is cbt enough training?

[daveyboy9274]

i have noticed as the sun comes out there are more idiot riders on the road that give all respectable riders a bad name.

when i did my full test i realised how much i needed to learn to get on a big bike but the biggest joke was the cbt.i rode for 1.5 hours to get a cbt cerificate which is disgusting!

how can we expect young riders to be safe with so little training?

maybe new riders could do some mod 1 training before getting on the road?

what are others thoughts on this?

we need to save lives!

[Guest]

And how many car drivers do we see everyday driving like tw@ts and they have passed a full licence test?

From what I've read from others is that Mod 1 & Mod 2 training is just that, to pass the test.

Training comes when the L plates come off and you get miles under the belt and learn from your mistakes.

Bikesafe, Rospa and IAM is where proper training is at

Although I would like to see 50cc's banned as they are chav/robbers/aspiring footballer magnets and maybe even ban 17/20 year olds from scooters too

[onesea]

what are others thoughts on this?

we need to save lives!

 

MOD1 Only teaches more handling not road sence, most idiot riders do not seem short on bike skills but short on manners/ road sense. That can only be taught on the road unless they improve the theory very considerably and make that compulsory before CBT.

Road sence can be learned on pushbikes as well and as passenger in another vehicle but mainly comes with experiance.

 

Although I would like to see 50cc's banned as they are chav/robbers/aspiring footballer magnets and maybe even ban 17/20 year olds from scooters too

 

So were not allowed to elimante people due to Darwinisum any more?

[Joeman]

Natural selection. Cant protect idiots from their own stupidity.

If they don't have the common sense to be wary of their surroundings and ride safely, then no amount of training is going to help.

Banning the younger generation is not the solution. It would kill the UK bike industry dead.

[Tango]

When I started riding you could slap L-plates on any bike up to 250cc and just ride off on it.......so I think the CBT is a step in the right direction.

There used to be training run by the RAC/ACU when I was younger, which gave the same sort of training as MOD1 and MOD2, but wasn't a test as such, just training. Sadly this disappeared many years ago.

Unfortunately most Bikesafe courses don't cover learners either......so there's a bit of a void in training available for 16-19 year olds.

[Guest]

Unfortunately most Bikesafe courses don't cover learners either......so there's a bit of a void in training available for 16-19 year olds.

 

I'm sure in London they've had L Platers on the scooter safe/125 course

[Arwen]

CBT is Compulsory Basic Training. There is nothing stopping people on CBT seeking more training.

But as has been said. Most of the idiot riders on L plates it is road manners and common sense they lack.

And to be perfectly honest, I see far more (apparently) fully licenced bikers acting like complete tools around where I live.

CBT is enough to get you started if the school is doing it right and not just passing everyone.

[nicklucey]

Personally think it's crackers that they let 17 year olds with no knowledge of the road, highway code etc to go out on a 60mph vehicle after 2 hours riding around.

This would never happen with a car, the only difference being that on bike chances are you'll only kill yourself and not anyone else

[Tango]

Unfortunately most Bikesafe courses don't cover learners either......so there's a bit of a void in training available for 16-19 year olds.

 

I'm sure in London they've had L Platers on the scooter safe/125 course

Yes.....I think that Bikesafe London is the exception. ......

[TC1474]

Whilst I am not a fan of current requirements to obtain a full licence and the happiest day of my motorcycling life was the day I conducted my last CBT and DAS course, it has to be said that what we have in terms of CBT is currently far better than when I started in the mid 70's.

Back then, (and I did) I started on an unrestricted FS1E and at 17 I went straight to a 250. The dealers would rub their hands with glee, because they knew full well that within a few weeks we would be back buying new parts because we would drop the bike.

Back then of course, there was a lot less traffic on the road than there is now.

I was an RAC/ACU instructor and then became a part 1 instructor and examiner. The beauty of part 1 was that riders were taught the slow riding controls, braking excrcises, correct observations, and when they passed the part 1 test, we could hold onto their certificate to ensure that they returned for road training so that the majority could in theory apply for their test and stand a better than average chance of passing. It worked, and the standard of riding under the ld part 1 was very good. The downside was that it was aimed at people already riding.

Then in December 1990, CBT was introduced. I was actually the 4th person to go to Cardington and obtain the CBT instructor licence (my number was 00004 ) and it was made clear that the aim of CBT was to give riders the basic skills before they were allowed on the road, which was regarded as an improvement on my era when I started.

When CBT started it meant exactly what it says on the tin - Compulsory BASIC Training. It was intended to give new riders the basic skills to allow them to take to the road with more idea and skills than my generation ever had. The biggest difference was though, that back in the days of Part 1, where we could hold onto their certificate until such time as the rider attained a good standard of road riding, under CBT, once the rider had satisfied their instructor that they were up to a satisfactory standard in each element, then the instructor had no option but to issue the DL196. There was no option to make them for further training.

The DSA said at the time that the target was to reduce the accident rate of new riders by something like 60% within 10 years and if it worked, then it would be introduced for car drivers. The accident rate actually dropped by something like 70% within 2 years, so it worked. However, CBT for cars has never been introduced and never will be.

CBT has evolved over the years. Now riders have to do a minimum of 2 hours on road whereas when we started, f they were competent, they could do 20 or 30 minute ride and get issued the DL196

Anyone who completes a CBT in 1.5 hours now is either a liar or the training school is cutting corners (of which there are still quite a few)

So, CBT is not perfect, but it is better than we used to have.

The content could still be improved upon but it is better than when it started in 1990, and it could have retained some of the elements or requirements of the old part 1, but it doesn't.

Its not perfect, but compared with the old days, 100% more than we used to have in place.

Edited June 12, 2016 by TC1474

[daveyboy9274]

I agree, the cbt tainting is better than no tainting at all however anyone can take a cbt ourselves without ever looking at a highway code. This is scary to think it can happen but its upto the individual to keep themselves safe. For £100 you can get on the road I hope the new riders can use sense to keep themselves safe !

[daveyboy9274]

Personally think it's crackers that they let 17 year olds with no knowledge of the road, highway code etc to go out on a 60mph vehicle after 2 hours riding around.

This would never happen with a car, the only difference being that on bike chances are you'll only kill yourself and not anyone else

 

This is very true !

[Joeman]

Personally think it's crackers that they let 17 year olds with no knowledge of the road, highway code etc to go out on a 60mph vehicle after 2 hours riding around.

This would never happen with a car, the only difference being that on bike chances are you'll only kill yourself and not anyone else

 

This is very true !

 

But nobody bats an eyelid at kids on pushbikes with zero training..

[HondaHero]

In all third world countries, 125cc motorcycles are ubiquitous on public roads. In fact, most 125 and sub-125 bikes are designed to target those markets, rather than the UK. Entire families can be seen riding on them, without a helmet or any other safety gear, on the wrong side of the road, etc. Casualty rates are much higher than in developed countries, but it doesn't really matter because small displacement motorcycle riders there can take advantage of this mode of cheap transport to take them to work, to do business (e.g. delivery and dispatch), etc. Those little bikes and their untrained riders are the lifeblood of lots of major cities. Without them, they simply wouldn't work. Economies would fail overnight if they were just banished overnight.

The reason given for the imposition of testing and licensing in countries like ours is always safety. However, no discussion is ever held over what the acceptable casualty rate is. This has led to the dangerous assumption that there is no acceptable casualty rate, that no deaths or serious injuries are tolerable, or, in other words, that the acceptable casualty rate is a figure no greater than 0. We know that there will always be casualties, as long as there are motor vehicles. Therefore all measures to reduce the number of injuries and deaths from motor vehicles tend to become established as permanent fixtures in a ratchet that tightens in only one direction. This means that whatever happens, we can be sure that it will never become easier to get on the road with a motorcycle. It can only get more difficult, because we haven't set a casualty rate target above 0. Therefore the ultimate and inevitable end-game, until we set a target figure of, say, 1000 motorcycle deaths a years being acceptable, is in fact the elimination of motorcycles from the road.

A further problem with regard to this difficulty-based approach towards making riders safer is that difficulty simply reduces opportunity by a number of means, rather than making a better rider. This is because if someone who wants to ride has to surmount several obstacles before getting on a machine, the goal of road safety, and the zero casualty rate target, is already part-achieved, as long as he is prevented from riding! You can prevent him by making the cost of training or qualification prohibitive, or by setting the age limit higher. There are many ways to do it. But it would have nothing to do with making him a better rider. Why? Because handling skills, roadcraft, hazard awareness, confidence and common sense are all products of experience, and trial and error. Many of these things are easier to learn when young, when the body is more capable of healing after injury, etc.

I don't see much value in rote learning, in a mechanical way, the set of questions needed for the theory test, for example. The Highway Code is much bigger than that, and it contains legal obligations which drivers are expected to know. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Another bugbear is instilling basic general knowledge by means of the CBT, and show me tell me questions on the Mod 2. If you want to ride a bike, it's up to you to find out how to make sure it's safe and roadworthy. It shouldn't be necessary to make all this part of a nationally prescribed system (the CBT talk).

The bottom line is that there is no end of nuggets of advice, lectures and warnings you could tack on to the CBT, and it will just become more of what it already is, a means by which people obsessed with motorcycles (as opposed to people who want or need a cheap mode of transport) get on the road. Making it bigger will excuse making it more expensive, and money is a real barrier to getting a bike licence, even for the bike-obsessed. Thus reducing those riding to an ever-dwindling number. In my opinion the CBT is too wide-ranging with its emphasis on the obvious and common sense (such as safety gear and the Highway Code). In the 80s in France I remember it was the norm for all French kids who could afford it to have a moped or small motorcycle from the age of 14, which they rode always without a helmet, etc. Of course there will be accidents, but learning about consequences and responsibility are a part of growing up. Take that away, as has been done, and you are left with an expensive scrap of paper that's little more than a mental safety blanket. Nobody is that precious that they shouldn't be allowed to risk life or limb. Accidents happen.

[Valko]

I think you know the answer. No CBT is not enough training.

[TC1474]

We have 2 issues with young riders (well actually 3 but it is a seperate issue), ne is that these days too many 16/17 year olds go on a CBT course thinking they are indestructible and know it all and will only do enough to satisfy their instructor.

Secondly, unlike many of us who grew uo in an age where if we wnated something we had to pay for it ourselves and repair it ourselves, too many young riders have parents who are happy to dip their hand in their pockets and buy their kids the bikes and the kit, so the youngsters have no respect for what they have. On top of that, I think kids of today have a different mentality as well, but I digress.

The third issue is that the DSA simply require riders to be taught by the numbers. It is all regimented. They have no interest in riders being taught the skills for life, it is all about teaching people to be automitans, and then once the L plates are removed many consider that the learning curve is over and they have learnt all there is to learn.

Hence one of the reasons after 30 years of instructing I gave up learner stuff and just stuck with the advanced training and examining, which becomes particularly good fun when I have to examine DSA examiners Surprising how many of them I have failed and how poor their riding standards are

[bonio]

I don't think the problem lies with the CBT so much as the lack of on-going training. Perhaps the thing that's really wrong is the message we give surrounding training.

There's a way of thinking that says, I want to drive or I want to ride, and to do that I need to pass a test, so I'll get some training. That's so upside down: the aim of training is to learn to do things differently, to gain new skills, and to improve existing ones. But the usual thing, once the test is passed, is that all thought of skills or training fly out the window - there's no reason to do any more once you've got the certificate in your hand. I'd say the problem is worse with car drivers than bikers, as it seems to me that very very few go on to get advanced training, compared with riders.

