Allan Kirk's at it again, this time its the older rider's fault!

[WelshWizard]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=663&objectid=10501290

Allan Kirk, of the MegaRider Organisation, said yesterday that a raft of proposals announced by the Government last week failed to tackle dangers faced by older riders with reflexes often too slow for today's sophisticated machines.****************************
But he said ageing reflexes meant many were mentally ill

[MSTRS]

That man is dangerous. What a cock. :sick:

[riffer]

Not what I got from it.

I think he's got a point.

Mr Kirk said most older people returning to the transport mode of their youth generally retained the physical skills needed to ride motorcycles.
But he said ageing reflexes meant many were mentally ill-equipped to handle the higher-performance machines now available, and needed basic education tips on how to get out of trouble, such as to ease their brakes into a swerve to avoid a head-on crash.
Older riders were at greater risk of broken bones, took longer to heal, and their injuries were likely to have wide impacts on family or business responsibilities.


Please tell me which of the above is inaccurate?

There is more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that a number of people are returning to motorcycling. Compare say a 1970 TR6 with a 2008 GSF1200, which would be a popular bike for a returning rider of middle age. Or perhaps something faster - plenty of returning riders picking up Ducatis, BMWs or Harley-Davidsons. All of which are more powerful than a TR6.


Reflexes are slower in the over-40s compared to the under 30s.

And it hurts more when you crash.

Take the emotion out of it and it makes sense. Not nice reading but.

[Motu]

Reflexes are slower in the over-40s compared to the under 30s.

And it hurts more when you crash.


The reflexes may be slower - but the pathways to react are already built into the brain.In Kenny Roberts speak - you have a package on the wall of your experience to reach out and grab for whatever emergency is at hand....or something that is pretty close anyway.Younger riders are still compiling their packages of experience to hang on the wall.Knowing how to react is more important than how fast you react.

And yes,it hurts more when you crash....and hurts for longer.

I also see nothing wrong with Mr Kirk's statement.

[Usarka]

How many of kb'ers are over 40?

and how many have mental illness?

'nuff said.

[Usarka]

see you old farts reactions are too slow to even reply while i read the article and constructed a positive response....




But Wairarapa-based Mr Kirk, whose organisation has promoted motorcycling safety since 1970, said a survival education package he offered to provide for older riders was turned down by the corporation on cost grounds.
It's alwayse about the money, and whats in it for them eh......

[McJim]

It's alwayse about the money, and whats in it for them eh......
However my question to this would be if there was a refresher course available like the one presented by Mr Kirk, how many would take up the offer?

The Bronz RRRS course is already available and accessible to many motorcyclists - how many have gone on it?

[Hitcher]

Another "organisation" comprising a cock and his word processor. A bit like that pillock Stefan Browning from the "Soil & Health Association". If really fucks me off how the media gives media space to these nongs and never challenges their "credentials".

[Pussy]

How many of kb'ers are over 40?



I'M over 40, you cheeky little whippersnapper! It's MISTER Pussy to you, from now on :bleh:

[riffer]

The reflexes may be slower - but the pathways to react are already built into the brain.In Kenny Roberts speak - you have a package on the wall of your experience to reach out and grab for whatever emergency is at hand....or something that is pretty close anyway.Younger riders are still compiling their packages of experience to hang on the wall.Knowing how to react is more important than how fast you react.

And yes,it hurts more when you crash....and hurts for longer.

I also see nothing wrong with Mr Kirk's statement.

I think where people are getting upset is that they're misreading the intent of Kirk's statement. It's not so much the age of the rider; more it's those riders who've been away for a while. They're not match fit.

I'm 41. I've been riding since age 12. I spent 12 years away from motorcycles (age 24-36). It took me a good year before I was comfortable giving the bike some stick. My last bike before I left biking was a 80HP 1986 GPZ750. My returning bike was a 105HP FZR750R. Imagine spending 20-30 years away and coming back to a bike with possibly 100 more horsepower. The statistics are telling us that a number of guys are having these problems and its returning bikers. The young ones crash because they're learning but the older ones have to re-learn to a certain extent.

That's what MY experience has taught me (4.5 years back on a bike now - and daily riding too).

[Ixion]

I'm not convinced about the reflexes thing. While undoubtedly medically true , how relevant is it . No man ever lacked for a stone to throw at a dog.

How many riders actually crash because their reflexes are point n of a second too slow? As opposed to crashing because they did stupid shit, and/or didn't know what to do when it all went wrong.

The time for the actual reflex action (the "snatch hand away when it meets something sharp" action) is very small indeed compared with the "process inputs and figure out appropriate reaction " time.

It's reaction time that counts, not reflex time. As as Mr Motu says, that is probably faster in older riders , simply because experiences burns in the neural pathways.

[Ixion]

I've noticed, BTW , that my riding is noticable detrimentally affected by as little as a week not riding. Not anything an outsider would notice , but after a week either caging (as in on holiday) or not out at all (as in sick), when I return the fine edge is slightly dulled. I notice hazards a fraction more slowly , my concentration is just slightly down , fine for a a cage, but as we all know, what's adequate for a cage will have you sliding down the road on a bike.

So, agreed, coming back after years would require a lengthy rebraining process.

By the same token, I wonder if those who only ride once a week ever get out of the trough ? Can you really be a safe rider if you only ride once in a while?

But Mr Kirk is still a Jerk.

[Slingshot]

"credentials".

He's got an Anti-Terrorist Riding Course (http://www.megarider.com/Terrorist/terrorist.html), that's a good enough credential in my book!

I'm with Riffer on this one, sounds like a few of our elderly members are getting a touch precious. :dodge:

[Slingshot]

But Mr Kirk is still a Jerk.

I think you might be right, just having a look through his website...it reads as if it's used a template from the Destiny Church.

Here are a couple of gems:


The NZMSC's slogan is "We Will Save Your Life". This slogan is used simply because so many Kiwi riders have come up to NZMSC instructors and, shaking their hand, said: "Thanks. Your instruction saved my life". That, we feel, is what the NZMSC is all about.

