I do not think you can make such a hard statement ..
There are three age bands - 20-29, 30-39 and 40+
40+ covers at least 30 years - and probably more ... so right there it is likely that the numbers of actual riders in that age group is way higher ...
The only real way to work it out is to take either
1) The number of deaths in each group as a percentage of the total .. or
2) split the age group into 10 year components.
It is, as I said, an indication that older return to riding or new riders are at greater risk
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
From the last Census result, 09-14 published in 2015:
Unfortunately the census data does not break into the same 40+ group as the ACC used, splitting at 45+ instead, so the data is not exactly comparable.
From a km traveled perspective, riders 45+ do 61% of the total distance traveled. If the accident rate was proportional to distance traveled then this group should make up close to 2/3 of the death statistics. Based on the 2014 ACC death statistics, the over 40's make up 53% of the deaths. More alarming to me is the 15-29 group that travel 13% of the distance but accounts for 30% of the deaths. The in-betweeners 30-44 travel 27% of the distance but 30-39 years makes up 16% of the deaths.
So my take is that the most statistically at-risk group is younger riders, the middle group are least at risk, and us old farts are dying in larger number simply because we've got more freedom to ride a lot more than the rest.
I could quickly pull out the exact ages of all the riders who have died so you can make graphs a plenty but it would just continue the circular argument that always results. There are too many factors we don't know that are needed to make any valid comment on trends or patterns or to blame one group or another. Without context all the graphs are too basic.
So more older people are killed. Is that because more of them ride than young ones? Is it because they cover longer distances and have more exposure or do they do shorter distances so don't keep their skill levels up? Is it because they can afford $$$$ on a bike that is more form over function and can't go round corners like the sports bike they might have have downgraded from? If they can afford it is that what they actually did? Is it because all that free time means they can take the wife on the back and fuck the handling up when cornering? Is the fact these crashes are in the afternoons tied up with blood sugar levels, weak bladders or just needing a wee nap?
Without enough information it is way too easy to jump to conclusions.
As long as they provide it to all drivers on the road.
Hmmm - my 16 year old son got his learners recently - there is nothing (other than insurance) to stop me teaching him how to drive in my XR6. And when he gets his restricted he can drive anything on his own.
How is that correct when the under 25 males are statistically a higher accident risk on the roads?
Motorcyclists are a easy target for media, government and the likes - relative low numbers so we won't rock a election, and make great headlines for the press as non-riders think we are all mental anyway (maybe we are).
Yea I should do one of those courses.
I never learned to ride, no one ever showed me and no one I know rides. My learning period was "I just brought my first motorbike and I'm gonna ride it around in circles in our back paddock for a week or two".
Mind you, the paddock was rather muddy (especially after a few circles) so it wasn't terrible training. But still, all my experience in learning has been personal, no ones shown or taught me anything. So I do wonder at times if I'm doing some basic things wrong and have some pretty bad habits that might bite me in the butt down the road.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks