Mountain Biking Injury Report



Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Mountain Biking Injury Report
>


>Anecdotal evidence means nothing. Either supply SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, or
>shut up.


And then here's a quote from Mikey on the same subject:
"I have heard of several mountain biker deaths."
 
> No, I just tell the truth.

Me too. Truth is you're an asshole.

And so am I for even replying, given the other diarrhea you inflict on
these groups.


> But your threat is duly noted.


What a man!!!

Run home to Mommy little boy...

--
Please reply to ng
 
Emily wrote:
>> No, I just tell the truth.

>
> Me too. Truth is you're an asshole.
>
> And so am I for even replying, given the other diarrhea you inflict on
> these groups.
>
>
>> But your threat is duly noted.

>
> What a man!!!
>
> Run home to Mommy little boy...


Doc blasted by chick.

Film at 11.

Bill "would tune in for that" S.
 
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:46:38 -0600, "Peb0" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
..
.."Michael Dart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> In news:[email protected],
..> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> typed:
..>
..> > .I fail to see your point.
..> >
..> > The point is that mountain bikers LIE. CONSTANTLY! Thanks for helping
..> > me prove my case against mountain biking. If mountain bikers are that
..> > dangerous to THEMSELVES, then they are just as dangerous to other
..> > people and wildlife, and mountain biking deserves to be banned. You
..> > have the right to destroy yourself, but not anyone else.
..> >
..>
..> Oh what the hell, BITE ME!
..>
..
..ROFLMAO
..hahahahhaha
..Finally someone who sees things my way. Why does anyone bother to expect a
..half decent debate/conversation with this tool. It's what keeps him going.
..Just babble **** and poke sticks at him. Eventually he'll get tired of it.
..I mean really, he's just a **** nut!
..The only thing that is entirely clear is that he accomplishes nothing. ( ah
..ah ah... Mikey - don't call me a liar without misquoting some factual
..evidence of ONE tangible result you may have instigated. Use lots of
..toungue. I like that on my anus.)

Liar.

..> Mike
..>
..>
..>
..>
..>
..

===
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
 
On 6 Apr 2004 18:46:55 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:

..On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:39:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> .It was the SAME group of roadies, a few of whom had done a little bit of
..> .riding off-road. Why would a group of roadies with little off-road
..> .experience and (a high comfort level with road riding) be an appropriate
..> .sample? Its not, of course. Even if you consider the 18% that did any
..> .meaningful amount of mountain biking, that's a sample size of 15 which is
..> .far too small to be significant. It really is "junk science" as far as
..> .your use of it goes - that's why I'm sure you'll contine to use it.
..> .
..> .I've been riding off-road frequently for nine years now, and never had to
..> .see a doctor for anything cycling-related. My riding compadres have never
..> .been seriously injured either. In that same timeframe, I have a roadie
..> .friend who's had his arm broken, and another who spent half a day in a
..> .coma - both experienced road riders hit by cars. As usual, your "data"
..> .never syncs up with reality.
..>
..> The difference is that THEY did science, whereas you only gave a little
..> anecdotal "evidence", when an even smaller sample size. Can you spell
..> "hypocrisy"?
..
..Yes, I can even use it in a sentence: Your interpretation of this study
..is "junk science" (the point above, which you didn't argue), making all
..your other posts about "junk science" nothing but hypocrisy.

Liar. I didn't interpret the study. I simply stated what it said.
===
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
 
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:54:31 GMT, Brett Jaffee <[email protected]>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
..news:[email protected]:
..
..
..> .Please show me where did I say they hadn't? Also, please define
..> "many" and .compare it to the number of people killed in road bike
..> incidents. That was .the whole point of your post was it not...to
..> compare the danger of road .biking vs mountain?
..>
..> Either supply scientific evidence, as I did, or shut up.
..
..I don't need to, because you already did, dimwit. The study YOU posted
..showed that of 32 bicycling deaths, only 1 was a mountain biker.
..
..You, on the other hand said that you had "heard" of several mountain biker
..deaths. Real scientific.
..
..Thank you for supporting my point.

