NYT publishes an article on motorcycles and it's this crap?

[Kevin Moore]

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...riders-beware/

Media loves fear. But I guess history proves it's a great tool of persuasion and motivation.

[Bentebent]

It's not like it's only NYT that's published this. Why is it crap?

[Mr_Gone]

Damn. I'm getting old.

[EddieMac]

The article is not crap. It makes sense and the data support it. 'Round these parts we call something like that a "fact."

[rdwalker]

Originally Posted by EddieMac

The article is not crap. It makes sense and the data support it. 'Round these parts we call something like that a "fact."

Of course it is CRAP! What's the matter with you?
It reminds me of facts that face me. That's crap, no?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21350883

[drrider1]

duhhhh! shit breaks easier the older ya get that said ..........try not to fall down.................

[viverrid]

Originally Posted by Bentebent

It's not like it's only NYT that's published this. Why is it crap?

Because that's what OP calls facts that he doesn't like?

[rdwalker]

Originally Posted by viverrid

Because that's what OP calls facts that he doesn't like?
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer diagnosed 04/2010. 95% mortality within 2 years but NOT DEAD YET. Been thru & still doing all sorts of treatments. Gonna keep doing what I'm doing until I can't any more.

I am guessing you are really the one to understand risks and statistics. More power to you! We are cheering you on!

[Moronic]

Well I'll bite.

The article is crap because it makes the usual crappy leap from a set of stats to a prediction of the likelihood of certain, usually unpleasant, events.

What facts are offered?

- Graduate student Tracy Jackson combed through a federal database of motorcycle crashes that were serious enough to require emergency medical care.

- That yielded about 1.5 million cases involving motorcyclists 20 or older from 2001 to 2008.

- She split them into: riders in their 20s and 30s; another group between 40 and 59; and those 60 and older.

First finding reported: "Over all, the study found that injury rates for all three groups were on the rise. But the rise was steepest for the oldest riders."

Okay, what is meant by injury rate? The article does not say, but if you check the original study abstract cited, it is quite clear that the so-called rate is simply the raw number of injuries.

So, the number of injuries in the 60-plus group is rising, and more quickly than the number in the other groups. So what? One possible reason, and IMO the most likely, is that the raw number of over-60 riders is rising just as quickly.

(After all, what else could it be? Over-60s are getting dumber? Less skilful? Less well coordinated? )

No cause for alarm, folks.

Next finding reported: "Compared with the youngest motorcyclists, those 60 and older were two and a half times as likely to end up with serious injuries, and three times as likely to be admitted to a hospital."

Sounds worrying, doesn't it? Until you remember that the study group is restricted to people who had crashed and needed emergency medical care.

(It is also worth noticing that nearly a million of those were in the 20-30 group, and only 65,000 in the over-60 group.)

So, what could explain that?

Well, one possibility is that older folk are much more likely to be wearing good protective gear, which will protect them in minor spills. They might also be less likely to have minor spills.

Remember, any rider who does not crash, or whose crash does not require emergency treatment, was not part of the study.

So, one theory not explored in the article: a much bigger proportion of younger riders needed emergency care for relatively minor spills resulting in road-rash and small-bone fractures.

Older riders had fewer of those, and walked away from most with no-one calling an ambulance. When they did need emergency care, the injuries usually were serious.

And of course, older bones do break more easily. Which we knew anyway. Nothing to see here, let's move on.

[LuciferMutt]

I think it's amazing how often this article is being posted on this website, and how much you guys are freaking out over it!

If you're older, you know one thing is true -- you don't bounce anymore. When you fall, you are more likely to break stuff. Period.

All this article is showing is that if you are older and happen to fall of your motorcycle -- put two and two together!

Bottom line? Don't crash your damn motorcycle. And if you complain about this article, then you have no right to complain about "old drivers" being dangerous due to limited reflexes, etc, because you are probably just as old.

[Ceri JC]

Very good analysis; you don't live up to your name at all, Moronic.

Originally Posted by Moronic

Okay, what is meant by injury rate? The article does not say, but if you check the original study abstract cited, it is quite clear that the so-called rate is simply the raw number of injuries.

'Injury Rate' used this way is a terrible variable name. It implies the proportion or frequency of injuries, as opposed to total number. Total number of accidents alone is near-meaningless.

As an aside, you can usually tell the serious transport studies; when comparing accident figures between groups of users/vehicle types/whatever they all refer to the only variable that really matters, "Deaths and Serious Injuries per Passenger-Mile" or some variation thereof. What this would mean in this instance is that you take the total number of miles travelled by, say, riders in their 30s in the study and look at how many accidents/serious injuries occurred to the this group as a whole. You then do the same for the over 60s (or whichever group you want to compare). This automatically sorts out things like, different numbers of participants in a group, wildly different mileage patterns within the groups, etc. It is a very elegant way of comparing (often very different) groups/vehicles/etc. and getting a meaningful picture of the relative risk of them. Trying to evaluate how dangerous 'a typical 65 year old' is, relative to, 'a typical 35 year old', without this is next to impossible.

[DAKEZ]

More proof that you should not dress up like a Pirate and prtend to be a biker.

[Snapper]

Originally Posted by ceri jc

very good analysis; you don't live up to your name at all, moronic....

.....as an aside, you can usually tell the serious transport studies; when comparing accident figures between groups of users/vehicle types/whatever they all refer to the only variable that really matters, "deaths and serious injuries per passenger-mile" or some variation thereof.

+1

[Bentebent]

Originally Posted by Moronic

Well I'll bite.

The article is crap because it makes the usual crappy leap from a set of stats to a prediction of the likelihood of certain, usually unpleasant, events.

Yet you reject the article based upon assumptions of your own.

Older adults had a threefold increased rate of hospitalisation (OR=3.05; 95% CI 2.58 to 3.59) compared with younger adults.

Unless the older population has also increased at 3x the rate of younger adults, wouldn't this mean there IS an increase in serious injuries for older riders? It's not a stretch by any means, we're seeing the same thing here in Sweden. The older population is increasing but they're crashing at a faster rate than they're growing.

[dwoodward]

Was it on page 205?