(Please visit one of our advertisers)

No donations or subscriptions are required

   OR   
   
Subscription choices:
Board Karma = 40  (3488 positive of 3870 votes is 40 %pts higher than a neutral 50%)
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle   
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

You can the entire collection of Safety Tip articles in a 33 Megabyte PDF Portfolio

 All Forums
 Motorcycle Safety
 Polls
 Motorcycle Safety "Correctness"
Member Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport
Peer Review: Blocked

Posted - 12/20/2008 :  11:39 AM   DetailDetail                        Like
Poll Question:
In your opinion, do organized motorcycle safety efforts in the United States trend towards being more "politically correct" or "factually correct"?

Results:
1. Politically Correct   [59%] 22 votes 
2. Factually Correct   [41%] 15 votes 
= Guests (9 ballots)


Poll Status: Closed  »»   Total Ballots: 37 »»   Last Vote: 01/14/2009 11:13 PM 

radan2
Male Advanced Member
1117 Posts
[Mentor]


Jacksonville, NC
USA

Moto Guzzi

2007 Breva V750 ie

Posted - 12/20/2008 :  3:58 PM
I have not voted because I believe the answer varies. Some organizations are more politically correct, others are more factually correct. I put this site in the factually correct group.
Go to Top of Page

(Deleted or Lost)

Posted - 12/20/2008 :  7:33 PM
Well, yes, but he did ask wnether they trended towards... So I answered.


Certainly this site is factually based, and there are other orgtanizations, Team Oregon and BikeSafeNC spring to mind. But the majority..? Not so much.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 01/25/2009 :  12:07 PM
Now that this poll is closed, the data can speak for itself.

1st, fewer than 10% of the people whom view the poll chose to state an opinion. That is rather typical for this type of poll.

2nd, of those that did respond, a significant majority were of the opinion that organized motorcycle safety efforts in the United States trend more towards being "politically correct" than towards being factually correct.

3rd, the results of this poll may only be generalized to the 400+ persons who vied the poll and had the opportunity to express their opinions.

The origins of the concept of "political correctness" can be found in the the writings, style of governance, and examples of the application of power and influence of Mao Tse Tsung. It is sometimes called "group think", and occasionally (and incorrectly), "consensus".
Go to Top of Page

James R. Davis
Male Administrator
17282 Posts
[Mentor]


Houston, TX
USA

Honda

GoldWing 1500

Posted - 01/25/2009 :  1:06 PM Follow poster on Twitter  Join poster on Facebook as Friend  
Just to be 'correct' about what you said ...

quote:
1st, fewer than 10% of the people whom view the poll chose to state an opinion. That is rather typical for this type of poll.

Actually, the number of times the poll was read (in excess of 400) is NOT an indication of the number of people who read the poll and voted or not. Instead, it indicates the popularity of the subject matter and suggests that MANY of our members kept coming back to see what the current voting results were.

I do not track the number of people who viewed a poll without voting.

Nevertheless, I suspect that your conclusion is more accurate than not (other than the percentage).
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 01/25/2009 :  1:32 PM
James,

Thanks for the heads up on the double counting. I had thought about the chances that the results would possibly be affected by people who looked and did not vote and were then not able to vote because they had "peeked" at the results data in progress. I had incorrectly assumed this would also take care of double count errors on polls. Fortunately the data poll data speaks for itself within the tally counts regardless of the viewer count.

Even though visitors indicated a slightly higher tally proportion towards "factually correct" than members, the differences are not sufficient to change the sense of of the results.
Go to Top of Page
e-t
Ex-Member

Posted - 06/23/2009 :  3:53 PM
I think you forget the factually and politically incorrect, like this one. http://www.bikersrights.com/default.html. Groups like ABATE, believe it or not, have safety sections on their sites. In a bizarre sort of way, if you're not wearing a helmet, you have even more at stake in avoiding a crash - so you, in theory, ought to practice ultra-defensive riding techniques.
The problem with all this is that the government organs use the helmet laws as cover for their ineptitude in not having a decent crash causation study since Hurt, 1981. They have been accused by the naked-head people of slanting the inadequate studies they have been putting out by using biased assumptions and dodgy stats in the material they have been putting out. This one is an example.http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/out...ub/tt127.pdf. I dislike to say it, but the naked-head people might be right. Slanted studies are worse than useless, because the data is compromised and no-one can trust it.
The upshot of it all is that we don't have enough information to base either personal or public bike safety decisions, and our 'leaders' feel free to promise funds for a new study, ask for matching funds, and when they get the requested matching funds and more, renage on the deal by not coming up with the full promised amount. Meanwhile, the chairman of the transportation committee gives the study as pork to his home state university (Oklahama SU) who promptly sit on the funds and demand more.

