Studies on age vs moto riding

[kurth83]

The other OG thread got me to thinking about this, and google got me into trouble (as usual):


The first study:

They attempt to answer if being older provides any reduced chances of accidents:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/1/32

They find a large benefit occurs if you are over 25, it doesn't continue on as you gain more years.

They compared a bunch of other factors and some I already knew, but some were a surprise:

- no evidence that increasing experience on a moto (beyond the first few years) reduces crash incidence, so 5 yrs vs 20 yrs experience is the same.
- familiarity with the motorcycle was the strongest correlation, after 10,000 km the risk dropped to about half compared to less than 1,000 km. We learned this in the BRC the first 6 months on a new moto (even for an experienced rider) are much more crash prone.
- no gender correlation was found, not sure if that was a surprise or not, but it was interesting.
- no correlation to other kinds of experience such as off-road riding or cars, this was a surprise to me and contradicts some accepted BARF wisdom.

I am struggling with the idea that a noob going from 0-10,000 km has about the same gradually decreasing risk profile as an experienced rider on a new moto, also going from 0-10,000 km, but that's what their data showed.


The second study:

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro...rcycle-riders-risk-greater-injuries/index.htm

Shows that older riders (over 40) tend to crash a lot less, but due to aging are much more likely to sustain severe injuries when they do, in their words, "getting old sucks."

They suggested chest protection for aging riders since chest injuries became much more pronounced in older riders. I have had a chest protector for about 7 years now, so I guess I am 'with it', for an OG.


You may notice the two studies don't actually agree with each other WRT to being over age 25. One says crash incidence decreases until well after age 40, and the other one says little benefit over age 25. What to do? I don't know. I'm done googling for the day. Have fun with it.

 

[budman]

I will look at these tomorrow.

Thanks.

There are some good ones about how moto’s keep the brain fresh. Loved reading that.

 

[WWWobble]

Data is always just that... data.

Interpretation is the key, and often controversial. Hence the adage, "the Devil's in the Details."

My interpretation is: Nationally, some or maybe many, old guys crash a lot because (1) they haven't been riding all their lives and they're "rusty," when they pick up the sport again, and (2) they often drink when riding.

This isn't too difficult to understand, and also makes empirical sense.

The "old" guys I know and ride with have been riding since youth and never stopped riding for kids, family or for whatever reason, and don't drink and ride... guess what? They don't crash much, and they ride a fairly spirited pace.

 

[budman]

Great description of me and my friends.
Moto OGs. Being in “The game” for decades has many advantages. The returning riders are one of the most at risk groups. Memory says I was doing this or that when younger and that does not mean they can do this or that years later.

Throw in that many will have a beer or a drink and you have factors that greatly increase their risk. If you are returning my advice would be:
* Take it easy, feel it out and enjoy the feeling again.
* Don’t get caught up in having a cocktail or two and thinking you are all good. Please.
* Don’t get caught up in you have something to prove to the younger riders or the piers you are riding with. Just keep riding. Things will come to you.
* Your focus should be in riding well, enjoying it and getting home safe. Time will return your moto skill set and then you can build on it.

:ride

 

[DataDan]

The Consumer Reports conclusion about age and injury severity agrees with what I found recently about crash lethality--the likelihood of fatal injury if a motorcyclist is in a crash:

My calculations are from more than 100,000 crashes in CA, MI, and TX. I picked these states because I have age, injury, and helmet use for all police-reported crashes.

An aging riding population helps explain the phenomenon of increasing motorcycle crash lethality in the US that has accompanied a decreasing crash rate over the past 20 years. Repeal of helmet laws also contributes as does the growing light truck segment (pickups, SUVs, vans, minivans, crossovers) of the vehicle fleet, which are more likely to kill a motorcyclist than are cars.


The 2000 BMJ conclusion about the protective effect of experience confirms what Harry Hurt found in 1981 and MAIDS found in Europe, also in 2000. I've added the New Zealand results, labeled "Mullin" for the lead author, to a graph I created of Hurt and MAIDS experience data:

 

[Aware]

Is there a study that you've found that counts experience as miles driven instead of months of experience?

 

[DataDan]

Is there a study that you've found that counts experience as miles driven instead of months of experience?

Good question, but no, I haven't.

The New Zealand study does report kilometers on the rider's present bike. Crashes were twice as likely on a bike with < 1000km than with one over 10,000km.

 

[Aware]

Seems like an odd oversight in research. 40 years at 1500 miles/year vs 5 years at 20,000 miles a year are vastly different.

 

[DataDan]

For info, the problem of alcohol in fatal crashes is greatest among 30-49 year-old riders, less so in 50-year-olds, and much less the in 60+ group, who are less likely to be killed in their own DUI fatality than 20-somethings. That's when any BAC > 0 is involved.

It is also the 30-49s who are most likely to be totally wasted. One fourth of deceased riders in that range with reported BAC clock in at .15+.


Based on the motorcycle ownership age distribution, older riders are less likely to be killed in a motorcycle crash than younger riders:

The percentage of 50+ riders killed is less than the percentage of 50+ owners. They are underrepresented among fatalities.

The percentage of < 30 riders killed is greater than the percentage of < 30 owners. They are overrepresented among fatalities.

 

[berth]

Seems like an odd oversight in research. 40 years at 1500 miles/year vs 5 years at 20,000 miles a year are vastly different.

That's true, but in a large enough study, with "average riders" doing "average mileage" over the time periods, those edges of the bell curve will smooth out in the data.

 

[Johndicezx9]

At 55 I've found I don't heal as fast as I did at 25.