Re: Whoohoo I passed

MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fid0ig01rv6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Hurt Report showed that people who had gotten formal
instruction
were safer riders than those who were self-taught, and those who
were
self-taught were safer riders than those who were taught by
family
and friends. So if you want to argue that formal instruction is
undesirable and that self-taught is better, you need to present
some
statistics from sources at least as credible.

About Hurt and formal instruction... He did nothing of the kind.
He
could not possibly have found a positive correlation between rider
training and safety. Why? He worked entirely from accident
reports.
Even a very strong negative correlation, which he might have
found,
is not a positive correlation of the converse. Any conclusions
about
the positive value of formal instruction would be groundless and
complete speculation.

Try again. Reading accident reports was only part of the job.
Also
he and his crew personally investigated every motorcycle accident
that occurred in their area for two years, ultimately investigating
900 of them and evaluating 1000 different factors for each. Where
there were survivors in a condition to be interviewed they did so.

One of their conclusions was that people who had professional
training had a risk factor of 0.46, those who took a school or auto
club course .5, self taught .9, and taught by friends/family 1.56.

The numbers are fundamnentally flawed. He started from the corpse,
and
looked back at her training.

All of the 900 accidents that were investigated were not fatal.

He didn't start with the long term
successful riders, and ask how many had what type and how much
formal
training. The questions are very different; the answers mean
altogether different things.

Well, actually that was covered by the 2000 interviews conducted with
motorcyclists who were not involved in accidents during the period of
the study.

How difficult would it be to poll long term, surviving riders? They
are by definition still "in a condition to be interviewed". Was that
ever done? If he had done so, how much of their success would they
attribute to the MSF BRC? If they all indicated they took the BRC,
does that by itself mean that the BRC is fundamental to their
success? Could there be any other meaning?

It would help if you actually familiarized yourself with the study and
not what someone has told you about it.

When was the BRC implemented? Was it being taught in California in
1986?

Don't spout his numbers at me. I know better than you do what they
mean.

Sez the guy who wasn't aware that the research involved actual
accident investigations and interviews with thousands of motorcyclists
in addition to police reports.

Sorry, but it's clear that you have not the slightest clue what the
numbers even _are_, let alone what they _mean_.

The specific problem you face is driver re-education. Good luck
with
that. I can't scrape together enough words to fully voice my
contempt
for the American driver's ability to see their own shortcomings
and
learn. Just, good luck.

Re-education? Huh?

I guess then that you can't see your own shortcomings and learn
either. And what do "drivers" have to do with anything? We were
talking about rider training, not driver training.

How many motorcyclists have absolutely no experience driving a cage?
How many have tens of thousands of hours experience driving a cage?
How much do you suppose they think their knowledge of roadcraft and
driving transfer to riding a motorcycle? This would seem to be the
largest problem facing an instructor.

Well, now, since you are the expert on numbers, maybe you could
provide those.

Are you saying that some significant percentage of motorcycle
accidents result from knowing how to drive an automobile?

Last, I don't work well with lists. My wife, OTOH, is a walking
list
personified. Conversations take the form of lists of things she
saw,
heard, thought, did, or will do, and sub-lists of the details in
ad
finitum finer granularity. My life is a living hell when she gets
to
talking.

Which has what to do with anything?

You were talking about making a list. A long, dreadful, dreary list.
If it's to be a short list, I like my version best. If it's a long
list, the all inclusive encyclopedic list, you may as well caption
almost everything with simply "Duh!".

I was? In what post was that? Perhaps you have me confused with
someone else?

For your video catalog of hazards to have merit, its coverage will
have to be similarly exhaustive and complete.

If it covers one situation then it reduces the number of people who
have that kind of accident. If it covers two then it reduces the
number farther. Doesn't have to cover every concievable
possibility,
just the most likely ones.

It doesn't do anything of the kind.

Since it doesn't exist, it is a bit premature to say with such
certainty what it does or does not do.

Their eyes will glaze over, and
each mundane drop or horrific crash will just serve to reinforce
"That can't happen to me." until it becomes a mantra.

And you base this assertion on what evidence?

Well, I'll buy in that there can be some value. The learning will
come from completing the sentence, "That can't/won't happen to me,
because ..." Is that formal education and instruction? Or is that
guided self-learning? Will it matter if it took place in a formal
setting?

That is a pedagogical method. It is not the only one.

Maybe it is just me,
but such a list would be totally mind-numbing, and so empty of any
value. It would have to be the complete set of all possibilities.
If
it isn't the full set of possiblities, but merely a representative
subset, how small of a subset will suffice? I prefer my version
best.
The issues aren't obscured by the details, and it makes no
misrepresentations about its completeness of coverage. The
responsibility of learning rests with the pupil.

Which doubles the death toll.

Back to Hurt again. His 0.46 and 0.50 are completely meaningless in
context. The numbers completely undervalue self-learning. Proof:
your
knowledge spans far beyond what you were taught, formally or
informally.

So how do you explain his .9 and his 1.56?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whoohoo I passed
    ... self-taught were safer riders than those who were taught by family ... So if you want to argue that formal instruction is ... Conversations take the form of lists of things she saw, ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Dereks Possible Licence Violations? was Re: Disadvantages of Delphi.NET
    ... porting Delphi apps to D8. ... You get "taught" by people who have no more knowledge of the topic ... > attendees alike have been very happy with the level of instruction ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: How I crashed
    ... Nothing says sportbike guys are better riders than Harley ... what goes right or wrong while riding happens in your head. ... and road test we were given the instruction that we had ... I select corner speeds based ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: computer lessons/learning
    ... > but still dont feel real confident, Im looking for the basics and maybe ... > mid leval type of issues is a step by step instruction format. ... > listing.. ... and just keeps seeming like lists in lists in lists .....to me. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.accessibility)
  • Lists and databases
    ... I'm currently designing my first complex database, ... stumped on how to store ordered lists data. ... The instruction must be ordered, ...
    (comp.databases)