Results 1 to 34 of 34
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stugotz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    427

    Recent Study Takes Aim at Mountain Bike Injuries

    submitted by: Wilderness Medical Society

    In the last 30 years, the sport of mountain biking has soared exponentially in popularity. It is estimated that in 2009 38 million Americans regularly took part in the sport, sometimes called “free-riding,” where the rider navigates steep slopes and technical terrain.

    In a study published in the latest issue of Wilderness & Environmental Medicine (Elsevier), Ashwell, et al, investigated 898 cases of mountain bike park cyclist who presented to the Whistler Health Clinic in Whister, British Columbia, during a 5-month period. Eight-six percent of those injured were male. And, although the majority of patient injuries were rated as mild to moderate in severity, 12.3% of riders experienced injuries that were considered potentially threatening to life, limb, or function and 9.5% required transfer to a higher level of care.

    The results of this research are the first attempt at describing the epidemiology of injury associated with lift-accessed free-ride mountain biking. They demonstrate the spectrum of morbidity of such injuries. The Whistler study findings suggest planning for increased staffing for injuries on weekends and during the month of August, and highlight the need for improved upper extremity protection and more effective head injury protection for this sport. The authors of this study suggest that given the relative rarity of injury from bike-to-bike crashes, injury prevention strategies will need to focus on methods for maintaining control of the bike. Additionally, the authors conclude that “further research should include exposure information as well as specific information about which trail features are associated with injury, evaluate the long-term outcomes after bike park injuries, assess the costs of care after injury, and attempt to identify acceptable injury rates in this increasingly popular sport.”

    The free full-text online article may be accessed at Elsevier. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine is published by Elsevier Inc., for the Wilderness Medical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah. Wilderness Medical Society
    Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!
    German Engineering in Da Haus, Ja!

  2. #2
    Cutting Edge Technology
    Reputation: CarbonDreams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    16
    I firmly believe only 30% of mountain biking injuries are related to riding. I can't count how many times I've cut myself working on a bicycle or smashing my fingers!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: d365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,705
    most of the stuff that I consider "free-riding" has a pretty high cost of failure.... not that accidents don't happen on a "regular" trail, but...

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    I understand the desire to try and create better protective gear to help prevent injuries, and I'm sure there is much room for improvement. On the other hand, every FR/DH rider out there knows the inherent dangers of what they are doing. You can make stronger helmets and pads all you want, it won't change the fact that if you bail while hucking yourself down a mountain, more than likely you'll be slightly more broken than at the top of the trail.
    Impossible Is Nothing

  5. #5
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    I can get hurt Mountain Biking?

  6. #6
    A guy on a bike Moderator
    Reputation: TobyGadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    951
    No pain, no gain.

    Or so I tell myself, hoping that I've learned something useful after smashing into the ground yet again.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,933
    Please note Whistler is in a region of free medical care....

    Hence big brother is always there to reduce injure costs.

  8. #8
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,841
    38 million did NOT participate in lift-accessed "free ride mountain biking" I can almost guarantee that....

    Love how they word these articles....Plus BC has some of the most advanced riding in north america....sheesh...

    I would like to see a study of injury vs people actually getting healthy instead of being lazy fat turds that don't go outside.....


  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,277
    I wonder how many people ski? Plus how many of them get
    hurt doing it?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: telemike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    430

    Insurance bills don't lie

    This spring I talked to one of the Shasta Mountain Guides about insurance. The lowest: Rock climbing groups. The highest: Mountain bike tours, not wild land skiing on a 14K + volcano.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    38 million did NOT participate in lift-accessed "free ride mountain biking" I can almost guarantee that....

    Love how they word these articles....Plus BC has some of the most advanced riding in north america....sheesh...

    I would like to see a study of injury vs people actually getting healthy instead of being lazy fat turds that don't go outside.....

    Where did they get these numbers? Did they survey mtbers asking if they've ever ridden "freeride" trails, guaranteed at least 90% said yes, even though their wheels never leave the ground lol. The real number I would think would be less than 1% of that 38 million, worldwide. Only 10% of the mtbers I encounter actually ride at bike parks. Most every rider wants to ride like a freeride or world cup star but in reality most of us won't or can't. I can't afford injuries that keep me out of work, so a reality check is in order. Living in a country of fat out of shape lardasses who eat fast food at least once a day, promoting this type of riding is what will bring the kids in and keep 'em skinny. When was the last time you saw a fat kid at the dirt jumps? Every time I see rugrats riding the ski slope it brings a smile to my face, do you think the parents are worried their kids will suffer a horrific accident? You're at infinitely higher risk of a car accident driving to and from the resort. Stepping out of bed everyday inherently brings the risk you'll possibly die today, at least we'll be healthy and happy.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11,933
    Quote Originally Posted by masterofnone View Post
    Where did they get these numbers? Did they survey mtbers asking if they've ever ridden "freeride" trails, guaranteed at least 90% said yes, even though their wheels never leave the ground lol. The real number I would think would be less than 1% of that 38 million, worldwide. Only 10% of the mtbers I encounter actually ride at bike parks. Most every rider wants to ride like a freeride or world cup star but in reality most of us won't or can't. I can't afford injuries that keep me out of work, so a reality check is in order. Living in a country of fat out of shape lardasses who eat fast food at least once a day, promoting this type of riding is what will bring the kids in and keep 'em skinny. When was the last time you saw a fat kid at the dirt jumps? Every time I see rugrats riding the ski slope it brings a smile to my face, do you think the parents are worried their kids will suffer a horrific accident? You're at infinitely higher risk of a car accident driving to and from the resort. Stepping out of bed everyday inherently brings the risk you'll possibly die today, at least we'll be healthy and happy.
    I understand your point....

    But the 38 million would refer to peole days on the hill (or some such number)....

    That way they can take the medical costs and divide by the people days on the hill...

    Then assign that as a cost when it comes time to renegoicate the mountain use consession...

    Remember this is Canada.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doodoobaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    41
    I thought flying down a mountain would be safer than it is...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wsmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    542
    Doesn't matter if it's Canada... the U.S. will follow... it's Govt. Nannies, Insurance Companies, and the "concerned public" who will create the fear mongering over the sport of Mountain Biking.

    Protection through legislation gets pretty ugly no matter what the powers-that-be think is the most fashionable danger activity of the day.

    See these words...
    "...highlight the need for improved upper extremity protection and more effective head injury protection for this sport."
    regulating what people have to wear when mtbing

    "...suggest that given the relative rarity of injury from bike-to-bike crashes, injury prevention strategies will need to focus on methods for maintaining control of the bike."
    regulating trail design (flow, steepness, surface conditions...), and bike design

    “...further research should include exposure information as well as specific information about which trail features are associated with injury..."
    regulating trail design(again), regulating rating systems for riders

    "...evaluate the long-term outcomes after bike park injuries, assess the costs of care after injury..."
    This is the argument used for such things as seatbelt laws for adults, MC helmet laws for adults, Gun Control laws, Smoking by individuals in private settings and public(but privately owned) eating and drinking establishments, and others

    "...attempt to identify acceptable injury rates in this increasingly popular sport."
    Very scary words here! Yep... they know what's good for you and what you should/shouldn't be doing!

    I've worked in the medical field since the mid-70s.
    I have ridden motorcycles, owned firearms, and engaged in "risky" behavior both as a civilian and while employed by various govt entities.

    I don't smoke.. never have... never will, but I don't go to Casinos largely because they allow smoking in most all of them... I would never agree they need to ban smoking in Casinos due to health reasons. I don't own the casinos so it's none of my business if they allow smoking or not. Same for eating establishments and bars.
    Basically, I don't like a nanny state.. which is what the U.S. has become.
    Adults should be allowed more freedom to exercise choices they feel are right for them.
    Yeah... I know some things will get you killed and if you have loved ones depending on you for support... too bad.

    I have seen plenty of death both as a professional and as a family member.
    I don't take this issue lightly.
    If the activity in question is a danger to more than the individual who partakes in it... sure, create some safety... laws or otherwise.
    But... if we're going to legislate personal choice based upon "those we leave behind"... then it should be even across the board... to include things already mentioned like the food we eat, the liquids we drink, the mode of transportation we choose (speed governors on all vehicles, for example), so on and so forth...

    As for the cost to society from uninsured medical expenses... I personally think if a person does not have the money or insurance to pay for injuries sustained through personal activities when the injury is clearly their own fault... don't treat them.
    Someone wants to hike in the forest, climb a mountain, and gets in trouble... no more SAR.
    People need to learn that to undertake a dangerous endeavor of their own freewill means they also take personal responsibility for anything that happens other than harm brought to them by other individuals/companies.

    WHEW! That was a tall soapbox! Someone get me a ladder so I can get down off this thing!

  15. #15
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    This is great. It is the beginning of understanding the circumstances which evoke injury. This is something that High School racing has done as well. There is so much data shared amongst trainers and leaders that the idea of "accidents" becomes ridiculous. Circumstances and behavior paradigms can be constructed and implemented. Rate of injury plummets.

    In the broadest of brushstroke it mean that we slow down and build gradually. Traditional racers and jock coaches resist this until their kids crash themselves slow.

    I'm betting that in the end just slowing down and building skills will work wonders. In that context riding "at the edge" becomes foolhardy.
    I don't rattle.

  16. #16
    Too Close To The Hill
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    200
    For 898 patients, 11.2% had traumatic brain injury. The most common injuries were fractures (~50%) with 74.2% being upper extremity fractures (74.2%). When looking at fractures, the most common were:

    1. Shoulder (inc clavicle)
    2. Wrist
    3. Fingers
    4. Elbow
    5. Ribs.

    While the data on what protective gear was worn was scant (other than everyone wearing helmets), we all know the most commonly worn protection by mountain bikers are helmets, gloves, and lower leg armor. I had always figured these were the most important pieces of gear. The study doesn't support my previous assumptions for leg armor (unless it is skewed because they all had lower extremity armor). The MAJORITY of lower extremity fractures were ankles! The mechanics of mtb falls explains why upper extremity injuries lead.

    My personal anecdotal experience is that I have broken a wrist and an elbow DH. Now I wear wrist guards every day I DH. My chest protector has better shoulder/clavicle protection than most (still inadequate). Some people laugh because I wear so much armor... or maybe it is just because my armor makes me look way more rad than I actually am. What do you wear for armor?

    The TBI rate is huge. Our bike helmets are clearly not sufficient, even the ones that conform to the slightly higher standards. We go much faster than they are tested. But, I feel like a DOT helmets would wreck my neck and be intolerably hot. I have seen a lot of riders using neck braces, but not DOT helmets. Thoughts?

    FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE AVAILABLE FREE HERE: Elsevier
    Lacerations through intact armor are a mark of talent... or stupid... or both...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: B-Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    750
    I wear a 661 Vapor suit (chest, back, elbow), 661 Leg/Shin armour, a full-face & a camelback when I ride downhill.

    I'm sure I look like a dweeb, but the ability to keep riding after a crash is pretty nice. Not sure that any of this stuff would prevent a broken bone however. MTB is just a risk-inherant sport.
    Check out my You Tube Channel

  18. #18
    2006 Yeti AS-X
    Reputation: Lawson Raider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,959
    Everything has risk to it. Even putting yourself in a bubble has risks.

    Driving to work is pretty dangerous if you really think about it. You are out there with hundreds of people you don't even know out there wizzing past you at 70 mph and you don't even know how coherent they are.
    I don't use Strava. Don't need an application to tell me I am slow because I already know.

  19. #19
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Risk Management, we take risks, somehow we manage.

  20. #20
    Too Close To The Hill
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    200
    We all know there is risk. This study gives us a quantitative look at consequences. Can we use this information to mitigate risk while still doing what we enjoy?
    Lacerations through intact armor are a mark of talent... or stupid... or both...

