New crash study.

[onearmedbandit]

Just saw this come up on my Facebook feed. Makes for some interesting reading. I'm still to look at the complete study but it certainly seems pretty comprehensive.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/why-you-crash-your-motorcycle-lessons-from-msf-100-naturalistic-crash-study?src=SOC&dom=fb

[rastuscat]

Hey OAB. You are my hero.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

[Gremlin]

I think the BMW has fallen over more than 17 times itself. It's not my fault it's bloody lazy. Every spot of sand, it takes a nap. Get stuck down a dead end goat track... it takes a nap. Water crossings, it takes a bath.

I'd have a horse instead as it also has a mind of it's own, but it's only 1HP.

[swbarnett]

I'd have a horse instead as it also has a mind of it's own, but it's only 1HP.
The peak power output of a horse (at a sprint) is about 15-20HP.

[onearmedbandit]

Hey OAB. You are my hero.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

You've been drinking again ha.

[Laava]

The peak power output of a horse (at a sprint) is about 15-20HP.

On the dyno?

[rastuscat]

You've been drinking again ha.
First time in a while, but I found the bottom of a cheeky little Pinot Noir last night. Nuff said.

I just read the article. It's a potted summary of what we cover on Ride Forever courses.

In particular, cornering, slow speed control, following distance and positioning for visibility.

I might have a look at the full study. But that writers summary is really interesting.

The cornering thing is interesting. Speed in to a corner is relative to technique and skill level. If done with good technique, a higher entry speed can be managed. It's getting narrow too soon that allows the momentum to throw you wide at the exit, caused by a slighter kean angle, that is the main problem. You can carry more momentum through the outside of the corner than the inside.

Really interesting stuff.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

[swbarnett]

On the dyno?
Yeah, this new-fangled one that goes by the name of Graham. Last name Oogle.

[R650R]

As usual anything on Fakebook needs to be taken with sack of salt....

Its not rocket science, in fact its not even scientific, 100 riders (who volunteered further distorting stats) is a very samll sample size no matter what electronic trickery you plug them in to.
30 of the riders crashed, over half those were slow speed (17) ( so irrelevant for 90% of time as far as risk is concerned) and that shits gonna happen trained or untrained for a variety of reasons.

They disregard previous studies because "the results of The Hurt Report were based on eyewitness accounts, rider interviews and police reports, which are often unreliable and inaccurate." Funhny that courts acdcept all that unreliable shit tho aye...?????

Crashes are caused by poor judgement, failing to pay attention and a bit of lacking skills/experience. But when dow e make bad decisions across the board in life? its when we are tired and fatigued. All the skill in the world dont mean shit if your travelling tired.....

[R650R]

The cornering thing is interesting. Speed in to a corner is relative to technique and skill level. If done with good technique, a higher entry speed can be managed. It's getting narrow too soon that allows the momentum to throw you wide at the exit, caused by a slighter kean angle, that is the main problem. You can carry more momentum through the outside of the corner than the inside.


And relative to surface condition. Taking a wider line where space is available is often a good technique even in a truck. your effectively doing a lower lateral g force and leaving the suspension with room to cope with unexpected bumps. But given the amount of or lack of room to play with its six of one and half a dozen of the other to go slightly slower in tight out fast or runa more constant speed on larger radius. And if that's the difference between crashing or not crashing on a public road then your probably going to fast already... so is overridden by clause 1: travel at an appropriate speed.

[R650R]

Interesting tho was the bit about riders following to close and colliding with traffic in same direction... I know of several cases where that's caused deaths here in NZ...

CAUTION link contains fatal crash vid filmed by following bike http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4397408/Motorcyclist-reaches-speeds-170mph-horror-crash.html

[Zedder]

As usual anything on Fakebook needs to be taken with sack of salt....

Its not rocket science, in fact its not even scientific, 100 riders (who volunteered further distorting stats) is a very samll sample size no matter what electronic trickery you plug them in to.
30 of the riders crashed, over half those were slow speed (17) ( so irrelevant for 90% of time as far as risk is concerned) and that shits gonna happen trained or untrained for a variety of reasons.

They disregard previous studies because "the results of The Hurt Report were based on eyewitness accounts, rider interviews and police reports, which are often unreliable and inaccurate." Funhny that courts acdcept all that unreliable shit tho aye...?????

Crashes are caused by poor judgement, failing to pay attention and a bit of lacking skills/experience. But when dow e make bad decisions across the board in life? its when we are tired and fatigued. All the skill in the world dont mean shit if your travelling tired.....


Have you read the full study? It details how participants were selected, how the study was designed plus what the researchers based their results on.

[onearmedbandit]

As usual anything on Fakebook needs to be taken with sack of salt....

Yes I know it's the cool thing to do, bash anything from Facebook. But this has nothing to do with Facebook other than providing the link. If Dorna put up the results of a MotoGP race on Facebook would you take that with a 'sack of salt' too...


Its not rocket science, in fact its not even scientific, 100 riders (who volunteered further distorting stats) is a very samll sample size no matter what electronic trickery you plug them in to.
30 of the riders crashed, over half those were slow speed (17) ( so irrelevant for 90% of time as far as risk is concerned) and that shits gonna happen trained or untrained for a variety of reasons.

Ah actually it is science.


They disregard previous studies because "the results of The Hurt Report were based on eyewitness accounts, rider interviews and police reports, which are often unreliable and inaccurate." Funhny that courts acdcept all that unreliable shit tho aye...?????

Probably that's because most of the time it's all they have to go on. And it's acknowledged universally that eye witness accounts of the same differ wildly.

[Akzle]

.

They disregard previous studies because "the results of The Hurt Report were based on eyewitness accounts, rider interviews and police reports, which are often unreliable and inaccurate." Funhny that courts acdcept all that unreliable shit tho aye...?????
....

fucking hilarious.


vote akzle for guaranteed increase in lulz.

[release_the_bees]

I know that it's a small sample size, but 30% of the riders crashing seems unbelievably high. Even taking into account things like dropping the bike while putting it on the side stand etc. 30% still seems excessive.

If that's a representation of the actual number of motorcycle accidents, then no wonder people like Katman are tearing their hair out!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[pritch]

Wot? Nothing about riders crashing while under pressure to keep up? :whistle:

[Bass]

Wot? Nothing about riders crashing while under pressure to keep up? :whistle:

Nah. Quarter were sheilas and over 40% were on crusiers. Did well to keep crashes down to 30.

:killingme

[SVboy]

Those on here that make cornering out to be highly technical would be doing so on the assumption the road and traffic conditions are ideal.

Do you read what you post? Can you read what you post? What is the relationship between road and traffic conditions and taking a skilled and technical approach to cornering? Your flat earth approach may work for you on the mighty Honda Africa, just dont offer advice on subjects you clearly no nothing about. Good thing you were not part of the sample......

[Zedder]

Good thing you were not part of the sample......


It would need to be a completely separate study with causes like: Dog ran out, foot down in corner etc.

[AllanB]

I should put this in rant and rave but it was another website I shut down due to slow loading due to fucking advertising.

I possibly missed a valid report - OK I read it was American so figured 50% did not apply to me as NZ has actual corners.

Still from the above 30% rider induced accidents in corners? Probably valid.


I put a new battery in the XR6 today - 25% off at Supercheap yesterday. A good deal. Nobody got hurt.


Thinking of hooking a couple of wires to the old one and attaching them to my nipple piercing - just for kicks you know.

It's Easter - Jesus suffered - so should I?

[Ulsterkiwi]

As usual anything on Fakebook needs to be taken with sack of salt....

Its not rocket science, in fact its not even scientific, 100 riders (who volunteered further distorting stats) is a very samll sample size no matter what electronic trickery you plug them in to.
30 of the riders crashed, over half those were slow speed (17) ( so irrelevant for 90% of time as far as risk is concerned) and that shits gonna happen trained or untrained for a variety of reasons.

They disregard previous studies because "the results of The Hurt Report were based on eyewitness accounts, rider interviews and police reports, which are often unreliable and inaccurate." Funhny that courts acdcept all that unreliable shit tho aye...?????

Crashes are caused by poor judgement, failing to pay attention and a bit of lacking skills/experience. But when dow e make bad decisions across the board in life? its when we are tired and fatigued. All the skill in the world dont mean shit if your travelling tired.....

I agree with most of what you are saying. I would suggest its the magazine/website article reporting on a report we need to be cautious of more than actual reports or studies. It wouldn't be the first time a journo shapes the story to their own ends rather than what the original authors were trying to say.

Its a bit unfair to describe the report as unscientific. The report clearly tells us how the sample of riders was obtained and shows how they tried to be representative in terms of location, riding conditions, motorcycle type and that motorcycles chosen would not interfere with the data collection equipment. You are correct that 100 is a small number of riders compared to the entire population of the world that rides a motorcycle. The study was not intending to tell us what happens in the whole world, it was trying to be representative of riders, bikes and conditions in the US. When setting up a scientific study the sample size is not just about the number of participants but also how representative the dataset collected is. There was a huge amount of data collected over the period of the study and of a range of types. Data collated is equivalent to 389 days of riding over a distance of 366,667miles (590,093km). Its a reasonable statement therefore that what happened to 100 riders over all that time riding in different places in different conditions on different machines is representative of the target population. That's pretty scientific. The fact we know exactly what they did and how participants were recruited makes it scientific. The fact they were volunteers makes it ethical research as people participated knowing what they were getting into.

Fair point about the Hurt report. As someone else has pointed out though, it has been used quite a bit because that is what was available. I would argue that the Hurt report still has its place when understanding crashes, its another piece of the jigsaw. It is however a piece of evidence that needs to be considered in light of what this study brings to the table. The actual study does not dismiss the Hurt report. It reminds us of the limitations of that study (Hurt) and shows how it is trying to improve our understanding with the dataset collected in this study (Williams et al)
There is no overt attempt to address the limitations of this study design which is a problem, but its a report, not a publication in a peer reviewed journal so may not have been subject to peer review.

Your last point is spot on I think, fatigue is a huge influence on our perceptive abilities and decision making.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Interesting tho was the bit about riders following to close and colliding with traffic in same direction... I know of several cases where that's caused deaths here in NZ...

CAUTION link contains fatal crash vid filmed by following bike http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4397408/Motorcyclist-reaches-speeds-170mph-horror-crash.html

I have a bit of a thing about following distances, I cringe at how little room people give themselves in traffic, that goes for riders as much as drivers. For riders especially when you consider mixing that with positioning in a blind spot for the vehicle in front and its a wonder there aren't more mushed up riders the length of the country.

[Zedder]

That would be impossible to get statistics on as no one would ever admit to it as it would demonstrate a weakness. I do last year recall a poster on here admitting to it though "in his younger days".


Rubbish, anonymous surveys are common.

[Gremlin]

In the past on here there has been many comments about technical right and wrong lines through corners and I am just saying there is no such thing as traffic density and road conditions could result in you coming to grief if you only think about taking a specific line. Who is to say you know any more about cornering than I do and chances are you don't.
I can't believe I'm replying... but what if the cornering line factored in all those conditions such as traffic and road conditions?

Crazy I know... but I expect any rider I mentor to do exactly that (or I'll demonstrate for them).

[swbarnett]

If there is traffic coming the other way and its a bit over the centre line or there is gravel on the bend the thing I would want to make sure of first would be to ensure I was travelling at a speed that offered time to avoid the hazard if possible. What "line" I would take during my avoidance would depend on the nature of the hazard. You can not predict for all hazard situations. While taking one particular line could get you out of trouble on one bend taking that same line could see you come to grief on another.
:facepalm:

You just don't get it.

PLEASE! Jump down off your high horse for one second and go do a riding course that will teach you how to corner on a public road to maximise your chances of survival.

[Akzle]

.


Thinking of hooking a couple of wires to the old one and attaching them to my nipple piercing - just for kicks you know.

It's Easter - Jesus suffered - so should I?

hahahaha. ford.
there's no accounting for (bad) taste i spose.

[caspernz]

I can't believe I'm replying... but what if the cornering line factored in all those conditions such as traffic and road conditions?

Crazy I know... but I expect any rider I mentor to do exactly that (or I'll demonstrate for them).

Oh dear Alan, please go to the naughty corner for thou has displayed the temerity to tilt at the windmill called cassina....

Of course there's a technical approach to selecting the correct cornering line for any given situation, even that one which includes a rabid dog, but in order for that to be accepted by anyone who shall remain nameless from this point forth it would require an open mind to engage in discussion. A lengthy period of displaying all the signs that it's too late for a check-up from the neck up for the aforementioned has resulted in bringing merely humour to me, when I see a well intended soul trying to engage in conversation with a broken record...:bleh::laugh::eek::wings::drinknsin

[Blackbird]

Oh dear Alan, please go to the naughty corner for thou has displayed the temerity to tilt at the windmill called cassina....

Of course there's a technical approach to selecting the correct cornering line for any given situation, even that one which includes a rabid dog, but in order for that to accepted by anyone who shall remain nameless from this point forth it would require an open mind to engage in discussion. A lengthy period of displaying all the signs that it's too late for a check-up from the neck up for the aforementioned has resulted in bringing merely humour to me, when I see a well intended soul trying to engage in conversation with a broken record...:bleh::laugh::eek::wings::drinknsin

* Must spread reputation around...... * :laugh:

[SVboy]

In the past on here there has been many comments about technical right and wrong lines through corners and I am just saying there is no such thing as traffic density and road conditions could result in you coming to grief if you only think about taking a specific line. Who is to say you know any more about cornering than I do and chances are you don't.

Lol! The smegma under my foreskin knows more about cornering than you do!

[swbarnett]

No you are the one who does not get it as it has been said many times that most crashes on bends are the result of excessive speed and if you read my post again I said I SLOW DOWN so i am in a position to hopefully avoid any hazardous situation. What did your riding school teach you thats better than my way?
If you pull your head out of your arse long enough you'll realise from my earlier posts that I actually agree with you that excessive speed in a corner is a recipe for disaster. However, you spout it off as if this is the ONLY factor. Corner line is at least as important as speed. Take a better line and you can safely maintain a higher speed. All I'm saying is that this cornering thing is not so simple that altering one factor is the end of the matter. I am sick to death of people that think there's only one way to skin a cat.

[Akzle]

]. I am sick to death of people that think there's only one way to skin a cat.

... with a motorbike?

[swbarnett]

... with a motorbike?
I'm sure it can be done.

Does conjure up a rather gruesome image. More like "squeeze the cat out of it's skin".

[Akzle]

on some bends while your bike can remain on the right side of the road your body lean angle can actually have your body over the centre line.

well there's your problem. we normally ride on the left in this country.

[caseye]

I mean "correct" if you have difficulty interpreting what I was getting at.

Just go!
Ah shit, message too short.
It's all I wanted to say.
Well I guess I could have couched it better.
Fuck off you moronic, self effacing unconditionally wrong every fucking time, idiot! Whoops's. No. SW was right, it got one thing about cornering right, just one of the many aspects that prevent reasonably sane riders from falling off that is.
I wonder if that was long enough.

[Zedder]

Just go!
Ah shit, message too short.
It's all I wanted to say.
Well I guess I could have couched it better.
Fuck off you moronic, self effacing unconditionally wrong every fucking time, idiot! Whoops's. No. JW was right, it got one thing about cornering right, just one of the many aspects that prevent reasonably sane riders from falling off that is.
I wonder if that was long enough.


IMHO, self effacing would not be the best description as it means: not claiming attention for oneself, shy and modest. I would suggest, narcisstic plus add in, heap of parrot droppings (courtesy of Monty Python). The rest is fine apart from JW who I believe you mean to be swbarnett.

[swbarnett]

I think we must be thinking of different types on corner here and from what you have been saying
No, we're not.


I get the impression you are thinking of corners that you can see all the way through
See, now this is why I think you just don't get it. I'm talking about ALL corners, blind or otherwise, left-hand or right-hand, uphill or down, tight or sweeping. I'm talking about maximising your forward visibility by picking the best line to do so; this will allow a higher speed at which you can stop in that visibility or execute an avoidance manoeuvre.

[Scuba_Steve]

So there we go the biggest factor in crashes is going too slow :whistle::innocent:

[Bass]

See, now this is why I think you just don't get it. I'm talking about ALL corners, blind or otherwise, left-hand or right-hand, uphill or down, tight or sweeping. I'm talking about maximising your forward visibility by picking the best line to do so; this will allow a higher speed at which you can stop in that visibility or execute an avoidance manoeuvre.

