Category: Judgement

Posted on

61. Before you overtake, do you…?

The central lesson — never assume left-hand junctions are clear when overtaking — is often overlooked, even by experienced motorcyclists. The scenarios you describe illustrate a classic cognitive trap: tunnel vision on the manoeuvre past the target vehicle while failing to account for other hazards.

Before you overtake, do you…?

…check for junctions on the left?

Whenever I’m giving one of my Survival Skills presentations about avoiding overtaking collisions, it takes a few minutes to work through all the places we have to look out for. Most riders are aware of the hazards posed by junctions and other openings to the right, where the vehicle we’re overtaking might turn right, or another in the side turning might emerge from. But way down the list is the fact that a junction or driveway on the left is just as much of a hazard. Why?

Here’s what often happens. We see a vehicle ahead slow, and indicate left. “Good, that’ll make it easier to pass” we think. And so we do all our other checks, swing wide and commit to the pass.

But as always with the Survival Skills approach to advanced riding, let’s not assume things will go right, but think about what might go wrong.

What if the driver swings out to the right to make the turn easy? It’s highly likely if the vehicle we’re trying to pass is an articulated lorry or a bus, but cars do it too, and not always because the driver’s being lazy, as we’re all too quick to assume. The manoeuvre might be very awkward, maybe because the entrance is narrow or because it turns right back on itself.

What if there’s a second vehicle actually in the side turning waiting to turn right? What’s the driver of that vehicle likely to do as he sees the approaching car slowing with the left indicator on? There’s a significant risk he will pull out, straight into our path and now we’re set up for a head-on collision. Why does the driver go? Because he’s seen the same as us, that there’s nothing coming from his left (that’s why we’re overtaking), but he also thinks it’s clear from his right, because of our position. Wide out to the right, we’re blindsided by the car we’re moving out to pass. We might well be able to see over the roof of the slowing car, but from where the driver is sat, all that’s likely to be visible is the top of our helmet.

Or maybe that second vehicle plans on turning left. Exactly the same line-of-sight problem applies, only this time the driver pulls out and turns in the same direction we’re headed. And maybe that takes away the gap we were planning on moving back into before encountering oncoming traffic.

So even if we back out of the overtake, what if the driver turning left cannot complete the turn? What if he’s turning into a single track road and there’s a vehicle coming the other way? Will the turning vehicle have to stop? And can we stop before we run into the back of it? A surprising number of crashes at junctions on fast roads happen when motorcycles collide with the back of vehicles that have slowed or stopped to make a turn.

And of course, there may be more than one vehicle involved. We may look at a pair of cars travelling relatively slowly, and decide we can hop into the gap between them. And then we realise the leading vehicle is slowing to turning left (or right). What will the vehicle we are passing do? The chances are the driver will be braking but aiming to slow or halt just behind the turning vehicle, bunching up close together. Where is our ‘out’ from the overtake now? It’s probably vanished.

All these scenarios we should be able to spot developing, even if we haven’t spotted where the vehicle will turn. We should see slowing vehicles, brake lights and probably indicators. We should be able to put two and two together and figure out what’s happening.

But there’s a final Worst Case Scenario which is not nearly so easy to detect. And that’s when the vehicle we’re about to overtake is NOT turning left but going straight on, but there’s also a second vehicle waiting in the junction ahead, intending to turn right. Here’s what happens. The driver looks left, sees the road is clear (our ahead – which is why we’re about to overtake too), and pulls out across the vehicle we’re just moving out to pass, straight into our path. The problem is that the emerging car doesn’t need a big gap – the driver just needs enough space to get across the centre line and into the other lane.

That led to one of the very few genuine brown trouser moments I’ve had on a training course. The trainee set up an overtake past an HGV well. He’s spotted we were about to exit a left-hand bend onto a long clear straight, moved wide to take a final check ahead, then started to accelerate…

…just as a Ferrari pulled out from the left, right in front of the truck and nailed it towards him. Fortunately, he wasn’t totally committed and was able to hit the brakes and bail out of the overtake. But it was a scary moment.