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,930
    Hmm... The idea is risk is it not? I did on day at ski resort doing downhill runs. I personally did not like it. Still I don't care if people want to do it. Some people like taking risks and guess what. If you are going down a mounting and 45 mph it will hurt if you crash. You can make the bikes easier to control and better to soak up bumps an all you will do is crash at 50 mph or off of a 1 foot larger drop. Same for making the trails smoother. The fun is pushing to the limits. I am not against safety gear or taking out clear trail dangers, but the whole ideat is to push yourself. I personally thing mountain biking is alot safter than road roading simply due to traffic. On mtb I can control how much risk I am willing to take. I can control what trails I ride and how fast I ride them. I can chose to dismount at a nasty spot try to ride it and take on some risk. On road bike I car could slam into me and kill me without me doing anything dumb at all.

    I have been racing cars for 10 years now an on a race track you learn to take risks and push yourself. You cannot win races without taking risks, but those risk are managed. You learn to accept some work around others. I see mountain biking as just the same. We each need the freedom to chose how much risk we are willing to take.
    Joe
    '12 Santa Cruz Highball 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", Fetish Fixation SS 26" XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  22. #22
    Fat-tired Roadie Moderator
    Reputation: AndrwSwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,183
    Downhill skiing has interesting injury rates.

    This is anecdotal, from talking to ski patrollers and on-site medical people, so obviously not peer-review material...

    Beginners have pratfalls and get hurt. Wrists, thumbs, that kind of thing.
    Intermediate skiers go faster and get hurt more. Same deal, but let's add collar bones. Note that this is basing their ability on the runs they're on, so it's probably often lower-intermediate folks who are going too fast for where they are and their skill. The worst ski resort injury days (in Tahoe, and according to the medical staff at the resort where I worked) are cold weekend days when it hasn't snowed in a while. The groomed runs have icy surfaces, aggressive intermediates get going really fast, and people have trouble keeping their skis under them.
    Advanced skiers actually have a lot less orthopedic stuff. They're frequently on less crowded slopes, they're much more likely to be skiing in control, and they're ironically often a bit more conservative about what they do, especially since they're beginning to place themselves in much higher-consequence situations on occasion. Certainly the ability to look down from a ridgeline and decide I wasn't ready to ski something is something I didn't develop for a while. As an intermediate, I'd sack up and do it, and sometimes wipe out, sometimes badly. I think I needed to get a little older, fall a few times, and also recognize that I was getting further and further away from main runs and there were more rocks and trees to hit. At some resorts, advanced skiers trigger avalanches skiing out of bounds on unstable slopes when they shouldn't.

    A lot of the really spectacular stuff happens on high-consequence terrain, of course. Some of it by skiers who've done that stuff before and made a mistake. But it seems like most of the really nasty things I've heard about have been intermediates ducking ropes and putting themselves in places they don't belong.

    So I often wonder if there's a similar pattern in mountain biking. When I was learning, in college, I fell a lot and while I never did worse than a minor elbow sprain (knock wood,) I got cut up pretty frequently. The truth is that I was riding too hard for my ability level at the time. Now I ride more conservatively. I wish I had data from when I was in college, because I think I'm actually going quite a lot faster. I'm just being more conservative relative to how I see my skill level. Everyone enjoys sharing stories about someone they saw unloading a super-expensive bike from his super-expensive car and then later wiping out badly when he went over a drop or something with his ass firmly planted and his weight forward. (Or standing on locked knees and same deal.) I think mountain bikers as a group may be even a little worse than skiers deciding to charge things they haven't done before.
    "Don't buy upgrades; ride up grades." -Eddy Merckx

  23. #23
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,128
    Is this report possibly the same report that came out awhile back, but with a new spin on it?

    The review of the original article, IIRC, stated that you can't generalize MTB crash statistics from Whistler because there is almost nowhere else that compares to it. There WILL be a dramatic incidence of particular injuries at this venue due to the terrain and the equipment involved with the sport.

    If I am recalling correctly, they have simply adjusted the spin on the stats without really making them any more relevant to the "normal" "everyday" "XC" mountain biking in which "most" people engage (please supply your own definition for terms in quotes ).

    Increased safety gear and other technical equipment upgrades would NOT increase safety in any way. It would just give riders an excuse to go faster - still assuming as much perceived risk as they want.
    Trail design to limit speed actually works, but obviously there is a demand for advanced features. A rider's just got to know their limitations.

