Dylan Antoniazzi, Sacha Dubois, Rupert Klein, Michel Bédard

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Motorcycle Brake Testing U.S. DOT/NHTSA George J. Soodoo February 2002.

Advertisements

Motorcycle Rider Braking Simulator Study of Motorcycle Rider Braking Behavior NHTSA-Honda 11/16/09 P. Rau.

Probabilistic Models of Motorcyclists' Injury Severities in Single- and Multi-vehicle Crashes Peter T. Savolainen, Ph.D. Wayne State University Fred Mannering,

Motorcycle Attitudinal Research 22 July Aim & Sample Structure Aims of research: – To explore the knowledge, attitudes and self-reported behaviour.

Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida Toward zero deaths: Who needs to do the heavy lifting? (Motorcycle Crash Trend in.

1 Hawaii Strategic Highway Safety Plan: MOTORCYCLE & MOPED Dan Galanis Injury Prevention and Control Program Hawaii Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl.

1 Motorcycle Safety & Laws Stewart Milner Chief Judge, City of Arlington.

Simple Logistic Regression

Socioeconomic Status and Smoking in Canada, : Has there been any progress on disparities in tobacco use? Jessica Reid, David Hammond, Pete Driezen.

Around the Globe Spring Road Fatalities Recent Trends (world wide) Population Motor vehicles.

DTC Quantitative Research Methods Three (or more) Variables: Extensions to Cross- tabular Analyses Thursday 13 th November 2014.

Trends in Detection Rates of Risky Marijuana Use in CO Healthcare Settings.

Computer in Education Jiaying Zhao CSE 610 Western Oregon University.

ANGELINA CAPORICCIO. MAIN POINTS  STATISTICS  WHY DRINKING AND DRIVING IS DANGEROUS  WHAT IS EFFECTS  CONSEQUENCE’S OF DRINKING AND DRIVING  SIGNS.

Correlates of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol in Adolescence A Secondary Data Analysis of the 1992 National Health Behavior Survey Presented at.

Diane Stockton Trend analysis. Introduction Why do we want to look at trends over time? –To see how things have changed What is the information used for?

Analysis of Real-World Data Static Stability Factor and the Risk of Rollover April 11, 2001.

2007 NHTSA ASSESSMENT WHAT IT CAN DO FOR YOU!. What is NHTSA? What is NHTSA? National Highway Transportation Safety Administration National Highway Transportation.

Safer Journeys: New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy to 2020 Chris Foley NEW ZEALAND.

1 Highway Venue. Injury Facts  2 Injury Data Highlights Injury Facts® 2011 Edition Injury Facts® 2011 Edition Most current data available – 2009, 2008,

® © 2011 National Safety Council Highway Venue. © 2011 National Safety Council 2 Highway Venue 212 million drivers (+1%) 255 million vehicles (+

Around the Globe Fall 2015.

The Examination of Residuals. Examination of Residuals The fitting of models to data is done using an iterative approach. The first step is to fit a simple.

Lab 5 instruction.  a collection of statistical methods to compare several groups according to their means on a quantitative response variable  Two-Way.

Examining Relationships in Quantitative Research

Total Fatalities in Drunk Driving Crashes Vehicle Miles Traveled Total Drunk-Driving Fatalities Down 49% Despite a 87% Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled.

NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics & Analysis 1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration What we Know about Impaired Driving March 22, 2006 What.

National Center for Statistics & Analysis People Saving People 28 th Annual Traffic Records Forum, Orlando, FL 1 Session 38 Alcohol Data In The Fatality.

University of Warwick, Department of Sociology, 2014/15 SO 201: SSAASS (Surveys and Statistics) (Richard Lampard) Week 7 Logistic Regression I.

Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists June 4, 2012 / Omaha, NE Leslie Seymour, MD, MPH Jon Roesler, MS Anna Gaichas, MS Mark Kinde, MPH Injury.

Vulnerable road users: Pedestrians & Motorcycle and bicycle riders.

Heart Disease Example Male residents age Two models examined A) independence 1)logit(╥) = α B) linear logit 1)logit(╥) = α + βx¡

Pedestrian Crash Briefing Aug 2008 NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics & Analysis 1 Author: Dow Chang NHTSA Technical.

Association between children’s blood lead levels, lead service lines, and use of chloramines for water disinfection in Washington DC, Jaime Raymond,

What Factors Influence Early Sexual Debut amongst Youth: Comparative Evidence from Nigeria and India ICASA 2011 Babatunde.O, Temitope.F, Imoisili.A, Alabi.F.

