Editorial
Consequences to Our Actions
Do you still get a little tingle of excitement when you hear people talking about mountain biking on the mainstream media? Slash got a new bike and road gapped the Peloton! Cyclists are ten times more likely to suffer from blown crotches in jeans! Mountain bikers are receiving severe spinal cord injuries at an alarming rate!
Wait. What? This morning on the CBC my ears perked up in excitement with the mention of “mountain biking” only to learn that riding a bicycle down a mountain can have serious consequences. This was enough to perk my interest and initiate some frantic googling to find out more about a recent study completed by the UBC Faculty of Medicine on spinal cord injuries. You can find a summary of the study here, and a detailed report on the study here. I would highly encourage anybody that rides a mountain bike to at least read the summary.
To summarize the summary, doctors in BC were noticing an incredibly high rate of spinal cord injury in mountain bikers in British Columbia. They decided to do a deep dive into past data to see if they could see any trends. They found that from 2008 through 2022, 58 people suffered from severe spinal cord injuries in British Columbia due to mountain biking crashes. 27 of these were motor complete spinal cord injuries and 31 obtained incomplete spinal cord injuries, maintaining some level of motor function. My immediate response to this was that I actually expected more spinal cord injuries related to mountain biking. Honestly, we live in such a world of nonchalant injury, there aren’t many statistics that you could bring to my attention about this topic that would inspire surprise. But consider this - over the same time period only 3 individuals received similar injuries while playing ice hockey! I’m not sure of the overall differences in participation rate, but when nearly 20 times as many people have received serious spinal cord injuries from mountain biking compared to ice hockey, that is concerning. And think about that for a minute. 58 people in BC over a 14 year span have suffered life changing spinal cord injuries! You likely have more in common with those 58 people than differences.
Diving into the data, a few things stood out for me.
36% of all injuries occurred at Whistler. In one spot this is attributed directly to “Whistler Mountain Bike Park” and in another just “Whistler”.
Nearly 78% of all injuries occurred from over the handlebar crashes.
93% of those injured were male.
22% where married and between the ages of 31-40.
Outside of the timeframe of the study, there were a further 21 serious spinal cord injuries between 2022 and 2024.
There are some very specific contributing factors to these injuries. If you’re a 35 year-old married man, heading up to Whistler for the weekend, maybe you should think about additional protective equipment? Honestly, there are things in this data that we should all think about. The doctor interviewed for the CBC story highlighted that most of the subjects of the study didn’t feel like they were riding anything unusual or above their skill set. They were mostly experienced mountain bikers, just going for a normal mountain bike ride. His point being that this really could happen to any of us at any time.
I would love to see a deeper dive into this data with a more specific mountain biking lens on. What type of bikes were people riding? What sorts of trails? What wheel size? I’d also like to see annual trends. While the sample size is (thankfully) small, is this getting worse? Are there specific trends in bike or trail design that are contributing to that? Are there skills that we can learn in falling that can keep us safe? Gear that we can wear? We spend an inordinate amount of time rationalizing the risks that we take each and every ride. I think that if we saw that an increasing number of people are suffering life altering injuries while riding blue/black trails on 150mm bikes with 29 inch front wheels, we might approach things differently. I would suggest that this is something that should be on the radar of bike and gear manufacturers as well. If going over the bars is the key factor in spinal cord injuries, minimizing that feels like a prettty great idea.
If you’re one of the 58 people whose data was a part of this story, my heart really goes out to you. It’s crazy to think that this sport can take as much as it can give. If you’re willing to share your story in the comments (or elsewhere) I’d love to hear about your experience. It’s probably not the greatest feeling in the world to have your life distilled down to a piece of data, and my sincere apologies if anything written here comes off as flippant. This was a huge eye opener for me and it felt like a really important thing to highlight with our community.
Thanks,
Uncle Dave
Comments
Jose Espinal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Hi there, scientist here (chemical engineer, couple years working in labs, helped write papers)
This is just a sensationalist study to get clicks, it does not give us enough data whatsoever. Many variables are missing and overall it's just incomplete. In 2016 Whistler saw over 160.000 people. Let's assume the same number of people on a yearly average.
That's 2.240.000 people.
A whooping 0.002% of riders got a spinal injury
That's assuming that all injuries happened in Whistler.
If we extend that to all of BC the number gets even smaller.
Are we more likely as a collective to off ourselves on bikes? Yes
Is it enough of a difference to wail our arms and run around like headless chickens panicked? No
Reply
fartymarty
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Or are you more likely to get knocked off your bike (or worse) while commuting / riding road? I'd far rather take my chances off road.
Reply
blacksheep
1 month, 3 weeks ago
^ This.
Trees don't move, cars do.
Reply
Leatt_mtb
1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment has been removed.
Timer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I wouldn't be quite so harsh, but it is obvious that this is a medical phenomenon study with very limited scope. It is not a study on population health.
[Edit:] Oh, and the entire "lifetime cost" angle strikes me as very artificial. And i say this as an economist...
It does not give good context on the number of observed injuries. The comparsions cover hockey in BC and Football in the US and are a bit sloppy. Yes, Hockey is very popular in Canada, but is it a sport with serious risk of spinal injuries? If i take Tennis as comparison sport, it would probably look even worse for MTB. If i take MX or Paragliding, i guess MTB would be the healthy option.
Comparing with Football might be more informative, but the authors compare injuries for any rider in the entire province of BC with injuries for college and high-school football league players in the entire US (which are higher). That doesn't really tell anything, too many degrees of freedom.
Still, i like that this study helped get a discussion started. I'm pretty sure it is safe to say that our sport has a higher risk of SCIs than many other popular sports (e.g. Tennis, Soccer, Running, Volleyball, Swimming...) This tracks with the surprisingly high number of posters on MTB forums who suffered vertebrae fractures at some point.
Reply
Blofeld
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I agree with your take that the study was put together to catch media attention. Judging from the discussion here, I guess it worked, so job #1 accomplished.
The statistics on injury rates being given without participation rates is extremely common in medical papers. I’m not sure why it’s done so often but it drives me up the wall as well. Do MDs really really like integers or do they just like comparing cosmic crisps to mandarins? For that matter, how many spinal cord injuries in total occurred in BC during that time period for any reason? Might be a nice tidbit to include in something like this.
The context of the incidents that was collected is also virtually useless from a prevention perspective. Things like perceived speed, trail difficulty, problematic feature (tree, dirt jump, woodwork, rock slab, etc.) or type of riding could actually get causal. If 50 of the 58 injuries happened on dirt jump lines, that changes the entire story here.
The comparisons with hockey and football in terms of injury ‘rates’ is also inappropriate. Motocross or ATV riding is in my mind the most obvious comparison that should have been made. Other sports that involve jumping and/or speed would also be interesting, maybe equestrian pursuits or even gymnastics? Motor vehicle accidents would be the big one I’d guess, but the authors certainly wouldn’t want to imply people shouldn’t drive cars.
