junk (skewed) science". I
> have yet to see any real science from any mountain biking scientists,
> but LOTS of junk science like yours.



If anyone knows "junk science" it's you Vandeman, that's all you ever write.
 
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:52:01 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> ...And since there
>> are dozens of ways of getting aerobic exercise besides mountain
>> biking, and since mountain biking causes an enormous amount of damage
>> to wildlife and people, there's absolutely no reason to promote
>> mountain biking....

>
>Reason No. 1 to ride your bicycle off road - it annoys Mikey V.


Let us know when you get a second brain cell working.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:31:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Again Mikey you shift the debate. This whole thread started because you
>noted someone who was an avid cyclist (both road and mt.) died in his home
>from a heart attack and from that you incorrectly surmised that mt. biking
>had no net health benefit. Thus, my comments were specific to your spurious
>claim. The small number of the 8.2 million mt. bikers (1 million plus
>hardcore riders) that die each year (I said less than 20 but actually it is
>less than 10) directly due to mt. biking (dying in your house from a heart
>attack is not dying from mt. biking - only you would make such a claim). I
>provided ample evidence from medical science that points out the health
>benefits from improving ones mental acuity, psychological, improving cardiac
>fitness, lowering the bad cholesterol while raising the good and so and so
>on. The loss of less than 10 individuals a year some of whom would have
>died from other causes anyway (car crashes, cancer, aids, etc. - check the
>actuarial tables before you make some insane comment) in no way detracts
>from the net health benefit of mt. biking. Almost all mt. bikers who suffer
>some injury (in my case a bruised elbow and a few bruises and finished the
>ride and was riding the next day after each incident) were riding within a
>few days of their injury. Those that suffered more serious injuries such as
>broken bones (the most common brake for a cyclist is the collarbone then
>wrist, or in some cases a fractured hip) are up and riding and gaining
>fitness within a few weeks of the break - in many cases I am aware within 2
>weeks. I had one friend 10 years ago get hit by a car, break his hip, and 6
>weeks later completed a 200 mile rode ride (Tour of Two Forest out of
>Lancaster). Cyclist (and people in general) are resilient. The only people
>who never get back on the bike are those handful of individuals that
>suffered very serious and crippling injuries - like those that die this is a
>very small number. So in the end, the injury simply results in some forced
>rest and the cyclist is back on the back as soon as they can balance the
>bike gaining fitness once again. So your assertion that their is no net
>health benefit from mt. biking is so stupid it is laughable - btw an
>exercise physiologist (Ph.D.) was at my house last night and when I showed
>him your email he spit beer (a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale - very good
>this year) through his nose he laughed so hard.


Proving only that you idiots can't handle beer any better than you can
science. Once again, you DELIBERATELY IGNORED the negative health
impacts of mountain biking, including driving hikers off of the
trails, killing animals and plants, and inducing young people into a
dangerous sport. So-called "scientists" who skew data are nothing new,
and for mountain bikers, are the rule. I don't think I need any more
proof that you have no intention of EVER telling the truth about your
destructive sport (well, why would you want to break mountain bikers'
record of always lying? . . . ).

>Get the discussion right - this was strictly about net health benefit,


Yes, and you haven't grasped that YET.

your
>attempt to shift this into your spurious claims regarding ecological affects
>is another debate that is pointless to engage in a dialogue with you as you
>act as blindly and as much on faith as George W. Bush (btw how much of your
>writings on the subject have found their way into peered reviewed journals -
>let me help you - zero) . So you can try and shift the debate again which is
>your standard ploy when you realize that you have exceedee even the normal
>level of stupidness for you - why don't you take on a cause that is having
>true serious affects on bio-diversity - namely the level of development that
>continues to eat up and fragment habitat?
>
>I will think about how laughable you are on my 25 mile fast pace lunch time
>road ride where I will have a 12.5 times greater likelihood of dying than if
>I choose to do a equally long (time wise) MT. bike ride.
>
>Toodles moron.

--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:43:55 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Oops I made a mistake


Just one of many....

I will have a 70 times greater (not 12.5 times as I
>mistakenly quoted) chance of dying on my lunch time road ride than if I
>choose to do a mt. bike ride.

--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mikey is English a second language? When medical science discusses the
health benefit of a sport, it is specific to the activity and does it
improve the health of the individual engaging in that sport. You have this
remarkably stupid way of seeing the world. Affects that mt. bikers have on
others is not part of the questions. Your strategy is always try and shift
the debate when you are so easily trapped in another stupid argument. Any
hiker driven off the trail by a mt. biker is only adversely affected (in a
net health way) if they are crippled or killed (an enormously rare event).
Thus, you loose again for being stupid.

Since mt. biking has a positive net health benefit for those individuals
that engage in it (and yes there is as there are very few deaths and
crippling injuries and well over a million individuals frequently ride (with
8.2 million riding at least 6 days a year) each year so these individuals
are greatly benefited due to increase cardio-vascular fitness, lower bad
cholesterol and higher good cholesterol, lower weight, better mental acuity
and better outlook on life, a substantial increase in leg strength and body
toning, etc.) then kids introduced into the sport will also gain the same
net benefit. Again Mikey within the framework of science, a net benefit in
health, refers too the individual engaged in the subject activity. Quit
being so disingenuous or stupid or both.

You don't like mt. biking that is clear, but quit lying as much as you do.
Or take an English class.
 
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:03:31 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Mikey is English a second language? When medical science discusses the
>health benefit of a sport, it is specific to the activity and does it
>improve the health of the individual engaging in that sport.


That's a myopic view. If a sport benefits the person who does it, but
at the same time harms others, then the NET benefit (which is what we
are talking about) is ZERO. Are you pretending to be stupid, or are
you really that stupid?

You have this
>remarkably stupid way of seeing the world. Affects that mt. bikers have on
>others is not part of the questions. Your strategy is always try and shift
>the debate when you are so easily trapped in another stupid argument. Any
>hiker driven off the trail by a mt. biker is only adversely affected (in a
>net health way) if they are crippled or killed (an enormously rare event).


You are really AMAZINGLY dense. If they are driven off the trails, and
so don't get the exercise benefit that they had, then they are harmed!
DUH! That subtracts from the alleged net benefit of mountain biking.

>Thus, you loose again for being stupid.
>
>Since mt. biking has a positive net health benefit for those individuals
>that engage in it (and yes there is as there are very few deaths and
>crippling injuries and well over a million individuals frequently ride (with
>8.2 million riding at least 6 days a year) each year so these individuals
>are greatly benefited due to increase cardio-vascular fitness, lower bad
>cholesterol and higher good cholesterol, lower weight, better mental acuity
>and better outlook on life,


Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance and dishonesty. Mountain
bikers have one of the WORST outlooks of any group I know. It is
entirely centered on their own pleasure, to the exclusion of the
welfare of any wildlife or people around them. You are a perfect
example of that self-centeredness.

a substantial increase in leg strength and body
>toning, etc.) then kids introduced into the sport will also gain the same
>net benefit. Again Mikey within the framework of science, a net benefit in
>health, refers too the individual engaged in the subject activity.


No, it doesn't. As John Muir said, everything is "hitched" to
everything else. If you improve your health at to the detriment of
others' health, where is the net benefit?

Quit
>being so disingenuous or stupid or both.
>
>You don't like mt. biking that is clear, but quit lying as much as you do.
>Or take an English class.


I got straight A's in English, but I never learned to lie, as you do.

So I as you again: Are you really this stupid, or are you just
pretending to be stupid? The world wants to know.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:03:31 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Mikey is English a second language? When medical science discusses the
>>health benefit of a sport, it is specific to the activity and does it
>>improve the health of the individual engaging in that sport.

>
> That's a myopic view. If a sport benefits the person who does it, but
> at the same time harms others, then the NET benefit (which is what we
> are talking about) is ZERO. Are you pretending to be stupid, or are
> you really that stupid?


Zero ! That's your IQ isn't it, Vandy ? You're stump stupid, aren't you ?


> You have this
>>remarkably stupid way of seeing the world. Affects that mt. bikers have on
>>others is not part of the questions. Your strategy is always try and shift
>>the debate when you are so easily trapped in another stupid argument. Any
>>hiker driven off the trail by a mt. biker is only adversely affected (in a
>>net health way) if they are crippled or killed (an enormously rare event).

>
> You are really AMAZINGLY dense. If they are driven off the trails, and
> so don't get the exercise benefit that they had, then they are harmed!
> DUH! That subtracts from the alleged net benefit of mountain biking.



DUH! If they were walking the trails and THEN got driven off wouldn't they
get MORE exercise ?? DUH!



>
>>Thus, you loose again for being stupid.
>>
>>Since mt. biking has a positive net health benefit for those individuals
>>that engage in it (and yes there is as there are very few deaths and
>>crippling injuries and well over a million individuals frequently ride (with
>>8.2 million riding at least 6 days a year) each year so these individuals
>>are greatly benefited due to increase cardio-vascular fitness, lower bad
>>cholesterol and higher good cholesterol, lower weight, better mental acuity
>>and better outlook on life,

>
> Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance and dishonesty. Mountain
> bikers have one of the WORST outlooks of any group I know. It is
> entirely centered on their own pleasure, to the exclusion of the
> welfare of any wildlife or people around them. You are a perfect
> example of that self-centeredness.
>
> a substantial increase in leg strength and body
>>toning, etc.) then kids introduced into the sport will also gain the same
>>net benefit. Again Mikey within the framework of science, a net benefit in
>>health, refers too the individual engaged in the subject activity.

>
> No, it doesn't. As John Muir said, everything is "hitched" to
> everything else. If you improve your health at to the detriment of
> others' health, where is the net benefit?
>
> Quit
>>being so disingenuous or stupid or both.
>>
>>You don't like mt. biking that is clear, but quit lying as much as you do.
>>Or take an English class.

>
> I got straight A's in English, but I never learned to lie, as you do.


So how did you get the straight A's, cheat ? And don't worry learning to
lie, you're doing a fine job on your own.

>
> So I as you again:


So I guess spelling wasn't part of english, lier ?

Are you really this stupid, or are you just
> pretending to be stupid? The world wants to know.


He's just pretending to be stupid so you don't feel so bad!


> --
> 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.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
2
Views
755
M
M
Replies
0
Views
489
M