Caving Vs MTB - which is more dangerous?

[tdobson]

I'm trying to settle a debate with data, and science (rather than gut feel and anecdotes).

Which of Mountain Biking and Caving is objectively more dangerous?

This is clearly likely to be a biased forum, and I'm really keen for replies to be backed up with data rather than anecdotes.

I realise the question involves ambiguity - this is somewhat deliberate - I suspect a definitive "answer" will not be forthcoming, but with people filling in the gaps, we may get some good pointers.

 

[Rob]

The amount of broken bones and metalwork in a keen Eldon member from his downhill biking days, followed by so far no injuries in Cussey, gives me a clear indicator that mountain biking is definitely more dangerous.

 

[rm128]

I'm afraid I have no data to offer whatsoever, but it seems to me that mtb is a much more dynamic activity... which surely makes it more dangerous. Obviously both activities can be done safely (easy rides/caves with lots of safety precautions), or both can be done dangerously (hard rides/caves with little regard for safety precautions or objective dangers). But, at least in one sense, the aim of mtb is to ride faster on harder routes, which must have an associated higher risk. On the other hand, I don't believe that doing harder caves necessarily has an associated higher risk. Cave exploration may be a different kettle of fish, where we often find ourselves pushing into less stable areas than perhaps we should or descending pitches with less than ideal anchors. But I would class exploration differently to recreational caving.

 

[alanw]

The most recent Mountain Rescue Incident summary for teams across England and Wales is a few years old: 2017, however:
Cave/Mine: 2 incidents (really?)
Mountain Biking: 112

https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2017MREWIncidentReport.pdf

These numbers then need to be scaled by the number of people taking part in each activity, and some Mountain Biking incidents will be dealt with by other agencies.

Most mountain bike incidents will involve injury, possibly broken bones, many cave incidents are lost/overdue/exhaustion.

For CRO in 2022:
Cave: 4 (one overdue, one in a show cave)
Mountain Bike: 2

https://cro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Cave-Rescue-Report-2022.pdf

And for Bowland, which covers Gisburn Forest, 3 mountain bike incidents

INCIDENTS – Bowland Pennine Mountain Rescue Team

www.bowlandpenninemrt.org.uk

I've had a quick look at https://digital.nhs.uk/, but they don't seem to itemise types of injury.

So not much help there in answering the OP's question, I'm afraid.

 

[Alex]

I know we (UWFRA) get a lot more call outs from mountain bikers than we do caving, but of course a lot more do biking. I would think anything that involves speed and mechanics is generally more dangerous. I mean I guess it's possible to crash into something when abseiling or just simply absail out of control, but there's less complex mechanics going on.

However, the big difference in caving and biking, is in caving you can mitigate a lot of dangers such as checking the weather, rigging properly and rigging climbs, having a cave survey if your not great at navigation etc. Where as biking you can mitigate a bit with those face masks but end of the day gravity is in-charge and there's not much you can do about that.

In my opinion having dabbled in biking of course, I would definitely say mtn biking is more dangerous. I assume Tim you will get the completely opposite response on the mtb forums.

Now for science then I guess compare

Injuries in mountain biking - PubMed

Despite still growing attraction mountain biking as a matter of sports traumatology still lacks relevant data based on large cross-sectional surveys. To obtain an overview of risk factors, types, and main body sites of injuries occurring in mountain biking we assessed the results of a...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Serious injury rate 0.6% * 0.25 (for serious as given as a seperate factor) = 0.15%

How Dangerous Is Caving Really? – Facts, not opinions | startcaving.com

The first question many people ask me when I say I'm a caver: "isn't that dangerous?" I've never particularly felt at risk, but I guess…

startcaving.com

Serious injury rate 0.000008%

So believing those statistics and assuming I have done my maths then mountain biking is 18,750 times more dangerous!

 

[Alex]

Sorry there was an error in my maths, I assumed the second one was per x hours where as it's between X trips, below might be more realistic.

Injuries in mountain biking - PubMed

Despite still growing attraction mountain biking as a matter of sports traumatology still lacks relevant data based on large cross-sectional surveys. To obtain an overview of risk factors, types, and main body sites of injuries occurring in mountain biking we assessed the results of a...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Injury rate stated at 0.6% and serious injury makes up a quarter of that so 0.6 * 0.25 = 0.15% per 1000 hours

How Dangerous Is Caving Really? – Facts, not opinions | startcaving.com

The first question many people ask me when I say I'm a caver: "isn't that dangerous?" I've never particularly felt at risk, but I guess…

startcaving.com

Serious injury rate stated as 0.000008%, but it does not say how many hours, and I assume it means per trip. So let's assume it's 5 hours per person, for an average caving trip. So we can increase that by a factor of 200 (as 5 goes into 1000, 200 times) so 0.000008% * 200 = 0.0016% chance per 1000 hours.

So believing those statistics and taking the assumptions then by my maths then mountain biking is still 94 times more dangerous per hour of activity.

 

[Pitlamp]

FWIW, in my opinion statistics don't tell you how dangerous an activity is; they tell you the accident rate. These are two different things entirely, as the latter doesn't factor in human error.

I suspect both activities can be made as safe or as dangerous as you want them to be. So your original question is not an easy one to answer objectively.

One thing worth pondering on is the access to a lot of very experienced people in a decent caving club (which I suspect is not an common option in the mountain biking scene). That base of knowledge and experience often filters through to less experienced members, limiting the likelihood of activities taking place which might be done in a dangerous way.

 

[georgenorth]

I agree with Pitlamp that statistics won’t answer your question. I’d assume that a much higher proportion of caving accidents result in fatalities than mtb accidents though. I think this leads to a fundamental difference in risk tolerance between the two sports. Broken bones from messing up a jump will heal; falling down a pitch is pretty terminal.

 

[Roger W]

All caving accidents aren't fatal, though. What proportion of CRO call-outs end in fatalities?

 

[cap n chris]

This entire topic has been covered in depth by Peter Mohr and he wrote an article in Descent titled Gauging the Risk. Check it out.

 

[georgenorth]

Crashing and consequently injuries are a pretty intrinsic part of mountain biking (for those doing ‘gravity’ riding anyhow). If you want to progress (get better and faster) then it simply isn’t possible to do it ‘safely’ as you can with caving.

 

[kay]

FWIW, in my opinion statistics don't tell you how dangerous an activity is; they tell you the accident rate. These are two different things entirely, as the latter doesn't factor in human error.

Accident rate doesn't completely equate to risk. Activity A: perceived as dangerous, proponents aren't in it mainly for the thrills therefore tend to consider the risks and take mitigating measures. Activity B: more everyday activity and the risks aren't considered, so mitigating measures aren't taken. A will have an accident rate low compared to its riskiness, B will have an accident rate high compared with its riskiness.

Or does the attitude of those taking part feed back and influence the level of risk?

 

[mikem]

This sort of thing was most recently discussed at:

For those who are scared..

Hi everyone ! I really want to find a neat way to help those who are beginning caving/ thinking of caving find it less intimidating. Does anyone know of any good statistics ( with sources?) which represent how safe caving can be ? For instance, I hear about how you are more likely to...

ukcaving.com

 

[Tseralo]

What do you mean by dangerous?

Greater chance of any injury?
Sport with the highest consequence when it does go wrong?
Highest incidence of serious injury? Most accidents requiring rescue?

Are we taking into account sport and expo caving? Pro and recreational MTB riders?

 

[mikem]

Whichever one you are least skilled at will be the most dangerous...

 

[rm128]

Whichever one you are least skilled at will be the most dangerous...

Not sure I agree with that. Being unskilled isn't a danger in itself... as long as you realise your limitations. My mtb friends cover the full range of skill levels and, believe me, the more skilled riders are much more likely to suffer injuries.

 

[Speleofish]

Isn't this just saying that the more skilled riders are more likely to get into situations where the consequences of a mistake are particularly serious? Assuming none is particularly reckless, someone with my level of skill and cowardice will be unlikely to reach speeds or gradients where an accident will do much damage. On the other hand, there was an extremely competent individual who shot down a steep rocky hillside in front of me last weekend (I would have hesitated to descend it on foot). He will probably have very few accidents but when he does, they will be spectacular.

 

[rm128]

Isn't this just saying that the more skilled riders are more likely to get into situations where the consequences of a mistake are particularly serious?

No. In my experience, less skilled riders will ride well within their capabilities. More skilled riders, on the other hand, will ride much closer to their limit, meaning that they are actually more likely to have "incidents"... and, as you say, the consequences of those incidents will sometimes be spectacular.

 

[Pitlamp]

Irrespective of skill, what often matters most is how "necky" the individual MB rider happens to be. Because sooner or later, although it might take a while, it'll all go wrong. (A bit like cavers with a lax attitude to flooding; 99 times out of 100 "it'll be right". But eventually it isn't.)

The problem with statistics is it's very difficult to take into account the attitude of the participants. That's why I'm convinced that statistics only tell you about the overall (historical) accident rate, not about the risks involved. Statistics usually don't account for evolving techniques - the accident rates they reveal are based on the way things were done, not the way things are done. This is one of the many reasons why statistics are often misused.

The above doesn't really help with the OP's question I'm afraid - sorry!

 

[Fjell]

It’s a strange hobby riding bikes up hills. Like us earlier this week, you pass people who have been carrying it for 1-2 hours uphill over rocks before doing what - riding them down the rocks? It’s way slower than just running the route (even downhill), and often not much better than walking it I suspect.

We have bikes for commuting in Amsterdam, and we even have bikes to shorten walk ins, but this lugging bikes around mountains lark seems even more masochistic than dragging rope bags caving, given it’s optional. And I just don’t believe cycling down wet rocks is safer than caving, although we could give both a go in Lancaster I suppose. What proportion of County to Lanc could you pedal? 30%? Maybe more?