Old bikers at greater risk of harm - new research

[Peter Parts]

Some new research seems to say older riders are at much greater risk of harm - both having spills and in the resulting injuries.

 

New York Times summary

 

I tried to get a copy of the study but only abstracts are available for free. Anybody have access to it in full?

 

No doubt the research is faulty, as far as it goes. But I have a feeling it doesn't correct for length of time riding since there are many foolish older riders with no prior (or ongoing) biking experience who rush out and buy a Winnebago-class chrome-covered cruiser. My guess is experience matters more than age per se.

 

On this forum are lots of older bikers (some nearly 73 and even older) with lots of experience. I doubt if we will end up as fatality statistics like in the study.... as often.

 

Some amount of bike safety research comes from inept researchers. Also there are inept studies of hearing damage to bikers.

 

Ben

[lkraus]

Like you, I do not have access to the actual research report, so I have no way to determine the validity of the research methods. I have no trouble believing that there are increasing proportions of older riders, older novice riders, and older riders involved in accidents. I have no doubt that an older rider injured in an accident will sustain greater injuries than a younger rider. Experience may reduce the occurrence and severity of accidents, but an 50yr old rider hitting a car will likely have more severe injuries than a 25yr old. I see no reason to assume the research is faulty or the researchers are inept.

BTW, riding without hearing protection WILL increase hearing loss. No need to argue that one (you wouldn't hear me anyway).

[MT Wallet]

It (research) didn't seem to hone in on real causes but rather speculated on the reasons for injuries in older riders. Our bodies change as we age. We take more meds. that alter things. I don't think we automatically get stupid when we get old and become inattentive.

We and other bikers might be getting hurt and more seriously by distracted drivers. I just did a trip across 5 states and couldn't beleive the amount of poor driving done by people texting, talking and using the seat of their vehicles as office desks. I drove and the wife kept track of the incidents and when she drove I noted the folks drifting around across the lane lines and driving inconsistently. It was just stupid.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Falling down is easy. Getting back up is the hard part.

[kmac]

I would think that the reason for the numbers being higher in over 60 riders is likely due to the rash, scourge even, of older guys just starting out their riding life or getting back into it after MANY years off.

 

I believe that a person who continues riding over his life with continue to hone his/her skills and likely even settle down on his hooligan antics {maybe} to the point that as his reaction time and hand to eye coordination starts to diminish he/she will still be more skilled than a person just starting out.

 

The previously mentioned scourge/rash is the Harley thing IMHO.

At least in my area it just seems like every single yahoo out there dreams of having a Harley so they can be COOL like everyone else. This seems to bring in alot of middle aged or even older riders to the fold. They often want a "chopper" of sorts which we all know handle and stop like an overloaded Mack truck with no air in the brakes...often these folks rode some mini bike as a kid and think they know how to ride. They often do not take any riding courses as it is not required in Cali if you are over 21, just a written test after reading a book, then ride around some cones which some DMV testers are VERY generous on.

 

Then these folks go ride to the bar and revel in their coolness of chrome and dead cow, only to ride home, even if NOT technically drunk, still slightly impared and unskilled to begin with...recipe for disaster.

 

I would like to see the stats on that same test including the number of years the person has been riding...currently, not including the 2 years they rode back in the 1960s..

[Peter Parts]

BTW, riding without hearing protection WILL increase hearing loss. No need to argue that one (you wouldn't hear me anyway).

 

I should start by saying, yes there is some level of noise and length of exposure that has got to be deadly for your hearing. No question about it.

 

Except for 2 or so studies of Danish and British bike cops and couriers (with maybe 10X more exposure than any of us get and all in a concentrated period day after day), I have never seen evidence that recreational bikers (riding bikes with mufflers) are losing their hearing.

 

In two easy weeks, somebody could assemble almost unequivocal epidemiological evidence by standing outside a hearing-aide store (or something along those lines, if you see what I mean) but nobody has ever done so, to my knowledge.

 

There are a flood of studies comparing industrial noise standards (which are little short of being fantasy numbers*) and little microphones tucked into helmets. Yup, noisy in there.

 

Your turn.

 

Ben

 

* But for having some useful standard for protecting workers, these are just fine. The relationship between these standards and hearing loss after biking X years is entirely unknown.

[kmac]

I guarantee you that what hearing deficits I have are much more from my chop saw, powder actuated fasteners, screwguns screaming, and routers whizzing than any I have from riding based noises including riding helmetles or helmeted on a loud Harley and 40+ year of screaming 2 strokes.

 

By my last test at 48 yrs old I have little discernable hearing loss even after a life on bikes and heavy construction even a little target shooting and hunting in there sometimes without ear protection.

 

My biggest hearing damage is bad Tinnitus from some BAD dental work. The dentist put WAY too much pressure on my jaw for WAY too long and from that day on I have had severe tinnitus, it does not prevent me from hearing much, just a constant ring of varying volumes.

[Limecreek]

The study is like someone analyzing water and coming away with the conclusion that it is wet.

 

Durability declines with age. Wow, really?

 

 

[Peter Parts]

The study is like someone analyzing water and coming away with the conclusion that it is wet.

 

Durability declines with age. Wow, really?

 

 

The interesting question (at least in my mind) is how much riskier is it for 70 yr old biker with, say, 10 yrs experience as compared to a 50 yr old biker with 10 yrs experience.

 

If you think you have answers to questions like that and don't think research is needed, don't hold back from sharing.

 

Ben

[kmac]

Peter, I do not have any stats, but I do know my dads experience is really bad now that he is over 70...see this thread.

 

http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=71211&Number=799155#Post799155

[elkroeger]

On the surface, I have a great amount of faith in a study coming out of Brown University. And I don't doubt that older riders are at greater risk. My father in-law gave up paragliding because he felt he was too old and he wasn't on top of his game anymore. My dad, by most accounts, shouldn't drive his car anymore. It's not rocket science. After 35 or so, things start going down hill. Having said that, there are exceptions to the rule. Some people die of "old age" at 55. Some go twice that. It's takes all sorts.

[Quinn]

I'm reading this with an interest in trying to not let it apply to me. Sort of lowering my risk through denial. I've survived the most dangerous time for returning riders (the first two years) and have over 100k of new experience. I wear a helmet and hi-viz padded gear, don't drink, offset slower reaction with caution,etc. I badly want to think that the greater risk in the study comes from those weekend idiots on pub cruisers who are out to recapture the memories of things they've never done by reliving a youth they never had.

 

Still, nothing I do will make me less brittle if anything does happen. And I have to admit that things can happen.

 

 

-----

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Peter, I do not have any stats, but I do know my dads experience is really bad now that he is over 70...see this thread.

 

http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=71211&Number=799155#Post799155

 

Thanks for link. Sorry I missed it the first time.

 

Depression needs treatment. It is a mistake many people hold to think depression is a necessary part of getting frail (and certainly not of just clock aging). But it's prolly even harder to get an old person into counseling than a young person.

 

With my excellent wife, we did some of the same trip 6 yrs ago on our super R1100S - Toronto to LA to San Luis Obispo, up the Pacific Coast Highway to Monterey and then to Toronto. My age was 66, didn't sleep in the same bed two nights in a row except twice. Grandson expected in LA in May.... I wonder.......

 

BTW, the research on old car drivers is very contentious. OBVIOUSLY they (we) are lousy at driving and seem to have more accidents per mile (anybody driven in Florida?), but we are smarter about when to drive, where, etc.

 

Ben

[Nice n Easy Rider]

The study doesn't focus on fatalities but instead looks at the rate of hospitalization and the severity of injuries, as well as the location of injuries. It does appear to be well-done and non-biased. It does seem to suggest that if you're older and crash you'll suffer more damage (which shouldn't be a surprise to any of us who have creaking joints, bad backs, and maybe 1 or 2 replacement parts. I do think the data for % increases in injuries for each age group over the years 2001-2008 would be strengthened by comparing these rates to actual motorcycle registrations but that data would undoubtedly be hard to come by in a retrospective study such as this.

 

A few pieces of info I pulled from the full report:

 

Patients included in the study were those whose precipitating or immediate cause of injury was identified as motorcyclist. Patients were classified based on age, with those 60 and above defined as older adults, those 40–59 years as middle age, and those 20–39 as younger adults. Those younger than 20, or those missing data on age, were excluded from the study.

 

The largest proportional increase in number of injuries over the course of the study period occurred in the oldest group, in which injuries increased from 4352 cases in 2001 to 15 107 cases in 2008, a 247.13% increase (figure 1). The number of injuries to middle age adults also increased substantially from 42 954 injuries in 2001 to 69 513 in 2008, a 61.83% increase.The number of injuries increased in the youngest group, from 99 823 in 2001 to 128 258; however, the proportional increase (28.49%) was less drastic than that of the other two age groups.

 

A comparison of patient disposition after treatment in the ED found that older adults had the highest rate of hospitalisation (35.31%), followed by middle age (25.11%) and then younger adults (15.33%). Logistic regression comparing odds of hospitalisation across age groups found older adults had a threefold increased odds of hospitalisation (OR=3.05; 95% CI 2.58 to 3.59; p<0.0001) compared with younger adults. Middle age adults also had significantly increased odds of hospitalisation(OR=1.89; 95% CI 1.70 to 2.11; p<0.0001) compared with younger adults. Analysis of injury severity showed a similar pattern, with older adults (OR=2.46; 95% CI 2.02 to 3.01) and middle age adults (OR=1.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.82) both having significantly increased odds (p<0.0001) of having sustained a severe injury compared with younger adults.

 

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Thanks much for that run-down. Yes, sounds like capable research and meaningful analysis as far as it goes. But findings are of the "dog bites man" variety (rather than man bites dog), as others have wisely commented above.

 

Sooooo, it is helpful to have time-lines, comparisons, and trends, but no correction for exposure... a very basic requirement in this kind of research.

 

Still, I think the depth will come when a researcher corrects for experience (or conversely, corrects for age).

 

Ben

[kmac]

Just to make sure I am clear, I do not think a person should not ride in their 70s and I know my dads case only applies to him.

 

His experiences will vary from others. I was only stating that I think the study does not factor in all of the variable. That would be almost imposible though. Study every age group, couple that info with total years of riding experience, add in currently consecutive years and miles of riding, factor for training sustained....it is almost endless.

 

The study seemed, and I must admist I did not read every sentence, seemed to have some focus on the injuries sustained. I can personally attest to the fact that we do NOT heal the same after 30 or 40 as we did when young. I also seem to not bounce back up as fast. When younger, I broke my leg and finished the race...now, I am laying there waiting for my life alert to bring an ambulance.

 

I personally think, that riding experience, especially if there are no big gaps in riding history, will generally make someone a better and more focused and aware rider even if he or she is older. That said, studies show slower reaction times and easier fractures happen as we age...so the study is accurate from those standpoints I think to some extent.

[Limecreek]

As we age, the price we pay for hitting the ground goes up.

 

Experience and training will lower the risk of hitting the ground.

 

That's it. Not much more beyond that.

 

Except this - you may end up taking on more risk vs. age related injury as an output of your perceived competency.

 

Again, this is one of those no shit Sherlock studies.

 

[philbytx]

The abstract basically says that old geezers don't bounce as well as younger folks. No sh&* Sherlock LOL!

 

 

[Urban Surfer]

I quit contact sports when I was 43. Bruises from the previous week were just getting bruised again. So I am well aware that I will not fare so well if I come off the bike again.

I ride much slower than I used to. I wear much better gear. I have much better brakes, and I have far better skills.

 

And I have a lot less to loose considering I'm 30 years older.

I will ride until it's physically impossible, I wasn't afraid when I was young so what's going to scare me off now?

 

 

[Peter Parts]

OK, we all want to ride until they have to rip the throttle out of our cold dead right hand... no matter how it scares other drivers and our spouses.

 

For me (as rider and human-factors professional), the issue is competency testing. Now those words are fearful words - but let's look at self-assessment. Rare to hear from anybody who thinks they are over-the-hill in any respect - you gotta see Florida driving to understand the capacity we old people have for self-deception about their driving skills.

 

Easy to ID physical skills like being able to twist your spine enough to see 180+ degrees behind you (tried it recently?), strong enough to pick up your bike after a parking lot fall, or able to read street names and road signs at night.

 

Cognition harder to self-test. Just having an "accident" or a close call is a good hint your driving is failing (funny how skillful bikers encounter fewer crazy car drivers making left turns as compared to unskillful bikers). A bad sign is that I have trouble reading the newspaper and listening to the radio with any care (although I suppose I can still walk and chew gum).

 

Ben

 

 

[Francis]

It would be intersting to see a cross tabulation of age of rider, displacemnent of the machine and years of continuous riding experience. No doubt that as we get older we do not bounce as well as when younger. We also find that many older riders are now able to afford that big machine and do not necessarily go through the small machine to larger machine learning sequence to gain riding skills and experience that can keep them safe® on the road. If they also embrace the Harley clothing style they may not have the appropriate ATGATT to also keep them safe®.