A few eons back, Drew wrote something that I'd long felt was true but never had the confidence (experience) to express.
He said, "the safest way round a corner is not the fastest", or words to that effect. It's a natural consequence of maximising your view around the corner that you reduce the minimum radius that you must negotiate.

[Mike.Gayner]

These threads seriously just go around in circles. Yawn.

[swbarnett]

But often picking your line to get maximum visibility around a corner requires a "centre line hug" and I have seen videos of guys doing it. If someone else comes around the corner a bit over the centre line you will get cleaned up.
Quite wrong. Yes, you start wide; on a left-hander this means that you're right next to the centre line (assuming there's no on-coming traffic in the road you can see now). This gives you greater visibility and, therefore, more time to react if there is traffic approaching. Anyone coming around the corner towards you that's over the line is easily avoided. If you stick to the other side of your lane you'll have bugger all time to react (no matter how slow you're going) if a hazard appears in front of you.

The pictures below show what I'm talking about. They're taken from the "police rider's handbook to better motorcycling" (yes, I know you don't like the UK police but, believe it or not, they do know what they're doing).


http://www.pyrocam.com/filez/go/Capture1.PNG

http://www.pyrocam.com/filez/go/Capture2.PNG

[R650R]

The pictures below show what I'm talking about. They're taken from the "police rider's handbook to better motorcycling" (yes, I know you don't like the UK police but, believe it or not, they do know what they're doing).




One day i'm going to survey and measure this scenario, still think while its good roadcraft for a variety of reasons the stated benefit of seeing further is overstated.
Lets pretend that pic is close enought o being to scale. On a tight bend like that a sensible approach speed would be say 50km/h which is 13.88m/sec.
Now in the right hand turn (for the bike) the car is only just out of view, withen say another 0.5m of the car travelling foward which is 0.0362 of a second the cars right headlamp will be visible (you dont need to see the whole car to know that avehicle is oncoming. Given average reaction time is say 0.2 sec its a negligble beenfit for even the sharpest of minds.
Never mind that in both pics the car is still on its own side of road so not even a hazard to be needing to see early.
Also in the above scenario of a 'blind ' corner one should be travelling at a speed to stop in the length of visible clear lane ahead anyway, a basis safety 101 concepts that overrules any other consideration to start with.
In the left hand turn (for the bike) the car is only 1 metre of travel from being visible, again a negligble amount even if we double the numbers from earlier.
The Police may know what they are doing when it comes to law enforcement but it appears basic trigonometry, maths and real world precticaslity is ignored when it comes to 'better motorcycling'.....
Ana ctual real benefit thast could be realised is seeing debri or livestock in ones own lane but even then a slight reduction in speed (and come on thats their fav chorus) would actual derive a much greater safety benefit.

[Jeff Sichoe]

best way to corner quicker is to get a faster bike so you can pin it out of the curve

[pritch]

But often picking your line to get maximum visibility around a corner requires a "centre line hug" and I have seen videos of guys doing it. If someone else comes around the corner a bit over the centre line you will get cleaned up.

Just for once I find myself in complete agreement with Cassina. (I think I'd better have a lie down.)
So in that instance of a blind l/h bend you stay a bit to the left of centre at entry. Just as in a blind r/h bend you might stay a bit short of the white line so that your head stays on your own side of the line.

Every corner is different, each requires its own approach.

It is, however no particularly great credit to her that she managed to figure this out; that's beginner level stuff.

[Viking01]

Now that I think about it is quite likely I do ride like that anyway but more so perhaps on tight twisty roads where you really have to be on/near the centre line to see where you are going. I also pick lines where I know I am not going to overcook the corner. So generally speaking I ride possibly in between the 2 extremes in your diagram. Unlike you guys though I do not see cornering as something I feel I would like to get faster at doing and as I said the accident statistics on bends prove thats not a good idea to aspire towards.

Having watched this thread - and others in the past, I think we can safely say that your latest post above confirms that you're absolutely clueless about safe cornering.

And more so, I don't think you even know which lines you yourself are actually taking into corners.

Because if you did "know the lines you use", you would realise that the preceding diagram shows "safe" lines for road riding (ignore track riding)
- and -
you wouldn't be making clueless comments like:
-"it is quite likely I do ride like that anyway"
-"I also pick lines where I am not going to overcook the corner"
-"generally speaking, I ride possibly in between the 2 extremes"

Further:

Many of the respondents have tried to put aside corner 'entry speed' component in order simply to focus on discussion of safe positioning. They were not saying that appropriate corner 'entry speed' wasn't important, nor were they saying they were trying to go quicker around bends. Leave that out of the positioning discussion.

What they were trying to get into your head were points like:
-appropriate position will give you the opportunity to see ongoing traffic earlier, and allow you to take evasive action slightly sooner (if needed)
-appropriate position could help improve your chances of getting around a corner safely if you do happen to have come in with slightly too much entry speed.

I don't care how many years you have been riding for. You seriously need to get some advanced rider training, and to read some decent books on motorcycle handling. Not only could you end up riding more safely, maybe you'd realise how clueless your comments on some of these threads have been.

If however you're trolling, then please ignore my comments, as you're doing an absolutely splendid job.

Cheers

[pritch]

The big negative I felt with it though was braking in that it felt like it had no back brake which would see you flipping it possibly in an emergency stop.

Could somebody please translate this into English?

[Viking01]

Now that I think about it is quite likely I do ride like that anyway but more so perhaps on tight twisty roads where you really have to be on/near the centre line to see where you are going. I also pick lines where I know I am not going to overcook the corner. So generally speaking I ride possibly in between the 2 extremes in your diagram. Unlike you guys though I do not see cornering as something I feel I would like to get faster at doing and as I said the accident statistics on bends prove thats not a good idea to aspire towards.

Having watched this thread - and others in the past, I think we can safely say that your latest post above confirms that you're absolutely clueless about safe cornering.

And more so, I don't think you even know which lines you yourself are actually taking into corners.

Because if you did "know the lines you use", you would realise that the preceding diagram shows "safe" lines for road riding (ignore track riding)
- and -
you wouldn't be making clueless comments like:
-"it is quite likely I do ride like that anyway"
-"I also pick lines where I am not going to overcook the corner"
-"generally speaking, I ride possibly in between the 2 extremes"

Further:

Many of the respondents have tried to put aside corner 'entry speed' component in order simply to focus on discussion of safe positioning. They were not saying that appropriate corner 'entry speed' wasn't important, nor were they saying they were trying to go quicker around bends. Leave that out of the positioning discussion.

What they were trying to get into your head were points like:
-appropriate position will give you the opportunity to see ongoing traffic earlier, and allow you to take evasive action slightly sooner (if needed)
-appropriate position could help improve your chances of getting around a corner safely if you do happen to have come in with slightly too much entry speed.

I don't care how many years you have been riding for. You seriously need to get some advanced rider training, and to read some decent books on motorcycle handling. Not only could you end up riding more safely, maybe you'd realise how clueless your comments on some of these threads have been.

If however you're trolling, then please ignore my comments, as you're doing an absolutely splendid job.

Cheers

[SVboy]

Having watched this thread - and others in the past, I think we can safely say that your latest post above confirms that you're absolutely clueless about safe cornering.

And more so, I don't think you even know which lines you yourself are actually taking into corners.

Because if you did "know the lines you use", you would realise that the preceding diagram shows "safe" lines for road riding (ignore track riding)
- and -
you wouldn't be making clueless comments like:
-"it is quite likely I do ride like that anyway"
-"I also pick lines where I am not going to overcook the corner"
-"generally speaking, I ride possibly in between the 2 extremes"

Further:

Many of the respondents have tried to put aside corner 'entry speed' component in order simply to focus on discussion of safe positioning. They were not saying that appropriate corner 'entry speed' wasn't important, nor were they saying they were trying to go quicker around bends. Leave that out of the positioning discussion.

What they were trying to get into your head were points like:
-appropriate position will give you the opportunity to see ongoing traffic earlier, and allow you to take evasive action slightly sooner (if needed)
-appropriate position could help improve your chances of getting around a corner safely if you do happen to have come in with slightly too much entry speed.

I don't care how many years you have been riding for. You seriously need to get some advanced rider training, and to read some decent books on motorcycle handling. Not only could you end up riding more safely, maybe you'd realise how clueless your comments on some of these threads have been.

If however you're trolling, then please ignore my comments, as you're doing an absolutely splendid job.

Cheers

Please ignore the autistic one. You have pointed out clearly the ignorance and inability to understand differing points of view to his. Personally I wish to encourage him to continue his cornering method, especially as we have now learned of his reliance on that big back brake, surely the most important one on a bike!!!

[Zedder]

Could somebody please translate this into English?


It is:Look at me, look at me, I'm cassina and I'm a danger to myself and others.

[Gremlin]

Thats true Mike the only reason why I make comment in them is that there are guys on here that say in effect that cornering on a motorbike is a science and my view is that its not unless maybe you want to be an F1 racer.
Well that pretty much sums up the difference. I mean, diagrams like these are just for giggles, and we can safely ignore gravity at the same time, unless we're going to the track... :mellow:

http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Aerodynamics/Aero5.gif http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Balance/Img00004.gif

[Ulsterkiwi]

But often picking your line to get maximum visibility around a corner requires a "centre line hug" and I have seen videos of guys doing it. If someone else comes around the corner a bit over the centre line you will get cleaned up. Its just my belief and if you still think I am wrong good luck with your belief. The higher speed will be of no help if shit happens. You need to have a look at some of the videos of dangerous tourist drivers over the wrong side of the road near Queenstown to see how wrong you are with your belief in centre line hugging at speed to get the best view.


Thats true Mike the only reason why I make comment in them is that there are guys on here that say in effect that cornering on a motorbike is a science and my view is that its not unless maybe you want to be an F1 racer. To say you must ride a specific line when cornering on the road is dangerous in my opinion and I would just say that getting down to a speed that suits the corner is a far better way of thinking about cornering. I find the recomended speeds stated where signs are posted as a good guide. If you slow down to about the speed thats stated you will have a far better chance of avoiding any hazard than if all you are thinking about is sticking to some riding school line and travelling much faster. It has been stated that most bike crashes are on bends due to high speed which is what these guys and schools promoting riding a specific line are encouraging by saying you can go faster sticking to specific line.


I can see where you would doubt what a riding school teaches about cornering, IF THAT WERE ACTUALLY WHAT RIDING SCHOOLS TEACH.
A recent Ride Forever article reprinted in BRM explained that the basis for the RF courses and the fundamental theory behind what instructors try to instill is something called Roadcraft. That refers to a system for riding derived from what UK Police riders are taught.
When you learn anything new or attempt to teach anything new a common approach is to break complex ideas into smaller sized chunks making it easier to take those ideas on board, understand them and begin to apply them. Over time, with growing confidence in one's understanding of those smaller chunks one can build up to the entire set of ideas and concepts.
It is thus with Roadcraft. A first step to applying Roadcraft to cornering is to think about what you might need to achieve when choosing your lines. To say that riding schools advocate or teach a single, rigid set of lines for cornering is simply not true. As you clearly have not been under the tutelage of these schools you should desist from perpetuating that myth and perhaps actually attend a course.

When doing ANYTHING on the road on a motorcycle, or a car for that matter, your lane position, speed and gear should be determined by a set of priorities. Safety, stability and visibility. So what is taught is that achieving a good view can be done by taking a wide line but of the three priorities achieving that visibility is actually bottom of the list. One's safety and the stability of the machine should always take precedence. That being the case , when riding using the principles of Roadcraft, it is actually impossible to maintain a rigid line for all corners. There is no "roadcraft" line, rather what is appropriate for the conditions and what priorities will allow. The same corner the next day or even 2 hours later may well require a different line using the same criteria.

Roadcraft is not about wide lines, its a complete system of vehicle control.

[swbarnett]

there are guys on here that say in effect that cornering on a motorbike is a science and my view is that its not unless maybe you want to be an F1 racer.
All cornering, no matter the vehicle, is a science. It is a sub discipline of physics. Yes, it can be applied to varying degrees depending on your goals. However, simply saying that sticking to x speed for x corner is safe under all circumstances is naive at best.


To say you must ride a specific line when cornering on the road is dangerous in my opinion
And you won't find me disagreeing with that. Perhaps is has not been stated in so many words but what I'm trying to get across is that there is an ideal safe line that is a starting point. Alter it at will in response to the exact circumstances you find at the time. It is you that is saying line means nothing and crawling around a corner is all that matters.



and I would just say that getting down to a speed that suits the corner is a far better way of thinking about cornering. I find the recomended speeds stated where signs are posted as a good guide. If you slow down to about the speed thats stated you will have a far better chance of avoiding any hazard than if all you are thinking about is sticking to some riding school line and travelling much faster. It has been stated that most bike crashes are on bends due to high speed which is what these guys and schools promoting riding a specific line are encouraging by saying you can go faster sticking to specific line.
You seem to think that we're advocating "balls to the wall" speeds around every corner. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I for one, refuse to crawl round a corner when a little more speed (often up to double what you're espousing) is still safe if the cornering line is also taken into account.

[Swoop]

If there is traffic coming the other way...
What "line" I would take during my avoidance would depend on the nature of the hazard.
So, on a blind corner you would just "teleport back in time" or just press the rewind button, then just have another attempt, perhaps?


Now that I think about it is quite likely I do ride like that anyway.
I'm convinced that you have no idea whatsoever.
Your posts conclusively indicate this.

[Viking01]

Please ignore the autistic one. You have pointed out clearly the ignorance and inability to understand differing points of view to his. Personally I wish to encourage him to continue his cornering method, especially as we have now learned of his reliance on that big back brake, surely the most important one on a bike!!!

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I've been on the KB website long enough to appreciate this particular situation. My only reason for even bothering to comment in the first place is that I had some concern that new riders to the website might mistake his/her comments as being knowledgeable or informative.

Given that cassina's earlier comments related to cornering, I just wanted to make the point that his/her rambling comments are unhelpful at the very least. Especially for those that might be trying to promote safe riding practice and behaviour within the riding community.

Very glad to see that others (like Gremlin and UlsterKiwi) subsequently provided some good comments in reply. Admire both your patience and delivery.

Cheers

[caseye]

Hi, Thanks for the reply. I've been on the KB website long enough to appreciate this particular situation. My only reason for even bothering to comment in the first place is that I had some concern that new riders to the website might mistake his/her comments as being knowledgeable or informative.

Given that cassina's earlier comments related to cornering, I just wanted to make the point that his/her rambling comments are unhelpful at the very least. Especially for those that might be trying to promote safe riding practice and behaviour within the riding community.

Very glad to see that others (like Gremlin and UlsterKiwi) subsequently provided some good comments in reply. Admire both your patience and delivery.

Cheers

Glad you have made comment on what is a particularly important craft.
Unfortunately while you may have a modicum of patience left for cassina, I do Not.
I genuinely feel their incompetence and thier constant offering of advice that if taken on board by a new rider, could and would lead to a sudden death, one I'd lay the blame for, squarely at her feet!
I once thought this person too stupid to be a troll.
I was persuaded that they might be.
No , a troll silly!
I've gone full circle.
It's simple, they are!
Please people don't encourage it to speak, by writing screeds in the hope that it gets a/the point, ever!, they won't, better than you or I have tried.
Hey Mike! got a new friend? you can have her.
Long as you take her for a long ride in the dog infested countryside and dont come back with her.

[bogan]

You may as well say the NZTA is unhelpful putting the signs there too

And I may agree, same goes for those fucking double yellows. They keep putting them on the straights before corners, which makes it really hard to pass, since there is often only about 50m of safe passing area when going around a corner, you got to get a really good run at it, but sometimes this results in an aborted attempt with brakes being slammed on if a car is coming the other way. But, we must do exactly as the road marking or signage says lest we be unsafe, right?


If you think you have more helpful ideas on cornering lets hear them or are you too frightened in case your cornering ideas are deemed "Unhelpful" too.

Steer with the rear.
Late apex.
Maximise use of the available road.
Watch for dogs.
Understand the limits of you and your machine.
Don't panic brake and put it into a hedge.

[pritch]

Hope you have a thick enough skin if those who attack my view attack you too.

'S OK I've got big shoulders. Fairly amply proportioned gut as well. :whistle:

[buggerit]

Could you explain then if you have read my posts fully how slowing down to the approximate speed on bends where there is a recommended speed sign posted is "Unhelpful"? You may as well say the NZTA is unhelpful putting the signs there too but if there was no sign do you think crashes on such bends would go up or down? I am sure they are not put there for fun but rather as a result of many people coming to grief on those particular bends.

If you think you have more helpful ideas on cornering lets hear them or are you too frightened in case your cornering ideas are deemed "Unhelpful" too.

If you learn to read corners correctly, suggested corner speed signs will be just that and maybe those camper vans tailgating you will no longer be nice issue, but somehow I doubt that.

[Akzle]

Glad I am not a lone voice in this debate.

"debate" is a bit of a stretch. i mean. it's you.

[Gremlin]

Could you explain then if you have read my posts fully how slowing down to the approximate speed on bends where there is a recommended speed sign posted is "Unhelpful"? You may as well say the NZTA is unhelpful putting the signs there too but if there was no sign do you think crashes on such bends would go up or down? I am sure they are not put there for fun but rather as a result of many people coming to grief on those particular bends.

If you think you have more helpful ideas on cornering lets hear them or are you too frightened in case your cornering ideas are deemed "Unhelpful" too.
You need to understand that you can't rely on those signs to manage a corner. There are many corners in NZ that don't have those signs at all. There are roads that don't have the white corner posts (marked with red, silver and yellow) either. Quite simply, you need to be able to read the road and conditions and apply your skills to the task. I've come across quite a few corners where the advisory speed was not in pattern with the rest (eg, 2 marked 45, but one should have been a 35) and this is a small subset of roadcraft.

You are also happy to say that 2 other people in the entire thread partially or fully agree with you. Pretty sure the disagree are a factor of 10 or more to your count, but I'm not going to bother counting...

[swbarnett]

Have you not read all the posts though from those who have said by taking a specific line you can be assured of being able to corner faster?
While in essence this may be true I think you've applied the wrong emphasis (we may not have stated it clearly enough). The point is that for ANY chosen corner speed* a better line will allow you to take the corner safer at that speed. Yes, this does mean that the better the line the higher the speed that can be to maintain for the same level of safety.

It's like saying (to vastly simplify) "safety = line / speed". To maximise safety you can either raise the line value (i.e. pick a better line) or reduce the speed (or both).


Some of them appear to claim they have been taught that in riding school.
If you did one or two you would know this true.


Safety and Stability as you say do not appear to come into it the way they think as it would likely mean taking a less than desirable and slower line through the bend.
Obviously safety and stability come first. What we're talking about will help you maintain both.

The line I, and others, advocate (as a starting point) is not the fastest line through a corner. That would be the racing line and most often not appropriate for road riding and best left for the track.



*Within reason. This certainly doesn't apply to taking a corner with a recommendation of 15kph at 200kph for example.

[onearmedbandit]

I've only been riding for around 26yrs now, but in that time I've taken a fair few corners. And almost without exception they've been taken at above the suggested speed. Only twice have I come off in that situation, both times when I was in my early days of riding and both my fault. I'll take my chances using my judgement with regards to corner speeds.

[edit] I do take the signs into consideration.

[pritch]

I've only been riding for around 26yrs now, but in that time I've taken a fair few corners. And almost without exception they've been taken at above the suggested speed.

If it was pissing rain perhaps I'd stay nearer the speed on the sign but in good weather with no other limiting factors the signs are pretty much irrelevant. Except the 20kph ones. :whistle:

[swbarnett]

For your information sport there are 2 others that have posted in this thread who have either agreed with me either fully or in part. As for claiming my comments as being clueless they may only appear to you to be that way as I dont ride to any rigid line through bends like you do and thats because I treat all bends differently.

As the Nike saying goes some of us "Just Do it" rather than having to go to school to find out.
And therein lies the problem. Anyone that doesn't know enough to know how little they know cannot claim to be an expert on any subject.

You will never be qualified to talk about motorcycle cornering (or riding in general for that matter) until you know how little you really know. And I would suggest to you that the best and safest way to achieve that state is via riding courses.



This may have something to do with the fact there were no riding schools in my day
Well now there are. It's never too late. Maybe just look at it as a way to gain some credibility on here. Put your money where your mouth is.


only the practicle license test which I passed first time.
This means nothing. I passed first time as well (1982). I shouldn't have. The standard was far too low.


If I could not corner on my bike I would have failed the test and likely crashed now wouldn't I?
Not true. The vast majority of car drivers don't know shit about cornering. Sure, they can get around the average corner when all goes well but when it turns to shit they're way out of their depth. Why should an untrained motorcyclist necessarily be any different?

[onearmedbandit]

If it was pissing rain perhaps I'd stay nearer the speed on the sign but in good weather with no other limiting factors the signs are pretty much irrelevant. Except the 20kph ones. :whistle:

Agreed, in the wet it's a different story. And yes those 20kph ones are something different.

[swbarnett]

I have yet to strike a speed advisory sign as you have that you feel has been incorrectly marked
Case in point. Some years back there was a news article about the frustration of the Hawea towie. He had repeatedly pulled cars out of the lake on one particular corner. The cause turned out to be that this particular corner was signposted as 65kph, as was the previous corner. The issue was that this corner had twice the curvature of the previous one; 65kph was simply too fast for most drivers. The locals knew this so didn't get caught out, only tourists ended up in the lake.

[awayatc]

I have been around plenty of bends

.

That's the only thing you have ever said that I can agree with....

You may also say that you are over the top. ..
Way over....

[Akzle]

. If I could not corner on my bike I would have failed the test and likely crashed now wouldn't I?

just for those that are new here... remind us how many times you've crashed

[Bass]

Agreed, in the wet it's a different story.

While I don't disagree, provided that one stays off the shiny stuff, I am frequently surprised at just how good modern tyres are, in the wet.
Having said that, it seems to me that staying off the shiny stuff is getting more difficult as the general condition of our roads deteriorates. That is probably the biggest influence on my corner speed in the wet, as it is getting ever harder to predict what the road surface will do around the next bend.

[onearmedbandit]

While I don't disagree, provided that one stays off the shiny stuff, I am frequently surprised at just how good modern tyres are, in the wet.
Having said that, it seems to me that staying off the shiny stuff is getting more difficult as the general condition of our roads deteriorates. That is probably the biggest influence on my corner speed in the wet, as it is getting ever harder to predict what the road surface will do around the next bend.

Totally agree. Modern tyres grip incredibly well but the unpredictability of the road surface means you can't always rely on that.

[Ulsterkiwi]

And I may agree, same goes for those fucking double yellows. They keep putting them on the straights before corners, which makes it really hard to pass, since there is often only about 50m of safe passing area when going around a corner, you got to get a really good run at it, but sometimes this results in an aborted attempt with brakes being slammed on if a car is coming the other way. But, we must do exactly as the road marking or signage says lest we be unsafe, right?

Sometimes the way road markings are applied is a real frustration, especially the solid yellows. I think there are clear examples of where they aren't that useful for motorcycles but probably for cars. The other thing is an awful lot of overtaking doesn't seem to entail much planning or anticipation so maybe its one of those "lowest common denominator" things. Still plenty of occasions where drivers/riders completely ignore the fact that by crossing those solid lines they are overtaking with no sight line of what is coming at all.
Don't even start me on lane markings appearing and disappearing at intersections or on roundabouts....

[Taxythingy]

Now in the right hand turn (for the bike) the car is only just out of view, withen say another 0.5m of the car travelling foward which is 0.0362 of a second the cars right headlamp will be visible (you dont need to see the whole car to know that avehicle is oncoming. Given average reaction time is say 0.2 sec its a negligble beenfit for even the sharpest of minds.

Nitpick, but you need to compare like with like. The change in visibility is a full car length for the car's front corner to be just visible in the two scenarios, so use 4m for your calculation. That'll give you about 0.3 seconds, so starting to be a useful difference.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I don't disagree with what you have said here and it in effect echos 2 other posters views who said they also agree with me either fully or in part. Have you not read all the posts though from those who have said by taking a specific line you can be assured of being able to corner faster? Some of them appear to claim they have been taught that in riding school. Safety and Stability as you say do not appear to come into it the way they think as it would likely mean taking a less than desirable and slower line through the bend.

Well there are specific lines where you can corner faster so if they have been taught that then what is your objection?
I think you are a bit quick to dismiss the value of courses and coaching. With the best will in the world, no matter how good an instructor is, its unlikely 100% of what is delivered as course content will stick in the minds of students. I do not think you are in a position to say that safety and stability have not been addressed by a course.
If anything, not making use of all the content delivered, demonstrates that learning is not a one hit experience. There is a reason ACC encourages riders to take the courses on an ongoing/repeat basis, learning and skill development is a continuum not a point on a timeline.
I would suggest that your mindset about having passed your test whatever number of years ago and having X years of experience is indicative of a common issue with the approach of many riders and drivers. Namely that passing an assessment of competence at a point in time is sufficient guarantee of the maintenance of that competence. The possession of a driving licence for life (assuming one does not accumulate enough demerits along the way) is one of the few remaining examples in life where certification or licencing is not subject to ongoing or routine verification and validation. All the experience in the world is of little value if the experience is umpteen years of making the same mistakes, using poor technique or failing to progress and develop one's skillset.

[onearmedbandit]

So.....how about that study huh....

[Zedder]

So.....how about that study huh....


I found it interesting and enlightening. Thanks for posting it.

[Ulsterkiwi]

So.....how about that study huh....

Sorry mate, it's a really useful thing you did to post this. I didn't mean to add to the distraction away from it. Sometimes when you see things being said that are just plain misguided you have to speak up. Or at least that's what I thought.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulsterkiwi]

Lets go back to the statistics of what this post is about plus I have read in a number of publications that the majority of single motorcycle crashes occur on bends. With what you have said here is effectively wanting more crashes to happen with schooling so faster cornering lines can be got? How do you know that many riders who have crashed have not been taking fast riding school lines anyway but shit has happened as a result of the speed they have got up to not allowing them to make a correction in time? There is a saying "The Faster You Go The Bigger The Mess" I dont strictly adhere to the speed limit all the time myself but reserve that for straight stretches of road that are statistically not as dangerous for single motorcycle crashes.

I really cannot fathom for the life of me how you have interpreted what I said to mean I want more crashes to happen. To say that you have applied contrived logic is something of an understatement.

Courses teach lines which, if conditions allow them to be taken, will increase the potential speed a corner can be taken at safely. That is not the same as saying "irrespective of the prevailing conditions take this line and follow it without thinking about what might influence your choice of line" The latter is your interpretation of something you have not witnessed or experienced for yourself.


I am not sure how to express this without some frustration but as someone on this thread has already alluded to, you are either a masterful troll beyond even Akzle's abilities, or you really are a very challenged individual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkW]

Having been a visitor and then a member of this site for a long time I have been much amused by the words that have issued from Cassina over the years.

My conclusions:

Cassina is sometimes more than one person - there are some changes in phrasing and logic that suggest this;

Cassina may well have had more than a decent exposure to rider training, right up to the point where I suspect that Cassina has been or may even still be an instructor - every now and again the comments made hit the nail on the head pretty well.

Cassina has managed to get a very large number of people to spend a very large amount of time questioning and commenting on the posts made. What a great way to get other riders to really think through their processes in order to clearly explain the shortcomings in Cassina's posts.

Cassina's ability to completely adhere to a regimented set of responses suggests that they are written on a stickit firmly attached to the screen or keyboard!

So, my congratulations on an outstanding job. Keep up the good work.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Having been a visitor and then a member of this site for a long time I have been much amused by the words that have issued from Cassina over the years.

My conclusions:

Cassina is sometimes more than one person - there are some changes in phrasing and logic that suggest this;

Cassina may well have had more than a decent exposure to rider training, right up to the point where I suspect that Cassina has been or may even still be an instructor - every now and again the comments made hit the nail on the head pretty well.

Cassina has managed to get a very large number of people to spend a very large amount of time questioning and commenting on the posts made. What a great way to get other riders to really think through their processes in order to clearly explain the shortcomings in Cassina's posts.

Cassina's ability to completely adhere to a regimented set of responses suggests that they are written on a stickit firmly attached to the screen or keyboard!

So, my congratulations on an outstanding job. Keep up the good work.

Probably the most insightful post ever[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pritch]

I dont strictly adhere to the speed limit all the time myself but reserve that for straight stretches of road that are statistically not as dangerous for single motorcycle crashes.

More accidents occur at intersections than on bends, the single vehicle ones are on bends of course. I'm sure it's possible to crash on straights but apart from medical emergencies or similar it's hard to see why anybody would. Unless a dog ran out? :whistle:

Straight stretches of road may seem the best places to exceed the speed limit to inexperienced riders but in fact that is not the case. The Police know that drivers do this and tend to concentrate of such stretches of road. Nick Ienatch discusses it in his book "Sport Riding Techniques". Unfortunately I can't quote him directly as I loaned the book out. The gist though is that it's more satisfying to up the pace a bit on a winding stretch which utilises the advantages that the bike has to offer. Riders without the relatively basic skill setrequired should probably stick to the limit everywhere.

He also discusses single vehicle corner crashes in a US context. These apparently often have a skidmark across the road and into the bank - or off the cliff.
In many if not most cases, the rider could have successfully rounded the corner had they but tried.

[Taxythingy]

So.....how about that study huh....

It's good, but small. Many of the crash/near-crash categories have only 1-2 observations in them, so we can't say much more than "not frequent, but they happen".

I found some of the location categories confusing (they appeared to bundle rural and residential together as their baseline), but separated urban and motorway. Surely rural and residential should be considered separately?

I liked the event identification system and how it could pick up near-crashes and similar situations. That really helps look at what is going on. Also liked the duration - should be long enough that riders get on with riding, rather than thinking about a video system recording them.

I wonder how much it would cost to repeat the study, but with about 1000 people split over a variety of regions & countries (e.g. Germany/France/UK, US/Canada, OZ/NZ, Japan).

[Ulsterkiwi]

It's good, but small. Many of the crash/near-crash categories have only 1-2 observations in them, so we can't say much more than "not frequent, but they happen".

I found some of the location categories confusing (they appeared to bundle rural and residential together as their baseline), but separated urban and motorway. Surely rural and residential should be considered separately?

I liked the event identification system and how it could pick up near-crashes and similar situations. That really helps look at what is going on. Also liked the duration - should be long enough that riders get on with riding, rather than thinking about a video system recording them.

I wonder how much it would cost to repeat the study, but with about 1000 people split over a variety of regions & countries (e.g. Germany/France/UK, US/Canada, OZ/NZ, Japan).

Thats a really good idea, one you would think NZTA and ACC would/could buy into. Maybe a proposal could be made to MSAC as potential use of the $25 levy they have input into spending (input, not control) That would take care of NZ. Australia is awkward because different states would have to be brought on board, not sure this is something the Commonwealth government would want to take on. Awkward but not impossible. The European countries might be easier to get involved, it may be different for this area but in my field the North Americans tend not to be interested in anything outside of North America. Ok, so for North America I really mean the US.;)
It wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be the most expensive project ever undertaken.

Another thought. At some point you would imagine ACC would need to evaluate the impact of the Ride Forever programme beyond measuring how many people undertake a course. The study design described could add one more element to the data collected, course participation or not and at what level over the duration of the study/the participants involvement.

[rambaldi]

Thats a really good idea, one you would think NZTA and ACC would/could buy into. Maybe a proposal could be made to MSAC as potential use of the $25 levy they have input into spending (input, not control) That would take care of NZ. Australia is awkward because different states would have to be brought on board, not sure this is something the Commonwealth government would want to take on. Awkward but not impossible. The European countries might be easier to get involved, it may be different for this area but in my field the North Americans tend not to be interested in anything outside of North America. Ok, so for North America I really mean the US.;)
It wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be the most expensive project ever undertaken.

Another thought. At some point you would imagine ACC would need to evaluate the impact of the Ride Forever programme beyond measuring how many people undertake a course. The study design described could add one more element to the data collected, course participation or not and at what level over the duration of the study/the participants involvement.

