Can you stay on topic for five seconds. I never said the
risks were the same. I simply pointed out that hiking does have risks
which means that there are an appreciable number of incidents.

If the risks are not the same, then you are comparing apples
to oranges - and who cares?

No, Ed, I'm referencing a report which contains accounts of rescues of both bikers and hikers. A hiker is unlikely to fall off a bike ... statement of the bloody obvious ... but both are subject to terrain, weather and location based perils which result in accidents.

Even an idiot like you knows that bike injuries tend
to be serious whereas hiker injuries tend to be trivial. Your so-called topic is
as irrelevant as you are.

Yet the Lake District report contains accounts of hiking fatalities ... that's not what I'd call trivial ... would you ?

Your statement is, again, refuted by the facts.

Unless you know the injuries and fatalities as a percentage of
the total number of exposures you know absolutely nothing about the actual
danger level involved.

Look at car driving as an example; there are many, many
fatalities every day ... but you have to compare that with the total number of
journeys taken to understand that the risk you face when getting in your car is
fairly low. It's also, by the by, way higher than going for a ride on your
mountainbike though.

I do not trust any of your so-called "data" to be true. The
only perspective that matters is the one you get from actually being on a trail
and having or witnessing an accident. That is what newspapers are for - to
report actual events. How many airliners have to drop into the ocean before
something is done about it?

It's not my data Ed ... I'm referencing data that I've simply bothered to look up and read. If you think that the only thing that matters is what you experience then so be it ... but I will then automatically discount anything you say which doesn't directly relate to your own trails. You can't have it both ways.

Also, now, perhaps I realise what you mean about representing all 'serious' hikers. It's the people that you know, with whom you hike and happen to live in one small location in one state of the US. I'm happy to concede that you probably do represent all 'serious hikers' in that location ... but have nothing in any way relevant to say about anywhere else.

The idiotic injuries that mountain bikers suffer from trying

to ride their bikes on hiking trails is a cost to society, both the
rescues and

the medical treatments.

It's a lot less than the costs incurred by coronary disease

People get the diseases of old age no matter what. Riding a
bike on a trail prevents nothing, but causes plenty of life threatening
injuries. I am convinced you are an idiot!

You are convinced of many things .. many of them provably wrong.

PREMATURE coronary disease is on the rise largely due to sedentary lifestyles. The human body is designed to move and be active ... bereft that it tends to go wrong.