Big changes in motorcycle training

[oVTo]

The latest issue of Motorcycle Consumer News includes a David Hough article about California replacing the (Irvine, CA based) Motorcycle Safety Foundation training with training developed and managed by Lee Park's Total Control organization. California isn't the first state to drop MSF, but it's definitely the one with the most motorcycles.

After many years of the same old thing, the next few years should be fun to watch.

[csmutty]

Interesting. This was probably prompted by their impression of the new msf curriculum I'm guessing.

[mojobreakfast]

For those of us too lazy to do the research, could you summarize what the new MSF curriculum is?

[csmutty]

Its a less formally structured curriculum with less question and answer and more learning that better incorporates the student. It leaves much more of the lesson planning up to the instructor, which could be good or bad depending on their level of preparedness. They also did away with the videos. Now it's a slide show. There are also multiple demos done with students with large playing cards, vision charts, special goggles, etc. The range exercises are also different. In CT we haven't been trained on the new range portion as of yet so i won't comment on that.

[carsick]

I heard countersteering has been abolished in favor of an absolute belief that sometimes you just gotta lay 'er down.

[AEG]

I heard countersteering has been abolished in favor of an absolute belief that sometimes you just gotta lay 'er down.

[Paul_E_D]

Hahaa, Well, the cornering lines they are suggesting will cause many more people to "lay er down" IMO.

[sedanman]

I fully expect fatalities to go down with the Lee Parks program.

[Paul_E_D]

I fully expect fatalities to go down with the Lee Parks program.

I have serious doubts. I think that the fatality stat is a red herring when analyzing rider training. The best riders in the world cannot escape the realities of physics and die just the same as bad riders when hit by an inattentive driver. Training car drivers would likely see a small but significant reduction in moto fatalities.

Also, narrowing the roads would help, counterintuitive as it seems. Whenever I travel abroad, I'm struck by how narrow the roads are. The result is I CAN'T let my attention wander or else I would go off the road. Here, I can read the news on my phone while weaving 10 feet back and forth, and still not really leave my lane...until that one time.

[Falko]

You know, it comes down to the fact that things will happen and there is diminishing returns on investment. You'll always have accidents, you'll always have motorcycles and cars at fault. To rid that last little bit from the books is going to take a tremendous effort.

[oVTo]

I've always wanted to see a comparison between European and Japanese motorcycle crash and fatality rates Vs. U.S., correlated/normalized for things like population density, etc. With more comprehensive training and graduated licensing, I'd expect lower fatality rates in other countries. but I've never seen a comparison, so that's just a guess.

[Paul_E_D]

I doubt it. I'd guess a lot higher in asia where one accident can easily take out 10 people!

consider this. A successful training program keeps riders on the road for longer, this increases their exposure to the often unavoidable worst case scenario. We have successfully trained the riders, but the fatality rate might even go UP.

I am a longtime msf instructor, roadracer, track instructor, dirt rider, etc. I was involved in a car vs. bike head on that really changed the way I see the fatality stat. It is measuring the WRONG THING and will never indicate whether or not we have a good rider training program.

[hawk]

I doubt it. I'd guess a lot higher in asia where one accident can easily take out 10 people!

consider this. A successful training program keeps riders on the road for longer, this increases their exposure to the often unavoidable worst case scenario. We have successfully trained the riders, but the fatality rate might even go UP.

I am a longtime msf instructor, roadracer, track instructor, dirt rider, etc. I was involved in a car vs. bike head on that really changed the way I see the fatality stat. It is measuring the WRONG THING and will never indicate whether or not we have a good rider training program.

I met Paul a long time ago now and had the pleasure of both being instructed by him and then instructing with him. If there is anyone around here that I would trust to train a family member other than my self it would be him.

[Paul_E_D]

Well, thank you kindly, Hawk.

[oVTo]

I doubt it. I'd guess a lot higher in asia where one accident can easily take out 10 people!

consider this. A successful training program keeps riders on the road for longer, this increases their exposure to the often unavoidable worst case scenario. We have successfully trained the riders, but the fatality rate might even go UP.

I am a longtime msf instructor, roadracer, track instructor, dirt rider, etc. I was involved in a car vs. bike head on that really changed the way I see the fatality stat. It is measuring the WRONG THING and will never indicate whether or not we have a good rider training program.

A measure of success should always relate to the objective.

If the objective of motorcycle training is to reduce motorcycle fatalities, then we should measure the fatalities, take actions we expect will reduce them, then measure again, trying to control for other influences on the metric. Measuring annual fatalities has the glaring weakness you pointed out - more miles will likely lead to more deaths, but perhaps not proportionally. If twice as many people ride four times as many miles and the fatality rate goes up ten percent, that's much closer to success than failure. A better measure is deaths per million miles, which is how highway fatalities are frequently reported. That's still a flawed measure, but there is no perfect metric.

Are you saying that reducing fatalities the wrong objective for rider training? Or that there are better measures for that objective?
In case anyone is hoping this will turn into a , I've known Paul for years and have tremendous respect for both his riding skill and his expertise in teaching/skill development.

[jasnmar]

IANARC (I Am Not A Rider Coach) (or any other sort of instructor), but I'd say that fatalities are only one aspect. Rider injuries are another (i.e. non-fatal accidents). I'm guilty of never having taken an MSF course, however I understand that there is some instruction on other basic safety items, so just because fatalities don't go down doesn't imply that the program isn't working.

I have a friend at work who argues that I should only ride my motorcycle during the month of January, as the motorcycle fatality frequency during the month of January is very low. Statistically his argument is sound. Logically it is not.

From an extremely uninformed standpoint I'd say there might not be a single statistic that tells the entire story.

[Paul_E_D]

Correct, i don't think reducing fatalities is the right goal for rider training. Producing good riders is. Reducing fatalities may be a side benefit, but it is not something always in the riders control. Less crashes, less injuries, less traffic violations, less irresponsible behavior. Those are acheivable goals.

[OreoGaborio]

Correct, i don't think reducing fatalities is the right goal for rider training. Producing good riders is. Reducing fatalities may be a side benefit, but it is not something always in the riders control. Less crashes, less injuries, less traffic violations, less irresponsible behavior. Those are acheivable goals.

Yeah... I'm pickin up what you're puttin down.

[Paul_E_D]

Actually, let me say this another way. Reducing fatalities is a fine goal, but it is a hugely difficult and complex goal to achieve. In my experience, if you keep all your focus on the HARDEST goal in a given field, you will fail in frustration. Instead, you have to recognize and achieve the smaller, easier stepping stone goals day in and day out. Then one day, you look up and the BIG goal is achieved.

My critique of the RMV is that they have lost sight of the steps required to reach the goal. STOP talking about fatalities, and start developing good instructors and riders.

[repete513]

Also, narrowing the roads would help, counterintuitive as it seems. Whenever I travel abroad, I'm struck by how narrow the roads are. The result is I CAN'T let my attention wander or else I would go off the road. Here, I can read the news on my phone while weaving 10 feet back and forth, and still not really leave my lane...until that one time.

I feel like people who belive this have never driven a semi or even straight truck before. Even with my 26ft box truck. Keeping it between the lines on a windy day can be challenging. Specially when its emty.

[oVTo]

Correct, i don't think reducing fatalities is the right goal for rider training. Producing good riders is. Reducing fatalities may be a side benefit, but it is not something always in the riders control. Less crashes, less injuries, less traffic violations, less irresponsible behavior. Those are achievable goals.

If fewer crashes and injuries are goals, then so are fewer fatalities - really the goal is fewer crashes. Whether they end up with injuries or as fatalities is to some extent a matter of luck. Less irresponsible behavior is an admirable goal, but changing behavior is outside the realm of any training program.

Actually, let me say this another way. Reducing fatalities is a fine goal, but it is a hugely difficult and complex goal to achieve. In my experience, if you keep all your focus on the HARDEST goal in a given field, you will fail in frustration. Instead, you have to recognize and achieve the smaller, easier stepping stone goals day in and day out. Then one day, you look up and the BIG goal is achieved.

My critique of the RMV is that they have lost sight of the steps required to reach the goal. STOP talking about fatalities, and start developing good instructors and riders.

We're pretty much on the same page. But a couple of problems I have with developing good instructors and riders are the Consistency Vs. Excellence dilemma (I just made that up so maybe it's bullshit), and the dependence on an excellent curriculum.

The consistency Vs. excellence dilemma is this - there are thousands of instructors nationally. To achieve a consistent level of competence with that many instructors, standardized programs and instruction methods are necessary. With no standardization, some students would have excellent instructors and others would have mediocre (at best) instructors. But standardizing the curriculum can be a barrier to excellence, resulting in a consistent mediocrity. Which is the greater evil, standardized mediocrity, or the risk of terrible instruction? The simple answer is to remove the bad instructors and keep only the excellent ones. The problem that creates is that the difference is often subjective, and those making the judgment may not be qualified for that decision. It's not a trivial problem.

The 'excellent curriculum' problem may boil down to return on investment. The current curriculum requires one weekend for a beginner rider. The basic assumption that one weekend, and about $300, can create a reasonably skilled rider is not a good one. If we really want an excellent rider ed curriculum, then we have to require a greater investment. But the greater the cost, the lower the participation. And the lower the participation, the more untrained riders hit the road, or the number of people who enter the sport drops, depending on whether training is mandatory or not. There's no easy answer in the tradeoff between more extensive and better training Vs. fewer people entering the sport.

Anyway, tomorrow I'm going to provide an excellent environment for 14 new riders to develop their skills as best as they can on a cool and somewhat rainy April weekend. I hope to I'll see them all on the track sometime soon for real skill development.

[Tunertype]

O

If fewer crashes and injuries are goals, then so are fewer fatalities - really the goal is fewer crashes. Whether they end up with injuries or as fatalities is to some extent a matter of luck. Less irresponsible behavior is an admirable goal, but changing behavior is outside the realm of any training program.



We're pretty much on the same page. But a couple of problems I have with developing good instructors and riders are the Consistency Vs. Excellence dilemma (I just made that up so maybe it's bullshit), and the dependence on an excellent curriculum.

The consistency Vs. excellence dilemma is this - there are thousands of instructors nationally. To achieve a consistent level of competence with that many instructors, standardized programs and instruction methods are necessary. With no standardization, some students would have excellent instructors and others would have mediocre (at best) instructors. But standardizing the curriculum can be a barrier to excellence, resulting in a consistent mediocrity. Which is the greater evil, standardized mediocrity, or the risk of terrible instruction? The simple answer is to remove the bad instructors and keep only the excellent ones. The problem that creates is that the difference is often subjective, and those making the judgment may not be qualified for that decision. It's not a trivial problem.

The 'excellent curriculum' problem may boil down to return on investment. The current curriculum requires one weekend for a beginner rider. The basic assumption that one weekend, and about $300, can create a reasonably skilled rider is not a good one. If we really want an excellent rider ed curriculum, then we have to require a greater investment. But the greater the cost, the lower the participation. And the lower the participation, the more untrained riders hit the road, or the number of people who enter the sport drops, depending on whether training is mandatory or not. There's no easy answer in the tradeoff between more extensive and better training Vs. fewer people entering the sport.

Anyway, tomorrow I'm going to provide an excellent environment for 14 new riders to develop their skills as best as they can on a cool and somewhat rainy April weekend. I hope to I'll see them all on the track sometime soon for real skill development.

Your consistency vs excellence theory is an interesting topic. The general consensus in business is that excellent consistency is the goal. Especially in manufacturing using lean and Toyota production systems the idea of those philosophies is to have "continuous improvement". Everything is standardized in order to provide a base line, but it is not set in stone. As soon as any better idea on how to do something comes along it is analyzed and if valid it is incorporated into the standard. You are also actively looking for improvements every chance you get. This would in theory take those mediocre or even bad instructors and through strict controls force them into being excellent instructors. In this way people have very little personal value, it's the systems that are in place that have true value. That only works to an extent as you need people that can/will follow the systems. Some people are dicks(independent, narsicitic, people who were told they were special as a child) and don't follow the systems they have been given so these ideas cannot guarantee a good instructor if that person is a dick.