It was responsible for the introduction of daytime headlight use in New Zealand, played a major role in a nationwide braking campaign that is said to be one of the most successful road safety campaigns to run in New Zealand, and has been a major influence in motorcycle safety both in New Zealand and in many other countries.

[Mike748]

By the same token, I wonder if those who only ride once a week ever get out of the trough ? Can you really be a safe rider if you only ride once in a while?


I'm not yet forty and have only recently got back on a bike. I also have no choice but to take a cage to work and my riding is "as time permits" so I find that time away from the bike definately makes me repeat the "getting familiar with the bike routine" each time I go out.

So for me, the answer is no, definately not as safe as could be.

[Motu]

I'm 41. I've been riding since age 12. I spent 12 years away from motorcycles (age 24-36). It took me a good year before I was comfortable giving the bike some stick. My last bike before I left biking was a 80HP 1986 GPZ750. My returning bike was a 105HP FZR750R. Imagine spending 20-30 years away and coming back to a bike with possibly 100 more horsepower. The statistics are telling us that a number of guys are having these problems and its returning bikers. The young ones crash because they're learning but the older ones have to re-learn to a certain extent.


We don't need to get into a pissing contest,but lets say my riding experience is considerable,and I've never stopped riding for any reason whatsoever.I'm quite happy to give the bikes I own considerable stick and push the envelope - but.....put me on a modern 1,000cc sports bike and I might be getting into some real ''oh shit'' situations.It's not age,and it's not experience,and it's not riding skill.

[riffer]

Shit no, I'm not trying to have a pissing contest. My point was that I struggled coming back after 12 years and when I left motorcycling I was riding fairly fast bikes.

Coming back from 30 years to a big bike has to be difficult. Those riders who've kept riding constantly have kept their skills.

[TimeOut]

Shit no, I'm not trying to have a pissing contest. My point was that I struggled coming back after 12 years and when I left motorcycling I was riding fairly fast bikes.

Coming back from 30 years to a big bike has to be difficult. Those riders who've kept riding constantly have kept their skills.

Would have to agree with you, I'm 48 it's been 30 years since I road a bike on the road, although I do ride them on the farm daily.
It's been fun but I'm only starting to feel comfortable after 12000km, still got a lot to learn.
I do think the older riders don't take the risks quite as much and tend to think of the consequences a bit more.

[Motu]

Coming back from 30 years to a big bike has to be difficult. Those riders who've kept riding constantly have kept their skills.

But I'm saying I have the skills - and they wouldn't be enough if I made the jump of double the capacity and double the HP.The difference is - I know I would be out of my depth.The same thing that makes the under 25's so prone to ''accidents'',is the same thing that gets the born agains into the statistics.

[riffer]

Interesting point Motu. I would have picked you as one who would have had the experience to show the necessary restraint.

Are you saying that even the most experienced and restrained also suffer from the same lapses of red-bloodedness?

I was thinking it would be something I'd eventually grow out of. Or is it that some bikes are just too much for nearly any rider?

Speaking of which, I'm taking the B-King out for a test ride tomorrow. That'll be a grand exercise in "it only goes as fast as you make it go son."

[The Stranger]

Harley-Davidsons. All of which are more powerful than a TR6.


You sure about that?

[Ocean1]

The difference is - I know I would be out of my depth.

I take it you don't own a fookin' big sports bike because you think you'd succumb to the temptation? Or, as Riffer says, you think the majority of riders aren't skilled enough to own one?


I was thinking it would be something I'd eventually grow out of.

Yeah, me too. The main reason I never owned a big road bike until last year… May be still prone to the odd bout of exuberance but, (touch wood) I do choose the time and place better than perhaps I used to.

[Ixion]

Interesting point Motu. I would have picked you as one who would have had the experience to show the necessary restraint.

Are you saying that even the most experienced and restrained also suffer from the same lapses of red-bloodedness?

I was thinking it would be something I'd eventually grow out of. Or is it that some bikes are just too much for nearly any rider?

Speaking of which, I'm taking the B-King out for a test ride tomorrow. That'll be a grand exercise in "it only goes as fast as you make it go son."

Well, I have done the ancient rider 1000cc (semi) sprots bike thing. It's not a matter of restraint. Which is what I keep trying to tell the "I've been riding 3 months and smashed up my 250, I think I should get a 1000, I'm a really restrained rider" types.

In some ways I suspect a rider with a lot of experience on lower hp bikes is almost more at risk than a complete novice.

It's the difference between walking along a foot wide plank 3 foot off the ground. And walking along a 2 inch wide plank 300 foot off the ground. Same skills, experience helps, but you need to be aware that you've a shitload less room for error.

I think the biggest get into trouble factor with returning bikers is that modern bikes handle so well. The old wagons of the 70s (and 80s in most cases) handled like pigs. The frames flexed, the suspension was crap. But, they FELT so bad that you were actually unlikely to get into trouble. They frightened you off before it went critical.

Modern big bikes handle superbly in comparison. Right up to the point where they superbly throw you off into the ditch. You don't have the "Oh shit oh shit this feels really scarey, how I am going to get this beast round this corner" , to imbue you with caution.

But, also, how many of the crash statistics amongst older riders are really born agains, and how many never really were born before? Riders who have either never ridden , but think, in middle age, that a bike would make a great fashion statement. Or rode a Honda 50 to uni for a year, 30 years ago. I've been told, by one who claimed to know, that we would all be amazed if we knew the figures for the number of Harleys being ridden by people with no class 6 at all (obviously, have a cage licence). And equally amazed at the number of Harleys that are sold, and are back in the workshop for (usually not too major) repairs within the first couple of months.

[xwhatsit]

You sure about that?

Sure. 45hp, thereabouts -- if PaulInNZ was still around here he'd tell you about the single carb and different valves to give a lovely smooth linear controllable syrup of power; not so worried about top-end.

[MaxB]

Do not agree with the safetycrat. He is trying to link fading reflexes with an increase in crashes in older riders. As others have said I reckon its got more to do with years of experience and reaction times.

I bet if you adjust the stats against total hours on the bike you will find that a young rider with 5 years on bikes will have a similar risk to that of a born-again rider with say 3 years now and 2 years 20 years ago. Maybe there will be a bit of catching up of lost skills but I would say there would not be much in it.

