NY Times On HLDI Study: Helmets & ABS Good, Safety Courses Not Effective

Perhaps this means that the course offerings in motorcycle training classes are just not teaching their students what they need to know to stay alive?

I think that we all believe that education/training should improve ones skills, making them more effective at what they are doing. If this is not happening why?

Could it be that freshening up ones skills at low speed maneuvering in a parking lot "Bicycle Rodeo" type of class does not prepare a motorcyclist for the real world of the highway? Maybe the training is no good! Have we been fooling ourselves all this time?

I am amused at the female riders who insist on single sex classes so as to eliminate the evil and stressful effect of those awful aggressive men riders. They should insist on single sex highways as well. The highway is a real life gritty and dangerous place. Train hard, train for what you will be doing, practice dealing with stress, it's there. Probably most female riders travel the road in company with male riders more often than with a segregated group of Females anyway.

"Probably most female riders travel the road in company with male riders more often than with a segregated group of Females anyway."

Glad you said that rather than I.

Over in Ozz some states are trying some different approaches.
ie. You must have an unrestricted Car drivers licence BEFORE you get your motorcycle learners and then you must undergo a further time of restriction ( speed and motorcycle size, no pillion etc) once you get your Riders endorsement.
That has several effects:
1. Older before you get your unrestricted bike licence.. Therefore older before the Boosa
2. More years on the road before a motorcycle.. gets over those first years of stupid road use and time to get used to traffic.
3. More time on restricted motorcycles before the Boosa

Now not all of this is successful. But it MUST help. We seem to be having more issues with middle age men having their mid life crisis and going back to bikes without going through the above steps, because they had a licence on a step through on a back lane 35 years earlier. Buy a 1100 Harley and wait for the accident.

I think in Europe the attack is even further along delaying the start of the bike phase. maybe that is the answer. You can't drink until your 21 in most places in the states ( wish it was the same here) so why can we jump on high powered rockets?

Just a different point of view. By no means the answer.
regards
Paul

Visian said:

...

i wish the licensing certifications in the USA were more strict, and had a strong training component.

ian

Click to expand...

Me too, particularly for cagers.

My person favorite motorcycle training moment (and I took a private course based on the MSF course) happened right before taking the 200cc bike for the road test. The warm up area was connected to the test area via a half block of cement alley. The instructor reminded us, "Be extra careful in the alley!"

If confidence of us riding through that alley was low, why on earth would we be minutes away from getting an M license?


I'm 21. All of my friends who know what they are doing learned from screwing around by themselves on little 250cc bikes, being lucky enough to learn before any accidents. All my friends who start on bigger bikes generally don't have a clue what is going on. While I'm not sure about my stance on graduated licensing, I agree 100% that you don't learn how to ride until you're on the street. My first ride was trial-by-fire, taking 4 hours to do a 45 minute ride home on my new bike. I was too nervous to remember the directions and catch the proper street signs.

In regards to ABS, I was at the BMW dealership and a middle aged guy on a GS brought it up. He was in for his 600 mile service, hadn't been on a bike in 15 years, and was telling how he loved it. "Yeah, just on the way here, I was leaned over in a turn and a truck pulled onto the road in front of me. I just grabbed all the rear brake I could, the ABS kicked in, and I was fine." Great that he had ABS, or that bike would've never needed that service, but scary that he relies on it like that.

The only time I ever "rely" on my ABS is when braking on bumpy roads where the traction threshold is changing rapidly. Rather than play it conservatively, the ABS lets me grab as much as I think I can, and if a bump surprises me, then my wheels are still rolling.

I think training is a good thing. But the BRC is like getting a private pilots license. It is a "license to learn". Enough to get you going without killing yourself. But you are not going to become a proficient rider in a weekend, or even a year. I have been riding since I was 16 (35 years) and still have much to learn.

Back when I learned to ride in the 70's, the BRC was called "crashing". After a few crashes you learned what not to do. If you survived.

I would like to take the ERC, but no one seems to be offering it here in So Cal right now.

Scott

tommcgee said:

Anything the insurance industry has to say about anything is motivated by increasing their profits and nothing else.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Like others have mentioned, there's a huge difference between a course that teaches a novice rider the basics of operating a small motorcycle and learning to safely ride a large-displacement motorcycle in real-world traffic.

For me, the New York Times article probably raises more questions than it answers. For example, it makes no real mention of the type of training that the study covers. If it's just the basic, perfunctory, so-called "training" some states require to get a license, the results of the study don't surprise me at all. If, on the other hand, the study suggests that advanced safety training for intermediate and returning riders does no good, I'd be very surprised.

As a 17 year MSF trainer, I can say training is still a good thing and more training would be better. But the real issue, after training, is ALL rider attitude. The false sense of security that "it'll probably never happen to me" settles in and in rides after rides if nothing happens the rider settles for whatever is with no need to change. Most riders are never challenged with real riding skills until the crash event is right in front of them. I have met many of my students years after having them in a MSF course. They don't wear the right gear, many don't wear helmets, VERY few EVER get additional training. VERY, VERY few ever actually practice and improve on the very basic riding skills we teach in the MSF BRC.

I can say slightly better for the MSF ERC classes. Though I have seen many an "experienced" rider with marginal riding skills. Again, is see it as rider attitude, and like all aspects of life in the US, things like access and costs of riding comes cheap to us Americans, and most riders develop their comfort zone of riding and rarely ever push beyond that to find what they and their bike is capable, or incapable of.

It is all too easy to obtain, and maintain, a Motorcycle license endorsement here in the US. Skills that are not expected, practiced and proved in subsequent years of rider training quickly dissolve until the crash event happens, and then eveything ends up in statistics of how training is ineffective. Back to rider attitude. If all riders had the attitude that they always need to learn more and really improve their riding, street skills and risk reduction techniques, then we'd have less riders ever getting into crashes. Perhaps a rider skill test requirement every five years would change that attitude. But who would administer that, endorse it (probably not the insurance companies), and really, no US riders would tolerate it. They would complain loudly about having to retest their skills, and then what happens if you fail the test??!! Loose your license to ride? That would go over like a fart in church. Yet, it may weed out the weak riders better than traffic crashes would do, with potentially less overall costs.

Andy VH said:

As a 17 year MSF trainer, I can say training is still a good thing and more training would be better. But the real issue, after training, is ALL rider attitude. The false sense of security that "it'll probably never happen to me" settles in and in rides after rides if nothing happens the rider settles for whatever is with no need to change. Most riders are never challenged with real riding skills until the crash event is right in front of them. I have met many of my students years after having them in a MSF course. They don't wear the right gear, many don't wear helmets, VERY few EVER get additional training. VERY, VERY few ever actually practice and improve on the very basic riding skills we teach in the MSF BRC.

I can say slightly better for the MSF ERC classes. Though I have seen many an "experienced" rider with marginal riding skills. Again, is see it as rider attitude, and like all aspects of life in the US, things like access and costs of riding comes cheap to us Americans, and most riders develop their comfort zone of riding and rarely ever push beyond that to find what they and their bike is capable, or incapable of.

It is all too easy to obtain, and maintain, a Motorcycle license endorsement here in the US. Skills that are not expected, practiced and proved in subsequent years of rider training quickly dissolve until the crash event happens, and then eveything ends up in statistics of how training is ineffective. Back to rider attitude. If all riders had the attitude that they always need to learn more and really improve their riding, street skills and risk reduction techniques, then we'd have less riders ever getting into crashes. Perhaps a rider skill test requirement every five years would change that attitude. But who would administer that, endorse it (probably not the insurance companies), and really, no US riders would tolerate it. They would complain loudly about having to retest their skills, and then what happens if you fail the test??!! Loose your license to ride? That would go over like a fart in church. Yet, it may weed out the weak riders better than traffic crashes would do, with potentially less overall costs.

Click to expand...

Very well stated, Andy.

Like I reminded my students this past weekend (MSF BRC): "When you no longer strive to be better, you've stopped being good."

It would be interesting to compare fatality rates/mile for two groups
1) The vast majority of motorcyclists who seem to be "summer only" riders. This counts virtually all Hardley and sportbike owners in my part of the woods though 365 day riding is easily possible with reasonable clothing.
2) Committed motorcyclists who ride all year or at least whenever conditions reasonably permit.

The month by month stats would also be interesting. Is there a non-proportional rise when all those in category 1 hit the road in the spring (April/May around here).

Be careful about wishing for extreme licensing and training requirements lest you get what you wish for. That would kill dealerships, sales and support for this hobby out of proportion to benefits that IMO are mostly theoretical.

It is a lot about attitude and clearly many riders displace piss poor ones. No adequate protective gear for about 80% where I live (helmet only being the norm- no boots, gloves, jacket, pants, etc.). Telegraphs that most of them believe offs happen to anyone but them. Similar to smokers who think that they won't be the individual who gets the heart attack, stroke or lung cancer.

Trainers might work more on attitudes and less on parking lot balance, an utterly worthless real world skill.

I used to teach (cars) a course called Decisive Driving aimed at young drivers including some who had already had several crashes. What I learned doing this was eye opening because ALL (100.00%) of students could not or would not even apply brakes hard enough to get into the antilocks when commanded to do so. It took significant time just to get them to actually use the basic car controls of brakes and steering before even presenting them with the challenge of using them in limited space/time situations where choices mattered.

Maybe basic training ought to start at the track with the students own bike instead of in a parking lot with a loaner tiddler....

racer7 said:

Be careful about wishing for extreme licensing and training requirements lest you get what you wish for. That would kill dealerships, sales and support for this hobby out of proportion to benefits that IMO are mostly theoretical.

Click to expand...

i hear you about "extreme" but why does the european market flourish with its graduated licensing systems?

my personal issue is the ability for someone with *no* training whatsoever having the ability to buy what is essentially a professional racing motorcycle and take it directly into traffic.

ian

Visian said:

hey, it's like riding or driving in europe. people go fast, but they know wtf they're doing!

Click to expand...

NO my theory on Europe drivers, is Darwinism at it finest. If you screw up there, where there are sometimes 2000 foot cliffs unprotected by guardrails, you die before you can breed and teach your offspring bad habits.

OR, because they take their licensing seriously, rude and stupid drivers loose their license, and again they cannot teach their offspring to drive, thus passing on bad habits.

Ian,

I think it works in Europe because MC's are seen as a viable alternative to cars when viewed thru the prism of gas mileage, $7.00/gal gas, inner city congestion and "congestion taxes", etc... So enforcing a graduated licensing scheme is simply something that is just "dealt with".

None of that applies here. In this country, MC's in VERY few cases are alternatives to cars but instead are a simple pleasure or hobby. Would the US stand for a graduated licensing structure? I think it could be done but the biker lobby would be tough to get past (see: helmet laws)

visian said:

no, really... At a minimum i feel that we should have a graduated licensing system.

The fact that a kid can go out and buy a "boosa" without any training or restriction whatsoever is absolutely nuts.

Click to expand...

+1

Glad to see others feel the same as to rider attitude. Without changing the attitude, no real change takes place. Same applies to drinking problems, weight control issues, on and on. The attitude toward the problem or activity determines ALL the applicable choices. My niece was always overwieght, well into her 20's. until one day she decided, no more, and in one year lost 90 lbs and has never changed back.

Some other comments based off another response:

I ride in Wisconsin from early March to early December, and in the winter when the urge hits and roads permit. About 10,000 miles per year in all conditions. I can count a few crashes in my history that were all my fault, and I also count as VERY few the times I have to panic react in traffic. Oh, I love to wear off the chicken strips at the edges of my tires. Not a boring rider this one.

The MSF does train its coaches on Rider Attitude, but given the brief 16 hours we have with 12 to 24 students it is difficult to strongly instill a proper attitude that is not actively supported in the general rider community. The community has to evolve to make this a common driver. Mentorship of fellow riders would do a lot to help. Those of us with many years of experience and survival are the ones to start that.

Parking lot balance skills for BEGINNER riders is essential and a basic skill set new riders need to learn and develop to progress to street riding speeds. It is not utterly worthless, but consider it more a building block. Again, we are only given 16 hours to focus on five critical skill sets with riders. Personally, I feel the basic rider course should be at least 40 hours long. but who would sign up for that in this "I want it NOW!" US mentality?

"Maybe basic training ought to start at the track with the students own bike instead of in a parking lot with a loaner tiddler...." OK, in this ligititous society, who's gonna pony up the bucks to support this program? Insurance costs would be ridiculous, meaning the course cost would exceed what the basic course costs now. Perhaps not bad because it would weed out the ones not really suited to riding, but mostly at the financial level. Again, US riders, as a whole, want it NOW, want it quick and want it cheap. Few riders would commit the time and personal involvement to really learn at that level. Plus, so many newbies are intimidated FAR enough on loaner tiddlers on a parking lot. I bet a track would be too much for them. But then, perhaps they are the ones that should not ride? Again, things are too easy and accomodating in our US society.

OfficerImpersonator said:

The problem with the MSF courses is that they teach you how to operate a 250cc motorcycle in a parking lot. I operate a 1150cc motorcycle on busy roads and highways.

Click to expand...

Yes, the essence of the problem.

Also, don't omit that MSF insists the only way to shut a motorcycle engine off is with the kill switch. Lives are saved hourly by this, I'm sure. (In parking lots at least.)

lkchris said:

Yes, the essence of the problem.

Also, don't omit that MSF insists the only way to shut a motorcycle engine off is with the kill switch. Lives are saved hourly by this, I'm sure. (In parking lots at least.)

Click to expand...

I've had a bike or two without a kill switch and the idea of trying to adjust the valves while they were running is mind boggling!

No wait, they were two-strokes! Problem solved!

RM

RE: ABS and such

Just as an anecdotal aside, I know a few older riders who insist that they'd get killed if they tried to ride a modern bike with ABS and other, as they call them, "so-called safety systems."

I just try not to ride with those guys.