You completely missed the point of the report, which was that mountain biking is
TWICE as dangerous as street biking.
===
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
 
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:38 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:33:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .>
..> .> The point is that mountain bikers LIE. CONSTANTLY! Thanks for helping
..me
..> .prove
..> .> my case against mountain biking. If mountain bikers are that dangerous
..to
..> .> THEMSELVES, then they are just as dangerous to other people and
..wildlife,
..> .and
..> .> mountain biking deserves to be banned. You have the right to destroy
..> .yourself,
..> .> but not anyone else.
..> .>
..> .
..> .There is no logical link to what injuries a bike rider might give himself
..> .and what he might do to others that use the same trail.
..>
..> Yes, there is. People who aren't careful are dangerous to everyone around
..them.
..>
..
..However remote the truth might be in what you say, you have no evidence to
..support your silly assertion.
..
..
..
..> For example, cars
..> .run over pedestrians all the time, but I have never in my life come close
..to
..> .hitting a hiker while driving my Jeep offroad. I have crashed my Jeep on
..> .more than one occasion and exposed myself to injuries that thankfully I
..> .didn't actually receive. But, in none of those instances, or any other
..> .instance, have I ever operated my machine in a manner which is hazardous
..to
..> .pedestrians on the trail.
..> .
..> .A mountain bike rider can easily hurt himself each and every time he gets
..on
..> .his bike, but never pose a threat to anybody but himself.
..>
..> That's a blatant LIE -- nothing new for you.
..
..Please provide a cite.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm.
===
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
 
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:31:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:53:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> Mountain bikers often claim that they mountain bike because riding on
..the
..> .road
..> .> is so dangerous. This study found that mountain biking is TWICE as
..> .dangerous as
..> .> road riding. So much for THAT excuse.
..> .>
..> .>
..>
...http://site37721.dellhost.com/free_pdf_articles/200B Bicycling Injury%2
..0
..> .Report%20Oct%20ABC.pdf
..> .
..> .That article comes from a street bike rider named Arnie Baker. His topic
..has
..> .nothing at all to do with mountain biking,
..>
..> BS. He is a doctor, and he doesn't restrict his patients to road riders,
..> obviously.
..>
..
..You did not read the article OR visit his Website, did you? Had yo0u
..actually read the article and/or visit ed his site, you would know that his
..focus in on street riding. The article you linked to is a hand out that he
..gives members of his organization based in San Diego.

Irrelevant. YOU didn't read it. He's a physician who has to deal with mountain
biking injuries. That's why he KNOWS that mountain biking is more dangerous than
street riding.
===
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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:38 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>

wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:33:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"

<[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .>
> .> .>
> .> .> The point is that mountain bikers LIE. CONSTANTLY! Thanks for

helping
> .me
> .> .prove
> .> .> my case against mountain biking. If mountain bikers are that

dangerous
> .to
> .> .> THEMSELVES, then they are just as dangerous to other people and
> .wildlife,
> .> .and
> .> .> mountain biking deserves to be banned. You have the right to destroy
> .> .yourself,
> .> .> but not anyone else.
> .> .>
> .> .
> .> .There is no logical link to what injuries a bike rider might give

himself
> .> .and what he might do to others that use the same trail.
> .>
> .> Yes, there is. People who aren't careful are dangerous to everyone

around
> .them.
> .>
> .
> .However remote the truth might be in what you say, you have no evidence

to
> .support your silly assertion.
> .
> .
> .
> .> For example, cars
> .> .run over pedestrians all the time, but I have never in my life come

close
> .to
> .> .hitting a hiker while driving my Jeep offroad. I have crashed my Jeep

on
> .> .more than one occasion and exposed myself to injuries that thankfully

I
> .> .didn't actually receive. But, in none of those instances, or any other
> .> .instance, have I ever operated my machine in a manner which is

hazardous
> .to
> .> .pedestrians on the trail.
> .> .
> .> .A mountain bike rider can easily hurt himself each and every time he

gets
> .on
> .> .his bike, but never pose a threat to anybody but himself.
> .>
> .> That's a blatant LIE -- nothing new for you.
> .
> .Please provide a cite.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm.
> ===


Mike, you ignorant ****! That ruling says that the NPS is within its bounds
to regulate all manner of traffic within its properties. It is reasonable
that the NPS consider the comfort and safety of all visitors, not just one
group. And, when making such consideration of all groups, it may turn out
that one group or another will think they are adversely affected, but too
bad. The NPS is burdened with protection of the greatest number of visitors,
not pandering to a minority.