[skidMark]

There are old motorcyclists? Didn't us young folk ban those because they kept holding us up?

Lady's and gentlemen...

I am the future of new zealand.

Deal with it. :devil2:

[MSTRS]

May be still prone to the odd bout of exuberance but, (touch wood) I do choose the time and place better than perhaps I used to.

As one old fart to another...I can relate.

[TimeOut]

Well, I have done the ancient rider 1000cc (semi) sprots bike thing. It's not a matter of restraint. Which is what I keep trying to tell the "I've been riding 3 months and smashed up my 250, I think I should get a 1000, I'm a really restrained rider" types.

In some ways I suspect a rider with a lot of experience on lower hp bikes is almost more at risk than a complete novice.

It's the difference between walking along a foot wide plank 3 foot off the ground. And walking along a 2 inch wide plank 300 foot off the ground. Same skills, experience helps, but you need to be aware that you've a shitload less room for error.

I think the biggest get into trouble factor with returning bikers is that modern bikes handle so well. The old wagons of the 70s (and 80s in most cases) handled like pigs. The frames flexed, the suspension was crap. But, they FELT so bad that you were actually unlikely to get into trouble. They frightened you off before it went critical.

Modern big bikes handle superbly in comparison. Right up to the point where they superbly throw you off into the ditch. You don't have the "Oh shit oh shit this feels really scarey, how I am going to get this beast round this corner" , to imbue you with caution.

But, also, how many of the crash statistics amongst older riders are really born agains, and how many never really were born before? Riders who have either never ridden , but think, in middle age, that a bike would make a great fashion statement. Or rode a Honda 50 to uni for a year, 30 years ago. I've been told, by one who claimed to know, that we would all be amazed if we knew the figures for the number of Harleys being ridden by people with no class 6 at all (obviously, have a cage licence). And equally amazed at the number of Harleys that are sold, and are back in the workshop for (usually not too major) repairs within the first couple of months.

Good post, pretty much on the mark.

I wonder how many mature riders have never riden much on the road before.
I have heard of quite a few (mid life crises,sp) buying a Harley because of image. Haven't riden before and don't ride much now, I wonder if they feature more in the stastics.

[slowpoke]

I could have read through all the posts and young bull/old bull shite....but to save my 40+ year old eyes I used my 40+ year old brain and skimmed to the end.
I reckon the point is that learner riders crash more than seasoned riders, simple as that. If you are a rider returning to motorcycling after a substantial break then you are effectively a learner again. It's nothing to do with age or reflexes it's just going through the motions of relearning the do's and don'ts of a motorcycle as opposed to the car you've been sat in for the last X number of years.
This "modern super powerful bikes require catlike reflexes" mantra is a load of bollox too. How many people crash through a rear wheel 160-180hp slide or at 300km/hr? Virtually none.
The bulk of all accidents happen sub-160km/hr and even the old Bonneville/Commando brigade could do that. And if the shit was to contact the air mover then I'd rather be on something with 4/6 pot radial brakes (or ABS), GP spec rubber, mass centralised 170kg's than something with drum brakes, spindly forks and tyres made from what seems like recycled bakelite.
I'd like to see Mr Cock, I mean Kirk, and the young guns on here tell Jeremy McWilliams that his reflex's were shot when he set the last 2 stroke 500GP pole position vs the 990cc 4 strokes at 41 or Troy Bayliss to forget about winning this years SBK champuionship 'cos he's a silly slow ol' fool getting close to 40. Or closer to home, Tony Rees coming out of a couple of years retirement to show the younger blokes the way home at Puke at the ripe old age of 40, or Glenn Williams, Terry Fitzgerald, and co.

Age has got fek all to do with it, it's all about individual ability and individual attitude.

[Pwalo]

I think that you will find that the basic stats only give the age of the rider, not how many years they have been riding, or how many years they have had off, or even how experienced they are.

The intepretation that it is 'born agains' that are doing all the crashing is just that (an intepretation).

To fully comment on this you would need to know a great deal more about each crash. It may even be that older riders just ride a lot more miles than younger ones?

[chubby]

Just to add content to this discussion here is a rather wordy and lengthy commentary on mototbike accidents as represented in overseas studies:

The summary of this (if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing) is not that reaction time is not there, not that anyone is mentally ill but speed in the wrong place, speed without judgement, speed without skill can and does (note this is not reaction but getting into the wrong position at the wrong speed). In the studies 40.2% of all serious accidents happened as bikers tried to negotiate corners.


There are a number of myths about motorcycle accidents. Some are used by safety authorities to justify more legislation. Others are used by riders to excuse their actions.



Power Output

If you are a member of either the BMF or MAG, or just interested in motorcycle politics, you'll know that the EC and various member governments have had serious concerns about power and motorcycle accidents.

Motorcycle manufacturers are slowly waking up to the fact that there has been a change of approach by road safety campaigners, and that vehicles capable of such high speeds are being targeted as socially unacceptable, and possible solutions include compulsory bhp limits and speed restrictors.

Limiting speed of traffic has been on the agenda in the UK for months, and Dutch and German governments have shown concern over recent high performance models. Euro-wide plans for a power limit have been around in one form or another for ten years. Some countries have had power restrictions in place for years. Since 1984 French bikes have been restricted to 98 bhp and Swiss riders have to make do with 85 bhp.

A 125 bhp "gentleman's agreement" in the UK was scuppered, ironically enough, by Triumph when they released their 143 bhp Daytona 1200, and since then the power race has been on, and speeds have climbed to match, to the point where the Hayabusa and ZX12-R are nudging the 200 mph barrier. The result of concerns in the UK is that the Big Four Japanese manufacturers have put in place a voluntary speed limit of 186mph on their most powerful models.

Power limits are generally justified on the grounds that power equates directly to speed, and that speed causes accidents. The mid 90s Martin Bangemann-inspired 100 hp limit was only ditched by the EC when the research on which it was based was shown to be flawed. More recently a Dutch safety study into motorcycle accidents found no link between accidents and bikes of 100 hp or more and clearly showed that power is not an issue in motorcycle accidents. The study, which was carried out by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, included a survey of existing reports, as well as evidence from the Dutch police.

Existing reports clearly showed that the major factors in accident risk were not engine power, but the motorcyclists themselves

age
experience
attitude
alcohol
and the accident circumstances

type and condition of the road
location
weather etc.
Evidence from the Dutch police accident investigators showed that high speed and taking risks was also a significant factor :

losing control on a bend
other road users wrongly estimating speed
reckless riding
Even there though, there was no evidence that more than 100bhp was being used at the time.

Part 2 to follow

[chubby]

Part 2

Accident Statistics

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) figures published in February 1999 show that in 1998 there were:

24,969 Injury Accidents Involving Motorcycles
498 Motorcyclist Deaths
5,944 Serious Injuries
18,168 Slight Injuries
Motorcycle riders and passengers accounted for 15% of those killed or seriously injured in 1998, but powered two wheeler traffic represented less than 1% of all road traffic.

There were 17,422 two vehicle accidents involving motorcycles in 1998 and 5,529 single vehicle accidents. Of the single vehicle accidents, 1,446 involved one or more pedestrians; in these accidents there were 1,490 pedestrians hit, of whom 29 were killed and 344 seriously injured.

On built-up roads, over three quarters of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and almost a half at T or Y junctions. By comparison, on non built-up roads, less than a half of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and just under a fifth at T or Y junctions.

The motorcyclist casualty rate was higher on built-up than non built-up roads. Less than half of motorcycle traffic was on built-up roads, which accounted for 72% of casualties. The lowest casualty rate was on motorways. However, the proportion of accidents involving serious injury was higher on non-built up roads and motorways, reflecting the higher speeds on these roads.

London had the highest rate of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured in road accidents but was only slightly higher than that for Scotland as a whole, but twice that of the South West region which had the lowest rate. London had the highest rate and the North East had the lowest rate for all severities of casualty.

Per registered motorcycle, Great Britain had a high death rate in comparison with other countries. Ireland had the highest and Japan the lowest. Britain's death rate of 6.8 per 10,000 licensed motorcycles is about eight times that of the Czech Republic, with the lowest rate.



When accidents occur

The average daily casualty count was higher during the week than at the weekend, with Fridays having the most casualties in 1998. However, the proportion of casualties killed or seriously injured was higher at the weekend, at 32% compared with 24% during the week.

There is a marked difference between the proportion of motorcyclist casualties injured during summer and winter, whilst there is much less seasonal variation in all road user casualties. The highest percentage of casualties occurred in August for motorcyclists and in November for all road users.



Who causes accidents?

Riders have long taken (cold) comfort in the findings of the Booth Report (1987) which, looking at accidents in urban areas, concluded that car drivers were at fault in two thirds of accidents involving motorcycles. Equally, high casualty rates amongst the under 25's were often put down to youth and lack of experience.

The DETR figures show that accidents involving a motorcycle and another vehicle still account for 2/3rds of all motorcycle accidents. However, they also show that single vehicle accidents with no pedestrians or other road users involved accounted for 18% of all motorcycle accidents resulting in injury. This compares with 14% for cars and 7% for goods vehicles.

However, an in-depth analysis of accidents in Cheshire between 1 April 1998 and 31 October 1998 reported in Street Biker (Feb-Mar 2000), the MAG newspaper. John Moss MBE, Chief Road Safety Officer for Cheshire (and MAG member) revealed that fully 67% of all the crashes studied were due to rider error and that the traditional view that most motorcycle accidents are down to blind Volvo drivers is badly flawed.

Let's look at the bald statistics:

lost control on right hand bend - 16.7%
lost control on left hand bend - 13.7%
right turning vehicle hit by overtaking motorcycle - 12.7%
motorcycle hit by emerging vehicle at junction - 9.8%
motorcycle collides with rear of stationary vehicle at junction - 7.8%
fell off - 6.9%
collisions on roundabouts - 6.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on l/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 5.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on r/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 3.9%
motorcycle collides with vehicle turning right across its path - 7.8%
stationary motorcycle hit from behind - 5.9%
others - 2.0%
Sports bikes were involved in 43% of these accidents and the 26-40 age group in an overwhelming 55.3%. The supposedly high risk group of under 25's accounted for 23.6%. Not unexpectedly in a survey area which includes the infamous "Cat & Fiddle" over 50% of riders lived outside the survey area.



How can we interpret these figures?

The fact that London dominates the casualty list is hardly surprising. The population of London is something like 6 million, around 10% of the entire population of the UK. In addition, several million drivers and riders more commute into and out of London. Traffic density is high over a very large area. What is rather more of a surprise is that Scotland was only slightly lower. What is not clear is whether the casualties are concentrated in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas or whether rural accidents make a significant contribution.

Neither is it surprising that over three quarter of motorcycle accidents and just under three quarters of injuries occurred at junctions. If you hit a car, even at twenty miles per hour speed you are likely to be injured.

What is not so clear until you look at the figures more closely is that the DETR figures show that accidents out of town occur at higher speeds and result in more serious injury, even though the figures for in-town accidents appear to dominate the statistics. The problem is one of interpretation. Lumping together serious and fatal injuries is misleading and many serious injuries are not necessarily life threatening. As I understand it a broken finger requiring medical treatment would be considered a serious injury and relatively minor injuries of this kind are much more likely to occur when you ride a bike and are involved in a minor accident than if you drive a car.

The way the figures for serious injury and fatalities are taken together tends to disguise the consequences of rural accidents. Earlier statistics from 1994 show that 50% of all fatalities occur out of town.

Although single vehicle accidents account for slightly less than 1/5th of all motorcycle accidents according to DETR figures, these accidents usually occur outside town and at higher speeds and lead to more serious injury. This is borne out by the higher proportion of serious injuries and fatalities occurring at weekends and in the middle of the summer, which implicates recreational riders rather than workday commuters.

So who is at fault for rural accidents? A common factor between Californian, Dutch and UK research into motorcycle accidents is that many could have been avoided it the motorcyclist had the rider shown more awareness of potential danger, been more visible or had been capable of braking, steering or cornering properly. Alcohol, experience, attitude, high speed and risk taking were other contributory factors, as were the type and state of the road and weather conditions.

