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