Mountain Biking Injury Report

Mike Vandeman

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:37:46 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

..
.."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.

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

Mike Vandeman

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> 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

BB

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 15:38:36 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> Liar. I didn't interpret the study. I simply stated what it said.

Webster's: in ter' pret vt. "to have or show one's own understanding of
the meaning of; construe"

If you construe a phrase to represent any group other than the study
group, you are INTERPRETING it.

And if you construe it to represent a group with significantly different
characteristics than the study group (i.e. not a group where "most
participants spent the majority of their riding time on road bicycles"),
then you're interpreting it INCORRECTLY. "Junk science", as you like
to say.

"Q.E.D"

Back in the killfile for you, troll.

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

Steve Curtiss

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> 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

PeteCresswell

> 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.

Jeff Strickland

> 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.

Mike Vandeman

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:24:15 -0400, Steve Curtiss <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com>
wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> 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

Mike Vandeman

On 10 Apr 2004 04:47:24 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote:

..On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 15:38:36 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> Liar. I didn't interpret the study. I simply stated what it said.
..
..Webster's: in ter' pret vt. "to have or show one's own understanding of
..the meaning of; construe"
..
..If you construe a phrase to represent any group other than the study
..group, you are INTERPRETING it.
..
..And if you construe it to represent a group with significantly different
..characteristics than the study group (i.e. not a group where "most
..participants spent the majority of their riding time on road bicycles"),
..then you're interpreting it INCORRECTLY. "Junk science", as you like
..to say.

As opposed to your total lack of scientific evidence?

.."Q.E.D"
..
..Back in the killfile for you, troll.

===
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 10 Apr 2004 08:25:01 -0700, GoogleGroups@FatBelly.com (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

Jeff Strickland

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nfne701t6aoqv5h7uhfip874qgftoremue@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com>
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.

S Curtiss

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:24:15 -0400, Steve Curtiss <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> 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.
What do you know... There is a statement in the study that cites a higher
risk factor.
While a smaller number of cycling injuries in total are attributed to mt
biking, the study you cite (and a few others, btw) tend to illustrate the
higher injury rate to mt biking when calculated group vs group. (road vs mt)
These studies also show the larger number of these injuries are due to
technical errors. (Riding beyond skill level or carelessness which seems to
be loosely translated as loss of control) Many injuries are also attributed
to competitive off road racing. Road riding injuries tend to come from
external forces. (motor traffic, for example)
Many cyclists feel safer offroad because of the lack of these external
influences and because they are not "risk takers" when riding. Besides the
inlamatory tone of the added statement (so much for THAT excuse), you are
techically correct based on the available information.

Did I just agree with you?! I think I need a drink.
>
> ===
> 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 Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:45:24 -0400, S Curtiss wrote:

> While a smaller number of cycling injuries in total are attributed to mt
> biking, the study you cite (and a few others, btw) tend to illustrate the
> higher injury rate to mt biking when calculated group vs group. (road vs mt)

There was no group-by-group comparison.

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

Mike Vandeman

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:06:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM>
wrote:

..> 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)

Uh, I hate to break the news to you, but "wheeled vehicles" are NOT a "minority
population". They aren't people at all. You have hit a new low in IQ, never
before seen EVEN in this newsgroup of retards.

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.
..

===
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 Sat, 10 Apr 2004 16:45:24 -0400, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
..news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com...
..> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:24:15 -0400, Steve Curtiss <stevecurtiss@yahoo.com>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .
..> .> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:52:26 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
..<beerman@yahoo.com> 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.
..What do you know... There is a statement in the study that cites a higher
..risk factor.
..While a smaller number of cycling injuries in total are attributed to mt
..biking, the study you cite (and a few others, btw) tend to illustrate the
..higher injury rate to mt biking when calculated group vs group. (road vs mt)
..These studies also show the larger number of these injuries are due to
..technical errors. (Riding beyond skill level or carelessness which seems to
..be loosely translated as loss of control) Many injuries are also attributed
..to competitive off road racing. Road riding injuries tend to come from
..external forces. (motor traffic, for example)
..Many cyclists feel safer offroad because of the lack of these external
..influences and because they are not "risk takers" when riding. Besides the
..inlamatory tone of the added statement (so much for THAT excuse), you are
..techically correct based on the available information.

Thanks for finally admitting the truth!

..Did I just agree with you?! I think I need a drink.

Yeah -- a time to celebrate!
===
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