It seems to me that if you want to hike in peaceful solitude, maybe you
should restrict your hiking to NPS properties. Since bikes are not allowed,
then you should be able to hike in peace and quiet.

Just for your own edification, the NPS is not required to block bicycle
access to its properties, it is only allowed to if it thinks it may be
necessary for the greater good of the overall visitor base. I know you don't
like to get bogged down by fact, but reality is harsh sometimes.
 
> Irrelevant. YOU didn't read it. He's a physician who has to deal with
mountain
> biking injuries. That's why he KNOWS that mountain biking is more

dangerous than
> street riding.


What is irrelevant? The fact that the author is a street rider, or that the
publication you cited is a survey on the various kinds of injuries that
street riders sustain, and what causes them to sustain those injuries? Which
is irrelevant?

The article has only one paragraph that even discusses mountain bike
injuries, and it is anecdotal information from only 72 of the respondants to
the survey. The actual topic of the survey is the various sorts of injuries
that bike riders sustain, and the causes of those injuries. The author is
associated with street riding, and maintains his Website to the benefit of
the street bike community. Of the few respondants that addressed the
mountain bike injuries (presumably there are street bike affectionados that
also enjoy mountain biking, but by the tone of the information presented,
these two types of bike riding are usually not done by the same person -
which might explain why there are only 72 respondants to the mountain biking
questions), it was the bike riders themselves that said that they felt
mountain biking was safer, but when the data was analyzed, it turns out that
they all had similar types of injuries at similar rates. They all felt that
their experience was somewhat unique, but it turns out that the experiences
were much more common than thought. The paragraph you cite as the most
important in the article is in fact a "passing statement" that ran tangent
to the actual topic. The article is about the various types of injuries, and
their causes, that bike riders sustain while riding on the street.
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> You completely missed the point of the report, which was that mountain
> biking is TWICE as dangerous as street biking.
> ===


Really, that was the point of the whole report? Amazing that it only took
up one paragraph (and that you convienently igored the last part).
 
"Brett Jaffee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > You completely missed the point of the report, which was that mountain
> > biking is TWICE as dangerous as street biking.
> > ===

>
> Really, that was the point of the whole report? Amazing that it only took
> up one paragraph (and that you convienently igored the last part).



It is interesting that Mike ignores the entire aspect of "per mile" with
talking about the impacts of riding vs. the impacts of hiking. He claims
that because bikes go further they do more damage, yet it is well documented
that just going further is no guarantee that more damage can be done. In
fact, the types of soil that hikers prefer are more prone to displacement
than the types of siol that bkie riders prefer. Therefore it stands to
reason thatdisplaced soil is more likely to occur under the boots of a hiker
than under the tires of a bike rider.

The interesting thing is that the injury rate on a mountain bike is only
10.5% of the injuries reported for all types of bike riding, meaning that
89.5% of injuries happen while riding bikes other than mountain bikes. But,
Mike conveniently gloms on to the part of the study that says "per mile",
mountain bikes have a higher injury rate. "Per mile" fits his agenda in one
argument, but does not fit his agenda in another argument, so he not only
ignores it, he refutes it.

PS
Mike, the point of the report wasn't that mountain bikes are dangerous.
Indeed, the report seems to illustrate the types of injuries that bike
riders might sustain, and the cause factors of those injuries.
 
