
ed>1.  All of us that argue about gyroscopes, etc., throughly understand
ed>the technique of countersteering.

me>Including all the ones who think that they countersteer all the way
me>through a corner??

ed>Well... all the way through a decreasing-radius corner, anyway...

Maybe they are riding around an ever-decreasing circle of lies which
eventually leads to the truth....



me>The official line here (though I do have my doubts about it) is that the
me>front brake is applied first, followed by the rear brake, the idea being
me>that you avoid locking up the rear after weight transfer takes place. 


Me too, though unfortunately the "Official Line" is the one that you
have to adhere to if you want to get a full licence. The examiner's
guidelines are laid down by the government, and the basic rider education
courses have no choice but to follow them. It surprises me that none of the
rider groups here, either MAG or the BMF make much noise about the fact that
the riding test requires you to ride three feet from the kerb all the time
in order to pass, that the front brake must be applied before the rear, that
you have to keep looking over your shoulder all the time (instead of just
when it is justified) - there's probably a few more too, which I can't
think of for the moment. If the riding test could be rejigged a bit 
to include more of the real-world survival skills and less of the 
woefully simplistic crap that it contains now, then the accident figures
would (imho) reduce still further.

Don't think we should include countersteering knowledge in our test though...