Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

New motorcycle research: Training = safer. Slower not necessarily safer.

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Dec 1, 2010.

  1. Hot off the press science news out of the UK!! (prolly a good article one for the NR news page)


    - - - - -
    New research using a world leading motorcycle simulator to analyse rider behaviour has proved that safer doesn't necessarily mean slower and that formal advanced training for bikers can demonstrate improved safety on our roads...

    http://www.molecularstation.com/sci...cle-simulator-gives-new-clues-to-road-safety/



    - - - - -

    I wonder what MUARC would have made of the test results?
     
     Top
  2. Good. I'll use that next time the coppers pull me up.
     
     Top
  3. Clearly, that due to advanced rider training, riders could negotiate turns quicker and therefore when they crashed because of said speed they would suffer worse injuries.

    Cool research though. But i don't need a 675 in front of a tv screen to tell me that (however, if someone would like to give me one, that would be cool) .

    Common sense: you get training on how to be safe, you'll be safer than you could ever be on your own. You get training on how to ride fast through bends safely, you'll be safer than you could ever be on your own.
     
     Top
  4. There is no implication here that "balls out" and "like a cut cat" is safe. Training is the key.
     
     Top
  5. Of particular interest is that it was funded by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which is a fairly well-regarded body (by all sides), and mainly car-based. That gives it more legitimacy than something coming from a motorcycle lobby group.

    I'm sure MUARC will be able to provide similar results if they are given some money to that end.
     
     Top
  6. No, but I can guarantee you that if most people on this forum attempted to keep up with an IAM bike instructor on real world roads it would feel that fast :D.

    Seriously though, it must be noted that the research was funded by the IAM and so I would assume that their definition of advanced training is likely to be rather different from that of many NR members and, for that matter, MUARC and other Australian safetycrats.

    IAM training is a long term thing and is attitudinal and observational. It is not a day at the races. It is, however, an excellent way to stay alive on a bike, as shown by this research and as acknowledged by the UK insurance industry for decades.
     
     Top
  7. You eternal optimist you.
     
     Top
  8. Optomistic about producing results or getting funding?
     
     Top
  9. ...about similar results and utterly optimistic about the same conclusion.
     
     Top
  10. To my understanding, that would come down to who was funding the research, and what outcome was being investigated.
     
     Top
  11. Problem with these sort of studies is that it could just be picking up a difference between the type of people that take rider training and those that don't. (Confounding) There may be no evidence the difference is due to the actual training. The full report might have enough detail to see if they've done it properly.


    http://www.ehib.org/faq.jsp?faq_key=39
     
     Top
  12. Are you saying that the type of person who is likely to take a course, is also more likely to be one that adds the new skills to their riding?

    If you made every rider do an advanced course, what proportion of riders do you think wouldn't add any new skills to their riding?


    Edit: that sounded really confrontational - that was unintentional! I'm genuinely curious.
     
     Top
  13. Training in a safe enviroment is the key. How can you ever be too good.
    But I have found statistics can be manipulated. Specially by our gov. lol All depends on who is paying for it. And what they give to be filled in. That can be manipulated to suit them.
    Our road toll has almost halved in the last ten years. Is it the speed camera's ??? Or the fact that even a cheap small car now has a five star safety rating ????? Our govenment is saying it's the speed cameras.
     
     Top
  14. No he is saying that the ones that take rider training may tend to be safer riders in the first place.

    If they hadn't done the courses then they may be safer riders anyway.

    It is a problem with all these types of studies.
     
     Top
  15. Interesting and confusing.

    What makes the untrained but "predisposed to training" rider intrinsically safer than an untrained rider?? What does the highlighted actually mean though?

    The article points out that the trained riders took "safer" lines through corners. I've been around enough untrained riders to know that without the right cornering knowledge, untrained rider's lines and set up approach are generally substandard. My guess is that the untrained but "predisposed to training" rider's lines would be substandard too.



    But yeh, I guess when the report is published later in the year, it will be an interesting read.
     
     Top
  16. Methinks, storm in tea cup. We (now Teddy boy who is determined to reduce this darn road toll that is ruining the lives of millions), have to justify the millions invested in speed camera's, especially the new mobile ones with infrared guidance, night vision optics and soon to be satellite linked with on board gps guided car to bike missile launchers). we can't just go - " oh gee, all we had to do was ermmm...train riders and drivers properly, which not have cost anywhere near as much...Mmmm....ok... Bury that report... The public can't see that little doozie- they'll hate us, and I just told them it was the cameras saving lives!"

    It's over boys- the nazi's won years ago..we're stuck with ba*!

    Time to join "bung liaden" in the hills of tranquil . ( you watch- asio spies will be watching me now)
     
     Top
  17. Unless I have misunderstood you Rob, I think you have missed the point that was being made.

    There is a possibility that for any given skill levels (whether high or low) there may be those within the groups who are less likely to crash, perhaps because they are more cautious or more averse to taking risk. They may well be the same group who because of their aversion to risk are more likely to undertake training. If so the lower crash rate of that group may be more a function of their caution than their increased skill level through training. Essentially there is not a proper control group to measure against.

    One way around this might be to randomly choose two groups of riders and give one group training and not the other group (sound at all familiar? :LOL: ) and then see if there is any significant difference in crash rates.

    However again if those who don't think they need training refuse it or only give it lip service, we may end up with the same problem.

    BTW no one is saying this is so, just that without better data/testing it is a possibility.
     
     Top
  18. The article had three groups, novice, experienced and trained. You'd expect the novice and experienced riders to contain these intrinsically safer riders... but it was the trained group that were judged to ride more safely. So I'm unclear what the confounding factor is perceived to be?
     
     Top
  19. I would say that I'm an intermediate rider and I can say with certainty that I'm a better and safer rider because of the rider training I've had. My mind set hasn't changed but my skills have.
     
     Top
  20. as an extreme example suppose the trained riders all rode sport bikes and the experienced riders all rode harleys. one could not claim the differences between them were only due to training.
     
     Top