Spinal cord injuries from mountain biking exceed hockey, other high-risk sports | Hacker News Reader

Spinal cord injuries from mountain biking exceed hockey, other high-risk sports

med.ubc.ca

94 pointsgone35130 comments

One thing to note is that British Columbia, especially the bike park in Whistler, is basically the Mecca of [this type of] mountain biking. For most people around the world it's not a cheap trip, riding there might be something they've dreamt about for years, and they intend to make every minute count, even though they're tired and some of the trails are unlike anything they've ever ridden at home.

Something like Chamonix, France for many other extreme summer & winter mountain sports (downhill MTB including) then.

People keep dying 'en masse' there, long term average is 60 per year in Mont Blanc range alone, but this includes all activities so heart attack during pleasant walk is there too. They compare it to whole US rockies in terms of mortality, not sure if it still holds. If folks focused purely on statistics whole place would be banned ad infinum due to world's easiest access to extreme terrain, luckily French folks have a different attitude to risks in what they consider 'noble' activities (which covers most mountain stuff).

I almost contributed to stats there last year too with my medium severity paraglider landing crash (both legs broken but missed massive rock by few cms which would end up much more severe).

I wonder how it compared to off piste snowboarding? I lived in Chamonix a bit and a lot of the shuttle bus drivers seemed to have spinal injuries from going off cliffs accidentally snowboarding off piste. It can be hard to see them in deep powder.

It should also be noted that the technology for downhill mountain biking has exploded in quality and price -- probably also money from manufacturers sponsoring pros etc. Making it viable for super sketchy terrain (via tires, suspension, frame dynamics, braking) to be taken on and cliff drops to be attempted. Its probably the quickest advancing "extreme" sport happening right now - which would track with this finding since they are pushing the boundaries and the landings are HARD.

For example go see the highlights of red bull rampage for the current mtn biking zeitgeist.

100%.

I enjoy watching the UCI downhills races. And some of the RedBull stuff.

But I'll never attempt trails like those on my own. I don't have the equipment. I don't have the skill. I don't have the will (balls).

Almost all of the spinal cord injuries I've heard about have occurred when the mountain biker was airborne on purpose. And not just airborne on a natural 2 foot rock ledge, but engineered ramps/jumps/etc.

The "Everest : Hiking :: DH/freeride : mountain biking" analogy is correct.

This tracks with my own bias as an ER doc. I do feel that the risk of c-spine injuries from mountain biking is understated. As they said in the article, you are especially vulnerable to a hangmans fracture when thrown over the handlebars. I wonder if the ergonomics or geometry of a bicycle could be modified to better protect a rider’s neck.

Hey man, funny "seeing" you round these parts!

MotoX riders wear a device which prevents the neck from unnatural extension. I wonder if medical doctors could champion their adoption among MB riders.

Edit: some controversy of the effectiveness of neck braces in motox

These became popular for mtb, some riders still use them. REason for not using them is the 2 main designs either transfer load to collar bone, or further down the spine. Many rider complained of getting a worse injury for the velocity of impact.

Understood, thus the controversy, thanks for clarifying

I mean, you can avoid going over the bars by riding a recumbent, but that's not going to be a viable solution for riding singletrack. The real trick is teaching people how to fall. I had a coach back in the 90's who was big on that, and it's become instinctual enough where the last time I went over the bars (mid-2023), I was able to manage my landing where I hobbled away with a massive bruise on my thigh, and not much else. I don't know that I've ever seen an MTB skills class that teaches you how to fall properly.

Yes mate. In my 20+ years of riding dh I've never broken a collar bone, let alone my spine. I put this down to learning to fall properly doing breakfall drills in jujitsu. Side fall, and diving front roll being the main falls used in mtb. Side fall involves not putting hand out and distributing impact across whole side; good for loss of traction fall on corners, skidding out sideways. Diving front roll like a commando roll for going out front over the bars.

Even moderate experience with martial arts goes a long way in instinctively managing falls - probably saved my bones a number of times in MTB and skating... The scars always in the same locations and on the same axis show it is a reproducible technique !

When I was a kid I thought I was going to be a stuntman, and falling down in various dramatic ways, sometimes off of tall things such as balconies, ladders and garages. In the decades since I've fallen off of bikes hundreds of times, I've taken many more falls skateboarding, snowboarding and rock climbing. I've suffered many bumps and bruises. A helmet, however has never had the opportunity to come in handy for me.

The funny things is that in sports such as skateboarding (or BMX) participants fall and crash regularly. There's no point in mentioning to them that falling is a skill, they already know. In the world of road cycling, where participants take a hard slam once every couple seasons or so, it's hard to convince them that skill is a factor.

Of course, with downhill mountain biking even if one is exceptionally agile in the event of a wipeout there is still a good chance they will smash themselves up.

