-
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO POST? REGISTER FOR COG MEMBERSHIP
All registration must be done through the club's main webpage: To register / join COG, click here
For instructions to convert to full membership, click here
-
Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
MSF Seasoned Rider Fact Sheet
- Thread starter S Smith
- Start date
From what I read the title is misleading.
'Should be 'Older Riders'?
Seasoned' makes me think of experience.
Thinking now about seasoned curly fries.
'Should be 'Older Riders'?
Seasoned' makes me think of experience.
Thinking now about seasoned curly fries.
Nope., they're just talking about our aging population. Years in the saddle aren't taken into account. There are a lot of reasons for the increase in deaths that are most likely simply tied to our getting older as a people (United States). In 1980 when the average age was 24, the majority of the people on the road were closer to 24 and hence better suited to the task of operating a motor vehicle. Today, the average biker is 41 and the average age of all motorists is likewise up. Add to the mix that older folks (yeah, we geriatric bikers too) are more likely to die from the same injury that a 24 year old might survive and you can automatically see the primary reason for this polls results. Toss into the mix cell phones, more crowded roadways, etc. that have occurred since 1980 and you get even more of the picture. It's just plain dangerous out there ffolks and we're not getting younger. If we WANT to get older (stay alive) then we have to be better than we've ever been... despite the fact that our reflexes, our judgement, our physical abilities, and our ability to take a hit are not what they once were.
And yeah, Willy's right, they're just trying to euphemize the language and not call us "Old Farts" that they used the "nice" term, "seasoned". Now about those fries... this Old Fart's gettin' hungry. >
And yeah, Willy's right, they're just trying to euphemize the language and not call us "Old Farts" that they used the "nice" term, "seasoned". Now about those fries... this Old Fart's gettin' hungry. >
The primary traffic violations committed by me are speeding and passing on a double yellow ;D
BBAR said:COGnosticator said:
I would never purposely break the law!
I don't do it on purpose, it is a case of forgetfulness............ >
oldsawfiler
Crotch Rocket
And in retrospect I was dreaming about Montana
I thought that happened years ago with the 55 mph speed limit. I thought there was a mandate for compliance in order to receive highway funds from the Fed. Or was it changed more recently? OR was it changed, then changed back, then changed again?
Kinda sounds like;
I was lookin' back to see if you was lookin' back to see if I was lookin' back to see if you were lookin' back at me.
Kinda sounds like;
I was lookin' back to see if you was lookin' back to see if I was lookin' back to see if you were lookin' back at me.
Yeah, here's what I just found in Wikipedia and I still am not exactly sure what I am reading. LOL
Sometimes the term Basic Rule is in caps denoting a proper noun and other times it is not. It appears they did something in 96 "beyond the Basic Rule", which I assume means they posted a daytime speed limit that had an actual number, but then in 99 they changed that number either up or down to be 75 mph. Someone needs to clean up the Wiki's language on this one so that it is clearer, methinks.
willyp
Iron Butt
Rev Ryder said:
Montana and Nevada did not have a maximum stated speed limit, the 'Basic Rule' law was 'safe and reasonable'. Very subjective, someone could be thrown in jail for going 45, or if they knew the judge, maybe they could argue 120 was 'safe and reasonable' and get away with it. Starting in '74, and prior to '96 there was a Federal law requiring states to enforce a maximum speed of 55. It was repealed in '96 and between '96 and '99 Montana did not have a specific maximum speed limit, just the Basic Rule of 'safe and reasonable'. In '99 the Montana court ruled that was too vague, and Montana enacted a maximum speed limit of 75.
At least that's how I read it, sounds pretty clear to me. :beerchug:
The fact sheet referenced is a classic case of statistical manipulation using incomplete data. It presents a partial list of data, and then uses the incomplete data to make conclusions which are not really supported by that true but incomplete data.
The information that is missing, and extremely important, is whether aging is the cause of the higher accident rate, or not. The facts given are used to imply that this is a cause and effect relationship, however that is never proven to be the case. Using such limited data to establish cause and effect is no more valid than showing that a higher percentage of motorcycles now are blue, and concluding that blue causes accidents.
There may be other significant factors affecting the higher accident rate. The riding experience level, the type of riding, and the type of motorcycle all have an effect on accident rate, but these factors are not addressed by the author.
I'm not claiming that average age is not important, and there may be a cause and effect relationship here, but that conclusion is definitely not proven by the limited data presented by this fact sheet.
"There's an old saying by Mark Twain that goes like this. “Figures don't Lie, but Liars Figure.” Which basically means you can make statistical figures say anything."
The information that is missing, and extremely important, is whether aging is the cause of the higher accident rate, or not. The facts given are used to imply that this is a cause and effect relationship, however that is never proven to be the case. Using such limited data to establish cause and effect is no more valid than showing that a higher percentage of motorcycles now are blue, and concluding that blue causes accidents.
