Motorcycle Training. Help or Hazard?

[Rebel73_imp]

I just don't see how learning the fundamentals can in any way be detrimental. That makes no sense. Who's more likely to survive out on the streets? Someone who knows what counter-steering is and how it works or someone who doesn't? Someone who knows the basics of braking, lane positioning, and safety gear? Both feet on pegs as soon as the bike starts moving. Apply both brakes when coming to a stop. Feather the rear brake to stabilize bike in slow speed maneuvers. Etc etc.

The beginner rider courses are intended to teach the fundamentals so that new riders practice CORRECTLY and avoid developing bad habits from the get-go. No one but an idiot would believe that several hours in a parking lot will make one a proficient rider. Anyone who believes that probably shouldn't be on a bike to begin with. That kind of false confidence can prove deadly.

[rboe]

What makes more sense; learning to ride in a controlled environment where folks teach you things you didn't know you didn't know or tossed out into the real world where suddenly you are expected to know what to do and do it correctly the first time or else?

We don't push drivers ed in Arizona and it shows on the streets here. Alas, they did back in Minnesota, it seems bad habits still tend to win out.

[Gsnyder70_imp]

I took a beginner's class last year, and it was terrifying how many had know idea what they were doing.In a class of 20, 5 or so couldn't even ride; they were sent off after day one. Only about 7-8 of us passed both written and riding tests. I ridden before but only off road. There were peeps who just decided they wanted to ride without knowing anything about motorcycles. In class, they taught just enough to pass the skills test, which is no substitute for real practice. The experience made me leery.

[Cormanus]

I finally got around to reading through the research paper. I didn't understand some of the technical statistical stuff—sadly, numbers do my head in—but what I suspect can be taken from the work is that motorcycle ride training is a benefit in the period immediately after it's been taken. Over time, it appear, on-road experience means that skill levels equalise and the apparent difference between trained and untrained riders disappears.

Without any evidence, that's kind of what I would expect and gels with the work on drivers I mentioned earlier which suggests that the 3-6 months after getting a licence that allows a person to drive alone is a high risk period. The old adage that 'there's no substitute for experience' seems to hold good.

Taken together, the upshot of the research seems to me to be that training improves performance in a a critical risk period and that makes it worthwhile.

[kmoney_imp]

I just don't see how learning the fundamentals can in any way be detrimental. That makes no sense. Who's more likely to survive out on the streets? Someone who knows what counter-steering is and how it works or someone who doesn't? Someone who knows the basics of braking, lane positioning, and safety gear? Both feet on pegs as soon as the bike starts moving. Apply both brakes when coming to a stop. Feather the rear brake to stabilize bike in slow speed maneuvers. Etc etc.

The beginner rider courses are intended to teach the fundamentals so that new riders practice CORRECTLY and avoid developing bad habits from the get-go. No one but an idiot would believe that several hours in a parking lot will make one a proficient rider. Anyone who believes that probably shouldn't be on a bike to begin with. That kind of false confidence can prove deadly.

I gotta say I agree with this. I've seen some scary new riders, but what I tend to see more of (at least when I go on big group rides) is people who have been riding for 2 or 3 years and still lack solid technical skills or knowledge of where the hazards are and how to stay safe in traffic.

Lots of these guys ride a ton in terms of miles, but they don't actually engage in "deliberate practice," most of which seems to stem from the fact that they never learned any of the basic techniques of riding -- I. E., they don't know what things they do wrong and should consciously be working on in order to improve their riding.

[4 Paws_imp]

Here in NC there are "advanced" rider classes offered for free or almost free and taught by motorcycle police officers where they team you with a coach who observes you riding on the street. Two riding sessions and some classroom work.
Make me a better rider? Yes. Permanent improvement? I'm more aware of what my coach recommended I work on.
Got to meet and ride with some LEO's who ride professionally and spent a day riding on some country roads. Held at local firehouse so the firemen provided us lunch.
Good fun, no hurt feelings. Strong cost/benefit ratio. Any advantage gained is a positive.

[Pterodactyl_imp]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the basis of this report and the conclusions it draws.

