The risks are not similar at all. Riding a bike on a trail

designed for walking is a circus act, chock full of risks at every


turn.

So, if that is the case, why do the 3.5million rides EVERY DAY
result in so few fatalities and serious injuries ? You simply either don't
understand probability or you are dishonest ...

I will shortly be posting more reports of serious accidents
and deaths for you to contemplate.

You would have to post a very large number indeed when you are comparing to so many rides per day. As I said, you are either dishonest or don't understand probability ...

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.



The risks are high, especially on alpine trails. Even very

experienced riders suffer horrible accidents, but newbies are most at
risk.

I'm inured to this kind of blather now. You have never
produced one iota of evidence to back this up. It's your biased opinion,
nothing more, and it's incorrect.

Read the reports I am posting. That is the "iota" of
evidence.

No, Ed, do stop trying to move the goalposts. Your proposition is that mountainbiking is very dangerous. Mine is that the KSI stats suggest otherwise. Simply posting reports of accidents does nothing to provide any evidence to justify your position.

I could just as easily post the Lake District Mountain Rescue report, with three hiker fatalities just last year !

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.



Your statistics don't interest me since we do not know what is

being measured. A few stories explain the situation better than any of
your

meaningless numbers (data).

The statistics don't interest you because they disprove what
you would like to state as fact. As a result, you'd prefer to highlight a
tiny handful of reported incidents and pretend that they are somehow indicative
of a wider malaise. We are measuring, and you are reporting, injuries and
fatalities ... as such, whilst the precise metrics (fatalities per million
miles, serious injuries per thousand exposures etc) may vary they allow us to,
quite sensibly, compare different activities. And, on doing so,
mountainbiking comes up as relatively safe; safer than driving, skiing, rugby,
american football etc etc. In this case, it's not the statistics that are
trying to lie ... it's you !

The reports and evidence of the dangers of biking on trails
are pouring in from all directions. The only one who is blind, deaf and dumb are
you and your cohorts.

Your pitiful handful of posts counts as 'pouring in' ? I think not.

That is your job, I am sure you will find that hiking is as

safe as walking around the block compared to biking on a trail - which
is as

dangerous (and as stupid) as going over Niagara Falls in a
barrel.



Too asinine to even merit a comment. Dishonest or
scientifically stupid; which is it Ed ?

You are the Asshole who thinks it is cool to engage in extreme
sports, not me!

I do. How is it germane to your point ?

You really want to contend that mountainbiking is as dangerous as going over Niagra Falls in a barrel ? ! :-)

Media reports are better than any numbers. The facts are that

hiking is safe and biking on trails is not safe.

Very funny. Your logic seems to, as ever, revert to a
statement of what you were originally attempting to prove. A wonderful
demonstration of circular logic.

Still, at least it serves to allow me to prove that your logic
is as in error as your premises. I think your premises stand
comprehensively disproved.

Unlike you, I cannot get around the facts. Hiking is safe,
biking on trails on is not safe. That is what the reporting from the field shows
without any doubt at all.

No, Ed, it just doesn't. If it were you wouldn't be finding a handful of reports now and then ... there would be a daily flood of thousands.

In the US, in 2010, 33 people died as a result of being bitten by dogs ... even a rare occurrence will appear if enough people are exposed.