Activity X is dangerous.
Correlate sub-set Y of population performing activity X with greater number of accidents/deaths.
Conclude that individuals that fit sub-set Y that perform activity X are at greater risk. Additionally, conclude that those who don't fit sub-set Y are at a lower risk.

For example:

Cars are dangerous.
Red cars are involved in more accidents.
Thus, if you drive a red car you are at greater risk, and if you *don't* drive a red car you are at lower risk...


Correlation =/= Causation.

 

Well hell, I fall in line with those demographics so I'm gonna quit....


crashing not riding....

 

+1 on that! Get out your check books gentleman.

 

is vehicle color at least a contributing factor? is it worth trying to understand why the numbers are going up in order to possibly lower those numbers? or should all the red car drivers just get butt-hurt that for some reason more red cars are involved in wrecks than the other colored vehicles, and shove their heads in the sand and/or plug their ears and yell "i'm not listening" while stamping their feet a lot?

 

I don't read anywhere about older riders being more likely to be involved in the accident just more likely to get injured (or injury being more serious), taking longer to heel and the possibility of other complications.

How do I get funding, I want to do a study about age vs. falling down stairs.
Maybe I'll just skip the study, change a few words in this article and sell it back to the newspaper.

 

Ain;t nothin' new about that news....
Just don't count me in as part of the study. :}

 

The reason (motorcycle accidents) was actually mentioned in the original post - an increase in older riders. While we all 'age' quite obviously, the increase in older people getting injured is because there is an increase in inexperienced older riders: age is irrelevant - experience is.

As far as the car color thing, this was an actual study (of how correlation isn't causation). The actual issue was that there is a propensity of sports cars - at the time the study was performed - that are red. But it went further than that: a red sports car cannot be the cause of or be involved in a highway accident. Unless someone is driving it.

Back to motorcycles. Unless there is a significant increase in all auto accidents for the suspected age range, would this not demonstrate that age is *not* a significant factor? (while it is true that as we age our reflexes aren't as sharp as they once were, the age that this happens is significantly higher than what this study purports).

Simply, this newspaper 'article' is pointing out a cause where none exists. In this case, just because you are over 40 does *not* automatically mean you are at a greater risk. Over the past several decades, scientific study has given way to political correctness and sloppy work, exacerbated by non-reporting (as in this case).

 

i am sixty. i don't think my strength, eyesight, or reflexes are as good as they used to be. however my judgement is much improved and i usually ride within my level of skill. i also have a dnr signed in case needed.

 

Makes sense though, doesn't it..??

Slower reflexes, poorer eye-site, less resilient, and longer healing time after an injury when compared to someone younger.

All these things come with age whether you acknowledge it or not.
Hell, i'm a few months from 30 and know i'm not physically as sharp as i was 10yrs ago.

 

This weekend one of the rider has been riding for the past 6 months. He has 5k on mileage on his bike. He told use it all new this ride thing but at the age of 84 he has alot of time on his hands.