05-26-2016, 03:36 PM
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?
... 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?