Re: Mountain Biking Injury Report

[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/1998/03mar/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/index.cfm?fuseaction=getdetails&Id=171)

Note that the last study was a survey of 3474 mountain bikers - far more
relevant that Vandeman's extrapolation of a study of 81 road riders.
That's why this real science matches reality, and Vandeman's junk science
doesn't.

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

[Gary S.]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins >
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 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:

..On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins >
..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.

No, studies that are unscientific are biased.

===
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 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
>
> .On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins >
> .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.
>
> No, studies that are unscientific are biased.

Gov stats which are observable facts are biased?

Mike provide one shred of evidence anything that shows that mt. bike
deaths are anything but extremely rare. For example, the survey you
quote disproves your argument. I do not need a scientific study when
the observable facts are almost no deaths a year compared to hundreds.
Provide one study which documents mt. bike deaths being 1/100th of road
cyclist deaths. The burden is on you. Because the observable facts
(extreme rarity of mt. bike deaths world wide) fail to support your
case. YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE STUDY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION THAT
RIDING A MT. BIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH MORE OFTEN THEN RIDING A RODE
BIKE. IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

> ===
> 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, 13 Apr 2004 06:29:39 GMT, Rick Hopkins > wrote:

..
..
..Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
..> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
..>
..> .On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins >
..> .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.
..>
..> No, studies that are unscientific are biased.
..
..Gov stats which are observable facts are biased?

Where are they? You have yet to cite a single one.

..Mike provide one shred of evidence anything that shows that mt. bike
..deaths are anything but extremely rare.

Easy. I have heard of several in my area. In a local park, a racer was in a coma
for months after crashing.

For example, the survey you
..quote disproves your argument.

BS. Science doesn't disprove. It only fails to give information.

I do not need a scientific study when
..the observable facts are almost no deaths a year compared to hundreds.

So you admit that you have none.

..Provide one study which documents mt. bike deaths being 1/100th of road
..cyclist deaths. The burden is on you.

No, it isn't, because I never said anything about that. YOU did.

Because the observable facts
..(extreme rarity of mt. bike deaths world wide) fail to support your
..case. YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE STUDY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION THAT
..RIDING A MT. BIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH MORE OFTEN THEN RIDING A RODE
..BIKE. IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

BS. I never asserted that, 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

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 06:29:39 GMT, Rick Hopkins > wrote:
>
> .
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .
> .> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:24:54 GMT, Gary S. <Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
> .>
> .> .On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:26:47 GMT, Rick Hopkins >
> .> .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.
> .>
> .> No, studies that are unscientific are biased.
> .
> .Gov stats which are observable facts are biased?
>
> Where are they? You have yet to cite a single one.
>
Check the transportation stats for one for the number of road deaths,
its a bit sobering.

> .Mike provide one shred of evidence anything that shows that mt. bike
> .deaths are anything but extremely rare.
>
> Easy. I have heard of several in my area. In a local park, a racer was in a coma
> for months after crashing.
>
> For example, the survey you
> .quote disproves your argument.
>
> BS. Science doesn't disprove. It only fails to give information.
>
> I do not need a scientific study when
> .the observable facts are almost no deaths a year compared to hundreds.
>
> So you admit that you have none.
>
> .Provide one study which documents mt. bike deaths being 1/100th of road
> .cyclist deaths. The burden is on you.
>
> No, it isn't, because I never said anything about that. YOU did.
>
> Because the observable facts
> .(extreme rarity of mt. bike deaths world wide) fail to support your
> .case. YOU HAVE NOT CITED ONE STUDY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION THAT
> .RIDING A MT. BIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH MORE OFTEN THEN RIDING A RODE
> .BIKE. IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
>
> BS. I never asserted that, liar.

Then if you never asserted that (go back and check my post, it all had
to do with comparing the DEATH RATE of road and mt. bike) your arguments
have all been rather stupid. So you can claim I'm a liar, but a review
of your posts will show that I never debated the point of injury and
always focused my debate on the variable death rate. Yet you continued
to argue with me anyway, so you were either sloppy in your reading, or
sloppy in your argument or you were simply lying all along. Your
original assertion was that choosing mt. biking over road riding because
road riding was more dangerous was invalidated due to this San Diego
Survey you quoted. I correctly pointed out, that most individuals who
are risk averse (as my wife) base their decision of risk on death rate
not injury rate. While mt. bikers may become injured more often (a
point I am not debating, as I suspect that a nationwide survey would
support such a hypothesis), they die less often, because of the lack of
cars, the single greatest factor that contributes to the death of
cyclist. The study you cited, supports that contention. Thus, while
you mistakenly focused on injury, most people that choose a riding style
based on risk, due so based on the variable death rate. This whole
argument I suspect is silly anyway, while risk aversion may be a
significant component for some people (as my wife), my speculation is
that risk aversion plays a minor role in most peoples decisions
regarding the type of riding they choose to do.

> ===
> 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