Skiing vs cycling

[slowmotion]

I have never been skiing - downhill skiing has never appealed (the risk has always seemed high, the smug middle-classness of the pursuit repellent and the leisure-wear horrific. And frankly if I'm going on holiday in winter I want something more interesting to look at than an industrialised mountainside.)

You appear to be labouring under a number of serious misapprehensions. You should try it for yourself. 2.38 injuries per 1000 days skiing seems a small risk to me. No accounting for individual perceptions of risk though.
http://www.ski-injury.com/specific-sports/alpine

 

[Linford]

It matters not what the speed of the car before the impact was because it is within the car.

Can you elaborate on this as I'm not following your specific train of thought ?

 

[srw]

2.38 injuries (requiring medical attention) per 1000 days translates into one injury per busload per week. That's higher risk even than motorcyling - even before you read the details. "One skiing day" is defined in the statistics as 10 descents. Even that website acknowledges that a 10-descent day is rather thin.

I was lectured on my commute without a bike helmet by the same member of my staff who had to take 3 weeks out of the office because of a ski injury. Now I know the statistics I think an interesting discussion on risk analysis might ensue...

I may be being slightly facetious about the leisurewear and the braying fondue-eating apres-ski.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I may be being slightly facetious about the leisurewear and the braying fondue-eating apres-ski.

Spot-on I reckoned ....

 

[ufkacbln]

It is a simple question.
I ride my 170mph (ish) motorcycle without a lid from time to time...however, that is done on private land and at walking pace when parking up.
It is all about 'managing risk'...you can never completely remove it.

So you are saying that it is reasonable for you to consider this a low risk activity and therefore not wear a helmet?

 

[ufkacbln]

So going by this if believed to be 100% true, isn't a fractured skull something worth mitigating against as well as a brain injury in the first instance ?

Which is exactly the reason your kids should be wearing a Thudguard

 

[david k]

I've been waiting for some time for your gang to come charging to your rescue in some sort of last minute action to save your bacon, but like all the lost causes you have fought before, you stand alone, unbowed but very much alone.

There have been many debates on these very points before, many have grown tired of the same old arguments and don't feel the need to go over old ground again and again. What motivation would someone have in engaging with posters who attempt to humiliate and argue with their often hostile replies?
I have no intention of joining in another thread but wanted to address your point, I have added several posters to my ignore list and as such don't see many of the posts.

If you read through the many threads that have gone before you will see posters who share both points of view, its not accurate to suggest only Linford has held these opinions.

 

[sazzaa]

I'm more concerned about real life too, so I think I'll do what the oil industry must do when it invests billions in a new rig.

Eeny Meeny Miney Mo. R I G spells Rig!

Right - there will do.

Wow, irrelevant much?

 

[Linford]

Which is exactly the reason your kids should be wearing a Thudguard

How old do you think my kids are Cunobelin ?

Do you wear a thudguard yourself, and if not, why not ?

 

[Linford]

So you are saying that it is reasonable for you to consider this a low risk activity and therefore not wear a helmet?

You seem to struggle with a differentiation between low risk and no risk. As a biker, I have no problem protecting my head from potential injury
The reality is that the only time you would need to wear any form of head protection would be beyond the point where you are in a position to choose one way or the other.

 

[Linford]

Yes it is. The risks are different, and it's the person providing the service that sets the conditions. But the main difference is that horse riding is a minority leisure pursuit that doesn't matter very much, so no one really cares. If people wish to ride their own horses without helmets, then I'm on their side, in so far as I can be arsed to be. For most purposes the only important thing horse riding shares with cycling is a risk of being intimidated or endangered by motor traffic.

The Equestrian sector is worth billions each year in the UK. Where do you get your opinions on this from?

BETA National Equestrian survey 2011

In 1995 BETA conducted the first independent study of equestrianism in Great Britain, which was then updated and expanded upon in 1999 and 2006. These reports determined the number of riders, horse owners and horses owned amongst the general public and also examined the professional sector in detail. In addition, information was gathered on areas such as riding habits, expenditure, equestrian publications and business characteristics.

