The most important thing I learned in the experienced riders class was to keep your distance from the object in front of you. You will live longer not tail gating. I see riders everyday going down the interstate driving just like they do in their car. I've had 2 bad experiences that I was fortunate enough to live through that changed the way I ride, forever. Since then, I have avoided several possible life ending scenarios all because I was keeping my distance and thinking ahead. Training matters.
Yes, a serious problem Toddman and one that is so hard to break. I think the worst part of that is when you are that close you can't see the muffler, pothole, wooden skid, dead raccon that the car in front of you tire split until it spits out from under the car in front of you at 65 mph leaving no time for an avoidance manuever.
Friend of mine hit a truck rim like that one day and busted both wheels on his Vstrom 1000. he didn't go down, fortunately. He got to the side of the road and had to call for a tow though.
Everything you say is right Toddman and Ferret. There's also the question of consideration for the driver in front of you—something we complain a lot about car drivers not giving us motorcyclists when they eat and text. Being tailgated is the pits. There is nothing more irritating than looking in the mirror of your bike or car and seeing some idiot so close to you that, if you have to stop in a hurry, you know he or she will be straight into your rear end. 3 seconds behind the vehilcle in front of you is a good rule of thumb.
So, the concencus, at least on this forum, is that training is effective and useful. To go back to my original post:
Quote:The riders were put through a VicRide coaching program put together by the Monash University Accident Research Centre in conjunction with Honda Rider Training Australia (HART) and Learning Systems Analysis.
The on-road motorcycle rider coaching program involved pre-program activities, four hours of on-road riding and discussion in small groups with a riding coach.
Results were obtained from the riders reporting back to the researchers and crosschecked with police records of crashes and traffic offences. The Victorian study was carried out by university researchers Rebecca Ivers and Teresa Senserrick, whose results have just been released. In their report, they say there is no evidence that on-road coaching helped novice riders avoid crashes."
Monash University is regarded (by those that respect universities) as very well respected. [url=http://hart.honda.com.au/]HART is a well regarded motorcycle training organisation and [url=http://www.lsanalysis.com.au]Learning Systems Analysis, to quote from their website, "applies systematic procedures to the definition of training and training support requirements for major and minor capital projects. These procedures are based on US Military Standards such as MIL-STD-1388 Logistic Support Analysis and MIL‑STD‑1379D Military Training Programs, as well as modern theories and principles of instructional design. Experience in major projects includes Joint Strike Fighter, F/A18 Hornet, Airborne Early Warning and Control, Air Defence Ground Environments, Maritime Helicopters, and Undergraduate Military Aircrew Training" (whatever all that means).
So, if the report is wrong, how did they get it so wrong? Maybe Pete Erickson's post provides us with a clue; or Curlyjoe's, who tracked down the report and actually read it. Notice that " It [the report] was funded by the Victorian Government Motorcycle Safety Levy, paid by all state riders in their annual registration fee".
Riko, if iyo, this is a non-discussion I think that you have missed the point. The point is not so much about what you, or I, or other forum members think, but rather what road traffic authorities and legislators think when reports like this cross their desks. It may even have a bearing on what possibly is a very bleak future for those who enjoy riding motorcycles for pleasure. But that is a rant for another thread. Standby.
Cheers
The researchers found that given the parameters of their study, there is no evidence that the specific program helped newly-licensed riders avoid crashes. The study does not say that training causes overconfidence. That's an editorial assumption. The study does not say that the courses are harmful. The study does not address a multitude of other safety benefits. It only mentions accidents. The study does not apply to more advanced courses or to more experienced riders.
That said, the basic MSF courses in my part of Texas are a joke. But they get people licenses so they'll start riding. And that usually leads to more training through clubs from riders who actually know what they're doing.
Quote:Quote:...The on-road motorcycle rider coaching program involved pre-program activities, four hours of on-road riding and discussion in small groups with a riding coach.
... In their report, they say there is no evidence that on-road coaching helped novice riders avoid crashes." ...
So, if the report is wrong, how did they get it so wrong?
I'm convinced that the report is right. Talk is cheap and four hours of training is so little it is next to useless.
I compare what we are discussing with another "training industry" that established itself around here, so called "Avalanche Safety Courses". There is not one shred of evidence it made any difference in the safety of those venturing into the back-country on skis, yet it is these days considered a sine qua non for winter outdoor recreation enthusiasts. It is part and parcel of a promotional complex (equipment makers, tourist industry, "professional safety instructors", government agencies etc. etc,) that is doing it's best to increase, for their growth and profit, the numbers participating in sport, as quickly as possible. In the old days, critical skills required for this activity were picked up slowly, almost as if by osmosis, as a young novice joined numerous back-country ski trips in the company of those that had lots of experience and no monetary interest in doing any kind of formal training. Today, masses are convinced that all they need is hundreds of dollars worth of shiny gear and "four hours of training". Their numbers grow, and so do the yearly avalanche deaths in the Canadian Rockies.
How's that for a rant of an old man?
Roper, you make a good point. The motorcycle safety industry, if I may call it that, has a vested interest. HART, or a similar course, is a necessary step in the gaining of a MC licence in Australia. What about those who compile "studies" and "reports"? And those that commission and present those reports and studies to the public? Would they have a predisposition to an outcome? Maybe.
Cheers
In my opinion it's a big difference, if you start at an early age driving motorbikes or much later in life. In the first case growing up
riding "mofas" and than going on with the next steps, more ccm and hp, it somehow becomes second nature to ride a motorcycle.
Whenever I ride, I don't spend much thoughts on how to do it, mostly no thoughts at all, in any given situation.
But I always try to have an even unconscious awareness of what's going on around me all the time, wether I'm wide awake or sort of tired.
It'll take lots of miles and time to build this kind of "strength" in oneself and it should always be kept alive. This to me is the best training
and survival indicator. Motorbiking can be compared to a musician playing improvised jazz with an attitude of always be reacting.
It surely depends on in which kind of situations you find yourself in. The more road users are involved the more reaction may be needed.
Another aspect to avoid crashes is not to overestimate yourself and never underrate the power of your machine.
If you interested in pulling the most in terms of speed, acceleration out of e.g. the CB a "professional" training may help, though I've never
went to one or will do in future, 'cause this isn't the way I like to ride. But the training also may help the uncertain.
So, driving regular and not only for short times is the best advice I have. Your motorbike and the streets will teach you their kind of lessons
to develope positively written a nice flow, hopefully without getting damaged.
Wisedrum
Is there anything in the study that compares the accident severity of the trained versus untrained riders?
Is there anything in the study that compensates for the likely underreporting of accidents of untrained riders, at least some of whom are riding illegally?
Do we have any other studies to which we can refer comparing these same two groups further along in their riding careers?
Are untrained riders more likely to quit riding after their first accident than trained riders who may have more invested in the activity?
No one really needs to answer the above questions. They are submitted only to make the point that the study may not have compared enough data points to draw a fair conclusion about the benefits of training.
(05-26-2016, 08:50 PM)EmptySea_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Is there anything in the study that compares the accident severity of the trained versus untrained riders?
Is there anything in the study that compensates for the likely underreporting of accidents of untrained riders, at least some of whom are riding illegally?
Do we have any other studies to which we can refer comparing these same two groups further along in their riding careers?
Are untrained riders more likely to quit riding after their first accident than trained riders who may have more invested in the activity?
No one really needs to answer the above questions. They are submitted only to make the point that the study may not have compared enough data points to draw a fair conclusion about the benefits of training.
The link to the report is contained in this post:
http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread....#pid135019
Cheers