Can you get obsessed with too much training?

[Ducatista]

Motorcycling is a high risk activity as we all know

I have a few hobbies that are inherently dangerous and yes I think it's partly the thrill that does attract us, but I would never undertake any of them without the proper epuipment, training and procedures.

I don't think many of us would dream of going sky diving or Scuba diving without proper backup equipment (spare parachute or spare regulator), proper training and proper procudures e.g. buddy system.

It does seem to me that because motorcycling is a very familiar day-to-day activity that we are complacent about it whereas most of us wouldn't dream of doing any equally (inherently) dangerous activities without the proper safeguards.

As for types of training, my personal (and many riders) bias towards the voluntary sector is mainly cost based. No-one has said it's the only way or the best way, but if you have limited funds (which most of us do) then it's certainly the best bang for your buck.

I would never do anything like scuba diving or sky diving or anything similar without training but I did just jump on a moped and ride on the roads without any training (none required in 1984) and ironically statistically the latter is far more dangerous.
So I do think it's interesting that our risk perception is out of kilter.

I used to be terrified of flying when the risks of death are 1 in 16 million and massively lower than motorcycling, but when I'm in a plane I'm not in control and on a motorbike I feel I'm in control and quite confident.

I think our risk perception is pretty screwed up.
Snakes on a plane - what are the chances?
I'm going diving with Sharks in April which most people would think is dangerous but I'm statistically more likely to be killed by a cow, toaster or champagne cork.

[wiltshire builders]

I'm statistically more likely to be killed by a cow, toaster or champagne cork.

Hey, what you do behind closed doors is upto you! ;D

[Squashed_Fly]

I would never do anything like scuba diving or sky diving or anything similar without training but I did just jump on a moped and ride on the roads without any training (none required in 1984) and ironically statistically the latter is far more dangerous.
So I do think it's interesting that our risk perception is out of kilter.

Is that a fair comparison though? If you actually could go diving with no training, buddy/instructor or experience, I'm sure the accident rates would be mucg higher per 100 participants. It's a lot easier to jump on a moped with none of the above...

Or did you mean the accidents stats are worse for moped riders that have had full training? Also, I would hazard a guess that the age range would play a part there, wonder if that is included in the stats? ie 16 year old mopeders vs 16 year old divers etc?

(sorry, didn't mean to throw a spanner in your argument as I agree with it, just interested to know if the statistics include that fact?)

[Ducatista]

Is that a fair comparison though?

You're absolutely right.
In some cases we have a lot of safety enforced on us e.g. commercial flying.
Whereas in other cases we have a great deal of freedom to take risks.
This is of course reflected in the stats.

I still believe our risk perception can be flawed and that we can get a false sense of confidence/control when we are familliar with an activity.

[YMFB]

In a work environment you wouldn't be allowed to operate anything as dangerous as a moped without training, permit to work, safe system of work and risk assessment. I'm guessing statistically that moped riders don't account for significant proportion of motorised two wheeled ksi's. My guess is older riders on machines > 500 cc

Training in the work environment is usually based on continuos assessment and training, so why not riding/driving ?