Of course, it’s not always easy to spot junctions and entrances on the left, but sometimes it’s a simple failure of observation. One of the problems with overtaking is that it’s such a complex speed / distance computation that we can get fixated on whether the road ahead is clear, and totally forget the job of scanning laterally for hazards. I’ve made this mistake myself, most recently on a BikeSafe assessment – I only spotted the entranceway after moving wide.

But very often, the most dangerous locations are flagged up good and early for us, but we still miss the warnings; a hazard line, triangular warning signs, road direction signs, finger posts, traffic islands and cross-hatched right-turn refuges, white paint in the throat of the junction, dropped kerbs, openings in hedges, gaps in lines of parked cars, even the roof of a cottage visible over the hedge – it WILL have a drive.

[A few days after I originally wrote this article, I added the following first-hand experience.]

Well… deja vu moment or what…

Having written this, there I was, zipping down a nice bit of road, slower car ahead, good straight coming up just around the next right-hand corner… I open up the view, it’s clear… but…

I catch a glimpse of something silver to the left just as I move out to start the pass… and abort…

Just as well, because right in front of the car I was about to pass, out pulls a driver in a powerful Mercedes from a well-hedged driveway. He turns right and accelerates hard into what would have been my path had I continued with the manoeuvre.

I’m glad I was out of the way!

Posted on

60. Sit back, close your eyes, relax… and hope for the best

I still remember that drive, and how the roundabout incident was followed almost immediately by the petrol station event. The lesson is simple but crucial: never assume other road users will do what you expect. Right-of-way is a legal concept, not a guarantee of safety, and mistakes on both sides — the driver failing to see the bike, the rider failing to anticipate “what happens next” — continue to have serious consequences for the rider. Junction collisions and overtaking errors are still among the most common causes of motorcycle accidents, and rider behaviour that overestimates their own skill or underestimates risk continues to be a major factor.

Sit back, close your eyes, relax… and hope for the best

“We can learn a lot by watching other riders”. Someone told me that a few years back, whilst suggesting that we don’t really need rider coaches like me, nor programmes like my Survival Skills advanced training courses. All we have to do, he told me, is watch how other riders deal with situations and then copy them. Unfortunately, there’s a major assumption built into that particular plan; that the rider we’re watching is actually a role model from whom we should actually be learning.

It was a lovely warm evening in early April, so I took the (t)rusty old Nissan Serena people-carrier down to Eastbourne to watch the Eagles take on the Poole Pirates at speedway. There were plenty of riders out taking advantage of the warm evening sunshine too.

And plenty of examples of poor riding.

Poor positioning on right handers, hugging the white line through a curve so I had to keep moving left to avoid decapitating oncoming riders was a favourite, as were the obligatory duff overtakes.

I saw plenty of the latter, but one in particular was a cracker. Rider 1 begins to overtake and Rider 2 follows. But Rider 1 decides NOT to go for the two car pass that Rider 2 is clearly expecting and slides into a one bike-sized gap between the vehicles. Rider 2 is of course left hung out to dry. Fortunately, there was plenty of room for rider 2 to complete the overtake. Except Rider 2 didn’t, and decided to try to squeeze into the same gap.

But we should know that junction collisions are the most common crash of all, and it was two incidents at junctions that particularly stuck out.

Here’s the first. I’m in the Serena, waiting to turn right at a mini-roundabout, with a stream of traffic approaching from the left who would have to give way to me when I move forward. Unfortunately, the view to my right – the direction where I have to give way to traffic – is partially obscured.

Now, put your biking hat on, and imagine you’re approaching from that direction, where I’m searching for vehicles to my right. So my Serena is ahead and sitting on your left.

Here’s the problem. You’re approaching the junction around a bit of a kink which means your view only opens up quite late. And what you see is my Serena, and a big gap in that stream of traffic that’s been coming the other way.

Let’s hit PAUSE.

What could we anticipate? Firstly, as our machine’s appeared around that kink, does the driver of the Serena know what’s approaching from his right? If he didn’t spot us on his last check to the right, what’s likely to happen?

It’s not difficult, is it? With nothing apparently coming from his right, he can pull out, but now the Serena driver’s attention is almost certainly to his left, to make sure that vehicles approaching from THAT direction give way to him.

So back on the bike, what can we do?

