Motorcycle Training. Help or Hazard?

[Toddman_imp]

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.

 

[the Ferret]

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.

 

[Cormanus]

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.

 

[Pterodactyl_imp]

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. 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

 

[Roper_imp]

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.

 

[rotor]

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?

 

[Pterodactyl_imp]

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

 

[Wisedrum]

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

 

[emptysea]

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.

 

[Pterodactyl_imp]

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:

Motorcycle Training. Help or Hazard?

Cheers

 

[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 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