The $200M “lifetime cost” metric also strikes me as sensationalism. Something like obesity or long covid might cost Canadians $10B / year. Do I multiply by 70 to get a comparable number?
Reply
Jose Espinal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
My honest guess is that some poor soul needed an article to finish their phD and grabbed whatever sack of flying bullshit they found on a webpage. Which is unfortunately how most research papers happen
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
This comment shows your bias. The authors are established in their fields and practicing professional, either in academics or in the medical community. That you would make such a harsh judgement without investigation the authors' backgrounds is an egregious error on your part and shows a poor understanding of how to read a research paper.
Reply
Jose Espinal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Oh wow big overcomplicated words, do you know that Doctorates need to keep publishing papers in order to stay relevant and get funding? Did you know that most papers where an established researcher appears only has his name and all the info was redacted and digested by an intern?
Maybe the poor understanding is yours as my first comment was "I've been working in labs and helping researchers for a minute" fun fact most researchers don't even do their own experimetns I worked as a lab technicians at the physics department in my faculty for 2 years carrying our thermal tests to study the magnetic properties of superconductors in extreme weather for groups such as AMADE that collaborate with NASA. Wanna know something? I ran the numbers for the doctorates, they didn't they just took them interpreted them and wrote on what we gave them, and I hadn't even finished my engineering degree. Do with that info what you must.
To further digest info for you, in something as simple as counting SCI look how many researchers appear.
William Chu Kwan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6803-0669, Pedram Laghaei, Harsh Kahlon, Tamir Ailon, Raphaële Charest-Morin, Charlotte Dandurand, Scott Paquette, Nicolas Dea, John Street, Charles G. Fisher, Vanessa Noonan, Marcel F. Dvorak, and Brian K. Kwon
Do you think that they all took time for that?
Most researchers contracts have them do 20h a week of research and 20h a week of teaching, how do I know? Couple classmates became doctorates in chemical engineering. So in order to cover those 20h of research when it's slow you grab, and I quote myself "whatever sack of flying bullshit you find on the internet " and run with it.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Working in labs and doing applied or experimental research is not the same as working at a critical care facility and performing surgery on and doing rehab with patients with SCIs. This research was spurred on by medical professionals noticing a strong correlation between SCI patients and the activity they were doing when they had their injury. Reading the paper it seems the authors wanted to try and make some sense of was happening and attach some outcomes to it.
You've missed the forest for the trees here.
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Eww, you like The Monkees? You know they don't write their own songs. They don't even play their own instruments!
boomforeal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
This.
An activity injury study without a denominator is useless.
Reply
Adrian Bostock
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I had a similar thought when I first heard about this study. How many people ride bikes (rides per person per week/year) compared to play hockey or other contact sports.
I have been involved in the RSTBC trail standards pilot project where they are attempting to standardize trail ratings across the province, at least the ones in Established trails on crown land. It feels like RSTBC is trying to blend a difficulty ratings with a risk assessment. We don’t have enough data to develop a true risk assessment of trails. Most people are starting to understand that most injuries happen on Blue flow trails. There are a number of reasons this could be, speed, user numbers, user skill level. all three? who knows? we just don’t track the data.
As the local trail manager (for lack of a better term) I probably hear about less than 1% of all injuries. And that’s only because I am friends with some of the local SAR members and our most popular trail network is behind a locked gate.
That’s not to say this should be brushed off. If there in and inherent risk that can be addressed in mountain biking, we should look at it. My feeling is that if we ever to get the numbers, it’s still going to be statistically safer to mountain bike than to drive to work.
Look after your self.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
If there's an inherent risk that can be addressed in MTBing, did you seriously just write that :-\ Of course there's an inherent risk every time you get on your bike, whether in your yard, driveway, road or trails. Is there a way to address that, yes, don't ride your bike, that's about it. Like someone else said above, how's this compare with road riding? Personally I ride trails because pretty much, I'm the only idiot who can cause harm to myself, no one else (mostly), if I make a stupid decision or let others pressure me into riding a feature I'm not comfortable with, AT ME.
Personally I think maybe another theory at play, someone's trying to come up with some additional insurance "policy" for this and is trying to make a case why people should have it, like it's mandatory if you want to ride the bike park or such.
I believe a lot of these serious injuries happen for 2 main reasons, first, n00bs going to a place like Whistler, renting a DH bike and kit and feeling like it somehow has made them a good enough rider to hit trails they've never ridden before and second, experienced riders on trails they've ridden a "thousand times" and as such not maybe paying as much attention and something happens on an "easy" section.
I had a friend who was almost a statistic this year, same shit, went on a dudes bike trip to Whistler, rented a DH rig, no experience with a DH rig, had been to WBP before but rented and rode an Enduro/Trail type bike and probably kept things a bit "safe". He hit one drop too fast, overshot the landing, landed into the next take off, front dived, he got flung OTB, did some serious injury to his neck and shoulder, but luckily only musculature.
I always tell the guys, you have the opportunity to get some lessons, something we don't have here, do that for a 1/2 day before you go hit the bike park.
Reply
Adrian Bostock
1 month, 3 weeks ago
"that can be addressed" is the important part you left out of your response there.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
OK, that can be addressed, easy, stop WBP from renting DH bikes and equipment to anyone with an ID and credit card, make there be some sort of test or verification to prove you've ridden a DH bike and in a BP before, or you have to mandatorily take a skills lesson. I'd bet that alone would dropped those numbers by 75% at least.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I bet a large proportion of the injuries are to experienced riders.
Experienced riders ride a lot more and push faster higher farther, so when things go wrong, it goes wrong in really big ways.
Also if you are counting total number of runs per park per season, the experienced riders are riding more days and more runs per day, so the largest proportion of runs are likely by experienced riders
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
See my comment below when looking at the "out" part of the study 22-24 and the numbers, to me that says I'm more right than wrong.
DancingWithMyself
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Great points. As additional reasons for injury, I'd offer up Instagram / youtube, / social media for influencing the mindset of riders and, especially for blue flow trails, poor building and maintenance. Latter not an issue in WBP, but there are so, so many poorly built green and blue jumps out there.
I bet "minor" spinal injuries are WAY underreported. People getting home and then getting diagnosed with compression fractures, herniated discs, etc.
I often feel like our sport in general has a very immature attitude to risk and injury. More discussion around these issues is great.
Reply
Cam McRae
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I agree that the information presented is statistically incomplete but there are also reasons to take notice. I also agree that panic is not a useful response.
For me the alarming stat is the percentage of spinal injuries that originated from mountain biking. Particularly when you consider skiing and snowboarding and how many people ride ATVs and motos and sleds.
Reply
Moritz Haager
1 month, 3 weeks ago
So I disagree with your assessment, particularly around the idea that this is a sensationalist study. The researchers involved were noting that they felt like they were seeing an inordinate number of spinal cord injuries from MTB. Rather than accepting this anecdote as being tue, and simply going out and stating this as a fact (as so manly people do these days) they went out to investigate if the facts backed up their perception, and what they found is yes, it did. They are simply presenting the data, and saying it raises some concerns, which I agree it should.
Now of course the study is imperfect, and I agree with the complaints about a common denominator for easier comparison with other sports. That being said, I think the simple fact that over the same time period that they saw 58 spinal cord injuries, they only had 3 from hockey is by itself something that should make you take pause given how many people in this country play hockey, and that being cross checked into the boards can result in a very similar mechanism to going over the bars. Also, the comparison to football in the US where they found an incidence of 7.1 SCIs per year compared to the 4.1 SCIs per year in BC is troubling because the denominator in the US is 333 million people vs 5.3 million in BC. If you adjust for this difference, and for a moment assume the rate of SCI in MTB is the same in the US you would expect the US to see about 252 SCIs per year from MTB. That is a huge difference compared to what they are seeing in football. Not sure if there are any studies on the incidence of SCI in MTB in the US, but I assume not as the paper likely would have mentioned it.
Regarding your calculated incidence rate based on 160000 people per year at WBP (I am assuming this is only summer visits), yes the overall incidence rate is low, though I suspect your calculation is undercalling it a bit as quite a few of those visits will be by people who are riding the park more than once and the 160000 is the number of total visits, by say (just pulling a number out of my butt for illustrative purposes) 80000 individuals. Still the overall incidence rate based on this revised number would be low. Thankfully. However, these injuries are unbelievably devastating to the individuals and families involved, and we should continue to strive for getting that number as low as possible, and more in line with other sports.
I agree that simply being alive is a risk, and in fact has a 100% mortality rate. No I don‘t think we need to panic, or stop riding bikes. I do think we need to look at this data, start a conversation, think about how as individuals and as a community we can promote safer practices, and push for better protective equipment amongst other points. I am really thankful to these researchers for doing this work as understanding there is a problem is the first step to addressing it.
Reply
Timer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
While it may well be debatable if the study is sensationalist or not, the population statistics are definitely not meaningful.
The denominator for their MTB related SCIs is not the population of BC, but the number of people who ride bikes in BC. Which is unknown and in any case varies greatly between 2008 and 2022.
As I read the study, the denominator for the football SCIs is not the population of the US, but the number of college or high school league footballers. Which is likely more static and could probably be obtained or estimated, but is not given in the study.
So the comparison is between 4.1/unknown and 7.1/unknown. Which one is higher?
Reply
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
So 7.1 SCIs per year for college or high school league footballers in the US. Google says there are about 1.4 million college and high school league football players in the USA
7.1 /1.4 million = 0.000005 for football in US
compared to (36% of 4.1 for SCIs just at Whistler)/80000 (using Haager's number above) = 0.000018 for Whistler bike parkers
~0.000018/0.000005= 3.6 times more likely to get an SCI bike parking in Whistler than playing US student football
Reply
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
How many mountain biker are there in BC?
Doing a bit of Googling to figure out how many mtn bikers are in BC and given some old studies:
20% of Canadians bicycled (transportation or recreation) at least once in a 3 month period - Travel and Motivations Survey
3% of Canadians mtn bike - Parks Canada
on any one day 1% of Canadians bicycle - Statistics Canada, Who Participates in
Active Leisure
2% of Canadians bicycled (transportation or recreation) at least once in the study year- Sports Participation Survey from Statistics Canada
about 30% of cyclists mountain bike - Travel and Motivations Survey
10 million mountain bikers in the US alone and participation in mountain biking has grown by 78% over the last ten years - Western Canada Mountain Bike Tourism Association
In 2018, 22% of British Columbia residents participated in mountain biking - Destination BC Corp.
I anticipate that BC has a higher proportion of mountain bikers than the rest of Canada
Given all that... I guess 1 million mountain bikers in BC, but probably under 100,000 that would be dedicated riders that your typical NSMB'er would accept as being "Real" mountain bikers (someone that is avid and/or athletic enough to be used as a comparison to a USA high school football player)
Those 160,000 (or 80,000) numbers for Whistler are likely the number or rider days and not individuals (so a very few hardcore dudes are riding the bulk of the rider days)
Those of you with more accurate numbers - please update us/correct me
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I have to strongly disagree with the comment of "wail our arms and run around like headless chickens panicked." Saying that completely missing the point of the study and of the talk about it.
Compared to many other mainstream recreational activities, spinal injuries are higher (far higher in some circumstances) in mtb'ing. And, they seem to be increasing. That's something that absolutely has to be looked at. There's been several cases over the past year or so of people getting paralyzed while doing riding that was not out of the extreme for the riders involved. Compared to 25yrs ago, riding on average is faster and arguably more dangerous for the average or mainstream rider. I would say this is in large part due to the significant increase in performance capabilities of the bikes. Bikes today have better brakes, better suspension, better tires and better geometry, all of which give riders more confidence and more ability to ride faster and rider more challenging things.
Twenty five years ago the percentage of riders doing seemingly "crazy" things was a lot lower. The average rider today is riding at a much higher level than that of 25yrs ago. The study correctly states "This study also serves as a starting point for a much-needed dialogue with MTB parks and mountain bike associations to raise awareness and initiate partnerships that acknowledge the common desire to reduce the incidence of these catastrophic injuries." To want to not have the conversation or to try and shut it down is ignorant. I'm honestly quite surprised at some of the people who upvoted Jose's post.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The problem is not that someone counted the SCIs and recorded a number. The problem is how that number is being used by the general media without context to create sensational stories. Using that number to say "mountain biking is the cause of a high rate of SCIs" is not a very informative or accurate conclusion.
CBC would not interview a group of valley skate skiers or in-bounds resort skiers about skiers dying in avalanches (well yeah, likely they would, since they could do it from a parking lot). Would the media identify all skiers as one homogeneous group (maybe?), instead of narrowing the discussion to avalanche deaths IN THE BACK-COUNTRY, .
I see this matter as more of a case of lazy journalism.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Maybe a fair point, but the Vancouver Sun article I linked to in the forum was quite good and not what I would call lazy journalism.
https://vancouversun.com/feature/bc-spinal-surgeon-warns-of-rise-in-mountain-biking-injuries
Either way, what I'm disagreeing with is the disparaging remarks on the study. It smacks to me of willful ignorance in suggesting our sport is not dangerous and that there isn't a higher risk of SCIs here in BC in mtb'ing compared to other sports. When the Docs in the trauma center are concerned about the number of SCIs among mtb'ers then we should probably be paying attention to that.