The Dutch study in particular showed that losing control in bends was a significant factor. The Cheshire figures show that accidents involving misjudging bends make up 40% of accidents in rural areas. The fatality rate for these kind of accidents is high. This was made clear in our local IAM magazine a couple of years ago when a serving police officer revealed that out of twelve riders killed in Kent in a year, eleven lost control on bends. The Dutch study also found that many of the accidents investigated would have been less serious, or avoided altogether, if the rider had been able to make an emergency stop.

Other more recent statistics than the DETR report showed that there has been a shift in location of accidents from urban to rural environments and that the peak age for accidents has moved away from young to "born again" riders.

[chubby]

Ok even a part 3

The Cheshire report should shake the traditionally-held view that bikers are usually the innocent victims of car drivers, which the DETR figures appear at first glance to support, or that only young riders are at risk. The reduction in accident rates amongst youngsters resulting from Compulsory Basic Training is well documented, and these figures highlight that the 25-40 age group of riders who largely predate the widespread emergence of training schools and would have been mostly self-taught are very much at risk too.

Mr. Moss goes on to consider what conclusions can be drawn from the research. He says:

"Consideration of the various factors relating to rural motorcycle crashes leads unerringly to the conclusion that riders are failing to ride their machines within their personal capabilities even though the bike itself may have been well within its performance envelope at the time of the crash. The vast majority of the "bend" crashes had clues which indicated that the riders had either braked or shut their throttles mid-bend, resulting in understeer crashes. In the crashes where right turning vehicles were hit by overtaking motorcyclists, it seemed that the rider should have foreseen the likelihood of the turning movement e.g. garage forecourt, side road etc.."

Look at the figures. 20.5% of the accidents, the total of bikes hitting cars turning right or hitting them from behind, can be largely attributed to poor observation and anticipation, probably made worse by excess speed, and in my opinion this is not entirely unexpected.

However, the fact that 40.2% of the accidents occurred when riders either lost control in, or ran wide in bends is chilling and far worse than I thought. Bend-swinging is so fundamental to our enjoyment of the sport that we take it for granted. Now it seems that we have to think again. As well as a lack of the observation and judgement skills we need to ride safely, it also betrays that most riders lack a fundamental lack of understanding of the way a motorcycle steers and behaves in a corner.

Mr. Moss recognises that whilst police enforcement of existing traffic laws is important in restricting the activities of a "lunatic fringe" of riders who flout deliberately regulations, it cannot by itself tackle the underlying problem of lack of skill, and cites the North Yorkshire BikeSafe 2000 initiative as kind of mix of enforcement, education and encouragement that police forces across the country should be pursuing. However, he rightly points out that it places heavy demand on police manpower so that its impact is not as widespread as would be desirable, and indicated that some forces have declined to join the scheme as they "do not have a problem", even though their riders may be crashing on another county's roads.

He goes on to say "there is a countywide need to equip riders with the skills needed for them to avoid or minimise crashes caused by their shortcomings in machine control, otherwise increased machine sales will be reflected in a parallel increase in casualties" and points out the valuable role that the IAM, RoSPA and commercial advanced riding schools have to play in rider training.



Conclusion

So, research shows that claims that power causes accidents is flawed. But so is the traditional motorcyclist's view that it is blind Volvo drivers that kill motorcyclists.

Riding experts like the IAM agree that speed and power alone don't kill. Speed in the wrong place, speed without judgement, speed without skill can and does.

The evidence also pinpoints the sad fact that a lot of us can't manage to negotiate corners without falling off or hitting oncoming vehicles, and when we get it wrong, the result is often very bad indeed. The message John Moss is giving is that it is down to us as riders to put our house in order. As a member of MAG, he can hardly be classed as a killjoy or a scaremongerer. "Get trained and improve your riding skills" he says. With the proper skills you can have fun, but be safe at the same time.

[chubby]

Sorry that was so long and I realise that this study was put out some 8 years ago even if the facts were of a few years earlier.

As i see it, its our own abilities and judgements that put us in danger most of the time. Older people are getting involved in more crashes because there are more older riders returning to bikes and their training is largely by the seat of their pants and not by experianced trainers. It's not their reaction timing that is causing accidents but their skill level. ACC have recognised this and are getting ready to pump money into rider education and the costs of training should drop very soon.

[Katman]

I can't believe there's so many on here who can't comprehend what the article is trying to say.

It is not aimed at the Ixions and the Motus etc. who have been riding all the time. It is suggesting that many older riders are jumping on a bike, after a 30 years absence, that bears little resemblance to the dinosaurs they were used to riding. It is these riders that need to take the time and effort to retrain themselves.

Too many just have the attitude "well I rode when I was a teenager and you never forget how to ride a bike".

(Thanks to riffer, chubby, and the others who have managed to show some degree of comprehension.)

[Waxxa]

The article does have some merit, though I dont totally agree with it. If you havent been riding for a long time or only ride occassionally then surely this equates to a rider with 'limited' or at least an uncomfortable riding ability.

Being an older person may mean your reflexes are slower than that of a younger person. Does the maturity, attitude of the older person and learned road skills (either bike, car, truck driving experience) cancel out slightly slower reflexes (like how much slower are we talking about here)?

[Katman]

The problem is with the ones who are lulled into a 'false sense of security' due to the fact that they "already know how to ride". Speedy reflexes can be regained if sufficient attention is paid to retraining oneself.

[Motu]

Are you saying that even the most experienced and restrained also suffer from the same lapses of red-bloodedness?

I was thinking it would be something I'd eventually grow out of. Or is it that some bikes are just too much for nearly any rider?


I think my age and experience would preclude any testosterone episodes,but I think if I pushed the envelope ''because I can'',then if a random incident occurred I'd be going just a bit too fast to make a good save.I've always been one to push a slow bike fast,than to deal with something faster than I am.I think the riders we are talking about feel a bit euphoric,the bike just feels so damn fast,handles so well,that....y'know.....

