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.

There does not need to be thousands of accidents every day in
order for mountain biking to be considered dangerous. There only needs to be a
few.

No, Ed, there need to be a lot. As there are millions of rides happening per day if Mountainbiking were really dangerous there would be many thousands of incidents ... as there are for cars.

If 'a few' is the only test then, by your definition, hiking is also dangerous because the report I provided (Lake District Mountain Rescue, 2013) showed three fatalities in one year in one relatively small location.

Hiker accidents are extremely rare in comparison because it is safe.

Look at the real stats Ed. Hiking is safer, yes, but it is not absolutely safe ... nothing is. Both hiking and mountainbiking are in a natural, untrammeled environment and therefore subject to very similar risks.

Further, the biker accidents that do occur are normally quite serious requiring
rescue services and emergency rooms. You simply do not know what you are
blathering about.

At least I bother to read around the topic and find data ... you just think that your opinions count as fact. I reiterate, the demonstrated KSI figures show that mountainbiking is pretty safe ... not absolutely, certainly, but the risks are low.

I understand what I am doing perfectly with getting moronic
lectures from you about the scientific method.

Ed, you're either uneducated as regards statistics or, if you aren't, then you are fundamentally dishonest. If there are 3.5 million rides per day then even a risk of 0.01% would result in 3,500 serious injuries. All you can produce is a tiny handful ... so we can safely conclude, as have all the medical bodies, that mountainbiking is relatively safe.

I am pointing out some
generalized conditions which prevail with regard to mountain biking, which the
mountain biking community itself tends to gloss over (expect by the few freaks
who are really into it). Innocent people go biking on trails thinking it is safe
and it is not safe at all. You blather does nothing to refute what I am
saying.

No, you're not pointing out anything of the kind. You're trawling the internet or setting up a Google Feed to show you whenever a mountainbiking accident or fatality occurs. I'm not denying they occur but, set against the number of rides taking place, they are tiny ... hence validating the relative safety of the activity.

I dare you ... set the same search/filter for hiking and see what you get. I predict you will find even more serious injuries and fatalities for hiking ... as the Lake District Mountain Rescue contains ... not because hiking is more dangerous but because there are more hikers.

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.

*

You are posting some meaningless numbers which no one is ever
going to connect with. I am posting a few stories (among hundreds) from all over
the world which bring home how dangerous biking on trails is.despite all the
propaganda to the contrary.

If it's so dangerous Ed then why CAN'T you find any numbers to back you up as to the relative risk ? Out of context your stories are completely worthless.