New posts

Vanvouver Costal health warning about riding.

June 22, 2016, 5:33 p.m.
Posts: 2658
Joined: July 6, 2003

Wow pretty sensitive bunch here. The article doesn't tell anyone to not ride, I wouldn't call it fear mongering either… That's pretty extreme.

And kind of brash to claim the only intent of this campaign is to save money; who knows if it will work. But what if this campaign is enough to raise the awareness of just 1 rider to ride within his means, prevent a possible broken neck or spine fracture and allow this guy to not spend the rest of his life as a para/quadriplegic? What's the dollar value you put on that? We all know shit happens, but there are also MANY cases where we've all pushed beyond our abilities.

There's more to life than shredding and strava KOMs honestly a bit disappointed by how defensive some of you have responded to this campaign intended to merely raise awareness, aimed at the general public. We can criticize the data, the intent, all we want. But really, the message is just to be careful.

Full disclose I work in health care FWIW

They should be more worried about what the vast majority of North Americans are (over) eating.

Originally posted by Purecanadianhoney
I don't see how hard it would be to scrape out the head of your cock once in a while.

June 22, 2016, 6:20 p.m.
Posts: 11906
Joined: June 4, 2008

And kind of brash to claim the only intent of this campaign is to save money

Every point you brought up has been gone over a few times. If you want to ignore them, that's fine, but you aren't adding much to the conversation.

This one bears repeating however.

Imagine you are a parent. You have to choose on two areas on which to speak to your child about.

Do you spend your effort on how dangerous skipping on gravel paths are or do you spend it on how important it is to make eye contact before you cross the road?

If you're dead-set on addressing the root cause, mountain biking is the symptom, testosterone is likely the cause.

June 22, 2016, 11:08 p.m.
Posts: 116
Joined: Dec. 29, 2012

They should be more worried about what the vast majority of North Americans are (over) eating.

Who's to say they aren't. It's not really an all or nothing deal like you guys are making it sound to be. Really, how much resources do you think was actually spent to produce this warning/PSA if you will (I realize I'm opening up another can or worms here), all it required was compiling some simple stats, make some picturegraph, get in touch with media outlets. Would you guys rather this announcement not be made at all?

June 22, 2016, 11:24 p.m.
Posts: 116
Joined: Dec. 29, 2012

Imagine you are a parent. You have to choose on two areas on which to speak to your child about.

Do you spend your effort on how dangerous skipping on gravel paths are or do you spend it on how important it is to make eye contact before you cross the road?

Why would I have to choose between the two? It takes minimally more effort to do both, they aren't mutually exclusive of each other.

I get that chronic diseases and sedentary lifestyles are the number 1 enemy, believe me, I deal with it every day. But this isn't a battle we're going to win overnight, or even over the next decade. As someone mentioned our system is designed for acute treatment and not prevention. Public health is largely underfunded, and that's because no government is willing to pour resources into public health and prevention practices because the returns on those investments are realistically 40-50 years away, nobody will care or remember at that point. Meanwhile the money you put into acute services and shiny new hospitals will help you get elected for the next term, so obviously there is heavy bias towards acute treatment

Until we find a way to get a handle on chronic diseases, we can still help other groups and populations along the way. Is that so bad?

June 23, 2016, 7:15 a.m.
Posts: 11906
Joined: June 4, 2008

Why would I have to choose between the two?

[Because] public health is largely underfunded

It takes minimally more effort to do both, they aren't mutually exclusive of each other.

I think you underestimate the time and cost of public campaigns.

Until we find a way to get a handle on chronic diseases, we can still help other groups and populations along the way. Is that so bad?

It is if the efficacy of said campaign approaches zero.

June 23, 2016, 7:26 p.m.
Posts: 116
Joined: Dec. 29, 2012

And your ability to judge this public health campaign's efficacy after mere days is…? Any public health prevention based program takes months, years, if not decades to evaluate its effectiveness. That's why they are always the first programs to face the knife, the metrics to measure short term efficacy are so lacking

Once again, my belief is if one major injury can be prevented and a lifestyle can be preserved as a result, then its money well spent. We're I'm talking about a broken arm that needs a cast then all is good after.

You don't think so? You tell the guy spending the rest of his life as a quad that you didnt think the $2500 it probably cost to put that campaign together that it was money better spent elsewhere, like the millions that have already and will continue to be spent in the battle vs chronic diseases.

Anyways I think all points I have to bring up have been brought. Its clear some have their minds made up as mine also is; our values are just in different places. Thanks for the discussion.

June 23, 2016, 9:07 p.m.
Posts: 11906
Joined: June 4, 2008

And your ability to judge this public health campaign's efficacy after mere days is…? Any public health prevention based program takes months, years, if not decades to evaluate its effectiveness. That's why they are always the first programs to face the knife, the metrics to measure short term efficacy are so lacking

Once again, my belief is if one major injury can be prevented and a lifestyle can be preserved as a result, then its money well spent. We're I'm talking about a broken arm that needs a cast then all is good after.

You don't think so? You tell the guy spending the rest of his life as a quad that you didnt think the $2500 it probably cost to put that campaign together that it was money better spent elsewhere, like the millions that have already and will continue to be spent in the battle vs chronic diseases.

Anyways I think all points I have to bring up have been brought. Its clear some have their minds made up as mine also is; our values are just in different places. Thanks for the discussion.

Oh soldier, the burden of proof is a hard one. Especially when in the face of the facts you are titling at windmills.

Including the Whistler Bike Park in any type of epidemiological study is akin to saying all Germans hate Jews.

I've never met anyone in my life that thought mountain biking was free of risk. In fact, it was the polar opposite, regardless of armour.

As far as edge cases go, mountain biking is only eclipsed by base jumping.

Take the $10,000,000 this campaign cost and funnel it back into public education.

Forum jump: