This all comes from some misguided idea that MTB is somehow “safe” in their definition
It is safe. Indeed the health benefits vastly outweigh the health risks
If you feel its unsafe then there is something odd about your risk assessment or you are riding well beyond your abilities
you are riding well beyond your abilities
Isn't that a part of the fun for many? Pushing limits etc
It is safe. Indeed the health benefits vastly outweigh the health risks
If you feel its unsafe then there is something odd about your risk assessment or you are riding well beyond your abilities
Hence why snowflakes need to be told to just find some other pastime not REFRAME Mountain biking to their screwed up perception of risk.
Errmmm - IMO its you that has the odd perception thinking a safe pastime is dangerous. Its not.
Isn’t that a part of the fun for many? Pushing limits etc
It's still SAFE... as DANGEROUS means DEATH or paralysis ... anything else is just part and parcel of MTB.
If people try and reframe SAFE as not risk breaking the odd bone they need to go find another hobby as that isn't possible in MTB.
SAFE as not risk breaking the odd bone they need to go find another hobby as that isn’t possible in MTB.
Yes it is. the vast majority of us never break bones
tjagain
Yes it is. the vast majority of us never break bones
It just means you have been lucky or you don't MTB...
Nope - it means your perception of risk is skewed. MTBing is not risky.
It just means you have been lucky or you don’t MTB…
Source?
Nope – it means your perception of risk is skewed. MTBing is not risky.
I agree because breaking an odd bone and other minor injuries doesn't make it risky...
matt_outandabout
Source?
People fall 3' and break bones all the time.... it's called bad luck.
Source?
actually why you asking for my source...??? it's TJ claiming the vast majority of us never break bones..where his his source?
I agree because breaking an odd bone and other minor injuries doesn’t make it risky…
It doesn't make it risky...to you. Others can and will think very differently, especially when you start breaking bones.
mtb CAN be dangerous but it depends on your abilities and what you're doing at the time.
As far as risk assessments go, human beings are very poor at assessing risk, most either turn a blind eye to it or convince themselves it wont happen to them.
it’s TJ claiming the vast majority of us never break bones..where his his source?
30+ years of mountainbiking with a huge variety of folk of all skills. Ive seen one broken bone. 40+ years of road riding two deaths
Its much safer than road riding for example but some of you seem to think its this dangerous extreme sport when it really is not. Why this need to see it in this way is beyond me. Unless your assessment of risk is crap and you ride way beyond your abilities then its simply not dangerous
^^A handy little exchange for illustrating the original point of discussion (long after the event)...
How many promoters of sports/hobbies try to woo potential participants by stating broken bones are part and parcel of it, or that failure to injure yourself is evidence that your not 'really doing it'...
That's definitely how you'll grow MTBing, double down on the "Bro-vado"...
TJ
30+ years of mountainbiking with a huge variety of folk of all skills. Ive seen one broken bone. 40+ years of road riding two deaths
Just because you only saw one doesn't mean there weren't others.... (unless you have some super power xray vision)
Its much safer than road riding for example but some of you seem to think its this dangerous extreme sport when it really is not.
Of course its safer than road riding... Safe being the opposite of DANGEROUS.
I'm not claiming its a dangerous sport, I'm saying it has an inherent risk of minor injury.
Why are you even trying to conflate a few broken bones with dangerous sport?
Conventionally risk analysis has 2 main axes... likelihood and impact and you keep conflating them.
Why this need to see it in this way is beyond me. Unless your assessment of risk is crap and you ride way beyond your abilities then its simply not dangerous
I've not said it WAS dangerous.... quite the opposite the chance of death is minimal
Hitting a brick wall/bus at 60 mph is dangerous.... falling on the floor at 10-15 mph isn't... You can kill yourself at 15mph but it's very difficult and involves a lot of bad luck.
If we conflate risk of minor injuries with danger (impact)... and people get the idea they can MTB without risk of the odd minor injury then the snowflakes start suing and injury lawyers and ambulance chasers ensue and trails get closed.
Flicker
It doesn’t make it risky…to you. Others can and will think very differently, especially when you start breaking bones.
mtb CAN be dangerous but it depends on your abilities and what you’re doing at the time.
If we step back ... rather than my response to a response to a response....
MTB isn't risky in terms of consequences (impact) only in terms of frequency of minor injuries.
Breaking the odd bone isn't high impact... snowflakes might pretend it is but we can't live our lives based round people with a skewed sense of reality.
As far as risk assessments go, human beings are very poor at assessing risk, most either turn a blind eye to it or convince themselves it wont happen to them.
More to the point risk around MTB is often completely screwed ...
"What if I case the gap?" - erm you slow down a lot and can't do the next jump
"What if my front wheel washes out on a loose stone or slippery root" - you'll probably pile your head into the ground
"What if I have a mechanical or there is a white out in the middle of nowhere in winter?" - erm you'll quiote possibly die if you don't have sufficient survival equipment
and the absolute classic?
"what if I have a heart attack on the climb" .... ask very few people ever.
or "what if I have a traffic accident on the way to the trails"
Many people see the first one as "risky or dangerous" but you're going to hurt yourself the same just slipping on a root at the same speed (and most jumps absolutely require <15mph) and don't even consider the danger of driving somewhere or being stranded in the middle of nowhere in winter.
cookeaa
How many promoters of sports/hobbies try to woo potential participants by stating broken bones are part and parcel of it,
Why should we be trying to woo anyone ?
On the other hand lying to people and pretending its not part and parcel of MTB is .. well lying...
More importantly with the snowflakes and ambulance chasers in today's UK it is what is going to kill MTB
or that failure to injure yourself is evidence that your not ‘really doing it’…
I'm confused as to what that is in reference to ?
If we step back … rather than my response to a response to a response….
MTB isn’t risky in terms of consequences (impact) only in terms of frequency of minor injuries.Breaking the odd bone isn’t high impact… snowflakes might pretend it is but we can’t live our lives based round people with a skewed sense of reality.
I'd disagree regarding breaking bones, it is high impact and it can be a serious problem depending on the severity of the break, where you are and who you're with when it happens.
I wouldn't class it as a safe pass time either, but then everything we do carries a level of risk. The trick is assessing the risk level and doing what we can to mitigate those risks, if you can accept that then crack on, if not then don't do it. As I said though, we're generally rubbish at assessing risk.
flicker
I’d disagree regarding breaking bones, it is high impact and it can be a serious problem depending on the severity of the break, where you are and who you’re with when it happens.
We seem to be almost violently agreeing .... I'm simply disagreeing on it being high impact by definition of a broken bone.
Punctured lungs and internal bleeding are high impact but just breaking a bone in itself is just a trivial minor injury without complications.. and these tend to be the level of MTB injuries for most of us that aren't riding hardline.
I wouldn’t class it as a safe pass time either, but then everything we do carries a level of risk.
As I've been saying for several pages... without some definition of "safe" and "dangerous" it's quite meaningless outside of our personal definitions. Even in terms of impact the same injury can have a different impact on different people depending on their work and benefits and health.
The whole point is there is a random aspect to crashing... it doesn't matter how slow you go a root can be slippery, a rock can come loose etc. and you can break a bone or dislocate a joint just falling off a stationary bike or 2 steps of a step ladder so it is never without risk of minor injury.
If we don't resist this snowflake HSSE bullsh%t at every opportunity we are going to end up in a world no-one can do anything without some HSSE piece of crap interfering and threatening legal action.
Safe would be accidents rare and serious accidents extremely rare
Mountainbiking would fit this
BYW - I am trained in risk assessment and am not confusing incidence and severity.
Why you have this need to claim its risky, broken bones are the norm i cannot fathom. Why this pretense that its an extreme sport when its a safe pastime and why this weird emphasis on snowflakes and health and safety ruining things?
Its so detached from reality or the norm its unfathomable to me
Its so detached from reality or the norm its unfathomable to me
To who you are, where you ride and what you ride maybe ? Your 'MTB' is potentially completely different MTB to his...
Which changes the risk dramatically maybe ?
