Road Bicycle Helmets Offer Inadequate Protection for Mountain Biking

On Mar 8, 2:49*pm, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:55:02 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:13*am, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:09:27 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:11*pm, Rick wrote:
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:46:49 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:54*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
I agree, it is selfish to force an animal to carry and be controlled
by some fat human. Together we can free horses from this dangerous,
destructive pastime.

The easiest way to make horseback riding safer is to restrict bikes to
paved roads.

We'll work on that later.

For now, you and I need to spread the word that riding horses is
"pretty stupid, kind of like the people who practice it".

Obviously, that's not what I said, liar.

Mike, don't be so modest, that's exactly what you said. You said ANY
sport so extreme that it requires special protective equipment is
pretty stupid! Kind of like the people who practice it!

Don't worry, I'll make sure you get all the credit.

You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

Furthermore, here is a helpful list of protective equipment
recommended to horseback riders:

http://www.hughston.com/hha/a.horse.htm

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

Umm, this speaks more to your fears and insecurities then reality.. Simply leaving the house has risk. *If you are concerned about the risk of a particularly activity, then by all means do not do it. *Mt biking according to medical experts (of which you are not) has a low rate of mortality - not zero, but low. Most sports have some mortality risk. *Over 14 hikers died in Yosemite alone last year (most fell off of cliffs). *Yosemite has to run some 300 rescue efforts for hikers on Half Dome alone.

Let's evaluate your claim that any sport that requires a helmet is insane - that is your opinion, fine, but not the opinion of most people. *You are in the minority. *Short-track speed skating requires a helmet, but long-track does not, hockey requires a helmet, but figure skating does not (concussions are not uncommon in pair skating because the guy periodically drops his partner). *Football requires a helmet, but rugby and soccer does not. *Boxing doesn't require a helmet, must be safe uh. *Some skiers and snowboarders wear a helmet, but some do not. *Road, mt. biking, bmx, racing all require a helmet. *Baseball does not require a helmet, except when batting. Equestrians usually wear a helmet, but rodeo riders do not. *Gymnasts do not wear helmets. *Field hockey players wear protective gear, but tennis players do not. *And golf and bowlers do not wear helmets. *You are right, hikers do not wear helmets, but that does not stop a fair number of deaths around the world each year from hiking.

One has to also recognize that not everyone in a sport has an equal risk of injury or death. *As low as the death rate (based on the medical experts) is for skiing, snowboarding, cycling (far more road cyclist are killed each year due to cars than mt bikers) and other sports - young males from 14-30 years of age are at the highest risk for death or serious injury. *So while the risk is low overall, it becomes substantially lower if you are female or a male older than 30. In other words, while death rates are low in cycling (greatest risk on the road from cars), relatively speaking, young males tend to be stupid and will put themselves at greater risk than females and older males.

So yes, being active has its risk, but if you approach your activities fully informed you can minimize your risk to near zero. *I am a 58 yr old fit male whose risk of mortality is acceptably low for me, for all of my activities (short-track speed skating, cycling (mostly road but some mt. biking), skiing, running and hiking). *Interestingly, while still quite low, my greatest risk of mortality from my activities is from road cycling - its the cars stupid. *Therefore, because my risk of death is so low, I intend to keep doing them and expect to do many of them into my 80's (I have met a number of skiers in the late 70's and early 80's over the years). If you choose less demanding activities, that is great for and your prerogative. It does not work for me.

Enjoy, Rick

You need to measure risk properly: per person per hour. There are a
lot more hikers than mountain bikers, and their risks are FAR lower
than mountain bikers', if measured peoperly. That is truly obvious.
The rest of your rant is irrelevant.

Mike you assume way to much. Check the post, I never compared the relative risk of the various sports, simply that all activities have risk. The risk of a succumbing while cycling -higher for road then mt biking (that is an evidence based statement)- is very low according to real experts,

You just contradicted yourself: You just said that you don't compare
sports, then you went ahead and did so. Until you cite EVIDENCE, your
claim that road biking is more dangerous than mountain biking is just
hot air. An ASSERTION is not proof. DUH!

*and the low risk becomes even lower for my age class and age and
gender class for my wife. *Therefore, life my scare you, but it does
not my wife or me. *Unlike you, we make informed choices and intend to
remain extremely active for the remainder of our lives.

Enjoy, rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike you are way to slow. I have quoted statistics on numerous occasions regarding deaths associated with road cycling and mt. biking.

Statistics isn't your long suit, is it?

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:56:57 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:49*pm, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:55:02 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:13*am, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:09:27 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:11*pm, Rick wrote:
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:46:49 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:54*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
I agree, it is selfish to force an animal to carry and be controlled
by some fat human. Together we can free horses from this dangerous,
destructive pastime.

The easiest way to make horseback riding safer is to restrict bikes to
paved roads.

We'll work on that later.

For now, you and I need to spread the word that riding horses is
"pretty stupid, kind of like the people who practice it".

Obviously, that's not what I said, liar.

Mike, don't be so modest, that's exactly what you said. You said ANY
sport so extreme that it requires special protective equipment is
pretty stupid! Kind of like the people who practice it!

Don't worry, I'll make sure you get all the credit.

You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

Furthermore, here is a helpful list of protective equipment
recommended to horseback riders:

http://www.hughston.com/hha/a.horse.htm

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

Umm, this speaks more to your fears and insecurities then reality. Simply leaving the house has risk. *If you are concerned about the risk of a particularly activity, then by all means do not do it. *Mt biking according to medical experts (of which you are not) has a low rate of mortality - not zero, but low. Most sports have some mortality risk. *Over 14 hikers died in Yosemite alone last year (most fell off of cliffs). *Yosemite has to run some 300 rescue efforts for hikers on Half Dome alone.

Let's evaluate your claim that any sport that requires a helmet is insane - that is your opinion, fine, but not the opinion of most people.. *You are in the minority. *Short-track speed skating requires a helmet, but long-track does not, hockey requires a helmet, but figure skating does not (concussions are not uncommon in pair skating because the guy periodically drops his partner). *Football requires a helmet, but rugby and soccer does not. *Boxing doesn't require a helmet, must be safe uh. *Some skiers and snowboarders wear a helmet, but some do not. *Road, mt. biking, bmx, racing all require a helmet. *Baseball does not require a helmet, except when batting. Equestrians usually wear a helmet, but rodeo riders do not. *Gymnasts do not wear helmets. *Field hockey players wear protective gear, but tennis players do not. *And golf and bowlers do not wear helmets. *You are right, hikers do not wear helmets, but that does not stop a fair number of deaths around the world each year from hiking.

One has to also recognize that not everyone in a sport has an equal risk of injury or death. *As low as the death rate (based on the medical experts) is for skiing, snowboarding, cycling (far more road cyclist are killed each year due to cars than mt bikers) and other sports - young males from 14-30 years of age are at the highest risk for death or serious injury. *So while the risk is low overall, it becomes substantially lower if you are female or a male older than 30. In other words, while death rates are low in cycling (greatest risk on the road from cars), relatively speaking, young males tend to be stupid and will put themselves at greater risk than females and older males.

So yes, being active has its risk, but if you approach your activities fully informed you can minimize your risk to near zero. *I am a 58 yr old fit male whose risk of mortality is acceptably low for me, for all of my activities (short-track speed skating, cycling (mostly road but some mt. biking), skiing, running and hiking). *Interestingly, while still quite low, my greatest risk of mortality from my activities is from road cycling - its the cars stupid. *Therefore, because my risk of death is so low, I intend to keep doing them and expect to do many of them into my 80's (I have met a number of skiers in the late 70's and early 80's over the years). If you choose less demanding activities, that is great for and your prerogative. It does not work for me.

Enjoy, Rick

You need to measure risk properly: per person per hour. There are a
lot more hikers than mountain bikers, and their risks are FAR lower
than mountain bikers', if measured peoperly. That is truly obvious.
The rest of your rant is irrelevant.

Mike you assume way to much. Check the post, I never compared the relative risk of the various sports, simply that all activities have risk. The risk of a succumbing while cycling -higher for road then mt biking (that is an evidence based statement)- is very low according to real experts,

You just contradicted yourself: You just said that you don't compare
sports, then you went ahead and did so. Until you cite EVIDENCE, your
claim that road biking is more dangerous than mountain biking is just
hot air. An ASSERTION is not proof. DUH!

*and the low risk becomes even lower for my age class and age and
gender class for my wife. *Therefore, life my scare you, but it does
not my wife or me. *Unlike you, we make informed choices and intend to
remain extremely active for the remainder of our lives.

Enjoy, rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike you are way to slow. I have quoted statistics on numerous occasions regarding deaths associated with road cycling and mt. biking. Either you choose to ignore the facts that do not support your thesis or you really are stupid. As I have quoted on many occasions (check for yourself) over 700 cyclist are killed by cars each year (down from over 900 in the 1980's) - FACT. *That does not include the deaths from single bike accidents or people dying from underlying health issues (e.g., cardiac events), but these probably do not add *more than another 20 to 50 deaths. *For example of a couple of non-car related deaths on the local bike scene - 1) a couple of years ago a guy in his early 30's died descending Hicks Rd in South San Jose on his road bike - he simply screwed up; 2) A gentlemen died of a heart attack doing the Devil Mt. Double (200 mile rd that climbs Mt. Diablo and Mt.. Hamilton) as non-car related road deaths. *I could list a number of others, but no need to.

A SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE GOV ON OUTDOOR ACTIVITY (AMERICAN’S PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION:Results From NSRE (With weighted data) (Versions 1 to 13) provides that for the years 1999-2003 the Number of individuals 16 or older that participated in certain activities was bicycling - 83.9 million; of the 83.9 million some 45.2 million mountain biked on "backcountry roads, trails or cross country".

In 2005 the Bicycling Manufacture Association estimated the following: Of that 100 million households that own bikes, 55 million were adults (age 16 and up), while 45 million were children. 31 million adults rode regularly, defined as at least once a week. There were about 4.9 million bicycle commuters, 250,000 bicycle racers, 25 million mountain bike/hybrid riders, 1.7 million bicycle tourers, and 3.8 million participants in recreational bicycle events.

So while more hrs are logged on road bikes, mt. biking is and remains a very popular activity, maybe only a third the number of hrs. *You would be hard pressed to come up with more than 20 deaths annually world wide from mt. biking. *So you claim to have a degree in math, so I do not believe you will be so taxed to finally conclude, that the death rate from road riding, while low, is substantially greater than the death rate while mt. biking. *The main thing that kills cyclist is cars, something that is very rarely (notice I did not say zero) a problem on mt bikes.

So I would encourage you to drop ...

I guess my previous comment was over your head. You need to divide the
deaths by the total hours ridden (or miles ridden, if you prefer) by
ALL bicyclists. Same for mountain bikers. Until you do that (the
quotient will be microscopic; e.g. I've ridden for over 60 years
without a single accident. For mountain bikers, it won't be
microscopic. In any case, it will be greater. Think about how many
death-free miles bicyclists have ridden since the bicycle was
invented.... Learn something about science, before you open your mouth
again.

Are you purposely stupid or disingenuous? If you take the time to review the statistics, you will find the death rate for road cycling while considered low by the experts, it is much higher than mt biking - the analysis has been done you moron. Why is this, well as the experts will tell you if you take the time to get your head out of your ass, mt bikers are very rarely exposed to cars, the greatest contributor to cyclist deaths. How many mt bikers died on average the last 10 yrs in the U.S. from blunt force trauma? Less than 10 annually. Do not include underlying health issues as they are likely even across both types of cyclist. Take the 700 road cyclist that died from cars add the several dozen that died from blunt force trauma (i.e., single bike accidents) and you are looking at something like 80 plus times more deaths from road bike riding - based on the statistics from the gov and bike industry, pretty easy to see that the death rate for road cycling is higher than mt biking. Oh if you haven't figured it out yet, death rate by definition normalizes for comparative purposes - gawd you are stupid. Road cyclist being exposed to cars is the deciding factor. Facts seem hard for you to grasp. So based on the experts, it is safer to ride a mt bike than a road bike.

Enjoy, Rick

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:03:46 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:49*pm, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:55:02 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:13*am, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:09:27 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:11*pm, Rick wrote:
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:46:49 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:54*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
I agree, it is selfish to force an animal to carry and be controlled
by some fat human. Together we can free horses from this dangerous,
destructive pastime.

The easiest way to make horseback riding safer is to restrict bikes to
paved roads.

We'll work on that later.

For now, you and I need to spread the word that riding horses is
"pretty stupid, kind of like the people who practice it".

Obviously, that's not what I said, liar.

Mike, don't be so modest, that's exactly what you said. You said ANY
sport so extreme that it requires special protective equipment is
pretty stupid! Kind of like the people who practice it!

Don't worry, I'll make sure you get all the credit.

You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

Furthermore, here is a helpful list of protective equipment
recommended to horseback riders:

http://www.hughston.com/hha/a.horse.htm

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

Umm, this speaks more to your fears and insecurities then reality. Simply leaving the house has risk. *If you are concerned about the risk of a particularly activity, then by all means do not do it. *Mt biking according to medical experts (of which you are not) has a low rate of mortality - not zero, but low. Most sports have some mortality risk. *Over 14 hikers died in Yosemite alone last year (most fell off of cliffs). *Yosemite has to run some 300 rescue efforts for hikers on Half Dome alone.

