Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Sevulturus wrote:As long as we're pointing out fallacies in arguments lets toss this one out there:

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents

Sort of lays the whole "Don't need the MSF argument to rest."

I think training is great, but The Hurt Report (published in 1981) was based on accidents in the late 70s. When did the MSF start offering training courses? Wasn't that also in the 70s?

You have to keep in mind that this was done in 1990. There were fewer classes back then. This is somewhat outdated and some of the info is misleading... Like fewer accidents between the age of 30 and 50. Of course... this is the age when most people are busy raising their kids not riding bikes. Then the kids grow up and move out and these people are buying bikes again.

But a lot of it still makes sense.

rbickers wrote:

Sevulturus wrote:As long as we're pointing out fallacies in arguments lets toss this one out there:

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents

Sort of lays the whole "Don't need the MSF argument to rest."

I think training is great, but The Hurt Report (published in 1981) was based on accidents in the late 70s. When did the MSF start offering training courses? Wasn't that also in the 70s?

A recent 2005 survey done by BMW Motarad in South Africa revealed that less than 20% of BMW riders had any kind of formal training. I posted it at the time I will try to find it again.

Found it

This taken from thr BMW Motorad web site SA

Have you ever had formal (on-road) motorcycle training?


I am completely self-taught 47 55%
Intermediate level training 14 16%
Advanced rider training 14 16%
I learn from friends 7 8%
Only the basics 3 4%

Say's absolutely everthing does'nt it

I am one of the 16% advanced rider training in case you wanted to ask
_________________

What I don't get is how the Hurt Report came to the conclusion that "Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement" unless they knew that a significant percentage of all riders had training (and I doubt that was the case in the 70s). The conclusion is common sense to me, but they make it sound like it was based on their data.

It says 92% of riders in accidents had no formal training. However, if 90% of all riders had no training, then of course there will be a lot more accidents by the untrained. If, on the other hand, only 10% of riders had no training, that 92% means a world of difference.

Felt I did not really need to take the MSF but did just through curiosity and the fun and challenge of doing it. it rained both days and was cold but I became more confident on wet roads--had a slight fear of them.

I believe that everyone would learn something as I did.
I intend to take the advanced course for the same reasons mentioned.

I read somewhere else that the No1 cause of motorcycle accidents was cars turning left in front of you!

Don't know if its #1, but it sure is common!

2wheel wrote:I read somewhere else that the No1 cause of motorcycle accidents was cars turning left in front of you!

Don't know if its #1, but it sure is common!

I assume that every car that's waiting to turn left is going to turn left in front of me. I've even gone so far as to coast through an intersection with the clutch pulled in. And I'll often shake my head at the drivers if I see them start to pull forward. They usually stop if they see me do that.

CNF2002 wrote:

Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property

Interesting...does this mean they were without motorcycle insurance at all, or does it mean they only had liability? I cant believe less than 10% of bikers don't have any insurance.

What is says is that less than 10% involved in accidents had insurance. I suppose this might imply that riders who don't fully insure themselves and their motorcycle are more apt to be involved in a crash (?). Don't know if that's what you might take from it, but they're just stating the facts (as it was back then anyway).

Cheers,
Loonette

Loonette wrote:

CNF2002 wrote:

Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property

Interesting...does this mean they were without motorcycle insurance at all, or does it mean they only had liability? I cant believe less than 10% of bikers don't have any insurance.

What is says is that less than 10% involved in accidents had insurance. I suppose this might imply that riders who don't fully insure themselves and their motorcycle are more apt to be involved in a crash (?). Don't know if that's what you might take from it, but they're just stating the facts (as it was back then anyway).

Cheers,
Loonette

We have some weird laws in South Africa, one of them being that insurance is not compulsary. If you outright own a vehicle, you can legally go without insurance. The finance companies will insist on "their" asset being insured though. Hurt would have had a field day with our stats.

The Hurt report was published in 1981. The motorcycling landscape has changed pretty significantly since then. The huge influx of middle aged inexperienced (and largely untrained) riders would probably paint very different picture if Hurt were to do his study today.

Anecdotally, I used to agree with hurt that the most likely scenario for an accident was the cage turning left in front of you. Nowadays, most of the motorcycle mishaps I see are self-inflicted.