Mountain Biking Injury Report



On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
..wrote:
..
..>Mike Vandeman wrote:
..>
..>> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
..>> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
..>> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
..>
..>Mike, you have been caught in another lie. Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
..>good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
..>your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
..
..So, studies that do not agree with your opinion are biased.

No, studies that are unscientific are biased.

===
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
news:[email protected]:

>
> That is not to say deaths caused by
> .mt. biking don't exist, simply to point out when compared to road
> riding .they are extremely rare. That is because most mountain bikers
> do not .ride where there are cars. REmove the cars and you remove the
> most .signficant (if you disagree with this point you really are an
> idiot, .because gov stats bear it out) element that kill cyclist.
>
> I'm still waiting for the scientific data. You don't have any,
>

Liar. Read the study which you posted.
 
Mike Vandeman wrote:

> .
> .Government statistics bear out these findings. Look them up.
>
> So you continue to refuse to cite any scientific data.

The gov stats are considered scientific data you ninny. Look them up.

>
> So I
> .suggest you crawl back into your silly little hovel.
> .
> .And if you have a hard time believing it. I dare you to come up with 5
> .people that died from mt. biking in all of California in 2003. I can
> .come up with 5 cyclist that died in the South Bay Area by dumbass cars
> .in the last few months (3 in the last six weeks no less).
>
>
> Irrelevant, unless you divide by the number of riders.
>
You really are an idiot. Mt. biking is an extremely popular sport, mt.
bikes outsell road bikes (industry stats). Even if mt. biking was only
10% as popular as road riding. A couple of hundred (or more) mt. bikers
would have to die a year to maintain pace with road riding. Mt. bike
deaths are very rare and the vast majority are related to racing. In
other words, if you ride a mt. bike and do not race, the probability
that you may die while riding is nearly zero. On the other hand, your
chances of being killed by a car (see the news stories of the cyclist
killed in Santa Rosa yesterday and his girlfriend in a coma - hit by a
drunk driver) while not exceptionally high, are sadly much higher than
they should be and are usually at the back of my mind, even though I
chose to log a few thousand miles a year on the road. While riding off
road, I may someday make a judgment error and bang myself up, but I will
almost certainly not die - as cars are absent; remember the single
greatest cause of cycling deaths - way too many studies to quote (but if
you are not so stupid you can easily find them - as the one you cite
makes the point fairly clearly)

Again read the study you brought into this group. The single greatest
cause of serious or fatal injuries to cyclist are cars (that is a fact,
I guess you do not consider the stats collected by the federal highway
folks and other gov agencies good enough for you). Most injuries (as
noted by your article) of mt. bikers are self-induced injuries, the
single greatest cause of death for road cyclist is simply non-existent
for mt. biking. Are you so incapable of following logic and accepting
gov stats that disprove your claims, that you cling to foolish concepts.
A simple observable fact would need to be true for your assertion
that similar time in the saddle for mt. biking is more likely to lead to
death than road riding - that is hundreds of mt. bikers would need to
die each year world-wide. And as you can see, you could not even find
a half a dozen mt. bikers who died in all of California in 2003, but I
can find that many road riders who died in the Bay Area in the last
couple of months.

>
> .
> .You sight one non-peered review article and claim it to be science and
> .then wildly extrapolate as to what the authors said.
>
> No, I quoted them exactly. It's a small study, but you have failed to provide
> anything better.

The study you quoted found road cyclist died more often the mt. bikers
(in fact they did not record one mt. bike fatality). And the fact that
mt. bike deaths world-wide the last year (and probably the last 5 yrs)
are less than the fatalities of road cyclist in the Bay Area the last
two months. Are you going to suggest that road cyclist in the Bay Area
log more time in the saddle than all mt. biking world wide the last few
years - not even you are that stupid (we are all waiting for your next
inane post to prove me wrong - I suspect you are that stupid).

Yes, locate and read the gov stats you moron - you refuse to read
information that clearly refutes your argument. I have no problem
believing that mt. bikers crash more often than road riders, just as
the observable facts are clear, your chances of dying while riding a
bicycle is much greater on the road then while mt. biking (if you do not
race, the odds approach zero - the converse with road riding is sadly
not true - maybe if you actually succeed in reducing are dependency on
cars my risk of death while road riding will also approach zero - but
given your track record I am not holding my breath).


