wikipedia - counter steering to avoid accidents

[Caz]

yawn - just goes to show that you really can prove anything with statistics!


If you want to improve your riding by reading - I suggest Keith Codes twist of the wrist 1 and 2. I've not read them myself, but I hear they come highly recommended!
They books are getting on a bit now, but the fundamentals are still the same!

[deviant]

Thats the thing with wikipedia, none of the info is scritinised by recognised academics. So anyone can write anything. The exact reason all of my tutors at my uni despise it.

Which is silly. Academic journal papers are peer-reviewed. Wikipedia pages are peer-reviewed - albeit informally and after publication. There was a study done a while back which found about as many errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica as in Wikipedia.

The real problem is accepting one source as gospel truth and not trying to cross reference it with other sources. Wikipedia is huge, well known and instantly accessible, so it's a first port of call when you want information on something - but it shouldn't be the end of your research on anything.

[macman1]

So what are you saying? That the article is hogwash?

I haven't ridden yet to see if I countersteer or body steer or both or neither, but it is an interesting debate nonetheless.

Is it true statistically that your more likely to die falling down the stairs than you are on a bike? It was quoted to me but they couldn't remember where they had seen it. Maybe we should learn to body steer when negoitiating the stairs?

[RedexRobB]

Journals are peer reviewed by people who are recognised as an authoritative figure on the journal subject, otherwise its not accepted as any good, especially by a university. If you reference something and the reference has no backing then its useless in a report.

Ive no idea about peer reviews on wiki or who the peers are, but we are encouraged not to use it and instead to use google scholar for journals which have academic backing, as well as Institutional websites, IEE for example if you do electronics and IMECH if you are of a mechanical persuasion etc etc ....

But as you said, wiki isnt the be all and end all of lierature search.

[deviant]

I'm saying the article is written with a (various) specific agenda (s) in mind, rather than being a neutral discussion of motorcycle safety. The section on countersteering screams "people are dying because countersteering is not taught in the (US) riding test system". That's not a neutral point of view.

Statements like:

The number one cause of motorcycle crashes is the failure of riders to countersteer

are quite patently BS. There is no source cited in the article for this claim. They quote a study that most bike crashes are at relatively low speeds, then make the leap from this to "if it's not because of speed, it must be because people don't understand countersteering!"

Don't get me wrong. It is impossible to steer a bike without countersteering. You do it whether you know you are or not, and being conscious of the principle does enable you to tip the bike in quicker when you really have to.

I'm just criticising this article as incredibly "un-encyclopaedic"

And yes, I'm sure it is true that more people are killed falling down stairs than riding bikes - but that tells you nothing. Practically everyone in the world negotiates flights of stairs on a daily basis. It's like saying more people have died driving a ford fiesta than a formula 1 car.

[deviant]

Ive no idea about peer reviews on wiki or who the peers are

anyone with an internet connection. that's the whole point of wiki.

I know nothing about these people and whether they are qualified or not. But arguably I know nothing about the agendas of the person that has peer reviewed a scientific paper. Perhaps the person that reviews a paper on car emissions is the Texaco professor of somethingorother at the university of texas?

I would be more inclined to trust a published paper than a wikipedia article. But I wouldn't assume either was gospel.

[RedexRobB]

I know nothing about these people and whether they are qualified or not.

Thats the point im trying to make with wiki. With a journal, someone writes a piece of work, this is then distributed to people who know thier stuff on the subject and approve, if you like, the piece of work thats been written. Id trust a journal more than wiki because as you rightly said its bias.

[macman1]

I'm with you rob on this one. I would trust a journal more than wiki. Even this blog gives a more unbiased view. You don't really know if wiki is 'edited' by the powers that be either? The last summaries in the Hurt report talk about insurance too (co-incidence?), you have to bear that in mind.

The stairs statistic is just a way of trying to justify road deaths as being relative, but as you quite rightly say, depends on the context. If it were comparing a percentage of stair descents that ended in deaths versus a percentage of bike journeys resulting in road deaths it would carry more weight - but it would be impossible to work out in reality.

I would prefer to read the Hurt report and take from that any useful information, but the best forms of advice and information I have found comes from forums like this with good moderators. Experienced riders can give their advice and you can take from it what you like and leave the bits which lack common sense. And in a language that doesn't baffle (well mostly).

Keep up the good work moderators!

[deviant]

I know nothing about these people and whether they are qualified or not.

Thats the point im trying to make with wiki. With a journal, someone writes a piece of work, this is then distributed to people who know thier stuff on the subject and approve, if you like, the piece of work thats been written. Id trust a journal more than wiki because as you rightly said its bias.

what I was actually trying to say was that while I would give more weight to a published paper, you still have to acknowledge that it is written by an academic whose research is being paid for by a company with a vested interest in the results, and peer reviewed by another set of academics with a similar potential conflict of interests. Hence my comment about the Texaco Professor of Somethingorother. Research posts like this really exist, particularly in the states. I had a uni lecturer who had spent most of his career carrying out research into diesel engines paid for by Ford. He was ridiculously dismissive of any alternative fuels (It didn't help that the guy was also a complete c-nut).

Even this blog gives a more unbiased view.

what blog?

You don't really know if wiki is 'edited' by the powers that be either?

who are these mysterious powers that be? you can incidentally see a full edit history for any wiki page. admittedly that just gets you a load of pseudonyms, but it is obvious where people are making consistent edits with a particular agenda.

Keep up the good work moderators!

I thoroughly agree. Keep on not moderating anything.

[RedexRobB]

Keep up the good work moderators!

I thoroughly agree. Keep on not moderating anything.

Nothing like people recognising what you do, eh?

[deviant]

Keep up the good work moderators!

I thoroughly agree. Keep on not moderating anything.

Nothing like people recognising what you do, eh?

Well you do it with such selfless dedication...

[RedexRobB]

Dedicated i am!

Baz has an excellent site here, and ill do as much as i can to support him in keeping it running.

[macman1]

what blog? - the one your posting on!

"who are these mysterious powers that be? you can incidentally see a full edit history for any wiki page. admittedly that just gets you a load of pseudonyms, but it is obvious where people are making consistent edits with a particular agenda."

hmmm...

I just wouldn't trust everything you read, esp as I work for a newspaper!

You are obviously well educated and it seems a supported of wiki and freedom of information, as am I (apart from the well educated bit). I am not one of these conspiracy theorists, I just don't believe that 'wiki' is completely uncensored that's all - who really knows? The pseudonyms? Even this site is censored, and it's not exactly a hot bed of libelous/sadicous gossip is it? But where there is freedom of information, there is someone who wants to censor it.

This post was set up to try to get some responces regarding countersteering, not the credibility of reports on wiki. Take from it what you will. But can we get back to the 'countersteer/bodysteer' question? Or have we answered that one?

[deviant]

what blog? - the one your posting on!

compare and contrast

assuming you trust wikipedia to tell the truth...

but that was just me letting my inner pedant out. Back to the discussion...

hmmm...

I just wouldn't trust everything you read, esp as I work for a newspaper!

You are obviously well educated and it seems a supported of wiki and freedom of information, as am I (apart from the well educated bit). I am not one of these conspiracy theorists, I just don't believe that 'wiki' is completely uncensored that's all - who really knows? The pseudonyms? Even this site is censored, and it's not exactly a hot bed of libelous/sadicous gossip is it? But where there is freedom of information, there is someone who wants to censor it.

Firstly, thanks for the various compliments in there. I suspect you give me a bit too much credit - I'm certainly well enough educated to be an infuriatingly superior pain in the ass on internet forums, but that's probably about it.

I only really threw that one back at you because the phrase "powers that be" came across as a bit "conspiracy theorist". The point I've tried to make throughout this thread is that any source of information can be compromised for a whole range of reasons. That applies to everything from scientific papers through newspapers to wikipedia.

I absolutely do not take everything I read at face value.

This forum isn't really censored, beyond some comic substitutions for certain swear words. And if you think it's not a "hotbed of salacious gossip" I suggest you read some of Jamz's posts.

This post was set up to try to get some responces regarding countersteering, not the credibility of reports on wiki. Take from it what you will. But can we get back to the 'countersteer/bodysteer' question? Or have we answered that one?

I think we did answer that one. Countersteering is a fact of motorcycle dynamics. A bike will not go round corners without it, whether you do it consciously or not. Awareness of countersteering is a tool to help you ride better, but it's not a life or death issue.

[Caz]

back on topic

The No BS bike proves that you cannot corner without input through the bars. I think at the California Superbike school they say you can have the course for free if you make it round the track without any steering input - please dont quote me on this!


everyone countersteers, or else you wouldnt make it round the corner. If you dont believe me, find a quite straight stretch of road, push on one of the bars ever so gently, and you will notice the bike turn the opposite way. You'll notice this happening from quite a slow speed. Now explain to me how you are getting round a corner without countersteering when you have just demonstrated to yourself that you must countersteer!


But to get the most out of countersteer, you have to consider the bike and the rider as a whole system. As I said before, what you are doing when you are countersteering is trying to steer the bike out from underneath the rider. Thus lowering the centre of gravity.
shifting your weight off the bike, alters the geometry of the bike/rider system by lowering the centre of gravity. This enables the bike to corner faster for any given lean angle. But I said all that in my previous post

I'm not very good at explaining this without the aid of a pen and paper!


I think a knowledge of countersteer is a good thing to have. But actively practising it, Im not so sure about. I believe that to get the most out of the bike, you need to have an understanding of the fundamentals of how a motorcycle operates.


Another good example of understanding things to get the most out of them is looking at alternative front suspension systems - ie BMW duo lever.
The purpose of this is to eliminate dive during braking, which means that the suspension geometry of the bike doesnt change under braking like it does with conventional front suspension. In theory, a very good idea. BUT one thing it fails to take into consideration is tyre grip, and dive means that you meet the grip limit of the tyre in a controlled manner. If you eliminate dive, you reach the traction limit of the tyre and then go immediately over it. Coincidence that BMWs have non conventional front suspension and ABS?
But thats another thread!

/Caz