1 BUSI 6220 By Dr. Nick Evangelopoulos, © 2012 Brief overview of Linear Regression Models (Pre-MBA level)

Generalized Logit Model

Presented at CARSP Conference

Predictors of study retention in drug abuse treatment trials

Motion in Two Dimensions

When Using DOPPS Slides

Understanding the UK’s road safety performance

YEARS POLICY REPORT OVERVIEW young Europeans Acting for Road Safety

Michigan Comprehensive Crash Data Analysis

Factors in Traffic Fatality Fluctuations

Hsiao-ye Yi, Ph.D.;1 Ralph W. Hingson, Sc.D.;2

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings

Motorcycle Safety Facts (Illinois Data)

Regression Analysis Simple Linear Regression

Post-Materialism and Environmental Values in Developed vs

Implications and Future Research Research Subjects/Questions

Finding Answers through Data Collection

Prepared for the 2018 Maryland Highway Safety Summit

Enforcing Motorcycle Laws and Educating Riders

Theme 7 Correlation.

Nutrition Knowledge, Food Label Use, and Food Intake Patterns among Latinas with and without Type 2 Diabetes Nurgül Fitzgerald, PhD, RD: Rutgers Grace.

Scottish Health Survey What we know so far

The Role of Rider Education in Motorcycle Safety

Using Data to Improve Motorcycle Safety

Being physically abused Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)

SEXUAL RISK BEHAVIOR OF PLWHA IN THE WA MUNICIPALITY

Evaluating the Long Term Effects of Saskatchewan’s Legislation Banning the Use of Hand-held Cell Phones while Driving in Reducing Distracted-Driving Related.

Vehicle In Motion and Personal Contact

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Driver Education Programs and Implementing Effective Strategies The Nebraska Experience ADTSEA Conference 2018.

Limiting risks, protecting lives Choices for novice drivers and their passengers Prepared 22/12/08.

Mortality rate = No. of deaths * K

Further calculations on proxies and tracing rules

Journal reviews 이승호.

Share your thoughts on this presentation with #IAS2019

Presentation transcript:

Dylan Antoniazzi, Sacha Dubois, Rupert Klein, Michel Bédard Motorcyclist Crash Responsibility: The Effect of Driver Age and Motorcycle Displacement Dylan Antoniazzi, Sacha Dubois, Rupert Klein, Michel Bédard

Acknowledgments A quick thank-you to the project co-authors for their collaborative efforts Andrew Wheeler for his blog posts detailing the Graphics Processing Language in SPSS The organizations below for their support

Introduction In the USA, between 1980 to 2013: Fatalities of riders under 29 have fallen from 73% of all fatalities to 27% Fatalities of riders over 50 have risen from 3% to 34% (NHTSA, 2015) This shift in fatality proportions is partly due to the aging population

Introduction A motorcycle’s power can be measured by its displacement Typically specified in cubic centimeters (CCs) The higher the engine CCs the more powerful the motorcycle resulting in greater acceleration and speed Motorcycle Type Typical Displacement (CCs) Standard 250 Sport 500-1000 Touring 1000+

Research Question To examine the effect of displacement on fatal crash responsibility while considering motorcyclists’ age

Data Source Fatality Analysis Reporting System Information on ALL fatal crashes in the USA since 1975 Contains detailed information on environmental, vehicular and motorcyclist-related factors

Design Employed a case-control design Cases had committed one or more Unsafe Motorcyclist Action (UMA), our proxy measure of crash responsibility Examples of UMAs include: Speeding, Weaving Controls did not commit an UMA

Inclusion Criteria Not Impaired by alcohol or drugs: Sex: Alcohol and drug data first captured in 1987 To rule out alcohol and drugs, we used data from 1987 through 2009 Sex: Given ~97% of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were male, we excluded females

Analyses Employed binary logistic regression to examine crash responsibility by motorcycle displacement and motorcyclist's age

Logistic Regression: Independent crash contributors Displacement Measured in CCs Examined displacement in 250 CC increments up to 1500 CCs Age Measured in years Examined age in 10 year increments up to age 70

Logistic Regression: Design Dependent variable: Responsibility Either any UMA or one of the top three UMAs Independent variable: Both linear and quadratic terms for Age and Displacement (e.g., Age and Age2) Interaction between Age and Displacement

RESULTS

CONSORT FLOW DIAGRAM MC riders involved in a fatal crash between 1987-2009 (n=78,006) Confirmed BAC of Zero (n=27,777) Confirmed drug negative (n=13,813) Male Riders (n=13,293)

Top Unsafe Motorcycle Actions 35% (4,669) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 395 (5,229) No UMAs

Top Unsafe Motorcycle Actions 35% (4,669) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