> If you actually
> .read the paper, you would see the authors were rather cautious not to
> .take this too far. You would also see they quoted a signficant number
> .of fatalities of road riders that were known to have been killed, many
> .of them locally. Not one case of a mt. biker. So if this study is so
> .great (as you seem to suggest) then the fact that the authors are
> .unaware of any local deaths of a mt. biker is signficant. Don't be such
> .a dumbass.
> .
> .
> .> .So Mikey, as pointed out by many others you continue to lie, in fact
> .> .you are the largest liar on this NG.
> .>
> .> I am still waiting for you guys to show me one single lie I have allegedly made.

That your logical.
 
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:53:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> .
..> .Government statistics bear out these findings. Look them up.
..>
..> So you continue to refuse to cite any scientific data.
..
..The gov stats are considered scientific data you ninny. Look them up.

So you continue to refuse to cite any. Figures.

..>
..> So I
..> .suggest you crawl back into your silly little hovel.
..> .
..> .And if you have a hard time believing it. I dare you to come up with 5
..> .people that died from mt. biking in all of California in 2003. I can
..> .come up with 5 cyclist that died in the South Bay Area by dumbass cars
..> .in the last few months (3 in the last six weeks no less).
..>
..>
..> Irrelevant, unless you divide by the number of riders.
..>
..You really are an idiot. Mt. biking is an extremely popular sport, mt.
..bikes outsell road bikes (industry stats). Even if mt. biking was only
..10% as popular as road riding. A couple of hundred (or more) mt. bikers
..would have to die a year to maintain pace with road riding. Mt. bike
..deaths are very rare and the vast majority are related to racing. In
..other words, if you ride a mt. bike and do not race, the probability
..that you may die while riding is nearly zero. On the other hand, your
..chances of being killed by a car (see the news stories of the cyclist
..killed in Santa Rosa yesterday and his girlfriend in a coma - hit by a
..drunk driver) while not exceptionally high, are sadly much higher than
..they should be and are usually at the back of my mind, even though I
..chose to log a few thousand miles a year on the road. While riding off
..road, I may someday make a judgment error and bang myself up, but I will
..almost certainly not die - as cars are absent; remember the single
..greatest cause of cycling deaths - way too many studies to quote (but if
..you are not so stupid you can easily find them - as the one you cite
..makes the point fairly clearly)
..
..Again read the study you brought into this group. The single greatest
..cause of serious or fatal injuries to cyclist are cars (that is a fact,
..I guess you do not consider the stats collected by the federal highway
..folks and other gov agencies good enough for you). Most injuries (as
..noted by your article) of mt. bikers are self-induced injuries, the
..single greatest cause of death for road cyclist is simply non-existent
..for mt. biking. Are you so incapable of following logic and accepting
..gov stats that disprove your claims, that you cling to foolish concepts.
.. A simple observable fact would need to be true for your assertion
..that similar time in the saddle for mt. biking is more likely to lead to
..death than road riding - that is hundreds of mt. bikers would need to
..die each year world-wide. And as you can see, you could not even find
..a half a dozen mt. bikers who died in all of California in 2003, but I
..can find that many road riders who died in the Bay Area in the last
..couple of months.
..
..>
..> .
..> .You sight one non-peered review article and claim it to be science and
..> .then wildly extrapolate as to what the authors said.
..>
..> No, I quoted them exactly. It's a small study, but you have failed to provide
..> anything better.
..
..The study you quoted found road cyclist died more often the mt. bikers
..(in fact they did not record one mt. bike fatality). And the fact that
..mt. bike deaths world-wide the last year (and probably the last 5 yrs)
..are less than the fatalities of road cyclist in the Bay Area the last
..two months. Are you going to suggest that road cyclist in the Bay Area
..log more time in the saddle than all mt. biking world wide the last few
..years - not even you are that stupid (we are all waiting for your next
..inane post to prove me wrong - I suspect you are that stupid).
..
..Yes, locate and read the gov stats you moron - you refuse to read
..information that clearly refutes your argument. I have no problem
..believing that mt. bikers crash more often than road riders, just as
..the observable facts are clear, your chances of dying while riding a
..bicycle is much greater on the road then while mt. biking (if you do not
..race, the odds approach zero - the converse with road riding is sadly
..not true - maybe if you actually succeed in reducing are dependency on
..cars my risk of death while road riding will also approach zero - but
..given your track record I am not holding my breath).
..
..
..> If you actually
..> .read the paper, you would see the authors were rather cautious not to
..> .take this too far. You would also see they quoted a signficant number
..> .of fatalities of road riders that were known to have been killed, many
..> .of them locally. Not one case of a mt. biker. So if this study is so
..> .great (as you seem to suggest) then the fact that the authors are
..> .unaware of any local deaths of a mt. biker is signficant. Don't be such
..> .a dumbass.
..> .
..> .
..> .> .So Mikey, as pointed out by many others you continue to lie, in fact
..> .> .you are the largest liar on this NG.
..> .>
..> .> I am still waiting for you guys to show me one single lie I have allegedly made.
..
..That your logical.

