Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths
User Name
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-18-2013, 04:30 PM   #31
Rectum Non Bustibus
Joined: May 2009
Location: Dearborn, MI
Oddometer: 6,145
Originally Posted by ph0rk View Post
Not really my field. Ignorant folks trashing studies when they fully comprehend neither the study nor the environment it comes from on the other hand grinds a gear or two.

You care enough to post in the thread, don't you? I don't see how he original article makes any prescriptive statements - the number of older riders that visit the ER is on the rise, full stop. Sounds more like you are upset about what you think the findings may mean. Don't worry, the actuarial scientists already know.
Nah, I have it handled. As I mentioned before, my take is that those getting hurt are older noobs, something that the "study" didn't address. Learning to ride at 60 has to be problematic, especially if the person has been flying a desk for 40 years and is probably somewhat obese. I've been riding since I was 16, and that was in 1958. I figure I've still got at least ten good riding years ahead of me, maybe more. Actuarial tables are just an average, and I'm not an average individual.
2015 BMW R9T, 2010 Ducati 1098 Streetfighter S
2009 Kaw 650 Versys, 1967 Triumph 650 TT Special
ttpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 05:38 AM   #32
Ginger Beard
I have no soul
Ginger Beard's Avatar
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Sunny Northern Cuba (aka: South Florida)
Oddometer: 6,838
Originally Posted by ph0rk View Post
It isn't flawed - it is making an interpretation of the best data available.

The flaw is in the interpretation as it simply does not cover all bases yet makes an assumption that injuries are due to age. It tows the lines with all other statistically driven articles...Take raw data, make glib interpretation to suit the fear which you are trying to instill in people, imply that interpretation is fact, rinse and repeat. This is done all the time and it works quite well for convincing stupid people that something is inherently dangerous.

1) It has worked with Pits Bulls.

2) It has worked to convince some people that a particular race or culture is dangerous.

3) It has worked to convince people that guns are dangerous.

4) ad infinitum

None of the above are fact, not even a close yet millions of dumb-dumbs will point at the stats and proclaim "See,see..It's TRUE!!" . As the number of idiots that support a particular claim increases, the more that others will point to them as backup because morons know that consensus equals truth. Wucha gonna do? Dumb people are dumb and "dumb" is easily convinced that partial truths are 100% fact.
Ginger Beard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 04:42 PM   #33
Doesn't Care
ph0rk's Avatar
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Oaktown
Oddometer: 2,289
All of the glib interpretations were by the journalists, from the several newsy articles about the original paper I have read. The original was careful not to overreach. I read it. You only care because of the journalistic megaphone, anyway. I doubt any of us were combing through preventative health journals for fun, so it is unlikely we would have heard about it otherwise.

A lot of social science is making do with imperfect data. If you can't get your head around that, then there is a fundamental lack of understanding about how this kind of stuff gets done.

You can bet insurance companies have better data, but they aren't sharing.
--Semantics are everything.
ph0rk is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2015