SPEEDING LOGISTIC REGRESSION

Top Unsafe Motorcycle Actions 35% (4,669) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Speeding 35% (4,669) 22% (2,957) 7% (910) 61% (8,064) 39% (5,229) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Speeding For Speeding we see that displacement has an inverted J-Shape for ages 20 - 60 That is the highest odds ratios of any UMA by age are typically seen at 750-1000 CCs And the lowest odds ratios are seen at the 1500 CC level Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Riders aged 20-60 had increased odds of committing a Speeding UMA for CCs 500-1250 compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles For these riders, increased odds are not present at 1500 CCs Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding However, by age 70 we see a more linear shape Riders aged 70 had increased odds of committing a Speeding UMA for 1500 CCs motorcycles compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles At lower CCs (≤ 1250), increased odds are not statistically significant Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Age 20 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.68 (1.48; 1.92) 750 2.15 (1.76; 2.63) 1000 2.08 (1.65; 2.62) 1250 1.53 (1.17; 2.01) 1500 0.85 (0.57; 1.27) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Age 30 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.74 (1.52; 1.98) 750 2.25 (1.82; 2.78) 1000 2.17 (1.70; 2.76) 1250 1.56 (1.23; 1.98) 1500 0.84 (0.65; 1.07) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Age 40 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.71 (1.45; 2.03) 750 2.22 (1.69; 2.93) 1000 2.18 (1.58; 3.01) 1250 1.63 (1.18; 2.23) 1500 0.92 (0.68; 1.22) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Age 50 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.62 (1.35; 1.95) 750 2.09 (1.54; 2.82) 1000 2.13 (1.49; 3.05) 1250 1.73 (1.21; 2.49) 1500 1.12 (0.80; 1.57) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Age 60 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.47 (1.16; 1.85) 750 1.85 (1.26; 2.72) 1000 2.01 (1.27; 3.21) 1250 1.89 (1.17; 3.05) 1500 1.53 (0.96; 2.41) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Speeding Age 70 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.27 (0.87; 1.86) 750 1.56 (0.83; 2.93) 1000 1.84 (0.86; 3.95) 1250 2.11 (0.95; 4.67) 1500 2.32 (1.06; 5.08) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.43 (0.27-0.68) 1.10 (0.99-1.23) 1.21 (1.15-1.27) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.97-1.08) (0.98-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

WEAVING LOGISTIC REGRESSION

Top Unsafe Motorcycle Actions 35% (4,669) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Weaving 35% (4,669) 22% (2,957) 7% (910) 61% (8,064) 39% (5,229) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Weaving For Weaving we see that displacement has an inverted U-Shape However the curve tends to become linear as age increases Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Riders aged 20-50 had increased odds of committing the Weaving UMA for motorcycles with 500 – 750 CCs compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Further, riders aged 20-40 had reduced odds of the Weaving UMA with 1500 CC motorcycles compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving By age 60, the displacement curve starts to take on a more linear shape However odds of committing a Weaving UMA were not significantly increased at all CC levels compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Age 20 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.32 (1.14; 1.53) 750 1.41 (1.13; 1.75) 1000 1.20 (0.93; 1.55) 1250 0.83 (0.61; 1.13) 1500 0.46 (0.29; 0.73) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Age 30 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.29 (1.13; 1.47) 750 1.38 (1.12; 1.71) 1000 1.25 (0.98; 1.58) 1250 0.94 (0.73; 1.20) 1500 0.59 (0.45; 0.78) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Age 40 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.25 (1.07; 1.47) 750 1.36 (1.05; 1.76) 1000 1.29 (0.95; 1.75) 1250 1.06 (0.78; 1.44) 1500 0.76 (0.57; 1.01) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Age 50 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.21 (1.03; 1.43) 750 1.34 (1.02; 1.75) 1000 1.33 (0.96; 1.83) 1250 1.20 (0.86; 1.66) 1500 0.98 (0.72; 1.34) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Age 60 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.18 (0.99; 1.41) 750 1.31 (0.98; 1.76) 1000 1.37 (0.96; 1.96) 1250 1.35 (0.94; 1.95) 1500 1.26 (0.88; 1.80) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

Weaving Age 70 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.14 (0.86; 1.52) 750 1.28 (0.81; 2.04) 1000 1.41 (0.82; 2.45) 1250 1.52 (0.86; 2.69) 1500 1.61 (0.90; 2.88) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.62 (0.40-0.96) 1.07 (0.97-1.18) 1.13 (1.07-1.19) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) (1.00-1.00)

