Topic: 84 year old Honda rider...

[toycollector10]

I ride out with the Christchurch Japanese Classics Group here in New Zealand on every fourth Sunday of the month, weather permitting. Our oldest rider, Dave Dixon, has had to retire because his Black Bombers' gearbox has sh*t itself.

Do you want to be riding when you are in your 80's?   How would it feel?  Dave always took off about 10 or 20 minutes before the rest of us because he never wanted to exceed about 50 MPH. We always caught him before the next cafe or pub. His wife was fully supportive of his outings with us. What a couple of troopers!

The question is, how do we honour this man without making it look like charity and offending him? I have no idea about his financial situation.  We could have a 'whip around' for repairs but he must keep his self respect and it wouldn't be right.

Amongst us we have a certain degree of technical savvy but I don't think enough to diagnose let alone fix his bike up.

Do any of you guys have any ideas on how we can honour the man without making it look like charity or pity???  Which it isn't!

[clarkjh]

Turn it into a BBQ/repair get together.  You start with the BBQ then just "While we're here, lets take a look at the tranny"

James

[bryanj]

If you need a manual, give me a bit of time and I will scan you the genuine Honda one i have to CD

[Tower]

Come right out and say the event is in his honour.  Words are cheap, so you all felt the need to repay him in a more tangible way, for his inspiration and continued support of your club.  A trophy is a nice added touch to make the point clear.

[OldSchool_IsCool]

Maybe parts donations from the members preceding the BBQ?  Of course, we'll need to know which parts are needed.  Those of us who don't have a stash of parts or can't make it to the BBQ to turn wrenches could kick in funds for shipping and/or purchased parts and/or BBQ supplies.  Can the moderators set up a special donation account here?

As for honoring him, perhaps as the first inductee to the SOHC/4 "Hall of Fame" forum, moderator controlled with members nominating and voting.

[mcpuffett]

Hell yeah i want to be riding my bikes when i'm in my 80's if i can still do it , as for helping your friend , same as everybody else says just do it  ,  cheers mick.

[jdpas29]

Turn it into a BBQ/repair get together.  You start with the BBQ then just "While we're here, lets take a look at the tranny"

James

BWAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!  i like this idea....  "hey how'd you like a pork rib and some beers?"  then after he's had a few, break out the tools and just start dismantling his bike!!!   8D

[jonbuoy]

How about he helps out another  member with a spare bike that needs a good run to keep the battery topped up/clear the cobwebs out?

[edbikerii]

Maybe at 84 he realizes that it's about time he got himself off the public highways.  Sure it sounds all romantic and blah blah blah, but the fact is he's really way too old to be driving or riding around on public roads.

Does he wear one hearing aide or two?  What's his eyesight like?  How are his reaction times?  Could he pass a skills test today?

Maybe fix his bike for him as a token, contingent upon him donating it to a museum or something.  Better yet, just give him a commemorative plaque or something and let his bike rest in peace.

[oldbiker]

To Edbikerii-
I'm 79 in a few weeks time.  Meet me at any road race circuit in the UK and I'll give you one lap start in ten.
I think your comments were un-thinking and un-necessary.
Old Biker.

[toycollector10]

edbikerii or whatever you call yourself.

I see your age is N/A in your profile.

My guess is you that are some little punk who doesn't think he is ever going to get old. If you get lucky, you will.

In the meantime, grow the f*ck up!

[edbikerii]

I'm 38 years old.  When I was 20 I was hit (in my car) by an 86 year old man who had two hearing aides and coke-bottle glasses and should not have been driving on any public road.  I sustained a broken pelvis and was in traction for 6 weeks, out of work for 3 months.  He should have been old enough to know better, but his ego prevented him from realizing the natural limitations that we are ALL subject to.

I sure hope that you "old guys" out there actually are as fit to ride as you THINK you are, but I seriously doubt it.   How about putting your money where your mouth is?  Why not take yourself a fresh MSF course, and see if you really can pass the riding skills test?  Who's that going to hurt?  They can't take away your license, and you might actually learn something.

Yeah, it might be tough for us all to face the realities of aging, but the lives we save may be our great-grandchildren's.

[siter81]

Wow!









Siter81     

[edbikerii]

BTW, lest anyone think I'm just picking on old folks, I'd like to state for the record that mandatory periodic re-testing is a good idea for ALL drivers and riders, not just those over some semi-arbitrary age limit.

Here in the U.S., the licensing system is ridiculously lenient, and downright dangerous, allowing millions of dangerous, under-qualified drivers loose on the roads.

Periodic re-testing would ensure that people take driving more seriously.  It would ensure that drivers brush up on their skills periodically, too.  Periodic re-testing would also disqualify people whose eyesight, hearing, reaction times, etc. have deteriorated past the point that they can be safe drivers.

[Bob Wessner]

I qualify as one of the old farts here abouts. This would be hard to argue against. However, if some form of retesting is initiated, I think it should include retesting of some of the "young'ns" with their Ipods and cell phones turned on, and in use, to see how many of them pass.

[Master Ted]

"Too old to drive" is a real delimina... We all know some old folks are good to go and some are flat out dangerous. In Oregon Doctors are loaded with yet one more responsibility by being required to notify DMV their patient's license s/b pulled.

 

[edbikerii]

Re-testing eliminates the dilemma.  If the driver can drive safely, regardless of age, they pass.  If they can't drive safely, they fail.

It really can be as simple, and fair, as that.

Of course, some will argue that more frequent testing would cost too much.  The reality is that it would cost much less in long-term care for the victims of the accidents that would be prevented.  Insurance premiums and payouts would be lower, disability insurance payouts and premiums would be lower, Social Security Disability payouts and premiums would be lower, etc. etc.  If drivers had to pay maybe $50 more every two years for a 20 minute skills test, in exchange for much lower costs all-around, fewer highway fatalities, fewer people crippled or disfigured in car accidents, lower long-term care costs, etc., then we'd have a win-win.

Hey, even better, make it voluntary.  Offer drivers a discount on insurance if they pass periodic skills tests.  See how many people take advantage of it, and see how well the program works.  If a driver can't pass a simple driving skills test every couple of years, he should at least be paying higher insurance premiums, anyway.

I'd love to hear any logical arguments against such a system.

"Too old to drive" is a real delimina... We all know some old folks are good to go and some are flat out dangerous. In Oregon Doctors are loaded with yet one more responsibility by being required to notify DMV their patient's license s/b pulled.

[eldar]

Dont worry ed, we will all make sure you are first in line for re-testing. Just cause 1 old person hit you does not mean the rest drive bad. I would have to be pretty sure old biker could bury you on the track. As  iam sure there are a lot of old bikers out there that could. Sure reflexes slow, but he also drives slower to compensate. Or maybe he just drives slower now to better appreciate the scenery.  Hey when I was 19 I was hit by a woman driver, I was NOT my car. I was standing in front of my car hooking a charger up so I could run my rc car. She backed up and hit my legs. Does this mean that all women are bad drivers? nope, many are damn good.  but I DO agree that everyone should get retested every time they renew their license.

But answer this, if the person that hit you was your age, would you still hold this animosity towards older drivers?

[edbikerii]

So, what are you trying to say?  You say you disagree, then you say you agree, but then maybe you don't?

You are just an instigator, and I don't have the time for that crap.

Dont worry ed, we will all make sure you are first in line for re-testing. Just cause 1 old person hit you does not mean the rest drive bad. I would have to be pretty sure old biker could bury you on the track. As  iam sure there are a lot of old bikers out there that could. Sure reflexes slow, but he also drives slower to compensate. Or maybe he just drives slower now to better appreciate the scenery.  Hey when I was 19 I was hit by a woman driver, I was NOT my car. I was standing in front of my car hooking a charger up so I could run my rc car. She backed up and hit my legs. Does this mean that all women are bad drivers? nope, many are damn good.  but I DO agree that everyone should get retested every time they renew their license.

But answer this, if the person that hit you was your age, would you still hold this animosity towards older drivers?

[TwoTired]

Just because a person can drive safely does not mean they will drive safely.  This is why young drivers insurance rates are higher.  And, why frequent testing will have little impact on actual highway safety.

Far more accidents are caused by drivers that can drive but don't, than those that simply can't drive.

What recurrent testing will do is create a new agency/industry/bureaucracy and tax sinkhole for the government with very little populace benefit...

But, it will feel good for those few that benefit.

Ready to pay up?

[edbikerii]

Well, TT, young driver's accident and insurance rates are higher for various reasons, but most obviously because of their relative inexperience.  They have not yet developed the ability to predict how other drivers will react, to judge how many feet it will take to stop a vehicle in various weather conditions, etc.  So they do tend to have more accidents ON AVERAGE.  Perhaps testing should actually attempt to test these skills in addition to the purely mechanical processes of parallel parking, etc.

I agree that there is also impulsive behavior that makes young drivers somewhat more likely (on average) to have accidents.  This is currently reflected in the ridiculously high rates that younger drivers pay in insurance.  Can you think of a way to test for this?  I have some difficulty coming up with a way to measure this, but I think it is critical in identifying poor drivers OF ALL AGES.  This is also the reason why married men pay less for insurance than single men, why women pay less than men, why whites pay less than minorities, why people with good credit histories pay less than those with bad credit, etc.  Of course, without a way to measure, these assessments are ALL discriminatory and there are exceptions in every group.

Overall, however, I have to disagree with your assumption that testing will not improve safety.  You aren't presenting any statistical evidence to back that up.  I need only point to Germany where the driver education and testing is much more stringent, and they have much lower fatality rates, and much higher speed limits.

Yes, the increased bureacracy does concern me, but I feel that the overall cost reduction to everyone might be greater.  Are there any Germans reading this who have experience with their more stringent testing and its effects on safety?

Just because a person can drive safely does not mean they will drive safely.  This is why young drivers insurance rates are higher.  And, why frequent testing will have little impact on actual highway safety.

Far more accidents are caused by drivers that can drive but don't, than those that simply can't drive.

What recurrent testing will do is create a new agency/industry/bureaucracy and tax sinkhole for the government with very little populace benefit...

But, it will feel good for those few that benefit.

Ready to pay up?

[antiq]

Overall, however, I have to disagree with your assumption that testing will not improve safety.  You aren't presenting any statistical evidence to back that up.  I need only point to Germany where the driver education and testing is much more stringent, and they have much lower fatality rates, and much higher speed limits.

Yes, the increased bureacracy does concern me, but I feel that the overall cost reduction to everyone might be greater.  Are there any Germans reading this who have experience with their more stringent testing and its effects on safety?
 
Yes the german drivers education is much more involved and MUCH more expensive. But once issued that license is for a LIFETIME. There are no requirements to renew or retest EVER. I drove there for twelve years. My wife was born there. Every  traffic infraction is a felony there are no misdemeanors I'm aware of. You run out of gas you get a very stiff fine because proffesional drivers know how much gas is in the vehicle. You mention lower fatality rates I'd like to see the actual figures. Are you thinking that X number accidents per country are comparible? Germany isn't much bigger than Texas.

I'm 50 years old and just recently passed the skills testing and put the motorcycle endorsement back on my license. I'm constantly frustrated by idiots half my age trying to sneak up on a highway, IT ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE! They try to merge into traffic going 65mph on the highway and they are going 45 or 50mph on the on ramp! Age has nothing to do with ability. What is actually the controlling component in Germany are the very strict laws and a distinct lack of concern for police brutality.

Okay that said I agree with the BBQ & repair get together. In the meantime I think it's an inspiration to ask the old guy to exercise a members spare bike that's been neglected a bit. The old guy has obviously earned a great deal of respect and admiration from his club. Who are we? Any of us to disrespect this man in any way? I say honor him with a plaque, a BBQ, and get his bike fixed.

[TwoTired]

A brief search founds this:
http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed51/51073.pdf
It's an old study.  But, it does have an age group/accident correlation.
The problem with all statistics is their interpretation bias, collection bias, and mathematical manipulation of the data. 
While I haven't made a detailed analysis of the data, at first blush it does not seem to support your assertion that elderly drivers contribute a higher rate of accidents than any other age group.  In fact, it seems the contrary is true.

I will certainly agree that getting a DL (Driver's License) is far too easy to obtain and only requires a very minimum skill set.  This skill set is expanded afterwards in only a very small population after initial issuance of the DL.  Probably the most effective way to reduce accidents would be to make the initial DL test much more stringent and actually test proficiency rather than, can they breathe and pay the fee.

People tend to fall back on their training in reactive situations and DL training does not require performance demonstration or practice in emergency situations.  Most extreme performance training is obtained by the DL holder just before the crunch. I'd consider that poor practice.

I do note you are suggesting increased scrutiny on a group of persons of which you are not a part.  The laws-for-someone-else-syndrome I call it.
Rather than going after a specific age group based on your personal test case of one, and in order have the largest impact on accident statistics in all age groups, make the demonstrable proficiency of the entire DL population higher.  How about doing a 4 wheel skid recovery? Or, control of vehicle under maximum braking effort?  Or, a high speed chicane?
These kind of skills are likely to be needed just prior to an accident event, and proficiency of the skills could minimize or avoid the accident itself.

In essence, I feel your scrutiny on a very small population of accident contributors is driven more by revenge than actual concern about the overall accident rate.  If you want the most bang for your buck, don't fix the corner cases, apply a fix to the entire population.

My $0.02  FWIW

Cheers,

[donny]

  South Dakota has a "family farm" law...if a farmer wipes out 5 bikers with her truck,  estates can only receive $100,000 total, from the killer. To protect the family farm. Not counting what insurance pays. (I think).

[eldar]

Oh yes ed  I am such an instigator. Get over yourself and stop acting like you are the victim all the time. Required testing should be done but to everyone. Are you so sure you would pass? It is usually those who figure they will breeze through that end up being the worst offenders.

Another thing you fail to realize or do not bother to is that many older driver NEVER were tested. Decades ago there was no test. You got behind the wheel and went. Even my father's group had minimal testing. "Here drive around this block. If you do not hit anything, you pass." and that is all there was.

All the testing in the world will not stop accidents but looking out for your own ass will certainly help. It is called driving defensively, look into it as you clearly feel everyone should look out for you. I watch out for my ass and it has saved me from many accidents where others were not paying attention. I also find some of the biggest offenders are in the upper 30-40s range as they feel they own the road and have no respect for anyone else.

Well whatever ed, as you have shown many times, even when you are wrong, you do not care. You just attack and feel you are right no matter what anyone says. Arguing with you is like trying to handle an insane person using logic. Have a nice day.