Young Riders

Something that concerned me when I did my Das course a couple of years ago was the moped riders doing their CBT without any road rules knowledge. From memory I think they didnt have to have basic road knowledge just a CBT to ride on the roads. Anyway it freaked me out at the time when i realised all these young riders are racing about on the roads with little understanding of the rules.

Now i was just reading through some stats (trying to work out the ratio of male/female riders in the UK - SVs for girls comparison) and found that 57% of Moped riders that died in 2003 were between the age of 16 - 19. I dont know why they dont insist new riders learn road rules before riding!

The other interesting one is that deaths and accidents on motorcylces are greater at the age of 30-39 (around 30% of the total). Interesting the insurance companies tend to charge higher if you are a younger rider...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ats_032250.pdf - page 29

Still didnt work out the ratio of male/female riders in the UK either

If you look at the trend over the past twenty years it is actually dropping.

When I was 16 (1986) I bought a moped and rode it home.
Although I did know the highway code as my Mum made me read first, also I had a bit of road sense from doing my cycling proficiency at school (do they still do that ?)
Wouldn't hurt to put a bit of road thery into the old CBT though. Write a letter to VOSA or the DLA suggesting it.

Basic "road sense" is part of the DAS, but my boy says he learnt quite a bit from being on the back of my bike. Road position, what to look out for basic hazard perception etc.

It's that last one that worries me. Young people have less fear, so they are less likely to think of any hazards in a given situation... And more likely to put themselves in a position which is hazardous to them.

.

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

As far the the deaths from people in their 30's, I expect a lot of that can be attributed to born-again bikers.

Yes, but that doesnt explain why they have lower insurance quotes.

My theory is it's because born again bikers crash because although they have road sense they are unfamiliar with modern machines. Young riders crash because although they are more familiar with modern machines they lack road sense. Result is born agains are more likely to missjudge a bend and crash by them selves. Young riders are more likely to missjudge traffic and become hood ornaments, which means damaging another vehicle, greater expense for the insurance company and higher premiums.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Yes, but that doesnt explain why they have lower insurance quotes.

My theory is it's because born again bikers crash because although they have road sense they are unfamiliar with modern machines. Young riders crash because although they are more familiar with modern machines they lack road sense. Result is born agains are more likely to missjudge a bend and crash by them selves. Young riders are more likely to missjudge traffic and become hood ornaments, which means damaging another vehicle, greater expense for the insurance company and higher premiums.

I just noticed on the stats at the bottom of that page. Check out back in the early 90's it was the younger drivers that were higher in the accident rates - 10 years on and the accident rates have moved into their 30's. Basically the same group of people then as now... at this rate we'll all on the endangered bikers list by 50

But it looks like insurance companies havent picked up on this and are still charging based on old figures.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Result is born agains are more likely to missjudge a bend and crash by them selves

[northwind]

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

Lots of young people ride mopeds, which will go some way to explaining the high percentage you've given there.

Bingo. Fun with statistics, basically, it's not meaningful. In fact, I suspect that you'll find that more than 53% of all moped riders are in that age bracket, which would make them statistically safer than all the mods No actual factual basis for this suspicion, but it seems reasonable.

I reckon you should have to do the theory test before CBT. Then, i also reckon it should be illegal to work in delivey or dispatch without a full licence.

Originally Posted by Gmonsta

But it looks like insurance companies havent picked up on this and are still charging based on old figures.

Yes, they're not actually particularly clever when it comes to statistical analysis, in spite of what they may claim. For example, whilst women car drivers (not sure if it applies to bikes) are safer drivers, when they start out at 17, their safety improves only a negligible amount over their whole driving careers; to all intents and purposes, it stays the same.

However, men start out much worse, but get better and better each year of age/experience; at age 25 they "break even" with women. After that, they get better and better and continue to get progressively more safe until they peak at around 55 years old and then decline (as do women) due to deteriorating eye sight and hearing, slowed reactions, reluctance to learn/take on board changes in the roads, etc.

So, for most of their lives, it's men who are safer drivers; it's just that young men are so dangerous that they wildly skew the statistics and for some bizarre reason, some insurers use this to justify offering better rates to a woman in, say, her 40s, rather than a man of the same age, even though the man is statistically less of a risk.

There's also the fact of wildly differing insurance quotes for the exact same package, rider, bike, area. For example, why can I get insured with one (whose service has been exemplary and they haven't conducted themselves in a "budget" manner in any way) for £250 and another offers £650 (still not high enough to be a "we don't want to insure you" quote). The only explanation for such wild discrepencies (£50-100 could be attributed to quality of service, varying profit margins, slightly different risk analysis models), is that there isn't anywhere near as much "science" in the quotes as they make out. Otherwise, the quotes from various companies would be much of a muchness. So, the only explanation is either:
a) Some of them are absolute crooks; charging double or even treble what is neccessary to make a reasonable profit, and getting away with it purely because insurance is a legal requirement.
or,
b) Their statistical analysis is pretty skewif and they largely pick numbers out of the air.

I could go on and on.

Originally Posted by northwind

I reckon you should have to do the theory test before CBT. Then, i also reckon it should be illegal to work in delivey or dispatch without a full licence.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

Seriously though, I would really like to see the maths behind their calculations, it would be quite interesting.

When pressed for that, they always hide behind, "Well, we can't show that, because otherwise people would work out what to say to get lower premiums." For example, one of the insurers is now looking at previously unasked things, such as where you get your bike serviced, to make the quote more accurate, but won't give away the specifics for fear of people manipulating it to get lower quotes.

I don't buy into that defense/reasoning at all; People have been well aware of the fact for years, that garaging your bike lowers the premiums, yet by and large, people don't lie about it. This is because they know full well if the bike is nicked and they come and look and say, "you haven't got a garage", the claim is invalid. This is exactly the same; if people lied to lower their premium, based on seeing the risk calculation maths, they'd be similarly be left out to dry in the event of a claim when they were found out.

So, that leaves one plausible explanation; the maths behind their calculations is so flawed that they would get drawn into lengthy discussions with and customer with even a rudimentary understanding of probability.