===
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 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> On 11 Apr 2004 20:09:14 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:55:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins wrote:
> .> .
> .> .> Keep in mind the authors were very careful at the end of the article
> .> .> (not published in a peer review journal mind you - but informative
> .> .> notheless) to note, do not extrapolate these results to other groups of
> .> .> cylclist.
> .> .
> .> .So of course that's exactly what Vandeman does!
> .> .
> .> . They are not sure how consistent these results will compare
> .> .> with the public at large. This was a survey of a racing club in San
> .> .> Diego that mostly raced on the road.
> .> .
> .> .Actually, the vast majority of their riding will be training on the road.
> .> .Road racers will put in several miles of training for every mile of
> .> .racing.
> .> .
> .> .Keep in mind, these are experienced road riders and they know how to ride
> .> .to minimize their risks; less-experienced road riders will likely have far
> .> .higher injury rates and deaths per mile. We had three in one week last
> .> .summer in Portland. We've never had a mountain biking death AFAIK.
> .> .
> .> .The good thing about mountain biking is that "Most crashes result in only
> .> .minor injuries such as abrasions, contusions, and lacerations"
> .> .(http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1998/03mar/kronisch.htm).
> .>
> .> "650 mountain bikers who participated in surveys": people who died weren't able
> .> to participate in the surveys, so they aren't a representative sample.
> .>
> .> "The
> .> .incidence of injuries in mountain biking is comparable to that in other
> .> .outdoor sports, the majority of injuries being minor."
> .> .(http://webdb.iu.edu/Hperweb/iole/index.cfm?fuseaction=getdetails&Id=171)
> .> .
> .> .Note that the last study was a survey of 3474 mountain bikers - far more
> .> .relevant that Vandeman's extrapolation of a study of 81 road riders.
> .> .That's why this real science matches reality, and Vandeman's junk science
> .> .doesn't.
> .>
> .> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
> .> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
> .> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
> .
> .Mike, you have been caught in another lie.
>
> What's the lie?
>

Mikey, there is no grand conspiracy. Mt. bike deaths, when they occur
are sensational and hit the news - they are reported in every bike
magazine. By all measures (and stats), there are simply damn few mt.
bike deaths world-wide. So unless there the mt. bike industry is
engaged in an active conspiracy - you have been caught being stupid -
again. Any scientist will tell you that you form testable hypothesis
from observable facts. For your hypothesis to be true (mt. bikers die
more often the road riders - in other words a measure of risk) you would
have to have some inkling that mt. bike deaths occur more often. Now
the survey you quoted reported quite a few fatalities that road cyclist
suffered, but not one mt. bike death. I have challenged you to come up
with a handful of deaths in all of California in 2003 (the observable
facts you would need to build your hypothesis - and yet you fail to do
so and simply respond where is your scientific study). As you have made
a remarkable claim that flies in the face of the survey you quote and
observable facts (almost no mt. bike deaths), the burden is on you not
us. So where is your study that show mt. biking is more likely to
result in death than road riding. Above study is not biased as you
claim, sense you would be hard pressed to come up with more than a
handful of mt. bike deaths world-wide.


> Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
> .good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
> .your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
> .Virtually every cyclist knows of several road riders (usually not more
> .than 2 or 3 degrees of seperation) that were killed while riding, almost
> .always by cars. I know of no mt. biker that knows of a another mt.
> .biker that died while mt. biking.
>
> Anecdotal evidence. Inadmissible.