I remember in my dim and distant past coming off on a corner,and my mate who was behind saying - ''WTF were you thinking? There was no way you could of taken that corner so fast!'' I just shrugged my shoulders and said ''It felt pretty good to me....'' I think that's why young and old crash.....they think they are better riders than they are.

[Sanx]

The time for the actual reflex action (the "snatch hand away when it meets something sharp" action) is very small indeed compared with the "process inputs and figure out appropriate reaction " time.

It's reaction time that counts, not reflex time. As as Mr Motu says, that is probably faster in older riders , simply because experiences burns in the neural pathways.

At the risk of insulting the older riders in this forum, Ixion's statement above is patently false. An experienced rider may well have better anticipation and judgement than a younger less-experienced rider, but both relfexes and reactions will be slower. The best way to avoid being injured in a situation where reflexes and reactions are vital is simply to avoid being in such situations altogether.

Quite a few years ago, Jeremy Clarkson made a comment, whilst talking about older motorists, that an average 70 year-old would have worse reactions than an 18 year-old after three pints. He had absolutely no scientific proof behind this statement; he was just shooting off as usual. MaxPower magazine in the UK (kinda like Performance Car magazine, but with more breasts) seized upon this and set up a test, with the help of some professional researcher who specialised in this area, to see if it was true. So they got three 18 year-old lads and three 70-olds and measured their anticipation and reactions in a driving scenario. They then fed the 18 year-olds 6 standard drinks (a pint being two), waited an hour for the effets to kick in properly and re-ran the test. And yes, the 18 year-olds' reactions were still better, but their anticipation and judgement suffered.

[awayatc]

I've noticed, BTW , that my riding is noticable detrimentally affected by as little as a week not riding. Not anything an outsider would notice , but after a week either caging (as in on holiday) or not out at all (as in sick), when I return the fine edge is slightly dulled. I notice hazards a fraction more slowly , my concentration is just slightly down , fine for a a cage, but as we all know, what's adequate for a cage will have you sliding down the road on a bike.

So, agreed, coming back after years would require a lengthy rebraining process.

By the same token, I wonder if those who only ride once a week ever get out of the trough ? Can you really be a safe rider if you only ride once in a while?

But Mr Kirk is still a Jerk.

Thanks for that Ixion.....I was blaming a few things on " growing old" alone.....but after reading this post I feel rejuvinated: Not only have I been away from bikes for quite a while, I am also still away from terra firma at least half off my life.....(no bike, no car,not even a road...):yes:

So I have been given some valid explanations (read excuses) for being " slightly dulled".:sweatdrop

Being aware of ones limitations however should be of great help in growing even older on the road....And to me it sounds like that is all that's being said.

The only alternative to growing old is dying young.....

[JMemonic]

To me it sounds like this guy is paraphrasing the recent transport ministers announcement to the same effect and promoting his business which if I read the article correctly is motorcycle training. Simply he is touting for business, someone needs to inform the said paper, perhaps several someone's, that whilst he is indeed a training provider he is in no way original in his thinking and that is typically reactionary to others information. Also add that he is not thought highly off in the motorcycling community if that is the case.

Now to the valid points 10 years plus off a bike and I still hold a full licence, yep it was a bit of re learning those old skills but they were there just needed to be remembered, yes my reactions are a bit slower than they used to be but I think I am wiser now so that is not so much of a factor. The first bike I jumped on was a GS 500 not exactly a rocket ship and I ride every opportunity I get, perhaps that is the difference some of these guys only did ride that 50cc scooter to and from work and are now getting that Harley (I know one who bought the bike then got the licence, fast tracked at that), perhaps there is a need for folks to have a bit of retraining but would the same not apply to cars? Perhaps someone living overseas who has not driven in 5-10 years would need the same retraining or a politician who has been chaffered everywhere and not driven.

Where does one draw the line at how long a person has not been using a particular class of vehicle before they need retraining in its usage? And how do you decide that figure? After all we are all different in our mental capability's and learning speeds.

In short if this Kirk fellow reads this, instead of coming up with others ideas, already in the public domain, (perhaps you advised the transport minister and this is your idea, I shudder if that is the case), come up with some original ideas then practical solutions, if your cant solve the problem then well you are just part of the problem. I guess seeing your name in print gives you pleasure but its there for the wrong reasons.

[Katman]

If he's touting for business - good on him.

There's certainly a need for an improvement in our riding skills, our situational awareness and our attitudes.

[Skyryder]

I have not read much on this thread and even less on the reports posted.

Would be interesting to know if the 'older' riders came to greif on group rides or riding solo.

I have a gut feeling that ego and riding above your comfort level just to keep up with the bunch may have more to do with the higher stats for older riders than anything else.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The problem is with the ones who are lulled into a 'false sense of security' due to the fact that they "already know how to ride". Speedy reflexes can be regained if sufficient attention is paid to retraining oneself.

They will never be the same as in their youth.

The main issue as I see it is not riding skill or lack of it. They are still reading the road as they do in a cage. It takes time to make the adjustments necessary to read the road from a bike.

Skyryder

[JMemonic]

If he's touting for business - good on him.

There's certainly a need for an improvement in our riding skills, our situational awareness and our attitudes.

Well perhaps you might want to go and attend one of his courses then, you can write up a report on whether you felt it was of benefit or would be to the returning rider.

Using the national media and jumping on the back of what is already out in the public domain from the transport minister makes him nether original or necessarily competent to give advise. And to do so in a manner that promotes your business interests is whilst maintaining you are some super expert well...

I think you have missed the point of my post, you appear to be all for taking personal responsibility for ones own actions, as to the need for an improvement in riding skills well that is a learning curve or were you absolutely perfect the first day you hoped on a bike, a rare if not imposable event, and I guess you have never done anything that you thought whoops that was a bit silly (or words to that effect), if you have not then I guess you must ride at minimum speeds everywhere you go what 10 Km/h ?

As to the responsibility for our own actions, yep true but not everything that happens out in the big wide world that affects us is because of our own actions, that crazy drunk driver that pulled out of the pub car park and killed folks was what the dead folks own actions, the tourists getting stabbed in Christchurch was what their own actions for being out after 23:00.