This is MTBing in my world... plus knowing where and how Steve and his lad ride... it's not too far away from their version
Even thats only risky if you are riding well beyond your abilities - and thats a long way from the mainstream or are we now back to "if you don't do 20foot gaps its not mountainbiking"
Its his insistence that MTB is inherently dangerous and that serious injury ( broken bone is a serious injury) is the norm
My MTB ing often has a very different risk profile - because guess what - I go out in the mountains in winter. You know real mountains where people die every year - and its still not risky!
Even thats only risky if you are riding well beyond your abilities
I've seen people break collar bones on a standard across field rut, about 2" deep and went wrong, doing about 6mph... He's a perfectly competent MTBer. However, he slipped, fell off and broken the top of his shoulder off. Not even remotely beyond abilities..
I've seen plenty of others, i've HAD plenty of others, you lose the front in a corner, you crash on chalky clay stuff on the SDW etc... it's effortless... but not really pushing any boundaries.
Safe would be accidents rare and serious accidents extremely rare
some of us don't want some snowflake saying what others can and cant do and trying to make out stuff is dangerous and making threats to have trails closed because they think they are "dangerous".
Mountainbiking would fit this
Your idea of it might...crack on
BYW – I am trained in risk assessment and am not confusing incidence and severity.
LOL .. sure in your head
Why you have this need to claim its risky, broken bones are the norm i cannot fathom.
I didn't say its risky I said minor injuries including a few broken bones are the norm for people (e.g. homo sapiens) and that is not risky it's normal life .
Why this pretense that its an extreme sport
WHERE DID I SAY ITS AN EXTEME SPORT ???
when its a safe pastime
Unless you define safe that's meaningless.. I've never said it wasn't safe.
Even huge crashes off road rarely kill someone ergo it's not dangerous ergo its safe.
and why this weird emphasis on snowflakes and health and safety ruining things?
Umm because some people have no life of their own and instead get their enjoyment out of trying to ruin everyone else's fun by pretending minor injuries are dangerous and not perfectly normal
Its so detached from reality or the norm its unfathomable to me
Life is reality not the screwed up cotton wool world where people are scared of doing anything fun and people think its OK to threaten people for building a few gaps jumps on private land...
We seem to be almost violently agreeing …. I’m simply disagreeing on it being high impact by definition of a broken bone.
Quite possibly, I'm easily confused 😀
tjagain
Its his insistence that MTB is inherently dangerous
Once again it's not DANGEROUS... people rarely die.
and that serious injury ( broken bone is a serious injury) is the norm
No it isn't, that's why they treat it at the MINOR INJURY CLINIC unless there are complications
Oh dear - it just gets weirder.
As often on STW, I think we've got people here unable to understand, or even see, that their particular view or case is not the same as other people's, and might not even be typical of anyone's.
And therein lies the problem. How can we become a more inclusive community (can't see how anyone would want to argue that we shouldn't try to be?) if we can't even accommodate each others' PoV when we're all riders here?
If there are issues with particular trails and conflicting user groups, then put all that righteous energy into trying to resolve that (and make stuff better for everyone) rather than arguing circles on here?
Get out on your bike. Have fun (whatever that means for you). Keep yourself safe (whatever that means for you). Come back and tell anyone who'll listen that (mountain) bikes are ace and they should get one and go ride it wherever and however they want, and bollocks to anyone trying to tell them what they can and can't enjoy or that they're not a 'real' MTBer if they don't fit any single narrow (minded) definition.
Weeksy
This is MTBing in my world… plus knowing where and how Steve and his lad ride… it’s not too far away from their version
I'm expecting he walked away and at worse minor injuries (Obviously given its in retrospect) .. but MOST IMPORTANTLY (for this thread not you in that instance)
I’ve seen people break collar bones on a standard across field rut, about 2″ deep and went wrong, doing about 6mph…
This .^^^^. be it the 2" rut, the frosty root or loose stone all at walking pace.
If anything I'd say its RARELY where/when you expect... it's the 2" ruts and the like at 6mph get you
I think the point really here is we see and do these "big crashes" on a fairly regular basis... and mostly (overwhelmingly) nothing serious happens... whereas these unexpected 2" ruts are just as likely to lead to injury.
The PERCEIVED DANGER is not the actual DANGER...
Colournoise
bollocks to anyone trying to tell them what they can and can’t enjoy or that they’re not a ‘real’ MTBer if they don’t fit any single narrow (minded) definition.
The issue is snowflakes and ambulance chasers are trying to control what other people can and can't ride and getting trails closed down because of either their screwed up idea of "safe" or just to make money.
There was a bloke 2 weeks ago THREATENING a charity, the Friends of the Hurtwood over a couple of tiny and completely optional gap jumps saying how he'd been an expert witness on a case awarded £2M of damages .. when someone got hurt and demanding they were removed.
Ultimately there is no "safe" mountain biking by the snowflake definition .. its mountain biking and slippery roots, rocks coming loose or that 2" rut are going to catch someone out sooner or later.
Colournoise
And therein lies the problem. How can we become a more inclusive community (can’t see how anyone would want to argue that we shouldn’t try to be?) if we can’t even accommodate each others’ PoV when we’re all riders here?
Mountain biking doesn't need more snowflakes that go running to the personal injury lawyers every time they have a minor injury and the volunteers didn't go out before them and sweep the trails clean for them and unless that happens then sniper roots, loose rocks and 2" ruts are going to catch people out and people are going to have a few minor injuries and even a few major injuries and deaths. The case they guy was saying he was an expert witness on led to someone becoming a paraplegic .. because shit happens and it's MTB
The sad thing is these threats don't need to be more than threats... they just need to have a chance of winning in court to get trails closed down.
I think we maybe need to bring this back to the original Article.
The question was really about how the wider perception of MTBing can be adjusted with various groups, both to improve uptake (helping grow the demand for trails) as well as improve the wider perception of MTBing to help the arguments in favour of access and support for MTBing and trail building in various parts of the UK.
I suppose we've gone a long way off-base arguing whether or not people's risk perception is correctly calibrated, how many bones you have to break before you're a real MTBerist, or labelling people 'Snowflakes'...
It's all sort of irrelevant. Really the issue just comes down to the fact that MTBing is a diverse hobby/sport, but those public perceptions are becoming a limiting factor if you want to grow it.
The point still stands though a few things do just put others off of MTBing/MTBers; partly the perception that it's dangerous and a drag on resources causing emergency services to have to go fishing broken IT managers off of mountain sides with helicopters. The idea that we're rude; charging past walkers and Horseyists without slowing. As well as the majority Pale/Male culture and associated ****ty laddishness and so on...
These are perceptions, not necessarily the truth of things, but the way MTBing is presented both in its own dedicated Media and the wider press, as well as how those of us "in the uniform" are seen to behave do still seem to reinforce these ideas, so there has to be a kernel of truth to at least some of it. So what can we do to change that if anything?
So what can we do to change that if anything?
This was alluded to in the [url= https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/commercial-cycle-event-costs/ ]Cost of Events thread[/url] basically saying that MTBers are too disorganised, have no coherent club structure and actually quite a lax attitude to rules and regulations - classic case in point being riding on FPs.
As a result (and as demonstrated over 4 sodding pages by TJ above) is that one person's definition of MTB is not shared by others. There's a host of advocacy groups, mostly very local (and I'm not knocking them, they do great work) but no coherent national picture. Cycling UK, bless them, try and get involved sometimes, Sustrans don't really care other than occasionally claiming that some random bit of BW would make a great part of the "National Cycle Network" (or as I've heard it called many times, the Notional Cycle Notwork...).
Different areas of the country have very different riding conditions so attract different sort of "MTBing" - what is MTBing on the South Downs is very definitely not MTBing on the North York Moors and you don't get that distinction in road riding other than a definition of "hilly".
These are perceptions, not necessarily the truth of things, but the way MTBing is presented both in its own dedicated Media and the wider press, as well as how those of us “in the uniform” are seen to behave do still seem to reinforce these ideas, so there has to be a kernel of truth to at least some of it.
That's getting dangerously close to the "gives others a bad name" nonsense... That's not a go at you for writing it but that sort of stuff does need to be countered. The example of helicopter evacuations etc isn't bad - how many happen at Glentress vs how many people do laps of the centre with no issues at all? I suspect it's in the very very low 0.something of a percent.*
*I admit I'm not the best person to write that, I've had 2 helicopter evacuations therefore MTBing is ridiculously dangerous. Or I'm shit at it.
actually quite a lax attitude to rules and regulations – classic case in point being riding on FPs.
Because no other cyclist is ever witnessed breaking rules, like riding on pavements, through red lights, the wrong way up one way streets, ignoring any road rules when in the safety of a sportive bunch... 😀
As a result (and as demonstrated over 4 sodding pages by TJ above) is that one person’s definition of MTB is not shared by others.
Woah! It's not TJ trying to limit the scope of what's called mountain biking!
The comparison with skiing is a valuable one IMO.
It's not an obviously 'open-to-all' sport in the way running or football are. You need equipment and terrain.
Same as skiing in that regard, but (ignoring time of year and geographical location) skiing is accessible to pretty much anyone with money. You can be inexperienced, unfit and own none of the equipment, but produce cash and time and skiing is quickly made available to you, with little effort. That's perhaps because - in order to make that situation possible - skiing is a very contrived environment, where the 'provider' has spent a large amount of money, so of course they need to make the 'functional' bits (lift tickets, equipment hire etc) easy to sort out in the way MTB doesn't yet manage.
To approach skiing's level of accessibility to the moneyed newbie, kit hire and instruction at recognised locations need to become way easier to sort out. That'll take a sizeable cash commitment and a strong build-it-and-they-will-come belief.
Biggest barrier in this country IMO though is probably dirt. You get pretty dirty pretty often doing this sport. Lots of people just don't like that.
Ta Scotroutes
So what can we do to change that if anything?
For me its get away from the elitist machismo bullshine that too often pervades these pages and in a wider sense. The idea that you need a gnarpoon worth thousands, that if you are not injuring yourself you are not trying hard enough. the idea you need all this special kit. IE once with the tandem at the top of spooky woods ( GT red) I was told by a bunch of fully armoured up lads that I couldn't ride down the red. Not a " have you been here before? are you sure?" but " You cannot ride that down there!"
To approach skiing’s level of accessibility to the moneyed newbie, kit hire and instruction at recognised locations need to become way easier to sort out. That’ll take a sizeable cash commitment and a strong build-it-and-they-will-come belief.
Tweed valley? Aviemore area? Lochaber?
These are perceptions, not necessarily the truth of things, but the way MTBing is presented both in its own dedicated Media and the wider press, as well as how those of us “in the uniform” are seen to behave do still seem to reinforce these ideas, so there has to be a kernel of truth to at least some of it. So what can we do to change that if anything?
We can be nice and say hi. It's about individuals, but you can't change mountain bikers en masse. And even if you did, I'm not sure it would make a blind bit of difference. It's a bit like mountaineering, Mr and Mrs Average basically just view you as a weird alien beings. It's not hostility as far as I can see, just incomprehension.
I'm also unconvinced that access rights have anything much to do with the image that mountain biker do or don't have. The main obstacle as far as rights of way go anyway, is our barking mad, arbitrary, archaic system. And mostly walkers don't care anyway, as long as you behave in a friendly and courteous way. Trail building's different again, but arguably the problem there is our land ownership system rather than some entrenched hatred of mountain bikers.
For me its get away from the elitist machismo bullshine that too often pervades these pages and in a wider sense.
I agree to a certain extent, but we are getting constant comparisons with skiing on this thread. I'd suggest that surfing might be where we want to be. (In every sense! 😀 )
I’d suggest that surfing might be where we want to be.
I said this on page 1, but I'll add my support for that viewpoint again. I think we're way closer to the surfers than to any other 'extreme' outdoors subculture.
BadlyWiredDog
I’m also unconvinced that access rights have anything much to do with the image that mountain biker do or don’t have. The main obstacle as far as rights of way go anyway, is our barking mad, arbitrary, archaic system.
Within England and Wales the main barrier is that landowners are seen to have some duty of care to people on their land and snowflakes that complain/threaten if they feel something isn't safe enough and sue of they have an accident.
On one level not everyone is public spirited enough to want to see hoards of walkers, bikers, horse riders using their land as a leisure facility but many QUANGO's who manage a lot of the land are somewhere between genuinely concerned and using it as an excuse to restrict and where possible remove MTB (and walkers and horse riders)
Some land management QUANGO's flip flop ... some sorta support MTB and some see the public using the land they manage as something to be minimised. Ultimately it doesn't matter as the THREAT is real and they can use it as they like and even if 9/10 people on a board want to allow more MTB access it only takes 1 to bring up being sued for millions by a single snowflake to block.
This whole idea that you can MTB without a few minor injuries is extremely harmful especially when combined with the idea if someone crashes and hurts themselves someone must be to blame.
cookeea
It’s all sort of irrelevant. Really the issue just comes down to the fact that MTBing is a diverse hobby/sport, but those public perceptions are becoming a limiting factor if you want to grow it.
I don't want to GROW it .. more people = more snowflakes = more people who sue if someone didn't sweep the trails for them and they have a tumble = less trails and sanitized trails.
The idea you can ride carefully inside your limits and unless someone else has screwed up by not filling a rut or moving a stone you will never crash and have a minor injury is the most destructive idea to trail access and trail diversity.
I don’t want to GROW it
Don't be a gatekeeper, they never help anything be better.
Within England and Wales the main barrier is that landowners are seen to have some duty of care to people on their land and snowflakes that complain/threaten if they feel something isn’t safe enough and sue of they have an accident.
There's laws that cover all that stuff. You can't sue simply because you fell off. There's a test of 'reasonable forseeability' and it can be applied on both sides.
If some forms of MTB were a more popular and mainstream thing we'd be less of a weird minority and have more of a voice to help with access and landowners seeing sense or reason in what the law actually means for them, more people drowning out the odd whinger, all in all we'd have more people enjoying more trails, more businesses serving people at those places, etc.
I don’t want to GROW it
I guess even MTB can have its own version of NIBMY's.
I don’t want to GROW it .. more people = more snowflakes = more people who sue if someone didn’t sweep the trails for them and they have a tumble = less trails and sanitized trails.
Total crock o shite.
That's really not what happens as MTBing gets more normalised.
Stop trying to pretend that you're more gnar than the next guy and no one else is welcome.
It won't help anyone.
I’d suggest that surfing might be where we want to be
as someone who’s surfed in this country for the best part of 30yrs, that’s a terrible idea.
Until it gets big, it’s so busy at any good spot from dawn til dusk. Forecasting is so good that an app tells you where to be and when. Wetsuits are so good the depths of winter aren’t a challenge in hypothermia management. All the things are in place to open it up to the masses. Lots of people have made a lot of money. It’s not improved the surf.
The biggest danger in surfing now isn’t the waves, it’s other people.
jameso
There’s laws that cover all that stuff. You can’t sue simply because you fell off. There’s a test of ‘reasonable forseeability’ and it can be applied on both sides.
If some forms of MTB were a more popular and mainstream thing we’d be less of a weird minority and have more of a voice to help with access and landowners seeing sense or reason in what the law actually means for them, more people drowning out the odd whinger, all in all we’d have more people enjoying more trails, more businesses serving people at those places, etc.
Yes there are laws and legislation but why would any land owner or quango land manage org want the risk?
Even if they win which isn't ever a forgone conclusion they still had to go to court and defend allowing people on their land.
Charities are being threatened by these snowflakes ... saying how they will be expert witnesses again and make sure they get sued for millions.
Many of the quango's don't even want the public on our land they manage... they see it as theirs when they are simply management organisations but they simply see an excuse to ban MTB and they take it. Non of this is fact based either, TAG do a lot of work monitoring .. the MOD just ignore it and build illegal fences.
singlespeedstu
Stop trying to pretend that you’re more gnar than the next guy and no one else is welcome.
There is nothing gnar about it... anything that can be called MTB is going to have accidents and the odd major one or death. If people aren't comfortable with that they can do knitting or jigsaws.
Total crock o shite.
That’s really not what happens as MTBing gets more normalised.
It's exactly what is happening... snowflakes making threats about suing landowners.