But I'm not sure how you'd fix it? I don't like the idea of making advanced or ongoing training compulsory, as this just reinforces the idea of training as something you do in order gain the right to drive or ride. Perhaps a government campaign to promote advanced training??

[daveyboy9274]

I don't think the problem lies with the CBT so much as the lack of on-going training. Perhaps the thing that's really wrong is the message we give surrounding training.

There's a way of thinking that says, I want to drive or I want to ride, and to do that I need to pass a test, so I'll get some training. That's so upside down: the aim of training is to learn to do things differently, to gain new skills, and to improve existing ones. But the usual thing, once the test is passed, is that all thought of skills or training fly out the window - there's no reason to do any more once you've got the certificate in your hand. I'd say the problem is worse with car drivers than bikers, as it seems to me that very very few go on to get advanced training, compared with riders.

But I'm not sure how you'd fix it? I don't like the idea of making advanced or ongoing training compulsory, as this just reinforces the idea of training as something you do in order gain the right to drive or ride. Perhaps a government campaign to promote advanced training??

 

I've got to admit that since passing my DAS it has made me a better car driver, I respect other road users more. My observations are better, so doing training is a way to make u aware of the mistakes u were making before.

[daveyboy9274]

And how many car drivers do we see everyday driving like tw@ts and they have passed a full licence test?

From what I've read from others is that Mod 1 & Mod 2 training is just that, to pass the test.

Training comes when the L plates come off and you get miles under the belt and learn from your mistakes.

Bikesafe, Rospa and IAM is where proper training is at

Although I would like to see 50cc's banned as they are chav/robbers/aspiring footballer magnets and maybe even ban 17/20 year olds from scooters too

 

Agreed mate

[nicklucey]

Personally think it's crackers that they let 17 year olds with no knowledge of the road, highway code etc to go out on a 60mph vehicle after 2 hours riding around.

This would never happen with a car, the only difference being that on bike chances are you'll only kill yourself and not anyone else

 

This is very true !

 

But nobody bats an eyelid at kids on pushbikes with zero training..

Yeah, but push-bikes don't travel at 60mph

And you know what, the cycling proficiency course i did in primary school was a lot more than two hours long!

[Guest]

This is very true !

 

But nobody bats an eyelid at kids on pushbikes with zero training..

Yeah, but push-bikes don't travel at 60mph

And you know what, the cycling proficiency course i did in primary school was a lot more than two hours long!

 

On certain roads you could do regularly (if you have the balls)

Easy to do 50/70kph 35/43mph without even trying in the lanes around Barnet or Surrey

Stopping quickly is the problem

[Guest]

I don't think CBT is enough, but think A2 & A are too much. I have to do the exact same tests, albeit on a slightly more powerful bike... A money grabber IMO.

[TC1474]

Bikesafe, Rospa and IAM is where proper training is at

 

Don't include Bikesafe in the list, that is where part of the problem lies for a whole number of reasons, not least because of how the concept is portrayed and is not what Phil (Curtis RIP) and myself envisaged when we wrote it.

It s a good PR Excercise, but that is about it.

[TC1474]

Sorry, double post for some reason

Edited June 12, 2016 by TC1474

[Joeman]

passed my cbt at 16, rode a 50cc bike to school wearing basically skiing gear and a helmet, passed my full bike test at 17..

That was normal for most of the lads in my school, and non of us got splattered across the road.

If kids/people these days cant handle it, thats more a reflection on their own lack of ability and lack of common sense, not a problem with the system.

Train people as much as you like, but the fact is, there will still be idiots who kill themselves, just like all the idiots with full car licences who still manage to crash in the most ridiculous ways.

Banning bikes to certain age groups wont help, you'll just create more illegal young riders, and kill off the biking industry as there wont be a next generation filtering through to take up the hobby.