Speed may not be a determining factor in the severity of accidents

First of all, it's nice to see a well-done motorcycling study. I dunno if I would put stuff like "spoiler alert" in such a paper, but eh. Some heavy hitters worked on this one.

However, my immediate question which I don't see addressed - this study was done by surveying people who were in motorcycle accidents, i.e. survivors. Wouldn't that impart some strong survivorship bias?
 
"Wouldn't that impart some strong survivorship bias?"

good catch and a very valid observation but it does reinforce the "ride safe, ride aware" mantra.
 
Forum.jpg

These tables now completely justify speeding at night when you are in your early 20s..
Guess I was mistaken all along..
 
TwistedKestrel said:
First of all, it's nice to see a well-done motorcycling study. I dunno if I would put stuff like "spoiler alert" in such a paper, but eh. Some heavy hitters worked on this one.

However, my immediate question which I don't see addressed - this study was done by surveying people who were in motorcycle accidents, i.e. survivors. Wouldn't that impart some strong survivorship bias?
Click to expand...

yah seems a bit weird. if 'death' isnt measured as a severity of an accident, then what is this really telling us? i get that they cant actually get answers from fallen riders, but its gotta skew these results by a wide margin. in ontario, the last stat i saw was the top 3 reasons of motorcycle death being alcohol, loss of control and speed.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
First of all, it's nice to see a well-done motorcycling study. I dunno if I would put stuff like "spoiler alert" in such a paper, but eh. Some heavy hitters worked on this one.

However, my immediate question which I don't see addressed - this study was done by surveying people who were in motorcycle accidents, i.e. survivors. Wouldn't that impart some strong survivorship bias?
Click to expand...
It's not just survivorship bias. If you crashed and someone asked if you were speeding, would you admit it? When you're about to crash, do you check your speed first or do something else? You're dealing with approximate opinions from biased individuals who managed to survive.
 
By only looking at survived crashes it is hard to draw conclusions. I suspect (but obviously have not conducted a study) that as speeds climb, survival rate drops significantly (with more speed, the radius of obstacles that can kill you climbs quickly). Also, I think you need to account for speed differential vs obstacles somehow (eg highway is high bike speed but few obstacles at a speed differential of more than 30 km/h, a school zone is low buke speed but lots of obstacles with 40 to 100 km/h closing speed).
 
Similar to pedestrian injuries and deaths speed is a key determinate of surviveabilty when people are hit by a car at 30, 40, 50 and 60 kph. This is why activists keep pushing for lower and lower speed limts on our streets.

bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

Effect of reducing the posted speed limit to 30 km per hour on pedestrian motor vehicle collisions in Toronto, Canada - a quasi experimental, pre-post study - BMC Public Health

Background Pedestrian related deaths have recently been on the rise in Canada. The effect of changing posted speeds on the frequency and severity of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions (PMVC) is not well studied using controlled quasi-experimental designs. The objective of this study was to...
bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

There are lots are variables involved in a bike accident, but if you're in a lowside accident situation at 60 kph, you're on the ground vs. flying through the air and you slide to a stop without hitting anything or getting run over, you are likely to be bruised up and rashed, but that's it. This is a dramatically different accident scenario than entering an interection at 60 kph, hitting a car that ran a red light and coming to an immediate stop because you've hit a large object. I experienced both of these types of accident about 45 years ago and I'll take the lowside anytime.

So, there is no real mystery here that it is the secondary collision that is the one that injures or kills you, it's the same as being in a car where the secondary collision is mitigated or minimised by seatbelts and airbags and where the vehicle itself assists in reducing severerity through it's designed crush zones.

IMHO I think a study based on interviews with survivors and their memory, take or position on how their accident occurred is a flawed premise, intersting maybe, but not scientific.
 
ReSTored said:
Similar to pedestrian injuries and deaths speed is a key determinate of surviveabilty when people are hit by a car at 30, 40, 50 and 60 kph. This is why activists keep pushing for lower and lower speed limts on our streets.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe fellow experienced riders and drivers make for better pedestrians.

Pedestrian safety has to be a joint effort between both parties...no point having some of them dart in and out of traffic, jaywalk when they know they wont be able to clear the street on time or attempt to fake run and then walk the remainder of the crosswalk when there are barely 5 seconds left on the timer.

Some of these people have the audacity to even give drivers/riders the stink eye, finger or murmer/hurl abuses if they feel threatened in any way lol.
All it takes is one driver who is having a bad day and....splat!

I don't disagree that drivers have an equally important role...but I cant help at times but feel that some people take advantage of this intentionally or unknowingly..
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom