Mountain Biking Injury Report

Jeff Strickland

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:qfk5705jorc2pv2nkaagj847kqtkm5pf7f@4ax.com...
> 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_...ling%20Injury%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.


> 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.
> .
>

Can't reply to truth? That's what I thought.

Brett Jaffee

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:1sj57016pant1nsc55bh1of2vrh2ar7iit@4ax.com:


> .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.
> ===

Good god, are you that stupid? I'm not disagreeing with the study
because you posted it! I'm saying that you are being completely
hypocritical because you are ignoring data in that same study!

I have no problem with the study itself...it's you who are taking that same
study and only picking and chosing selected parts that you happen to like.

If you're going to post something like that, you might want to read it a
bit more carefully.

Stephen Baker

Brett Jaffee says to MV:

>If you're going to post something like that, you might want to read it a
>bit more carefully.

Bwahahahahaha..... Fat chance!

Steve

Brett Jaffee

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:3uj570lg58jkkp3sqpusnqq2j6j4i861iu@4ax.com:


> .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.

Brett Jaffee

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:4ak570phiqpdkdom96ml1u7mmoq7orn6f3@4ax.com:

> 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."

S o r n i

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.

Mike Vandeman

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:46:38 -0600, "Peb0" <wolf_NsOpSePcAtMre@hotmail.com>
wrote:

..
..
.."Michael Dart" <mrdartREMOVE@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
..news:c4pqjk0qs@news1.newsguy.com...
..> In news:5o707057bip8qj32an26lf30rina3imfr0@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.
..> >
..>
..> 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 shit and poke sticks at him. Eventually he'll get tired of it.
..I mean really, he's just a fuck 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

Mike Vandeman

On 6 Apr 2004 18:46:55 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> 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

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 20:54:31 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
..news:3uj570lg58jkkp3sqpusnqq2j6j4i861iu@4ax.com:
..
..
..> .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

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:38 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
..news:rbk570pko1umdu1ech8jk13rfmacppqoic@4ax.com...
..> 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.
..>
..
..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

Mike Vandeman

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:31:49 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
..news:qfk5705jorc2pv2nkaagj847kqtkm5pf7f@4ax.com...
..> 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_...ling%20Injury%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

Jeff Strickland

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news1hd70lon4nv4skhu5a95iaiq7g4rqq79m@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:38 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> .news:rbk570pko1umdu1ech8jk13rfmacppqoic@4ax.com...
> .> 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.
> .>
> .
> .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 slut! 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.

Jeff Strickland

> 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.

Brett Jaffee

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:7vgd70ptbucnd8atsrhd7ojtv1begfkfe3@4ax.com:

> 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).