As others here have stated, everything is a matter of perception. Perception depends on skill level. At the extreme limits of any sport there is danger. We're on a frickin' "road" cycling forum for cryin out loud, that appears to be frequented by accolytes (and perhaps a few members) of the pro peloton. Guys die in the TdF, when they lose it on mountain decents run at 100kph! Can you say Galibier? I can, I have an old pair of leather (remember leather?) climbing boots named after the peak

It might be argued that at the extreme, cycling is one of the sports that has grown softer, rather than harder. Sure, speeds have increased (marginally), but the actual conditions of the races are much easier than they were when it was run on unpaved roads, when stages weren't cancelled due to a bit of snow, and, of course, it hasn't been run as a touriste-routier (read: non-stop) event for ages.



Personally, I decry the whole "extreme" scene that has invaded mountaineering, ski and snowboard descents, etc. Yet, 20 years ago, I was at the "cutting edge" of some of those sports. What people fail to undestand, is that the leading proponents of such sports are extraordinarily competant and often functioning well within their limits.

The danger comes when a cultish following aggregates around such exploits and inexperienced wannabees go out and hurt themselves or worse, trying to copy their heroes, without first developing the skills needed to minimise the subjective dangers and avoid as much as possible, the objective ones.

Far be it from me to encourage beginners from exceeding their comfort zone, but, for me, taking a short bicycle ride in a bit of moderate cold, wind and rain doesn't exactly challenge my limits.

Now, Iditabike ... hmmmmmmm. That's always piqued my interest.