Originally Posted by ph0rk
That was someone else's work, there's a citation in the original article.
Cite: Dischinger PC, Ryb GE, Ho SM, et al. Injury patterns and severity among hospitalized motorcyclists: a comparison of younger and older riders. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 2006;50:237–49. pubmed link
The word "Theory" does not exist in the original paper, so if you read it somewhere with your own eyes, a journalist said it.
The exact text of the paragraph where she cited that paper:
"Our finding that severity of injury increases with age is consistent with other research on the topic. Other smaller, non-national studies which compared hospitalised adults aged 40 and older,8 ,9 or those aged 55 and older,10 with younger age groups found an increase in severity in relation to age. Our study expanded upon previous research, examining an older age group, those 60 and older, and found that injury severity among those aged 60 and above was significantly higher than both that of individuals aged 20–39 years and those aged 40–59 years. We also explored rates of hospitalisation by age and found the oldest group was most likely to be hospitalised for their injuries. This provides further evidence that it is important to understand the risk of severe injury to older riders."
Other two cites from that paragraph:
↵ Dischinger PC, Ryb GE, Ho SM, et al. The association between age, injury, and survival to hospital among a cohort of injured motorcyclists. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 2007;51:97–110.
↵ Talving P, Teixeira PGR, Barmparas G, et al. Motorcycle-related injuries: effect of age on type and severity of injuries and mortality. J Trauma 2010;68:441–6.
The abuse of the word "theory" was almost certainly a journalistic fail; I didn't say otherwise. It's just a thing that bugs me, and was in the linked article about the study.
The sentence used quotes around the phrase “which may be more likely to roll or turn over,” and attributed the quote to the lead researcher of the study "Tracy L. Jackson, a graduate student in the epidemiology department at Brown University". If the quote was not really a quote, then the journalist is again at fault. If, OTOH, Ms. Jackson actually did say that to the journalist and that is a direct quote, then my point stands -- she doesn't have an adequate understanding of the subject.