Born again bikers at fault? It's a myth!

[sinfull]

The average age of motorcyclists in New Zealand has risen from 22 in 1980 to 33 in 2005 (AA, 2007). A study in 2007 estimated the mean age in Christchurch to be about 45 years (Lamb, 2008). As might be expected, there has been a commensurate increase in the average age of motorcyclists involved in MVMA’s. However, the average age of those involved in an accident is 37, with a mode of 21. This age group is hardly a candidate for a “born-again” biker tag.


Link

[Berries]

Oh yes, the old MVMA bit, or multiple vehicle motorcycle accidents. When people talk about born again bikers not being able to handle a GSXRZXRRRRRR after last riding a BSA Bantam in the 70's they aren't talking about failing to give way in the town centre, they are talking about wrapping themselves around a strainer post out in the boonies. I am sure that I could prove that born again bikers are a problem, and then I am just as sure that I can prove the opposite. It all depends on what you are selling.

Having said that, it is all bollocks. If somebody had a motorbike licence in the 60's and 70's and then gave up riding but continued to keep the endorsement on their licence then there is no way that TPTB know what riding experience that person has had. They can tell if they had bike registered in their name, they can even tell how many k's that bike has done, but without a one on one interview they haven't got a clue. And in most crashes even if that conversation is held it is not recorded in any meaningful way so that it can be used again.

Personally I think those riders who are born again on sunny weekends throughout the month of summer are more of an issue, but then you can't prove that either.



And women. Obviously.

[Zedder]

Oh yes, the old MVMA bit, or multiple vehicle motorcycle accidents. When people talk about born again bikers not being able to handle a GSXRZXRRRRRR after last riding a BSA Bantam in the 70's they aren't talking about failing to give way in the town centre, they are talking about wrapping themselves around a strainer post out in the boonies. I am sure that I could prove that born again bikers are a problem, and then I am just as sure that I can prove the opposite. It all depends on what you are selling.

Having said that, it is all bollocks. If somebody had a motorbike licence in the 60's and 70's and then gave up riding but continued to keep the endorsement on their licence then there is no way that TPTB know what riding experience that person has had. They can tell if they had bike registered in their name, they can even tell how many k's that bike has done, but without a one on one interview they haven't got a clue. And in most crashes even if that conversation is held it is not recorded in any meaningful way so that it can be used again.

Personally I think those riders who are born again on sunny weekends throughout the month of summer are more of an issue, but then you can't prove that either.



And women. Obviously.

Maybe they do interview the bikers after a crash. Or maybe they're meaning "born again Christian" bikers...

[Milts]

I read the item linked to, and immediately thought it was bullshit, having heard repeatedly and from a range of sources that motorcyclists returning to riding are at higher than average risk.

Turns out OP is correct and my initial impressions were wrong I guess. There's been a recent study in NZ, published online ahead of print.

Full text: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...12-040345.long

Graphic of risk rate by age: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...5/F2.large.jpg

Other studies have of course examined other factors, this one appears to conclude that older riders (cyclists especially) are less likely to wear helmets and more likely to be seriously injured after a crash (as opposed to more likely to have a crash in the first place) - no surprises there I guess: http://trid.trb.org/view/2012/C/1226203


Interesting sidenote: this study finds that on a moped, carrying a passenger is associated with higher risk of an accident. However on a motorcycle, it is associated with lower risk of an accident: http://trid.trb.org/view/2012/C/1238175

I fucking love proper research.

[avgas]

the average age of those involved in an accident is 37, with a mode of 21. This age group is hardly a candidate for a “born-again” biker tag.

Ah yes it is. Shitload of people stop riding when their kids are young. What age do people have kids at? Ok now work out what happens when they start reaching the top of that hill people call 40.
Not everyone can buy an MX5.......

Hence the term born-again-bikers.
These aren't people who have been off bikes for 20 years........more likely 5-10.

[sinfull]

Ah yes it is. Shitload of people stop riding when their kids are young. What age do people have kids at? Ok now work out what happens when they start reaching the top of that hill people call 40.
Not everyone can buy an MX5.......

