While I don't disagree with the general direction of the findings
Originally Posted by gfloyd2002
No. Seems pretty one sided in favor of wearing gear to me. There are numerous studies that support the fact that wearing gear significantly reduces risk of serious injury. Here is but one of many results (this one from the George Institute Study): Motorcyclists were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital if they crashed wearing motorcycle jackets (RR=0.79), pants (RR=0.49), or gloves (RR=0.41). When garments included fitted body armour there was a significantly reduced risk of injury to the upper body (RR=0.77), hands and wrists (RR=0.55), legs (RR = 0.60), feet and ankles (RR=0.54). Non-motorcycle boots were also associated with a reduced risk of injury compared to shoes or joggers (RR=0.46). (RR is the relative risk ratio, showing the percentage of risk of one group over another, so a RR of less than one means something is less likely to occur by a certain percentage). Another study also looked at the role of protective gear in reducing serious injury. The MAIDS study found that: In 74% of the cases the upper injuries were reduced or prevented by upper torso clothing. For lower extremity injuries, gear reduced or prevented 66.3% of injuries.
, I find the design of the MAIDS report problematic. 2000 variables for 921 cases is in particular the beginnings of craptastic research design. The bulk of the sample was scooters, too, which probably biases the results.
Also: "Due to the absence of comparable exposure data, it was not possible to determine if any month, day of the week or time of the day was a risk factor."
This makes me wonder if they used any other forms of exposure (think: miles per year ridden), which tends to be necessary in hazard/survival modeling, as obviously someone who rides 5x more than someone else has more risk of accident (more opportunities).
This is unfortunate, because better methods exist in social demography, and accidents are exactly the sort of outcome that social demographers look at. I am not a social demographer, but even I can see these issues. One of the pitfalls of skipping the peer review process, though.
I hope these guys at least crack a methods textbook once: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfh...S/overview.cfm