Let's evaluate your claim that any sport that requires a helmet is insane - that is your opinion, fine, but not the opinion of most people.. *You are in the minority. *Short-track speed skating requires a helmet, but long-track does not, hockey requires a helmet, but figure skating does not (concussions are not uncommon in pair skating because the guy periodically drops his partner). *Football requires a helmet, but rugby and soccer does not. *Boxing doesn't require a helmet, must be safe uh. *Some skiers and snowboarders wear a helmet, but some do not. *Road, mt. biking, bmx, racing all require a helmet. *Baseball does not require a helmet, except when batting. Equestrians usually wear a helmet, but rodeo riders do not. *Gymnasts do not wear helmets. *Field hockey players wear protective gear, but tennis players do not. *And golf and bowlers do not wear helmets. *You are right, hikers do not wear helmets, but that does not stop a fair number of deaths around the world each year from hiking.

One has to also recognize that not everyone in a sport has an equal risk of injury or death. *As low as the death rate (based on the medical experts) is for skiing, snowboarding, cycling (far more road cyclist are killed each year due to cars than mt bikers) and other sports - young males from 14-30 years of age are at the highest risk for death or serious injury. *So while the risk is low overall, it becomes substantially lower if you are female or a male older than 30. In other words, while death rates are low in cycling (greatest risk on the road from cars), relatively speaking, young males tend to be stupid and will put themselves at greater risk than females and older males.

So yes, being active has its risk, but if you approach your activities fully informed you can minimize your risk to near zero. *I am a 58 yr old fit male whose risk of mortality is acceptably low for me, for all of my activities (short-track speed skating, cycling (mostly road but some mt. biking), skiing, running and hiking). *Interestingly, while still quite low, my greatest risk of mortality from my activities is from road cycling - its the cars stupid. *Therefore, because my risk of death is so low, I intend to keep doing them and expect to do many of them into my 80's (I have met a number of skiers in the late 70's and early 80's over the years). If you choose less demanding activities, that is great for and your prerogative. It does not work for me.

Enjoy, Rick

You need to measure risk properly: per person per hour. There are a
lot more hikers than mountain bikers, and their risks are FAR lower
than mountain bikers', if measured peoperly. That is truly obvious.
The rest of your rant is irrelevant.

Mike you assume way to much. Check the post, I never compared the relative risk of the various sports, simply that all activities have risk. The risk of a succumbing while cycling -higher for road then mt biking (that is an evidence based statement)- is very low according to real experts,

You just contradicted yourself: You just said that you don't compare
sports, then you went ahead and did so. Until you cite EVIDENCE, your
claim that road biking is more dangerous than mountain biking is just
hot air. An ASSERTION is not proof. DUH!

*and the low risk becomes even lower for my age class and age and
gender class for my wife. *Therefore, life my scare you, but it does
not my wife or me. *Unlike you, we make informed choices and intend to
remain extremely active for the remainder of our lives.

Enjoy, rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike you are way to slow. I have quoted statistics on numerous occasions regarding deaths associated with road cycling and mt. biking.

Statistics isn't your long suit, is it?

Since you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary (see recent post) than I have to say it is and you remain moronic.

Enjoy Rick

On Mar 8, 12:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:51*am, Shraga wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:08*pm, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 7, 2:58*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:40*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

That's not what my response is addressing, idiot. Learn to READ..

What you wrote, liar, and now refuse to address is, "Horseback riding
is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

I proved the contrary, and you are to much of a coward to admit it.

BS. You only proved that equestrians sometimes use helmets, NOT that
they are REQUIRED. Learn to READ, idiot.

Odd. I apparently mistook you for someone with an IQ above room-
temperature. I OBVIOUSLY showed you that equestrians sustain injuries
independent of mountain biker activity. Yet now you are going on about
helmets. You are just like a politician responding at a debate...
Someone asks you a question, and you provide an answer that has
nothing to do with it.

You wrote: "Horseback riding is only dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS

endanger equestrians." That is CLEARLY a lie; you were caught, and now
you are AFRAID to address it.

Nope. True. You have proved nothing.

That's a childish claim, considering you can't refute what I wrote.

It's also a typical politician's response. I backed you into a corner
and you have nothing left but a baseless denial. The evidence that
equestrians sustain injuries independent of mountain biker activity is
in that Nature reference for everyone to see... Well, everyone but
YOU, I guess, since you can't read.

There's nothing to refute, since you never proved that horseback
riding is so dangerous that it REQUIRES one to wear a helmet. Until
you do that, you are only blowing hot air, as usual. QED

Wow. So now when you can't refute someone, you resort to DELETING the
portion of the text that exceeds your understanding? Is there no end
to your dishonesty?

I put it back for you. You're welcome.

I will repeat it for a fourth time. Maybe you'll get it this time,
moron.

You wrote this IDIOTIC sentence: "Horseback riding is only dangerous
when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians." That is CLEARLY a lie; you
were caught, and now you are AFRAID to address it.

That is what I'm addressing here. Not helmets, moron. You are
desperately trying to change the subject to something you think you
can refute, but it won't work. All you're doing is proving you can't
follow a simple conversation.

You can't address your own comment honestly. That proves you lied.
QED, idiot.

On Mar 8, 12:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:51*am, Shraga wrote:









On Mar 8, 5:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:08*pm, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 7, 2:58*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:40*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

That's not what my response is addressing, idiot. Learn to READ..

What you wrote, liar, and now refuse to address is, "Horseback riding
is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

I proved the contrary, and you are to much of a coward to admit it.

BS. You only proved that equestrians sometimes use helmets, NOT that
they are REQUIRED. Learn to READ, idiot.

Odd. I apparently mistook you for someone with an IQ above room-
temperature. I OBVIOUSLY showed you that equestrians sustain injuries
independent of mountain biker activity. Yet now you are going on about
helmets. You are just like a politician responding at a debate...
Someone asks you a question, and you provide an answer that has
nothing to do with it.

You wrote: "Horseback riding is only dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS

endanger equestrians." That is CLEARLY a lie; you were caught, and now
you are AFRAID to address it.

Nope. True. You have proved nothing.

That's a childish claim, considering you can't refute what I wrote.

There's nothing to refute, since you never proved that horseback
riding is so dangerous that it REQUIRES one to wear a helmet. Until
you do that, you are only blowing hot air, as usual. QED


The International Federation for Equestrian Sports REQUIRES helmets
for competition.

The United States Equestrian Federation REQUIRES all riders to wear
certified helmets while competing in Hunter, Jumpers, and Hunt Seat
Equitation classes, and in any other class, including Hunter Hack,
where jumping is required.

Florida REQUIRES ALL riders under 16 to wear a helmet while horseback
riding.

New York REQUIRES ALL riders under 14 to wear a helmet for horseback
riding.

On Mar 8, 11:24*pm, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:56:57 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 2:49*pm, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:55:02 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:13*am, Rick wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:09:27 AM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 7, 12:11*pm, Rick wrote:
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:46:49 PM UTC-8, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:54*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
I agree, it is selfish to force an animal to carry and be controlled
by some fat human. Together we can free horses from this dangerous,
destructive pastime.

The easiest way to make horseback riding safer is to restrict bikes to
paved roads.

We'll work on that later.

For now, you and I need to spread the word that riding horses is
"pretty stupid, kind of like the people who practice it".

Obviously, that's not what I said, liar.

Mike, don't be so modest, that's exactly what you said. You said ANY
sport so extreme that it requires special protective equipment is
pretty stupid! Kind of like the people who practice it!

Don't worry, I'll make sure you get all the credit.

You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

Furthermore, here is a helpful list of protective equipment
recommended to horseback riders:

http://www.hughston.com/hha/a.horse.htm

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

Umm, this speaks more to your fears and insecurities then reality. Simply leaving the house has risk. *If you are concerned about the risk of a particularly activity, then by all means do not do it. *Mt biking according to medical experts (of which you are not) has a low rate of mortality - not zero, but low. Most sports have some mortality risk. *Over 14 hikers died in Yosemite alone last year (most fell off of cliffs). *Yosemite has to run some 300 rescue efforts for hikers on Half Dome alone.

Let's evaluate your claim that any sport that requires a helmet is insane - that is your opinion, fine, but not the opinion of most people. *You are in the minority. *Short-track speed skating requires a helmet, but long-track does not, hockey requires a helmet, but figure skating does not (concussions are not uncommon in pair skating because the guy periodically drops his partner). *Football requires a helmet, but rugby and soccer does not. *Boxing doesn't require a helmet, must be safe uh. *Some skiers and snowboarders wear a helmet, but some do not. *Road, mt. biking, bmx, racing all require a helmet. *Baseball does not require a helmet, except when batting. Equestrians usually wear a helmet, but rodeo riders do not. *Gymnasts do not wear helmets. *Field hockey players wear protective gear, but tennis players do not. *And golf and bowlers do not wear helmets. *You are right, hikers do not wear helmets, but that does not stop a fair number of deaths around the world each year from hiking.

One has to also recognize that not everyone in a sport has an equal risk of injury or death. *As low as the death rate (based on the medical experts) is for skiing, snowboarding, cycling (far more road cyclist are killed each year due to cars than mt bikers) and other sports - young males from 14-30 years of age are at the highest risk for death or serious injury. *So while the risk is low overall, it becomes substantially lower if you are female or a male older than 30. In other words, while death rates are low in cycling (greatest risk on the road from cars), relatively speaking, young males tend to be stupid and will put themselves at greater risk than females and older males.

So yes, being active has its risk, but if you approach your activities fully informed you can minimize your risk to near zero. *I am a 58 yr old fit male whose risk of mortality is acceptably low for me, for all of my activities (short-track speed skating, cycling (mostly road but some mt. biking), skiing, running and hiking). *Interestingly, while still quite low, my greatest risk of mortality from my activities is from road cycling - its the cars stupid. *Therefore, because my risk of death is so low, I intend to keep doing them and expect to do many of them into my 80's (I have met a number of skiers in the late 70's and early 80's over the years). If you choose less demanding activities, that is great for and your prerogative. It does not work for me.

Enjoy, Rick

You need to measure risk properly: per person per hour. There are a
lot more hikers than mountain bikers, and their risks are FAR lower
than mountain bikers', if measured peoperly. That is truly obvious.
The rest of your rant is irrelevant.

Mike you assume way to much. Check the post, I never compared the relative risk of the various sports, simply that all activities have risk. The risk of a succumbing while cycling -higher for road then mt biking (that is an evidence based statement)- is very low according to real experts,

You just contradicted yourself: You just said that you don't compare
sports, then you went ahead and did so. Until you cite EVIDENCE, your
claim that road biking is more dangerous than mountain biking is just
hot air. An ASSERTION is not proof. DUH!

*and the low risk becomes even lower for my age class and age and
gender class for my wife. *Therefore, life my scare you, but it does
not my wife or me. *Unlike you, we make informed choices and intend to
remain extremely active for the remainder of our lives.

Enjoy, rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike you are way to slow. I have quoted statistics on numerous occasions regarding deaths associated with road cycling and mt. biking. Either you choose to ignore the facts that do not support your thesis or you really are stupid. As I have quoted on many occasions (check for yourself) over 700 cyclist are killed by cars each year (down from over 900 in the 1980's) - FACT. *That does not include the deaths from single bike accidents or people dying from underlying health issues (e.g., cardiac events), but these probably do not add *more than another 20 to 50 deaths. *For example of a couple of non-car related deaths on the local bike scene - 1) a couple of years ago a guy in his early 30's died descending Hicks Rd in South San Jose on his road bike - he simply screwed up; 2) A gentlemen died of a heart attack doing the Devil Mt. Double (200 mile rd that climbs Mt. Diablo and Mt. Hamilton) as non-car related road deaths. *I could list a number of others, but no need to.

A SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE GOV ON OUTDOOR ACTIVITY (AMERICAN’S PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION:Results From NSRE (With weighted data) (Versions 1 to 13) provides that for the years 1999-2003 the Number of individuals 16 or older that participated in certain activities was bicycling - 83.9 million; of the 83.9 million some 45.2 million mountain biked on "backcountry roads, trails or cross country".

In 2005 the Bicycling Manufacture Association estimated the following: Of that 100 million households that own bikes, 55 million were adults (age 16 and up), while 45 million were children. 31 million adults rode regularly, defined as at least once a week. There were about 4.9 million bicycle commuters, 250,000 bicycle racers, 25 million mountain bike/hybrid riders, 1.7 million bicycle tourers, and 3.8 million participants in recreational bicycle events.

So while more hrs are logged on road bikes, mt. biking is and remains a very popular activity, maybe only a third the number of hrs. *You would be hard pressed to come up with more than 20 deaths annually world wide from mt. biking. *So you claim to have a degree in math, so I do not believe you will be so taxed to finally conclude, that the death rate from road riding, while low, is substantially greater than the death rate while mt. biking. *The main thing that kills cyclist is cars, something that is very rarely (notice I did not say zero) a problem on mt bikes.

So I would encourage you to drop ...

I guess my previous comment was over your head. You need to divide the
deaths by the total hours ridden (or miles ridden, if you prefer) by
ALL bicyclists. Same for mountain bikers. Until you do that (the
quotient will be microscopic; e.g. I've ridden for over 60 years
without a single accident. For mountain bikers, it won't be
microscopic. In any case, it will be greater. Think about how many
death-free miles bicyclists have ridden since the bicycle was
invented.... Learn something about science, before you open your mouth
again.