ERRACTIC OR RECKLESS RIDING LOGISTIC REGRESSION

Top Unsafe Motorcycle Actions 35% (4,669) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Erratic Riding 35% (4,669) 22% (2,957) 7% (910) 61% (8,064) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Erratic Riding For Erratic Riding we see that displacement has a curvilinear shape Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Riders aged 20-40 had increased odds of committing the Weaving UMA for CCs 500 – 1250 compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Riders aged 20-40 had increased odds of committing the Weaving UMA for CCs 500 – 1250 compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Riders age 50 have a similar pattern Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding By age 60 the effect of displacement is lost Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Age 20 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.45 (1.19; 1.78) 750 1.82 (1.34; 2.47) 1000 1.96 (1.38; 2.77) 1250 1.81 (1.18; 2.77) 1500 1.44 (0.76; 2.74) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Age 30 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.82 (1.43; 2.31) 750 2.51 (1.71; 3.69) 1000 2.64 (1.70; 4.08) 1250 2.10 (1.37; 3.23) 1500 1.27 (0.83; 1.95) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Age 40 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.92 (1.40; 2.63) 750 2.69 (1.61; 4.50) 1000 2.77 (1.52; 5.04) 1250 2.08 (1.15; 3.77) 1500 1.15 (0.66; 1.99) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Age 50 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.71 (1.21; 2.41) 750 2.24 (1.28; 3.93) 1000 2.26 (1.16; 4.40) 1250 1.76 (0.90; 3.44) 1500 1.06 (0.56; 1.99) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Age 60 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.28 (0.88; 1.86) 750 1.45 (0.79; 2.66) 1000 1.44 (0.70; 2.97) 1250 1.27 (0.61; 2.65) 1500 0.99 (0.48; 2.05) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Erratic Riding Age 70 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 0.81 (0.49; 1.36) 750 0.73 (0.32; 1.66) 1000 0.72 (0.27; 1.89) 1250 0.78 (0.28; 2.15) 1500 0.94 (0.31; 2.82) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.20 (0.10-0.41) 1.34 (1.15-1.55) 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.12 (1.03-1.22) 0.97 (0.95-0.99) (0.99-0.99) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

ANY UMA LOGISTIC REGRESSION

Top Unsafe Motorcycle Actions 35% (4,669) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Any UMA 35% (4,669) 22% (2,957) 7% (910) 61% (8,064) 39% (5,229) Speeding 22% (2,957) Weaving 7% (910) Erratic Behavior 61% (8,064) Any UMA 39% (5,229) No UMAs

Any UMA For Any UMA we see the now familiar curvilinear effect of displacement, especially for lower aged riders Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Riders aged 20-40 had increased odds of committing any UMA for motorcycles with 500 – 1000 CCs compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Further, riders age 30-40 had reduced odds of committing any UMA for 1500 CC motorcycles compared to equivalent aged riders of 250 CC motorcycles Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Riders aged 50 had similar but weaker increased odds at 500-750 CCs For these riders, increased odds do not remain at 1000 CCs Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA At age 70 displacement takes on a linear effect While odds increase by displacement this is not statistically significant Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Age 20 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.19 (1.07; 1.33) 750 1.27 (1.08; 1.50) 1000 1.21 (1.00; 1.46) 1250 1.03 (0.81; 1.30) 1500 0.78 (0.55; 1.10) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Age 30 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.23 (1.12; 1.35) 750 1.32 (1.14; 1.54) 1000 1.25 (1.05; 1.49) 1250 1.04 (0.87; 1.24) 1500 0.75 (0.62; 0.92) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Age 40 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.22 (1.09; 1.37) 750 1.32 (1.10; 1.59) 1000 1.26 (1.01; 1.56) 1250 1.06 (0.85; 1.32) 1500 0.79 (0.64; 0.97) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Age 50 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.18 (1.05; 1.33) 750 1.27 (1.05; 1.54) 1000 1.24 (0.98; 1.56) 1250 1.10 (0.87; 1.39) 1500 0.88 (0.70; 1.11) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Age 60 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.11 (0.98; 1.25) 750 1.17 (0.95; 1.44) 1000 1.19 (0.92; 1.52) 1250 1.15 (0.89; 1.49) 1500 1.07 (0.83; 1.38) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Any UMA Age 70 CCs Odds Ratio (95% CI) 250 1.00 (1.00; 1.00) 500 1.01 (0.83; 1.22) 750 1.04 (0.76; 1.43) 1000 1.11 (0.76; 1.61) 1250 1.22 (0.83; 1.80) 1500 1.38 (0.92; 2.09) Age Age2 CC CC2 Age*CC Age2*CC Age*CC2 Age2*CC2 0.48 (0.35-0.65) 1.12 (1.05-1.19) 1.07 (1.03-1.12) 0.99 (0.99–0.99) 1.02 (0.98-1.06) (0.98-1.00) (0.99-1.00) 1.00 (1.00-1.00)

Implications Given these results education and legislative measures should be considered For example, develop training interventions focusing on control, stability, and breaking differences given the vehicle’s greater weight and power

Implications Legislatively, licensing tiers could be employed based on displacement and educational requirements Both education and legislative measures could curb the trend seen between higher levels of displacement and crash responsibility

Contact Info Mr Dylan Antoniazzi dantonia@lakeheadu.ca Mr Sacha Dubois duboiss@tbh.net Dr Rupert Klein rgklein@lakeheadu.ca Dr Michel Bédard mbedard@lakeheadu.ca