    I would have to think the statistics for injuries per off-road bicycle mile traveled are generally pretty low. Although, in all honesty, my severity has been up while my frequency has been down... so I'm starting to get nervous again. Though, statistically speaking I am due to increase my frequency and reduce my severity to stay in the middle of all the bell curves. I can live with that.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7
    Let's sit home and get fat on the couch! No injury there!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by SummitAP View Post
    We all know there is risk. This study gives us a quantitative look at consequences. Can we use this information to mitigate risk while still doing what we enjoy?
    I think so. I'm much more interested in upper body protection for big down hills now!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post

    Increased safety gear and other technical equipment upgrades would NOT increase safety in any way. It would just give riders an excuse to go faster - still assuming as much perceived risk as they want.
    This argument is made of helmets too. There's definitely some legitimacy that you compensate for more safety gear by taking more risks, but its definitely not certain that you end up with the same risk as before.

    With helmets, the sword is double-edged, as cars have been observed to drive closer as well (in a road environment).

    My speed is often dictated by traction in turns. If I put more safety gear on, I don't have a lot of room to increase my risk. Some trails, however, might give you a lot more options for increasing risk to compensate for safety gear, i.e., taking the double black diamond when you know you shouldn't.

  27. #27
    Don't Tread on Me
    Reputation: Lopaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    675
    More mis-information by little men with an agenda. Question authority!!!
    Consciousness, that annoying time between bike rides.

  28. #28
    Too Close To The Hill
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    200

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fleas View Post
    The review of the original article, IIRC, stated that you can't generalize MTB crash statistics from Whistler because there is almost nowhere else that compares to it. There WILL be a dramatic incidence of particular injuries at this venue due to the terrain and the equipment involved with the sport.

    If I am recalling correctly, they have simply adjusted the spin on the stats without really making them any more relevant to the "normal" "everyday" "XC" mountain biking in which "most" people engage (please supply your own definition for terms in quotes ).
    There is no spin. The article is about DH bike parks. Their data is original. The study authors are only attempting to apply their findings to lift served DH, not XC. Whistler's environment and user population is reasonably comparable to other lift served DH areas in the US as far the purpose of the study: identifying trends in morbidity. This thread probably should have been in the DH/FR forum.

    I would have to think the statistics for injuries per off-road bicycle mile traveled are generally pretty low. Although, in all honesty, my severity has been up while my frequency has been down... so I'm starting to get nervous again. Though, statistically speaking I am due to increase my frequency and reduce my severity to stay in the middle of all the bell curves. I can live with that.

    -F
    Road vs Mtb... sure Mtb is pick you own poison vs the uncontrollable risk of cars, but Mtb has a much higher traumatic injury rate per user-mile or user-hour. However, I'd wager that when a roadie gets a traumatic injury, it is much more likely to be severe because there may have been a car involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by PretendGentleman View Post
    Increased safety gear and other technical equipment upgrades would NOT increase safety in any way. It would just give riders an excuse to go faster - still assuming as much perceived risk as they want.
    This argument is made of helmets too. There's definitely some legitimacy that you compensate for more safety gear by taking more risks, but its definitely not certain that you end up with the same risk as before.

    With helmets, the sword is double-edged, as cars have been observed to drive closer as well (in a road environment).

    My speed is often dictated by traction in turns. If I put more safety gear on, I don't have a lot of room to increase my risk. Some trails, however, might give you a lot more options for increasing risk to compensate for safety gear, i.e., taking the double black diamond when you know you shouldn't.
    The concept is known as Risk Compensation.

    I think you make a key point in debunking risk compensation as applicable for DH Mtb: most riders are not being held back by fear of injury, but by limits of their equipment or skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lopaka View Post
    More mis-information by little men with an agenda. Question authority!!!
    Lacerations through intact armor are a mark of talent... or stupid... or both...

  29. #29
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,128
    Quote Originally Posted by SummitAP View Post
    There is no spin. The article is about DH bike parks. Their data is original. The study authors are only attempting to apply their findings to lift served DH, not XC. Whistler's environment and user population is reasonably comparable to other lift served DH areas in the US as far the purpose of the study: identifying trends in morbidity. This thread probably should have been in the DH/FR forum.

    ...
    You are right - no spin. Maybe the previous article I saw was actually someone else quoting this data for their own scare tactics.

    They still have this - this is what sorta put me off:
    "In 2009, nearly 28% of more than 38 million Americans who regularly bicycled were riding mountain bikes. Mountain biking in which the rider navigates down steep slopes and technical terrain with manmade jumps, gaps, and obstacles, also referred to as “free-riding,” has become very popular, accounting for almost 50% of the total participation in some off-road cycling events."

    ...and 100% in others, and 0% in others... "50% of the total participation in some off-road cycling events" isn't even a real number, is it?
    That's all I was getting at.

    If nothing else, this increases injury awareness.

    -F
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wsmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    542

    I can see how my earlier comments look like fear-mongering, thanks for your help in pointing that out


    Still... I have seen the pattern before with almost the exact same wording.

    I'm fine with studying injuries and causes, along with coming up with new ideas on protective gear, I just don't like wording that takes the form of how to regulate a sport.
    Participants in a sport should be able to either make their own decisions, or if underage, rely on their parents to do so.

    For the comments on helmets and other safety gear either making things safer or more dangerous (or even having no effect on safety overall)...
    I have seen times where safety equipment has been a lifesaver as well as an injury reducer.
    I have also seen those times when safety equipment had little to no effect on preventing or reducing injury.
    Safety gear, in my opinion, does actually do more statistically speaking to help prevent/reduce injury than it does to exacerbate the same.

    Study the issues, seek better solutions to the issues, but let adults make their own personal choices in the end.

  31. #31
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Quote Originally Posted by wsmac View Post

    Safety gear, in my opinion, does actually do more statistically speaking to help prevent/reduce injury than it does to exacerbate the same.
    Hmmm....shaky thinking here: "in my opinion" and "statistically speaking" don't go together very well but I like the sentiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by wsmac View Post

    Study the issues, seek better solutions to the issues, but let adults make their own personal choices in the end.
    A person can study the issues all they want but unless they have experience upon which to measure that information an informed choice is unlikely. If that were true we could just eliminate the Beginner forum; these noobs could simply study-up, then go out an hammer.
    I don't rattle.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: wsmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Hmmm....shaky thinking here: "in my opinion" and "statistically speaking" don't go together very well but I like the sentiment.
    Point taken

    A person can study the issues all they want but unless they have experience upon which to measure that information an informed choice is unlikely. If that were true we could just eliminate the Beginner forum; these noobs could simply study-up, then go out an hammer.
    From my understanding... an "informed choice" is a choice made based upon information received, not actual experience.

    Beginners may come here (as I have often) and find information concerning particular safety equipment.
    They can use that information then to make an informed choice.
    If they go out and ride around and decide what they have is not "making the grade"... then through that experience they can make new choices.

    We can make choices through complete ignorance or seek information that we believe to be valid enough to make an informed decision.
    Or
    We can let laws, regulations, and other people tell us specifically what we can do, what we cannot do, where we can do it, when we can do it...
    I like information that is valid and correct. I like to use that information to help me make decisions that work for me.
    For some things... I choose to defer to someone more educated/experienced than I when making decisions about particular activities or acquiring certain items, or even accepting certain medical procedures.
    For other things... I like to make my own decisions and then take sole responsibility for those decisions. Recreational activities fall within the latter group.

  33. #33
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    We disagree on the idea of informed choice. I think that all the information in the world is useless unless it engages related experience. Absent experience it is only theory...or desire. I am reminded of Sheldon on The Big Bang who learned to swim in an online course without ever leaving the laptop. He is brilliant and aced the course but he still couldn't swim.

    In a our real-time, speed and solid object sort of sport, the stakes are high. As the guy supporting the off-the-back participant I have watched adults makes choices before. Being an adult is no guarantee for good decisions or for being able to pick up the pieces later.
    I don't rattle.

  34. #34
    Too Close To The Hill
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    200
    I think these two nonscientific polls of mtbr DH riders are somewhat relevant to this thread:

    What armor do you usually wear?

    How often do you wreck?
    Lacerations through intact armor are a mark of talent... or stupid... or both...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •