Cougar mauls cyclist to death in northwestern US

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Sigh, what does it take for people to actually read and grasp basic concepts.

Not all trails are in territories that have bears/cougars etc which is what I mentioned in my comparison, if you have a low number of deaths but a relative low number of journeys compared to other types of cycling then there is a possibility that the actual risk factor might well be higher for the lower number of actual deaths.

I haven't said this is the case, I simply put forward with an example as to how a lower number of deaths may still indicate higher risk. 

Anyway, my advice is if travelling in areas that have wild animals capable of killing you then take a weapon/airhorn, if you wear a helmet then by definition why wouldn't you take something given the propensity for 'just in case'. 10 cycling deaths a year in the whole of Washington state, ultra low risk but people still wear helmets?

 

 

Your point would be valid, if it was valid. Instead of making up numbers and spouting off about something you know nothing about (How many areas infested by things with teeth have you actually ridden in?) and go and look up the numbers of people using those trails, and then do some number crunching. If it's any help I have ridden across some of the heaviest wildlife infested areas of southern africa, with only a bike pump for protection, and I was told by locals that even that was more than was required because of the wildlife's prediliction for avoiding human contact. 

You have no idea at all if there is a realtively low number of journeys in that area yet, do you, so you are just playing with imaginary n umbers which (in your usual manner ) have an unlikely relationship to reality.

While you're at it, you might want to poke out a graph or two on how much help an airhorn is in an attack from a sick cougar. 

Dumb as fuck.

nextSibling wrote:

I currently live in Washington State.  Off-road and dirt-road cycling is very popular here. There's thousands of miles of unsurfaced forest roads and trails and thousands of cyclists riding them regularly. Even so, it's extremely rare to see a cougar in the wild. Plenty of people who have been hiking and biking in the wild areas of the state all their lives have never seen one. Cougars are very shy and normally very careful to keep well away from humans. They mostly eat much smaller mammals, occassionally causing problems with livestock.

As reported, this is an incredibly unusual event which suggests there must be some particularly unusual circumstances. Local consensus is that there must have been something very wrong with the animal in question.

Yes to all of that - the latest info says that the cougar was emaciated and in poor health - so probably attacked out of extreme hunger/desperation.

A far, far bigger risk when riding into the woods would be from falling off and hitting something hard when in a remote area.

Mungecrundle wrote:

2nd recorded death by Cougar in the state in the last 100 years. I'm no statistician but I reckon that any advice to go into the wild tooled up with firearms or similar will result in far more human deaths as well as plenty of unnecessarily injured wildlife. Having spent time in several US state parks and seen cougar and bear first hand, never have I been advised by rangers to do anything other than the initial response of the cyclists if threatened, as in make noise. This was a sick animal and an extremely unusual event. No need to be afraid to go into the American woods on account of cougars in the same way as you shouldn't worry too much about coming across an adder in the UK.

Hmm.  I think I would fancy my chances against an adder rather than a cougar.

PRSboy wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

2nd recorded death by Cougar in the state in the last 100 years. I'm no statistician but I reckon that any advice to go into the wild tooled up with firearms or similar will result in far more human deaths as well as plenty of unnecessarily injured wildlife. Having spent time in several US state parks and seen cougar and bear first hand, never have I been advised by rangers to do anything other than the initial response of the cyclists if threatened, as in make noise. This was a sick animal and an extremely unusual event. No need to be afraid to go into the American woods on account of cougars in the same way as you shouldn't worry too much about coming across an adder in the UK.

Hmm.  I think I would fancy my chances against an adder rather than a cougar.

 

14 people were killed in Britain by adders in the 100 years up to 1976 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1687390/) versus ~20 by cougars in all of North America in 1890 - 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America)

Given the population of North America is several times larger than that of the UK, I would say fatal adder bites are a greater risk.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Quite right, best to stay at home wrapped in spiderproof and dermatologically tested cotton wool.

Nope it's about taking precaution when you go somewhere with an increased risk of been attacked/killed by stuff/beings totally out of your control. this is not the same as riding in an urban jungle.

They went somewhere off the beaten track into an area known to be inhabited by stuff that does harm. People are warned all the time to take something that can ward off/protect yourself from those things that can rip your head off/grab you by the throat with its jaws and eat you.

You also have a very very limited chance of someone coming to your rescue in a short period of time to help you survive should the worst happen.

Even an air horn might have helped them.

Anthony.C wrote:

Indeed, you can prove anything if you cherry-pick the numbers.

I didn't cherry pick anything, I gave an example as to why a low number isn't always 'logic' in actual terms of proving which is safer, this is highlighted in cycling with respect to head injuries in Australia and NZ, head injuries/injuries went down but by less than the number giving up cycling. So fewwer journeys and a lower number, 'logic' based on the single number alone says safer, when looking at the rest of the data it's actually less safe.

Please read what I actually said, those bits about example and not accurate.

At least I used a modicum of logic based calculation, all you did was come up with a nonsense statement that utterly ignored what I said.

Anthony.C wrote:

Indeed, you can prove anything if you cherry-pick the numbers.

Anyway, it would appear from the other report on here that this was a sick cougar and they normally avoid humans.

Nailed it! BTBS is famous for cherry picking data (and always having to have the last word).

kevvjj wrote:

Anthony.C wrote:

Indeed, you can prove anything if you cherry-pick the numbers.