When I did a bronze course we signed something about collecting data afterwards if we crash (I think it would relate to tracking any future motorcycle related ACC claims)

[Ulsterkiwi]

When I did a bronze course we signed something about collecting data afterwards if we crash (I think it would relate to tracking any future motorcycle related ACC claims)

hmmm, that would make sense. I have done 3 or 4 RF courses and do not remember signing anything like that. I wonder if its a recent addition?

[Ulsterkiwi]

Your book about upping the pace through bends does conflict with the statistics though which is a worry. You need to look at some FB video or similar that shows dangerous twisty road tourist driving and you may very well find your book is very wrong but if not believe in its teaching at your peril.


Read the book, its freely available, show me the page where one is instructed to "up the pace through bends".

Anyway, I follow the shoe :bleh:

[swbarnett]

It is said that everyone likes to think they are a better rider/driver than everyone else and you have just demonstrated that with this ramble as you have included other motorists and not just me.
It is also said that when one starts flinging insults it is obvious that one is losing the argument.


I have been riding since 1976 and if I did not know how to ride I would not be alive today now would I?
Bullshit!


I have also never crashed due to my own fault.
Bullshit! (from your own descriptions)


There is always a first time though even for "know alls" like yourself.
Bullshit! My contention is that I am alive today because I recognise that there are things I don't know.


If you read all the posts again one poster did mention a riding school that taught the way I ride.
Give me the details. As in when? It's entirely possible that the thinking has changed over the years. If not, then unlike you I would definitely be interested in taking a course at said riding school to get a different perspective.


Maybe you should go for some lessons yourself at that school but you would not want to end up riding like me I guess as it would be uncool eh!
I'm always open to new ideas. That's one reason I joined KB in the first place. Cool has nothing to do with it.

[rambaldi]

hmmm, that would make sense. I have done 3 or 4 RF courses and do not remember signing anything like that. I wonder if its a recent addition?

I wouldn't think too recent, it was probably more than a year ago that I did my course.

[swbarnett]

There is a saying "The Faster You Go The Bigger The Mess"
If you believe that then that explains a lot.

[Taxythingy]

hmmm, that would make sense. I have done 3 or 4 RF courses and do not remember signing anything like that. I wonder if its a recent addition?

That's been in there for at least 2 and a bit years. I suspect the crash statistics generated will be skewed by people self-selecting for the courses or not. It ought to make the training look good. If that keeps it cheap and accessible, it gets my vote.

[Ulsterkiwi]

That's been in there for at least 2 and a bit years. I suspect the crash statistics generated will be skewed by people self-selecting for the courses or not. It ought to make the training look good. If that keeps it cheap and accessible, it gets my vote.

I should probably pay more attention to what I sign then. Honestly can't remember anything about that.
I think they will do all they can to keep the training both cheap and accessible.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I think it was another poster who said the book said to "up the pace through bends" but it was his interpretation rather than the exact words.

Read the book, its freely available. Then you do not have to rely on another's interpretation.

[swbarnett]

If you dont believe that it also explains a lot.
Ask an astronaut that has successfully returned to earth from a shuttle mission how big the mess was. After all, 28,000 kph is a mighty speed. The mess surely must be as big?


Mate, ALL things in life tend to subtleties that are obviously beyond your comprehension.

[pritch]

What we dont know is how many of those riders have been schooled in the speeds/lines they were taking.

What Ienatch says, and his book is considered authoritative, is that in many instances the riders were not riding a line at all, or if they were they had abandoned it. They sat the bike up, pointed it straight ahead, and hit the brakes, or in some cases hit the rear brake only, instead of trying to ride around the corner.

These were not hugely competent riders, rather the opposite.

More recently there were more US Marines dying in motorcycle accidents than in Iraq. They came home with a years worth of money they had been unable to spend and bought a bike. No experience, no skill, no helmet, no restictions on what they could buy, and the result was a high casualty rate.

In this country you can't ride without a helmet, you aren't supposed to ride a big bike straight away, but there are still people with little experience and limited skill some of whom may fail to make it round the bend.

[pritch]

OK I don't have Ienatch's book but I recalled this which is still available. Some of you will have seen it before, some maybe not. It is worth a read, even as a refresher.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/pace

[trufflebutter]

''A guy who said all his riding mates who were better than him were now in the cemetery''

In whatever context that was said, he could not have been more wrong.

[pritch]

That line is one put out by the Police/NZTA/ACC and it would be based on actual crash data which you seem to be quite happy to ignore and it would take an actual crash happening to you before you take notice maybe.

You shouldn't get sucked in so easily by blatant propaganda. The NZ Police have focussed almost entirely on speed with an occasional nod to drink driving. In Britain where it seems much more detailed records are kept, speed ranks seventh as cause of accidents. It's felt that figure is artificially high because not all accidents are attended by specialist traffic police and the general duties cops too readily attribute the accident to excessive speed. (Which has a familiar ring?)

Your "actual crash data" comment is highly suspect.

As has been mentioned before there are three main approaches to road safety:
Education (which you seem determined to ignore)
Engineering and
Enforcement

Two of those cost money, one of them rakes it in. No prizes for guessing where the emphasis is. It's about dollars not data.

[Ulsterkiwi]

No unlike you I am quite content to stick to limits where I know I may have a chance if shit happens. I can remember 2 quotes I read some years back, one was on here that was from a guy who said all his riding mates who were better than him were now in the cemetery and another was a media comment from a guy whoes friend died on a group ride (possibly trying to keep up) and his friend said his mate was a good rider too. So just because you are a good rider even having been though a riding school it is no guarantee you will live longer than non riding schooled riders. Something to ponder over eh.

Read the book, you might learn something that helps you deal with the shit when it happens.

Again you seem to invoke a logic and meaning in what people say that just isn't there. You perpetuate the idea that Roadcraft is about telling people to push the limits, to take a particular line and that riding schools want people to crash. You say this is down to blind belief in a book that tells people to up the pace in a corner. I invite you to read the book and find out the truth of the matter for yourself and you somehow manage to twist that to me having a need to ignore advisory speeds marked on corners??????????????????

I ponder my skills and abilities every time I ride, I accept that I will always have something to learn, I try to take every opportunity to improve myself and my riding. I am not interested in being faster or "better" than anyone else, I want to be the best rider I can be to give myself a) the most enjoyment from my riding and b)give myself the best chance possible to survive what the road might throw my way.
All the above being the case I can neither a)ever consider my riding skills as a finished product nor b) be assured that I will never crash. I will however have taken all reasonable steps to minimise risk.

But hey, you already know it all and no amount of posts by me or anyone else will change that so fill your boots.

[R650R]

Nitpick, but you need to compare like with like. The change in visibility is a full car length for the car's front corner to be just visible in the two scenarios, so use 4m for your calculation. That'll give you about 0.3 seconds, so starting to be a useful difference.

No its not a full car length, its a bonnet at best in the longest gap image.

[Ocean1]

an article in AA magazine that was generally all about the pros and cons of being a returning rider.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh:

Oh dearie me, are you really that gullible?

[Ulsterkiwi]

But you cant argue with physics and neither can a riding school that promotes faster cornering lines than what the sign says if there is one on a bend. In the AA article I read there was a comment from a tow truck driver who said he picks up more bikes from bends than any other part of a road. I cant see any reason why he would make that up not unlike the police who you think go by made up data.
The truth perhaps hurts some on here and they do their darn best to try and discredit it because a particular riding school or book author "knows better".

What part of the "book does not say that" do you not understand? Read it for yourself then tell me where the book says up the pace around corners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[onearmedbandit]

In the AA article I read there was a comment from a tow truck driver who said he picks up more bikes from bends than any other part of a road.
.

Sounds like he works for Captain Fucking Obvious Tow Service.

[Viking01]

No less gullible than the poster/s on here that have read words to the effect you must "Up the pace" when riding bends in their instruction book on how to ride. I would believe the tow truck driver over any theorists who have written a manual. Even the diagrams posted on cornering yesterday by a poster are really no more than based on an ideal theoretical situation. The real world is sadly not like that

What is this "must up the pace" ? Is it reading or comprehension you have a problem with ? I haven't read anything in this thread to date that says you "must" up your pace (other than your comments).

Regarding the diagrams on riding lines that were posted yesterday, well, what specific aspect of them do you disagree with ?

I personally don't have any issues with either the forces diagrams that Gremlin posted, or the riding lines diagrams. They are perfectly clear and understandable. What aspect of them are you having problems with ?

Based on "an ideal theoretical situation" ? Well, is that a surprise for you ? In trying to work out the dynamics of a motorcycles behaviour in a turn, I'm sure they did start with some theoretical models - and then went and tested them out in the real world. And then started to promote them (via Road Craft) because they were found to be useful.

Cheers

[Berries]

(possibly trying to keep up)
CASSINA BINGO!

Where do I get my prize?

[pritch]

No less gullible than the poster/s on here that have read words to the effect you must "Up the pace" when riding bends in their instruction book on how to ride.

Nobody said that. It seems when you read something you don't read what's written, you try to find something that supports your own "unusual" views.

What Ienatch was saying, and part of it is mentioned in that piece "The Pace", anybody with a right arm can ride fast on a straight. It is more satisfying to up the pace on a winding road. He warns against going fast enough to get in trouble, and there is no "must" involved. He even describes the measures they take to ensure nobody is "under pressure to keep up".

I have said it before, you should not be commenting on riding skill related matters, you seem to have absolutely no concept of what is required.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Your question about the book is better aimed at poster Pritch who has read it and came away with the impression that "upping the pace" on bends was the way to go. As I said if you try "upping the pace" on some of our twisty tourist routes down south the likelyhood of coming to grief is quite high with so many drivers not being able to stick to their side of the centre line. Maybe ride some twisty busy roads then if you want to learn something new.

Pritch was talking about a different book. I am talking about Roadcraft. You are the only one reading this thread not able to work that out.
Again, read it. I would love to hear what part of the book tells you to up the pace in the corners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Akzle]

I have been riding since 1976 and if I did not know how to ride I would not be alive today now would I?
we call that a "fluke", defined as "luck, not skill"



I have also never crashed due to my own fault.

but you've crashed SO MUCH...
:weird:
and refuse to undergo professional evaluation, even when it wont cost you anything. (except what little dignity you may have)

[Ocean1]

No less gullible than the poster/s on here that have read words to the effect you must "Up the pace" when riding bends in their instruction book on how to ride. I would believe the tow truck driver over any theorists who have written a manual. Even the diagrams posted on cornering yesterday by a poster are really no more than based on an ideal theoretical situation. The real world is sadly not like that

You mean the posters that have all said they didn't in fact read that?

The ones who pointed out that you continuously misrepresent shit you've been told is wrong multiple times?

Those posters?

I guess you really are a fucking prat.

[pritch]

From what you have said here the author has made 2 conflicting statements in that you quote it is more satsfying to "up the pace" on a winding road but dont go so fast you get into trouble. Well from reading that I would simply conclude that if you dont up the pace there is no chance of getting into trouble as guys who do decide to up the pace will often ride at a dangerous pace anyway.

There are no conflicting statements and you are the only one talking about dangerous pace. Fuck it! You are back in ignore.

[Viking01]

Ok if we want to be semantical it was me that threw in "must" but the interpretation "upping the pace" was Pritch's exact impression of the book from what he read.

As for the diagrams they give an impression that the bike and car coming towards one another on a bend always stay in their lane and are travelling at the same speed towards one another which in real life is not the case. Even another poster felt one or more of the diagrams were not to real life. Some of us are line obseesed and some of us are not I guess. For those that are line obseesed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disasterous consequences as they have little time to react if shit happens.

There's no semantics about it. Again, you were simply putting words into other people's mouths. I see that UlsterKiwi called you out for doing the same earlier.

Pritch (who paraphrased Nick Ienatsch) simply stated that Ienatsch found it more "satisfying" to be able to "up the pace". Neither party was recommending it. And Yes, I too have a copy of Ienatsch's "Sports Riding Techniques" book. Given Ienatsch's background and riding capability, that comment is no surprise. If he chose to "up the pace", he would only do it if he judged it to be safe to do so.

As for the riding line diagrams, your comment:
-"they always stay in their lane, and are traveling at the same speed towards each other". How could you possibly derive those two conclusions from the diagrams ?

"Line Obsessed" - again your comment:
Maybe others on this website - who have been on rider training courses and done some reading - realise the benefits that such riding lines confer. Under most circumstances. I believe that Pritch and UlsterKiwi both made the point that smart riders sacrifice riding line (position) for safety and stability. So they will try and ride these lines where possible - but will change their riding line where either safety or stability might be compromised. If that makes me "line obsessed", then I'll plead guilty as well.

And as for your last comment:
" For those that are line obsessed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disastrous consequences". Congratulations ! You have simply outdone yourself this time. This is just pure fiction on your part.

Let me ask you three simple questions in turn:
-Why would I change my riding line simply because traffic had become more congested ? (please explain why)
-Why must I necessarily get "extremely angry" ? (are you saying that I can't think for myself and exert some self control )
-Why would I "up the pace" in response to traffic congestion (especially if that was a totally inappropriate course of action) ?

Cheers

[Viking01]

Ok if we want to be semantical it was me that threw in "must" but the interpretation "upping the pace" was Pritch's exact impression of the book from what he read.

As for the diagrams they give an impression that the bike and car coming towards one another on a bend always stay in their lane and are travelling at the same speed towards one another which in real life is not the case. Even another poster felt one or more of the diagrams were not to real life. Some of us are line obseesed and some of us are not I guess. For those that are line obseesed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disasterous consequences as they have little time to react if shit happens.

There's no semantics about it. Again, you were simply putting words into other people's mouths. I see that UlsterKiwi called you out for doing the same earlier.

Pritch (who paraphrased Nick Ienatsch) simply stated that Ienatsch found it more "satisfying" to be able to "up the pace". Neither party was recommending it. And Yes, I too have a copy of Ienatsch's "Sports Riding Techniques" book. Given Ienatsch's background and riding capability, that comment is no surprise. If he chose to "up the pace", he would only do it if he judged it to be safe to do so.

As for the riding line diagrams, your comment:
-"they always stay in their lane, and are traveling at the same speed towards each other". How could you possibly derive those two conclusions from the diagrams ?

"Line Obsessed" - again your comment:
Maybe others on this website - who have been on rider training courses and done some reading - realise the benefits that such riding lines confer. Under most circumstances. I believe that Pritch and UlsterKiwi both made the point that smart riders sacrifice riding line (position) for safety and stability. So they will try and ride these lines where possible - but will change their riding line where either safety or stability might be compromised. If that makes me "line obsessed", then I'll plead guilty as well.

And as for your last comment:
" For those that are line obsessed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disastrous consequences". Congratulations ! You have simply outdone yourself this time. This is just pure fiction on your part.

Let me ask you three simple questions in turn:
-Why would I change my riding line simply because traffic had become more congested ? (please explain why)
-Why must I necessarily get "extremely angry" ? (are you saying that I can't think for myself and exert some self control )
-Why would I "up the pace" in response to traffic congestion (especially if that was a totally inappropriate course of action) ?

Cheers

[Zedder]

There are no conflicting statements and you are the only one talking about dangerous pace. Fuck it! You are back in ignore.


If we all did it then hopefully it might go away.

[swbarnett]

That line is one put out by the Police/NZTA/ACC and it would be based on actual crash data which you seem to be quite happy to ignore and it would take an actual crash happening to you before you take notice maybe.
Once again you have completely missed the point. Read the phrase again "The faster you go, the bigger the mess". Nowhere in there does in mention an actual accident. If you have an engine that will push you fast enough you can travel near the speed of light in absolute safety if you don't hit anything.

Now, if they'd exercised a tiny piece of their tiny minds they would know this and change the phrase to "The faster you HIT, the bigger the mess". That I could somewhat agree with but for the fact that it still completely ignores the many other factors that govern the carnage that a particular crash will result in. For example, I could run in to a brick wall unprotected at just over 8kph and break a bone. I could run into the same wall at many times that speed while wrapped in bubble wrap and sustain no injury whatsoever.

[caseye]

If we all did it then hopefully it might go away.

I have! AGAIN. Cant stand being anywhere near what it spouts as gospel and now sying it has friends and agreers here in KB. FUCK OFF! ewe do bitch.
I'd cut my hand off rather than be exposed to or allow innocent new riders to be anywhere near it!

[Viking01]

But for all I know many of the guys (you included) I am in debate with on here could very well be group riders pushing the limit to "keep up" and if you have never seen such riding all you need to do is come to Christchurch and travel the road to Akaroa on mostly weekends in Summer. You will see many examples of riders "upping the pace" in order to keep up and if you were to see such riding I would love to know how you would think its safer than not "upping the pace" In the past on here the question that has been asked is if riding schools were so good why is going to a riding school not a compulsory part of getting a license and the reply that came back from another poster was that if going to a riding school became compulsory it would create a feeling of overconfidence and if tutors are saying things like if you take this particular line you will be able to up the pace through any bend its easy to understand why. If I was teaching lines at riding school my focus would be on the end result that you are less likely to run off the road if you take this line if its safe to do so rather than telling students they will be able to ride faster.

Sorry, don't change the subject of discussion. We were discussing riding lines.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions with a sensible response.

Cheers

[swbarnett]

Its no always "Your Hit" that creates the mess though but the "Hit" from someone/thing/animal else to you and by not riding with the thought that I must keep a higher than a speed limit/advisory pace up may very well buy you some valuable time should shit come your way from another direction.
Oh, fucken hell. Even you can't really be that thick? It matters not one fuck who hit who. It's still your accident, even if not technically your fault. Without a hit there is no mess. Now if you can't get that through you obviously one-cellular brain (even that's a stretch) then I strongly suggest you crawl back into the womb and have another go. You obviously missed out on a brain the first time around.

[Berries]

The cassina MO is well enough known now. Join in on a topic because you read something in a magazine once some years ago, mention the fact that someone once in one thread kind of agreed with you so you are clearly correct and always make sure to bring up the issue of people crashing due to riding under pressure to keep up with others on a group ride. State the obvious like it is news, like most single bike crashes happening on curves, and refuse to admit any culpability whatsoever for the numerous crashes that you have been in. Dismiss the idea of training without ever having done any or considering that it could make you a better and safer rider. Ride at or below the posted advisory speed and be proud of it

I see more people in this thread have now come to the realisation that it is absolutely pointless entering in to a 'debate' with cassina. It can only end in frustration, been there done that. Now I just laugh.

Talking of laughs - https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/182901-Thinking-of-moving-to-a-litre-bike-R1-Gixxer-1k-etc-Which

[nzspokes]

I have also never crashed due to my own fault.

Yes you have, you've dogs and shit.

You lack forward observation and a riding plan. For how you say you go around a turn you have no idea how to do that either.



Oh the corner speed signs, I thought the rule was double it plus 10.;)

[swbarnett]

Cassina. Don't expect any more replies from me. You're not worth the time and frustration. I just wish there was a way to put you on ignore permanently with no change to take you off.

[Akzle]

.



Oh the corner speed signs, I thought the rule was double it plus 10.;)

double, and read in mph.

[Akzle]

If I spout so much crap on here as you say why then do so many others enter into debate with me when you would think they would have better things to do with their time and that includes you?

you being repeatedly shot down is not "a debate" fuckwit.

forgotten this already?


because you are a FUCKING IDIOT and letting your horseshit stand unchallenged, in a public forum where new or inexperienced riders might not be able to determine it for what it is, is frankly dangerous, and a disservice to road safety (=point of thread)

[SVboy]

If I spout so much crap on here as you say why then do so many others enter into debate with me when you would think they would have better things to do with their time and that includes you?

Because you are such an easy target, and we were bored........ Love your 'balanced' criticism of Nick Ienatsch. Respected racer, riding coach, motorcycle journalist and author of highly respected books on road riding. Must be great to know more and be better than him. Except you don't. What the KB readership really wants to know, what is it like for you as an autistic Honda Africa owner?

[Akzle]

The cassina MO is well enough known now. Join in on a topic because you read something in a magazine once some years ago, mention the fact that someone once in one thread kind of agreed with you so you are clearly correct and always make sure to bring up the issue of people crashing due to riding under pressure to keep up with others on a group ride. State the obvious like it is news, like most single bike crashes happening on curves, and refuse to admit any culpability whatsoever for the numerous crashes that you have been in. Dismiss the idea of training without ever having done any or considering that it could make you a better and safer rider. Ride at or below the posted advisory speed and be proud of it

I see more people in this thread have now come to the realisation that it is absolutely pointless entering in to a 'debate' with cassina. It can only end in frustration, been there done that. Now I just laugh.

Talking of laughs - https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/182901-Thinking-of-moving-to-a-litre-bike-R1-Gixxer-1k-etc-Which

you left out "when unable to control your bike at low speed, put your foot down and walk it around the corner"

[trufflebutter]

you left out "when unable to control your bike at low speed, put your foot down and walk it around the corner"

Not entirely a ludicrous situation, passed a female between Langs beach and Mangawhai doing just that. Her hubby was waiting about a kilometer down the road.

[Viking01]

you being repeatedly shot down is not "a debate" fuckwit.
Forgotten this already?

Quote Originally Posted by Akzle View Post
Because you are a FUCKING IDIOT and letting your horseshit stand unchallenged, in a public forum where new or inexperienced riders might not be able to determine it for what it is, is frankly dangerous, and a disservice to road safety (=point of thread)


Aaaah, Akzle, you are so eloquent. Straight to the heart of the matter.

You get my vote ...... 8-)

[onearmedbandit]

But many of you guys always say that whenever a debate comes up with me but for some reason you cant help yourselves but to come back for the next one. Have you not ever considered that if no one replied to my posts that would be the quickest way of stopping me posting further. Time to look at yourselfs guys for wasting your time replying if you think I spout crap on here.

You like to pick cherries huh.

[Gremlin]

But many of you guys always say that whenever a debate comes up with me but for some reason you cant help yourselves but to come back for the next one. Have you not ever considered that if no one replied to my posts that would be the quickest way of stopping me posting further. Time to look at yourselfs guys for wasting your time replying if you think I spout crap on here.
Because your advice is mostly plain wrong, and a new rider seeing and taking your advice puts themselves at increased risk, worst case scenario, dying.

[Zedder]

Not entirely a ludicrous situation, passed a female between Langs beach and Mangawhai doing just that. Her hubby was waiting about a kilometer down the road.


It is ludicrous as in: So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing.

[Akzle]

There have been a few posters who have agreed with me either in full or in part plus I did actually agree with one guy who went to a riding school that taught riding the way I do based on what he said. Have you not noticed that whenever someone does agree with me in full or part they always do it out of fear of being rubished like me. There would be many members of this site I bet who would agree in full or part with me but would just be too frightened to post at all. Fuckwit yourself!!


so.0.02% agree with <1% of what you post, vs the >99% who agree with me calling you a fuckwit, for what you post.

ready to front up to that free observed ride yet?

[Zedder]

Quote Originally Posted by Akzle View Post
Because you are a FUCKING IDIOT and letting your horseshit stand unchallenged, in a public forum where new or inexperienced riders might not be able to determine it for what it is, is frankly dangerous, and a disservice to road safety (=point of thread)


Aaaah, Akzle, you are so eloquent. Straight to the heart of the matter.

You get my vote ...... 8-)


Hopefully enough has been written so far against its postings, in various threads, to alert new or inexperienced riders to the danger.

[awayatc]

someone posting on here that you can learn to ride a motorbike without having to go to riding school.

Please....!

When will you start learning how to ride a bike?

With or without riding school....

The way you talk in your posts ,you must be struggling to get a shopping trolley safely to the checkout counter before the food is past its sell by date......

[Gremlin]

Or is your argument simply the fact that by not preaching that riding school is the only way to learn like some others do, that alone makes my comments dangerous? In life there are many people who are able to learn without having to go to school did you know. Maybe you or some others on here own or work for a riding school and I would fully understand it that you would not be happy about someone posting on here that you can learn to ride a motorbike without having to go to riding school.
Have you thought that top athletes still have coaches? Just because you survive doesn't mean you're any good. You personally have a closed mind to improving yourself or getting your skills/knowledge checked (a dangerous concept for any industry/skill), and for everyone, you don't know what you don't know. You try to make assumptions on a topic (like riding schools) with no knowledge/experience of them. You may as well try your hand at being a politician.

While I mentor riders through a charity (IAM) I earn no money (unless you want to count a drink that the associate normally buys after, while I write up a review) nor is my gas paid for (I provide that). I do it because it's my way of giving back, upskilling riders because they want to improve. I've seen enough carnage and had enough friends die and this is my way of trying to improve things. For those that don't want help, fine, there is enough of a queue of people that do, that will be focussed on first. Whether or not it's legally required, through changes in the last decade, licences are easier to lose and harder to obtain (harder than before, but really not that hard). It is recognised internationally that training increases skill and reduces risk/rate of incidents. Proven with stats from UK police over half a century ago amongst any other data.

I don't really care that you don't believe it or not, and with such a closed mind it's best you don't waste the time of an instructor/mentor anyway. However, you need to stop spouting your opinion like fact, when no-one recognised on the subject agrees with you.

[trufflebutter]

It is ludicrous as in: So foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing.

:shifty: One can only agree on the amusement of it all...at first.

[Viking01]

But the 99% who reply could be fuckwits themselves including you for all I know as I have never seen them/you ride either. Those that reply to my posts are just a tiny percentage of members on this site. They all including you seem to be the same people all the time. I must have a pied piper appeal to some of you eh!

Can I just say that I think that you're starting to show signs of struggling at the moment. Your preceding post showed
you talking about (i) riding lines (ii) corner entry speed and (iii) road signage. Which tends to confuse the message that
you're trying to get across.

Look, if you're going to win this audience over, you're going to have to work a little harder and focus more on giving them
what they want.

Can I be brutally honest ? I think that two of your older publications :
- The Akaroa GP (maybe better known as "Cassina's Guide to Road Racing in the Canterbury Hills")
and
- How to Up The Pace (known as ""Cassina's Guide to Catching Up with the Pack on Group Rides")
have personally been my favourites, and judging by the response you've also received from others
as well, I'd stick with those two. Give them what they want.

I think one of your efforts:
- My Favourite Street Signs (known as "Cassina's Guide on How NZTA Could Improve Road Signage"
is still a bit thin, and needs some more work.

I think your latest effort on this thread:
- Riding Lines and Corner Entry Speed (known as "Cassina's Guide on How to Confuse the Two for
New Riders" definitely shows promise, but it just needs a little more work. You can do it if you try.
I mean you had me confused, until Akzle came along and rescued me. Credit: Akzle

I think that there is possibly a short story in:
-How to Avoid Road Side Objects when Riding (known as "The Dog was Responsible")

Last but not least, I think there is definitely the beginnings of a Self Improvement book there as well:
- My Assessment of NZ Motorcycle Riding School Courses (known as "How I Attended a Motorcycle
Riding Skills Course and Was Amazed").

Look, I hope that was helpful. You don't need to thank me. I'm here to help.

Cheers

[trufflebutter]

so.0.02% agree with <1% of what you post, vs the >99% who agree with me calling you a fuckwit, for what you post.

ready to front up to that free observed ride yet?

You as the observer? what are your credentials where this is concerned?

[onearmedbandit]

You as the observer? what are your credentials where this is concerned?

Nope, Akzle has previously offered to pay for Cassina to attend a riding course.

[trufflebutter]

Nope, Akzle has previously offered to pay for Cassina to attend a riding course.

:killingme On both counts. Clearly a rhetorical offer.

[FJRider]

So whats non factual about the nub of my argument here that the faster you go around a bend the less chance you have of braking or swerving if shit happens? Not one person who has responded to me has been able to answer that question yet but if you are an any good instructor you should be able to give me a serious answer and not a stupid one like many others?

The faster you go around a bend ... the less time you have to brake or swerve for "things/shit" on your side of the road (ie:sheep/cows/dogs/other vehicles/rocks etc) and rapidly changing your line of travel mid corner is not easy ... (too) many crash in corners trying to do just that. Best you keep us ALL safe and stay at home.

[Gremlin]

So whats non factual about the nub of my argument here that the faster you go around a bend the less chance you have of braking or swerving if shit happens? Not one person who has responded to me has been able to answer that question yet but if you are an any good instructor you should be able to give me a serious answer and not a stupid one like many others?
Well first I'm not an instructor (NZTA I endorsement). I too went through the advanced roadcraft process a few years, ate some humble pie and lifted my game, passing the Advanced Test. Through practise and hard work, I qualified (passing the Observer Test) to mentor other riders, in a role called Observer.

Second, at the very highest and most simple level, yes, the faster you go, the less time you have to react (because you cover more distance). However (and please continue reading because I don't want to be counted in agreement with you), at the very core of advanced roadcraft is giving a rider more time to react, at any given speed, through good positioning and excellent observation.

Look up IPSGA if you want more info, but keeping it brief, you're taking, using and giving Information as much as possible (TUG), Positioning your motorbike accordingly (SSV), which then dictates what sort of Speed is possible (eg, the vanishing point is still coming towards you so you need to reduce speed) and with this change in speed you need to consider what Gear you're in and whether you need to change, and at this point you should have all of the previous sorted to negotiate the corner/hazard/whatever and can apply the Acceleration phase (and a motorbike is more stable in a corner with a slightly positive throttle as it settles the suspension).

Sounds like too much? Sure, very few come close to meeting the required standard without 6-24 months of practise, feedback and more practise. All this should add up to a well skilled rider, able to see issues well before they occur (what we call an active rider - managing their environment, rather than a passive one letting everything happen around them) and yes to go back to your question, a well skilled rider will negotiate anything at a higher speed with more time to react than a lesser skilled rider that perhaps didn't even see the hazard.

And just in case you still think speed is what it's all about, an advanced rider (we differentiate between experienced and advanced) should show progress (not just outright speed) and restraint in equal measure according to the situation.

[onearmedbandit]

I am the one that said that. Its best that all the others who felt that advise was shit/dangerous should stay home don't you think?

I think you'll find that those comments were aimed at some of your earlier pearls of wisdom, for example moving over the the left of the lane on the open road when faced with oncoming traffic etc.

[nzspokes]

So whats non factual about the nub of my argument here that the faster you go around a bend the less chance you have of braking or swerving if shit happens? Not one person who has responded to me has been able to answer that question yet but if you are an any good instructor you should be able to give me a serious answer and not a stupid one like many others?

Thats easy, an decent rider will have assessed the Safety, the Stability and the View through each corner they come to. Then as they proceed through the turn they chase the limit point keeping in mind they must be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

Its all part of a riding plan.

[nzspokes]

But you are thinking more of a bend the rider can see right around from the start. Where accidents are more likely to happen is where a fast moving rider can not see all around the bend right at the start.

Now try reading and understanding what I said and you will see speed is addressed.

[nzspokes]

I am glad you now see I make sense about what I said that the faster you go the less time you have to react if shit happens and where we differ in view is that I am a believer in the KISS principle "Keep it Simple Stupid" and for it to take up to 24 months at your riding school to become advanced to me sounds plain nuts. The fact that you say very few ever meet your standard just proves to me that you need to simplify your teaching in a major way. The main issue I have with not wanting to attend a riding school is while they can teach you to ride safely yourself there is no way they can teach you to be safe from the errors of all other motorists and animals obstacles etc. Unlike you I have been in 4 accidents 2 caused by dogs and 2 by car drivers and the common thing with all 4 is that I never had time to even brake things happened so fast. So even if I had got an advanced certificate at your riding school it would have been zero help. While it has not been said in this thread I have had comments from others on here saying that there is always time to swerve or brake to avoid the errors of other motorists. What they mean when they say that is they personally have always had time to swerve or brake and have just been lucky. If everyone had time to swerve or brake there would be no crashes at all on the roads now would there? You will no doubt feel very disillusioned with what you have been taught at riding school should you ever find yourself a victim of someone elses screwup and you too have not had time to swerve or brake.

And right here we have the core of your problem. You admit you cant be bothered learning how to do something properly and you have had 4 crashes that you blame everybody but yourself. Yet you cant see these are linked. Just because a Dog/driver/pedestrian/small child does something wrong, a decent rider has to be able to allow for this and avoid the incidents before they happen. The reason things happen so fast for you is you do not have a riding plan.

The laziness in your riding is the cause of your issues and the core reason you wont go have a proper riding assessment.

[Voltaire]

Hey Cassina, do you really only have an 82 Honda 750?

[Akzle]

Nope, Akzle has previously offered to pay for Cassina to attend a riding course.

*an observed ride.

his time, and the instructors.