Firstly, the riders, although novices, were all licensed riders. They were already trained in the basics of motorcycle control, buffering, braking technique, covering, hazard perception and avoidance, and road rules. This training was assessed by written (multi-choice) examination and practical test. The practical test included emergency braking, slow speed manoeuvering (cone mazes and U-turn), and an on-road test.

These licensed riders were then put through a coaching program as outlined in the OP. The conclusions drawn were:

1. A careful balance must be achieved in training to ensure riders do not develop unrealistic confidence in their ability.

2. There is no evidence that on-road coaching helped novice riders avoid crashes.

The first of the above seems perhaps to be a very reasonable conclusion. There has been at least one post (Metallyguitarded) referring to riders who, after advanced training, develop this "unrealistic confidence":

Quote:There's some logic to the thinking that advanced rider training, in particular, from one of the various racing schools, might result in over-confidence, speeding and unnecessary risk taking on the streets. I've heard some say that after race school training they appreciate that speed is for the track and it lessens their "need" to go recklessly canyon carving, dragging knees and hitting triple digits on public roads. I suspect there's some truth to that though I also suspect that many would find it difficult to resist the temptation to take fun corners at speed when you "know" you have the skills to do so "safely."
I have observed this phenomena in some and, I have to confess, been a little beguiled by it myself when, much younger than I am now, got my hands on a Fireblade (my first "performance" ride) and some on road coaching by an experienced motorcycle trainer. However being an experienced trainer myself (in another safety related area) I soon brought myself back to reality.

Look at the second conclusion. The way it is phrased seems to me to be the fly in the ointment and maybe, just maybe, designed to give a skewed view of reality. Would it be equally true to say, for instance, "there is no evidence that on road coaching does not help novice riders avoid crashes"? What about "there is no evidence that on road coaching will not help novice riders avoid crashes"?

Also look at this, from the report:

Quote:On-road motorcycle training does not reduce the risk of crashing but makes riders more cocky, leading to higher risk behaviour such as speeding, an Australian university study has found. It also reported that these riders spent more time riding, which means they are longer on the road and therefore statistically more likely to be involved in an incident.
Where in the report is the hard evidence of "cockyness"? What, precisely, is "more cocky"? More cocky than what? Maybe a real [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4MiLTddhC0]Cocky. As Henrik rightly says,
Quote:Well, sure, the best way to not have a motorcycle accident is to simply not ride at all. Is it "cocky" to be an enthusiastic rider and ride often, thus exposing oneself to a greater statistical risk of an incident or accident?

Now here is where I make the quantum leap from interpreter of reports to conspiracy theorist. First of all let me say that I do not believe that Elvis, JFK, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Holt#Speculation]Harold Holt, and the Big Bopper are living in Brazil and running a Superbike School. And, please mods, look carefully at members who post that, in fact, they are . What I do suggest however is that this report was commissioned by an organisation that is not at all motorcycle friendly and perhaps draws a conclusion that that organisation might find appealing. An organisation that has just launched [url=http://www.cycletorque.com.au/operation-motus-will-unfairly-target-every-motorcyclist-in-victoria/#.V1DT8Mc_5uc]Operation Motus.

On the lighter side. When good old Operation Motus was launched it was heralded by a post on the Victorian Police website and was accompanied by this photograph:



This photo shows a member of the Solo Unit astride his motorcycle and, presumably, in charge of this vehicle, with his helmet on the tank, not on his head, and wearing a short sleeved shirt, presumably appropriate protective gear. Now Aussie motorcyclists can have rather a cruel sense of humour. Various forums and social media made references to the Commander's mode of dress and much hilarity was indulged in. In fact so much hilarity that whatever remaining sensitivity that remained in the powers-that-be was sparked and the photo was pulled from the police website.

Some gentle speculation was inspired by Commander Fry when he said,

Quote:Road Policing Assistant Commissioner Doug Fryer said, “If you’re a motorcyclist in Victoria who hasn’t been checked by the police lately, expect that to change.”
Would this include Kafkaesque hammering on the door at 2am by trench coat wearing members of the Solo Unit demanding to inspect licences and bikes? We would hope not. But..........

Cheers