text: James, I was posing the question that people often ask. If mountain biking is more dangerous, then why aren't more bikers harmed than hikers? The obvious rebuttal is that if there are many more times the number of hikers than bikers, then even if biking is more dangerous there could still be fewer injured bikers than hikers. And yet the odds of being injured by a bear would be higher for bikers than hikers. As I attempted to point out, there are no national or statewide figures for numbers of people who hike or bike in bear country, so comparisons are difficult, although in one instance reported by Herrero in Banff, it was evident that bikers were more at risk. Your "logic-fail" is you forgot to account for numbers of users.