...but, and this is where he pussies out i'm sure, his assessment becomes a matter of public record.

[SVboy]

I am glad you now see I make sense about what I said that the faster you go the less time you have to react if shit happens and where we differ in view is that I am a believer in the KISS principle "Keep it Simple Stupid" and for it to take up to 24 months at your riding school to become advanced to me sounds plain nuts. The fact that you say very few ever meet your standard just proves to me that you need to simplify your teaching in a major way. The main issue I have with not wanting to attend a riding school is while they can teach you to ride safely yourself there is no way they can teach you to be safe from the errors of all other motorists and animals obstacles etc. Unlike you I have been in 4 accidents 2 caused by dogs and 2 by car drivers and the common thing with all 4 is that I never had time to even brake things happened so fast. So even if I had got an advanced certificate at your riding school it would have been zero help. While it has not been said in this thread I have had comments from others on here saying that there is always time to swerve or brake to avoid the errors of other motorists. What they mean when they say that is they personally have always had time to swerve or brake and have just been lucky. If everyone had time to swerve or brake there would be no crashes at all on the roads now would there? You will no doubt feel very disillusioned with what you have been taught at riding school should you ever find yourself a victim of someone elses screwup and you too have not had time to swerve or brake.

Follow the Pied Piper or shun the mutant Leper? All you have done is reinforced your position as an out of control Luddite and a crash statistic. If you went to an advanced riding school perhaps you would have been able to better read and control your riding environment and avoid the hazards that lead to your crashing 4 times so far. Rather you go straight to " it wasn't my fault, nothing I could do" blame mode. The blame sits squarely on you. Then in this thread you have the slight realisation that your position of ignorance is wrong, so you look at the mountain of evidence against you and cherry pick bits that suit you and say " looks like I was riding like that all along. Then you can twist bits of other's posts to make them look like they agree with you. Classic Autism.
I think your position on KB is reflected in your rep statistics, as I said earlier, we bore easily and it is fun to play with the spaktard, in between going around corners in a safer and faster manner than you ever will, eh sport.

[Akzle]

I am glad you now see I make sense


pretty sure gremz has qualified himself.
what's your qualification?

protip: a WOF guy is not a qualification.

only 4?? colour me shocked

[OddDuck]

Cassina:

- Won't listen
- Doesn't learn
- Is always right
- Yep, always right
- huge or fragile ego, so always right
- Gotta be right because admitting a mistake might mean actually having to change.

And that right there is a dodgy rider.

If this is deliberate trolling to get people talking about safety then it's performance art in progress, but I'm not so sure about that. The thread's lost focus on genuine discussion of safety and turned into a nitpicking contest. This is not productive or useful.

Cassina won't listen, I know that. But to anyone else reading:

Sometimes you've got to swallow your own ego, take the hit, let someone else get one up on you, lose that eternal contest for dominance vs submission, etc etc, and in this way you may learn something. It will hurt in the moment but it will benefit you hugely in the long run. If you doubt this, find someone who just won't listen or learn and look at how quickly they get to a certain level and then stay there. They don't improve past that point, they don't grow. It's quite obvious when you see it in someone else.

Shutting your own ego down can require a conscious act of will but it's how you'll get better.

[Akzle]

:

Sometimes you've got to swallow your own ego, take the hit, let someone else get one up on you, lose that eternal contest for dominance vs submission, etc etc, and in this way you may learn something. It will hurt in the moment but it will benefit you hugely in the long run. If you doubt this, find someone who just won't listen or learn and look at how quickly they get to a certain level and then stay there. They don't improve past that point, they don't grow. It's quite obvious when you see it in someone else.

Shutting your own ego down can require a conscious act of will but it's how you'll get better.

except for me, obviously, i'm already fucken perfec

[nzspokes]

I addressed posters like you in my above comment when I said that luck has saved them and not a riding school. But if you want to believe your riding school education is going to keep you safe forever from the screw ups of others good luck with that. Also I do actually have the ability to swerve or brake as a result of others screw ups where there is time. I suppose if you were unlucky enough to come to grief as a result of another motorist's screw up you would blame the school and not the motorist that screwed up.
Yet you are to scared to go for a ride assessment.

Few years back I hit a car side on. It was in dual lane traffic. A car illegally saw a gap in the traffic and went for his driveway. I hit him. Legally he was at fault and the courts agreed.

But I see this as my fault for not seeing this risk earlier. I should have see the gap in the traffic and linked that to being a risk. I lacked observation. If I had recognized this it would have been a simple brake then carry on my way.

This is one of the reasons I try to keep learning. I am also in IAM but have not made full membership yet. When I do that wont be the end of my learning. IAM is a charity that work to help keep riders alive.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[onearmedbandit]

This thread is hurting my head now thanks to cassina.

[onearmedbandit]

I am not forcing you to read it though if you want to get rid of your headache.

I can't help it, you're like a train wreck.

[nzspokes]

A few years ago the Christchurch City Council introduced bus lanes and allowed motorcycles to ride in them and there is certainly a risk of having the same sort of crash that you had while ridng in them but what I do is ride about 30km/hr instead of 50 which allows me time to watch out right turning traffic into driveways. When you had your crash were you on a sports bike by any chance? The reason why I say that is on order to get a comfortable riding position you end up losing your peripheral vision due to them having lowered bars. Before you rubbish my thinking here go and take a bike with upright bars for a test ride and I am sure you will find your peripheral vision improved. Better still if you are tall enough take an adventure bike for a test ride as they have even better peripheral vision. I am speaking from experience here and while I have not owned a sports bike I have test ridden one. There was another guy on here a few months back who had the same crash as you and I recomended he try a taller bike to give him better periferal vision and while he did not rubbish my suggestion like many on here he said he was just not tall enough for them. I remember years ago a woman pulled out from a side street without looking properly and when she saw me at the lasy minute instead of flooring it she decided to stop in the middle of the road. Luckily I had enough time to stop without hitting her and locking my brakes up and if I had been to a riding school all those riding school advoctates on here would be saying it was the schooling that gave me the time to brake eh!!
I was on a 1200 Bandit.

Why are you scared to go on an assessment?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Gremlin]

... for it to take up to 24 months at your riding school to become advanced to me sounds plain nuts. The fact that you say very few ever meet your standard just proves to me that you need to simplify your teaching in a major way.
And there is the issue. I'll copy what I wrote again, this time bolding a word to help

Sure, very few come close to meeting the required standard without 6-24 months of practise, feedback and more practise.
You're also looking at it wrong. The standard is the standard and is not compromised. It's not called an Advanced Test for nothing. Passes are not handed out like chocolate fish, but most should be able to reach the standard if they are committed and work on it. It is accepted that not all will be able to make the standard, the same way that not everyone should be given a drivers licence, mainly because they just can't do it. You only have to look at the people that take 20+ attempts to pass the basic driving/riding test...

May as well mention it's also like a minimum standard, and you continue to develop and learn as time goes on.

[pritch]

You're also looking at it wrong. .

And there is Cassina's motorcycling problem in a single sentence. :whistle:

[nzspokes]

This will come as a shock to you but I got into car driving quite late in life and had some lessons with a professionl instructor and and the end of the series of lessons he gave me a certificate which may have even had the words "Advanced Driver Competency" on it. I would have perhaps had no more than 6 lessons. So thats proof you dont have to have up to say 2 years schooling to be any good. Unlike you though I do not see this certificate as making me better at driving than any one else. All it does is prove I know how to drive in the eyes of a stranger (instructor) as opposed to family and friends who may overlook any faults in my driving as to not hurt my feelings. It has not made me feel bullet proof on the road either like you and your mates and I dont blame the school either for the crash I was in caused by another motorist as you guys would in thinking the schooling was to make you bullet proof from the screwups of others.
Who was the driving instructor?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[trufflebutter]

Why are you scared to go on an assessment?


I'd venture to suggest that a large percentage of members here wouldn't put themselves in the position of someone pointing out their obvious faults. Truth is, everyone WILL have faults in the eye's of an assessor, and it can only be a good thing to have them, perhaps noted and talked about, in person. Whether you have been riding for 30-40 years or 3 years, I am in no doubt that there will ''at least one thing'' in any persons riding that can be improved on. Most will have a lot more faults going on than they expected in the eyes of the assessor.

Some years ago, I had a particular part of my riding that gave me grief every time, I wanted to get it sorted and spent an afternoon with a registered instructor. It was during this time that I had several bad habits that needed sorting out.

[nzspokes]

Read my later post when I say I have had an assessment (car driving) and the reason why I see it as nothing to brag about like you guys do with your riding schooling.
I have had a lot of drivers instruction and have held club and national motorsport licenses. Which means nothing when riding a bike.

Why are you scared to have an assessment?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[nzspokes]

I'd venture to suggest that a large percentage of members here wouldn't put themselves in the position of someone pointing out their obvious faults. Truth is, everyone WILL have faults in the eye's of an assessor, and it can only be a good thing to have them, perhaps noted and talked about, in person. Whether you have been riding for 30-40 years or 3 years, I am in no doubt that there will ''at least one thing'' in any persons riding that can be improved on. Most will have a lot more faults going on than they expected in the eyes of the assessor.

Some years ago, I had a particular part of my riding that gave me grief every time, I wanted to get it sorted and spent an afternoon with a registered instructor. It was during this time that I had several bad habits that needed sorting out.
Which is the right attitude. Yes you will have faults but the trick is to be open to correct them.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Zedder]

I'd venture to suggest that a large percentage of members here wouldn't put themselves in the position of someone pointing out their obvious faults.


Hardly, pointing out someone's faults is a KiwiBiker sport.

But seriously, no one is perfect so sensible people do upskill.

[Akzle]

the end of the series of lessons he gave me a certificate which may have even had the words "Advanced Driver Competency" on it.

MAY have, or DID?

giz a hint. was it written in crayon?

[Gremlin]

I would have perhaps had no more than 6 lessons. So thats proof you dont have to have up to say 2 years schooling to be any good.
Dear. God. I said 6 to 24 months. Everyone will vary and that's why we do 1 to 1. The only person I've observed in the last few years on a first ride that made the standard was a serving police officer who rode police bikes, NZ Police riding instructor and ex UK police. Even guys who have previously achieved the standard but been out of it, have let bad habits creep in, let their standards slide etc. It's an ongoing process to keep your skills up. NZTA recognise this in some ways by requiring instructors to show they're doing more than the minimum requirements, so some have come to IAM seeking the test pass.

But hey, since you've said you now have that certificate of assessment, why don't do you have a refresh? A certificate doesn't give you a 20 year pass. Of course, you could also tell us who the instructor was, what the words or organisation behind it were etc.

[trufflebutter]

As I know what you will do on here if I name the instructor I will not name him and chances are he would be well retired or dead now anyway. I do see the school is still going 20 years on from when I had my lessons so their teaching methods are obviously a success in terms of getting people ready to sit their license. If they turned out drivers as unsafe as you lot think I am they would have lost their teaching certification years ago would they not?

A good coach/teacher/instructor can only work with what they are giving to coach/teach or instruct with. No matter how good Mark Brook-Cowden thought he was, not even the great John Hart could make him a better than average player.

[nzspokes]

As I know what you will do on here if I name the instructor I will not name him and chances are he would be well retired or dead now anyway. I do see the school is still going 20 years on from when I had my lessons so their teaching methods are obviously a success in terms of getting people ready to sit their license. If they turned out drivers as unsafe as you lot think I am they would have lost their teaching certification years ago would they not?
Lol. Advanced driver from over 20 years ago. So it never happened then.

Why are you scared to have a assessment of your riding?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[nzspokes]

But havent you thought motorcycles themselves can be assessors in that as another poster here says in his sign off statement that they are extremely unforgiving of error? I think the time for me to take an assessmet will be if I start finding myself having a lot of near misses due to slowing down as a result of old age. I certainly dont want to end up like my father and many other elderly people from what I have heard that refuse to believe your driving/riding ability slows down with age.
Who knows I may take an assessment if they decide to reduce ACC premiums for those who do but the fact ACC has not done this just goes to prove they do not see a riding school education as being a guarantee of safer riding and as another poster on here said a few years back ACC/Govt sees riding schools as offering a feeling of overconfidence. You only have to see some of the comments from those who have been to riding school on here and how the school has taught them that there is always time to swerve/brake when someone else screws up to see how over confident some riding schools can make some people.
Do 4 accidents are not enough for you to realize you have a serious problem?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Zedder]

Hey Cassina, do you really only have an 82 Honda 750?


If it does exist, it's probably a "later model" now due to the "upgrade" of parts being replaced from the numerous crashes...

[Swoop]

Nope, Akzle has previously offered to pay for Cassina to attend a riding course.
Can we just cut out the middle man and just book a funeral director for her instead?


Cassina:

If this is deliberate trolling to get people talking about safety then it's performance art in progress, but I'm not so sure about that.
Fat chance. Just blind, maniacal stupidity coupled with the stubbornness of a mule.




Cassina: Serious question. Are you going through menopause at the moment?

[trufflebutter]

Are you "brave enough" to say what the faults were and what the instructor said to correct them on here?

Everything, now I'm just fucking awesome. But from memory (and it was few years ago) it was noted that my slow speed control was lacking/my position on the road while riding needed adjustment/my inability to do a U turn was notable and the use of covering the front brake whilst stopped at set of lights... was brought into question, something about 'bike control if I were to get a tap from behind from another vehicle'? Might have had something to do with me covering the rear brake in that same situation. Like I said it was a while ago so not entirely sure on that last bit.

[george formby]

I will let you know if I find it but I do know I have not thrown it out.
If it does say advanced will you be able to handle the shock of me being an advanced driver according to this school that is still going today about 20 years after I did my lessons?

If the driving school insisted on offering the same training today, you undertook 20 years ago, they would no longer be in business. A lot of things have changed in that time and the training offered is developed to match those changes. That's how education works. Constant improvement through reflection, understanding and results.

If you have made no effort to improve in that time your thinking and ability are at least 20 years behind the times. Just to give you an idea of how much our world has changed in that time, the World Wide Web is about 28 years old, mobile phones only really started to take off in the mid 80's but were still at least a decade from being omnipresent. BMW released a bike with ABS in 1988, Honda in 92. It was startling technology at the time, though not very long ago. The number of vehicles on NZ roads has increased by at least a million since 2000.

You gotta keep up with the times!

[george formby]

You sound like one of those people who get stories in the media occasionally saying that everyone and that will include you should do a practicle test when they renew their licenses. I have yet to read if there has been any govt response to this suggestion do you know?

If you are talking vehicular technology I would definitly fail as neither my bike or car has ABS but it is very much a money thing there as I have read with bikes that have ABS they can cost over $3000 to repair if their ABS packs up due to it being more exposed to the weather than ABS in cars. Updating my car is not an option either to buy an ABS one due to cost as well. I have devised a simple work around due to not having ABS and that is to simply extend my following distances in the wet. I once read a story that there is more crashes from vehicles with ABS as people think having ABS will save them in all emergency braking situations they may find themselves in. Other than increased traffic conjestion nothing road wise has changed from 20 years ago and with increased conjestion you end up with slower moving traffic which I think has resulted in a much lower number of road deaths than there were 20 years ago. Driverless cars will be the next big revolutionary thing but I dont see them being affordable by the masses during the remainder of my driving lifetime. One thing that will shock many on here is that I read recently that motorcycles will become a thing of the past as they will be no longer economic to built and meet the new international emissions regulations of the future. Well we can blame the Greenies for that eh!

:laugh: I would happily do my test for car and bike this evening and it's pissing down. I've kept up with the law and test requirements, practice my techniques and have mentors. Your right, I'm an advocate of your first suggestion, it would weed out the habitual, thoughtless and dogmatic. Far less so about congestion lowering the road toll. That's a really bizarre bit of conjecture, even for you. I lean towards ABS, airbags and stronger cars. I can think of quite a few things that have changed with our roads in the last 20 years and I don't live anywhere near a fault line. I'm not particularly bothered either, I adapt.

Bikes won't go, they will be electrifying in the future, just like everything else.

Don't live the same year 75 times or so, keep on growing and learning.

Oh, after a brief look I've yet to find a new AT model without ABS.

[Zedder]

Can we just cut out the middle man and just book a funeral director for her instead?


I'm thinking about the danger to other road users and dogs in the meantime.

