RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

I have just received the latest consultation paper from the DSA with regards to the 3rd Directive on Driving Licences which covers all matters related to training, and the proposed raising of the age limit to do Direct Access from 21 to 24.

Interestingly, they state in the document

Recent audits by the DSA undertaken with the co-operation of the motorcycle training industry, have identified weaknesses within the current arrangement. In a sample of 56 CBT courses and 277 DAS training events observed by the DSA, 41% of CBT events and 31.4% of DAS courses provided training below a standard expected of a professional trainer. In addition there were injuries to trainees during observed training events.

I suppose it goes some way to explaining why I have to deal with so many recent DAS riders having crashes, but given the fact that the DSA are supposed to police training schools, it also suggests that they (the DSA) are not doing a very good job at getting rid of or disciplining the rubbish.

Am I glad I don't teach learners anymore

So are they (DAS) suggesting that because they're a bit crap it's the 21 to 24 year olds fault and by only training older people it'll all be better, even though the'll still be a bit crap?

They mentioned this in MCN a little while ago.

I can't see that changing from 21 to 24 will really make much difference - I expect that experience has more effect than any perceived difference in maturity of the average 21 year old compared to the average 24 year old.

I would be interested to see:

• * What proportion of DAS qualified riders go straight to riding a big bike
  * How accident rates old DAS qualified riders compare with those that took the normal "restricted" pass route

and in particular

• * How accident rates of those that passed their DAS when they were younger than 24 compare with the accident rates of those that passed their DAS when they were 24 and also with those who passed when they were 25 or older.

If it is shown that DAS accident rates are higher (and the evidence must surely already be there in the answers to the questions above), I wouldn't necessarily object to scrapping DAS.
That may seem very hypocritical coming from someone who passed their test on a 50cc motorcycle and was then qualified to ride any bike but most of you of a similar "vintage" will remember that simple economics used to dictate a gradual progression over a number of years - for me C50 to CB175 to CB250 to CB400 to VF750 to Falco (yes I've not changed bikes very often!)

Over the past few years bikes have been cheap - especially second hand - insurance has been relatively affordable, disposable incomes have been fairly healthy and credit has been all too easy - hence it has been very easy for newly qualified riders to avoid their apprenticeship. I think things are changing - work is scarce, credit harder to get, exchange rates forcing bike prices sharply upwards - but people will not have rediscovered the attitude to accept they cant have everything now.

There again, this may be completely irrelevant and the stats may show that how quickly you progress to a big bike makes no difference.

Common sense says that the "appreticeship" aproach , whether economic or government forced is the way to go.

I wouldn't encourage anyone onto on a Falco or any 600+ I4 until they had done 10,000 miles on a 250 and another 10,000 on a 500 or low powered 750 twin. Note that I've put it in terms of mileage not years experience. With my suggestion it'd take the most of those casual bikers most at risk, 20 years to qualify for a big bike....

Personaly I did 20,000 on a 250 then 80,000 on a 500 then 10 years racing 250 - 500 before I got my R90S. Economics did come into play but when I was riding a 250 the 500 seemed a big enough next step to take.

Doesn't fit in with the it's cool and I want it now culture though.

I would not disagree with your basic thinking, but things have to be equal in all areas and they never have been between cars and bikes.
Some sad rich kid can pass his test and get straight into his dad's M3 take his mates and girlfiriends out for a run, start raciing with somebody and stuff it into a tree killing a car load, no apprenticeship there! Then again I have known a few who have served an apprenticeship by smashing a few cars up before finally killing a car load of mates.
A lot of leisure bikers would take a bloody long time to do the 20,000 mile two stage apprenticeship and may have given up bikes whilst waiting.
In any case, does speed and performance really make all that much difference. Even though I agree with the sentiment, and forgetting my earlier comments, it does seems to me that a lot more young drivers get killed or injured in 1.2 Corsas than Subaru Imprezas. Similarly a lot more youngish kids get killed or injured on scooters or mopeds than larger bikes.
As has been mentioned, everything is about experience really, like the young football apprentice, running around in a small cheap run around, signs a big money contract in has late teens, then just has to have an Aston, even if he doesn't like cars that much and can't really drive.
If we have to have progression we also need something to progress with!
Now we are getting a few decent 250s coming back, I think we should be letting people ride these with L plates and they might keep them a bit longer after passing their tests, (nobody wants to stay on a 125), then maybe something like a non supersporst 600, (new Divvi, SV 650, Bandit, CBF600 or CB600F etc.).
The other issue is riders coming back after years off bikes then joining a group of mates and deciding they just have to start off with a Fireblade, or they would not have any street cred.

Then again, in my days you could go straight to a Jap 250 with L plates, and lets face it, they were often as fast as Brit 500s and not much slower from the big Brit 650s !!
However, a lot of kids got killed on X7s, RD250s and the like and that's why we are where we are now.

I'm a great believer in the 'apprenticeship' route, and I believe it has to obvious that a longer, slower training period has to better than 3 days and ride a rocket! But I'm not sure about

a lot more youngish kids get killed or injured on scooters or mopeds than larger bikes.

Depends what you mean by youngish kids and how you read the statistics. If they are young enough to be only allowed to ride scooters or mopeds then that would be why. But I input RTCs to the computer at work and without actually counting I think most of the fatals and serious injuries take place on the bigger bikes which is also quite natural without going into riding skills, simply because the accidents take place at higher speeds because the scooters and mopeds are only capable of lower speeds.