Are you purposely stupid or disingenuous? *If you take the time to review the statistics, you will find the death rate for road cycling while considered low by the experts, it is much higher than mt biking - the analysis has been done you moron.

Not by anyone who understands statistics, as I do. They are like the
"experts" who said that the Earth is flat. "Death rate" requires
division. That's why it is called a "rate". When you divide by the
HUGE number of road bicycling hours (or miles), you get a microscopic
number, MUCH smaller than for mountain bikers. If you can't understand
that, you need to go back to grade school and learn long division. QED

On Mar 9, 6:52*am, Shraga wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Mar 8, 6:51*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 8, 5:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:08*pm, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 7, 2:58*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:40*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

That's not what my response is addressing, idiot. Learn to READ.

What you wrote, liar, and now refuse to address is, "Horseback riding
is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

I proved the contrary, and you are to much of a coward to admit it.

BS. You only proved that equestrians sometimes use helmets, NOT that
they are REQUIRED. Learn to READ, idiot.

Odd. I apparently mistook you for someone with an IQ above room-
temperature. I OBVIOUSLY showed you that equestrians sustain injuries
independent of mountain biker activity. Yet now you are going on about
helmets. You are just like a politician responding at a debate...
Someone asks you a question, and you provide an answer that has
nothing to do with it.

You wrote: "Horseback riding is only dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS

endanger equestrians." That is CLEARLY a lie; you were caught, and now
you are AFRAID to address it.

Nope. True. You have proved nothing.

That's a childish claim, considering you can't refute what I wrote.

It's also a typical politician's response. I backed you into a corner
and you have nothing left but a baseless denial. The evidence that
equestrians sustain injuries independent of mountain biker activity is
in that Nature reference for everyone to see... Well, everyone but
YOU, I guess, since you can't read.

There's nothing to refute, since you never proved that horseback
riding is so dangerous that it REQUIRES one to wear a helmet. Until
you do that, you are only blowing hot air, as usual. QED

Wow. So now when you can't refute someone, you resort to DELETING the
portion of the text that exceeds your understanding? Is there no end
to your dishonesty?

I put it back for you. You're welcome.

I will repeat it for a fourth time. Maybe you'll get it this time,
moron.

You wrote this IDIOTIC sentence: "Horseback riding is only dangerous
when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

That is true.

That is CLEARLY a lie; you
were caught, and now you are AFRAID to address it.

That is what I'm addressing here. Not helmets, moron. You are
desperately trying to change the subject to something you think you
can refute, but it won't work. All you're doing is proving you can't
follow a simple conversation.

You can't address your own comment honestly. That proves you lied.
QED, idiot.

You proved NOTHING.

On Mar 9, 12:52*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:





On Mar 8, 6:51*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 8, 5:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:08*pm, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 7, 2:58*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:40*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

That's not what my response is addressing, idiot. Learn to READ.

What you wrote, liar, and now refuse to address is, "Horseback riding
is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

I proved the contrary, and you are to much of a coward to admit it.

BS. You only proved that equestrians sometimes use helmets, NOT that
they are REQUIRED. Learn to READ, idiot.

Odd. I apparently mistook you for someone with an IQ above room-
temperature. I OBVIOUSLY showed you that equestrians sustain injuries
independent of mountain biker activity. Yet now you are going on about
helmets. You are just like a politician responding at a debate...
Someone asks you a question, and you provide an answer that has
nothing to do with it.

You wrote: "Horseback riding is only dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS

endanger equestrians." That is CLEARLY a lie; you were caught, and now
you are AFRAID to address it.

Nope. True. You have proved nothing.

That's a childish claim, considering you can't refute what I wrote.

There's nothing to refute, since you never proved that horseback
riding is so dangerous that it REQUIRES one to wear a helmet. Until
you do that, you are only blowing hot air, as usual. QED

The International Federation for Equestrian Sports REQUIRES helmets
for competition.

We aren't talking about competion, dum dum. We are talking about
normal riding on trails.

The United States Equestrian Federation REQUIRES all riders to wear
certified helmets while competing in Hunter, Jumpers, and Hunt Seat
Equitation classes, and in any other class, including Hunter Hack,
where jumping is required.

We aren't talking about competion, dum dum. We are talking about
normal riding on trails.

Florida REQUIRES ALL riders under 16 to wear a helmet while horseback
riding.

New York REQUIRES ALL riders under 14 to wear a helmet for horseback
riding.