[The URL has been deleted as this site does not promote a nasty, bigoted, ex-member's blog for any reason. JRD]. Upshot is that groups like MSF don't have data to update their courses, bikers don't have accurate information on what causes crashes, public policy wanders all over the landscape, and groups like ABATE can make their hare-brained claims without fear of contradiction. http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/st...s/index.html For examples of myths we don't have the right information to dispel.
Anyway, without wanting to get political, the upcoming transportation authorization bill needs to fund the new study and bikers have an interest in the outcome.
Go to Top of Page

twc
Male Advanced Member
836 Posts
[Mentor]


Fort Collins, CO
USA

Harley-Davidson

Electra Glide Ultra

Posted - 06/23/2009 :  6:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by e-t

The problem with all this is that the government organs use the helmet laws as cover for their ineptitude in not having a decent crash causation study since Hurt, 1981.
I can't help but feel that this is all just a massive rationalization.

I suspect that if the Hurt study was updated today you'd find cell phones and iPods somewhat overrepresented in the statistics, but not much else would change. By and large, the same kinds of accidents are happening for the same reasons. Training is more available now, but opinions on its effectiveness have catalyzed a lot of discussion. If anything, I believe automobile drivers and motorcyclists are more distracted than ever, a symptom of a society that values short cycle times on almost everything.

It didn't take much convincing for me to wear a helmet while on a bicycle or motorcycle. You can question each epsilon in the studies, but I think the underlying theme is still pretty compelling: helmets save lives.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 06/23/2009 :  6:55 PM
TWC, that is a quite prescient observation in my opinion. I rather doubt that another descriptive study of the type that Hurt conducted will lead to any more significant remediation of the motorcycle crash problem than did the the original study. The "Hurt Study" described what was happening and made suggestions for further action. Further action and follow up for all intents and purposes did not occur. Now a new study is suggested so as to reinvent a wheel to replace one that was never used, improved or perfected in any measurably effective dimension.

What is to be accomplished by a "new study" that is not contained within the findings of the old study? What is it that the MSF-MIC wants the study to accomplish and why does Mr Bushe fear a study that may make recommendations that conflict with or contradict the actual purposes and programs for which the MSF was created?

Go to Top of Page
e-t
Ex-Member

Posted - 06/23/2009 :  9:43 PM
" ..Further action and follow up for all intents and purposes did not occur. Now a new study is suggested so as to reinvent a wheel to replace one that was never used, improved or perfected in any measurably effective dimension.

What is to be accomplished by a "new study" that is not contained within the findings of the old study? .."

I must beg to disagree. Firstly, the Hurt study was probably instrumental in the one-third reduction in biker road deaths between the mid-80s and the mid-90s. Public policy in things like the mandating of always on headlights, for instance, was probably instrumental. Better rider training in state licensing laws and the courses put out by the MSF probably helped. Maybe bikers learned how to make better riding decisions. It is a fact that the death rate decline quite dramatically. In the last 10 years biker deaths have doubled. Wouldn't another reduction by a third have been nice?

If you compare the Hurt findings - 75 percent of crashes were caused by cage drivers entering the right of way of the biker - with the European Maids study where that number was about 37 percent - just half, one could reasonably ask what would a new study find in the US. Maids also found that if a cage driver in a crash with a bike also had a motorcycle license, he was only half as likely to be the cause of the crash. Those bike-sensitized cage drivers failed to see the bike at one sixth the average rate for all the cage drivers. Fascinating numbers, I want to see how that plays out here. Maids also flubbed the control numbers on the effectiveness of ABS on bikes, rendering those numbers useless, and I am curious about that too. Both Maids and Hurt failed to correct for the reduced ridership in the rain and erroneously imho concluded that weather had no effect on crash causation. Just reflecting on the way your riding changed the last time you rode in the rain, and a cursory reflection on the physics of friction coefficients should be enough to raise major questions about those findings.
I would not be surprised if a redone Hurt would have very different findings if done again now. Methodologies have improved since Hurt, with the OECD study guidelines as used by Maids (actually a refinement of Hurt's brilliant methodology). We can't actually prove from the numbers available that helmets save lives, although you'd have to take my helmet from my cold dead hands.

I will say that if a new study had the same effect on fatalities as Hurt evidently did that we might be looking at biker fatalities going down from over 5000 per year now to maybe 3000, whereas right now we could reasonably expect deaths to rise to over 10,000 by 2020. For a lousy 7 million, this is valuing biker lives cheap. And it is facile to note that bikes have changed a lot since 1981.

We are operating on theory and reasonable analysis to support the riding habits that we think will make us safer but we just don't know for sure. We know that white helmets protect riders from crashes in New Zealand, but we can't say for sure that works the same here. And so on and so forth, I could keep citing examples like this all day (and have done so).

I'm a geek. I believe in science. I want real numbers, not considered opinion or anecdotal evidence, which is the best we can do now. I have searched the body of information we have and it is just plain not good enough to be risking our lives on.

I have been following this forum for a while and I have referred to it frequently, and I think it adds to our knowledge considerably. I think we could all do a little bit better if we had an authoritative body of reliable statistics to go on. I know I could.

A new study would answer the myths about helmets, for instance. In the absence of hard data, you can say anything you want, for instance, helmets cost lives by reducing peripheral vision and/or blocking our hearing. Imho this sort of statement flies in the face of reason, but I can't disprove them. A new study would put the matter to rest in terms of what the facts are.

Information makes us free, or at least fewer of us dead.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 06/23/2009 :  10:57 PM
Looking at your website e-t, I can see that you are sincerely interested in motorcycle safety and that you have looked at the problem by examining available sources and resources. You state that (to paraphrase) you have no particular expertise in conducting motorcycle research but that you have seen it all. I assume that you have seen the studies, reports and articles cited at www.wmoon.wordpress,com since December 2008 and the present and that you are aware of the implications of the studies cited.

I would appreciate it if you could lead me, in some sort of linear fashion, to an understanding of how Hurts study caused changes that resulted in a 1/3 reduction in biker road deaths between the mid 80s and the mid 90s and then a doubling of motorcyclist deaths during the past 10 years.

I would appreciate it if you could identify some of the different findings that you would expect to be revealed if the Hurt Study were repeated and perhaps provide a sample or two of the research questions and hypothesis to be tested that would support your general thesis.

I ask these questions as a person not only interested in fewer motorcyclists being involved in crashes but as someone who, at one time, was a serious, qualified researcher and motorcycle safety and rider training research and projects director.

-edited to remove link.


Edited by - gymnast on 06/25/2009 3:54 PM
Go to Top of Page
e-t
Ex-Member

Posted - 06/24/2009 :  1:29 AM
Gymnast

You are asking me to try to teach grandma to suck eggs, and I am a regular biker who tries to be safe, not an expert like you. So here I go, about to make an idiot of myself.

Some good questions. Firstly, I was not familiar with the wmoon blog, and thank you for pointing it out. Moon is putting together some interesting data. It is apparently based on crunching accident statistics from official reports.

I would contrast this type of study with Hurt and Maids (see http://www.maids-study.eu/. The data Moon is using is probably compiled from police accident reports, which usually collect maybe a dozen bike-related points of data about each accident, and then jumbles it all into a database (you just see totals, not individual data points). Maids (using the OECD model which the new US study is mandated to use) sent trained researchers to each accident site and compiled dozens of forms about each accident, collecting over 2000 variables on each crash, for over 900 crashes. Then they collected similar information on another 900+ bikers who were not involved in accidents as a control group. They kept all the information on each accident and control separate (removing only personal identification information) and created a database with all the raw data. The data collection process had some built in quality control processes. The reports they produced had very detailed data to go on, as they have a 2000-dimensional database to work with, plus control data. You really should download Maids and Maids 2, they are impressive, they'd probably give you their database too if you asked.

Moon, like the rest of us, is doing the best he can do with very little data by comparison. I don't pay much attention to that sort of study, in general. They are very subject to interpretation - I'd cite http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...ybikes_N.htm and the refutation in http://home.ama-cycle.org/newsroom/...?rnum=A07017 as an example of how this sort of general, statistics-based research can be abused, although I am not accusing Moon of this. It is just not a good way to do research if you want to find something new, and because of the lies, damned lies and statistics phenomenon, you can pretty much make this sort of study say anything you want. I'm not a statistician and even I can make numbers like that say whatever I want, like the insurance institute dudes. Because the police accident reports collect so little standardized data, you can't infer much from it.

As regards Hurt, it is my understanding that many of his recommendations were carried out, in the always-on headlight laws and others like I mentioned in my previous post. Of course I can't prove that the reduction was caused by Hurt, although I do think that the information he compiled was useful in improving public policy, training and maybe individual biker riding habits. I have seen Hurt-style assertions concerning conspicuity on your site and I totally agree with them. His influence is felt in many ways and he is cited constantly. I can say that Hurt influenced many decisions, and biker deaths fell. Given the relatively small cost of conducting these studies, and the large cost in lives of getting safety policy wrong, I'd say just spend the money and hope the same thing happens. Anyway it is a 'shovel ready' project and we need to stir up the economy a bit. I think a relatively small amount of cash versus thousands of potential deaths is a no-brainer.

I didn't say that Hurt caused the recent doubling per decade of biker deaths, what I am saying is that maybe the lack of a current study contributed to the rise in deaths. I think with bikers dying in thousands, we need to do everything we possibly can to try and turn that around, and surely you agree with that.

As regards the questions and data to be collected in a new study, that has already been decided. The study will use the OECD methodogy used by Maids, so the data to be collected should be similar, and we should get the same sorts of answers the Maids study did, plus the follow-on maids 2 report that came out this spring. The Maids database is a gift that keeps on giving, Euro researcher will be churning out specialized reports for years. You should download the reports from the website, they are free if you register online. They are a good read.

As regards additional information that the US study should collect, in fact I emailed Dr Alan Tree, Dean of Research at Oklahoma State Univ., who is currently sitting on the study but not doing anything with it. The laundry list of additional data I'd like to see would include: any bike mods made for conspcuity (light bulb upgrades to HID or PIAA), power upgrades via relay, additional running lights and their position, modulators, additional or enhanced brake lights, etc, and decals, autoreflective or high-vis paint/decals or rider wear. Helmet color. Questions to the car driver to find out about his cognitive processes around closing speed estimation and bike perception. Information on the car driver's actual motorcycle riding experience and licensing. Any distracting influences (e.g. texting) on the car driver and biker. Bike technical defects and whether the biker had done a t-clocs type inspection before riding. General maintenance status of bike and car in terms of PM or defects. Specific training courses the rider has taken, (Maids inferred experience from license status only). Rider experience in total and on the bike he was riding. Specific history of the rider's pre-crash maneuvers in terms of lane and sub-lane position and questioning the biker (if he is alive) on his pre-crash riding strategy and thought process. Relationship of the rider with other bikes and if he is riding in a group (not common in Europe). More specific information on the rider helmet construction (materials, format, DOT or Snell rating,etc). Ditto rider protective wear, including specific material and type of armor and other protection. Whether the bike has straight pipes. Whether the bike has ABS. And the big one, flubbed by both Hurt and Maids, is to correct somehow for reduced ridership in bad weather, in order to gauge the true effect of weather on crash causation. As well as the other 2000 items collected in Maids....


Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 06/24/2009 :  8:29 AM
The poll asked for a respondent to provide an opinion as to whether motorcycle safety efforts in the United States trended towards being more "politically correct" or "factually correct". Your comments are an interesting variation on the theme and provide some insight in respect to why it is an important question. As you will note, the question is asked from a positive frame of reference rather than the negative. Some people indicated that they found it difficult to choose an answer and indicated reasons why, and others were able to choose a trend and support the reasoning behind their answer.

W. Moon (Wendy) is a professionally trained investigative journalist who has interviewed Hugh "Harry" Hurt more than once; and both were connected with the University of Southern California, though in different fields. I suggest you go back to her website and read literally every article starting with the beginning December 2008 starting post.

In conducting research, it is of critical importance that the problem is well defined and research questions be framed in such a way as to provide the data that leads to an answer or solution to the problem. Newton was quite good at it, however he was not interested in motorcycles. Another person who was quite good at conceptualizing research problems was a guy named William Haddon, however you have already dismissed him (unintentionally).