Reply
Jose Espinal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Ok so I did a quick google search and went to this website
https://sci-bc.ca/info-centre/spinal-cord-injury/
From there we go to the Praxis institute
https://praxisinstitute.org/
Take a look at this backed statistics
Estimated 4,529 new cases of spinal cord injury in Canada each year, 1,786 as the result of traumatic injury and the rest as a consequence of diseases and other non-traumatic causes.
Almost half of new traumatic injuries occur in people 15 to 39 (mainly male) as a result of motor vehicle accidents, sporting accidents and other external causes.
The incidence and prevalence of non-traumatic SCI is on the rise. Approximately 50 per cent of new cases of SCI result from non-traumatic injuries caused by infection or disease (including cancer) rather than traumatic causes.
Cases of SCI are projected to increase over the next two decades, with the number of new traumatic and non-traumatic cases increasing from the 4,700 estimated for 2010 to 6,400 new cases estimated in 2030; and from the current estimated 86,000 persons living with SCI in 2010 to 121,000 persons in 2030.
Canada’s ageing population is having an impact on the mean age of people who suffer a SCI and the type of care and services required. In the coming decades people who suffer a spinal cord injury are likely to also be older and the causes of these injuries will shift e.g. older people falling rather than young males in motor vehicle collisions.
The first and most important data we can see is that only 39.4% of SCI's are a result of a traumatic cause. Therefore you're more likely to become paraplegic from the microplastics in your balls rather than shredding the gnar, statiscally speaking.
Our main article states that 58 SCI's happened in TEN YEARS, for the sake of it I am going to assume that all of them happened in a very gruesome single year.
Bike related SCI's represent a 3% of traumatic caused SCI's if all of our recorded injuries were to happen in a single year
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
You're making some faulty leaps in your conclusions on that data in an attempt to support your position.
In terms of some easy to digest data:
Causes of Spinal Cord Injury
https://sci-bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/sci_facts_and_stats_2005.pdf
Car Collision: 35%
Falls: 16.5%
Medical: 10.8%
Sports: 6.7%
Other Motor Vehicle Collision: 6.2%
Driving: 5.3%
Industrial: 5.3%
Other: 14.2%
Reading some sources it appears that Other in that list above would include things like injury from physical violence like shootings and stabbings.
What's getting missed here is that you're trying to compare apples to cheese graters and conflating stats in population wide categories (ie falls) with a rather niche activity (mtb) that has a participation rate that varies greatly. For example, are people riding 2x/month or 2x/week? While we have to do some generalizing due to a lack of data, we can't ignore rates in this discussion.
So for example, falls account for nearly 2/3rds of SCIs in people over 65 and 1/3 overall. Car crashes were roughly another 1/3. So falls and car crashes account for 2/3 of all SCIs. Whereas sports account for less than 7%. Now consider the participation rate difference in those categories. You can consider 100% of seniors when talking about falls - how will that affect the rate of SCI in seniors due to falls? A similar thing can be done for car crashes, although we won't consider 100% of the population but a high percentage of the population can be see as using cars. For sports the participation rate it's going to be far less and that is going to increase the injury rate and risk
Where this is going is that the number of SCIs from mtb'ing seems disproportionate to SCIs in the general population and to SCIs in other sporting activities. It seems very reasonable to draw a conclusion that people who mtb on a regular basis (2x/wk) have a higher risk of getting an SCI compared to the average person.
Reply
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The original research article that started all this talk
"Spinal Cord Injuries Secondary to Mountain Biking Accidents — A Cause for National Alarm"
is not research per se, it is a collection of observations. Although, they are important observations that justify real research, where there should be a systematic investigation and interpretation of facts, to classify and categorize (not just the types of injuries as in the above article) but also causes and effects, that could lead to a reduction in the rate of SCIs.
The article starts well with "Mountain biking (MTB) has evolved into a globally recognized sport, facilitated by lift-equipped bike parks at mountain resorts providing access to more challenging terrains", but then jumps to estimates of the life time cost of treating SCIs, and as the title of the article suggests "A Cause for National Alarm", it sensationalizes the entire activity (from commuters and kids playing in backyards to Red Bull Rampage).
Bike park SCIs were compared to hockey. That was not an example of comparing one fruit to another, it was comparing one individual fruit to all the fruit, leaves and branches of a fruit tree of a different flavour.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Are the lifetime estimates of the costs of dealing with a spinal injury not a valid concern? It's not like these costs are not already know due to the fact that the medical and insurance communities have been working with people who have SCIs for decades. It does not sensationalize the entire activity. It also does not sensationalize bike parks, but notes that 21 of the 58 injuries happened in Whistler, an riding are with a chairlift assist bike park. It did not suggest that all 21 of those injuries happened in the bike park.
The comparison to other sports is valid and that was part of the point (imo), to show that there are more SCIs in mtb'ing than other sports. Hockey and football work because they are collision sports. A comparison to rugby would have been ok as well, but to something like tennis would not.
You've got medical professionals in a fairly targeted field from one trauma centre noticing a relatively large number of SCIs in one cohort wanting to address that concern. Why is that so taboo?
I mean hey, if people want to downplay the risk of the type of riding that's common i the S2S region that's their business, but to try and blow this off as sensationalist garbage is socially irresponsible. There are probably a lot of people who got into mtb'ing without a firm understanding of the risks the sport carries.
taprider
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I am not saying that the costs of dealing with a spinal injury are not a valid concern or that it is taboo to talk about SCIs. But that the cause of SCIs is not simply mountain biking. A more descriptive simple cause might be trail design at bike parks and trail centres, something that can be easily modified to reduce SCIs.
I would like to see a comparison of bike park jump runs, to BMX, to bombing down gravel roads without jumps, to natural terrain features.
Alpine ski racing continuously changes requirements for course design to reduce risk.
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@tap - Ok, I get what you're saying and it's a fair point, but we have to start somewhere. That start is with recognizing that SCIs are a risk in mtb'ing and probably higher than many other sports. Let's not forget though that the article did specify a large majority (77.5%) of injuries were the result of people going over the bars. To take your suggestion though, if trails are designed to reduce or eliminate potential OTBs then that could mean we'll be riding basic gravel paths. We have to recognize that the sport is inherently dangerous.
taprider
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I even question the 77.5% of injuries are from OTBs
Big difference between going over the bars because you stuffed your front wheel on a root on a old school tech gnar trail to coming up short or jumping too far on a highly engineered Disneyland-rollercoaster-ized Flow jump run
I am all for more natural low consequence terrain features being used as natural aesthetically pleasing speed bumps rather than building more flow trails. But I have already got in trouble for saying that decades ago, and had to retract a forum thread that went over 20 pages (mainly ranters telling me to "shut up and pick up a shovel")
Mark
1 month, 2 weeks ago
@tap - It sounds like you're surreptitiously (big word just for Jose) saying that you want your fav style of riding to be vindicated from any inference that it may be dangerous and cause spinal injuries. Do you think it reasonable from a statistical standpoint to be able to gather that much data on a mtb'ing SCI?
I can tell you with honesty that I've had more OTBs from stuffing the front wheel in a root or rock on natural terrain than on built features. The few times I've gone OTB on built features was due to a miscalculation. The times I've gone OTB on natural feature has largely been a surprise. I'm not sure if it's possible to draw a firm conclusion as to which is worse. The only real solution is to deal back the risk by reducing speed and angle of decline on the trails.
Cr4w
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The fact that this really could be any of us at any time really hits home. That being said I think I'm taking some reasonable precautions. I try to be as fit as possible off the bike and by that I mean being probably the strongest person I know from a weightlifting and mobility perspective. Having a skeleton encased in a lot of mobile muscle just seems smart. I also am slightly overbiked: A tall guy with lots of body control on a very long wheelbase slack 29er is very unlikely to go over the bars. I can't remember the last time I did that. Nonetheless sh*t happens and we need to be ready for that. All the guys interviewed sound about as confident as I do.
I also don't ride WBP. I have to ride significantly faster than a smaller person to clear those gap distances and at those speeds minor mistakes will send you to the clinic, even for someone like me who's good at falling and tumbling. No thanks.
Reply
ShawMac
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I tend to crash my bike more than most people my age it seems like, but *knocking on wood* have had only bruising and no breaks. But an uncomfortable amount of those are OTB. My most most recent one was completely unexpected during the Squamish DH race in a benign spot that I had ridden several times without a second thought. What strikes me with most of my OTB crashes is that they happen so suddenly and unexpectedly vs my others where I have a bit of pre-warning about getting behind the bike or starting to lose it.
I agree that muscle fitness will do a lot to help prevent more serious injuries. I am hoping my many layers of fat cells maybe offer some cushioning as well lol.
Reply
Cooper Quinn
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I'm not here to talk you into WBP laps, but there's no physics reason you should have to go any faster for jumps - we're all subject to the same -9.8m/s^2 in the air.
You will have more kinetic energy than a smaller rider at the same velocity, though. So keep that in mind if you're gonna hit the ground.
Reply
Morgan Heater
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I think there could be some argument that his bike+body surface area is larger compared to his momentum so his drag coefficient causes him to slow down quicker? But I think that is probably pretty unlikely. My experience is that the required speed is mostly down to bike setup and how good you are at popping/pulling.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I'm no physicist but I'd guess the speed at which aerodynamic drag makes a significant difference between a large rider like Craw and myself and a smaller rider on big jump trails is going to be higher than most of us are reasonably going.
Anecdotally I have two friends who are both on the smaller side of medium and roughly the same build, and I have like, 60+ lbs on both. For one, I know I can follow at their trail speed and clear stuff blind. The other if I follow at their speed, I'm going to die.
On the other side of the equation, it's obvious when I follow my smaller friends (read: all of them) that my weight is simply better at overcoming inconvenient forces like bearing friction, etc, where I can hang on and catch them on any sort of faster non-brake straight section and they have to pump and work the terrain to generate the same speed.
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I still fuck up sometimes even being overbiked with a big 29" front wheel
Reply
ShawMac
1 month, 3 weeks ago
One of the other stand outs in the data (summary) for me... 86% were wearing helmets, but only 9% were wearing helmets AND body protection. Either body protection is helping, or so few people are wearing body protection that less of them fell into the scope of the study because of small sample size. Only 4.5% had no protection at all
What may be a weird is that implies that 14% of casualties weren't wearing helmets (higher than I would expect), but 9.5% were wearing some sort of protection but no helmet? Maybe I need to read the whole report to see how that was addressed.
Regardless, I wear my back and shoulder armour for almost every ride, trail or DH, race or not.
Reply
finbarr
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I was also very curious about that. Way more than 14% of people I see at WBP are wearing armor, so I’m curious about the stats.
Reply
Ride.DMC
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I have not read the summary or the report yet, but I have to presume that the 14% of people who weren't wearing helmets were injured outside of WBP. I don't think they (WBP) will let you on the lift without a helmet. I mean, I guess someone could carry a helmet with them on the chairlift/gondola ride up - but if they're going to go that far surely they would put the helmet on before they started their descent?
Reply
Andy Eunson
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I don’t buy that helmet use statistic. It is extremely rare to see a rider with no helmet at Whistler on the non park trails. And I’m pretty sure a helmet is mandatory in the park. Maybe the stat is 86% were only wearing a helmet, others were helmet and pads? Does a full face and no Leatt type brace provide any significant spine protection?
Reply
Timer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The "not wearing helmets" group was just 2 people.
Keep in mind the data sample starts in 2008, a lot has changed in terms of helmet use since then.
Also, some of the accidents were collisions. It is conceivable that someone suffered their injury from someone running into them while paused and having taken of their helmet.
Reply
Hank D
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The part about people getting hurt on features they felt comfortable on really hits home with me. 6 months ago I ate shit on a tiny jump on a little jump line on a local trail that I’ve never given two thoughts about. I went OTB, broke my hip, and separated my shoulder. Not being able to walk and barely using my right arm for six weeks is trivial compared to a spinal injury. But it leaves me thinking about how much worse it could have been. Every time I go ride now, I think about what a debilitating injury not only means to me but what it means to my whole family. I’m back riding but still trying to sort out what kind of mountain biker I am now….anyways take care everyone and make sure you’re focused when you’re on your bike.
Reply
Hank D
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Btw at the time I was 28, rode 2 or 3 times a week including a weekly ride on that same trail with the local bike shop. I’m on the skinny side but I lift weights too and like to think I take good care of myself.
Reply
mikesee
1 month, 3 weeks ago
#26maynotbedeadbutitIStryingtokillyou
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
On the other hand, when I was riding a small 26 inch bike I could jump over the handlebars in a crash no problem, avoiding the exact type of injury this study is concerned about. It was definitely the bike and not the fact I was 10 years younger.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I can relate to this, but in slightly different way.
If you're climbing up the North Road trail on Burnaby Mtn from the very bottom you start off with a techy steep pitch to climb and at the very top there's a about a 10-12" step-up over a rock that you have to muscle yourself up and over. I used to get it on a regular basis on my SX trail, but since moving to a 29'er I haven't cleaned it at all. That extra height on the front end is enough to change the physics of the move that it's really difficult to keep your weight forward enough so that the bike doesn't loop out but back enough so the rear wheel doesn't spin out. It's not a move that you can coast through due to the steepness, you have to be pedaling the whole time. It might be possible to trials hop up and over it, but because of the steepness I don't know if it's possible. It's now definitely one of those "Impossible Climbs" for me.
So I think what you're saying definitely has some merit. Those few extra inches of height in the front end can definitely be felt when riding.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
No wonder those XC guys slam those stems
Reply
Todd Hellinga
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Phew, I didn't contribute to those stats as my experience was in 2007! Mine was a boring equipment failure at not high speeds and not doing anything crazy.
But yeah, bikeparks....high speeds, jumps, and hardpacked dirt is a very unforgiving combo when things go wrong. been there, done that, mostly came away unscathed from em and super cognizant of those risks now that I'm older.
Reply
Cam McRae
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Speed is a huge factor, which may explain why the (perceived at least) serious injury rate on the North Shore is low, or at least lower. The WBP trails generally allow (and sometimes require) much higher speeds than the North Shore. My ratio of riding time on the Shore compared to the WBP is probably 100:1 but my worst crash that incurred injuries and a second crash that was a bad one where I got lucky, were both in the bike park.
Reply
Perry Schebel
1 month, 3 weeks ago
i can relate. i ride tech shore almost every day & the biggest stack i've had in years (with bonus atv off mountain extraction) was on a buff wbp blue flow trail. speed + complacency = splat.
Reply
Morgan Heater
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Isn't there some data that most of the serious injuries at Whistler happen on flow trails? Strava said I went around 40 mph on several laps last time I was up there. Pretty sketchy.
Reply
DancingWithMyself
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Agree with this 100%. I also think people miscalculated the risk. They evaluate a steep, gnarly tech trail as more dangerous than a really fast blue flow \ jump trail. That may be the case for bumps and bruises, but I don't think it is for serious injuries. People underestimating the risk of the really fast flow / jump trail increases the risk substantially.
Reply
Graysa
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Great article Dave. As many of us have already said my heart goes out to those who have suffered a life altering injury spinal cord or not. It would be interesting to know how many people are out riding mt bikes in BC to get an accurate rate of spinal cord injury. A quick google search shows approximately 100,000 visitors to WBP alone in 2024. If we just round up to a probably undercounted amount of riders in just the sea to sky corridor of a million over the 16 years mentioned in the article that gives an serious spinal cord injury chance of .0079%. Most of the people that I ride with have had some type of ortho injury at a minimum most commonly an AC separation. Two of which occurred at WBP on easy does it and ninja cougar respectively. My personal AC separation happened on a gravel road at the Stevens Pass bike park not even going fast. I had a friend who had a serious spinal cord injury that left him temporarily paralyzed but he has since recovered. As a result of his injury both he and I pretty religiously wear a Leatt neck brace ( I admit to not using it on my "easy" local trails) when riding anything remotely challenging. I have had 2 crashes wear I felt my helmet hit the limit of the Leatt including one which cracked my Smith mainline helmet in an OTB off a step down that I am confident would have caused a serious neck injury without it. I know it makes you look silly and many people claim they don't work but I'm confident it saved me a serious injury. BTW no affiliation, sponsorship with Leatt probably the only sponsorship I can pursue at 54 is Advil.
Reply
delusional
1 month, 3 weeks ago
> Outside of the timeframe of the study, there were a further 21 serious spinal cord injuries between 2022 and 2024.
This is what really jumps out at me. So in a 14 year period we saw 58 SPIs (mean: 4.14/year), but in two years post study we saw 21 SPIs (mean:10.5/year). That is a significant annual increase, and does tie in with what seems to anecdotally be the case.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
@ Delusional, hence my comment about WBP and just renting out DH bikes and equipment to n00bs, because that is obviously an influx of riders due to the pandemic, which also opened the eyes of a lot of others and there's definitely more people riding now, also especially because of the introduction of motors, so people think they're fitter and stronger than they actually are and when it comes time to man handle a DH bike, they're SOL.
Reply
delusional
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Potentially. But I think there's also an argument that bikes are getting ever more capable, so speeds are increasing across the board, and when things do go wrong people are hitting the ground with significantly higher force. Anecdotally it certainly seems like there are more expert level riders with broken backs and necks in the last few years than I remember seeing previously.
Reply
Dave Tolnai
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I've got to admit that I'm pretty surprised by the response to this article. I never imagined people would be questioning the source! And blame it all on noobs riding jump trails!
While I agree that the study isn't perfect, I didn't think to question the whole premise. A few things:
The football comparisons - I didn't mention these because I didn't like them. It's one thing to compare two things within BC in which you have control of the data, but the big discrepancies between football in the US and mountain biking in BC could be down to a lot of things, even just how data is recorded.
Injury rates - I also agree that it would be wonderful to have comparative injury rates between sports, but I also see that this would be a near impossible thing to calculate. As well, at the same time, does it matter? Does it diminish the (documented) observation from the doctors in this clinic? I was also surprised that people went to the worst case scenario for the motive for why this was published.
More data - Still. I was curious. I didn't dig too much into this beyond reading the study and doing a couple of little bits of googling. For me, I didn't need to go further. It was eye opening and my first thought was "holy crap, other people could benefit from reading this!" The one missing piece, that felt answerable, was how many spinal cord injuries there are in BC that aren't mountain bike related.
https://praxisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/RHSCIR-2021-Report_English_final.pdf
https://praxisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/RHSCIR-2019-Report_WEB.pdf
https://sci-bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/sci_facts_and_stats_2005.pdf
Looking at a few studies, there are around 650-700 people that receive spinal cord injuries in Canada each year, and 14% of those happen in BC (which roughly corresponds with our population, so feels correct. That suggests 90-95 people per year in BC receive spinal cord injuries. There's some further breakdowns on causes, but a bit of disagreement. The range looks to be around 6-15% caused by sports. That's a nationwide statistic, but likely holds in BC. Which puts the number of sports related spinal cord injuries in BC at between 5 and 15 each year. Mountain biking is contributing 4 of that total, likely something like 20-30% of all sports related spinal cord injuries in BC each year.
As well, compared to the overall stats, the mountain biking injuries skew younger and more male. So, while it is an incredibly small likelihood that you are going to receive a spinal cord injury on your next ride, if you're young, male and a mountain biker, your chances of receiving one look to be astronomically higher than that of the average population, or even of participants in other sports. Nobody is suggesting you freak out or stop riding your bike, but it also seems ill advised just to wave that away as sensasionalist.
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 3 weeks ago
well Dave I duno if you ever noticed but there are a lot of people acting like assholes on your average forum
I duno why but somehow I know a lot of guys in chairs so its not abstract to me
Jeff Scott executive director of Live it! love it foundation
last i seen him had developed a new lightweight motorized chair with incredible tech I think some e-bike tech, nothing like the big cumbersome chairs you see now I was blown away when i seen it
Reply
jhtopilko
1 month, 3 weeks ago
A friendly reminder to be responsible for yourself.
Reply
Mammal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Quite a bit of conversation happening about this in the forum. More less experienced riders at bike parks + bikes feeling insanely capable these days?
Reply
Cr4w
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I've overheard so many conversations around people thinking WBP is somehow easy because you don't have to pedal up. Then going on to hit A-Line without skills or even a warm up lap.
Reply
Dave Tolnai
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Ha! Shows how much time I spend in the forum. Good to see people talking about it.
Reply
Mammal
1 month, 3 weeks ago
For reference: The Shore/Spinal Cord Armageddon
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Dave, reading the forum thread: "Ha, this shit writes itself!"
Reply
fartymarty
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Blue flow trails are definitely my kryptonite. I'm generally less focused and riding faster than on a steep tech trail.
Reply
Squint
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Absolutely. That's why I'm full face, knee and elbow pads every ride, because it's the "easy" trails I tend to crash harder on.
Reply
Timer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
The „less experienced“ hypothesis doesn’t seem very plausible.
We know that even the best pro riders regularly crash and get hurt in the process. Because better riders ride faster, which decreases the margin of error and most importantly, results in much, much higher impact forces when they do eventually crash.
Reply
Skooks
1 month, 3 weeks ago
For better or worse, it seems that getting injured is an accepted part of mountain biking, at least for us 'enthusiasts'. I don't know many serious riders who haven't been hurt in a crash. While we understand that these consequences are part of the sport, nobody goes out for a ride expecting that they are going to have a life-altering accident. For anyone going through this experience, my heart goes out to you. I can't begin to understand what you are going through.
Reply
Jotegir
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Better luck next Cumberland spring trip eh?
Reply
Andy Eunson
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I would think some of the injury problem is that mountain biking isn’t as mature a sport as hockey. When snowmobiling became more popular in the mountains because the machines were better and able to get up high, we saw avalanche deaths. Similar for backcountry skiing when it was really starting to take off. People learned, got educated and bought safety gear and we don’t see as many now as far as I know despite those activities still growing. Awareness is good. I think with the bike park riders, especially tourist types may not really understand the risks. They rent a DH bike and a lot of gear and feel safe and capable enough. Then the testosterone and one up man ship takes over and crashes happen.
More mature sports see young athletes start small and progress as their skills develop. There is no training progression for a person renting a bike and pads at a bike park. Maybe people are lulled into a state of false safety with a full face and pads and very capable bike.
Despite living in Whistler I don’t go to the park. Ever. Years ago there was a statistic of I think one in seven (I may be way off but it was a startling stat) riders needed to medical treatment. Could be a sprain or stitches all the way to spinal cord injury.
Young men in particular have always done stupid stuff. Look at Lynn Valley cliff jumpers. Maybe mountain biking is just the latest thing? Yeah we’ve been riding off road for over 40 years but parks are relatively new and the most recent bikes are much more capable now.
One difference today is that it seems the extreme sports are more popular. Plus social media and its affect.
Personally I think I was lucky early on in my life to survive some stupidity and I have always been risk averse. I have never been ashamed to walk something in front of people. I’m not getting paid to take risks. I’ve had my injuries. Broke or bruised ribs 7 or 8 times, a couple broken and mangled fingers and sprains. Skiing was two blown knees a year apart.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I'm honestly surprised to see so much pushback on this study. Sure there is data missing, but some of the data that would be nice is going to be highly difficult, if not impossible to obtain. The paper does a decent job of what it set out to do, raise concern for what appears to be an alarming trend in spinal cord injuries in a mainstream, yet still relatively niche sport/activity. While we don't have firm data on participation rates in mtb'ing here in BC, I think it's safe to assume those numbers fall below participation rates in hockey. Even if they do not however and we make a big assumption that participation rates are the same, SCI from mtb'ing is still well above what's seen in hockey and other sports.
The study is coming from people in the field of SCIs who were alarmed to see a significant number of people coming into their level 1 trauma centre. If neurologists and orthopedists are concerned with a high number of SCIs being attributed to a specific activity then we should be paying attention to that.
Reply
Sweaman2
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Sobering data. I suspect there's not the information but it'd be interesting to see what the unfortunate individuals were wearing.
I have a T12 compression fracture from WBP (aged late 30's, married male) on b-line on an innocuous feature. Luckily no long term issues. I was wearing a back protector at the time... On the one hand back protectors don't guard against compression so it didn't help..on the other hand maybe it saved me from a worse fate.... It's hot and it's heavy but wear it religiously now.
Reply
the prophet
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Pretty sure this kept me from being a statistic.
Won't ride a lift or DH bike without it!
Reply
Cam McRae
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I think there is a misconception that spinal injuries are the result of direct impact on your spine. It seems to me, based on experience and common sense, that, for the vast majority of spinal cord injuries, the mechanism of injury involves your head contacting the ground. An impact from your tailbone is dangerous as well but likely less common in MTB.
From what I learned in first aid courses and from working in that field, a top down impact on your head is particularly damaging. The inevitable twisting forces undoubtedly compound the likelihood of injury.
I think for chest and back trauma to the ribs, upper body armour is very helpful but I would be surprised to learn it significantly reduces your risk of spinal injury.
Reply
Timer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Depending on where you ride, back and chest protectors might also be helpful to prevent dangerous puncture wounds from sticks or deadfall. Limited, obviously, with stomach and throat still uncovered.
Reply
sbh071
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Riding in the Alps back country Sep 23 with a good friend, good rider, watched him miscalculate a sudden sharp rise in the trail, get half way up, put his foot out into thin air and topple over on his back onto the big, sharp rocks a metre or two down. He broke a couple of ribs, but the back protector in his backpack saved a lot worse. That was on the first afternoon of the week’s guided holiday. Guide remarked no-one had ever crashed there in the 15 years he’d guided…
Have now had two of the wider group of say 8 airlifted out by rescue helicopter (live in UK) in the last three or so years. Both very good and fast riders, both on “easy” trails more green than blue…
Reply
Moritz Haager
1 month, 3 weeks ago
100% correct. The most dangerous thing is going over the handlebars and landing on your head driving a lot of energy through your skull an into your cervical spine. It’s not direct impact. As mentioned 77.5% of the injuries in this study involved an over the bars mechanis, and 67.2% were neck injuries. Nothing wrong with the chest and back protector (36% had associated injuries to their chest, or abdomen), but it will not protect you in any way from getting a cervical spine injury.