> I wonder if the ergonomics or geometry of a bicycle could be modified to better protect a rider’s neck.

There has been a huge trend in this direction in recent years! For example in 2000 the head tube angle on a typical “trail bike” was something like 71 degrees, but today it’s more like 65 degrees, meaning the front wheel is a lot farther out in front of you. Bikes have also just gotten longer, especially in the front end which adds to this effect. This all means that (assuming you don’t ride more difficult terrain to compensate) it’s way harder to crash “over the bars” on a modern mountain bike than in the past.

There are sections of trail that I would almost always OTB (over the bars) on when attempted on my old 1998 hard tail. After finally upgrading in 2018, I almost never go OTB because of the longer and slacker geometry.

One ride on a double black rated tech trail nearby, the air shaft in my fork seized up so I lost all front compression. Even without front suspension, I was able to complete the ride and even keep up with my group, my arms were just toast after that. Modern bikes are just that capable based upon geometry alone.

That said, I now ride at significantly higher speeds and ride much harder terrain. But even still, my crashes are different and more to the side than directly over the bars.

I used to ride a motocross style dirtbike and those are pretty stable and hard to go over the bars so I guess it's possible with two wheel geometry.

the setup is more https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/05/53/70/16/1000_F_553701604_l6...

than https://www.med.ubc.ca/files/2024/11/AdobeStock_197310261_12...

Bigger front shocks and higher and wider handle bars.

The more downhill oriented a mountain bike is, the more it resembles a dirtbike — more suspension travel (up to around 220mm, where the suspension starts to work against you and makes the bike too mushy for something that light and human powered) , higher and wider handlebars and more space above the seat (nowadays the seats actually move out of the way and come back when needed, operated by a lever on the handlebars).

I'd say that most honest to god OTB accidents happen on slower, gnarly, downhill stuff, where it's easy for the (still relatively light) mountain bike to get stuck and unable to roll over an obstacle in time (before the rider arrives), or for the obstacle to slap your steering to the side, which again suddenly stops the bike.

Dirtbikes are much heavier compared to bikes and the weight of the rider, and you generally ride them a bit faster and not necessarily downhill.

Over the years the geometry has slackened, size of wheels length of wheelbase and size of cockpit have increased. Suspension has also evolved dramatically. This makes the bikes much safer and more stable at higher speeds. The bigger cockpit area has less responsive pitch and yaw, giving riders an increased sense of security. So the bikes are "safer". But this just means riders are going faster. The style of trail has evolved with this as well. Well manicured, wide bike park trails have got much faster with massive jumps. These types of trails are generally easier to ride than slower, more technical terrain and give maximum thrill at higher velocities. Amateur riders today are doing stuff even the best pro's could barely attempt 25 years ago.

I would like to see complimentary stats for age and years of experience riding, as it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of these folks are starting downhill as a midlife crisis and the modern bikes make them feel invincible. Everyone trying to do this sport at a higher level is going to get hurt at some point though.

They mention the costs, but what about the overall benefits to health, wellbeing and the economy.

Downhill is my main passion in life, it's so much more than just a thrill, and it's such a privilege to be able to enjoy it.

Why "fix" mountain biking, when it's inevitably environmentally destructive? It needs to be banned, period.

I don't know I thought cars would be a bigger priority since they are much more numerous, bigger, dirtier and so is their infrastructure ?

It seems weird to concentrate your efforts on biking. What does it do, erode the mountains faster ? Scare away rabbits ?

Please ignore that guy, he's a schizophrenic.

Michael J. Vandeman was arrested by UC Berkeley police on May 28 after he allegedly attacked a bicyclist with a handsaw on a fire trail above the UC Berkeley campus weeks earlier.

https://velo.outsideonline.com/mountain/mtb-hater-gets-buste...

Oh, wow. Thanks for the intel.

Mountain biking needs to be split into two.

There is casual off-roading on a mountain bike and there is the dare devil downhill stuff. Very different risk profiles in my mind

yeah, agreed: huge difference in downhill, freestyle, etc...and my XC group rides.

Also, BC, between Whistler and North Shore on Vancouver Island is pretty much mecca for this type of riding, bike parks, stunts, etc....

I'd be really curious what the stats are elsewhere, and broken out by what the rider was doing at time of injury.

My kids do mountain bike racing, and one of the reasons I like they do it is because it is incredibly safe. For one, where I am there aren't "mountains"; it's essentially off-road biking. But additionally, the organization they race in is emphatic about safety. The worst injuries done is to dad's wallet when a wheel gets bent or a derailleur goes blooey.

The article says it's mostly men with an average age of 35. These are dudes who are pushing their own limits on some of the most difficult terrain. As you say, a radically different profile.

This article makes it sound like mountain biking is riskier than hockey (in terms of spinal cord injuries), but without relative participation rates, one cannot draw that conclusion.

There is also a significant amount of personal risk tolerance involved. Casual riders can certainly have severe injuries, but easier trails are indeed easier.

I think it's way easier to get in over your head mountain biking than playing hockey.

A casual hockey player finding themselves in a way too kinetic game of pickup can nope-out pretty quickly, or likely won't ever get into the situation.

A casual mountain biker can go on a casual mountain bike ride with his brother and find himself way over his head, then bouncing down the trail on his head, very quickly and without an obvious offramp. Ask me how I know... ;)

I empathize because I literally just finished healing from an injury that came within millimeters of killing me because I followed someone into an area that I wasn't prepared for. The first hospital I went to, after doing X-rays said I needed a level one trauma center and called an ambulance to take me to Seattle harbor view.

I broke the cardinal rule of new technical terrain: pre-ride, re-ride, freeride. You get off your bike and walk the feature to see how approachable and rollable it might be. Then you session it (ride just that one feature). Then you ride through it quickly as part of a longer trail.

I went 5 years without an injury. This one healed in 3 months. I believe I know what I did wrong and can fairly easily avoid making that same mistake again. Do I expect zero injuries in the future? No.

What I expect is years at a time of an activity that very much enriches my life, with occasional injuries. Hopefully more than 5 years at a time since I'm making changes to avoid repeating the same mistake.

And I wish people knew that downhill mountain biking is a lot like downhill skiing. You can take the greens down or you can yeet yourself off something that's tougher than a double black diamond. I've gone on many group mountain bike rides with people in their 70s. So like skiing it is something you can shoot for doing into your old age.

It probably is, but only a small percentage of ridden miles are going to be people that are in over their heads.

Much less risk of falling meters and landing on your back playing hockey.

Source: played hockey and biked in BC

Also, less correlation between skill and risk in mountain biking. If you can ride a bike, you can ride a bike fast enough to do spinal damage in a crash. If you can skate, it's still a lot of practice before you're skating fast enough for your contribution to a crash to be risky.

It looks riskier than football - the article compared armature football in the US (the entire country) to just BC and find mountain biking worse. Football is not a safe sport (though they use a lot of safety gear in all the organized versions). BC is where people into mountain biking travel to so I'm not sure how much the BC stats are comparing the world.

That comparison feels like it's missing a "spinal cord injuries" qualifier, because it doesn't pass the smell test for "all injuries". Roughly a million kids play high school football every year, which is 20% of the population of BC. Many of those will have some small injury over the course of the year from football.

It makes more sense for spinal injuries, but even that doesn't make mountain biking more dangerous than football (spinal injuries are relatively rare in football, but head trauma is common).

Well this is about major life changing injuries. Break a leg and 6 months latter you are back doing whatever you did before. Injury your spinal cord and you controlling your wheelchair with your mouth (or other awkward contraption) for the rest of your life.

American football is played by a lot more kids than who mountain bike in just BC and isn't nearly as bad. (though some of the injuries from football to have lifelong effects that we are only now realizing)

As someone who played and still loves hockey, I wouldn't put hockey that high up on the list of sports that result in spinal cord injuries compared to other contact sports.

Spinal cord injuries absolutely happen, but I can think of plenty of sports that would have a higher incident e.g., surfing, skateboarding, motocross, horseback riding, gymnastics, cheer leading, etc..

Fair, but my intuition would say in Canada, hockey is more popular than mountain biking, I would even be willing to put money on saying "considerably more popular" to be honest. Hockey Canada reported 600,000 registered Hockey Players in 2019, Cycle Canada reported 22,000 in 2018.

58 mountain biking SCIs over 14 years (4.1 per year) in British Columbia 3 hockey SCIs over the same period (0.21 per year) in British Columbia

I'm not from Canada and I don't play hockey, but as a mountain biker, I don't see a reason why I'd register for anything anywhere. It isn't even a team sport, you can bike completely alone without a single person even knowing about it.

It'd be good to see the breakdown by types of mountain biking. I imagine downhill has a higher injury rate, but is it like 50% or 90%?

I'm very into cycling, and like casual mountain biking. I've tried downhill a couple of times and it feels way too dangerous.

That was my first thought too. Certainly this must be skewed towards downhill? Going high speed into jumps that send you 5-10+ft into the air must not have good outcomes if you miss the jump or landing. Most of the rest of mountain biking is fairly tame in my opinion.

Without a doubt it is overwhelmingly downhill riders. Everyone I know who does it has suffered multiple broken bones.

Almost certainly this, from the article

"As a spine surgeon at Vancouver General Hospital, the provincial referral centre for all spinal cord injuries in B.C., Dr. Kwon decided to conduct the study after witnessing the high number of injuries coming out of mountain-bike parks."