We aren't talking about children, dum dum. We are talking about normal
riding on trails. But obviously, the majority of states don't think
horseback riding for kids is dangerous -- since it ISN'T. QED

On Mar 9, 4:24*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 9, 6:52*am, Shraga wrote:









On Mar 8, 12:51*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:51*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 8, 5:12*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 1:08*pm, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 7, 2:58*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:40*am, Shraga wrote:

On Mar 6, 11:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:59*am, Shraga wrote:
You are an idiot, like ALL mountain bikers. Horseback riding is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians. You are fooling
no one except yourself.

The fact that you are doubling down on this ridiculous claim is more
proof of your insanity.

Please read this article:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

Although I know it's a challenge, try to pay close attention to Table
7, which lists the "causative factors." The types of equestrian
activities listed as a "causation" (i.e., "causes" of the injuries)
include "racing, course racing, show jumping, dressage, horse trials
and eventing, rodeo events and polo" among others.

While you may not support these activities, they do, in fact, involve
"horseback riding" and, as the article shows, do result in injuries.
So, please explain how mountain bikers endanger equestrians during
dressage events. And when you're done with that, please post the
evidence that proves that these injuries NEVER occurred prior to the
existence of mountain bikers.

As I said, any sport that requires a helmet is insane. What part of
that don't you understand? Mountain biking seems to be the most
dangerous of those, judging by the number & severity of accidents..

That's not what my response is addressing, idiot. Learn to READ.

What you wrote, liar, and now refuse to address is, "Horseback riding
is only
dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

I proved the contrary, and you are to much of a coward to admit it.

BS. You only proved that equestrians sometimes use helmets, NOT that
they are REQUIRED. Learn to READ, idiot.

Odd. I apparently mistook you for someone with an IQ above room-
temperature. I OBVIOUSLY showed you that equestrians sustain injuries
independent of mountain biker activity. Yet now you are going on about
helmets. You are just like a politician responding at a debate....
Someone asks you a question, and you provide an answer that has
nothing to do with it.

You wrote: "Horseback riding is only dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS

endanger equestrians." That is CLEARLY a lie; you were caught, and now
you are AFRAID to address it.

Nope. True. You have proved nothing.

That's a childish claim, considering you can't refute what I wrote.

It's also a typical politician's response. I backed you into a corner
and you have nothing left but a baseless denial. The evidence that
equestrians sustain injuries independent of mountain biker activity is
in that Nature reference for everyone to see... Well, everyone but
YOU, I guess, since you can't read.

There's nothing to refute, since you never proved that horseback
riding is so dangerous that it REQUIRES one to wear a helmet. Until
you do that, you are only blowing hot air, as usual. QED

Wow. So now when you can't refute someone, you resort to DELETING the
portion of the text that exceeds your understanding? Is there no end
to your dishonesty?

I put it back for you. You're welcome.

I will repeat it for a fourth time. Maybe you'll get it this time,
moron.

You wrote this IDIOTIC sentence: "Horseback riding is only dangerous
when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger equestrians."

That is true.

Congratulations! That's the first time you were able to follow the
thread. Now, if only you could learn to read...

*That is CLEARLY a lie; you

were caught, and now you are AFRAID to address it.

That is what I'm addressing here. Not helmets, moron. You are
desperately trying to change the subject to something you think you
can refute, but it won't work. All you're doing is proving you can't
follow a simple conversation.

You can't address your own comment honestly. That proves you lied.
QED, idiot.

You proved NOTHING.

Blah, blah blah. Your lack of a reasoned response shows otherwise. You
haven't been able to muster a coherent response yet; so your denial is
baseless. Senility is apparently getting the best of you.

In 1937 Cole Porter was crippled in a riding accident. How did a
mountain biker endanger Cole Porter?

Here, again, since you are afraid to read it, is the article from
Nature that breaks down the incidence of equestrian injuries:

http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40...280a.html#tbl7

In light of those examples, address your moronic statement that,
"Horseback riding is only dangerous when MOUNTAIN BIKERS endanger
equestrians."

And by "address", I mean act like a grown up, not like a pouting child
whose most sophisticated response is "did not!" or similar pathetic
denial.

Of course you won't, because you can't.

On Mar 9, 4:29*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:52*pm, Len McGoogle wrote:

The International Federation for Equestrian Sports REQUIRES helmets
for competition.

We aren't talking about competion, dum dum. We are talking about
normal riding on trails.

snip

We aren't talking about competion, dum dum. We are talking about
normal riding on trails.

On March 2, YOU wrote: "Any *sport* so extreme that it requires
special protective equipment is
pretty stupid! Kind of like the people who practice it!"

So yes, dum dum, we ARE talking about competition, because YOU brought
it up, dum dum.