Anyway, it would appear from the other report on here that this was a sick cougar and they normally avoid humans.

Nailed it! BTBS is famous for cherry picking data (and always having to have the last word).

Why don't you bother to actually read what I wrote instead of gobbing off over something I never actually did. And what other stats have I 'cherry picked', go on sonny!

Anthony.C wrote:

It is all about risk perception, human beings are not very good at it. Mountain biking in Washington State  is clearly a popular activity, and it looks like a great place to ride, as are other outdoor pursuits in the area and although I obviously don't know the exact numbers taking part two deaths in 100 years suggests that the risk of being killed by a cougar is almost negligible. So to consider it an unacceptable risk  for some great riding compared to the risk of riding on the road, defies any logic.

You mean 'common sense', which as we know doesn't really stack up with humans when it comes to gauging things.

Let's say there are roughly 11billion rider journeys over a 100 years based on approximately 300,000 cycling journeys/day over a whole state, which currently is very likely well underestimated.  

I just had a quick look and the first figures I came across say there are on average 10 cycling road deaths in Washington state per year as of 2013 (3 year rolling number), it's actually one of the safest by population head in the country (which means nothing admittedly given it doesn't indicate how much cycling and other factors)

It may have been higher before, it may have been less, I haven't looked in depth. But if you have a very low number of journeys in the other areas that contain snarly/eaty things in close proximity (some trails will be unlikely/no chance to have any contact due to territories of said snarly/eaty things) then one death in 50 years might, just might actually be a higher chance per journey of death,

for example;

10x100 years = 1000 deaths = 1 death per 11M journeys.

2 deaths over 100 years using for example 100 journeys/day in known bear/big cat territories = 1 death per 1.825M journeys

So SIX times the chance of being killed cycling whilst in the wild per journey number compared to cycling on the road, obviously that's an example and is in no way accurate but showing how a very low number of deaths can equal a greater rate. 

Anthony.C wrote:

I suspect you are far more likely to get killed by a car riding on the road than a mountain lion off-roading  in Washington state (it's the second such death in 100 years) so if it's dumb to mountain bike there it must be a whole lot dumber to ride on the road anywhere.

Given how many people actually frequent these areas on bikes maybe the chances of death are actually greater than on a road, think about it.

Going into lion/cougar/bear country particularly when you are not able to sight the animal so easily (like being on a trail) without a weapon is just so fucking stupid, you just wouldn't do it. I bet they were wearing helmets though just in case!

You are advised to take a weapon when going into the wild where snarly/claw/teeth equipped creatures that will hunt you as prey and eat you are prevelant. The weapon can be used to scare off the animal and if it comes to it shooting it (best you know what you're actually doing mind), which whilst I object to because you simply shouldn't let yourself be in the situation for it to get that close, I couldn't/wouldn't be too het up about it, but to my mind staying the fuck out of someone elses's territory in the first place would be the better option.

And to compare to cycling on the roads with other so called civilised human beings is utterly ridiculous anyway.

This isn't jellystone park where the bears will snatch your picnic basket ffs!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You are advised to take a weapon when going into the wild where snarly/claw/teeth equipped creatures that will hunt you as prey and eat you are prevelant.

Yup - that's why I never ride in South Bristol...  

brooksby wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You are advised to take a weapon when going into the wild where snarly/claw/teeth equipped creatures that will hunt you as prey and eat you are prevelant.

Yup - that's why I never ride in South Bristol...  

I commute through South Bristol every day. It's fine, but you mustn't stop or make eye contacting with the fauna. 

Jem PT wrote:

I can think of worse ways to go than being mauled by a cougar...

Oh, sorry, wrong type of cougar

the line was, "wrong sort of pussy" surely?

Jamminatrix wrote:

Did I make it before all the self-righteous Europeans, who harvested all their animals to extinction years ago, complain about the death of the cougar?

Maybe, but you didn't make it before this self-righteous American.

Poor cougar, only doing what they know how to do.

Humans should know better, and stay the fuck out of cougar territory, especially if they are going to engage in stupid behavior like mountain biking.

A440 wrote:

Jamminatrix wrote:

Did I make it before all the self-righteous Europeans, who harvested all their animals to extinction years ago, complain about the death of the cougar?

Maybe, but you didn't make it before this self-righteous American.

Poor cougar, only doing what they know how to do.

Humans should know better, and stay the fuck out of cougar territory, especially if they are going to engage in stupid behavior like mountain biking.

This, dumb as fuck bikers going into areas known to have wild animals that will kill/eat you and only a pump or Co2 cannister to fend them off. You might as well cycle through the lion enclosure at whipsnade, actually that would be safer.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

A440 wrote:

Jamminatrix wrote:

Did I make it before all the self-righteous Europeans, who harvested all their animals to extinction years ago, complain about the death of the cougar?

Maybe, but you didn't make it before this self-righteous American.

Poor cougar, only doing what they know how to do.

Humans should know better, and stay the fuck out of cougar territory, especially if they are going to engage in stupid behavior like mountain biking.

This, dumb as fuck bikers going into areas known to have wild animals that will kill/eat you and only a pump or Co2 cannister to fend them off. You might as well cycle through the lion enclosure at whipsnade, actually that would be safer.

 

Ha ha!  I wonder what the maximum sprint speed would be going through there?!