Hence the term born-again-bikers.
These aren't people who have been off bikes for 20 years........more likely 5-10.

Not my words by the way , i just spotted the article and quoted a portion of it !

Good on Milts for digging deeper than even Simon did for his article !

I would call myself one of them you talk of Avgas, though i did what you mentioned twice --- Rode as a teen into mid 20's, gave up for married with childerbeasts for hmmmm 7 yrs, traded the house we sold when we split, for a brand new + 1000 cc bike for 7 or 8 yrs then used it as a trade for another place with a whole new family, again for aprox 7 yrs (pattern forming with relationships huh?)

So am i a "born again rider" , at risk because i have the disposable income to buy a large MC, or a rider who has ridden for 37 years 14 of which i didn't own a bike (still had the odd ride on mates bikes)
Perhaps i'm at a greater risk because i'm a confident rider who gets a rush out of taking risks ?
I think it's relative to a learner with less experience or even someone in their 30's who hasn't had advanced training and or race experience of some sort !

[Berries]

I fucking love proper research.

I wouldn't go that far, but I sometimes find it interesting and know two of the researchers in the paper you link to having worked with the Injury Prevention Research Unit a number of times over the years. But that paper is aged based, and while it talks about born again bikers it does not answer the main question - does a 50 year old (for example) who has ridden all his life have the same risk profile as a 50 year old who gave up riding when he was 25 and has now come back in to the brotherhood, for want of a better wanky term. For arguments sake, lets agree on the obvious. So then the question is, does a 25 year old who has been riding everyday for the last seven years have the same risk profile as a 50 year old who gave up riding when he was 25 and has now brought himself an FXRWideSuperGlideRRRRRRRTurboRSSportZXR1?

I don't know, but then I don't think anybody does unless you make baseless assumptions. I'll just continue to blame everyone but myself - those old bastards and the young pricks.

[Clockwork]

And when does a Born Again stop being a Born Again, if ever? I've been born again since 2004 am I still a born again?

[dangerous]

The average age of motorcyclists in New Zealand has risen from 22 in 1980 to 33 in 2005 (AA, 2007). A study in 2007 estimated the mean age in Christchurch to be about 45 years (Lamb, 2008). As might be expected, there has been a commensurate increase in the average age of motorcyclists involved in MVMA’s. However, the average age of those involved in an accident is 37, with a mode of 21. This age group is hardly a candidate for a “born-again” biker tag.

Let me through some shit in...
I speak for chch only, leading up to the quakes there was a lot of work in greater chch pleanty of money being made so those x bikers from the 70's had the doe to splash about so and this is what I noticed they brought new bikes just like the old days, harleys and Triumph's mostely cos that was what they had way back and they were bloody well priced, the 2.3 Rocket was very popular.

These bikes had the grunt, the born again riders thought they could get on how they left off, WRONG, a lot found them selves in the shit and rode like shit.
I saw this many times over, crap riding and I will say many crashs mostely on bends due to failing to corner, a few head ons and a lot dead.

Since the quakes money is slim for most so toys have been sold, since 2010 I have seen little accos the bigest drop from born agains... remember just my take on it and chch based.

[Wingnut]

Or that in 1980 I was 3. In 2005 I was 28........ Your all get old as!!!!!!!!!!

Same riders... Just getting older...

[sinfull]

These bikes had the grunt, the born again riders thought they could get on how they left off, WRONG, a lot found them selves in the shit and rode like shit.
I saw this many times over, crap riding and I will say many crashs mostely on bends due to failing to corner, a few head ons and a lot dead.

.

I've seen the same re ppl getting on bikes after many years and not being able to ride them, BUT, i will add that i've seen it from experienced riders as well, who changed from sport bikes to big heavy cruisers (and will admit to making a few big mistakes during that transition period also when i bought my FXR after riding my speed triples for years).
It's such a totally different ride and speaking from the experience of changing over, would say it takes a good 3 months for the mind and body to be adjusted to the different riding style !