You fail to recognize observable facts. Mt. bike deaths are rare, that
is observable. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite, the
survey you quote does not supports your hypothesis, in fact if provides
contrary evidence.

> That is not to say deaths caused by
> .mt. biking don't exist, simply to point out when compared to road riding
> .they are extremely rare. That is because most mountain bikers do not
> .ride where there are cars. REmove the cars and you remove the most
> .signficant (if you disagree with this point you really are an idiot,
> .because gov stats bear it out) element that kill cyclist.
>
> I'm still waiting for the scientific data. You don't have any,

See above.

> ===
> 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 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>
> .On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
> .wrote:
> .
> .>Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .>
> .>> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
> .>> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
> .>> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
> .>
> .>Mike, you have been caught in another lie. Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
> .>good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
> .>your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
> .
> .So, studies that do not agree with your opinion are biased.
>
> No, studies that are unscientific are biased.

Gov stats which are observable facts are biased?

Mike provide one shred of evidence anything that shows that mt. bike
deaths are anything but extremely rare. For example, the survey you
quote disproves your argument. I do not need a scientific study when
the observable facts are almost no deaths a year compared to hundreds.
Provide one study which documents mt. bike deaths being 1/100th of road
cyclist deaths. The burden is on you. Because the observable facts
(extreme rarity of mt. bike deaths world wide) fail to support your
case. YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE STUDY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION THAT
RIDING A MT. BIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH MORE OFTEN THEN RIDING A RODE
BIKE. IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

> ===
> 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 Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:53:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> .
> .> .Government statistics bear out these findings. Look them up.
> .>
> .> So you continue to refuse to cite any scientific data.
> .
> .The gov stats are considered scientific data you ninny. Look them up.
>
> So you continue to refuse to cite any. Figures.

YOu are the one who have made some rather remarkable claims with no
science or data to back you up. The survey you quote disproves your
contention regarding cycling deaths while mt. biking vs. road riding.
Yet you demand studies. So provide one study that shows that the death
rate amongst mt. bikers is greater than road riders. So far you have
failed to do so. The observable facts (the extreme rarity of mt. bike
deaths) are not in your favor, and you have not been able to refute that
point. Where are your data dumbass.
 
Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

> YOu are the one who have made some rather remarkable claims with no
> science or data to back you up.

Does mozilla not have a kill-file?
 
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:23:20 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .
..> .> On 11 Apr 2004 20:09:14 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:55:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins wrote:
..> .> .
..> .> .> Keep in mind the authors were very careful at the end of the article
..> .> .> (not published in a peer review journal mind you - but informative
..> .> .> notheless) to note, do not extrapolate these results to other groups of
..> .> .> cylclist.
..> .> .
..> .> .So of course that's exactly what Vandeman does!
..> .> .
..> .> . They are not sure how consistent these results will compare
..> .> .> with the public at large. This was a survey of a racing club in San
..> .> .> Diego that mostly raced on the road.
..> .> .
..> .> .Actually, the vast majority of their riding will be training on the road.
..> .> .Road racers will put in several miles of training for every mile of
..> .> .racing.
..> .> .
..> .> .Keep in mind, these are experienced road riders and they know how to ride
..> .> .to minimize their risks; less-experienced road riders will likely have far
..> .> .higher injury rates and deaths per mile. We had three in one week last
..> .> .summer in Portland. We've never had a mountain biking death AFAIK.
..> .> .
..> .> .The good thing about mountain biking is that "Most crashes result in only
..> .> .minor injuries such as abrasions, contusions, and lacerations"
..> .> .(http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1998/03mar/kronisch.htm).
..> .>
..> .> "650 mountain bikers who participated in surveys": people who died weren't able
..> .> to participate in the surveys, so they aren't a representative sample.
..> .>
..> .> "The
..> .> .incidence of injuries in mountain biking is comparable to that in other
..> .> .outdoor sports, the majority of injuries being minor."
..> .> .(http://webdb.iu.edu/Hperweb/iole/index.cfm?fuseaction=getdetails&Id=171)
..> .> .
..> .> .Note that the last study was a survey of 3474 mountain bikers - far more
..> .> .relevant that Vandeman's extrapolation of a study of 81 road riders.
..> .> .That's why this real science matches reality, and Vandeman's junk science
..> .> .doesn't.
..> .>
..> .> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
..> .> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
..> .> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
..> .
..> .Mike, you have been caught in another lie.
..>
..> What's the lie?
..>
..
..Mikey, there is no grand conspiracy. Mt. bike deaths, when they occur
..are sensational and hit the news - they are reported in every bike
..magazine. By all measures (and stats), there are simply damn few mt.
..bike deaths world-wide. So unless there the mt. bike industry is
..engaged in an active conspiracy - you have been caught being stupid -
..again. Any scientist will tell you that you form testable hypothesis
..from observable facts. For your hypothesis to be true (mt. bikers die
..more often the road riders - in other words a measure of risk)

You are lying. I never said that.

you would
..have to have some inkling that mt. bike deaths occur more often. Now
..the survey you quoted reported quite a few fatalities that road cyclist
..suffered, but not one mt. bike death. I have challenged you to come up
..with a handful of deaths in all of California in 2003 (the observable
..facts you would need to build your hypothesis - and yet you fail to do
..so and simply respond where is your scientific study). As you have made
..a remarkable claim that flies in the face of the survey you quote and
..observable facts (almost no mt. bike deaths), the burden is on you not
..us. So where is your study that show mt. biking is more likely to
..result in death than road riding.

I never said that, liar.

Above study is not biased as you
..claim, sense you would be hard pressed to come up with more than a
..handful of mt. bike deaths world-wide.

It's biased because DEAD mountain bikers can't answer a survey! Also because
survey results are NOTORIOUSLY biased: people LIE. You prove that every time you
open your mouth.

..> Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
..> .good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
..> .your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
..> .Virtually every cyclist knows of several road riders (usually not more
..> .than 2 or 3 degrees of seperation) that were killed while riding, almost
..> .always by cars. I know of no mt. biker that knows of a another mt.
..> .biker that died while mt. biking.
..>
..> Anecdotal evidence. Inadmissible.
..
..You fail to recognize observable facts. Mt. bike deaths are rare, that
..is observable. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite, the
..survey you quote does not supports your hypothesis, in fact if provides
..contrary evidence.
..
..> That is not to say deaths caused by
..> .mt. biking don't exist, simply to point out when compared to road riding
..> .they are extremely rare. That is because most mountain bikers do not
..> .ride where there are cars. REmove the cars and you remove the most
..> .signficant (if you disagree with this point you really are an idiot,
..> .because gov stats bear it out) element that kill cyclist.
..>
..> I'm still waiting for the scientific data. You don't have any,
..
..See above.

That's not scientific, and says NOTHING about deaths! It was a SURVEY! DUH!
===
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, 13 Apr 2004 06:29:39 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
..>
..> .On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
..> .wrote:
..> .
..> .>Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .>
..> .>> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
..> .>> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
..> .>> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
..> .>
..> .>Mike, you have been caught in another lie. Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
..> .>good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
..> .>your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
..> .
..> .So, studies that do not agree with your opinion are biased.
..>
..> No, studies that are unscientific are biased.
..
..Gov stats which are observable facts are biased?

Where are they? You have yet to cite a single one.

..Mike provide one shred of evidence anything that shows that mt. bike
..deaths are anything but extremely rare.

Easy. I have heard of several in my area. In a local park, a racer was in a coma
for months after crashing.

For example, the survey you
..quote disproves your argument.

BS. Science doesn't disprove. It only fails to give information.

I do not need a scientific study when
..the observable facts are almost no deaths a year compared to hundreds.

So you admit that you have none.

..Provide one study which documents mt. bike deaths being 1/100th of road
..cyclist deaths. The burden is on you.

No, it isn't, because I never said anything about that. YOU did.

Because the observable facts
..(extreme rarity of mt. bike deaths world wide) fail to support your
..case. YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE STUDY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION THAT
..RIDING A MT. BIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH MORE OFTEN THEN RIDING A RODE
..BIKE. IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

BS. I never asserted that, liar.
===
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, 13 Apr 2004 06:35:08 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 05:53:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .
..> .> .
..> .> .Government statistics bear out these findings. Look them up.
..> .>
..> .> So you continue to refuse to cite any scientific data.
..> .
..> .The gov stats are considered scientific data you ninny. Look them up.
..>
..> So you continue to refuse to cite any. Figures.
..
..YOu are the one who have made some rather remarkable claims with no
..science or data to back you up. The survey you quote disproves your
..contention regarding cycling deaths while mt. biking vs. road riding.

I never made any such "contention", liar.

..Yet you demand studies. So provide one study that shows that the death
..rate amongst mt. bikers is greater than road riders. So far you have
..failed to do so. The observable facts (the extreme rarity of mt. bike
..deaths) are not in your favor, and you have not been able to refute that
..point. Where are your data dumbass.
..

===
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 Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:23:20 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> .>
> .> .
> .> .
> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> .
> .> .> On 11 Apr 2004 20:09:14 GMT, BB <[email protected]> wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .> .On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:55:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins wrote:
> .> .> .
> .> .> .> Keep in mind the authors were very careful at the end of the article
> .> .> .> (not published in a peer review journal mind you - but informative
> .> .> .> notheless) to note, do not extrapolate these results to other groups of
> .> .> .> cylclist.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .So of course that's exactly what Vandeman does!
> .> .> .
> .> .> . They are not sure how consistent these results will compare
> .> .> .> with the public at large. This was a survey of a racing club in San
> .> .> .> Diego that mostly raced on the road.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Actually, the vast majority of their riding will be training on the road.
> .> .> .Road racers will put in several miles of training for every mile of
> .> .> .racing.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Keep in mind, these are experienced road riders and they know how to ride
> .> .> .to minimize their risks; less-experienced road riders will likely have far
> .> .> .higher injury rates and deaths per mile. We had three in one week last
> .> .> .summer in Portland. We've never had a mountain biking death AFAIK.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .The good thing about mountain biking is that "Most crashes result in only
> .> .> .minor injuries such as abrasions, contusions, and lacerations"
> .> .> .(http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1998/03mar/kronisch.htm).
> .> .>
> .> .> "650 mountain bikers who participated in surveys": people who died weren't able
> .> .> to participate in the surveys, so they aren't a representative sample.
> .> .>
> .> .> "The
> .> .> .incidence of injuries in mountain biking is comparable to that in other
> .> .> .outdoor sports, the majority of injuries being minor."
> .> .> .(http://webdb.iu.edu/Hperweb/iole/index.cfm?fuseaction=getdetails&Id=171)
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Note that the last study was a survey of 3474 mountain bikers - far more
> .> .> .relevant that Vandeman's extrapolation of a study of 81 road riders.
> .> .> .That's why this real science matches reality, and Vandeman's junk science
> .> .> .doesn't.
> .> .>
> .> .> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
> .> .> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
> .> .> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
> .> .
> .> .Mike, you have been caught in another lie.
> .>
> .> What's the lie?
> .>
> .
> .Mikey, there is no grand conspiracy. Mt. bike deaths, when they occur
> .are sensational and hit the news - they are reported in every bike
> .magazine. By all measures (and stats), there are simply damn few mt.
> .bike deaths world-wide. So unless there the mt. bike industry is
> .engaged in an active conspiracy - you have been caught being stupid -
> .again. Any scientist will tell you that you form testable hypothesis
> .from observable facts. For your hypothesis to be true (mt. bikers die
> .more often the road riders - in other words a measure of risk)
>
> You are lying. I never said that.
>
> you would
> .have to have some inkling that mt. bike deaths occur more often. Now
> .the survey you quoted reported quite a few fatalities that road cyclist
> .suffered, but not one mt. bike death. I have challenged you to come up
> .with a handful of deaths in all of California in 2003 (the observable
> .facts you would need to build your hypothesis - and yet you fail to do
> .so and simply respond where is your scientific study). As you have made
> .a remarkable claim that flies in the face of the survey you quote and
> .observable facts (almost no mt. bike deaths), the burden is on you not
> .us. So where is your study that show mt. biking is more likely to
> .result in death than road riding.
>
> I never said that, liar.
>
> Above study is not biased as you
> .claim, sense you would be hard pressed to come up with more than a
> .handful of mt. bike deaths world-wide.
>
> It's biased because DEAD mountain bikers can't answer a survey! Also because
> survey results are NOTORIOUSLY biased: people LIE. You prove that every time you
> open your mouth.

The observable facts is that mt. bike deaths are rare world-wide (do a
search to satisfy yourself) and so the couple individuals that did not
respond would represent an insignificant level.



> .> Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
> .> .good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
> .> .your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
> .> .Virtually every cyclist knows of several road riders (usually not more
> .> .than 2 or 3 degrees of seperation) that were killed while riding, almost
> .> .always by cars. I know of no mt. biker that knows of a another mt.
> .> .biker that died while mt. biking.
> .>
> .> Anecdotal evidence. Inadmissible.
> .
> .You fail to recognize observable facts. Mt. bike deaths are rare, that
> .is observable. If you have evidence to the contrary please cite, the
> .survey you quote does not supports your hypothesis, in fact if provides
> .contrary evidence.
> .
> .> That is not to say deaths caused by
> .> .mt. biking don't exist, simply to point out when compared to road riding
> .> .they are extremely rare. That is because most mountain bikers do not
> .> .ride where there are cars. REmove the cars and you remove the most
> .> .signficant (if you disagree with this point you really are an idiot,
> .> .because gov stats bear it out) element that kill cyclist.
> .>
> .> I'm still waiting for the scientific data. You don't have any,
> .
> .See above.
>
> That's not scientific, and says NOTHING about deaths! It was a SURVEY! DUH!
> ===
> 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 Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:29:39 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
> .>
> .> .On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
> .> .wrote:
> .> .
> .> .>Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> .>
> .> .>> Dead mountain bikers don't respond to surveys. DUH! Another biased "study".
> .> .>> Surveys are also NOTORIOUSLY biased. People lie or don't remember the facts. But
> .> .>> biased "studies" are the mountain bikers' stock in trade.
> .> .>
> .> .>Mike, you have been caught in another lie. Mt. bike deaths are rare. A
> .> .>good scientist uses common sense. You are neither a scientist nor did
> .> .>your parents inpart much common sense on you or it failed to stick.
> .> .
> .> .So, studies that do not agree with your opinion are biased.
> .>
> .> No, studies that are unscientific are biased.
> .
> .Gov stats which are observable facts are biased?
>
> Where are they? You have yet to cite a single one.
>
Check the transportation stats for one for the number of road deaths,
its a bit sobering.

> .Mike provide one shred of evidence anything that shows that mt. bike
> .deaths are anything but extremely rare.
>
> Easy. I have heard of several in my area. In a local park, a racer was in a coma
> for months after crashing.
>
> For example, the survey you
> .quote disproves your argument.
>
> BS. Science doesn't disprove. It only fails to give information.
>
> I do not need a scientific study when
> .the observable facts are almost no deaths a year compared to hundreds.
>
> So you admit that you have none.
>
> .Provide one study which documents mt. bike deaths being 1/100th of road
> .cyclist deaths. The burden is on you.
>
> No, it isn't, because I never said anything about that. YOU did.
>
> Because the observable facts
> .(extreme rarity of mt. bike deaths world wide) fail to support your
> .case. YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE STUDY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION THAT
> .RIDING A MT. BIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH MORE OFTEN THEN RIDING A RODE
> .BIKE. IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
>
> BS. I never asserted that, liar.

Then if you never asserted that (go back and check my post, it all had
to do with comparing the DEATH RATE of road and mt. bike) your arguments
have all been rather stupid. So you can claim I'm a liar, but a review
of your posts will show that I never debated the point of injury and
always focused my debate on the variable death rate. Yet you continued
to argue with me anyway, so you were either sloppy in your reading, or
sloppy in your argument or you were simply lying all along. Your
original assertion was that choosing mt. biking over road riding because
road riding was more dangerous was invalidated due to this San Diego
Survey you quoted. I correctly pointed out, that most individuals who
are risk averse (as my wife) base their decision of risk on death rate
not injury rate. While mt. bikers may become injured more often (a
point I am not debating, as I suspect that a nationwide survey would
support such a hypothesis), they die less often, because of the lack of
cars, the single greatest factor that contributes to the death of
cyclist. The study you cited, supports that contention. Thus, while
you mistakenly focused on injury, most people that choose a riding style
based on risk, due so based on the variable death rate. This whole
argument I suspect is silly anyway, while risk aversion may be a
significant component for some people (as my wife), my speculation is
that risk aversion plays a minor role in most peoples decisions
regarding the type of riding they choose to do.

> ===
> 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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back