wonder how much we paid the University for that Grant to study this one..

most of this study could and does apply the same to auto wrecks...

 

isnt a 22% increase in a decade significant enough to warrant additional interest in causation?

so older riders are the fastest growing group of injured riders, and younger riders are the group that is declining in injuries the fastest - sure seems like a clue to me

again, why get all defensive about it? Its just a study that produced results significant enough to find out if age is only a contributing factor to collisions (and severity of injury) or a cause of additional collisions. Yes, same for cars - but cagers can crash more with less injury than we can. Ultimately if age is a major factor all by itself, thats worth putting out there to inform new riders - still up to them to decide if they want to ride of course, and I put a lot into the type of riding each person chooses to do over age ...but you cant ignore that a hard charging young rider with fast reflexes and perfect eyesight may in fact be able to ride 'safer' (when only considering the bikers welfare) than an arthritic old timer with poor eyesight and slow reflexes.

 

Now if every body was driving red cars it makes sense that people driving red cars would be more likely to be in a accident.
Thats why these studies are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

 

First of all, do the research. The "research" is not made up of real medical statistics but is relaying subjective thoughts of the "researchers". It uses no data. The statements that we don't heal as fast etc, are not based in this "study" on facts but subjective guesses Also, the story of our society is that , yes, the baby boomers are getting older. There are more of in the 50 to 70 age bracket so it makes sense: there are more accidents because there are more of us.
The internet brings us the Forum, that is great. But it also allows stuff like this to get credence. Facts people; facts.
I have seen more statistics saying older riders are less prone to having accidents due to age, less recklessness, ability to buy the "safer" type bikes.
So, I say "poppycock" to this study. Now it's time for my advil for my arthritis, low cal dinner , no salt and what the heck is for dessert? JELLO!!!

 

Not to be morbid or anything, but when I go I want to go fists in the wind. That way I know I will hit the pearly gates with a big ole grin. I'm only 45 now, and can wait for a while, and think of worse ways to hit the exit!

 

I am in the 60 plus range and know that I am not as strong, quick, resilient, plus I have some medical issues that come with ageing. So I can sit at home in a rocking chair and wait for the end or get out live life. After all life is but a journey and how better to spend it than on 2 wheels.

 

I'm only 57, but I agree with everything ya said.

 

I have read stats on this issue that had more of the reason why attached to it than just age.

Over half of the accidents are younger riders. Over half of the fatalities are older riders 40 and up.

Why? The typical fatal accident is more often not from the left turner but from an experience riders going too fast and coming to a turn. The rider locks the rear brake and goes off the curve into the ditch/tree/culvert/cliff whatever.

That has happened locally every year. U Tube has the video show the bagger passing a car on the Dragon and doing that exactly.

Too many don't understand counter steering and they don't trust the tires. They think that they won't make it and don't even try to turn.

The slowing of reflexes in the 60's and 70's is more of a myth than real. There is very little loss for those who maintain an active lifestyle.

The main cause of the accident rate is due not to age but to the fact that far too many who only have ridden cruisers are lacking in riding skills that are needed for high speed turning.

 

Ain't that the truth!