Reply
jdt
1 month, 3 weeks ago
This for sure. I have unfortunately witnessed it multiple times. It is made worse in some cases by people not learning how to crash properly, or not having enough time to react in the moment. The instinctive reaction is to put your your hands, but of course this is often insufficient to take the weight of the falling body and avoid impact to the head (or face). I think people need to learn how to roll into their crashes...I'm not saying that people can just do a nice little ninja-roll and come up unscathed. My first instinct it to throw one arm across my body if I go OTB- almost like a punch. When I was young and limber, I would actually practice this and intentionally endo onto nice soft grass to practice the movement. This helps get the body out of a pure lawn-dart orientation and into a tumble where force can hopefully be distributed through multiple impacts rather than one big one. I'll take the lost skin and other injuries if it means protecting my head and spine. Nothing is surefire, and one can't protect against everything, but practicing falls seems like a better option than hoping they won't happen.
Reply
Brian Tuulos
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Im curious what percentage are non-bc residents. This province has a level of gnar and commitment required when the trail get serious. Socal or bentonville people may not be used to this.
Reply
cxfahrer
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I wonder how these statistics are created. As I read it, they only counted people who were admitted to their trauma center in BC..? And then they got those data by asking them? 58 SCIs from 2008 to 2022 in a population of 5.5 million is not many (but too many anyway), so it may be statistically not relevant.
How does the number of OTB caused SCI relate to those from riding or falling from ladders?
I guess from watching Friday Fails most OTBs are when jumping, and dead sailing front heavy over the landing, or loosing a pedal etc and not getting the front straight so it jackknifes. Bikepark riding...
Anyway, risk management should be a core point for any bikepark. Watching Remy´s newest video about Mt.Prevost I was surprised to see all those yellow warning signs on those trails (that I never would dare to ride), something I have never seen on any park or trail center over here.
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 3 weeks ago
I got another bud who became a Para while snow boarding, Caleb Brousseau with whom I paddled WW kayak a few times, buddy did really good in a Kayak he only needed help getting getting to his boat then you couldn't tell he was para. He won a bronze medal at the 2014 Winter Paralympics in Sochi, Russia, in the men's sitting super-G sitski. A para can do all kinds of things but then he became a quad I believe an adaptive mtn biking incident but he is still going
Reply
Mark
1 month, 3 weeks ago
If spinal injuries in mtb'ing aren't something to worry about as suggested by some then why have there been a number of spinal injuries here (BC) lately? There's also a few not on that list too.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-caileigh-koppang-on-her-road-to-recovery
https://www.gofundme.com/f/rick-king-spinal-injury-fundraiser
https://www.gofundme.com/f/get-stan-back-up-the-mountain
https://www.instagram.com/p/DCnDXQFSDzr/?hl=en
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-support-the-arnolds
https://www.gofundme.com/f/zach-moggachs-road-to-recovery
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-rob-bordts-spinal-cord-injury-rehab
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Locally 3 buds out of a group are quad, one was a collapsed front wheel equipment failure, one jumping in WBP and the last one I would call an accident buddy was on a very easy small bridge crossing a small creek going up hill so when you go for a beer and guys are in chairs its kind of sobering, me i dial it back and stay on the ground
it would seem you can get hurt anywhere
Reply
Dave Tolnai
1 month, 3 weeks ago
That's crazy! Wow.
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 3 weeks ago
One of the buds is an incomplete spinal so he can drive a car/ ride his trike/ has even skied including takign 8 hrs to tour 2 kms in a 24 hr event but technicaly he is still a quad, recently I helped him paddle a sit on top and when he seen my SUP of course he wanted to do it and he did
as for my assertion you can get hurt anywhere I met a guy in a chair at Calgary MEC who told me he had backed off a ladder the wrong way and got messed up, lets be careful out there !
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yeah, Dave those stats are very interesting, especially when you compare them to the hockey stats , where the amount of people who play ice hockey is probably in the region of what, 40+ to 1 to those who ride mountain bikes at the same sort of level.
I've only had one bad off and it was at speed, it was not pleasant, but I walked away with only muscle/tendon stretches/cramps, whatever it is when you realise you're going to crash and tense your entire body to take the impact. I always am amazed at the risks a lot of people are willing to take to get their rush, me I pretty much keep the rubber on the dirt, do small, <4ft drops, might on the rear occasion hit very small, well built jumps, but it's more about the slower speed, tech stuff for me and the tech climbs and climbing.
Reply
soft-g
1 month, 3 weeks ago
A lot changed in mtb between 2008 and 2022. I've only read the summary, but would be curious to see what kind of protection the effected riders were wearing.
08-10 - end of the pressure suit era
10-15 - Leatt Brace era - did research ever come out saying they weren't effective, or did we all just want to stop wearing toilet seats.
15-22 - Chest Plate / rock guard/ chest plate with D30.
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 3 weeks ago
blaming the guy who is now a quad or injured or WTF for WTF reason kinda sucks IMO,
the point is that it does happen and so the real question is why, why so many spinal injuries ?
when i looked at a whistler redbull comp or wtf it was I looked thru the winner sliding across the finish line to notice the guys sitting in chairs, so these guys would have been really good which didnt stop them ending up in a chair
SO Up here we are getting really good at this, while buddy #1 took 2 year to get back to town, buddy # 3 will be back to town in only 5 months from incident probably in a large part to a very happening mtn biking OT
Reply
Kos
1 month, 3 weeks ago
Great read, UD! To put this in context, the years are passing me by, and I’ve made a conscious decision to step away from most higher consequence stuff, and….
I almost became one of the spinal cord stats anyway. Ripping along a well known, “dark green” trail, around a blind corner at high speed, and there was a fallen tree about a foot (xyz meters) above the trail.
Over the bar, headfirst into a pile of rocks. Broken helmet. No concussion, thank you Kask. Cut on side of face, eff you brand new frameless “shield” style glasses; Whiplash and torn upper back muscles that took 10 weeks to completely resolve. I felt really old and creaky for two months.
It doesn’t have to be Whistler or the North Shore. NW MT can also bite you when least expected!
Reply
jdt
1 month, 2 weeks ago
I want to be crystal clear, that I am not offering this link below as any way to make light of anyone's accident. However, Frankie La Penna does an excellent little short video that explains how he falls. This is EXACTLY how I was taught to fall, and after enough times through it, the movements became quite instinctive. I'm not sure if the link will show, but here is it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2fXt3Ryn2Y
The video is titled "Stunt-man explains how to survive falling really hard" if you want to find it yourself.
Reply
juanhernandez
1 month, 2 weeks ago
Thanks for reporting this.
Alot of pushback/denial in the comments. Very similar to the reaction guys give when confronted with circumcision.
Few points:
Hockey is on flat ice.
We are going down, fast.
Hockey players never float above the ice more than a few feet (during a big, lifting hit). Last time I was at Whistler, I was getting off the ground over six feet (conservative).
Add the speed and height AND our hands are on the bars and things can go to the head/neck quick.
I didn't even mention mechanical failures--bars, stems, forks, head tube detachments.
Then you have miscalculations.
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.