If the reports are numerous enough and sufficiently

widespread, any intelligent person will detect a pattern and draw some


conclusions. The reason you are unable to perform these quite simple
functions

is because you are not intelligent.

Funnily enough, this would be true IF the reports were numerous
and widespread enough. However, they're not. Against the millions of
rides occurring every day they are tiny and therefore statistically
insignificant.

The reports are numerous enough and widespread enough to
convince me - and anyone else with half a brain in his head.

Well then clearly you don't understand probability. If millions of people do something then even a low risk activity will throw up some untoward occurrences.

I am not going to claim any great intelligence but, if you want to
achieve any at all I suggest you read the following ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Specifically, read the paragraph which starts "Experiments have
found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by
searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis."

I am not testing any hypothesis. I am simply telling you what
I KNOW to be facts.

You are actually Ed. Your hypothesis is "mountain biking is extremely dangerous" so you trawl the web for reports of accidents and injuries. As millions of people ride, every day, unsurprisingly you find reports of such events.

You then conclude, erroneously, that you've found support for your position..

So, yes, you are testing a hypothesis and if you understood statistics and probability to even a school level you would realise that what you've actually done is disproven your hypothesis. If mountainbiking were really dangerous, as you contend, then there would be thousands of incidents every day.

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they
were

called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one


location.



Yes, but only for that one location. Not general

enough.



Oh do learn some statistics and analysis. You want to
collect data from the whole world without considering its size and then,
magically, apply it to one location to make decisions. The Lake District
data is comprehensive ... for one location ... so can be used ... for that
location. Your worldwide data is meaningless.

Not if it is random and numerous and universal. It hints at a
problem. However, if you are brain dead like you, then it doesn't and never
will.

But it isn't numerous ... if mountainbiking were dangerous then there would be thousands of incidents per day ... as there are car accidents.

"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.



The fact that they are random and from all over the world is

what makes them so good. It is your data from one location that is


worthless.



Oh do go and read a textbook .. you're looking very foolish



I don't care what is happening in your little corner of dowdy
old England. You apparently don't care what is happening in the rest of the
world.

You're the one who said he only knew about local trails. I'm the one for collecting worldwide data.