[phew]

I did the Garda bike safe course a few weeks ago and although I passed, I was criticised for what the Garda called two bad habits.

The first one was keeping the bike in gear with the clutch in, at traffic lights.
He was adamant that I shouldn't do this because of the possibility of the clutch cable snapping and the bike jumping forward and/or dropping. As it happened I was on the Beemer which has a hydraulic clutch so I laughed to myself but didn't mention this as I do the same thing on the Deauville which does have a cable clutch.
My arguement was that there was a much bigger chance of someone running into the back of me than the cable snapping, so I keep it in gear so I can quickly move forward if I notice a cage coming up too fast behind me. We argued about the pros and cons for a while but he wouldn't give in.

The second one was putting my two feet down when stopped at traffic lights. He insisted I should only put my left foot down while covering the rear brake with my right. His reasoning for this was that when moving away from the lights the back brake was already covered if traffic suddenly stopped or someone ran out in front of me, having to use the front brake suddenly could cause the bike to topple.
My arguement was that the Beemer was a heavy bike and it was a lot easier and safer to balance it with two feet when stopped, (the wind today certainly proved that). I can see his point about covering the brake but my feet are up within a foot or two of moving away, and that, combined with good observation should insure that I can still stop safely.

So what do you think. Is he right?...... Am I right?...... Are we both right? Don't get me wrong. I have total respect for the Garda bikers, theres no doubt they are probably the best trained bikers in the country, but I can't help thinking that he had his "Garda Hat" on when I was putting my points forward, and he just wouldn't give in.

While we're at it, anyone else got any "bad habits" that they've been criticised for (rightly or wrongly).

This post has been edited by phew: 13 December 2011 - 11:19 PM

[nab301]

Tripleman, on 27 December 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Interesting accident statistics just out (Irish Independent) show that in 2010 -

Mechanical defects in the vehicle account for just 0.2pc of all accidents.

Which must mean that a witheringly small number of accidents were caused by clutch cable failure, if any at all.

I've had a couple fail without warning while approaching traffic lights , but the most recent potentially "serious" cable failure was a few years back when I had a front brake cable fail on a drum braked Enfield bullet . The cable (an "uprated" one from a well known supplier) pulled out of the nipple without warning. I subsequently made my own cable and had no further problems...

[Empty One]

Tripleman, on 27 December 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Interesting accident statistics just out show that in 2010 -
Mechanical defects in the vehicle account for just 0.2pc of all accidents.
Which must mean that a witheringly small number of accidents were caused by clutch cable failure, if any at all.

alternatively, the stats could be rubbish??

[danceswithmopeds]

70's and early 80's, a lot of bikes still had drum brakes operated by cable. These broke with disturbing regularity. I always carried at least one spare cable, usually two.
Clutch cables also broke, but not as often.

Any other ol' farts remember 'solderless nipples' ?

[nab301]

danceswithmopeds, on 28 December 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

Any other ol' farts remember 'solderless nipples' ?

Yup

[Tripleman]

Empty One, on 27 December 2011 - 10:50 PM, said:

alternatively, the stats could be rubbish??

Indeed, who trust's government statistics?

Just as an aside the Independent is quoting the government as saying that between €0.5b and 20m is lost through fraudulent welfare claims annually which works out at each jobseaker claiming, on average, between €2,000 and €10 per week more than they are entitled to . What kind of chimpanzee runs that department, how on earth could they come up with such a range or are they basically admitting they haven't a clue or the problem is nowhere as big as they have been telling us?

Whatever, it doesn't reassure us that they know their abacus from their elbow when it comes to numbers.

nab301, on 28 December 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

Yup

There might be a few trying to recall what a nipple is, solderless or otherwise. Not me thank God, well, not yet anyway.

[relaxed]

Empty One, on 27 December 2011 - 10:50 PM, said:

alternatively, the stats could be rubbish??

Pretty well documented in different countries that vehicle failure is an insignificant cause of crashes. The AA in UK have published figures supporting this too. Doesn't mean they don't fail, just that when they do any crash is minor enough to not be reported. I know when I drove crappy vehicles I was less likely to crash than with better ones. Risk compensation and all that.

I read that UK introduced MOT testing for cars because of lobbying by the UK motor industry to stimulate the sales of new cars, which it did. Japan has very strict compliance rules, probably for the same reason. My conclusion about the Irish NCT is that the Government here held off as long as possible (with Denmark (?), another non-car producing country) to reduce the number of cars being imported.

[EndaIrl]

Thinking about it... how can youput the bike into neutral AND keep your right foot up to cover the r.brake while stopped?

Depending on situation i have done it every way mentioned...

Enda