The 205 mph claim is GPS certified on my bike but to be completely honest I had a tailwind and a very slight downhill towards the end of the run.
...on a very long runway at your private airfield, of course
The 205 mph claim is GPS certified on my bike but to be completely honest I had a tailwind and a very slight downhill towards the end of the run.
jbsportstech wrote: If its the case that 30-44 of high power machines are having the serious crashes then I would suggest limiting them to lower power stuff until they have proved themselves on a lessor machine.
Discodriver wrote: Motorcycle training was never taken seriously
Discodriver wrote: I still don't think the DSA take it that seriously. You still don't need the type of training an ADI has to go through to become a motorcycle instructor. Maybe things have changed. Some one will let me know, I guess.
Horse wrote:'car' test rate hovers around 50% when the bike test is around 75% . . . so which of the two ought to change?
Gareth wrote: What proportion of people die in the first, say, 3 years after passing their respective tests?
Gareth wrote:Horse wrote:'car' test rate hovers around 50% when the bike test is around 75% . . . so which of the two ought to change?
Pass rates don't measure fitness for purpose.
Horse wrote:What those pass rates could be said to show is that bike training for the test is better than the car equivalent.
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.
Horse wrote:
But worth noting that the 'car' test rate hovers around 50% when the bike test is around 75%
Gareth wrote:Horse wrote:'car' test rate hovers around 50% when the bike test is around 75% . . . so which of the two ought to change?
Pass rates don't measure fitness for purpose.
What proportion of people die in the first, say, 3 years after passing their respective tests?
GJD wrote:Gareth wrote:Horse wrote:'car' test rate hovers around 50% when the bike test is around 75% . . . so which of the two ought to change?
Pass rates don't measure fitness for purpose.
What proportion of people die in the first, say, 3 years after passing their respective tests?
What proportion kill somebody else in the first 3 years after passing their respective tests?
If you're going to discuss fitness for purpose, you need to acknowledge that you have a greater capacity to harm others (and to cause more harm to them than to yourself) in a car than on a bike.
LEARN2RIDE wrote:IMHO the motorcycle test is nowhere near realistic enough yet to train motorcyclists for the real world conditions they face.
Return to Advanced Motorcycling Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests