expect more changes in QLD

Well I agree that's a likely source of problems; I just wanna' see some
evidence before I condemn it.

 

eh? Brakes are for stopping. Did they just plough headlong into the
hazards? There's nothing worse than pricks who drive along a road
constantly lighting up the brake lights every time a butterfly goes
past. If I see a hazard ahead I'll start going down the gears, and
maybe stick a couple of fingers near the brake lever.... and as for
"lane splitting at speed" does that mean passing between two adjacent
vehicles, or changing lanes to pass other vehicles which are staggered
along the road.. and what is wrong with doing either of those things?

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I gave up rider training over 3 years ago - I have no desire to go back so
I'm not going into a detailed explanation of why set-up is taught. Suffice
to say that this is the practice taught in every hazard reduction and risk
management course I've seen. I don't care if you disagree, and given the
tone of the above even if I did try and explain you'll no doubt still think
you're right....

..... and as for

I have no problem with filtering stationary traffic, no moving through
staggered traffic. Riding between cars that a re side by side at freeway
speeds I don't think is such a wise choice though (which is what I was
referring to).

 

Don't disagree, not sure how you'd get good evidence?

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:20:04 +1000

So what would you expect to see in a situation where there was no
actual need to activate brakes, just be ready to?

And what would you expect to see if the brakes were applied to show
there was or was not setup?

Zebee

 

Well, I've managed to avoid 99.9999% of the hazards I've encountered
since I started riding... so I can't be doing too much wrong.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I avoided 99.9 % too.
That 1000th one has a good hpmuirT tattoo on it's arse to remember the
occasion by though!

 

In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:12:22 +1100

I recall good old Megarider pronouncing about how every good rider
must be setting up - by which he meant actually retarding progress in
some way - when approaching an intersection where a car was waiting.

I don't think anyone is on and off the brakes that much, or even
rolling off the throttle. Now, if the car starts moving or gives
other indications it is going to do the wrong thing then there are
several responses and which one a rider gives is going to depend
various things.

Now all sorts of "reputable training organisations" might agree that
you should be on and off the brakes, I suspect a hell of a lot of
crash-free riders would disagree.

Zebee

 

Why ?

65 is a very small number
(for comparison over 60 people A DAY die from all causes in Sydney)

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:27:28 +1100

What's the population of Sydney? What's the population of motorcycle
riders in Qld?

Of the deaths in Sydney, how many are 'expected', that is how many are
aging, terminally ill, etc.


How many people should be killed at work before anyone should care?

Zebee

 

By this I assume you mean what would I expect to see in regards to a hazard,
as your query is a bit unclear.

I would expect to see no perceptible risk (when viewed within the most
common risks you face in traffic).

Being ready to apply the brakes (ie being ready to actually stop) is
set-up.....

The potential for real danger - a situation where you may have to quickly
apply brakes.

And you are incorrect here, set-up isn't activating brakes - its getting
ready to. Taking the freeplay from the front and rear levers levers, placing
pads on discs and activating a a brake light isn't applying brakes. That is
a distinction carefully made in training.

Besides, this is not the only point I raised as an observation that
indicates to me that the level of roadcraft in QLD is generally not as good
as in NSW, you seem to have simply chosen this one.

 

I don't know what a 'Megarider' is but I wouldn't be setting up just because
a car was sitting at an intersection. Never taught that practive either....

Yeah, like set-up, like throttle off, like buffer. The things I indicated I
don't see much off around here in response to situations that I would regard
as potentially risky. Or maybe I just have more sensitive antennae to
risk...

Lots of crash free riders disagree with lots of things - doesn't mean they
are right, might just mean they are lucky. I worked with plenty of people
who hadn't crashed but still weren't what I would call competent riders.
Most car drivers have no idea how to handle a car don't crash either -
doesn't make them good drivers. Despite what the media report crashes are
rare occurences - doesn't change the fact that how you observe, perceive and
respond to potential hazards can have large influence on your likelihood of
crashing.

Anecdotally on my observations QLD riders roadcraft skills are lower and the
crash rate appears higher. I'm not claiming correlation, but it still makes
me wonder...

 

That's a trick question, it depends on who wins next week.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Haven't seen you ride, didn't comment on how you ride, couldn't care less
how you ride. My comments were on why from a population of riders point of
view set-up is *one* part of a bunch of responses that can help reduce risk
and thus the likelihood of a crash.

And that - based on my observations - maybe the lack of apparent uptake of
these skills in riders in QLD - which may be related to less than ideal
training, testing and licencing processes - could be contributing to a
perceived high crash rate that Premier Anna's bunch of bureacrats are
getting worked up enough over to look at licencing for motorcyclists.

Call it a theory.

Are we done now?

 

Maybe it's not luck, but just evidence that you are wrong, and that what
you consider to be the only correct techniques for safe riding are not
as exclusive as you think. Or maybe you should have studied this 'luck'
a bit more and taught it to your students... it is obviously a
legitimate technique for avoiding crashes.. you yourself give it plenty
of credit. I don't.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:45:16 +1000

I meant what would you expect to see to know someone else has 'set
up'. As you said you hadn't seen whatever it was.

So how can you tell someone else isn't doing it, from (presumably) a
distance?

I couldn't work out how you as a bystander at a distance could tell if
someone was or wasn't doing it. But you said that it wasn't being
done at all.

I happily admit I don't take up freeplay. Due to years of riding old
bikes, there was never much need, if you have to "emergency brake" on
a drum brake bike, you are already stuffed.

On the new bike I don't either. I cover levers and get ready, if
there's a real emergency where I actually have to brake then that's
what I do, not when there might be one.

Zebee

 

[Very stern voice] NO-ONE is interested Johno!

 

Does brake light come on (which it almost always will if you get pads
brushing discs). Pretty easy to see. If closer, does right hand move to
lever and take up freeplay - also pretty easy to see when in traffic with
them.

As above.

And also, my exact original comment was "Brisbane riders just seem to have
less disciplined traffic behaviour. Following too close (especially on
places like Gateway, M1 etc), no concept of buffering, lane splitting at
speed, apparent poor low speed skills, no sign of setting up brakes for
hazards."

So, my comments were directed at a range of (apparent lack of) behaviours.
So my comment was not limited to set-up not being done as the sole
determinant of what I think is a higher level of risky behaviour in traffic
in Brisbane based on my observations. The discussion just seems to have
moved to focus on this.

Not old enough to have done much time on drum braked bikes (excluding old
dirt bikes in paddocks growing up) so I'll take your word for it! If they
are anything like the discs on the Evo powered Harley I mate let me ride
quite a few years ago, then you probably almost need a second set of fingers
on them!

And in saying this you are covering what the other value of set-up is -
setting yourself up for the possibility that you will need to brake hard and
in the process reducing the risk of a panic reaction and grabbing (or
stomping on) a lever. By recognising a situation where the is a real
possibility that you will need to brake hard, and then doing something you:

- create the recognition in your mind and prepare, and as such hopefully
won't over-react and lock up
- remove the reaction time that would need to happen if you didn't go to
set-up (thus shortening the stopping distance)

I never claimed that *every* rider who does it is safer, just as I never
claimed that *every* rider who doesn't is riskier. I commented that in
*general* I don't see it as much here as in NSW, and that if you believe
that a range of hazard reduction behaviours (set-up being just one) being
adopted by a population of riders will lead to a lower crash rate (which I
do and which the research that backed up the training supported) then maybe
the lack of that discipline has something to do with the apparent higher
fatality rate up here.

 

When did I espouse them as the 'only' techniques Nev. You're being
disingenuous here. I nominated set-up as only *one* of the behaviours that I
think demonstrate the application of low risk riding techniques.

These behaviours are not what I 'think' are correct, they are what I believe
to be better practice that lead to a lower likelihood of a crash occuring.
Better practice that has been developed by a range of organisations who have
studied the commonest types of crashes, tried to understand the causes and
then used these insights to develop approaches that can be used to handle
them better.

Note that I also say likelihood. So I am referring to a statistical
probability and statistics apply only to populations not individuals. So,
claiming that *you* (as an individual) haven't done it and haven't crashed
that the technique is therefore not worthy of your credit is meaningless in
the context in which I indicated it should show a benefit.

Again you are being disingenuous. My comment was "Lots of crash free riders
disagree with lots of things - doesn't mean they are right, might just mean
they are lucky." Unless you have a very different set of comprehension
skills to me I'm not sure how you ascribe this statement to mean I think
luck is "a legitimate technique for avoiding crashes" or that I ascribe it
any credit - I did no such thing. Don't ascribe to me definitive statements
I didn't make..... Or maybe you mean something else. You don't make it real
clear.....

Like I said Nev, I don't care if you agree or not and your attempt to relate
these techniques to *your* experience is meaningless when viewed within the
context that the skills (if taken up by enough riders) are believed to make
a difference to the likelihood of crashes within a population.

And once again, I don't care if individual riders do it or not. I used to
explain how it was done and why, and then leave it to individuals to decide
if they wanted to use it or not.

 

I could use Coopers instead

Hmmmm. Some of its seems to fit with the stuff the organisations I used to
work with espoused. Style sounds a bit too preachy to me though. The whole
'you must do this because I say and blah, blah, blah' was never a style I
adopted. Not my job as a rider trainer to make you do something. Give the
information, why you might want to do it, provide some feedback and coaching
and let the participant decide if they think its of benefit......