As others have pointed out, BC is somewhat of a downhill mountain bike Mecca with Whistler and various other parks running on the slopes during the summer https://www.mountainbikingbc.ca/ride-ideas-road-trips/bc-bik....

I agree. Even within those types there are some types of rides that are massively different.

In MTB you have XC (cross country) which can be more about distance and grit. These bikes are lighter and have less suspension because you don't typically do a 10 foot drop on one.

Enduro racing is what I think of as similar to skiing or snowboarding. You can go do the green/blue/black at a resort. You can also do the equivalent of taking a helicopter to the top of a crazy mountain pass and jump out. Then there is park stuff. Snowboarders might hop into a rail in the park. Mountain bikers might ride a wooden feature.

The point being it's important to distinguish whether you're talking about the danger of taking a flowy green downhill or the danger of going off a 20 foot drop or the danger of hopping onto a narrow piece of Park stuff that's 30 feet off the ground.

Because the injury rate of people on double black diamond runs in BC with 30 foot tall one foot wide wooden features is just not relevant to me because I am not riding that kind of terrain.

It has a lot to do with the amount of risk some bikers are willing to take. You can be very safe if you're careful.

I'd say in general, the risk of getting hit by a car in traffic is much higher than something happening out in the mountains, depending on the city of course.

I predict this will get worse as e-bikes increasingly allow people to get to places they do not have the experience, fitness and skill to get their on their own.

E-bikes that go too fast are already an issue.

Friends wife went for a walk on a pedestrian path, onlookers saw her hit from behind by someone on an e-bike going very fast. She still doesn’t remember anything.

I wish there was some sort of permitting required to use one of these things. I love the idea of people getting around quickly without needing a car, but I take serious issue with a large number of people I see on these things in the streets (and more annoyingly sidewalks) of Seattle that think they're a pedestrian that just happens to be going 20+ mph.

How much of this is the bicycle, and how much of this is that it enables less conscientious people to go more miles at otherwise normal cycling speeds? The e- part is limited to speeds most people can reach on a normal bicycle unless they modify it.

/r/IdiotsInCars is a monument to how ineffective permitting is for this purpose. The people rear-ending pedestrians on sidewalks at 20MPH might be the same people who never miss their off ramp.

> The e- part is limited to speeds that most people can reach on a normal bicycle.

Maybe.

There are regulations, but the wording is generally such that the bike cannot be sold with a speed capability greater than X. So the bikes ship from the factory with a firmware setting for the max speed of X. But as soon as people buy the bike they go into the bike settings (!) and change it to whatever higher speed that they want.

Whenever crashes happen these settings need to be examined and they need to be part of the liability determination.

Also, how much of this riding in pedestrian areas is because all resources and area has been assigned to cars? Instead of being angry at cyclists, I often wish more people saw that it shouldn't be a fight between "soft road users", but instead a fight against cars limiting where people can move themselves.

If someone runs over a pedestrian and they're in the hospital because they drove in a pedestrian path ... that's on them, not "it's me vs cars".

Problems you see in videos on the internet maybe prove that problems will still occur with permitting.

It doesn't show you if it would happen any less compared to no permitting.

Not that I care either way regarding permitting, but people being stupid is common, but we still do things to try to limit it.

I literally see people deliver food on these things with no helmet on high traffic routes.

It’s like, you are a meat bag with a fragile coconut head traveling at least 25mph, like, please read the Humpty Dumpty story.

And all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn’t cure the aneurysm that denatured the ham

I saw a 12 year old going 25+ with no shirt or helmet on. This was at a vacation spot in Florida with massive sidewalks for bikes and golf carts but he was zig zagging through cars on the road.

afaik most ebikes are limited at 20mph, and realistically the thing that kills most cyclists is cars not the speed of cycling. And when a car runs you over a styrofoam helmet isn't going to help much.

Even if not limited in speed, the assist is limited so on flat ground you are still limited to under 30mph. However downhill any bike can get going much faster - I've been to 35mph on my non-electric bike (my electric bike is slower downhill, but there difference isn't much), and I live in an area known for how flat it is - those of you are live where there are real hills (much less mountains) can easially get going much faster.

Hit 45mph heading down Tioga Pass leaving Yosemite headed east. With a loaded BOB trailer[0]. Could've got going a hell of a lot faster, but I thought the better of it.

35 is hauling pretty good ass on a bike. It's not a speed it'd be advisable for someone to just jump on a e-bike and do. Fortunately, most e-bikes made by reputable manufacturers top out at 20 or 28. Unfortunately, there are plenty of less reputable brands. Not that nobody can ride faster safely, but this is a case where earning your speed will give you the experience to manage it safely.

[0] Before they pivoted to the larger and more lucrative stroller market, they made excellent single wheel bicycle trailers for touring.

I'd wager mountain bikers being able to use ski lifts to go uphill is almost certainly a much bigger contributor to inexperienced people doing 'stupid' things than e-bikes.

In areas where ski lifts exist (and operators allow mountain bikers to use them), yes. E-bikes however allow them easier access to areas where they can hurt themselves everywhere (including areas that are much more remote than those served by ski lifts)...

I'm saying e-bikes are, and will continue to, make it worse, not that this wasn't already happening.

Adding to this, the ski lifts seem to me designed to attract the speed demons with downhill bikes designed for thrills. Not casual exploring and sight seeing from a bike.

Could be technique demons with enduro bikes, but yes, you don't generally need lift rides for XC or touring. Works the same as cross-country skiing and the other skiing (sorry, I'm not a skier).

downhill skiing :)

Are people using e-bikes to go faster on downhill riding? Most of the mountain ebikers I’ve met are much more casual riders.

I'd guess it's more that it's easier to get to the top of the hill in the first place using an e-bike. Without an e-bike most casual riders might write the whole thing off as too much work. Once you start going downhill the motor won't really do anything.

And it means you get more bites at the apple on hard trails.

Without an ebike you gas out and decide not to go back up.

Do you get 2x more trips down the hill? 3x? Probably depends on your fitness level.

As an intermediate rider one reason I’ve not gotten an ebike is I worry that it increases my exposure to the more dangerous parts of the sport.

I don't think so ... they are going higher on more challenging routes, climbing hills that they can then do not have the skills to get down safely. With a heavier bike.

I visited by Whistler, watched some of these guys, basically doing somersaults on mountain bikes on a pump track, going at high speed. So not surprising at all. Not exactly sure where I was. All I remember it was like meters away from nudist beach (nudist wooden dock, really). Which being immature dorks, we decided to dive off. But Whistler is kind of like Waikiki to Surfing. So might be sample bias. Most people don't take doing bike tricks that far. So its a thrill seeker place down there, that attracts a certain type of personality. https://www.youtube.com/@riseandalpine

To add my 2c here. Been riding mountain bikes for at least 20 years, and from 2014 more intensively. The latter on so called enduro, and a little bit of downhill bikes. Had some crashes, both low and high speed. Nothing that I couldn't immediately get up, brush off, and continue on my merry way. Maybe that day and day after I would be a bit sore/stiff, but nothing to write home about.

But almost 3 years ago, I got a back pain which wasn't passing and to make long story short, got into two spinal surgeries for herniated disc, the second being a fusion of two vertebras. I'm still recovering to this day, and unfortunately not riding my bikes, only a bike on a trainer.

My little pet theory is that people are still not aware that the sport is actually very dangerous. I'm not talking here about some extremes/professionals, I'm talking here about average Joe or his kid, who get a mountain bike and go ride (its a cool sport after all), crash here and there and don't end up in hospital necessarily. I think that the human body is quite resistant to impacts which are at low speed, as in =< running speed, and beyond that things start to break. Or at least break slowly (like a herniated disc). But mountain bikes of today very fast because they are made to be comfortable and stable, which makes crashing on the rough terrain much more dangerous than going slowly on a bike of even 10 years go as others noted in this thread.

So as the years go by, we start getting these kind of reports which may be flawed, but from my anecdata (and from the riding club I'm in), those injuries are certainly with us and making me seriously reconsider recommending faster mountain biking disciplines at all (enduro and downhill).

This title is so bad it's basically a lie. Better title: spinal cord injuries from mountain biking in BC exceed other high risk sports.

The terrain in that area and parks include things like a lot of 30 foot tall one foot wide wood walkways.

And as a MTB destination this terrain is often attempted by basically tourists.

This is like saying "hiking injuries exceed other high risk sports" on Mt Everest.

I remember talking to a mountain biker who seemed proud of his injuries including concussions, breaking his shoulder twice, etc.

In every sport there always seem to be a few who almost get off on abusing their body.

Material proof of bravery (from the point of views of the scarred) or temerity (from everybody else's point of view)... And, less abusive but no less idiotic: the same idea but with broken hardware - a broken frame means limits were properly being pushed. I'm thankful I survived my teenage years... Thirty years later I make a point of keeping my wheels in permanent contact with the ground.

Would you rather they be ashamed of it?

I recall hearing in the past that equestrianism had the greatest risk of head trauma of any mainstream sport. If I recall correctly, even more than boxing. It's interesting that mountain biking is in many ways a similar activity (e.g. riding a "vehicle" that you straddle and which doesn't have the inherent stability of a car).

It might be interesting to compare rates in equestrianism and biking to other sports where falls are a significant risk such as Judo or balance beam. Are falls a particularly dangerous part of sports or might there be something specific to falling from something you are straddling? Might it make a difference that Judo and gymnastics include specific training to develop balance and safe falling but biking and horseback riding do not?

