Aging bikers at greater risk of injury, death
#102
04-09-2010, 12:45 PM
Road Captain
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just in: people don't believe what reporters report.
Regardless, this 'article' reports that older people are having more accidents than younger people with no indication of cause beyond age (red flag right there).
The hospital/research center indicated that they are seeing more older riders. Again, implying that age is the cause. Also, the percentages have no baseline at all: percentages of what? What are the absolute values? What are the confidence intervals? If, out of the studied riders, 2 people were killed last year over the age of 40, but this year it was 4, then what can you conclude (That's 100% increase or doubling)? Absolutely nothing. There are huge flaws in all studies which bring about such conclusions where the incidence rate is a tiny fraction of the population measured. There are just far too many variables not accounted for.
Most people here can see right through that - age isn't necessarily the factor, as 'reported'. Ironically, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand rocket science.
Perhaps the 'solution' to make the sport safer, based on this atrocity of a report is to...not get old? We already know what the problem is (apart from this report), and the solution(s). It's:
experience (time in the seat);
training;
Defensive riding.
None of which was in this report. The only indication was the first line (baby boomers): but was this in the study? Is it the reporters opening line, and nothing to do with the study? I guess they didn't think these items had any bearing. This further lends itself to the fact that this is a sensationalist and bogus report.
Regardless, this 'article' reports that older people are having more accidents than younger people with no indication of cause beyond age (red flag right there).
The hospital/research center indicated that they are seeing more older riders. Again, implying that age is the cause. Also, the percentages have no baseline at all: percentages of what? What are the absolute values? What are the confidence intervals? If, out of the studied riders, 2 people were killed last year over the age of 40, but this year it was 4, then what can you conclude (That's 100% increase or doubling)? Absolutely nothing. There are huge flaws in all studies which bring about such conclusions where the incidence rate is a tiny fraction of the population measured. There are just far too many variables not accounted for.
Most people here can see right through that - age isn't necessarily the factor, as 'reported'. Ironically, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand rocket science.
Perhaps the 'solution' to make the sport safer, based on this atrocity of a report is to...not get old? We already know what the problem is (apart from this report), and the solution(s). It's:
experience (time in the seat);
training;
Defensive riding.
None of which was in this report. The only indication was the first line (baby boomers): but was this in the study? Is it the reporters opening line, and nothing to do with the study? I guess they didn't think these items had any bearing. This further lends itself to the fact that this is a sensationalist and bogus report.
I don't see it as concluding that age is the cause of the wrecks, only that this is a disturbing trend and further investigation would be a good idea.
but then I don't get all po'd about other points of view and opinions, I just read/listen and determine if its valid or otherwise worth further consideration.
#103
04-09-2010, 12:58 PM
perhaps you implied something that isn't there?
I don't see it as concluding that age is the cause of the wrecks, only that this is a disturbing trend and further investigation would be a good idea.
but then I don't get all po'd about other points of view and opinions, I just read/listen and determine if its valid or otherwise worth further consideration.
I don't see it as concluding that age is the cause of the wrecks, only that this is a disturbing trend and further investigation would be a good idea.
but then I don't get all po'd about other points of view and opinions, I just read/listen and determine if its valid or otherwise worth further consideration.
Investigation? Why? what would be the purpose of this investigation and who do you propose pay for it? You're not proposing more wasteful spending by big brother that ends in a report and no action are you?
Guess what? quitting smoking will not save your life. Cutting trans fat will not save your life. Wearing a helment will not save your life. Nothing the government dictates, taxes, and puts into law will ever save a life. Everyone dies. No one gets out alive.
Personally, I just want to live however long I have without the feds on my *** and wasting my hard earned cash.
Please....another study unasked for , yet paid for by tax payers. yep - thats the answer.
#104
04-09-2010, 01:02 PM
Road Captain
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....Guess what? quitting smoking will not save your life. Cutting trans fat will not save your life. Wearing a helment will not save your life. Nothing the government dictates, taxes, and puts into law will ever save a life. Everyone dies. No one gets out alive.
......
......
short term they will - why rush to the grave? you'll get there soon enough ... if you can delay the arrival you get to ride more miles
everybody's in a rush nowadays, just can't wait to get to the finish line
#105
04-09-2010, 03:37 PM
Yes, we old folks are at greater risk of injury from all we do, but why should that keep us from riding and enjoying ourselves.
#106
04-09-2010, 08:06 PM
Road Master
I agree that we, us oldsters, are at a greater risk of injury, but, me personally, I feel that I am a much safer rider then I have ever been. After 40+ years of riding, I no longer allow myself to get into the predicuments that almost cost me my life in past. I prefer to stay away from the, inexperiance riders, young or old, can't stand the site of blood and broken bones that I've often witnessed. In the past I've toured the USA, Mexico and Canada, at 65 I think I'm benefiting from experiance, possibly just kidding myself.
#107
04-09-2010, 08:24 PM
I bet there is a study somewhere that we paid big bucks for that contradicts this one. Never did quite get the point of study except older folks tend to heal slower...I believe we already knew that.
A 22 year old I know recovered remarkably quickly after going over backwards and breaking his back , fracturing his skull and snapping a couple ribs during a wheelie. It would have taken me a lot longer to recover so I just don't do wheelies. Another young guy was running 55-60 in a 35 zone and some dumb cage pulled out...he vaulted over it without the bike and only smashed out some teeth and broke a couple leg bones along with the abrasions. He was back to work in under 3 months in casts. Me, I would have taken a lot longer to heal so I run speed limit or somewhat over as well as wait to screw with my IPod.
Tell me again the point of the study as it relates to motorcycles...if it says the RATE is higher I call bullshit too. John
A 22 year old I know recovered remarkably quickly after going over backwards and breaking his back , fracturing his skull and snapping a couple ribs during a wheelie. It would have taken me a lot longer to recover so I just don't do wheelies. Another young guy was running 55-60 in a 35 zone and some dumb cage pulled out...he vaulted over it without the bike and only smashed out some teeth and broke a couple leg bones along with the abrasions. He was back to work in under 3 months in casts. Me, I would have taken a lot longer to heal so I run speed limit or somewhat over as well as wait to screw with my IPod.
Tell me again the point of the study as it relates to motorcycles...if it says the RATE is higher I call bullshit too. John
#108
04-10-2010, 07:37 AM
This is another one those very expensive pieces of research that tell us nothing that is not immediately obvious to the most casual observer.
Of course older riders get in more accidents. Of course older riders get hurt worse, of course older riders take longer to heal.
WELL DUH! (Sound of the three stooges doing a triple face slap!)
1)Every insurance company has know that second most likely group of drivers to get in an accident (wheezing hard on the heels of teenagers) is the elderly. The older you get, the slower your reflexes, the less certain and automatic is your balance, the slower your response to the unexpected.
2)As you get older your body loses muscle tome and your bones / joints weaken. Loss of muscle tone means your muscles no longer support your joints and bones like once did. Weakened joints and bones break easier. (when was the last time you hear of a a 20 year old falling and breaking their hip?)
3) The older you are, the slower you heal. Period, you can't even try to argue that one.
This entire piece of very expensive research was just a gigantic waste of time and money. What's next:
Do people who eat very spicy food drink lots of water? (we might need MIT for this one!)
On the Internet you can find oodles of research projects who's only apparent purpose was to employ researchers. I don't know if it's sad or funny...
Of course older riders get in more accidents. Of course older riders get hurt worse, of course older riders take longer to heal.
WELL DUH! (Sound of the three stooges doing a triple face slap!)
1)Every insurance company has know that second most likely group of drivers to get in an accident (wheezing hard on the heels of teenagers) is the elderly. The older you get, the slower your reflexes, the less certain and automatic is your balance, the slower your response to the unexpected.
2)As you get older your body loses muscle tome and your bones / joints weaken. Loss of muscle tone means your muscles no longer support your joints and bones like once did. Weakened joints and bones break easier. (when was the last time you hear of a a 20 year old falling and breaking their hip?)
3) The older you are, the slower you heal. Period, you can't even try to argue that one.
This entire piece of very expensive research was just a gigantic waste of time and money. What's next:
Do people who eat very spicy food drink lots of water? (we might need MIT for this one!)
On the Internet you can find oodles of research projects who's only apparent purpose was to employ researchers. I don't know if it's sad or funny...
. But then again I started in '65...
