[ 2-Wheeler Index ] [ Up one level ] [ 1. New Theory ] [ 3. Recommendation ] [ 4. New concepts ] [ 5. Other Theories ] [ 6. Links ] [ SiteMap ]

2.7 Independent test carried on by the Federation Motocycliste du Quebec (FMQ) in August 2001:

A) The test itself:

'LE MOTOCYCLISTE' is the official magazine of the Federation Motocycliste du Quebec (FMQ). Volume 8, No. 5 of autumn 2001, reports that in August 8th and 9th, 2001, thirty motorcyclists took part in a 'safety event 2001' of the FMQ on countersteering. It was organized in cooperation with the Societe de l’Assurance Auto du Quebec (The SAAQ that insures a few million car, truck, motorcycle… drivers in Quebec) and Promocycle.

In a motorcycle driver’s license test, candidates must ride towards an instructor simulating a 3 meter (10 foot) wide obstacle. They must then turn right or left according to the instructor’s sudden indication, when they get below 10 meters from the virtual obstacle. Many riders fail the test.

The thirty motorcyclists were separated in three groups where:
- At first, everyone went through the test without any specific recommendation. 
- Then each group were given a different training.
- Finally, everyone repeated the test to see if the training was of any use.

The results reported in the LE MOTOCYCLISTE magazine can be translated as follows:

… a first group of motorcyclists performed worse after they were trained according to the 'known and regular' countersteering technique. A third group practiced the test-maneuver without any specific recommendation or training. They also faired worse when repeating the test. Only the second group that had received the instruction to “project their torso towards where they want to go while pushing on the handlebar”, faired better when repeating the test.

B) Support to the Torso-Arms-Handlebar theory:

These results clearly support the Torso-Arms-Handlebar theory's explanations:

- Group 1: The countersteering technique used, has a cerebral and contradictory aspect that risks slowing down and even fooling the rider’s reactions in the case of an emergency, which is simulated by this test.

- Group 2: In the case of an emergency, a rider must rigidify his arms and throw his body towards where he wants to go in order to let the Torso-Arms-Handlebar mechanism work rapidly, precisely and adequately to avoid the obstacle. That’s what was taught this second group that faired better in the test.

- Group 3: If a rider knows nothing about the countersteering technique or the Torso-Arms-Handlebar theory, as in the third group, he may try to avoid the obstacle with his arms kept flexible. Or he may try to avoid the obstacle by turning the front wheel towards where he wants to go as he does in a car. So the rider may not react fast enough or he may go in the wrong direction in the case of an emergency, as simulated by this test.

Note that the riders without any specific recommendation or training could have faired better during the final test. The circumstances and instructions for the tests might have stressed them more to reduce their performance. But this additional stress represents better than the test itself the stress involved in a real road emergency. And this highlights the beneficial simplicity and securing of the Torso-Arms-Handlebar theory's recommendations. We don't have to think, we only have to save ourselves by throwing our head and body away from trouble. And we can practice an enjoying routine. (See section 3. Recommendation to increase driving precision and safety)

[ Next evidence ]

[ 2-Wheeler Index ] [ Up one level ] [ 2.1 Test mechanism ] [ 2.2 Min speed ] [ 2.3 Slow motion ] [ 2.4 Lean angles ] [ 2.5 Swiftness ] [ 2.6_ 2-Skate ] [ 2.7 Project torso ] [ 2.8 Crossing hands ]