[Swoop]

...an absolute nutter to fail you for holding on to your brakes at the lights...

Truffle said "covering" not holding onto.
So not menopausal? Just a fucking knob jockey with a lack of comprehension too.

[george formby]

And ability..

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KuDHVdSocbo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[nzspokes]

You sound like one of those people who get stories in the media occasionally saying that everyone and that will include you should do a practicle test when they renew their licenses. I have yet to read if there has been any govt response to this suggestion do you know?

If you are talking vehicular technology I would definitly fail as neither my bike or car has ABS but it is very much a money thing there as I have read with bikes that have ABS they can cost over $3000 to repair if their ABS packs up due to it being more exposed to the weather than ABS in cars. Updating my car is not an option either to buy an ABS one due to cost as well. I have devised a simple work around due to not having ABS and that is to simply extend my following distances in the wet. I once read a story that there is more crashes from vehicles with ABS as people think having ABS will save them in all emergency braking situations they may find themselves in. Other than increased traffic conjestion nothing road wise has changed from 20 years ago and with increased conjestion you end up with slower moving traffic which I think has resulted in a much lower number of road deaths than there were 20 years ago. Driverless cars will be the next big revolutionary thing but I dont see them being affordable by the masses during the remainder of my driving lifetime. One thing that will shock many on here is that I read recently that motorcycles will become a thing of the past as they will be no longer economic to built and meet the new international emissions regulations of the future. Well we can blame the Greenies for that eh!

So ABS is bad as you cant afford it. :facepalm:

[nzspokes]

No not if you spread them out over a 35 year period with the last being about 15 years ago. Remember too they were all the fault of others/animals. Those sort of accidents could happen to any one of us despite what you riding school has taught you.

Ive been driving about the same length of time. Yes you are bad.

[nzspokes]

And ability..



My U turns was one thing I got picked up on, I just never seemed to need to do them. Now I try to do at least one at work everyday. Simples.

[caspernz]

I'm thinking about the danger to other road users and dogs in the meantime.

Hahaha, my thoughts were so much shit and not enough shovels...best I stop there, for if I speak my mind I'll be banned no doubt...:laugh:

[george formby]

My U turns was one thing I got picked up on, I just never seemed to need to do them. Now I try to do at least one at work everyday. Simples.

Yup, startled me when I was told to do a u turn.... Every time I see a spacious car park now I'm weaving around like a loony. Full lock is still very, very tense. Even worse in the other direction. The TDM is top heavy metal, gotta get that technique right, it's a big dab!

On the bright side I'm ok with changing my line aggressively now should I have to avoid a dog doing the urban speed limit. Bloody greyhounds.

[Swoop]

And ability..

Bugger "ability", I'd pass them for remembering the bloody circuit direction!

I also liked the "how to wheelie a Goldwing" video that came up at the end.:clap:

[nzspokes]

No you have just been lucky and I stress the word "been"

Not lucky, I am situationally aware. Im thinking of doing an advanced driving course after my motorcycle one.

[caseye]

No you have just been lucky and I stress the word "been"

How dare you to presume you know anything about anything that encompasses skills upgrading when by your own admission you don't consdier yourself in need of just that!
Go on Fuck off!
Back on ignore guys, girls, please follow suit, lets make it's prediction come true!

[trufflebutter]

To be honest I would fail for the slow speed and U turn handing too but that would be due to the rather large bike I ride rather than ability. I do not see not being able to handle a bike perfectly at low speed a dangerous issue because statistics say that it is high and not low speed riding that causes most motorcycle deaths. If i did have to do a low speed test when I got my license the fact I passed would have been due to the fact my bike was a 125.

You must have been tested by an absolute nutter to fail you for holding on to your brakes at the lights for the simple reason any traffic coming up behind you is better able to see you stopped if you have your brake lights on and indeed when I come up behind cars at the lights many have their brake lights on too. I would have asked the tester how he would have expected you to stop your bike rolling back or forward if you were stopped on a hill/bridge at the lights.

I wasn't failed on anything, there was no test being sat here. The instructor was merely pointing out their interpretation of what they considered I could improve on, as most instructors probably do. It is not the Law. On reflection, I guess the brake thing was more about me having both feet on the ground when stopped......perhaps?

[george formby]

I wasn't failed on anything, there was no test being sat here. The instructor was merely pointing out their interpretation of what they considered I could improve on, as most instructors probably do. It is not the Law. On reflection, I guess the brake thing was more about me having both feet on the ground when stopped......perhaps?

Possibly a case of having all fingers on your grips being the best option on the open road and covering your controls only when necessary i.e. in an urban environment when you may have to react like a cobra spotting a hungry mongoose?

I rode dirt for years and covered my levers habitually until the above was pointed out to me, not in those exact words. I'm a bit more thoughtful now.

[george formby]

Bugger "ability", I'd pass them for remembering the bloody circuit direction!

I also liked the "how to wheelie a Goldwing" video that came up at the end.:clap:

Ditto. I need much bigger pearls, though. Much bigger.

[george formby]

The AT is made in a non ABS version and its cheaper by $2000 than the ABS model.

You do realise that if you get an electric bike there is no way it will have the same range as an electric car for the simple reason electric car capacity batteries are just too bulky for a bike. Electric vehicle batteries are extremely expensive too about $7000 and up. I have been told the cost of a battery for a $4000 E push bike is $1000. Good luck with whatever E motorbike you buy but I think it will be many years before they can compete in everyway with petrol power.

From what I have read from another poster on here if they bring in compulsary retesting all I will need to pass will be to hire a 125 to make any slow speed exercise easily doable which was the size bike i had when I originally got my license.

Thank you for the AT model update, it was a quick look. Interesting that you would rather save $2000 than have a proven, reliable, brake assist on your bike.

I'm not expecting to be riding electric for 15 - 20 years. Technology and knowledge are moving forward for some of us. Quickly.

Oh, for the cost of hiring a 125 to hide your incompetence you could do a training course. Whoda thunkit?

[Zedder]

for if I speak my mind I'll be banned no doubt...:laugh:


I've got this vivid image of a large group of KB members ready to do the same.

[caspernz]

I've got this vivid image of a large group of KB members ready to do the same.

Yeah well, I'm quite open minded and all that, being Dutch and familiar with different outlooks on life suiting different folk. There's a big but in there though, I'm finding it damn near unfathomable that someone could be as rigid in their thinking as cassina, and unwilling to consider the possibility there's some contribution to avoiding an accident in most cases, not all I'll accept, but most.

So it's either a case of a damn good troll, or more likely a condition with a difficult to pronounce name.

Not that it matters once I've had a single malt...:rolleyes::drool::killingme:sleep:

[george formby]

I've got this vivid image of a large group of KB members ready to do the same.

I have to log off shortly, the missus has just noticed the forehead dents in the wall. Got some Selleys gib repair spooge in the shed which will smooth the dents and keep me occupied watching the drying process.

[Zedder]

So it's either a case of a damn good troll, or more likely a condition with a difficult to pronounce name.



Maybe there's a combination of the two in this case.

[caspernz]

Maybe there's a combination of the two in this case.

Yes, so that means two single malts for me then...:drinknsin:facepalm::shit::shutup::innocent ::sick:

[Zedder]

Got some Selleys gib repair spooge in the shed which will smooth the dents and keep me occupied watching the drying process.


It'll be a damn sight more productive.

[nzspokes]

if you never seemed to need to do them in the past do you feel you are a much safer rider being able to do them now and if so what is the safety benefit you see.

Yes. I ride a heavy bike so if I dropped it I would probably hurt myself trying to catch it on the way down.

[Zedder]

Yes, so that means two single malts for me then...:drinknsin:facepalm::shit::shutup::innocent ::sick:


A silver lining from a very dark cloud indeed.

[nzspokes]

I wasn't failed on anything, there was no test being sat here. The instructor was merely pointing out their interpretation of what they considered I could improve on, as most instructors probably do. It is not the Law. On reflection, I guess the brake thing was more about me having both feet on the ground when stopped......perhaps?

Here is the bit Cassina doesnt get. Im not doing this Advanced rider thing to pass a test, Im doing it to be a better and safer rider. And I think I am, Gremlin may disagree though. :lol:

Its not a school, business but really a bunch of people that are trying to stop us hurting ourselves.

[nzspokes]

The idea then when choosing a riding school get a copy of the list of things they want you to do and choose one that gets you to do the exercises that make the most sense to you.
Even having both feet fully on the ground when stopped can be difficult if you own an adventue bike and you are not real tall. So to combine what you have said plus what the other poster has said about low speed handling your ability to impress at riding school can very much be influenced by your choice of bike.

Being able to control your motorcycle has nothing to do with the size of the bike.

[madbikeboy]

To be honest I would fail for the slow speed and U turn handing too but that would be due to the rather large bike I ride rather than ability. I do not see not being able to handle a bike perfectly at low speed a dangerous issue because statistics say that it is high and not low speed riding that causes most motorcycle deaths. If i did have to do a low speed test when I got my license the fact I passed would have been due to the fact my bike was a 125.

You must have been tested by an absolute nutter to fail you for holding on to your brakes at the lights for the simple reason any traffic coming up behind you is better able to see you stopped if you have your brake lights on and indeed when I come up behind cars at the lights many have their brake lights on too. I would have asked the tester how he would have expected you to stop your bike rolling back or forward if you were stopped on a hill/bridge at the lights.

Where do I start?

First - it's not the bike, it's your skill level. The bike has little control in the situation, regardless. It's the nut riding the bike doing all the decision making. Without the rider, the bike sits there, waiting. Think I'm wrong? Go down to your garage, I'm willing to bet your motorcycle is still where you left it.

Size of bike is largely irrelevant. Skill of rider, always relevant. I ride a Hayabusa here before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Low speed multiplied is high speed riding. Low speed matters, if you can't control your bike at walking pace, you've got fuck all chance at 100 kph when the shit hits the proverbial. I once dated a chick who was all of 45 KG who rode a Turbo Hayabusa better than most guys could. She had skills. Mad, mad skills. And she could ride a bike.

Second. When a bike is parked in line behind another vehicle, it's hard for car drivers who are busy looking at Facebook, tweeting, talking, fucking with the radio, to see said bike because it merges visually. I won't sit as the last rider in a queue of vehicles. I've seen too many people hit from behind. I've seen people rear end semi's. I've seen people rear end cops with blues and twos. I once saw a dumb assed Chinese national drive into the back of a motorway safety truck covered in fifty high intensity lights. But, hey, you're perfectly safe, keep sitting in line and hoping your halo of stupidity protects you.

Third. ABS is a great idea for all of those who don't regularly practice panic stops. 99% of people have a shorter stopping distance with the ability to be able to steer the vehicle with ABS. There is no evidence in the world that supports your idea that ABS is a bad idea (except off-road, but that's different). Of course, since you're a delusional fucktard, having no evidence won't be an impediment to more false thinking.

[madbikeboy]

And I think I am, Gremlin may disagree though. :lol:



While you're training with Gremlin, ask him to teach you how to wipe your licence plate clean using the road... :)

[madbikeboy]

What you don't get though its not that riding schools can not help you be a safer rider yourself but its all the claims on here riding schools also offer you protection from the screw ups of others. Others do not come at you all at the same speed when they screw up which many on here have a false impression they do with claims like there is no such thing as shit happening so fast you cant brake or swerve.

Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

If you're looking far enough ahead, with a constant stream of plans for what ifs, and you've honed your skills with practice and tuition, you're still going to be a deluded cunt.

[nzspokes]

What you don't get though its not that riding schools can not help you be a safer rider yourself but its all the claims on here riding schools also offer you protection from the screw ups of others. Others do not come at you all at the same speed when they screw up which many on here have a false impression they do with claims like there is no such thing as shit happening so fast you cant brake or swerve.

You are not getting that observation makes these sudden accidents become minor avoidance situations.

[nzspokes]

While you're training with Gremlin, ask him to teach you how to wipe your licence plate clean using the road... :)

He is Captain Sensible these days. :bleh:

[madbikeboy]

He is Captain Sensible these days. :bleh:

He's a very wise guy with mad skills on the bike. May he forever be in my memory with his little wheel stands.

[FJRider]

What you don't get though its not that riding schools can not help you be a safer rider yourself but its all the claims on here riding schools also offer you protection from the screw ups of others. Others do not come at you all at the same speed when they screw up which many on here have a false impression they do with claims like there is no such thing as shit happening so fast you cant brake or swerve.

You can only be safer if you listen to what they say and (remember) follow their advise.

Not protection but awareness of how those screw ups happen.

Being "in the right" and having "Right of way" ... and being within the prescribed speed limit does not give you the security to ignore all other road users.

Expect that anything and anyone within 50 meters of you ... wants to do you harm. By expecting trouble you will see it coming sooner.

[onearmedbandit]

Go and have a test ride on a big Harley and post back about how controllable that is at low speed if you have not ridden one already.

These mustn't be HD's then, because it certainly couldn't be the riders ability.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SPNproiQYjY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-2c-GURTHx8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EjA4MWqKbmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[caspernz]

C'mon OAB, there's some trickery involved in this...can't be rider ability, that's just not logical in some people's eyes...:shit:

[nzspokes]

Go and have a test ride on a big Harley and post back about how controllable that is at low speed if you have not ridden one already.

My everyday bike is 270kg. Yes done slow speed on Harleys. No big deal.

[flashg]

Some of us on lower incomes just have to make trade offs in life. I would like a safer car too but the cost for that is over $100k.
I'm gonna have to call "Bullshit"on that. You do realize you can buy second hand cars for well under 20k with ABS, Airbags and all that fancy safety stuff ?
Been able to for years, if you didn't know

[nzspokes]

I'm gonna have to call "Bullshit"on that. You do realize you can buy second hand cars for well under 20k with ABS, Airbags and all that fancy safety stuff ?
Been able to for years, if you didn't know

My current dog carrier has ABS and traction control. Cost 4k.

[flashg]

My current dog carrier has ABS and traction control. Cost 4k.
Well it seems two posters on this thread agree that vehicles with these safety features are very affordable.
Cassina can now go shopping and trade in the Morrie thou.[emoji23]

[Gremlin]

So to combine what you have said plus what the other poster has said about low speed handling your ability to impress at riding school can very much be influenced by your choice of bike.
Choice of bike, like tight turning circle sure, however, confidence and ability to handle that bike makes a larger difference.

I'd be reasonably confident that my GSA is bigger than your bike, as it's bigger than most. I can u-turn it in less than 2 car park widths (I've never really measured accurately) and frequently ride at low speed (<10kph) and the u-turns are also sometimes done 2up with a cameraman doing an impression of a monkey at the same time.

Do you teach a child to walk or run first? Same with motorcycles. You start with the foundations (like motorcycle control at low speed, and low speed skills) and build up from there.

[russd7]

okay, i made a decision quite a while ago not to respond to cassina. so i will use the excuse that this is for the benefit of any newbies that might be getting sucked in by his BS.

firstly i have been riding since early eighties and had two offs on the road, first was as a young fella and showing off, leaving a farming feild day and sunout on some cowshit in the gateway, the other was as a young fella and hit black ice and i was expecting it so was only doing less than 20km/hr so i count neither of those.
i used to think i was just lucky but then i had a couple of really close calls in a short space of time and it was purely situational awareness that saved me.

the first was a tractor came out of a gate way and didn't see me, luckily i saw him coming and knew he was going to hit the road at the gate about the same time as me so i threw the anchor out and hauled off a load of speed, that stopped me becoming a nice new mid mounted implement on a john deer.

the second was in the car traveling to work one very dark rainy morning, a falcon ute coming out of a farm gate, i knew they weren't going to stop and threw on the anchors, came to a halt beside their drivers door, they didn't even know i was there until she pulled round beside me. i called in that nite to have a quiet word and she blamed it on the flax and not being able to see up the road, problem is i could see her drivers side window the whole time, she just didn't look.
no luck involved in either of those. it was at that point i realised it is my skill level that keeps me alive and turns disastrous situations into "shit that was close" situations

next, i have done two ride forever courses, they are tailored to who is on the course and no one that i know of believes they are god after doing them but every one on the courses i have done left them feeling they were better equipped to avoid disaster.

next, i ride a zzr1100 and do slow speed turns, and have done since purchasing it new, bike weight is 233 dry weight so with this fat fucker on it probably round 400kg with fuel and oil
i also ride a 1500 goldwing and do slow turns and u turns on it with my wife aboard, total weight probably well over half a ton, oh and that bike still gos round corners reasonably quickly as well.

lastly, peripheral vision, the zzr is a sports tourer but still a very lean forward riding position, i have no worse peripheral vision on that than i do on the wing with its very upright sitting position

[madbikeboy]

But for example if you want the very latest in safety features the only way to go is brand new and I would go for something like a BMW X5, Jaguar F Pace, Landrover Discovery or similar as they offer a tank like protective feel too. Buying an old one would cost a fortune in repairs if it broke down.

Having owned both an X5 and a Disco, you're kidding yourself - you haven't got a fucking clue.

5 Star Volvo V50, $88 a year for registration because of the safety. Front brakes (brembos) are $103 per rotor, pads are about $80. Oil change is the same as a Corolla, filter is $14 for a Hengst. I can see half a dozen low mileage V50's for between $7,000 and $9,000.

You're seriously fucked in the head.

[madbikeboy]

Fucktard yourself i never said ABS was a bad idea but was very expensive to repair if it packs up. Some of us on lower incomes just have to make trade offs in life. I would like a safer car too but the cost for that is over $100k.

So at the lights you ride about a 1 metre gap between 2 lanes of traffic and all you are doing is hoping that gap does not close as both lanes of traffic take off because you would possibly become sandwiched between the 2 cars on each side of you as where you are the cars would be less likely to see you than a car coming up behind. There is no requirement in the road code as far as I know to keep an eye out for or to give way to lane splitting motorbikes. The only split lanes I have seen between 2 lanes of cars are for cyclists. I would not consider lane splitting with only a 1m gap between cars any less safe than stopping in the line of traffic. As for your comment about slow speed handling on big bikes some of us have a better sense of balance than others. I cant be too bad though as I was criticised in earlier posts for cornering too slowly.

ABS systems are actually pretty reliable. Safety equipment tends to be. The Common Rail Diesels - different story - I recently saw a late model CRD in a Euro force fed petrol. $15,000 rebuild. Owner decided to scrap the car, sensibly.

You're an idiot. Moronic. Stupid. You're on a bike. If you can walk through the gap, you can ride through the gap. Splitting is safer than sitting on the end of a line - getting rear ended would fuck up your day. I've lane split a couple of times. Never an issue with cars alongside.

If you can't balance, you have no right to be on a motorcycle. You're doing me a disservice in two ways. First, you're jacking up the ACC levy. Second, you're using up oxygen that can be better used elsewhere.

Shit. I fell for it. I'm trying to have a reasoned discussion with an imbecile.

[madbikeboy]

Do you teach a child to walk or run first? Same with motorcycles. You start with the foundations (like motorcycle control at low speed, and low speed skills) and build up from there.

10/10. Two thumbs up. The crowd goes wild. It's a six!

I forgot that you did coverage for cycling events. Been a bad couple of years in Europe for moto's and riders - UCI still hasn't worked out a way of bringing moto safety into the peloton...

[madbikeboy]

These mustn't be HD's then, because it certainly couldn't be the riders ability.


There must be something to this - GSXR's must be using the same unicorn piss - because again, it couldn't be the rider...


https://youtu.be/h1R2NbjhB5c

[nzspokes]

There must be something to this - GSXR's must be using the same unicorn piss - because again, it couldn't be the rider...



I would like to be able to do that, but no way in hell I could remember where to go.

Not sure my Satnav is that good.

[Voltaire]

Where do I start?

First - it's not the bike, it's your skill level. The bike has little control in the situation, regardless. It's the nut riding the bike doing all the decision making. Without the rider, the bike sits there, waiting. Think I'm wrong? Go down to your garage, I'm willing to bet your motorcycle is still where you left it.

Size of bike is largely irrelevant. Skill of rider, always relevant. I ride a Hayabusa here before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Low speed multiplied is high speed riding. Low speed matters, if you can't control your bike at walking pace, you've got fuck all chance at 100 kph when the shit hits the proverbial. I once dated a chick who was all of 45 KG who rode a Turbo Hayabusa better than most guys could. She had skills. Mad, mad skills. And she could ride a bike.

Second. When a bike is parked in line behind another vehicle, it's hard for car drivers who are busy looking at Facebook, tweeting, talking, fucking with the radio, to see said bike because it merges visually. I won't sit as the last rider in a queue of vehicles. I've seen too many people hit from behind. I've seen people rear end semi's. I've seen people rear end cops with blues and twos. I once saw a dumb assed Chinese national drive into the back of a motorway safety truck covered in fifty high intensity lights. But, hey, you're perfectly safe, keep sitting in line and hoping your halo of stupidity protects you.

Third. ABS is a great idea for all of those who don't regularly practice panic stops. 99% of people have a shorter stopping distance with the ability to be able to steer the vehicle with ABS. There is no evidence in the world that supports your idea that ABS is a bad idea (except off-road, but that's different). Of course, since you're a delusional fucktard, having no evidence won't be an impediment to more false thinking.

For a silly old bastard with a fat pig early 80's Honda he does seem to wind you guys up.

[Laava]

Cassina can now go shopping and trade in the High Horse.[emoji23]

Fixed that for ya.

[ellipsis]

okay, i made a decision quite a while ago not to respond to cassina. so i will use the excuse that this is for the benefit of any newbies that might be getting sucked in by his BS.



...I am totally over even thinking about what she writes...I don't know why any others on here still do...encouraging her by responding is just fucking ridiculous, way past being funny or even entertaining...I cant even be fucked calling her a brain dead, fuckwit...ooops, I just did...:brick:

[nzspokes]

As I said before you guys really need to look at yourselfs for wasting your time responding if you think I talk jack shit. Or maybe just a bit there is some truth to what I am saying but to hear it from me hurts because you can not handle it especially the bit where I have said if someone else screws up towards you there is no way it is going to happen as slowly as they teach in ridng school. The only people who are jacking up the ACC levy are those found at fault so get than into your thick skull as none of my 4 crashes have been my own fault. 2 animal and 2 car driver. How do you know it will never be an issue with cars along side lane splitting just because it never has been in the past for you but I will agree if shit happens when you are stopped in a line of traffic you are no safer. As for your claim about ABS reliability you are comparing a vehicle but with bikes and I was told this by a BMW dealer they can be over $3000 to repair due to the much lighter duty componentry required for ABS to work on a bike.
I can undersatnd how you would think riding a non ABS bike is scary if you have not grown up with them though.

Fuck me you are jammed in the past. I know of plenty of Bandits etc with over 100k on them and I doubt they have even had a brake fluid change. ABS works fine. My Commodore is heading towards 300k and the ABS unit has not been worked on.

All of your 4 crashes were your fault. You just cant accept it. :oi-grr:

[ellipsis]

All of your 4 crashes were your fault. You just cant accept it. :oi-grr:

...and the next one will be too...arrogantly tossing your middle finger to the facts and realities of life is a fucked way of waking up, but justifying it with ignorant bullshit, just because you are too thick to take the facts on-board is even worse...fuck off and hit a dog or a cow or something you stupid bitch...

[nzspokes]

.fuck off and hit a dog or a cow or something you stupid bitch...

Hang on. I like dogs. Not so keen on cows but like eating them.

[madbikeboy]

I can undersatnd how you would think riding a non ABS bike is scary if you have not grown up with them though.

What. The. Fuck.

My non-ABS Hayabusa isn't scary at all. Why would I be scared of it? Where did you make that massive leap of mistake? None of my bikes ever, from track bikes to the oldest bike I still own have ABS. I can lay morse code on the road with my front wheel at 250 kph. And you think I'm scared non ABS?

I'm not scared of anything. Except getting drunk and waking up with an ex girlfriend who has some baby news, that scares me plenty.

You're a nutter. Fucked in the head.

[madbikeboy]

Sure quite likely Japanese ABS would be more reliable than a BMW bike ABS. As I said before you can not compare car ABS componentry with bike ABS componentry as it would need to be much lighter to fit a bike plus as I said bike ABS componetry is more exposed to the weather/grit /stones etc.
Dream on about all my crashes being my fault. Why can you not accept they were not and dont give me this "But if you had been to riding school they would have taught you that there is always time to brake or swerve" BS. I have already said on here that I am able to emergency brake when there is time, with respect to the woman that did not give way to me but instead of flooring it when she saw me she stopped in the middle of the road and I luckily had time to stop.

Untrue. Look up the origin of the BOSCH abs set up and the trickle down to all other vehicles. Deluded and incorrect.

You can compare them. Mechanically very similar, very similar logic even down to having wheel sensors of the same design. Just as well car wheel sensors aren't exposed to the weather in the dirtiest place in a car, the wheel wheels. Oh, wait. Do you think about any of this before you type, or is it a flow of consciousness type deal like when you poop your pants.

All accidents are your fault. Unless the car dematerialised Star Trek style, you have a chance of avoiding fuckwittery by using your mark one eyeballs, your magic throttle and brake handheld device, and the top three inches of brain matter. Oh, wait. You're missing the last bit. As you were.

[madbikeboy]

Hang on. I like dogs. Not so keen on pussy but like eating them.

Sorry, I took the liberty of correcting your typo.

[nzspokes]

Sure quite likely Japanese ABS would be more reliable than a BMW bike ABS. As I said before you can not compare car ABS componentry with bike ABS componentry as it would need to be much lighter to fit a bike plus as I said bike ABS componetry is more exposed to the weather/grit /stones etc.
Dream on about all my crashes being my fault. Why can you not accept they were not and dont give me this "But if you had been to riding school they would have taught you that there is always time to brake or swerve" BS. I have already said on here that I am able to emergency brake when there is time, with respect to the woman that did not give way to me but instead of flooring it when she saw me she stopped in the middle of the road and I luckily had time to stop.

LOL, still not getting it are you. Observation is not your friend. Mind you, English seems to be struggle as well.

[nzspokes]

Does this post look familiar to you?

...I am totally over even thinking about what she writes...I don't know why any others on here still do...encouraging her by responding is just fucking ridiculous, way past being funny or even entertaining...I cant even be fucked calling her a brain dead, fuckwit...ooops, I just did...

If not you posted it yourself about 3 posts ago.

I guess thats what being brain dead as you say does to people yourself included.

Looks like you fail at quoting as well.

[caspernz]

Just saw this come up on my Facebook feed. Makes for some interesting reading. I'm still to look at the complete study but it certainly seems pretty comprehensive.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/why-you-crash-your-motorcycle-lessons-from-msf-100-naturalistic-crash-study?src=SOC&dom=fb

Just to remind all contenders the topic of this thread was the study quoted by OAB...as you were :bleh:

[trufflebutter]

Just to remind all contenders the topic of this thread was the study quoted by OAB...as you were :bleh:

Far better to study the reaction to any of cassina's post by those who don't believe a word that is posted by that member :corn:

[ellipsis]

I guess thats what being brain dead as you say does to people yourself included.


...I am very sorry I let another post slip by...your puerile, misinformed, unobserved, speculation on why you are still upright is, drivel...nothing more...A twelve year old, petulant, little, spoiled cunt is what your posts remind me of...you are suffering from some sort of condition, surely...mark!, mark!, mark!...that's a dog with a hair lip, don't hit it, will you...

[rastuscat]

Wide approach. Stay wide until you have a view of the exit. Narrow up as long as the exit is clear.

How hard can it be?

[onearmedbandit]

I am beginning to think many possibly do believe what I post and if you read carefully there are a few who believe me fully or in part and when they post their agreement have you not noticed they do it out of a sense of fear of being rubbished by everyone else. I remember when the topic was group riding and the danger of riding under pressure to keep up and I got a lot of comment from others saying there was no such thing as anyone riding under pressure to keep up and I was talking crap and then 1 "brave poster" "fessed up" to doing exactly that when they were younger. So all I will say ignore my opinion at your peril.

No it was your unending assumption that any crash in a group ride was most likely due to pressure to keep up. No one would deny it happens, just surely as no one would say it was the only reason.

[buggerit]

The only difference between you and me is I have crashed as a result of the fault of others and you haven't but past luck is no guarantee of future luck.

That's you isn't it SMOKEU!:clap:

[Zedder]

Looks like you fail at quoting as well.


Yep totally, nzspokes versus ellipsis hahaha.

[Zedder]

Wide approach. Stay wide until you have a view of the exit. Narrow up as long as the exit is clear.

How hard can it be?


Easy-peasy for most people but we're not dealing with that.

[Swoop]

I am beginning to think...

You have displayed some rather interesting symptoms, along with our other member "katman" of a classification of mental illnesses.
Please continue.

We will take advantage of your statements and add them into the thesis.

[caspernz]

Wide approach. Stay wide until you have a view of the exit. Narrow up as long as the exit is clear.

How hard can it be?


Easy-peasy for most people but we're not dealing with that.

Yep, sums it up nicely. Gonna be a short thesis at this rate...:laugh:

[nzspokes]

Wide approach. Stay wide until you have a view of the exit. Narrow up as long as the exit is clear.

How hard can it be?

For some, very hard.

[george formby]

Wide approach. Stay wide until you have a view of the exit. Narrow up as long as the exit is clear.

How hard can it be?

I've always thought this was the correct technique, too. Now I'm having doubts. The technique below has been advocated on KB previously I believe. I may give it some consideration to improve my personal safety.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z1tovl4LqDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Zedder]

I've always thought this was the correct technique, too. Now I'm having doubts. The technique below has been advocated on KB previously I believe. I may give it some consideration to improve my personal safety.


A good find. It has some merit as a dog avoidance technique as well, due to the circular motion.

[madbikeboy]

I've always thought this was the correct technique, too. Now I'm having doubts. The technique below has been advocated on KB previously I believe. I may give it some consideration to improve my personal safety.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z1tovl4LqDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is the technique used and supported by every Harley Davidson rider in the continental United States*.

*A certain amount of comedic license involved in the statement above as Harley Davidson owners don't have any technique apparent.

[madbikeboy]

Far better to study the reaction to any of cassina's post by those who don't believe a word that is posted by that member :corn:

Nice avatar.

[madbikeboy]

Cassina. This is for you. This is the Suzuki GSXR riders training video that comes with all GSXR1000's, and GSXR1300R's. This is the intended safe use on open roads and motorways.


https://youtu.be/3vWU4mB3nWg

I hope your fucking head explodes as you suddenly comprehend how old, slow, and stupid you really are.

[ellipsis]

That assumes all corners are the same which they are not in many ways. I would go with what the guy said from the other riding school and I think it was Saftey, Sability, Line.


...you win...I admit now that I would always stick to the Saftey Sability Line...sounds legit...I just read it...

[madbikeboy]

Another one for Cassina. The Kawasaki sports bike instruction manual.


https://youtu.be/P58NPM-5uiI

The voices in your head are right, just do it. Do. It.

[caspernz]

...you win...I admit now that I would always stick to the Saftey Sability Line...sounds legit...I just read it...

All I can see there is that it's time for a single malt...:brick:

[madbikeboy]

And finally, the Harley Davidson instructional video.


https://youtu.be/LP_sHpWHjHU

Might as well jump. Jump!
Might as well jump.
Go ahead, jump. Jump!
Go ahead, jump.

Van Halen.

[Zedder]

All I can see there is that it's time for a single malt...:brick:


Just make sure you drink with Saftey and Sability...

[Zedder]

Cassina. This is for you. This is the Suzuki GSXR riders training video that comes with all GSXR1000's, and GSXR1300R's. This is the intended safe use on open roads and motorways.
I hope your fucking head explodes as you suddenly comprehend how old, slow, and stupid you really are.


Couldn't watch it all, it scared the hell out of me.

[caspernz]

Just make sure you drink with Saftey and Sability...

And keep an eye out for mad dogs...:killingme

[scumdog]

Goodness me but a lot of you get your Victoria Secrets in a right tortured wrangle up your collective fannys over cassinas posts!!

Life is too short for that kind of carry on methinks!

[AllanB]

I quite enjoyed the ZX10 ride - sounded great,


The Harley fails ...... I'm starting to have issues with Mericans and their led-sleds.......

[AllanB]

I have decided to call myself The Pied Piper of Kiwi Biker as a result of the following I have and I bet if I was leading a group ride of them they would follow if I went over a cliff.

Ha ha you'd be right - they tend to put advisory speed signs up near cliffs. It's the random dogs that will get you.