Motorcycle CBT changes, any truth in this article ?

[Nigel Worc's]

Hello chaps.

I just wondered if there is any truth in the changes in the link.

It seems odd that the government is trying to encourage motorcycling as a form of congestion beater on one hand, then making it harder to do with the other.

http://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-view...

[italianjob1275]

Just the results of a survey amongst pupils and instructors isn't it? Not government proposals?

Most of the things said are already done by reputable schools. However I don't think the CBT is adequate but it's better than nothing like "back in the day"

[Vaud]

None of those seem unreasonable?

[TooMany2cvs]

Nigel Worc's said:

I just wondered if there is any truth in the changes in the link.

It seems odd that the government is trying to encourage motorcycling as a form of congestion beater on one hand, then making it harder to do with the other.

Apart from the article being clear that it's not actual changes happening, merely recommendations, do you have a problem with any of those? They all seem to be sensible to me.

[Vaud]

A theory test sounds like a good idea.
More flexibility sounds good.
More experience on the road in a guided way sounds good.
Not rushing people through a one day course sounds good.
Manual vs automatic brings it in line with cars.
Encouraging people to take a full test sounds sensible.
Transparency in inspections sounds very sensible.

What is you problem with these? Won't these produce better riders without massively increased costs or barriers to adoption?

[Nigel Worc's]

TooMany2cvs said:

Nigel Worc's said:

I just wondered if there is any truth in the changes in the link.

It seems odd that the government is trying to encourage motorcycling as a form of congestion beater on one hand, then making it harder to do with the other.

Apart from the article being clear that it's not actual changes happening, merely recommendations, do you have a problem with any of those? They all seem to be sensible to me.

It all seems overkill to me, but I am from the time when we could ride up to 250cc on L plates, no training, we'd only needed helmets for about four years when I started in 1977.

I wonder in percentage terms just how much they have achieved on the safety side, as far as KSIs to youngsters go ?

Sheer numbers will look better now, as only a fraction of youngsters ride, compared to "my day".

[Vaud]

Nigel Worc's said:

It all seems overkill to me, but I am from the time when we could ride up to 250cc on L plates, no training, we'd only needed helmets for about four years when I started in 1977.

I wonder in percentage terms just how much they have achieved on the safety side, as far as KSIs to youngsters go ?

Sheer numbers will look better now, as only a fraction of youngsters ride, compared to "my day".

So you think better, reasonable training improvements are a bad idea on modern crowded roads that have changed a lot since "your day"?

[TooMany2cvs]

Vaud said:

So you think

You may be giving Mr Random-Apostrophe a bit too much credit.

[Vaud]

TooMany2cvs said:

You may be giving Mr Random-Apostrophe a bit too much credit.

I'm happy to have a debate, none of the points looked like anything other then reasonable positions. Nigel is entitled to a view, sometime he makes great points, sometimes I think he is a complete fruit loop. I encourage a constructive debate as to WHY the points are detrimental given current traffic volumes and usage , other than "it was different in 1878".

[Dammit]

I'll give it a go:

The suggestions would make the general level of motorcycling better, encouraging more motorcyclists.

This would lead to a higher rate of type II diabetes due to motorcyclists in general having to weigh more than their motorcycles, putting greater load on the NHS.

Ergo, a bad thing.

[Nigel Worc's]

Vaud said:

TooMany2cvs said:

You may be giving Mr Random-Apostrophe a bit too much credit.

I'm happy to have a debate, none of the points looked like anything other then reasonable positions. Nigel is entitled to a view, sometime he makes great points, sometimes I think he is a complete fruit loop. I encourage a constructive debate as to WHY the points are detrimental given current traffic volumes and usage , other than "it was different in 1878".

I actually think traffic behaviour is better now than when I started in the late 1970s (rather than 1870s lol).

There is more traffic on the road now for sure, and I'll have grown in experience with it, it hasn't been a sudden increase.

On the dry warm occasions I ride, things seem much safer to me these days.

[Hooli]

Dammit said:

I'll give it a go:

The suggestions would make the general level of motorcycling better, encouraging more motorcyclists.

This would lead to a higher rate of type II diabetes due to motorcyclists in general having to weigh more than their motorcycles, putting greater load on the NHS.

Ergo, a bad thing.

You might have a point.

[jesta1865]

Nigel Worc's said:

It seems odd that the government is trying to encourage motorcycling as a form of congestion beater on one hand, then making it harder to do with the other.

are you really naive enough to expect joined up across the board thinking from the gubbermint?