Gareth wrote:Horse wrote:What those pass rates could be said to show is that bike training for the test is better than the car equivalent.
Not necessarily, on at least two counts
- if the bike test is substantially easier then it is likely that the pass rate will be higher,
- if the population taking bike tests is, on average, more engaged then this is likely that the pass rate will be higher.
OK, taking each in turn:
'Easier' test: Do you think it is? Worth noting that, now, every bike candidate has to take two tests rather than a driver's one, every bike candidate will do an emergency stop and U-turn - while only a third of car drivers will be tested on control exercises, and in terms of mental and physical effort riding a motorcycle is much more difficult (can't lay my hands on exact figures at the moment, but a task analysis done in the USA put riding at requiring 3x the effort of driving).
'Engagement': Are you suggesting that some car test candidates don't actually want to pass? Yes, I'd agree there's more likely to be 'enthusiasm' as people rarely just happen to learn to ride - but it's that same sort of decision-making that means 'safer' people aremore likely to voluntarily take further post-test training.
In terms of reducing fatalities, car occupants in particular, the effectiveness of post-test training pales when compared with figures like this:
“CLUNK CLICK” AA seat belt report shows third of car occupants killed not belted up
11 October 2010
More than one third of car occupants killed in collisions are not wearing seat belts, according to a new report "Clunk Click" published by the AA.
The report shows that seatbelts more than halve the risk of death in a collision.
However, the 7% not wearing seatbelts are overrepresented in fatalities, which suggests that the sort of driver who chooses not to wear a belt is twice as likely to be involved in a crash as someone who does belt up.Self-selection again.
Abstract
The present study was conducted to assess the predictive validity of the Motorcycle Operator Skill Test (MOST) developed by McPherson and McKnight (1976). It was anticipated that among licensed motorcyclists those scoring higher on this off-road skill test would be less likely to become involved in an accident than motorcyclists scoring lower. A sample of motorcycle operator licence applicants was administered the MOST in addition to the regular licensing test. These motorcyclists were contacted about a year later and queried about their riding experiences including motorcycle accidents. Driver records were also searched for six months after the motorcyclist was licensed.
Although bivariate analyses indicated that high scorers on the MOST were more likely to have had an accident than low scorers, multivariate analyses revealed no effect of test performance on subsequent accident involvement. However, accident likelihood was found to decrease as a function of age and increase as a function of vehicle distance travelled (i.e. exposure to risk).
Now this is all going to make me sound very negative about post-test training. Trust me, I'm not! I wouldn't have been involved with training for over 30 years if I really felt it had no benefits
The problem is quantifying them.