motorycycle training does not reduce crash risk

more from the nanny state we live in. Everyone has a better idea about how to live your life and spend your money... welcome to socialism

 

Funny thing is, before I started riding i did a ton of research and came across the "hurt report." According to that article (i know these numbers are wrong since i don't have the article infront of me, but they are ballpark) something like 70% of all motorcycle accidents involved only the motorcycle, and out of those accidents about 80% the rider had no formal training.

I tend to believe the Hurt Report more since there was much more hard fact used through the entire article, and actually showed the statistics, and there was no mention that anything wasn't "statistically significant" like the above article. Really, why write an article like this if in the article itself, you pretty much state that this may or may not be true?

And I'm with Tink on this one, I want more fact. I would like to see the statistics on how often the cage driver was at fault in a fatal motorbike accident. Also, we all know that age (well, maturity) plays an important role in motorbike safety, and that may be why ABS bikes have a lower crash rate, since (and i'd be willing to put money on this) the people who buy ABS bikes are typically older.

And again Tink, good call on the yearly statistics. If there were 7.7 mil bike reg's and 5000 deaths in 2008, that would still be an increase if there were 4000 deaths in 2000, but that would have lead to an improvement in death rates, as in 2008 that would have been .06% deaths of reg'd bikes, compared to .09% for 2000. These things need to be touched on for the article to be complete. This is irresponsible reporting at best.

 

I certainly don't agree with the article. However, as someone lately suggested, you can have training, but if you don't practice it, you won't remember it when it counts.

 

The study was probably put out by the insurance companies, that are always looking for a way to increase the rates. Sorry, no training discount for you.

:crazy:

 

Well, this is a private industry group funded by the insurance industry, not tied to the gov't.

And the Times article sort of glosses over the details but the full report says the training course-higher crash rate may not even exist. It was just 4 states where training is required among rider under 21. I'd bet the insurance industry uses these findings though to eliminate thoe discounts you get for taking rider training courses.

The estimate corresponding to rider education (0.0971) was not statistically significant. However, contrary to the intent
of training laws, it suggests a 10 percent increase in collision claim frequencies for riders younger than 21 in states where
they are subject to an education requirement. The lack of statistical significance means it cannot be said with confidence
that the collision claim frequencies of riders subject to a state education requirement actually are more likely to crash
than riders of a similar age. However, if the increase is in fact real, one potential explanation might be that in some states,
a participant is fully licensed upon completion of a course. This could, in practice, shorten the holding period for the permit
and hasten riding.
It is important to emphasize that this analysis does not answer the question of whether riders who voluntarily take rider
education courses have higher or lower crash risk. To conduct that analysis, HLDI would need to know which rated drivers
(riders) had training and which did not. This is not a data element currently in the HLDI database.

 

I can onlt give a short response, but here we go.

Training doesn't reduce accidents per se but does increase survival of them.

This is an area I've always been fascinated with since the Hurt Report.

In the late 70's and 80's both the US and Western Europen countries had similar and horrific accident statistics. The Hurt Report inspired them to do their own version and guess what? Similar statistics. The difference was Europe implemented teired licesncing and riders started to wear motorcycle safety gear. The second part being the most important.

Good ridng gear goes a long way in accident survival.

BZ

 

It's funny how they never mention the cause of most of the motorcycle related fatalities; accidents caused by cars! The #1 killer of a car turning left in front of a bike... If they eliminated the number of bike related injuries and fatalities caused by cell phone talking, eating while driving, reading while driving, make up applying fools behind the wheel from their "statistics" then their results would be a lot different.

 

Even if the % of trained riders involved in accidents is not statistically significant, the real significance is in the fact that there is no statisticallly significant reduction in accidents, fatal or otherwise, for those who have had training. Moreover thet MSF is not commenting because non of the data that they have collected over the life of their administration of safety training programs demonstrates any reduction in accidents for those who have passed through MSF classes. I have this information on good authority from a very well regarded and well placed MSF trainer, and from every MSF training program owner I've talked to. In fact MSF coaches are not permitted to tell students that passing an MSF course will reduce the likelihood that the student will be involved in an accident. I'm also an MSF instructor.

 

Another thing that needs to be looked at is experience and avg time to crash of someone with training to without. If someone takes a safety course, and crashes for the first time 20 years later or even 5-10 years later, I'd say that course did its job. It'd be interesting to see how quickly a self taught rider, or a rider taught by their buddy, gets in an accident as I would assume many riders in this category go down within 6-12 months.

When riding motorbikes, its almost inevitable that one will go down, so I think it'd be unfair to look at people with years of riding experience who have taken a safety course, an when they finally do have an accident, say the training didnt help.

And as Silversurfer and I eluded to before, it'd be interesting to see the numbers once driver/rider fault is taken into consideration.

 

The highest likelihood of being involved in an accident as a rider is in the first 12months. Again, no real difference in numbers between those who have, and those who haven't, taken a bike course.

 

motorcycles aren't for everybody and just because you can afford a ducati, doesn't mean you're casey stoner. you can't teach common sense.

 

Nailed it NorcalBoy.

 

Greatest dangers to a new rider are inexperience and lack of confidence; for experienced riders, too much confidence can be a problem !

Report: Must be a statistical anomaly, cuz more training is always better.

 

Except this data hasn't changed over the life of MSF training programs.

 

Plus remember guys, statistically 36% of all statistics are incorrect...

 

Yeah right... Practice and training don't mean a thing. That's why Carnegie Hall is overbooked with piano virtuosos and we can stop right now teaching soldiers how to shoot straight.

There's lies, damn lies, and then statistics.

Follow the money any time you see a "study". Welcome to money buys you "facts".