As to attitudes well some need theirs adjusted, but you or I are not the ones to do it, only they can and well some wont cause the don't give a stuff, some might say you need your attitude adjusted hell folks say I need mine adjusted.

[Pwalo]

Sorry that was so long and I realise that this study was put out some 8 years ago even if the facts were of a few years earlier.

As i see it, its our own abilities and judgements that put us in danger most of the time. Older people are getting involved in more crashes because there are more older riders returning to bikes and their training is largely by the seat of their pants and not by experianced trainers. It's not their reaction timing that is causing accidents but their skill level. ACC have recognised this and are getting ready to pump money into rider education and the costs of training should drop very soon.

Thanks cobber. It would be interesting to see what the results would be from a similar survey carried out now. (As you say this is an old study).

I would be interested to see if there was any difference ion the crash/injury rates between older riders (or riders in general) who ride every day, and those that only ride in the weekends, or more occasionally.

[WelshWizard]

As can be seen from my original post it was selectively quote to stir up debate.

Personally I do not like Mr. Kirk, he is always jumping in making comments to the press in a manner that comes over as " I can get a bit of free advertising here" not even sure if he even believes what he spouts out.

As for older riders , Yes we do slow down, but in many ways we also slow down in our riding, and use skills gained over the years of riding,

one of the problems I found was
I have always ridden Norton, Triumph, BSA Jaw, CZ, Older Honda's, Suzuki and even Yamaha, I have also ridden for close on 45 years, on three continents and in many countries,
but my personal trouble came when I purchased a GS1200SS suddenly it was a riding position I had not used since my teens ( café Racer ) I ended up selling the GS for one simple reason, I was comfortable on my old style riding position bikes, not so with the GS and at my age the GS made me feel like a squid, ( and I find I ride a lot faster and better when on a bike with a riding position I am happy with.

As I have always ridden even though I have driven vans and lorries as part of my work as a service engineer in the past, I cannot really comment on the so called born again riders, as you first have to ask what was the last motorcycle they ever rode, I remember a lot of L platers in my youth that rode only a Bantam to pass their test on then stopped riding, so for them coming back into motorcycling at 40 with no real riding experience behind them going out and buying a GSXR1000, a Triumph Rocket 3, or a V Rod is crazy, but their again so was the test system they introed in my early days, ride up to a 250 till you pass your test and then go out and buy a Vincent Black Shadow the day after you passed your test, the two never handled the same and you were basically a learner again on the Vincent, but ego and bravado normally got the better of you, ( Hence of the 30 riders I used to ride with less than 10 are still alive or able to ride still)

Surely it would be better to have power and size bands for people who are starting to ride, once you have passed your test then if you ride a certain class for a year then you can upgrade to the next band, if you don't change your bike to the next band for 10 years, then when you do, you have to ride in the next class for so long before being allowed to upgrade again, this is some thing that should apply also to car drivers, in order to police this it should be compulsory to have a minimum of third party insurance. but that really another subject.

As for crashes, we all have them , mine from memory except for the times when I have been hit by a car or bus and one occasion was down to a mechanical fault, which if I had gone through the service history of the bike would have made me suspicious of the Suzuki anti dives to the point of scraping them of the forks altogether, have normally been because of ego, showing off, ect and you soon learn that it cost a lot to crash you bike, and it also hurts a lot.

As for training, yes you can never stop learning, if you think you know every thing about riding a motorcycle then you are just another stat in the making, and its not just down to riders being born again we all need to hone our skills all the time.

[Rogue]

As for training, yes you can never stop learning, if you think you know every thing about riding a motorcycle then you are just another stat in the making, and its not just down to riders being born again we all need to hone our skills all the time.

To True but training is not the all to end all

I know of a guy that has gone out an brought a big cc/hp bike after riding a very old and wornout much smaller cc/hp bike for 12 months.
This guy applied armourall to his tires and wondered why the back slid out, he also has no idea about warming up the tires before giving it heaps:Oops:back slid out again :doh:
My mates and I have placed bets on how long it will be before he hits the tarmac.
Training is very very important but there is no quick cure for stupidity at any age!!

[JMemonic]

Training is very very important but there is no quick cure for stupidity at any age!!

Oh how true that is, possibly the best I have seen in a long time, and applicable to everything.

[chubby]

Thanks cobber. It would be interesting to see what the results would be from a similar survey carried out now. (As you say this is an old study).

I would be interested to see if there was any difference ion the crash/injury rates between older riders (or riders in general) who ride every day, and those that only ride in the weekends, or more occasionally.

I am not aware of any and that just means that. I am not aware of any study that delves as deeply into the cause and effect of biker accidents as you have queried. I also wonder if the findings would provide any meaningful conclusions in that everyday riders by virtue of increased time in the saddle will have more accidents. Then you get into the hours of riding verse accident and well we can make statistics talk till the cows come home.

Quick snippets like 'reduced reactions' annoy me as I don't see riding as a series of necessary impulse reactions and all those staements offer are quick fixes that don't exist. Of course we all use impulse reactions but they are secondary factors to me, its about judgement and understanding (note i didn't say experience as length of time in the saddle may make you better but there are plenty of 20 years plus riders who continue to be accidents waiting to happen) ie its better to be prepared and antiscipate activity and situations than to wait for it and react.

The point of my earlier postings was to identify where accidents happen so that we can have a better understanding of what may cause accidents. This way we can stop blaming cages totally, that we can stop saying its all about speed and the size of your bike and that we can stop blaming the young or the elderly. Interestingly the major situation was how we handle corners and thats all about us and our judgement.

All of what i have said is just words (duh-oh) and like many before me in this post the main points we all seem to come back to are that we have to take responsibility for our own safety, we have to have realistic knowledge of our own abilities and capabilities (young and old), pay attention and antiscipate.

Sermon over...

[chubby]

oops te he.. put in twice.. my bad

[awayatc]

Training is very very important but there is no quick cure for stupidity at any age!!

Severe stupidity ususaly results in instant removal from the gene pool..... :apint:
So being old AND stupid is kinda unusual.....:(

[Motu]

So being old AND stupid is kinda unusual.....:(

My wife has a different opinion.....

