Ed, the report from the Lake District Mountain Rescue is hardly
'social data'. Nor is the report from the British Medical Journal on
incidents per exposure. This is hard data showing the real
situation.

Hard data belongs to the realm of the physical sciences. All
other data concerning people is social data and not very rigorous to say the
least.

It's rather more rigorous than trawling the internet for reports of accidents, which is what you do :-).

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they were called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one location.

We need details on the nature of the accidents to know what we
are talking about. I present those details in my reports.

I gave you the details ... and you don't like it because it doesn't support your position.

"Your reports" are no such thing ... they're random articles culled from the media all over the world. They are almost entirely worthless since you don't have enough data from any one location to infer anything.

All we get from you
are numbers which tell us next to nothing. An examination of the details clearly
show how dangerous biking on trails is.

And, examining the details, we discover that, actually, it's rather safer than many other activities that you're quite happy to engage in.
And, if you're smart, you recognise the limitations of making such
assumptions and seek objective confirmation or refutation. If not, well
you do what you do and simply assume you're right ... when you're not.

It is a function of one's general intelligence to know whether
you are right or not. For instance, I would not want you to make assumptions
about anything under the sun.

Well, what this says about your level of intelligence ... or education ... is clear.

Personal experience is highly limited and is only of

value if we can make assumptions about it.

But, for any such assumptions to be valid you have to prove that
others have similar experiences in sufficient numbers to be statistically
valid. This is what you've never even attempted to do. You simply
assert it to be the case ... which is circular logic.

Nonsense, all the reports from the media on the number and
nature of the mountain biker accidents is enough for anyone who has some common
sense - something which you totally lack. Your resort to "data" is very funny
and marks you as someone who who can't think for himself.

It marks me out as someone who won't take your bull**** at face value.

Backup what you say ... if you can.