The 2011 National Equestrian Survey highlights new spending patterns and changing trends over the past five years. It uses accurate statistics and reliable estimates to present a clear picture of the British equestrian sector. Headline findings include:

• An estimated 3.5 million people in Britain have ridden during 2010-11. Although this is 19 per cent less than in 2005-6, it is 1.1 million more than in 1998-9.
• There is increased interest in riding for pleasure, schooling, riding lessons, competition – both affiliated and non-affiliated – and hunting.
• About 1.6 million people ride at least once a month, up from 1.4 million in 1998-9 but considerably lower than 2005-6 estimates of 2.1 million.
• Forty-eight per cent of regular riders are aged 24 and under, but significant growth has appeared among those aged 45 and over.
• The seasonality of riding has changed, with 98 per cent riding all year round, whereas the figure was only 61 per cent in 1995-6.
• The main reason given for stopping riding is that it is too expensive – a change from 2005-6, when a loss of interest was cited.
• Forty-two per cent of ex-riders – 1.3 million – said they planned to ride again in the future.
• There are an estimated 900,000 privately owned horses and 451,000 horse owners in Britain. This figure rises to just below 1 million when the 88,000 horses owned by the professional sector are added.
• It is estimated that direct expenditure for the upkeep and care of horses stands at £2.8 billion – £3,105 per horse, per annum – compared with £2.6 billion in 2005-6.
• Other costs involved in owning a horse are estimated at £557 million a year, including £191 million spent on footwear and £129 million on riding hats and body protectors.
• The gross output of the equestrian sector is valued at £3.8 billion a year, lower than previously but reflecting the shrinking consumer market caused by the economic downturn. It is still, however, an extremely large figure in its own right, boosted significantly when other equine-related activities such as racing (an estimated £3.7 billion) and major equestrian events (an estimated £6 million) are factored in.

For more information go to BETA's website

 

[theclaud]

The Equestrian sector is worth billions each year in the UK. Where do you get your opinions on this from?

So what? I said that it doesn't matter, not that no one spends money on it. Perhaps your enthusiasm for polystyrene hats for cyclists is based on a covert economic argument? If so you can just admit it - it can't make any less sense than anything you've advanced thus far.

 

[theclaud]

It is possible to think

One step at a time, Ade...

 

[Fab Foodie]

There have been many debates on these very points before, many have grown tired of the same old arguments and don't feel the need to go over old ground again and again. What motivation would someone have in engaging with posters who attempt to humiliate and argue with their often hostile replies?
I have no intention of joining in another thread but wanted to address your point, I have added several posters to my ignore list and as such don't see many of the posts.

If you read through the many threads that have gone before you will see posters who share both points of view, its not accurate to suggest only Linford has held these opinions.

We continue to debate this because people are either completely unaware of the facts or constantly try to dismiss or ignore the facts with opinion and anecdata over and over again - that's why they are constantly challenged and it's right to do so. We constantly hear posters spout the same old uninformed nonsense and that is harming cycling as a safe activity for all. Thankfully those you think are trying to humiliate are trying very gently, patiently and even doggedly to explain some reality in the face of often unyielding ignorance. They're doing this because it's important.

Linford (as you mentioned him) unfortunately starts to dig a hole and when faced with good reasons why he should stop digging just digs that much harder. He buries himself effectively.

Finally, there is no anti-helmet agenda here, but there is anti-compulsion.

 

[slowmotion]

2.38 injuries (requiring medical attention) per 1000 days translates into one injury per busload per week. That's higher risk even than motorcyling - even before you read the details. "One skiing day" is defined in the statistics as 10 descents. Even that website acknowledges that a 10-descent day is rather thin.

All good stuff, but I'm not a "busload", just a pretty bad skier who has been on the slopes for a total of (very roughly) 200 days since the age of ten. I needed medical attention once, and that was because I was being a bit of a t*t. I was off for a day with a foot injury. Given the enjoyment I have had, that's a blooming small price to pay. I may get killed in March but I'm not cowering in fear.