[NordieBoy]

I'M over 40, you cheeky little whippersnapper! It's MISTER Pussy to you, from now on :bleh:

"Old man pussy" just does not sound right :Pokey:


'Specially if you put a hyphen or comma in different places.

[mhbarber]

I'm not convinced about the reflexes thing. While undoubtedly medically true , how relevant is it . No man ever lacked for a stone to throw at a dog.

How many riders actually crash because their reflexes are point n of a second too slow? As opposed to crashing because they did stupid shit, and/or didn't know what to do when it all went wrong.

The time for the actual reflex action (the "snatch hand away when it meets something sharp" action) is very small indeed compared with the "process inputs and figure out appropriate reaction " time.

It's reaction time that counts, not reflex time. As as Mr Motu says, that is probably faster in older riders , simply because experiences burns in the neural pathways.

It would be good to know the actual science behind the difference in good training and reflexes and reactions instead of good theories

[Ocean1]

It would be good to know the actual science behind the difference in good training and reflexes and reactions instead of good theories

Wee scientific experiment for you: Put a competent boxer on a track bike and see how important reflexes are compared to experience.

[Biggles2000]

There is no fool like an old fool.

[Big Dave]

To the tune of there is no business like show business.

It's all relative innit.

You put some old dribbler who hasn't ridden for 20 years on a R1 and it's pretty likely to end it tears.

God bless Barry Sheene would be approaching 60 - Nah Baz yous too old in ya. Sure.

[nodrog]

Wee scientific experiment for you: Put a competent boxer on a track bike and see how important reflexes are compared to experience.

but how would he work the clutch and brake with his little paws?

[James Deuce]

It would be good to know the actual science behind the difference in good training and reflexes and reactions instead of good theories
Ey oop! Looks like 'e's gone and bought one of dem motorbike fings, 'asn't 'e?

U break you rmountain bike or sumfing?

[F5 Dave]

I'm thinking it's a coincidence Jim, 'enry is off soon. + no poor little 250 would . cope:lol:

[NordieBoy]

God bless Barry Sheene would be approaching 60 - Nah Baz yous too old in ya. Sure.

I'm pretty sure he's done more than 60 though...

[Blackbird]

T

You put some old dribbler who hasn't ridden for 20 years on a R1 and it's pretty likely to end it tears.

God bless Barry Sheene would be approaching 60 - Nah Baz yous too old in ya. Sure.

:Oi:I'm 60 and I only dribble when I've had too many Monteiths or there's an attractive teenie with a short skirt about. And the only way it will end in tears is if Mrs B catches me watching aforesaid teenie.

[Big Dave]

:Oi:I'm 60 and I only dribble when I've had too many Monteiths or there's an attractive teenie with a short skirt about. And the only way it will end in tears is if Mrs B catches me watching aforesaid teenie.


:Oi: Yooself. Yoo is the Barry side of the equation - or are you slowing down too much to get that Granpaw?

[Blackbird]

:Oi: Yooself. Yoo is the Barry side of the equation - or are you slowing down too much to get that Granpaw?

I'd be flattered to think I was even 25% as fast as Bazza. Or do you mean chick magnet like Bazza, hehe:whistle:

[Big Dave]

Has anyone noticed the similarity (http://www.megarider.com/) between the picture on the front page of that web site and Mr Riffer's signature?

[riffer]

Has anyone noticed the similarity (http://www.megarider.com/) between the picture on the front page of that web site and Mr Riffer's signature?

Yes. He stole it off me ages ago. :lol: I outta do him for royalties.

[Big Dave]

Yes. He stole it off me ages ago. :lol: I outta do him for royalties.

Nice going *Alan*.

[mbazza]

Mentally ill! . . . . .. OLD!. . . . . . . Too much for me, I'm off for a ride tomorow!! I'll take me mentally ill old self and go and play on the road! Cheers.
:clap:

[rottiguy]

seems obvious to me that the guy makes money out of rider training, and so he wants the government to pay him more money for rider training. So talk up the problem, say you can save them millions and then offer to take some of their spare tax payer money off them to buy ya shiny new trinkets.
I spose ya can't blame the guy for trying to suck more money out of them, if ya sell widgets you sure want to be telling people they need new ones. just pushing brand X, it's just a shame he has to have a go at us motorcycle enthusiasts. Looks like he has seen a gap in the market to sell his courses to the older people getting back into bikes and is now trying to convince the powers that be to come up with the pingers.

[Max Preload]

Allan Kirk of Megatugger is the epitome of the sayings "there's no fool like an old fool" or "wisdom often comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone". When I questioned him by email about his qualifications to make such ridiculous assertions and claims as does, he refused to answer. So he has none. He even went so far as to claim that a WR median barrier uses less space than a concrete barrier - he's right, but only if they're installed against their manufacturers guidelines, like we do here in NZ. Silly bald-headed budgie-fucker. :lol:

[Pedrostt500]

As an over 40s Mentally Ill retard motorcycle rider, there are things that I know that I didnt 25 yrs ago when friends and family only gave me a week to live after I got my motorcycle licence, Its been a long week, Yup the technology of modern motorcycles has changed remarkably in the last 30 yrs, and for a good many riders the modern sports bikes are able to handle well beyond their ability, or presumed ability, There are some good riders out there, and there are some very good riders out there, I dont claim to fit into either catargory.
I belive that motorcycle riding is about constant risk analysis, and the ability to make constant judgement calls on what is safe for your self and those around you, regardles if you are riding at 20kmph or 200kmph or some where in between.
Defensive driving or riding means that some times you have to think for other road users as well as your self, its no good being Dead Right, and there are worse things than death.
yep the laws regarding to the road are guide lines, break them if you choose to do so get caught pay the fine or do the time, but the laws of physics on the other hand dont let you off so easily.
If you have got your self into an "OH FARK" situation then for most of us regardless of age its probably to late, its the ability to recognise the "OH FARK" situation before you get into it, and that is a judgement call, and that can only be made by the nut holding the handel bars.
And this comes from exsperience and training, and knowing your own ability.

[awayatc]

Sorry pedrostt500.....out of bling.
Well said,That's why you been riding 30 plus years, and are still alive....
:bleh::niceone: