This issue appears to be backwards.

Some believe we need a law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear helmets while others believe that law robs them of an undeniable freedom.

Driving is a privilege and not a right. Those who wish to earn a license or endorsement must meet certain criteria as established by the state or federal government to do so.

Aircraft licenses require extensive education and training as do CDL (commercial licenses) for 18-wheelers and bus drivers. Automobile driver’s education begins in High School while motorcycle education is practically ignored!

The level of education and training required to earn a Motorcycle Endorsement in my home state consists of passing a short written exam and riding a motorcycle in a circle around the parking lot of the DMV. This is grossly inadequate, yet some believe a false notion that it will all be OK as long as we require the motorcycle drivers to wear a helmet under penalty of law.

What if we provided and expected the same low level of education and training of all motor operated vehicles the same as the motorcycle operator requirements. What if we had pilots flying around everywhere with virtually no education nor training but yet they would be required by law to wear a seat belt in the cockpit. We should be concentrating our efforts towards education to produce crash prevention.

Education must come first and it must be adequate to the task. Aircraft operation is certainly more complicated than land based vehicles but motorcycle operation is under calculated and extremely misunderstood.

We must encourage lawmakers to increase the level of education and training provided to and required by motorcyclists. How can a helmet law alone saves? Without the proper level of education some simply cannot make the educated decisions necessary and develop the proper state of mind essential to their own safety.

Personally, I do not believe in trying to “Idiot Proof” the world. The key is education and raising the bar, not finding the lowest common denominator.

We should be enacting legislation that would require all new motorcyclists to complete a MSF certified “Beginner Rider’s Education Course” in order to earn the motorcycle endorsement. Upon further consideration, I would support legislation that would require all motorcyclists who wish to ride without a helmet to complete a MSF certified “Experienced Rider’s Education Course” regardless of age or years of experience (No grandfather clause). A very wise Police Chief (Jeff LeDuff of Baton Rouge, LA) once suggested that 25 years of experience might consist only of making the same mistakes over and over for 25 years. This rang true to me as my personal experience with the MSF experienced rider’s course proved very valuable indeed even after 20 years of riding.

Let’s turn this issue around:

You, Education, the Law and Helmets

There, that’s better.

 

---

Doug Coles
CycleSpace.com

What if we had pilots flying around everywhere with virtually no education nor training but yet they would be required by law to wear a seat belt in the cockpit.

That would possibly reduce the absolute rate of aviation accidents.

We should be concentrating our efforts towards education to produce crash prevention.

Education doesn't produce crash prevention – we will just crash differently. Knowledge and skills make people able to handle situation – situations which then will be accepted.

Education must come first and it must be adequate to the task.

No. The task should be adequate to skills & knowledge. For aviation, the tasks are layed out, such as depart with this Boeing 888 from x and navigate to y, then land in 1 mile visibility. To that, a certain amount of knowledge and skills are required. Biker's tasks are voluntary. The range is everywhere from drunk night riding at 150 mph – to a complete stop. You decide, you pick.

The key is education and raising the bar, not finding the lowest common denominator.

The key to what?

A very wise Police Chief (Jeff LeDuff of Baton Rouge, LA) once suggested that 25 years of experience might consist only of making the same mistakes over and over for 25 years.

Such mistakes are valuable. Without them – no accidents (which are even more valuable) to produce perceptions about the danger of motorcycling.

We should be enacting legislation that would require all new motorcyclists to complete a MSF certified “Beginner Rider’s Education Course” in order to earn the motorcycle endorsement.

MSF would probably love to do that.

What if we had pilots flying around everywhere with virtually no education nor training but yet they would be required by law to wear a seat belt in the cockpit.

That would possibly reduce the absolute rate of aviation accidents.

What?!?

We should be concentrating our efforts towards education to produce crash prevention.

Education doesn't produce crash prevention – we will just crash differently. Knowledge and skills make people able to handle situation – situations which then will be accepted.

You seriously think better education for motorcyclists would not help prevent crashes?

Education must come first and it must be adequate to the task.

 No. The task should be adequate to skills & knowledge...

That's just backwards. Someone told me once "Grant me not tasks according to my abilities, but rather abilities according to my tasks. Education must come first to increase abilities for the task at hand. Motorcyclists need to be taught about how to avoid a crash. No is born with this knowledge.

The key is education and raising the bar, not finding the lowest common denominator.

The key to what?

OK, now I suspect you are being obtuse intentionally. We are talking about saving lives here and the helmet law is just the lowest common denmoninator which is far inferior to increasing education and requireing practical riding instruction , testing and practice under controllled conditions such as the training course.

A very wise Police Chief (Jeff LeDuff of Baton Rouge, LA) once suggested that 25 years of experience might consist only of making the same mistakes over and over for 25 years.

Such mistakes are valuable. Without them – no accidents (which are even more valuable) to produce perceptions about the danger of motorcycling.[/quote]

A wise man once told me "Learn from the mistakes of others, you'll never live long enough to make them all yourself".

I'm glad my parents took the time to tell me the stove was hot instead of just adopting the attitude that burning myself would be a valuable lesson.

We should be enacting legislation that would require all new motorcyclists to complete a MSF certified “Beginner Rider’s Education Course” in order to earn the motorcycle endorsement.

MSF would probably love to do that.

MSF "loving to do that" is irrelevant.

We should require more education of motorcyclists before issuing a license or endorsement because it's the right thing to do.

---

Doug Coles
CycleSpace.com

What?!?

Is it wrong? What would happen?

 

You seriously think better education for motorcyclists would not help prevent crashes?

Correct. Why would better education be helpful in preventing crashes? I can't see the logic.

Motorcyclists need to be taught about how to avoid a crash.

Please, explain why motorcyclists need that and what is going to happen if they were taught this.

Education must come first to increase abilities for the task at hand.

There is no relevance in this. There is no "task at hand". The task is "floating" and moves around as a result from a number of factors that relate to each other. Education may indirect be one of them but if the others are ignored, one cannot have the picture.

 

A quote (car driving) from Monash University Accident Research Centre (The effectiveness of driving programs)

"Many training programs have been evaluated empirically, including high school education classes, behind-the-wheel instruction with professional driving schools and parent, collision avoidance training, skid training, driving range instruction and driving simulator-based training. Mayhew and Simpson (1995) noted that.."

" A fundamental and compelling assumption underlying all such initiatives is that students who are exposed to the education/training will be at lower risk of traffic mishap than those who are not. Because of the strength of this assumption it has been difficult for many to accept the results of decades of research in this field that has shown driver education/training is not an effective loss-reduction measure."

"Some researchers have found that specific driver education program actually have a deleterious effect on safety by increasing novice drivers exposure to accident risk."

 

(motorcycle riding)

(Motorcycle safety- a literature review and meta-analysis TØI report 681/2003)

"There is no evidence to show that voluntary motorcycle training programs, meaning programs completed voluntary be riders who possesses a riders’ license, reduces crash risk. On the contrary, such programs seem to increase the crash risk.”

 

We should require more education of motorcyclists before issuing a license or endorsement because it's the right thing to do.

Why should one accept that training in general is safety productive when some programs, for car driving and bike riding even increase the accident risk? I can't see the ground. Why not show something that's a little more convincing than "because it's the right thing to do"?

Karl & Doug,

I invite you to stop argueing about what "part" of a motorcyclist safety effort is most important or what should come first and consider something like the below.

One way to think about a total traffic safety program is to think about the four "E's" -  the four four critical components: (1) Engineering (2) Education (3) Enforcement and (4) Emergency Response.  All four play a critical role.  To remove or weaken any one component punches a huge hole in the overall effort. We could have the best roads (engineering) and excellent training (education), great rules and laws like requirements for wearing safety gear (enforcement) and riders who might have lived good full lives after suffering a crash could die because we provided no emergency response or the ambulance that arrived on the scene didn't have the right equipment. 

You guys seem to be fighting over which should come first or which is most important - education or enforcement.  I would encourage you to agree that both are critical & it doesn't matter which comes first.  Without both (plus engineering and emergency response) people will die unnecessarily. 

As people interested in helping reduce death and injuries among the motorcycling population we can't afford to argue over education vs. mandatory helmet laws.  The fact of the matter is both are vital.  To reduce or eliminate either one reduces the full impact of our effort to save lives and reduce injuries.

---

Dan Petterson
Skilled Motorcyclist Association - Responsible, Trained & Educated Riders, Inc. (SMARTER)

What if we had pilots flying around everywhere with virtually no education nor training but yet they would be required by law to wear a seat belt in the cockpit.

That would possibly reduce the absolute rate of aviation accidents.

What?!?

 

 

Is it wrong? What would happen?

 

 How could inferior training for pilots possibly “reduce the absolute rate of aviation accidents.” ?!?

Never mind. Let's not pursue the hypothetical example of pilot's licensing but rather focus on motorcycle operator training.

One example of how better training would teach a motorcyclist how to avoid a crash would be the instruction of proper braking. Instead of the "I had to lay it down" technique of locking up the rear wheel while not applying the front brakes enough (or at all), the riders would be instructed and practice emergency braking while properly utilizing the front brakes (which is where 70% of the braking ability and traction occurs).

About the Monash Research, I am skeptical of their results however the future is not written yet and I believe we could make a positive difference with greater education. While some research shows less effectiveness of formal training, I believe we could improve those results in the future and that we are not necessarily doomed or condemned to repeat the same results if we utilize new methods and techniques. Call me an optimist I guess.

At least one encouraging thing from that report stated "...most studies have demonstrated that riders who had taken a motorcycle training course were more likely to wear protective gear." ttp://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc087.pdf

 We may disagree on the future possible positive effects of increased training for motorcyclists, (to prevent crashes and save lives) and I may not be able to change anyone's views on this, however, there are some instances (and I believe increased motorcycling training is one of them) where no amount of debate or negative statistics will sway me from the belief that it is the right thing to do. In my 30+ years of riding motorcycles, I wish I could have received formal training earlier on which could have saved me pain, injury and expense.

I understand we can never eliminate the risks but we can (and should) take reasonable and necessary steps to help reduce the risks.

I am not a big fan of passing great numbers of new laws, but I would support legislation requiring increased education and formal training for motorcyclists.

---

Doug Coles
CycleSpace.com

Dan, I appreciate the efforts of SMARTER, however, forcing someone under penalty of law to wear a helmet does not make them smarter nor help them to prevent a crash in any way. Personally, I believe greater education can help prevent crashes in the future.

Wearing a helmet is a good practice but a BAD LAW. I resent the government requiring me to wear a helmet even though I will not ride without one and that should rightfully be my decision.

I would speculate that if everyone were required to get the proper training that more riders would protective gear and that we may not even need a mandatory helmet law.

I know one man that refuses to wear a helmet despite the law and just rides without one anyway and pays the occasional ticket.

Others will wear a minimal or fake helmet so what are we actually accomplishing with taking away more rights from the public?

Do you not see how Education must come first?

Never mind, it is not my job nor desire to argue with you over which should come first, simply proposing the idea which I believe could yield positive results in the future.

 

---

Doug Coles
CycleSpace.com

How could inferior training for pilots possibly “reduce the absolute rate of aviation accidents.” ?!?

(I wrote "...would possibly reduce..") It takes to long to explain. Some of it might partially be seen further down.

Between 1960 and 1970 the aviation accident rate per million departures decreased with a factor of approximately 11. (That's a hell of a safety improvement.) Between the same period, fatalities increased by a factor of about 4. (That's a hell of a loss increase). By 2005 the loss is even higher. You can say, it's become very safe to fly and that's why so many get killed in aviation accidents.

Loss numbers relate more to expectation than training. One way to reduce losses may be to implement a change in the road-side you drive on, at least for a short period. That's what happened in Iceland and Sweden in the late 60s when they switched from left-hand to right-hand traffic. Swedish "experts" (and politicians) believed it would make a huge increase in fatalities when people suddenly have to drive on the "wrong" side, or at crossings – having to watch for traffic in an unusual direction. In fact, the traffic fatalities (absolute numbers) went down by 17 % compared to the same month previous year. Why is that? (Why would one think it should be any other way?)

One example of how better training would teach a motorcyclist how to avoid a crash would be the instruction of proper braking. Instead of the "I had to lay it down" technique of locking up the rear wheel while not applying the front brakes enough (or at all), the riders would be instructed and practice emergency braking while properly utilizing the front brakes (which is where 70% of the braking ability and traction occurs).

There is no logical reason that this would translate to lower risk. What you are describing is training on how to operate a motorcycle – not how to reach a lower level of absolute risk. You do not mention how the new skills are going to affect the individual's expectation about his own braking abilities. That will have a strong effect on what situations he is willing to accept. People use skills not only to reduce risk but also to increase what is sought from the activity (pleasure, joy, fun). With better ability to cope with the situation you mention, this will make one prone to accept it. All this may as well increase the number of accidents. It's nothing strange in this and that is what research also agree on.

(BTW: is it really 70 % on the front? That depends on things like, mass center hight, distance between front- and rear wheel contact patches and tyre coefficient of friction. In short, if you can make a “stoppie” – it's 100 % on the front not 70. )

About the Monash Research, I am skeptical of their results..

They are not making that up by them self, it's from scientific research around the world.

I believe we could improve those results in the future and that we are not necessarily doomed or condemned to repeat the same results if we utilize new methods and techniques. Call me an optimist I guess.

That's what they all believed and now you do to. :) (quote again)"..it has been difficult for many to accept the results of decades of research in this field that has shown driver education/training is not an effective loss-reduction measure."

I understand we can never eliminate the risks but we can (and should) take reasonable and necessary steps to help reduce the risks.

What you have presented so far, has no ground to convince that it actually will "reduce the risks". Perhaps something good will happen in the future, when motorcyclists are "banned" from this task. Usually they can't see beyond the bike itself. Though this is understandable because their education is about how to ride a bike, which in turn make them qualified to ride bikes.

 You guys seem to be fighting over which should come first.

 No no  – I'm fighting over if training is a loss saver or not.

Mr. Olsson, if you came here looking for a fight, you came to the wrong place.

My purpose here is to suggest and discuss ideas on how to improve motorcyclists’ attitudes toward safety. I believe better education and training will accomplish this task. Though others may have failed in the past that will only serve to encourage me to work harder to make it happen. If you are not a motorcyclist, I do not expect you to understand why I will not concede to losing the game until I've had my turn at bat, no matter the negative comments or "study results" you may dig up.

Imposing a mandatory helmet law without providing and requiring better education and training for motorcyclists will not improve attitudes toward safety IMHO.

What you have presented so far, has no ground to convince that it actually will "reduce the risks". Perhaps something good will happen in the future, when motorcyclists are "banned" from this task.

If your ultimate goal is to ban motorcycles then may I suggest that you go start your own topic to that effect and stop polluting this discussion. Maybe try www.***-R-Us.com

---

Doug Coles
CycleSpace.com

I wasn't clear.  I apologize.

(I wrote: "Perhaps something good will happen in the future, when motorcyclists are "banned" from this task.")

I do not want motorcycles or motorcycling banned! I just think we need help from outside the "bike community" which (generally) seems immature with respect to this extremely difficult "task". The task of reducing the risk!

If your ultimate goal is to ban motorcycles..

Thunderbolt wrote:

Mr. Olsson, if you came here looking for a fight, you came to the wrong place.

My purpose here is to suggest and discuss ideas on how to improve motorcyclists’ attitudes toward safety. I believe better education and training will accomplish this task. Though others may have failed in the past that will only serve to encourage me to work harder to make it happen. If you are not a motorcyclist, I do not expect you to understand why I will not concede to losing the game until I've had my turn at bat, no matter the negative comments or "study results" you may dig up.

(To preface this post, just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm a frequent and long-time consumer of motorcycle training. In addition to repeating MSF's ERC every few years since the early '80s, I also attend track schools regularly.)

My purpose here is to suggest and discuss ideas on how to improve motorcyclists’ attitudes toward safety. I believe better education and training will accomplish this task. Though others may have failed in the past that will only serve to encourage me to work harder to make it happen. If you are not a motorcyclist, I do not expect you to understand why I will not concede to losing the game until I've had my turn at bat, no matter the negative comments or "study results" you may dig up.

(To preface this post, just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm a frequent and long-time consumer of motorcycle training. In addition to repeating MSF's ERC every few years since the early '80s, I also attend track schools regularly.)

The problem Mr. Olsson is pointing out is that training doesn't necessarily have the effect of reducing risk. Training may improve a rider's ability to brake, for example. But that same training doesn't limit how the rider uses his improved braking skill. Maybe he'll reduce his risk by keeping braking ability in reserve, so in one of Those Moments, he'll have the skill to avoid a crash. However, he could also use that extra ability to ride a little faster or cut down on space cushion, leaving risk unchanged or, worse, increasing it.

An aviator friend (who is also a motorcyclist) is currently pursuing IFR (instrument flight rules) certification--basically a license to fly in adverse weather conditions, where the pilot can't see anything outside and must rely totally on instruments to tell him where he's going. I asked him if IFR pilots are "safer", and he told me that they are actually at greater risk than pilots who fly strictly under visual flight rules. The IFR pilot may be safer than the VFR pilot under the same set of conditions because of his expanded repertoire. But that's not the risk that's measured in the real world. The real question is this: Is the IFR pilot safer when and where he chooses to fly than is the VFR pilot when and where he chooses to fly? And those conditions are not the same. An instrument rating gives the pilot a lot more latitude, and he may use his discretion to take on challenges that test his advanced skills more severely than the VFR pilot tests his basic skills.

Here is a an Evaluation of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program, which shows mixed results in a comparison of trained and untrained riders. One result that I found especially interesting is the number of miles ridden by riders who had taken the beginner course compared to their untrained counterparts (Table 2). Though the two groups crashed at about the same rate per mile in the year after training, the riders who had taken the course rode 50% more miles than did the control group. In other words, training empowered them by giving them the confidence to enjoy riding more.

And that sums up my assessment of what training does for me: Keeping my skills honed makes it possible for me to ride more safely when that's my objective. But it also makes me comfortable with risk while doing more than I would otherwise. More miles, more challenging roads, and--when the conditions are right--more speed.

---

A superior rider uses superior judgment to avoid problems that would demand his superior skill.