Mountain Biking Injury Report

Mike Vandeman

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:25:11 -0700, "Jeff Strickland" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM>
wrote:

..
.."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.

We aren't talking about any "focus", whatever that is, but about the fact that
mountain bikers have a higher accident rate. Unless you have some SCIENTIFIC
STUDIES to report on, shut up.

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.
..

===
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

Brett Jaffee

Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com:

> But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street
> biking. Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.

Dangerous as defined by what...injuries or fatalities?

I'm still trying to figure out what your original point was ("so much for
that excuse").

Mike Vandeman

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:01:28 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
..news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com:
..
..> But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street
..> biking. Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.
..
..Dangerous as defined by what...injuries or fatalities?

Injuries. Read the article!

===
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 Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:30:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2004 22:00:10 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> .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.
>
> Yes, there was, which is why he was able to compare their accident rate. DUH!

Only one group (of roadies) was surveyed. Already discussed in this
thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&se...s.uni-berlin.de

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

Rick Hopkins

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:01:28 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
> .news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com:
> .
> .> But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street
> .> biking. Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.
> .
> .Dangerous as defined by what...injuries or fatalities?
>
> Injuries. Read the article!

Yes, if you read the article, danger is described by injuries. Based on
this study, road riding is far more likely to result in death (usually
due to cars - see summary and Appendices at end of articule) than is mt.
biking. Mt. bikers may miss more work, but road riders are more likely
to miss work forever. This is consistent with most cyclist antidotal
inforamtion. For instance, in the last year in the South Bay Area of
California, 6 to 10 cyclist (3 in the last 6 weeks) have been killed
while road riding and their has not been one fatality on the back
country trails. While I would speculate (in other words an untested
hypothesis and not at all inconsistent with the San Diego survey), there
have been more crashes logged by mt. bikers (and possibly more work
missed), there are considerably more deaths logged by road riders (this
last statement is factual, at least for the South Bay Area, and most
likely the whole Bay Area, but I do not know the action in the north Bay
as well as others).

So your claim that individuals that choose to ride off-road as they are
less likely to suffer death, is simply wrong. My wife rides more off
road these days, because cars bother her and she is a rather cautious
mt. biker and is not the sort (usually males between the ages of 16 and
30 are more likley to push the envelope - not 50 year old woman who use
common sense) to crash. Even if she does, based on the survey mentioned
above, she is not expected to die only miss a few more days of work as
if she crashed on the road. However, the greatest number of injuries on
the road were do to cars and the death rate is substantially higher on
the road.


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. 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

It would be interesting to conduct a similar survey with a largely
recreational club (several exist in the Bay Area such as the Almaden
Cylcing Touring Club with almost no racers) that are not focused on
racing, but on general riding both on and off-road.

So Mikey, as pointed out by many others you continue to lie, in fact
you are the largest liar on this NG.






> ===
> 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

> .The focus was not mountain biking.
>
> We aren't talking about any "focus", whatever that is, but about the fact
that
> mountain bikers have a higher accident rate. Unless you have some
SCIENTIFIC
> STUDIES to report on, shut up.
>

You are the one making the claim, you support it or shut the fuck up. Idiot.

You brought out a report that surveyed data collected from road bike riders,
some of whom also ride a mountain bike. The data for injuries sustained on
road bikes was broken down to minute details including whether the rider was
riding alone or in a group. The survey also collected, at best, anecdotal
information about mountain bike injuries. You present these stories as the
main point of the study, and that is simply a lie that does nothing but
promote your elitist agenda.

You are the one that needs scientific study.



> 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.
> .
>


Additional facts ignored. Your silence is deafening. Fool.

BB

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...ar/kronisch.htm). "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/in...tdetails&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.

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

Mike Vandeman

On 11 Apr 2004 17:08:35 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote:

..On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:30:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On 10 Apr 2004 22:00:10 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote:
..>
..> .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.
..>
..> Yes, there was, which is why he was able to compare their accident rate. DUH!
..
..Only one group (of roadies) was surveyed. Already discussed in this
..thread:

You said that people on mountain bikes are mountain bikers, liar.

..http://groups.google.com/groups?&se...s.uni-berlin.de

===
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, 11 Apr 2004 18:55:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <hopkins8@pacbell.net> wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:01:28 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
..> .news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com:
..> .
..> .> But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street
..> .> biking. Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.
..> .
..> .Dangerous as defined by what...injuries or fatalities?
..>
..> Injuries. Read the article!
..
..Yes, if you read the article, danger is described by injuries.

Yes. Mountain bikers are more likely to be injured.

Based on
..this study, road riding is far more likely to result in death (usually
..due to cars - see summary and Appendices at end of articule) than is mt.
..biking.

Either cite a scientific study, or shut up. You offer not a shred of evidence,
so we have to assume that you have NONE.

Mt. bikers may miss more work, but road riders are more likely
..to miss work forever. This is consistent with most cyclist antidotal
..inforamtion. For instance, in the last year in the South Bay Area of
..California, 6 to 10 cyclist (3 in the last 6 weeks) have been killed
..while road riding and their has not been one fatality on the back
..country trails. While I would speculate (in other words an untested
..hypothesis and not at all inconsistent with the San Diego survey), there
..have been more crashes logged by mt. bikers (and possibly more work
..missed), there are considerably more deaths logged by road riders (this
..last statement is factual, at least for the South Bay Area, and most
..likely the whole Bay Area, but I do not know the action in the north Bay
..as well as others).

Either present scientific information, or shut up.

..So your claim that individuals that choose to ride off-road as they are
..less likely to suffer death, is simply wrong. My wife rides more off
..road these days, because cars bother her and she is a rather cautious
..mt. biker and is not the sort (usually males between the ages of 16 and
..30 are more likley to push the envelope - not 50 year old woman who use
..common sense) to crash. Even if she does, based on the survey mentioned
..above, she is not expected to die only miss a few more days of work as
..if she crashed on the road. However, the greatest number of injuries on
..the road were do to cars and the death rate is substantially higher on
..the road.
..
..
..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. 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
..
..It would be interesting to conduct a similar survey with a largely
..recreational club (several exist in the Bay Area such as the Almaden
..Cylcing Touring Club with almost no racers) that are not focused on
..racing, but on general riding both on and off-road.

Do the research. Then you might have something worthwhile to say. You are just
speculating.

..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.
===
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 11 Apr 2004 20:09:14 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> 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...ar/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/in...tdetails&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.
===
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

Rick Hopkins

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:55:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <hopkins8@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:01:28 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
> .> .news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com:
> .> .
> .> .> But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street
> .> .> biking. Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.
> .> .
> .> .Dangerous as defined by what...injuries or fatalities?
> .>
> .> Injuries. Read the article!
> .
> .Yes, if you read the article, danger is described by injuries.
>
> Yes. Mountain bikers are more likely to be injured.
>
> Based on
> .this study, road riding is far more likely to result in death (usually
> .due to cars - see summary and Appendices at end of articule) than is mt.
> .biking.
>
> Either cite a scientific study, or shut up. You offer not a shred of evidence,
> so we have to assume that you have NONE.

Either you are the largest moron or you simply lie so much you forget.
Read the entire study you claim is scientific. He provides several
examples of cyclist that were killed. All while riding or racing on the
road and not one example of a mt. biker being killed. Now as we stated
before, his study was of a racing club in San Diego so this does not
mean that mt. bikers never die. But if you get off your skinny little
ass and look up the numbers (but I forgot you refuse to read the
literature as it contradicts your stupid little world), you will see
they are consistent with this scientific study. Most death from cycling
are while riding on the road and are induced by dumb asses driving cars.

> Mt. bikers may miss more work, but road riders are more likely
> .to miss work forever. This is consistent with most cyclist antidotal
> .inforamtion. For instance, in the last year in the South Bay Area of
> .California, 6 to 10 cyclist (3 in the last 6 weeks) have been killed
> .while road riding and their has not been one fatality on the back
> .country trails. While I would speculate (in other words an untested
> .hypothesis and not at all inconsistent with the San Diego survey), there
> .have been more crashes logged by mt. bikers (and possibly more work
> .missed), there are considerably more deaths logged by road riders (this
> .last statement is factual, at least for the South Bay Area, and most
> .likely the whole Bay Area, but I do not know the action in the north Bay
> .as well as others).
>
> Either present scientific information, or shut up.

Government statistics bear out these findings. 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). So as you are
wrong again and caught in another lie. You should crawl away - but you
seem to have no humility or intelligence (and don't give me any crap you
graduated from Harvard, so did Bush).


..So your claim that individuals that choose to ride off-road as they are
> .less likely to suffer death, is simply wrong. My wife rides more off
> .road these days, because cars bother her and she is a rather cautious
> .mt. biker and is not the sort (usually males between the ages of 16 and
> .30 are more likley to push the envelope - not 50 year old woman who use
> .common sense) to crash. Even if she does, based on the survey mentioned
> .above, she is not expected to die only miss a few more days of work as
> .if she crashed on the road. However, the greatest number of injuries on
> .the road were do to cars and the death rate is substantially higher on
> .the road.
> .
> .
> .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. 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
> .
> .It would be interesting to conduct a similar survey with a largely
> .recreational club (several exist in the Bay Area such as the Almaden
> .Cylcing Touring Club with almost no racers) that are not focused on
> .racing, but on general riding both on and off-road.
>
> Do the research. Then you might have something worthwhile to say. You are just
> speculating.

You sight one non-peered review article and claim it to be science and
then wildly extrapolate as to what the authors said. 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.

By using your standards. Every post you lie. By using normal people
standards, probably only half the time.


> ===
> 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

Rick Hopkins

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On 11 Apr 2004 20:09:14 GMT, BB <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> 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...ar/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/in...tdetails&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. 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. 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 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

Gary S.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins <hopkins8@pacbell.net>
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.

Other studies that you cherry-pick bits from to support your opinion,
you claim are totally supportive of your position, even though an
objective reading might suggest otherwise.

Your opinion does not define truth outside your own mind.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

Mike Vandeman

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:20:25 GMT, Rick Hopkins <hopkins8@pacbell.net> wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:55:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <hopkins8@pacbell.net> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .
..> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
..> .> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:01:28 GMT, Brett Jaffee <NOSPAMjaffee@earthlink.net>
..> .> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .Mike Vandeman <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in
..> .> .news:ss6g70pilcmi3vbts8nsbvgttka31n1avs@4ax.com:
..> .> .
..> .> .> But it still shows that mountain biking is more dangerous than street
..> .> .> biking. Provide some scientific evidence that it isn't.
..> .> .
..> .> .Dangerous as defined by what...injuries or fatalities?
..> .>
..> .> Injuries. Read the article!
..> .
..> .Yes, if you read the article, danger is described by injuries.
..>
..> Yes. Mountain bikers are more likely to be injured.
..>
..> Based on
..> .this study, road riding is far more likely to result in death (usually
..> .due to cars - see summary and Appendices at end of articule) than is mt.
..> .biking.
..>
..> Either cite a scientific study, or shut up. You offer not a shred of evidence,
..> so we have to assume that you have NONE.
..
..Either you are the largest moron or you simply lie so much you forget.
..Read the entire study you claim is scientific. He provides several
..examples of cyclist that were killed. All while riding or racing on the
..road and not one example of a mt. biker being killed. Now as we stated
..before, his study was of a racing club in San Diego so this does not
..mean that mt. bikers never die. But if you get off your skinny little
..ass and look up the numbers (but I forgot you refuse to read the
..literature as it contradicts your stupid little world), you will see
..they are consistent with this scientific study. Most death from cycling
..are while riding on the road and are induced by dumb asses driving cars.
..
..> Mt. bikers may miss more work, but road riders are more likely
..> .to miss work forever. This is consistent with most cyclist antidotal
..> .inforamtion. For instance, in the last year in the South Bay Area of
..> .California, 6 to 10 cyclist (3 in the last 6 weeks) have been killed
..> .while road riding and their has not been one fatality on the back
..> .country trails. While I would speculate (in other words an untested
..> .hypothesis and not at all inconsistent with the San Diego survey), there
..> .have been more crashes logged by mt. bikers (and possibly more work
..> .missed), there are considerably more deaths logged by road riders (this
..> .last statement is factual, at least for the South Bay Area, and most
..> .likely the whole Bay Area, but I do not know the action in the north Bay
..> .as well as others).
..>
..> Either present scientific information, or shut up.
..
..Government statistics bear out these findings. Look them up.

So you continue to refuse to cite any scientific data.

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.

So as you are
..wrong again and caught in another lie. You should crawl away - but you
..seem to have no humility or intelligence (and don't give me any crap you
..graduated from Harvard, so did Bush).
..
..
...So your claim that individuals that choose to ride off-road as they are
..> .less likely to suffer death, is simply wrong. My wife rides more off
..> .road these days, because cars bother her and she is a rather cautious
..> .mt. biker and is not the sort (usually males between the ages of 16 and
..> .30 are more likley to push the envelope - not 50 year old woman who use
..> .common sense) to crash. Even if she does, based on the survey mentioned
..> .above, she is not expected to die only miss a few more days of work as
..> .if she crashed on the road. However, the greatest number of injuries on
..> .the road were do to cars and the death rate is substantially higher on
..> .the road.
..> .
..> .
..> .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. 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
..> .
..> .It would be interesting to conduct a similar survey with a largely
..> .recreational club (several exist in the Bay Area such as the Almaden
..> .Cylcing Touring Club with almost no racers) that are not focused on
..> .racing, but on general riding both on and off-road.
..>
..> Do the research. Then you might have something worthwhile to say. You are just
..> speculating.
..
..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.

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.
..
..By using your standards. Every post you lie. By using normal people
..standards, probably only half the time.
..
..
..> ===
..> 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

===
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