I know we have a lot of motorcycle safety expertise here. Running through the member list, I see people I know from their valuable contributions on other boards. And at least one member of the Technical Working Group, which produced NAMS, is registered here. But we don't seem to generate a lot of discussion. Maybe zooming in from big-picture topics to more detailed issues will spark conversation.

One urgent recommendation of NAMS is more research into the causes and mechanisms of motorcycle crashes. Progress toward that objective was made in 2005 when Congress authorized a new study to be conducted at Oklahoma State University. But research isn't expected to begin until 2007, and publication of results is years away.

The importance of a properly conducted study mustn't be understated. Without the impartiality and rigor of scientific methods, results are suspect. But waiting for the next formal study doesn't have to mean sitting idly by as motorcyclists continue to crash in preventable ways. Useful information about crash causes is available every day in the news--or, to be more precise, from the thousands of news outlets available on the internet.

Reporting on motorcycle crashes is often--to be charitable--incomplete. Relevant details are scarce, so one usually can't draw any conclusions. But occasionally a reporter digs into a well-researched police report and presents a vivid picture of events leading up to the crash. In my opinion, these accounts offer valuable information for motorcyclists interested in safety.

The obvious cases, of course, aren't particularly helpful--you know, the drunk who sails over a cliff or the third-striker (repeat felon facing serious prison time) carrying a pound of meth who crashes while running for his life from the cops. Rather, the instructive cases are the more subtle ones, situations that a long-time rider handles without a second thought but which an inexperienced rider may not consider dangerous.

Following are descriptions of three crashes taken from news articles in the past year that I think hold solid lessons for many riders. I've summarized them and omitted identifications because I don't want a victim's grieving family to happen upon a discussion criticizing their loved one. The crash scenarios aren't unique; in each case I had several incidents of the same type to choose from.

1. A 28-year-old motorcyclist, riding eastbound on a city street in a small town at 3:00pm, attempts to pass several vehicles. As he does, one of the vehicles, a truck, turns left into a driveway. The passing rider hits the truck, is ejected from the motorcycle, and hits a nearby road sign. He is transported to a hospital and dies a short time later. Though helmet use wasn't reported, the crash occurred in a helmet-law state.
   
2. A 21-year-old, riding "too fast" according to the news report, is southbound at midday in a mixed commercial/residential area. He crests a hill and collides with a northbound Toyota sedan turning left across his path. According to police, the driver probably began his turn before the motorcycle was visible over the rise. The rider dies before he can be transported. Though helmet use wasn't reported, the crash occurred in a helmet-law state.
   
3. A motorcycle southbound at 2:00pm on a state highway is following a van that slows to turn right, and the 55-year-old rider pulls around to pass on the left. As the van turns, a pickup waiting to turn left from the cross road to the northbound lanes of the highway begins its turn. Because the van blocked the line of sight between the motorcycle and pickup, the driver doesn't see the motorcyclist (and vice-versa) until it's too late, and the pickup and motorcycle collide. The rider, who wasn't wearing a helmet, suffers a traumatic brain injury from which he later dies.

What are your thoughts on these scenarios?

• What sort of countermeasures to you employ to avoid this kind of crash?
• Do you think the scenario occurs frequently enough to be included in training?
• Does MSF training prepare a rider to deal with this kind of crash, and if so, how?
• If MSF does not prepare a rider adequately for this kind of situation, what might be changed?

---

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

Great post. I can tell you that the MSF does cover left turning cars several times. There is a video where the students see an intersection and one of the hazzards featured is a car that may turn left at any moment. It has also been pictured in workbooks past and present. We even used to do a very quick view of a slide and then see if the students noticed the car that could turn left.

We talk about how this situation is so dangerous because of the very limited time and space it gives the average rider to react. We also talk about moving over to the right and covering the brake and clutch levers to react faster.

My personal experience has been that the average untrained rider doesnt see oncomming traffic as a real danger. BTW, a lady that just moved in next door to me just died from a left turning car. I can tell you that she was not trained, did not wear any gear ever and did not ride often enough to be proficient.

A 28-year-old motorcyclist, riding eastbound on a city street in a small town at 3:00pm, attempts to pass several vehicles. As he does, one of the vehicles, a truck, turns left into a driveway. The passing rider hits the truck, is ejected from the motorcycle, and hits a nearby road sign. He is transported to a hospital and dies a short time later. Though helmet use wasn't reported, the crash occurred in a helmet-law state.

The thing that stuck out for me on this one was "attempts to pass several vehicles." In my experience, this usually means trying to get by everything you can in a short passing zone, and tends to entail too much speed.

A 21-year-old, riding "too fast" according to the news report, is southbound at midday in a mixed commercial/residential area. He crests a hill and collides with a northbound Toyota sedan turning left across his path. According to police, the driver probably began his turn before the motorcycle was visible over the rise. The rider dies before he can be transported. Though helmet use wasn't reported, the crash occurred in a helmet-law state

Too fast for conditions, again. Approaching a blind hill at a speed too fast to react.

A motorcycle southbound at 2:00pm on a state highway is following a van that slows to turn right, and the 55-year-old rider pulls around to pass on the left. As the van turns, a pickup waiting to turn left from the cross road to the northbound lanes of the highway begins its turn. Because the van blocked the line of sight between the motorcycle and pickup, the driver doesn't see the motorcyclist (and vice-versa) until it's too late, and the pickup and motorcycle collide. The rider, who wasn't wearing a helmet, suffers a traumatic brain injury from which he later dies.

This one I think is tougher, other than the fact that the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. Only thing I can think of on this one is an overly-aggressive pass on the right-turning vehicle. And while we've all done it, is it really worth the extra second or so to get around that right-turner?

I've never seen scenario #1, the pass gone bad, mentioned in any riding technique book or article, yet it's surprisingly common. I learned about it the hard way. Not the really hard way, but via a near miss. Actually two near misses on separate occasions, but I think the lesson stuck permanently the second time. Following a slow-moving minivan on a mountain road, I was anxious to get around it ASAP. My opportunity came on a long straight--right in front of the campground the driver had been looking for all along. Fortunately, I averted a collision, but my rule now is to use the utmost caution when passing if the passee has an opportunity to turn left.

How can we teach new riders about this? It doesn't seem to fall under a general rule that a student can memorize; it's just one of many unconnected situations that new riders must learn, one way or another, in order to survive. SEE (née SIPDE) helps a rider to handle it, but he must know that the hazard exists in order to predict it. And that's a product of experience.

Scenario #2, where a rider crests a hill to find an oncoming vehicle turning left across his path, is covered by one of the cardinal rules taught to riders in the UK. It's the "safe stopping distance rule", featured prominently in the book Motorcycle Roadcraft: Always be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear. As the rider approached the rise, he should have slowed to a speed that permitted him to come to a complete stop at the furthest bit of pavement he could see. This isn't a principle taught by MSF, as far as I know, but it would make an excellent addition.

I call scenario #3 a "rolling blind spot"--the rider is following a vehicle that prevents him from seeing the hazard developing ahead. It can happen either with a vehicle emerging from a cross street on the right (as in this case) or with an oncoming vehicle turning left. Hurt studied one example and considered it important enough to discuss in detail ("Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors...", p62-63):

These findings [about view obstructions] provide important components for a traffic strategy for a motorcycle rider. The motorcycle rider must locate himself (or herself) in traffic to insure a clear path of view to all prospective hazards. If such location is not possible, every intersection offers the possible challenge of the motorcycle right-of-way.

A representative accident case illustrates this problem. A motorcycle is proceeding in the curb lane and a van is travelling ahead in the parallel fast lane. Approaching an intersection, another automobile in oncoming traffic waits until the van clears and turns left as it passes. The left-turning automobile then moves into the right-of-way of the motorcycle. In such case, the culpability is clearly that of the automobile driver but both the motorcyclist and automobile driver had view obstruction (the van) before the crash. The strategy appropriate for the motorcycle rider is to ride abreast, or ahead, or much farther behind the van so that he (or she) could see and be seen. The strategic position is important to insure a clear view of prospective challenges of right-of-way, and high conspicuity should increase the likelihood of being seen.

I would be interested to know if the "see and be seen" strategy is still part of MSF curriculum.

---

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

The see part is covered throughout the class and the be seen part is part of the riding gear segment and other areas. It talks about lane position and following distance to allow a rider to be seen better.

Squid Killer:

The see part is covered throughout the class and the be seen part is part of the riding gear segment and other areas. It talks about lane position and following distance to allow a rider to be seen better.

Glad to hear that. One of my gripes about MSF curriculum in the past has been overemphasis on conspicuity. A highly visible motorcycle and apparel is a good thing, but a rider's first priorities should be position to create a clear sightline to potentially interfering traffic and speed compatible with the surroundings. Only when the motorcycle is in view and can be recognized as a hazard to the driver will conspicuity measures be effective. See the thread "Active vs. Passive Visibility" elsewhere in this forum. And in a different thread there's a post on the effect of speed on visibility.

---

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

One of the NAMS issues is that we need to collect more data to know where we stand, and what we need to address, and what is working and what is not.  I was wondering (and have contacted them) to see if the NAMS website would be willing to host web pages for an online survey. The hope is that the online survey would be able to collect national data, for very little cost, and the data could automatically be tallied (as opposed to not by hand). Then we could start to get some national statistics.

The first one I think should be general, and be used to assess motorcyclists attitudes and behaviors.  All we need to do is set up a webpage for a survey about motorcyclist attitudes, their decision making process when they ride, whether they have been in an accident, or whether they were in a near miss, and  DID they do something that helped avoid the accident? Whether they took a motorcycle safety course or not? Do they feel the safety course made them safer riders?  Do they wear helmets? What gear do they wear? How often do they drink and ride? Of course we would want to gather demographic info- male/female, age, years riding, type of motorcycle, etc... It could be based upon the identified factors from the NAMS report. Obviously such a survey would need to be carefully constructed for reliability and validity. I think if we could also make sure that people could only respond to the survey once, that would be better.

Now… I was also thinking, if we could get some of the motorcycle publications to sponsor this- perhaps, we could offer (ok, I am dreaming here, but bear with me) that if they fill out the survey, they could get one free issue of a  certain magazine (maybe give them a choice of magazines, depending on which publishers agree to participate)… you know, give them a little incentive to answer the survey, and at the same time, the magazine gets to get an issue with all their advertising in it out into the hands of motorcyclists, possibly giving their advertisers business, and perhaps increasing subscriptions- you know, a win win for everyone. Then, the data could be collected, and we would have some national stats to use.

Now, granted the methodology of this survey would have its flaws- it’s not random, but hopefully the numbers of participants would make the numbers more valid. It would also be self report, and limited only to motorcyclists that use the internet, but again, hopefully the numbers would override that. The magazine could even print an ad with a link for the survey in their magazines, to increase participation. Maybe at the end of the completed survey, a window could pop up, telling them about the new AMA study that is going on, and ask them if they want to donate money to the survey….It just seems like we have such an inexpensive way of reaching people, and it isn’t being utilized. I am telling you, this would get passed around the forums, especially if there is a freebie associated with it.

That some of my ideas on starting some grassroots research. Thanks- Laura

---

"The destination is only the excuse" - Daniel Meyer

MSF is undertaking a project to study training effectiveness:

Landmark Motorcycle Rider Training Study to Begin Field Research in Southern California

A milestone three-year study to determine the effectiveness of periodic involvement in a series of motorcycle rider education and training courses will begin field research soon, as the pilot testing phase of the study is set to begin March 23 at a new California Motorcyclist Safety Program rider training facility in Long Beach, Calif.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation entered a cooperative agreement to jointly fund this estimated $1.2 million research effort. The MSF is contributing 60 percent of the total funding for the research, officially titled "The Longitudinal Study to Improve Crash Avoidance Skills." The crash-avoidance skills of motorcyclists who have taken a series of MSF RiderCourses will be evaluated over a three-year period....

Your proposal is quite ambitious, but as you say it has some problems. I'll give it more thought over the next few days.

If I were an MSF instructor, I think I'd be interested in knowing where I had failed. I'd want to know as much as possible about the first-year experiences of my students, particularly their crashes. I might collect email addresses and send out a newsletter periodically, including tips and links, and use that as a way to solicit crash reports. Maybe even engage them in a more detailed discussion of the circumstances of the incident and their reactions. The objective, of course, is to find out what's sinking in and what isn't.

---

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

Thanks, Dan, for the update on the MSF study. That is good to know, and I am glad they are doing that. Something like that is certainly not anything a single person could do on their own...

Thanks for giving some thought to my ideas. I tend to be an idealist, and naive to the roadblocks that would probably be encountered. But thats what brainstorming is all about.

I find it interesting that you said, "If I were an MSF instructor, I think I'd be interested in knowing where I had failed." Wow.That is a pretty strong statement. Why would you take responsibility for someone else's behavior? Arent they adults that can make their own deicisions? You can't MAKE people do anything. They need to decide for themselves how they are going to behave and choose how they want to think. The curriculum is evidenced based, so I teach the material as it is presented by MSF. I try to have a positive, supportive attitude, and I try to facilitate their learning with a student centered approach... but am I perfect? No, absolutely not. But I would never place the responsibility for someone else actions or behaviors on myself. We don't babysit, we educate adults. We dont enable, we empower. So, if I presented all the information that needed to be presented, in a safe, not threatening manner- how could that be considered a failure? If they choose to NOT incorporate the safety lessons, then I cant do anything about that... it is unfortunate, and it is a shame, but the rider him or herself has to take the iniative to decide that they want to assume safe riding behaviors.  Like MSF says, "we all decide how much risk we want to assume".

Feasibly, do you think keeping tabs on all of your students, as a single coach would be easy to do? Sending out newlsetters and monitoring their incidents and reactions? I mean, that alone would be a full time job. I dont know about you, but my MSF job is my third job, and I dont have time to do such monitoring, nor do I think I should have to do that. I mean I do the job, and I support my students 100% when they are going through my course, but then you have to cut the cord, and let them go out there and learn on their own.

I think asking people if they had avoided having an accident, BECAUSE of their training, I think that would show that the training did have a positive effect.

Thanks for listening. Laura

---

"The destination is only the excuse" - Daniel Meyer

I find it interesting that you said, "If I were an MSF instructor, I think I'd be interested in knowing where I had failed." Wow. That is a pretty strong statement. Why would you take responsibility for someone else's behavior?

It isn’t accepting responsibility for behavior, it’s learning where teaching might not have been as effective as it should be. If a student reported that he had wheelied into a parked car while drunk, that’s not my failing. But if he had locked the rear brake and ignored the front when a car pulled into his path, maybe I’m not teaching braking skills very well. Of course, one incident isn’t conclusive. Only from an accumulation of data over time could one draw conclusions.

I think asking people if they had avoided having an accident, BECAUSE of their training, I think that would show that the training did have a positive effect.

That’s just making yourself feel good, not improving the instruction process.

In most of industry, we learn by evaluating the results of our efforts. If a good number of my customers don’t get satisfactory results from the widgets I sell them, I can’t just say "They’re idiots!" and leave it at that. I need details. Have I poorly labeled the controls? Omitted important instructions? Failed to see a common usage pattern? Only through that kind of negative feedback can I improve my product.

While a student follow-up system would certainly be above and beyond the call of duty for an individual instructor, I think it would be a valuable way for MSF or state training programs to evaluate themselves. I don't think MSF has the slightest idea whether the students they train perform better or worse than untrained riders, let alone what specific strengths and weaknesses they may have.

---

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

DataDan said: 

It isn’t accepting responsibility for behavior, it’s learning where teaching might not have been as effective as it should be. 

Valid point. 

I think asking people if they had avoided having an accident, BECAUSE of their training, I think that would show that the training did have a positive effect. That’s just making yourself feel good, not improving the instruction process.

Not neccesarily... there are many instances where people have told me that the MSF training kept them from having an accident. OSHA recognizes "near misses", why couldnt that be used as an indicator. We are dealing with real people, on real roads, in real situations- not people in totally controlled, research conditions... if people can self report that they felt that their training helped them, then why is that not a valid indicator that the training at least had some sort of positive effect. It has nothing to do with me personally. I am not doing this to seek out glory and praises for saving people, I am trying to empower and educate people, that's all.

In most of industry, we learn by evaluating the results of our efforts. If a good number of my customers don’t get satisfactory results from the widgets I sell them, I can’t just say "They’re idiots!" and leave it at that. I need details. Have I poorly labeled the controls? Omitted important instructions? Failed to see a common usage pattern? Only through that kind of negative feedback can I improve my product.

Why can't positive evaluations be valid? Only negative feedback can tell us what we are doing wrong? Positive feedback would also be beneficial. Dan, I think you see the glass as half empty, where I am looking at it as half full.

Dan, I value your constructive criticism, and I appreciate it. Thanks- Laura 

Dan, I value your constructive criticism, and I appreciate it. Thanks- Laura 

 

---

"The destination is only the excuse" - Daniel Meyer

motomojo:

.. if people can self report that they felt that their training helped them, then why is that not a valid indicator that the training at least had some sort of positive effect.

Could be so. But one can argue that what people 'felt' and the "positive effect" may actually be a negative one, because it correlates with (well known) behavioural adaptation.

They may feel safer after training, which will be adaptated for. One adjust the situation to where the perceived risk level is acceptable. One can say, without the training, individuals would not feel safe enough to explore the situations where they found their skills being beneficial. For the same reason: one can say it's a good sign if a studen says -- "Now, I don't feel very safe".

If 'loss' from the negative effects from perception changes equals the 'gain' from the rest of the training -- the net would be zero. And that is what many studies seem to show, though some show they can't even reach up to brake-even.

I guess it would take a little more fancy measuring tools than students feelings and ideas, in order to find these small changes.

Mr. Olsson makes an interesting, though controversial, point about the effect of training. The theory of risk compensation says that the risk we experience is a product of our tolerance, perception, and compensation (I've written about it here: Managing Risk). The question it raises about training is this: What do we do with our newly developed skills--do we use them to reduce risk or do we try more daring things and rely on new skill to save our skin? By overestimating the value of training to get us out of trouble, we can actually increase risk. If that effect prevails widely, training will not be found to have a statistically beneficial effect.

This topic could be a thread of its own. If someone else doesn't start one, I'll try to do it next week.

---

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

DataDan:

By overestimating the value of training to get us out of trouble, we can actually increase risk. If that effect prevails widely, training will not be found to have a statistically beneficial effect.

Excellent article and (as usual) well written. Thanks for the link!

Over here, it appears to be a little 'fighting' between those who work in the training industry and those who claim training might not be very effective. Instructors and management (quite aggressively) 'market' their operations as a positive thing to safety -- which it is, in the long run -- since we obtain valuable data from it -- data that seem to show it's not effective in a shorter run.

Training appears to have a tendency to become a risk itself. To avoid underestimation of this risk -- one need to be aware of possible ineffectiveness and risk compensation. Not even (Wilde 2001) disagrees on, one can decrease risk by improve risk perception for situations where one underestimates the risk. Therefore, at some point, the training industry should help develop students insights in "training-risk" -- at least if the industry claims to work towards higher safety. Why not make students aware of that they now are valuable as experimental individuals but for future benefits -- that not necessarily are for them selfs.

A possible side effect is -- the amount of data gets reduced, because most enroll in training for their personal benefits and the training industry (as is) will drop. The "safety loss" from the data loss should somewhat compensate the "safety gain" from making the population (including training participants) aware of the training-risk. But the "safety loss" from the data loss should mostly affect riders -- far into the future. The training industry perhaps found a new argument to keep working as is -- to collect data, to be used for future motorcycle riders. J

The self-report surveys that I am talking about- seemed to be along the lines of "grassroots research"-  the research you are referring to would need to be done by large well financed groups with lots of resources...

So explain to me, then, what is grassroots research?

Also, gentlemen, what do you suggest be done, then, since you are implying that safety courses are not effective? Should we just give up? Leave everyone one to just figure it out on their own?

---

"The destination is only the excuse" - Daniel Meyer