There may be other significant factors affecting the higher accident rate. The riding experience level, the type of riding, and the type of motorcycle all have an effect on accident rate, but these factors are not addressed by the author.
I'm not claiming that average age is not important, and there may be a cause and effect relationship here, but that conclusion is definitely not proven by the limited data presented by this fact sheet.
"There's an old saying by Mark Twain that goes like this. “Figures don't Lie, but Liars Figure.” Which basically means you can make statistical figures say anything."
I always thought it was "Reasonable and Prudent". At least that's what Rich Reed's rally in Ennis MT used to be called. I was able to go to all three.
There is nothing quite as deflating as doing a high speed "all out" run, tucked down behind the windshield of your C10, throttle pinned all the way back to the stops... and then have Ron Ramlow on his ZX11 shoot past you with Carol on the back, as she turns around to snap a quick picture of you before they both disappear over the horizon. :rotflmao:
There is nothing quite as deflating as doing a high speed "all out" run, tucked down behind the windshield of your C10, throttle pinned all the way back to the stops... and then have Ron Ramlow on his ZX11 shoot past you with Carol on the back, as she turns around to snap a quick picture of you before they both disappear over the horizon. :rotflmao:
On the first page I see these 2 "facts":
2. One of every three drivers in America is now over 55 years of age.
8. Recent data show that of the more than 57,000 drivers involved in fatal crashes
annually, more than 10,000 of those were over 55 years of age.
Check my math here but 1/3 (lets call it 33%) of the drivers are 55+. But only 17.5% of the drivers involved in fatal crashes are 55+. This particular statistic would imply 55+ drivers as better drivers than average. Like someone else pointed out correlation and causation are 2 different things.
2. One of every three drivers in America is now over 55 years of age.
8. Recent data show that of the more than 57,000 drivers involved in fatal crashes
annually, more than 10,000 of those were over 55 years of age.
Check my math here but 1/3 (lets call it 33%) of the drivers are 55+. But only 17.5% of the drivers involved in fatal crashes are 55+. This particular statistic would imply 55+ drivers as better drivers than average. Like someone else pointed out correlation and causation are 2 different things.
As a former MSF Instructor (88-92) I must say, I am more than a little disappointed by this nonsense if it is true. But I doubt this is true, because I do not see any logos, banners, or letterhead on the "fact" sheet. One thing is for sure, if it is true, this hit piece on older riders says the MSF has become less about rider safety and more about political/social statements. Not to mention the "fact" sheet's own numbers disprove their conclusions.
For example:
The sheet says "One of every three drivers in America is now over 55 years of age" (or 33%). And right on the heels of this they say "Recent data show (poor grammar-kid) that of more than 57,000 drivers involved in fatal crashes annually, more than 10,000 (approx 17.5%) of those were over 55 years of age." So 33% of the drivers had only 17.5% of the accidents!! Sounds like they were SAFER than the other 66% of the drivers that had proportionately more accidents than drivers above 55. I guess statistics are not part of the "new" math!
There is a good reason why older and more experienced drivers/riders get better insurance rates than younger and less experienced drivers/riders. Because insurance is about risk, and insurance companies are better with probability and statistics than the jokers that complied these "facts."
While I don't think I have the balance or reflexes I had 30 years ago, this 58 year old can still ride well controlled circles around the vast majority of the riders I have ridden with of any age group and those that know me admit it. This big boy has not put a single scratch on any bike I have controlled on the road in countless thousands of miles since I was licensed in 1977. Not to mention I am twice the size I was 15 years ago, so I am riding virtually two up all the time!
Enjoy the ride,
Jon
For example:
The sheet says "One of every three drivers in America is now over 55 years of age" (or 33%). And right on the heels of this they say "Recent data show (poor grammar-kid) that of more than 57,000 drivers involved in fatal crashes annually, more than 10,000 (approx 17.5%) of those were over 55 years of age." So 33% of the drivers had only 17.5% of the accidents!! Sounds like they were SAFER than the other 66% of the drivers that had proportionately more accidents than drivers above 55. I guess statistics are not part of the "new" math!
There is a good reason why older and more experienced drivers/riders get better insurance rates than younger and less experienced drivers/riders. Because insurance is about risk, and insurance companies are better with probability and statistics than the jokers that complied these "facts."
While I don't think I have the balance or reflexes I had 30 years ago, this 58 year old can still ride well controlled circles around the vast majority of the riders I have ridden with of any age group and those that know me admit it. This big boy has not put a single scratch on any bike I have controlled on the road in countless thousands of miles since I was licensed in 1977. Not to mention I am twice the size I was 15 years ago, so I am riding virtually two up all the time!
Enjoy the ride,
Jon
Allegedly?
They are all 80 mph roads.
Those school busses must give the kids a real thrill everyday! Bunch of kids bouncing around in the back doing 80mph (without seatbelts) must be a hoot! Sorta climatizes them at an early age to speed, like the Swiss do with their guns! LOLOLOL
Last edited: