Mountain Biking Injury Report

I fail to see your point. Life isn't safe. Might as well ride.

That's before we even get into the health implications of spending your life
sitting on your arse in front of a computer.

I work in IT support and a colleague took a call the other day from someone
who had her finger stuck in the FDD of her workstation. The fire brigade
attended the scene......

Stay in your homes!

Andy Chequer

"Andy Chequer" m wrote in
message ...

I fail to see your point. Life isn't safe. Might as well ride.

That's before we even get into the health implications of spending your
life
sitting on your arse in front of a computer.

I work in IT support and a colleague took a call the other day from
someone
who had her finger stuck in the FDD of her workstation. The fire brigade
attended the scene......

Stay in your homes!

Andy Chequer


"...her finger stuck in the FDD of her workstation."
**** me!! that must've taken some serious doing!!!!!!!
Dave
('scuse the language but y'know what I mean?!?)

"...her finger stuck in the FDD of her workstation."
**** me!! that must've taken some serious doing!!!!!!!
Dave
('scuse the language but y'know what I mean?!?)

No ****. If I'd not been three desks from the bloke who took the call I
wouldn't have believed it either.

Andy Chequer

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:36:43 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mountain bikers often claim that they mountain bike because riding on the road
is so dangerous. This study found that mountain biking is TWICE as dangerous as
road riding. So much for THAT excuse.

http://site37721.dellhost.com/free_p...0Oct%20ABC.pdf

It was a survey of roadies, so its "junk science". :-)

Lemme see, 89% of the accidents are road, 11% are MTB - so 11/89 2?

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

Put yourself out.

I MTB 2004

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:49:12 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:

.It was a survey of roadies, so its "junk science". :-)
.
.Lemme see, 89% of the accidents are road, 11% are MTB - so 11/89 2?

I guess you didn't read it. A greater percentage of mountain bikers have
accidents than road bicyclists.

It was the SAME group of roadies, a few of whom had done a little bit of
riding off-road. Why would a group of roadies with little off-road
experience and (a high comfort level with road riding) be an appropriate
sample? Its not, of course. Even if you consider the 18% that did any
meaningful amount of mountain biking, that's a sample size of 15 which is
far too small to be significant. It really is "junk science" as far as
your use of it goes - that's why I'm sure you'll contine to use it.

I've been riding off-road frequently for nine years now, and never had to
see a doctor for anything cycling-related. My riding compadres have never
been seriously injured either. In that same timeframe, I have a roadie
friend who's had his arm broken, and another who spent half a day in a
coma - both experienced road riders hit by cars. As usual, your "data"
never syncs up with reality.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:57:20 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:

.That's a lot worse than anything I've gotten in the last 40 years of road
.riding at about 3 - 6 thousand miles/year.

Me too, over 55 years.

And yet the bunch they interviewed in that survey missed an average of 17
DAYS of work due to injuries. I'd consider that pretty damned dangerous!
Maybe they were just accident-prone. :-)

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

On 4 Apr 2004 17:59:35 GMT, BB wrote:

..On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:57:20 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
.. .That's a lot worse than anything I've gotten in the last 40 years of road
.. .riding at about 3 - 6 thousand miles/year.
..
.. Me too, over 55 years.
..
..And yet the bunch they interviewed in that survey missed an average of 17
..DAYS of work due to injuries. I'd consider that pretty damned dangerous!
..Maybe they were just accident-prone. :-)

Look up "statistics" in the dictionary. That's what science is about.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 4 Apr 2004 17:49:35 GMT, BB wrote:

..On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:49:12 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:
..
.. .It was a survey of roadies, so its "junk science". :-)
.. .
.. .Lemme see, 89% of the accidents are road, 11% are MTB - so 11/89 2?
..
.. I guess you didn't read it. A greater percentage of mountain bikers have
.. accidents than road bicyclists.
..
..It was the SAME group of roadies, a few of whom had done a little bit of
..riding off-road. Why would a group of roadies with little off-road
..experience and (a high comfort level with road riding) be an appropriate
..sample? Its not, of course. Even if you consider the 18% that did any
..meaningful amount of mountain biking, that's a sample size of 15 which is
..far too small to be significant. It really is "junk science" as far as
..your use of it goes - that's why I'm sure you'll contine to use it.
..
..I've been riding off-road frequently for nine years now, and never had to
..see a doctor for anything cycling-related. My riding compadres have never
..been seriously injured either. In that same timeframe, I have a roadie
..friend who's had his arm broken, and another who spent half a day in a
..coma - both experienced road riders hit by cars. As usual, your "data"
..never syncs up with reality.

The difference is that THEY did science, whereas you only gave a little
anecdotal "evidence", when an even smaller sample size. Can you spell
"hypocrisy"?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:39:55 GMT, Mike Vandeman wrote:

.It was the SAME group of roadies, a few of whom had done a little bit of
.riding off-road. Why would a group of roadies with little off-road
.experience and (a high comfort level with road riding) be an appropriate
.sample? Its not, of course. Even if you consider the 18% that did any
.meaningful amount of mountain biking, that's a sample size of 15 which is
.far too small to be significant. It really is "junk science" as far as
.your use of it goes - that's why I'm sure you'll contine to use it.
.
.I've been riding off-road frequently for nine years now, and never had to
.see a doctor for anything cycling-related. My riding compadres have never
.been seriously injured either. In that same timeframe, I have a roadie
.friend who's had his arm broken, and another who spent half a day in a
.coma - both experienced road riders hit by cars. As usual, your "data"
.never syncs up with reality.

The difference is that THEY did science, whereas you only gave a little
anecdotal "evidence", when an even smaller sample size. Can you spell
"hypocrisy"?

Yes, I can even use it in a sentence: Your interpretation of this study
is "junk science" (the point above, which you didn't argue), making all
your other posts about "junk science" nothing but hypocrisy.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)