Mountain Biking Injury Report

Jeff Strickland

One reported death in the mountain bike community among dozens of deaths
while street riding.
72 respondants to an informal survey of street bike riders.

Hardly a sound basis for any assertion that mountain biking is twice as
dangerous. And, you neglect to mention that there are variables that might
acutally show street riding and more dangerous, and the conclusion of the
paragraph that is your basis is only that mountain biking is more dangerous,
but not that it is twice as dangerous. It seems to me that you are the liar
here.

Mountain bikers seldom get hit by trucks and cars, and the vast majority of
mountain biking accidents are in fact caused by the rider. The vast majority
of street bike accidents are caused by the cars and trucks involved. Read
the data you moron.




"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5fmt6057f5ckok4f84r4u1utji2pnahnpt@4ax.com...
> 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_...ing%20Injury%20
Report%20Oct%20ABC.pdf
> ===
> 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

Jeff Strickland

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5fmt6057f5ckok4f84r4u1utji2pnahnpt@4ax.com...
> 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_...ing%20Injury%20
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, and his Website is designed to
cater to the likes of road bike riders exclusively. There is not a single
reference on his site to "mountain", and the reference in the atricle
attached only asks one question pursuant to mountain biking. The article is
about injuries that bike riders sustain while riding, and is very detailed
in analyzing the results as they pertain to street riding. The reference to
mountain bike injuries gives, at best, a frame of reference of the mindset
of the respondants to the survey questions. Some of the respondants that
ride street bikes also ride mountain bikes, but they do not describe the
extent of the injuries they get while mountain biking. It appears that they
suffer some sort of injury with greater regularity than while riding on the
road, but the data is sketchy at best. There is a detailed list of biking
injuries, and this list only shows one death while mountain biking and it
shows dozens of deaths while road riding.

As usual, Mike's analysis of the information presented focuses on a single
paragraph buried deep within the article that is not substantiated in any
way, but ignores the wealth of other information that the entire article is
based upon.

Mike Vandeman

On 4 Apr 2004 17:59:35 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote:

..On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:57:20 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> .That's a lot worse than anything I've gotten in the last 40 years of road
..> .riding at about 3 - 6 thousand miles/year.
..>
..> Me too, over 55 years.
..
..And yet the bunch they interviewed in that survey missed an average of 17
..DAYS of work due to injuries. I'd consider that pretty damned dangerous!
..Maybe they were just accident-prone. :-)

Look up "statistics" in the dictionary. That's what science is about.
===
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

On 4 Apr 2004 17:49:35 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote:

..On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:49:12 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> .It was a survey of roadies, so its "junk science". :-)
..> .
..> .Lemme see, 89% of the accidents are road, 11% are MTB - so 11/89 > 2?
..>
..> I guess you didn't read it. A greater percentage of mountain bikers have
..> accidents than road bicyclists.
..
..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"?
===
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

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 16:18:38 -0400, "Michael Dart"
<mrdartREMOVE@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:

..In news:5o707057bip8qj32an26lf30rina3imfr0@4ax.com,
..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> typed:
..> On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:15:41 -0500, "Michael Dart"
..> <mrdartREMOVE@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
..>
..> .In news:5fmt6057f5ckok4f84r4u1utji2pnahnpt@4ax.com,
..> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> 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.
..>
..
..In eight years of mountain biking I've never injured another person or
..animal.

That's impossible. I guess you forgot that insects are animals. Liar.

..Mike - pfffftt!!!
..

===
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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:34:16 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
..news:548070lcmn0l55crs7t3rl12ulade0vvgl@4ax.com:
..
..> I have heard of several mountain biker deaths. So have you. Don't try
..> to pretend. Also, they don't just endanger THEMSELVES, of course. They
..> also endanger all the wildlife and people around them.
..
..No one said no one has ever died from mountain biking. Same as with road
..biking, skiing, football, hockey, etc. But the point is, this is
..information from a study that YOU posted!

I didn't have anything to do with it. It was a scientific study. You mountain
bikers just don't like hearing the truth.
===
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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 02:36:23 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
..news:h78070ptetiu1o3iap5hgu901kd9r7rbu7@4ax.com:
..
..> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:23:45 GMT, "Brian" <dirtdude21@hotmail.com>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .i'd rather take the risk of wiping out than get hit by a 2000 lb car.
..>
..> Many mountain bikers have killed themselves. You have your head in the
..> sand!
..>
..
..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 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

On 5 Apr 2004 02:56:50 -0700, hongkongloopy@yahoo.com (gazzer) wrote:

..> > .> Mountain bikers often claim that they mountain bike because riding on
..> the road is so dangerous.
..
..Hikers often claim they hike in the countryside because walking on
..city streets is so dangerous

BS. I have never heard that, and it makes no sense. That is comparing apples &
oranges. Hiking in the countryside is for a different purpose: getting AWAY from
the city.

although I have no proof of this
..preposterous claim.
..
..cheers
..
..g

===
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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:31:13 GMT, Emily <Emily@large.org> wrote:

..>So much for THAT excuse
..
..So don't do it.
..
..Do you drive to work? Don't its dangerous.

No.

..Do you smoke? Don't, its dangerous.

No.

..Do you do drugs? Don't, its dangerous.

No.

..Do you piss people off? Don't, its dangerous.

No, I just tell the truth. But your threat is duly noted.

..xx
..Em

===
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

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:54:17 GMT, "Frank Peckham" <fspeck@optonline.net> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
..news:8d8070d4kkcn4gvthqccuevs12790guh5t@4ax.com...
..> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:40:19 GMT, "Frank Peckham" <fspeck@optonline.net>
..wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
..> .news:5fmt6057f5ckok4f84r4u1utji2pnahnpt@4ax.com...
..> .> 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_...ling%20Injury%2
..0Report%20Oct%20ABC.pdf
..> .> ===
..> .> 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
..> .
..> . For the past 20 yr's, when possible, I have been on the bike 6 days a
..> .week, 3 days road and 3 days off road. My worst injury on the mt'n bike
..was
..> .a fractured rib. That is nothing compared to the injuries from the road
..> .riding.
..>
..> You are comparing apples and oranges. What injuries have YOU had on the
..road?
..> Besides, you are just one case. One case doesn't prove anything about
..others.
..>
..> .I think a lot depends on the type of riding you do.Most of mine has been
..with riders training for competition and the rides are often aggressive.Also
..they are on roads with a lot of traffic. As to my road injuries there were
..many. a fractured hip, both clavicles, a scapula,28 stitches to the face and
..four missing teeth and a concussion. Also a couple of hematomas.Most of my
..mt'n biking is on winding rooted single track with log jumps and several
..drop offs. So the potential for injury is there.I've hit the ground many
..times, but the dirt is much more forgiving than pavement.And there are no
..trucks or cars. I should have mentioned that my most serious mt'n bike
..injury was from hitting an animal on the trail.A dog, he was ok, at 150lbs
..he weighed more than I do.
.. Frank

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

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:33:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> 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.

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.
===
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

spike slanderham

Whirrrrrr Spinnn churn whirrrrrrrrrrrrrr szzzzzzzzzzzzzsssssssspop Bang!

I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
morons ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the last 900
Years fighting idiots and cretins.)


>>> Mike Vandemanmjvande@pacbell.net> 4/6/2004 9:42:22 AM >>

Attached Files

(880 Bytes, 0 views)

Mike Vandeman

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:53:16 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
..news:5fmt6057f5ckok4f84r4u1utji2pnahnpt@4ax.com...
..> 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_...ing%20Injury%20
..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.

and his Website is designed to
..cater to the likes of road bike riders exclusively. There is not a single
..reference on his site to "mountain", and the reference in the atricle
..attached only asks one question pursuant to mountain biking. The article is
..about injuries that bike riders sustain while riding, and is very detailed
..in analyzing the results as they pertain to street riding. The reference to
..mountain bike injuries gives, at best, a frame of reference of the mindset
..of the respondants to the survey questions. Some of the respondants that
..ride street bikes also ride mountain bikes, but they do not describe the
..extent of the injuries they get while mountain biking. It appears that they
..suffer some sort of injury with greater regularity than while riding on the
..road, but the data is sketchy at best. There is a detailed list of biking
..injuries, and this list only shows one death while mountain biking and it
..shows dozens of deaths while road riding.
..
..As usual, Mike's analysis of the information presented focuses on a single
..paragraph buried deep within the article that is not substantiated in any
..way, but ignores the wealth of other information that the entire article is
..based upon.
..

===
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

BB

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.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)