A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 29th 14, 10:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

So something from a journalist who is simply filing a
report, ideally one that will be sufficiently sensational to attract interest,
is suddenly more valuable in determining what is occurring overall than that
from an unbiased researcher actually trying to do objective research and
discover the real position ?* I despair of your logic.

Your data is irrelevant because, like all social data, it
includes too many unknown variables. My reports are to the point and are
numerous enough and widespread enough to indicate a general condition
prevailing. Social data is hardly ever scientific. Counting when you do not know
what you are counting is for morons.


Ed, the report from the Lake District Mountain Rescue is hardly 'social data'. Nor is the report from the British Medical Journal on incidents per exposure. This is hard data showing the real situation.

Your scouring the internet for news articles about incidents is not even comparable and has no scientific basis whatsoever.

No Ed, things move forward ... not back.


Actually, most things just go round and round, never any
progress being made.


Sometimes, but clearly in this case we have gone forward the things have changed ... for the better.

So, I reiterate, you meet next to no-one so how is that

supposed to be representative of a population of tens or hundreds of millions
worldwide ?

You're fully entitled to your opinion ... but you cannot

assume that this is commonly shared.

We all make assumptions about everything all the time. It is
what we humans do best.


And, if you're smart, you recognise the limitations of making such assumptions and seek objective confirmation or refutation. If not, well you do what you do and simply assume you're right ... when you're not.

Personal experience is highly limited and is only of
value if we can make assumptions about it.


But, for any such assumptions to be valid you have to prove that others have similar experiences in sufficient numbers to be statistically valid. This is what you've never even attempted to do. You simply assert it to be the case ... which is circular logic.

Ads
  #22  
Old May 30th 14, 03:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

So something from a journalist who is simply filing a

report, ideally one that will be sufficiently sensational to attract interest,
is suddenly more valuable in determining what is occurring overall than that
from an unbiased researcher actually trying to do objective research and
discover the real position ? I despair of your logic.


Edward Dolan wrote:

Your data is irrelevant because, like all social data, it
includes too many unknown variables. My reports are to the point and are
numerous enough and widespread enough to indicate a general condition
prevailing. Social data is hardly ever scientific. Counting when you do not know
what you are counting is for morons.


Ed, the report from the Lake District Mountain Rescue is hardly 'social data'. Nor is the report from the British Medical Journal on incidents per exposure. This is hard data showing the real situation.


Hard data belongs to the realm of the physical sciences. All other data concerning people is social data and not very rigorous to say the least.

Your scouring the internet for news articles about incidents is not even comparable and has no scientific basis whatsoever.


We need details on the nature of the accidents to know what we are talking about. I present those details in my reports. All we get from you are numbers which tell us next to nothing. An examination of the details clearly show how dangerous biking on trails is.
[...]

We all make assumptions about everything all the time. It is
what we humans do best.


And, if you're smart, you recognise the limitations of making such assumptions and seek objective confirmation or refutation. If not, well you do what you do and simply assume you're right ... when you're not.


It is a function of one’s general intelligence to know whether you are right or not. For instance, I would not want you to make assumptions about anything under the sun.

Personal experience is highly limited and is only of
value if we can make assumptions about it.


But, for any such assumptions to be valid you have to prove that others have similar experiences in sufficient numbers to be statistically valid. This is what you've never even attempted to do. You simply assert it to be the case ... which is circular logic.


Nonsense, all the reports from the media on the number and nature of the mountain biker accidents is enough for anyone who has some common sense – something which you totally lack. Your resort to “data” is very funny and marks you as someone who who can‘t think for himself.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #23  
Old May 30th 14, 11:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

Ed, the report from the Lake District Mountain Rescue is hardly
'social data'. Nor is the report from the British Medical Journal on
incidents per exposure. This is hard data showing the real
situation.

Hard data belongs to the realm of the physical sciences. All
other data concerning people is social data and not very rigorous to say the
least.


It's rather more rigorous than trawling the internet for reports of accidents, which is what you do :-).

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they were called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one location.

We need details on the nature of the accidents to know what we
are talking about. I present those details in my reports.


I gave you the details ... and you don't like it because it doesn't support your position.

"Your reports" are no such thing ... they're random articles culled from the media all over the world. They are almost entirely worthless since you don't have enough data from any one location to infer anything.

All we get from you
are numbers which tell us next to nothing. An examination of the details clearly
show how dangerous biking on trails is.


And, examining the details, we discover that, actually, it's rather safer than many other activities that you're quite happy to engage in.
And, if you're smart, you recognise the limitations of making such

assumptions and seek objective confirmation or refutation. If not, well
you do what you do and simply assume you're right ... when you're not.

It is a function of one's general intelligence to know whether
you are right or not. For instance, I would not want you to make assumptions
about anything under the sun.


Well, what this says about your level of intelligence ... or education ... is clear.

Personal experience is highly limited and is only of


value if we can make assumptions about it.


But, for any such assumptions to be valid you have to prove that

others have similar experiences in sufficient numbers to be statistically
valid. This is what you've never even attempted to do. You simply
assert it to be the case ... which is circular logic.

Nonsense, all the reports from the media on the number and
nature of the mountain biker accidents is enough for anyone who has some common
sense - something which you totally lack. Your resort to "data" is very funny
and marks you as someone who who can't think for himself.


It marks me out as someone who won't take your bull**** at face value.

Backup what you say ... if you can.
  #24  
Old June 1st 14, 04:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...

Ed, the report from the Lake District Mountain Rescue is hardly

'social data'. Nor is the report from the British Medical Journal on
incidents per exposure. This is hard data showing the real
situation.


Edward Dolan wrote:

Hard data belongs to the realm of the physical sciences. All
other data concerning people is social data and not very rigorous to say the
least.


It's rather more rigorous than trawling the internet for reports of accidents, which is what you do :-).


If the reports are numerous enough and sufficiently widespread, any intelligent person will detect a pattern and draw some conclusions. The reason you are unable to perform these quite simple functions is because you are not intelligent.

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they were called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one location.


Yes, but only for that one location. Not general enough.

We need details on the nature of the accidents to know what we
are talking about. I present those details in my reports.


I gave you the details ... and you don't like it because it doesn't support your position.


"Your reports" are no such thing ... they're random articles culled from the media all over the world. They are almost entirely worthless since you don't have enough data from any one location to infer anything.


The fact that they are random and from all over the world is what makes them so good. It is your data from one location that is worthless.
[...]

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #25  
Old June 2nd 14, 11:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

Hard data belongs to the realm of the physical sciences. All

other data concerning people is social data and not very rigorous to

say the

least.


It's rather more rigorous than trawling the internet for reports

of accidents, which is what you do :-).

If the reports are numerous enough and sufficiently
widespread, any intelligent person will detect a pattern and draw some
conclusions. The reason you are unable to perform these quite simple functions
is because you are not intelligent.


Funnily enough, this would be true IF the reports were numerous and widespread enough. However, they're not. Against the millions of rides occurring every day they are tiny and therefore statistically insignificant.

I am not going to claim any great intelligence but, if you want to achieve any at all I suggest you read the following ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Specifically, read the paragraph which starts "Experiments have found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis."

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they were

called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one
location.

Yes, but only for that one location. Not general
enough.


Oh do learn some statistics and analysis. You want to collect data from the whole world without considering its size and then, magically, apply it to one location to make decisions. The Lake District data is comprehensive .... for one location ... so can be used ... for that location. Your worldwide data is meaningless.

"Your reports" are no such thing ... they're random articles

culled from the media all over the world.* They are almost entirely
worthless since you don't have enough data from any one location to infer
anything.

The fact that they are random and from all over the world is
what makes them so good. It is your data from one location that is
worthless.


Oh do go and read a textbook .. you're looking very foolish

  #26  
Old June 2nd 14, 11:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

If the reports are numerous enough and sufficiently
widespread, any intelligent person will detect a pattern and draw some
conclusions. The reason you are unable to perform these quite simple functions
is because you are not intelligent.


Funnily enough, this would be true IF the reports were numerous and widespread enough. However, they're not. Against the millions of rides occurring every day they are tiny and therefore statistically insignificant.


The reports are numerous enough and widespread enough to convince me – and anyone else with half a brain in his head.

I am not going to claim any great intelligence but, if you want to achieve any at all I suggest you read the following ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


Specifically, read the paragraph which starts "Experiments have found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis."


I am not testing any hypothesis. I am simply telling you what I KNOW to be facts.

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they were

called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one
location.

Yes, but only for that one location. Not general
enough.


Oh do learn some statistics and analysis. You want to collect data from the whole world without considering its size and then, magically, apply it to one location to make decisions. The Lake District data is comprehensive ... for one location ... so can be used ... for that location. Your worldwide data is meaningless.


Not if it is random and numerous and universal. It hints at a problem. However, if you are brain dead like you, then it doesn’t and never will.

"Your reports" are no such thing ... they're random articles

culled from the media all over the world. They are almost entirely
worthless since you don't have enough data from any one location to infer
anything.

The fact that they are random and from all over the world is
what makes them so good. It is your data from one location that is
worthless.


Oh do go and read a textbook .. you're looking very foolish


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.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #27  
Old June 3rd 14, 05:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
Blackblade[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

If the reports are numerous enough and sufficiently

widespread, any intelligent person will detect a pattern and draw some



conclusions. The reason you are unable to perform these quite simple

functions

is because you are not intelligent.


Funnily enough, this would be true IF the reports were numerous

and widespread enough. However, they're not. Against the millions of
rides occurring every day they are tiny and therefore statistically
insignificant.

The reports are numerous enough and widespread enough to
convince me - and anyone else with half a brain in his head.


Well then clearly you don't understand probability. If millions of people do something then even a low risk activity will throw up some untoward occurrences.

I am not going to claim any great intelligence but, if you want to

achieve any at all I suggest you read the following ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Specifically, read the paragraph which starts "Experiments have

found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by
searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis."

I am not testing any hypothesis. I am simply telling you what
I KNOW to be facts.


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.

The Mountain Rescue report details every incident where they

were

called out ... that's a representative sample for a season in one



location.




Yes, but only for that one location. Not general


enough.




Oh do learn some statistics and analysis. You want to

collect data from the whole world without considering its size and then,
magically, apply it to one location to make decisions. The Lake District
data is comprehensive ... for one location ... so can be used ... for that
location. Your worldwide data is meaningless.

Not if it is random and numerous and universal. It hints at a
problem. However, if you are brain dead like you, then it doesn't and never
will.


But it isn't numerous ... if mountainbiking were dangerous then there would be thousands of incidents per day ... as there are car accidents.

"Your reports" are no such thing ... they're random articles



culled from the media all over the world. They are almost

entirely

worthless since you don't have enough data from any one location to

infer

anything.




The fact that they are random and from all over the world is


what makes them so good. It is your data from one location that is



worthless.




Oh do go and read a textbook .. you're looking very foolish




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.

  #28  
Old June 3rd 14, 10:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

"Blackblade" wrote in message ...
[...]

Edward Dolan wrote:

I am not testing any hypothesis. I am simply telling you what
I KNOW to be facts.


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

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

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.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great


  #29  
Old June 5th 14, 05:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
John B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 03:51:05 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Blackblade considered Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:27:55
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

If the reports are numerous enough and sufficiently

widespread, any intelligent person will detect a pattern and draw some


conclusions. The reason you are unable to perform these quite simple
functions

is because you are not intelligent.

Funnily enough, this would be true IF the reports were numerous
and widespread enough. However, they're not. Against the millions of
rides occurring every day they are tiny and therefore statistically
insignificant.

The reports are numerous enough and widespread enough to
convince me - and anyone else with half a brain in his head.


Well then clearly you don't understand probability. If millions of people do something then even a low risk activity will throw up some untoward occurrences.


He also doesn't understand reporting bias.
Journalists do not report on the commonplace, because it isn't news.
Most people hauled off mountains by mountain rescue teams don't even
make the local paper, unless the circumstances are extremely unusual,
despite the fact that many would have died without that aid.

I am not going to claim any great intelligence but, if you want to
achieve any at all I suggest you read the following ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Specifically, read the paragraph which starts "Experiments have
found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by
searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis."

I am not testing any hypothesis. I am simply telling you what
I KNOW to be facts.


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.


It's called cherrypicking.


Actually, I believe it is better called "bigotry", "the intolerance
and prejudice of a bigot".

Bigot - "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own"

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)
  #30  
Old June 21st 14, 07:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc
EdwardDolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message ...

Blackblade considered Tue, 3 Jun 2014 09:27:55
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
The reports are numerous enough and widespread enough to
convince me - and anyone else with half a brain in his head.


Well then clearly you don't understand probability. If millions of people do something then even a low risk activity will throw up some untoward occurrences.


He also doesn't understand reporting bias.

Journalists do not report on the commonplace, because it isn't news.
Most people hauled off mountains by mountain rescue teams don't even
make the local paper, unless the circumstances are extremely unusual,
despite the fact that many would have died without that aid.

If mountain biking were safe we would not be reading anything about accidents and deaths related to it.
[...]

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.


It's called cherrypicking.


If I were reporting on hiking deaths that would indeed be cherrypicking because they are are so few and far between. Mountain biking accidents are so numerous and common that no cherrypicking is necessary.

Mountain bikers are barbarians and have no right to be on any trail used by hikers – unless they want to get off their god damn ****ing bikes and walk like everyone else. When they crash and injure themselves, I rejoice! If and when they manage to kill themselves, I say good riddance to bad rubbish! Death to mountain biking!

“Tread softly! All the earth is holy ground.”
~ Christina Rossetti (Psalm 24),
from "A Later Life: A Double Sonnet of Sonnets"

Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.

Trails are for walking. What’s the matter? Can’t walk?

Ed Dolan the Great
aka
Saint Edward the Great

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mountain bikers are a scourge wherever they are found EdwardDolan Social Issues 0 April 17th 14 06:46 PM
Sheep Poop Sickens Mountain Bikers; Mountain Bikers Sicken Everyone Else Mike Vandeman Social Issues 2 December 14th 10 10:20 AM
Sheep Poop Sickens Mountain Bikers; Mountain Bikers Sicken Everyone Else Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 5 December 9th 08 04:02 PM
A Majority of Mountain Bikers Break the Law (was Inconsiderate bikers) Gary S. Social Issues 0 August 6th 04 05:28 PM
A Majority of Mountain Bikers Break the Law (was Inconsiderate bikers) Gary S. Social Issues 0 August 6th 04 05:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.