There aint no two ways about it, i've seen and ridden in packs before with old fellas coming back in to riding after 25 yrs or more, jumping on a 400kg harley or as ya say the rocket. You can spot em a mile off, god help them (or yaself) if you stick too close and shit went down, they shouldn't be there, NOT at all, they should be out there on their own for 6 months to a year getting to know their ride and their abilities !
But then i've seen it perhaps in the same numbers, sport bike riders in their twenties and thirties who think they're valentino and yet they'll freak mid corner and run off the road or miss something changing ahead and not adapt their line till it's too fucking late !


That's why i'm one of them who advocates track riding for everyone who rides the road, sport bike or cruiser, because they will learn the capabilities of their tyres and their bike !
It will sharpen up the senses to what's happening 4 cars/bikes ahead , so when they're mid corner and they get that oh shit feeling and we all know the one i'm talking about, they aint gonna look to the ditch, stand it up and head for it, they're gonna think my bike can go 20% further over, my tyres are good for it and JFDI !

Or that in 1980 I was 3. In 2005 I was 28........ Your all get old as!!!!!!!!!!

Same riders... Just getting older...

Shit you're nearly 40 ya old buzzard lol

It's MX i say MX has done it ! Stolen all the young fellas from getting into the road scene they spend all their money on cars and trailers to carry their MX bike to tracks !!!

[SMOKEU]

Let me through some shit in...
I speak for chch only, leading up to the quakes there was a lot of work in greater chch pleanty of money being made so those x bikers from the 70's had the doe to splash about so and this is what I noticed they brought new bikes just like the old days, harleys and Triumph's mostely cos that was what they had way back and they were bloody well priced, the 2.3 Rocket was very popular.

These bikes had the grunt, the born again riders thought they could get on how they left off, WRONG, a lot found them selves in the shit and rode like shit.
I saw this many times over, crap riding and I will say many crashs mostely on bends due to failing to corner, a few head ons and a lot dead.

Since the quakes money is slim for most so toys have been sold, since 2010 I have seen little accos the bigest drop from born agains... remember just my take on it and chch based.

Most Harleys aren't that quick and they have a docile enough power delivery unlike a big sports bike which will have the tendency to lift the front wheel. I'd be more worried about "born again bikers" jumping onto a big sports bike.

[Banditbandit]

Most Harleys aren't that quick and they have a docile enough power delivery unlike a big sports bike which will have the tendency to lift the front wheel. I'd be more worried about "born again bikers" jumping onto a big sports bike.

Naa .. both ... Harleys are heavy and don't handle well - have poor brakes etc etc ... I worry about both - and I have watched both on the road and it's scared the shit out of me ... (and I'm already older than many of the "born-again biker" people ...)

[Banditbandit]

Let me through some shit in...
I speak for chch only, leading up to the quakes there was a lot of work in greater chch pleanty of money being made so those x bikers from the 70's had the doe to splash about so and this is what I noticed they brought new bikes just like the old days, harleys and Triumph's mostely cos that was what they had way back and they were bloody well priced, the 2.3 Rocket was very popular.

These bikes had the grunt, the born again riders thought they could get on how they left off, WRONG, a lot found them selves in the shit and rode like shit.
I saw this many times over, crap riding and I will say many crashs mostely on bends due to failing to corner, a few head ons and a lot dead.

Since the quakes money is slim for most so toys have been sold, since 2010 I have seen little accos the bigest drop from born agains... remember just my take on it and chch based.

Back when (1980s?) the new Triumphs first came out a lot of older guys bought them because they "had a Triumph back when I was younger" .. they scared themselves shitless in about 1500ks and traded them in on Harleys ... the experience ont he new Triumphs (scaring the shit out of themselves) made them more careful on Harleys ..

[skippa1]

young dumb and full of cum, crusty old cunts, wanna be bikers, old farts on Harleys, young farts on Harleys no one is immune......a moments inattention is all it takes