Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs

[Mike Vandeman]

Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM

Posted By: brynn galindo
Posted 4/5/07
BAKERSFIELD - A mountain biker who may have been trying to go off the
beaten path ended up taking a spill and tumbling about 50 feet done
the side of the Panorama Bluffs.
It happened at about 2:30 p.m. Thursday.

Rescue workers said it was a struggle to get where the man had fallen
on the bluffs.

They had to use ropes to try and lower the 46-year-old man down the
steep incline.

Firefighters believe the man climbed down one of the trails near the
top to get to a ledge about halfway down the bluffs.

Firefighters said from there, the man might have been planning to
mountain bike the rest of the way down, but he fell.

Fire crews said the man was taken to a nearby hospital with some
scrapes, a broken arm, and a few bruises.
===
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

 

[Beej Jorgensen]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Firefighters said from there, the man might have been planning to
>mountain bike the rest of the way down, but he fell.

Important safety tip. Thanks, Mike!

You might want to trim those newsgroups--those other ones have nothing
to do with mountain biking, and you're probably just pissing them off.

-Beej

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 08:55:14 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Firefighters said from there, the man might have been planning to
>>mountain bike the rest of the way down, but he fell.
>
>Important safety tip. Thanks, Mike!
>
>You might want to trim those newsgroups--those other ones have nothing
>to do with mountain biking, and you're probably just pissing them off.

ALL of those newsgroups are relevant. But thanks for your concern,
ignorant though it may be.

>-Beej
===
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

 

[JP]

Firefighters believe the man climbed down one of the trails near the
top to get to a ledge about halfway down the bluffs.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:32:29 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Firefighters believe the man climbed down one of the trails near the
>top to get to a ledge about halfway down the bluffs.

What's you point? I simply quotes a news article.
===
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

 

[JP]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:32:29 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Firefighters believe the man climbed down one of the trails near the
>>top to get to a ledge about halfway down the bluffs.
>
> What's you point? I simply quotes a news article.


The point is the man was HIKING when he injured himself.
So your parallel is as relevant as if someone who rides
was killed by a bus as he was crossing the street.


But your data never supports your hypothesis anyway.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:12:47 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:32:29 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Firefighters believe the man climbed down one of the trails near the
>>>top to get to a ledge about halfway down the bluffs.
>>
>> What's you point? I simply quotes a news article.
>
>
>The point is the man was HIKING when he injured himself.
>So your parallel is as relevant as if someone who rides
>was killed by a bus as he was crossing the street.
>
>
>But your data never supports your hypothesis anyway.

Go back to sleep, Rip.
===
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

 

[Westie]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
> Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM


LOL!

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1074638

Tourist Bus using designated paved roadway tumbles 75 feet down bluff.

Anyone can do it, Mike.
--
Westie

 

[Bill Sornson]

Westie wrote:
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
>> Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM
>
>
> LOL!
>
> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1074638
>
> Tourist Bus using designated paved roadway tumbles 75 feet down bluff.
>
> Anyone can do it, Mike.

Plus, of course, the "source material" for hiker and motorist deaths is
about a thousand times bigger than for mountain biker deaths.

Bill "conservatively" S.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:21:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Westie wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>> Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
>>> Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1074638
>>
>> Tourist Bus using designated paved roadway tumbles 75 feet down bluff.
>>
>> Anyone can do it, Mike.
>
>Plus, of course, the "source material" for hiker and motorist deaths is
>about a thousand times bigger than for mountain biker deaths.

Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
than either of those.

>Bill "conservatively" 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.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Westie]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:21:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Westie wrote:
>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>> Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
>>>> Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1074638
>>>
>>> Tourist Bus using designated paved roadway tumbles 75 feet down bluff.
>>>
>>> Anyone can do it, Mike.
>> Plus, of course, the "source material" for hiker and motorist deaths is
>> about a thousand times bigger than for mountain biker deaths.
>
> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
> than either of those.

I'm inclined to think that those forty tourists in that single bus would
say that this outing was more dangerous than mountain biking.

Then again, you should look at the deaths and injuries that have
happened to spectators at Speedway and deaths caused by and to
boy-racers in recent weeks - a handful killed and injured at a handful
of speedway meetings, and vehicles users killed and maimed left right
and center. I would say that proportionally motorized vehicles have
killed far more people than mountain biking this month! Lately in my
area, death by motorised vehicles = 40+, Death by mountain bike = 0

So when are you going to invite me to observe one of your speaking
engagements, Mike? If what you say is the truth, why are you so against
informing me of where and when you'll be speaking next? Is it because
you continue to fabricate the "speaking engagements" that you claim to have?
--
Westie

 

[Marz]

On Apr 22, 2:01 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
> than either of those.

Wow, it must take some sort of genius to work out the mtbing is more
dangerous than riding the bus or walking.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:27:54 +1200, Westie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:21:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Westie wrote:
>>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
>>>>> Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1074638
>>>>
>>>> Tourist Bus using designated paved roadway tumbles 75 feet down bluff.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone can do it, Mike.
>>> Plus, of course, the "source material" for hiker and motorist deaths is
>>> about a thousand times bigger than for mountain biker deaths.
>>
>> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
>> than either of those.
>
>I'm inclined to think that those forty tourists in that single bus would
>say that this outing was more dangerous than mountain biking.

They weren't hiking. They were riding in a bus. Mountain biking is FAR
more dangerous than hiking.
===
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

 

[Bob Magatagan]

Check out COLORADO. Probably more mountain bikers consentrated per square
inch, but ALL I hear about is people lost, injured, or eaten while hiking.
Note: My Full Name.
"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 22, 2:01 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
>> than either of those.
>
> Wow, it must take some sort of genius to work out the mtbing is more
> dangerous than riding the bus or walking.
>

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:57:08 -0600, "Bob Magatagan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Check out COLORADO. Probably more mountain bikers consentrated per square
>inch, but ALL I hear about is people lost, injured, or eaten while hiking.

Irrelevant. Anecdotal evidence is not science.

>Note: My Full Name.
>"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Apr 22, 2:01 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
>>> than either of those.
>>
>> Wow, it must take some sort of genius to work out the mtbing is more
>> dangerous than riding the bus or walking.
>>
>
--
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

 

[Marz]

On Apr 25, 7:57 pm, "Bob Magatagan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Check out COLORADO. Probably more mountain bikers consentrated per square
> inch, but ALL I hear about is people lost, injured, or eaten while hiking.
> Note: My Full Name."Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2:01 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
> >> than either of those.
>
> > Wow, it must take some sort of genius to work out the mtbing is more
> > dangerous than riding the bus or walking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you're saying that you think the chances of getting hurt while
hiking are higher than when you go mtbing? Are you able to walk and
chew gum at the same time or do you cycle like a wuss?

And I note the full name, so what, you live in Highlands Farm, CO and
it looks like your brother is a more active cyclist than you. I bet
Karen's faster than you too.

 

[Bob Magatagan]

That's all you came up with?..... some OLD info. I'm laughing too hard!
What's my favorite color!?
"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 25, 7:57 pm, "Bob Magatagan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Check out COLORADO. Probably more mountain bikers consentrated per square
>> inch, but ALL I hear about is people lost, injured, or eaten while
>> hiking.
>> Note: My Full Name."Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 2:01 am, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
>> >> than either of those.
>>
>> > Wow, it must take some sort of genius to work out the mtbing is more
>> > dangerous than riding the bus or walking.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So you're saying that you think the chances of getting hurt while
> hiking are higher than when you go mtbing? Are you able to walk and
> chew gum at the same time or do you cycle like a wuss?
>
> And I note the full name, so what, you live in Highlands Farm, CO and
> it looks like your brother is a more active cyclist than you. I bet
> Karen's faster than you too.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Marz]

On Apr 26, 9:13 am, "Bob Magatagan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's all you came up with?..... some OLD info. I'm laughing too hard!
> What's my favorite color!?"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message

And it was still too much info for me, I don't care. The point is why
do you think it's important to use your full name rather than a
nickname. It doesn't invoke any more trust in comments you may post.

 

[Bob Magatagan]

ZZZZZZZZZ! Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was riding! I
don't have time for this anyway!
"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 26, 9:13 am, "Bob Magatagan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That's all you came up with?..... some OLD info. I'm laughing too hard!
>> What's my favorite color!?"Marz" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message
>
> And it was still too much info for me, I don't care. The point is why
> do you think it's important to use your full name rather than a
> nickname. It doesn't invoke any more trust in comments you may post.
>
>
>

 

[Westie]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:27:54 +1200, Westie
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:21:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>>> >>> Westie wrote:
>>>> >>>> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> Mountain biker tumbles 50 feet down Panorama Bluffs
>>>>> >>>>> Last Update: Apr 5, 2007 7:26 PM
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> LOL!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1074638
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Tourist Bus using designated paved roadway tumbles 75 feet
down bluff.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Anyone can do it, Mike.
>>> >>> Plus, of course, the "source material" for hiker and motorist
deaths is
>>> >>> about a thousand times bigger than for mountain biker deaths.
>> >>
>> >> Not per person or per outing. Mountain biking is MUCH more dangerous
>> >> than either of those.
> >
> >I'm inclined to think that those forty tourists in that single bus
would
> >say that this outing was more dangerous than mountain biking.

They weren't hiking. They were riding in a bus. Mountain biking is FAR
more dangerous than hiking.
===

I imagine that hiking in mountainous countryside containing vicious wild
animals is much more dangerous than walking in a suburban park.
Likewise, walking in a suburban park is probably more dangerous than
sitting on a sofa in your living room all day.
By your logic one should wrap oneself in cotton wool and not ever leave
the house.
What, exactly, was your point anyway?
--
Westie