In Judo and gymnastics you're generally also traveling slower. Judo falls are also from a lower height and generally under control (just not yours, heh).

>It might be interesting to compare rates in equestrianism and biking to other sports where falls are a significant risk such as Judo or balance beam.

So, in gymnastics you practice falling so you fall safer/more controlled. Falling correctly when you miss a skill was given as much weight as actually performing the skill. There was a policy in my gym that you fall unsafely in class (such as straddling the beam) you were required to do pushups for the rest of class.

Gymnastics also has spotters who can prevent catastrophic injuries.

Because of this, I think the risk of catastrophic injury in gymnastics is fairly low, especially at the lower levels.

Horse riding is about 10x more dangerous, for time spent, than motorcycling, IIRC. It is a seriously dangerous sport.

I grew up around horses and even rode some myself when I was in my youth. I think the average person does not realize how horribly dangerous horses are. Think like in the movie/book "Gone with the Wind." While useful animals, horses are responsible for countless deaths. And this is purely conjecture on my part, but I imagine horses were more dangerous than cars ever have been.

Even last year, my mother broke her neck from getting thrown, and miraculously made a full recovery despite almost severing her spinal cord. Her horse got spooked, bucked before she could react, and it was almost all over but the crying.

I think the extra 3 feet from a horse makes all the difference. There's basically no way to use your arms to break the fall. I don't think there is any comparison with gymnastics because (I think) most gymnasts stop by their early 20s and are much lighter than an adult equestrian.

I do a lot of road cycling, but this is essentially why I refuse to participate in mountain biking (in my area). I've heard so many horror stories from friends of mine who ride and it sounds like accidents are only a matter of time. Even if someone rides as safe as they can, you can't account for others on the trails or the conditions 100% of the time.

To be fair the same is true for road cycling and drivers, I've had some very lucky encounters by predicting the worst possible outcomes and managing to get lucky enough to avoid them. Especially in the UK or US where the car rules the road and you don't really count as a vehicle or a pedestrian, just a nuisance.

> you don't really count as a vehicle or a pedestrian, just a nuisance

This was one of the saddest things I've noticed when I moved here, roads are for cars, everyone else is just taking up space.

It really makes me mad where "orange vests" decide to use the bike path as a parking space. From what I can tell there isn't even any laws against this.

I've heard the same about riding on the road for exactly the same reasons.

Yeah it's really a "pick your poison" situation. I suppose that at least your biggest concern in MTB is crashing into immovable hazards (trees, off-camber slopes), whereas on the road you've got 2-ton vehicles flying around piloted frequently by distracted people.

I got off a road bike onto a mountain because I feel I have more control.

A motorist plowing me from behind on the highway is something I can't control.

How fast or cautious I ride is in my control. It does help to be familiar with whatever trail you're riding however.

Well you cannot control the trail conditions right? unless you are doing an inspection beforehand

But yeah I agree road cycling is extremely dangerous, you are trusting that 100% percent of the drivers on the road will be mindful of cyclists, all the time.

Can't control but they are generally predictable. I tend to ride the same trail loop, so know it's condition based on recent weather.

For new trails, it's helpful to ride with someone who's done it before, otherwise just take it easy.

My cousin had a bad mountain bike accident, and i think it had to do with risk desensitisation. He's an excellent rider, and was just warming up and goofed a bit. Ended up breaking his back and knocking himself out.

I don't necessarily think mtb is safer overall, but the risk factors are more apparent, and, as with any sport, user discretion is advised.

You have to differ between mountain biking and downhill biking in a park, though. The latter is far more extreme with big jumps etc.

For me, I feel "safer" doing something where I'm in control, compared to when I road bike and my life depends on the whims of an angry driver passing too close. Even if the risk might be bigger in the end. Something about known risks you can control vs not.

This is interesting and I don't doubt the problem exists, but just considering the physics of a person riding a bike, it seems tough to envision an effective safety system.

Maybe expanded use of those "bike airbag helmets"? I can't imagine a mountain biker wearing a bunch of bulky padding and still being able to participate in the sport.

Downhill mountain bikers do indeed wear a "bunch of bulky padding", often including spine protection. It'd be nice to see how much that helps.

TFA says most of the injured people were wearing pads and they went head-first over the handlebars. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they landed on their heads and the forces on their spine caused injury. Much like CTEs in football, you're going to have a hard time protecting yourself against inertia.

The article has most were wearing a helmet, but less than 10% other pads. I'm not clear on what other pads are, but they seem to include things like knee protection which I wouldn't expect to help in this type of accident (but probably help is much more common falls).

Aren't there materials out there that can change from "fluid" to "solid" based on electrical signals? Or maybe something like Oobleck instead. Then you could have some sort of spine-protector, that outlines/protects your back and is flexible by default, but if it can tell you're falling through the air somehow/rotating around, it starts being inflexible to protect the structure of your back.

I dunno, just brainstorming and have no experience building protective wear/devices.

That actually exists already!

The brand name of the material is D3o, it's used in products like the Fox Baseframe.

From personal experience this helps quite a bit, but i never had a crash where my spine took a hit.

Issue is, many people don't wear torso protection, just like a lot of people ride motorbikes in a T-Shirt/

I'm not a doctor, but I think most spinal injuries are caused by impact or compression from the axis of the spine (from one vertebrae to another). Not puncture injuries perpendicular to the torso.

> but I think most spinal injuries are caused by impact or compression from the axis of the spine

Yeah, that makes sense. I was thinking something that when expanded, would protect the bottom somehow + the top (maybe helmet is connected to this imaginary "spine protector"), so compressions would be really difficult on that axis.

Those helmets are not safe, were recalled, and the company is going through a bankruptcy.

Assuming you're refering to Hövding, the recall was overturned on appeal, back in 2023, but the company went bankrupt anyway:

https://discerningcyclist.com/hovding-bankruptcy/

In some types of crashes, the Hövding had better crash performance than ordinary helmets. In others it performed worse.

More generally, it may be that someone comes up with a design which incorporates inflatable sections which is more successful.

> can't imagine a mountain biker wearing a bunch of bulky padding

XC or recreational trail riding, probably not, but if you're into enduro, freeride or downhill, you can (should) already be wearing a lot of really bulky gear. Heavy duty boots with toe protection, pads for your knees, hips, elbows, gloves, spine and chest protectors, neck braces, full face helmets with MIPS

I believe some kind of airbag solution could actually be really helpful, but here's the thing about falls in MTB: they happen quite often and they're usually harmless, sometimes you even toss the bike on purpose when you realize you've messed up or miscalculated a feature.

And you probably don't want to replace an expensive gas [generator] cartridge or suffer burns or just have to endure loud pops every time you make a mistake.

Yep definitely agreed on the existing padding, it just seems that, given the article, more is needed in some fashion.

Would love to see this normalized across the country (or world). Mountain bike trails in the Pacific Northwest are very different than, say, Central Pennsylvania. Riding loamy downhills on a full suspension bike might as well be a different sport than a low-speed rocky/rooty technical trails on a hardtail.

My kids race GP motorcycles (Ohvale, Honda NSF250/Moto3) and it’s interesting how many well meaning but ignorant parents tell me how dangerous that is, yet they’ll gladly let their kids play soccer, do gymnastics, or (in the U.S.,) play tackle [American] football. Track racing injuries at the semi-pro and pro levels are a lot more rare than in traditional ball sports. Injuries do happen, but the safety gear is so advanced that it’s relatively rare. Far more dangerous riding a bicycle to school than racing at 200+mph on closed course racetracks.

4 kids racing for the past year in Spain and our only injury was a broken wrist while practicing on a supermoto in a parking lot. Countless crashes, but injuries have been rare. The soccer kids at their school though — seems like there is always one on crutches.

Anecdotal, sure, but actual safety and perception of safety aren’t always the same. I think last year in racing there were maybe two fatalities in the entire world in organized motorcycle racing. In just August in the USA, 7 kids died playing American football. [1] In MotoGP, only 8 in the history of the sport have died while racing, with Marco Simoncelli being the most recent in 2011. The list of pro soccer players who have died after infield incidents is extensive.[2]

My point is that “high risk” in my opinion, isn’t well defined.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/08/28/nx-s1-5091883/middle-high-sch... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_association_football...

The article does seem to point to a study that tries to determine actual safety.

But couldn't these numbers be explained by scale of participation alone? There have got to be way more football and soccer games in the world than motorcycle races by multiple orders of magnitude.

I don't know entirely why the Isle of Man TT course is so deadly, but it took another life in 2024.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Isle_of_Man_TT_Mountai...

Amusing that it starts with this claim

> Since 1937, the only "deathless" Isle of Man TT's happened in 1982 and 2024.

And then has a death for 2024 in the list

Probably a nomenclature thing. The 2024 death's event is "Qualifying" while say 2023s is "Supertwin" and 2022 is "Sidecar TT".

It's because it's not a race track. Race tracks are designed with safety in mind. Large areas on the outside of curves, gravel runouts, and padding on all fences.

The TT is a street track with rock walls, telephone poles and stop signs. Those things don't exist on race tracks for a reason. You're going to have a bad time hitting a rock wall at 180 mph.

That's why it hasn't been part of MotoGP since 1976. It doesn't meet the security standards of MotoGP.

You may be familiar if not, search 'Isle of Man onboard' on YouTube and you'll have your answer.

I should film the palms of my hands while watching those videos, they start glistening with sweat within a minute or two. If you've seen those insane rally car videos, these are worse. Relative to modern racing events, it's like working on the Golden Gate Bridge before they put the net up.

Your posts here don’t seem to qualify the statistics for the fact that American football is probably 10,000x more popular than MotoGP.

A quick google nets me this link

https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/atrocious-junior-ride...

> World Supersport 300 rider Vinales – the 15-year-old cousin of MotoGP race winner Maverick Vinales – tragically died in a horrific incident during the Jerez World Supersport round last weekend.

> He is the third teenager at world and European championship level to die in incidents in 2021, following 14-year-old European Talent Cup rider Hugo Millan in July and Moto3 rider Jason Dupasquier in May.

Any thoughts? I don’t really care about this but your position seems strange to me.

I found some reasonably reliable stats on incidence here:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/30/1/60#T4

Motorsports are many times more dangerous according to that table.

Numbers have to be looked at on a per capita basis. There's also severity and frequency. The 'safest' sport I have done on an injury frequency basis is probably surfing. But when an accident does happen (outside of extreme spots), someone drowns or is bitten by a shark. Not very much middle ground.

BJJ while it looks dangerous is actually pretty safe. I have lots of small injuries but never very bad. Sprained fingers or errant black eye b/c you are in such close contact with people.

I think the most dangerous sport I've done is wakeboarding. So much so we kept ibuprofen in the boat. I finally 'retired' after tearing an ACL.

Then there's everything else in between like basketball and football.

It's also my (unproven) theory that combat sports are a lot safer than other intense sports.

For one, your partner tries to hit you but you are trained to defend yourself so most of the time you block/avoid the hits or at least do something to attenuate them.

Two, you wear protection in some of these sports.

And three, the philosophy of martial arts at least emphasises self control and you'll try to not hit as hard when your partner fails to block.

Competitions are another thing maybe, but who needs competitions...

The thing about many combat sports is not the short term injuries, but the long term CTE risk. Especially with the rise of meteoric rise of MMA, I think the community is going to have to take a hard look at blows to the head and choke-outs once there's been a few decades of data.

Some research has shown that slight choking like that in BJJ could be beneficial. Anyone who is going out a lot is not training properly.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353673489_Elevated_....

>Far more dangerous riding a bicycle to school than racing at 200+mph on closed course racetracks.

I understand that the safety gear helps in MotoGP but you might be overestimating how dangerous cycling is while downplaying risks of going over 200mph on a motorcycle.

>Countless crashes, but injuries have been rare.

To me this sounds that it's just a matter of time before there is a serious injury.

I follow some mountain bike youtube channels, not professional riders but content creators, and literally every one of them has a yearly major injury. Broken bones are just normal.

Seth (Alvo, of Berm Peak) is honestly asking for it half the time with the stuff he does for the camera. Trying to 360 a Brompton on a rainy day in a skate park was a recent ridiculous example.

Tangential, but it would make sense that areas with more variable terrain (i.e. BC) would likely see more or more severe injuries than flat areas (i.e. Saskatchewan).

Don't know about spinal injuries but almost everyone I know who mountain bikes, has broken a bone, mostly collar bones.

I’m shocked — shocked! — that this sport would have a higher injury rate than hockey.

https://youtu.be/PCvrdZOk_kk?si=AwaCHd05eM-XYfV-

Or running your spine through a tree shredder, for that matter.

The article makes no statement about injury rate, just number of injuries.

That's pretty tame next to the courses and weather conditions in BC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nakoqhu61nI

Mountain Biking and Trail-Building Destroy Wildlife Habitat!

The major harm that mountain biking does is that it greatly extends the human footprint (distance that one can travel) in wildlife habitat. E-bikes multiply that footprint even more. Neither should be allowed on any unpaved trail. Wildlife, if they are to survive, MUST receive top priority!

What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail-building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail!

Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....

Why do mountain bikers always insist on creating illegal trails? It's simple: they ride so fast that they see almost nothing of what they are passing. Therefore, they quickly get bored with any given trail and want another and another, endlessly! (In other words, mountain biking is inherently boring!)

A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see https://mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.

Mountain bikers also love to build new trails - legally or illegally. Of course, trail-building destroys wildlife habitat - not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10-mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for details.

Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?

To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297.

In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm .

The latest craze among mountain bikers is the creation of "pump tracks" (bike parks). They are alleged to teach bicycling skills, but what they actually teach are "skills" (skidding, jumping ("getting air"), racing, etc.) that are appropriate nowhere! If you believe that these "skills" won't be practiced throughout the rest of the park and in all other parks, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you! ...

For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm .

The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks).

The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks.

Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system.

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D.

Michael J. Vandeman was arrested by UC Berkeley police on May 28 after he allegedly attacked a bicyclist with a handsaw on a fire trail above the UC Berkeley campus weeks earlier.

https://velo.outsideonline.com/mountain/mtb-hater-gets-buste...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com