Motorcycle safety research efforts seem to be mired in some sort of "splatter theory" of research design where one throws every conceivable variable against a wall to see what sticks, and if it follows or matches the intended researcher sponsor's preconceptions. Sort of like when the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

I would suggest that an epidemiological research model such as developed by Dr. William Haddon would lead to far more effective crash and injury countermeasure development in the "field of motorcycle safety" (notice that I did not use the term "discipline of motorcycle safety") than the haphazard approaches cobbled together though the more recent efforts of the NHTSA and MSF.

Go to Top of Page
e-t
Ex-Member

Posted - 06/24/2009 :  11:35 AM
Gymnast
I take your point and will peruse the Moon material, which might take a little while. However, I will arbitrarily dismiss any research that is generated from compilations of police reports. Cops are not trained researchers, they often don't use standard data collection devices and there are not enough standardized bike related questions on local police department accident report forms (or statewide forms where they exist) to infer any significant information. Police reports in general are notorious for measuring different things across jurisdictions, apples and oranges. Plus, cops have to fail an IQ test to get their jobs and some can barely read and write. Go out and get a speeding ticket (in a cage) and watch their lips move when they write up your ticket.

I am very suspicious of 'research' that takes a small amount of dubious data and spins reams of wordage out of it. The couple of Moon articles I saw yesterday seemed like this. Garbage in garbage out, imho. One multi-thousand word article from June 11 could have been summed up as 'helmets are good, training is sort of good'. Which we more or less knew anyway. Having it 'confirmed' based on bad data is not helpful and is a waste of time, imho, however earnestly intended.

I agree with your point concerning the current research generated by NHTSA in particular. It suffers from assumptions and bias, and is not persuasive. Even though the bias is intended to validate helmet use in a lot of cases, the bias itself makes the data useless. Not so sure about the MSF criticism, my take on the MSF is that they are doing the best they can with bad data, and that they would be one of the prime benificiaries of a new crash causation study. To someone who is as knowledgeable as you, their material probably seems a bit dumbed down, and I would personally like to see better explanations of things like countersteering in the BRC. But I have taken their courses and plan to take the ERC again later in the year. The true answer to bike training, imho, is that it's not something you do before you get your MC endorsement, it has to be an ongoing, weekly thing, which means providing constant streams of safety information rather than big periodic, dumbed down globs of it. But I support MSF with all their faults, they are all we have.

Epidemiological data is often not impressive. A good example of this is the Georgia study that 'proved' that a gun in one's house was more likely to kill a person living in the house than an intruder. It turned out that the study was compiled from death certificates so it didn't consider incidents where a homeowner used a gun to protect fellow dwellers without incurring a fatality, possibly saving lives in the process. Typical epidemiological research from public records, totally useless, especially when done with an agenda.

Bike research, like the sort of studies done in medical trials, is sort of hampered by the an inability (since the days of Mengele and Unit 731 anyway) to do true engineering (destructive) research. The approach you suggest - narrowly focused trials with a few variables - can be valuable - here's an example
http://www.promocycle.com/realisation-eng.html very cool, focused stuff (which seems to contract your stopping distance calculator btw, see the -0.75G acceleration rate). I am playing with a simple Newtonian calculator for stopping distance/time using promocycle's deceleration and reaction time numbers.

Maids and Hurt took a different approach. They collected a very large number of data points about a relatively small (but statistically significant) number of incidents. Ok, it is scattershot, but unless you cast a wide net, you'll only confirm or deny the questions you thought to ask on the front end. If you focus only on a small range of variables, you are unlikely to find new factors. It is good to use properly designed data collection devices - the answers have to be yes/no, a number or one of a small set of words (e.g. red, blue, yellow). Text is not too helpful, hard to crunch numbers from that. It is also essential to use properly trained researchers and run quality control processes to ensure they are collecting the data uniformly.

I'm going to read up on Moon just in case there is a grain of wheat or two somewhere in the chaff. Please do me a favor and do the same with Maids - download and read the main study report before you reply. It will give you a good idea of what to expect from the new study. I have not read Hurt because they want 80 bucks for a copy and that is my gas money, and the data is so old. The total budget for my site so far was 40 bucks and some TLC. But I have read Maids cover to cover and I am impressed and very envious of the Euros. You unfortunately can't draw any major conclusions for the USA from Maids, but it does provide a lot of questions that I think should be asked here. Let's give this topic a rest until we do our homework.

Bear in mind that one of the audiences we need to reach are the bikers who choose not to wear helmets. For that we need unbiased and authoritative data, like what Maids produced. Nothing else will do, imho, and it'll still probably be a hard sell, but we have no chance of making such points with the biased studies NHTSA is putting out. They garner distrust from those who don't believe in helmets, and from sceptics in general, including me. Helmet usage in the USA is more a matter of belief than a proven benefit. I am a believer, and I am not afraid of putting this belief to the test, but it does need to be credibly tested and proven.
Go to Top of Page

twc
Male Advanced Member
836 Posts
[Mentor]


Fort Collins, CO
USA

Harley-Davidson

Electra Glide Ultra

Posted - 06/24/2009 :  1:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by e-t

Plus, cops have to fail an IQ test to get their jobs and some can barely read and write. Go out and get a speeding ticket (in a cage) and watch their lips move when they write up your ticket
e-t,

You have some interesting observations in your posts, comments that deserve to be taken seriously, but you really undermine your position with rhetoric such as that in the quote above. To borrow a phrase from your own post, you put us in the position of having to go carefully through your comments, "...just in case there is a grain of wheat or two somewhere in the chaff." You do further damage with a few unsubstantiated observations of your own, not a wise decision for someone complaining about the quality of research in the field.

If you really want to make a contribution to motorcycle safety and encourage others to take you seriously, you might consider elevating your discourse. Your choice.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 06/24/2009 :  2:16 PM
I am having a bit of difficulty following the logic of your discussion e-t. Having worked in the field of traffic safety for many years I believe it is possible that you misunderstand some of the basic concepts and influences that have shaped the current policies and practices as relate to several dimensions of the field of traffic safety and motorcycle safety and rider training in particular.

I am familiar with the MAIDs study.
Go to Top of Page
e-t
Ex-Member

Posted - 06/25/2009 :  1:04 PM
Gymnast
I tried to do as you asked and read about two thirds of Wendy's blog. I did a bit of fact-checking, the result is here. [The url was deleted as this site will provide NO support for this nasty, bigoted, ex-member. JRD]

Wendy is right about the 501 (c) 6 thing, probably right about the anti-competitive practices, and the MSF have promised me a press release on the matter of deaths during training. I guess no-one thought to ask them before.

As regards her 'research' on the efficacy of the MSF's training, I found that it was almost completely bogus and without merit, in so far as I had time to do a bit of fact checking. Proof is in the article. I don't plan to waste any more time checking the rest of her 'research', I have seen enough and I have a life.

In fact, as far as I can tell, there is not enough reliable research to prove anything either way, but I am convinced by the research that we do have that lack of riding skills and poor strategy does contribute to the majority of crashes. We really need that new crash causation study, which if done right will settle the matter for once and for all. In the meantime, persuading new riders to forgo training might well be costing lives, and I wish people would stop that until we have some real facts.
Go to Top of Page

James R. Davis
Male Administrator
17282 Posts
[Mentor]


Houston, TX
USA

Honda

GoldWing 1500

Posted - 06/25/2009 :  1:13 PM Follow poster on Twitter  Join poster on Facebook as Friend  
quote:
and the MSF have promised me a press release on the matter of deaths during training. I guess no-one thought to ask them before.


Really? Well, this is one person who has asked the MSF for such information FOR YEARS and they dodge and weave, but NEVER provide any detail. You must be an unusually important person, huh?
Go to Top of Page

James R. Davis
Male Administrator
17282 Posts
[Mentor]


Houston, TX
USA

Honda

GoldWing 1500

Posted - 06/25/2009 :  1:28 PM Follow poster on Twitter  Join poster on Facebook as Friend  
I just deleted the second nasty-gram personal shot post by e-t and he has joined the ranks of those who have been shown the door.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4263 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 06/25/2009 :  3:51 PM
James, it seems that some people think that because they bought a box of Band-Aids and a Black and Decker variable speed drill and read the labels on the box, they are now as qualified to operate on someone as a board certified neurosurgeon. It appears that e-t is one of those types of "operators".
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  
Jump To:
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle © Master Strategy Group Go To Top Of Page
  This page was generated in 1.12 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05