Potter wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:14 am
I'm simply saying that the majority of people that ride a motorcycle don't need (and indeed don't ask for) these improvement courses, so if you want to make a living from it then you'll need to be good at marketing and talking it up.
Simply? You sure that you didn't write Ronnie Corbett's 'chair' monologues?
I'll write something equally as long
This might surprise you, but I sort of agree.
A lot of what is sold as 'high standard advanced' riding is actually close to what a good 'L' course might cover. Particularly for extra 'advanced' driving techniques, much of it is irrelevant to the average driver.
Riders are different as there's far more of the hobby/enthusiast aspect. Many riders, though, don't have a secure grasp of basics and typical 'advanced' training isn't set up to help.
But if - and it's a big if - L courses were thorough and effective, we should have fewer riders crashing out of bends at (what the investigators say) manageable speeds. Riders still blithely ride into others' crashes (classic SMIDSY, the legendary U turning taxi, etc).
That, unfortunately, implies that either or both of two things might be happening: training is insufficient or riders CBA to take notice of it (and that's not ignoring that 'people make mistakes' etc, because better training might overcome some of that).
Take your son's crash: was there anything about the build up to that situation that training could have covered? If he learned from the crash and thinks he won't repeat it, then that suggests it was something his training could have included. Or did it, he forgot, was full of the joys of new bike ownership, etc?
'But' No 2. Go back to my list of simple, fixable, things that everyday riders do (posted in reply to Couchie). However, when I was heavily involved in rider training it largely wasn't set up to train (to avoid) those areas, it then was either wobble for CBT and 'advanced'. There was a big hole for middle level skills. Mod1 may have improved that, although I was still training people on those techniques up to 2008.
I don't know how you get 'majority' (said for comic effect, or justifiable?), I said 'many' and I'm not going to put a % on it. Although if there's half a million active riders in the UK (I really don't know, that's a 'pluck a number'), then even a 'few' is a lot of people. FWIW, at one time, the Thames Valley IAM group had about 900-1000 members.
There's a further issue: if I as a trainer help you to ride faster on-road, what's a likely result? Helping people commit bikie-facilitated hari kiri is hardly a great advertising strategy. That's why there needs to be the 'caution' element to. If, instead, I help you identify places not to go [relatively] fast, then you can decide for yourself what to do elsewhere.
And that second type is actually the bit of 'advanced' training that makes the difference. Whether you want to call it hazard prediction, insight, situation awareness, doesn't matter. If you want to get home in a fit state for you and your bike to go out again the next day, that's probably an important aspect to work on. I appreciate that's perilously close to your 'take training or die' type training advertising statements, the difference is the content supporting it, simply: know where it often goes wrong, sort that. Rders are rarely innovative, they insist on enjoying the three main 'gotcha' crashes: smidsy, bends, overtaking (with filtering a #4 if you separate it from overtaking). All of those can largely be avoided by identifying the situation and riding accordingly.
Nothing 'advanced', it's basic.