That's not the point. The point is that moubntain biking is far more dangerous than anything you mentioned. Danger isn't measured by total deaths, but by deaths per hour of the relevant activity. You are only demonstrating your utter ignorance of statistics.

Mike, you don't get to suddenly decide how statistics are applied. I simply took the published figures.

Also, just to put you straight, the usual measure when applied to transport is Death per Mile Travelled (or x miles travelled) ... no need to thank me by the way !

I already invited you, if you want to come up with something more, to provide data. I don't have deaths per hour ... I highly doubt you do either.

However, to play the game, let's do a strawman ...

Let's say that the US's 50 million mountainbikers ride, on average, once every two weeks for 15 miles. You postulate that the distance is higher on your website but, hey, let's give you a chance on this.

That means that the total distance covered in a year is 19.5 billion miles.

You have about 12-15 deaths on your list ... but that's for the whole world ... not just the US. However, let's give you an even bigger chance and say that it's 24 fatalities per annum in the US alone.

That means that there are 0.00123 fatalities per million MTB miles travelled.

However, the figure for driving in the US is 1.5 per million miles travelled.

So, they are not even close ... as I said ... even if you make the MTB figures ridiculous (say 2,400 deaths per annum in the US ... which is certainly not the case) you still only come up with 0.123 deaths per million miles.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum ...

So what degree did you get, and where? I know you are bluffing, or you would have told us already!

Appeal to authority = Logical Fallacy.

I am not playing your stupid games.

However, given that I am British (as you know) and that there is only one British university on the list above Harvard I thought you might have figured it out. Ho hum !