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:37:46 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:eek:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:38 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:33:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
..<[email protected]>
..> .wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .>
..> .> .> The point is that mountain bikers LIE. CONSTANTLY! Thanks for
..helping
..> .me
..> .> .prove
..> .> .> my case against mountain biking. If mountain bikers are that
..dangerous
..> .to
..> .> .> THEMSELVES, then they are just as dangerous to other people and
..> .wildlife,
..> .> .and
..> .> .> mountain biking deserves to be banned. You have the right to destroy
..> .> .yourself,
..> .> .> but not anyone else.
..> .> .>
..> .> .
..> .> .There is no logical link to what injuries a bike rider might give
..himself
..> .> .and what he might do to others that use the same trail.
..> .>
..> .> Yes, there is. People who aren't careful are dangerous to everyone
..around
..> .them.
..> .>
..> .
..> .However remote the truth might be in what you say, you have no evidence
..to
..> .support your silly assertion.
..> .
..> .
..> .
..> .> For example, cars
..> .> .run over pedestrians all the time, but I have never in my life come
..close
..> .to
..> .> .hitting a hiker while driving my Jeep offroad. I have crashed my Jeep
..on
..> .> .more than one occasion and exposed myself to injuries that thankfully
..I
..> .> .didn't actually receive. But, in none of those instances, or any other
..> .> .instance, have I ever operated my machine in a manner which is
..hazardous
..> .to
..> .> .pedestrians on the trail.
..> .> .
..> .> .A mountain bike rider can easily hurt himself each and every time he
..gets
..> .on
..> .> .his bike, but never pose a threat to anybody but himself.
..> .>
..> .> That's a blatant LIE -- nothing new for you.
..> .
..> .Please provide a cite.
..>
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm.
..> ===
..
..Mike, you ignorant ****! That ruling says that the NPS is within its bounds
..to regulate all manner of traffic within its properties. It is reasonable
..that the NPS consider the comfort and safety of all visitors, not just one
..group. And, when making such consideration of all groups, it may turn out
..that one group or another will think they are adversely affected, but too
..bad. The NPS is burdened with protection of the greatest number of visitors,
..not pandering to a minority.
..
..It seems to me that if you want to hike in peaceful solitude, maybe you
..should restrict your hiking to NPS properties. Since bikes are not allowed,
..then you should be able to hike in peace and quiet.
..
..Just for your own edification, the NPS is not required to block bicycle
..access to its properties, it is only allowed to if it thinks it may be
..necessary for the greater good of the overall visitor base. I know you don't
..like to get bogged down by fact, but reality is harsh sometimes.

You missed the point by a mile. You said a mountain biker "never pose a threat
to anybody but himself". That case documented hundreds of complaints from hikers
and equestrians who were endangered by bikers. Learn to read.
===
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
 
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

..> Irrelevant. YOU didn't read it. He's a physician who has to deal with
..mountain
..> biking injuries. That's why he KNOWS that mountain biking is more
..dangerous than
..> street riding.
..
..What is irrelevant? The fact that the author is a street rider, or that the
..publication you cited is a survey on the various kinds of injuries that
..street riders sustain, and what causes them to sustain those injuries?

Not true. It included mountain bikers.

Which
..is irrelevant?

That he's a street biker.

..The article has only one paragraph that even discusses mountain bike
..injuries, and it is anecdotal information from only 72 of the respondants to
..the survey. The actual topic of the survey is the various sorts of injuries
..that bike riders sustain, and the causes of those injuries. The author is
..associated with street riding, and maintains his Website to the benefit of
..the street bike community. Of the few respondants that addressed the
..mountain bike injuries (presumably there are street bike affectionados that
..also enjoy mountain biking, but by the tone of the information presented,
..these two types of bike riding are usually not done by the same person -
..which might explain why there are only 72 respondants to the mountain biking
..questions), it was the bike riders themselves that said that they felt
..mountain biking was safer, but when the data was analyzed, it turns out that
..they all had similar types of injuries at similar rates. They all felt that
..their experience was somewhat unique, but it turns out that the experiences
..were much more common than thought. The paragraph you cite as the most
..important in the article is in fact a "passing statement" that ran tangent
..to the actual topic. The article is about the various types of injuries, and
..their causes, that bike riders sustain while riding on the street.
..

===
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
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .> Irrelevant. YOU didn't read it. He's a physician who has to deal with
> .mountain
> .> biking injuries. That's why he KNOWS that mountain biking is more
> .dangerous than
> .> street riding.
> .
> .What is irrelevant? The fact that the author is a street rider, or that the
> .publication you cited is a survey on the various kinds of injuries that
> .street riders sustain, and what causes them to sustain those injuries?
>
> Not true. It included mountain bikers.


"Most of the participants spent the majority of their riding time on road bicycles.
Mountain bike riding accounted for 429,000 miles, 5.7% of total miles ridden. 18%
of participants used mountain bikes more than 10% of miles ridden."
Even the chart of reported injuries showed only 11% of the total as injuries
sustained while moutain biking.
You said "He's a physician who has to deal with mountain biking injuries."
Incorrect. The study focused on cycling injuries in total. Only a small percentage
(cited above) related to moutain bikes. You cited the ENTIRE STUDY to attempt to
illustrate your view. A lie of omission is still a lie, Mr Double Standard.
You also disregard his summary: "This is a report of a survey of the San Diego
Cyclo-Vets, a well established Masters bicycling club. The response rate to the
survey was 95%. The survey is based on 81 riders.
The injury rates reported reflect only this group, and may not be applicable to
cycling groups or individuals in general, or to similar riders in other parts of
the country, or in other countries."

and you call mt bikers "liars".... Have you found your definition of "opinion"
and "hypocrite" yet?

>
>
> Which
> .is irrelevant?
>
> That he's a street biker.
>
> .The article has only one paragraph that even discusses mountain bike
> .injuries, and it is anecdotal information from only 72 of the respondants to
> .the survey. The actual topic of the survey is the various sorts of injuries
> .that bike riders sustain, and the causes of those injuries. The author is
> .associated with street riding, and maintains his Website to the benefit of
> .the street bike community. Of the few respondants that addressed the
> .mountain bike injuries (presumably there are street bike affectionados that
> .also enjoy mountain biking, but by the tone of the information presented,
> .these two types of bike riding are usually not done by the same person -
> .which might explain why there are only 72 respondants to the mountain biking
> .questions), it was the bike riders themselves that said that they felt
> .mountain biking was safer, but when the data was analyzed, it turns out that
> .they all had similar types of injuries at similar rates. They all felt that
> .their experience was somewhat unique, but it turns out that the experiences
> .were much more common than thought. The paragraph you cite as the most
> .important in the article is in fact a "passing statement" that ran tangent
> .to the actual topic. The article is about the various types of injuries, and
> .their causes, that bike riders sustain while riding on the street.
> .
>
> ===
> 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
 
> This study found that mountain biking is TWICE as dangerous as
> road riding.


Data does not compute.

What is "dangerous"? Is it binary or analog? If binary, would both
a knee laceration and getting disembowled by the undercarriage of a
car qualify?

If analog, I'd have to see the table of weights assigned to various
types of injury.

Cuts-and-bruises-wise, I'd go the so-called study one better and say
the mountain biking causes at least ten times the number of
non-lethal/non-catastrophic injuries than road riding does.... for an
aggressive rider, maybe twenty....heck...maybe fifty...

But my intuition says that most people who quit road riding because of
"danger" are referring to getting killed or crippled. That's
certainly been my own rationale.
 
> You missed the point by a mile. You said a mountain biker "never pose a
threat
> to anybody but himself". That case documented hundreds of complaints from

hikers
> and equestrians who were endangered by bikers. Learn to read.


You missed the point by an entire planet. You drag out a completely
irrelevent cite to support a completely irrelevent lie.

Cars pose a danger to people walking on the freeway, but we don't restrict
cars from the freeway, we restrict the pedestrians. In the realm of the NPS,
its properties "generally" attract a preponderance of pedestrians. Mixing
them with relatively high speed traffic of wheeled vehicles poses a danger,
so it restricts the minority population (wheeled vehicles) in order to
provide a greater level of comfort and safety to the majority population.

Not only can the NPS do this, it is a smart move that they do this.
 
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:24:15 -0400, Steve Curtiss <[email protected]>
wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .> Irrelevant. YOU didn't read it. He's a physician who has to deal with
..> .mountain
..> .> biking injuries. That's why he KNOWS that mountain biking is more
..> .dangerous than
..> .> street riding.
..> .
..> .What is irrelevant? The fact that the author is a street rider, or that the
..> .publication you cited is a survey on the various kinds of injuries that
..> .street riders sustain, and what causes them to sustain those injuries?
..>
..> Not true. It included mountain bikers.
..
.."Most of the participants spent the majority of their riding time on road bicycles.
..Mountain bike riding accounted for 429,000 miles, 5.7% of total miles ridden. 18%
..of participants used mountain bikes more than 10% of miles ridden."
.. Even the chart of reported injuries showed only 11% of the total as injuries
..sustained while moutain biking.
..You said "He's a physician who has to deal with mountain biking injuries."
..Incorrect. The study focused on cycling injuries in total. Only a small percentage
..(cited above) related to moutain bikes. You cited the ENTIRE STUDY to attempt to
..illustrate your view. A lie of omission is still a lie, Mr Double Standard.
..You also disregard his summary: "This is a report of a survey of the San Diego
..Cyclo-Vets, a well established Masters bicycling club. The response rate to the
..survey was 95%. The survey is based on 81 riders.
..The injury rates reported reflect only this group, and may not be applicable to
..cycling groups or individuals in general, or to similar riders in other parts of
..the country, or in other countries."

But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street biking.
Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.

===
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
 
On 10 Apr 2004 08:25:01 -0700, [email protected] (PeteCresswell) wrote:

..> This study found that mountain biking is TWICE as dangerous as
..> road riding.
..
..Data does not compute.
..
..What is "dangerous"? Is it binary or analog? If binary, would both
..a knee laceration and getting disembowled by the undercarriage of a
..car qualify?

Why don't you READ it? DUH!

..If analog, I'd have to see the table of weights assigned to various
..types of injury.
..
..Cuts-and-bruises-wise, I'd go the so-called study one better and say
..the mountain biking causes at least ten times the number of
..non-lethal/non-catastrophic injuries than road riding does.... for an
..aggressive rider, maybe twenty....heck...maybe fifty...
..
..But my intuition says that most people who quit road riding because of
.."danger" are referring to getting killed or crippled. That's
..certainly been my own rationale.

===
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
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>

wrote:
>
> .> Irrelevant. YOU didn't read it. He's a physician who has to deal with
> .mountain
> .> biking injuries. That's why he KNOWS that mountain biking is more
> .dangerous than
> .> street riding.
> .
> .What is irrelevant? The fact that the author is a street rider, or that

the
> .publication you cited is a survey on the various kinds of injuries that
> .street riders sustain, and what causes them to sustain those injuries?
>
> Not true. It included mountain bikers.
>


The focus was not mountain biking. The focus was injuries sustained while
riding a bike, predominantly a street bike. The focus group is a street
riding bike association, of which a small portion of respondants also
apparently ride a mountain bike on occasion. The data is not even broken
down on mountain bikes as to the type of injuries sustained or the causes of
those injuries. Indeed, there were only 10% of all injuries that were
associated with mountain bike activites. The ONLY reason that the mountain
biking is deemed to be "twice as dangerous" is that time spent on a mountain
bike is only a fraction of the time spent on a street bike. If the time AND
the number of respondants was extrapolated out to be equal to the population
and duration of street riding, then there would be more injuries, perhaps.
But, one must consider the causes of those injuries to ascribe a danger
level to the activity. Most people will accept that self-caused injuries are
avoidable and therefore of a different danger level, but injuries caused by
outside sources (other participants in the activity or other
non-participants that are sharing the same space as the participants)
represents on uncontrollable influence that is yet another danger level.
Running on a cobblestone street is inherently dangerous because the surface
is uneven, and maybe even unstable. Running on a cobblestone street in a
crowd with a bunch of bulls chasing you is an entirely different kind of
danger. Riding a bike with trees and rocks whizzing by is one level of
danger, riding a bike with cars and trucks invading your space is a
completely different level of danger.


> Which
> .is irrelevant?
>
> That he's a street biker.
>


It isn't irrelevant at all that he is a street rider. That is the entire
point of his survey. The fact that his survey touched on mountain biking at
all is irrelevant.



> .The article has only one paragraph that even discusses mountain bike
> .injuries, and it is anecdotal information from only 72 of the respondants

to
> .the survey. The actual topic of the survey is the various sorts of

injuries
> .that bike riders sustain, and the causes of those injuries. The author is
> .associated with street riding, and maintains his Website to the benefit

of
> .the street bike community. Of the few respondants that addressed the
> .mountain bike injuries (presumably there are street bike affectionados

that
> .also enjoy mountain biking, but by the tone of the information presented,
> .these two types of bike riding are usually not done by the same person -
> .which might explain why there are only 72 respondants to the mountain

biking
> .questions), it was the bike riders themselves that said that they felt
> .mountain biking was safer, but when the data was analyzed, it turns out

that
> .they all had similar types of injuries at similar rates. They all felt

that
> .their experience was somewhat unique, but it turns out that the

experiences
> .were much more common than thought. The paragraph you cite as the most
> .important in the article is in fact a "passing statement" that ran

tangent
> .to the actual topic. The article is about the various types of injuries,

and
> .their causes, that bike riders sustain while riding on the street.
> .
>

Your avoidance of fact is noted. I think this is termed a lie of omission.
You are the liar.