Slowing down would be a good starting point. Covering the brakes would be a second. Watching the vehicle to see if it begins to move would be a third. Being prepared to sound the horn and hit the brakes hard would be a fourth and fifth.

Fortunately I DID spot the bike just as I was about to pull out, and I watched him as he approached and passed through the junction. He did none of these things. In fact, he approached (I guess) at around 10 mph over the 30 speed limit, and straight-lined the mini-roundabout riding straight over the paint blob. He didn’t slow, he didn’t look once in my direction, and I could see he wasn’t covering the brakes or the horn.

Not only would he have been in big trouble had I emerged, but had the last car in the opposing stream turned right across his path, he would have been hard-pressed to avoid a collision. This guy was oblivious to the very real danger posed by the road layout. Why? Lack of knowledge? Or an assumption that he had right-of-way and that other drivers should signal their turns? My guess is the latter.

Two lessons. Just because an oncoming vehicle isn’t signalling to turn right doesn’t mean it won’t turn right across your path. Just because you have right of way over a vehicle on the left, it doesn’t mean a driver won’t pull out across your path. Don’t assume!

Just a mile up the road, I had to fill up before heading to Eastbourne. The filling station is on the other side of the road, so it meant that I had to turn turning right to get back onto the road – that direction happens to be to the west, and we’ll see why that’s important in just a moment.

Once gain, there’s a slight kink just where the filling station is, so now I can’t see left OR right. So like most drivers, I wait for a nice big gap in the traffic stream coming from my right. And when I get one, I pull forward to the centre line, and wait till a gap or some kind soul lets me complete my turn. Predictably, after I’ve sat there for a couple of seconds, a car driver hangs back and flashes me out.

Fortunately for Larry Lackwit on the bike approaching from my right, I’ve already clocked him at a distance, and double-check back to my right to see where he is before acting on the headlight flash.

Because Larry decides that he can make a point about him having right-of-way by aiming his bike for the metre-wide gap in front of my Serena.

If I’d just started to move as I double-checked, I would have punted him straight into the front of the car that had stopped to let me out, and we’d have been calling the emergency services. If I’d already gone without looking, he’d would have buried himself in my driver’s door at 30 mph. He probably wouldn’t have needed an ambulance.

Doubly-fortunate for him, the reason I knew he was there was because I’d been double-checking back to the right even when sat blocking the lane. And I’d looked VERY CAREFULLY because the light of the setting sun was right behind him. Even with his headlight on, he wasn’t easy to spot.

Lesson? Another simple one about being impatient. Why put ourselves into dangerous situations simply to show off our right-of-way? It wouldn’t have saved more than ten seconds – he could have just rolled off the gas, waited for me to complete the manoeuvre, and been on his way with barely a moment lost.

And remember, if the sun is behind us, we have a lovely clear view ahead with everything picked out in the evening light. Check the angle of shadows of the bike. If we’re running over our own shadow, the driver ahead is looking straight into the sun.

Final point… neither of these incidents took place on the local roads where I know riders go hooning on summer evenings. The chances are both riders were locals, and almost certainly know that the mini-roundabout and the petrol station were there. My feeling was that both were making a very deliberate choice to enforce their own right-of-way, and would blame the other road user if things went wrong.

Posted on

59. Straight line -vs- trail braking

The next article was written well over twenty years ago, well before the current influencer-fuelled fad for trail braking as the ‘right way’ to enter corners became popularised on social media, usually without any cautions as to what happens if the level of grip under the tyres changes whilst the rider is braking and leaning simultaneously. Traction is not just finite, it’s unpredictably variable. There lies the risk on the road.

What I could have made clearer is that I believed then (and still do now) that trail braking is an entirely valid ‘get out of trouble’ technique. When we realise we’re running into a corner too rapidly, and leaning the bike alone is not going to avoid an off-road excursion, then using both front and rear brakes to bleed off some speed and tighten the radius of the turn is likely to be our way out of trouble. I taught it on my first Performance: BENDS courses in the late ’90s and I still cover it now, so I’m not ‘anti-trail braking’ as I have sometimes been labelled. To my mind, it’s a technique to be used when needed and not as a default approach to slowing for corners..

Straight line -vs- trail braking

One of the questions that I seem to get fairly frequently is what do I think about trail braking into bends. And when I do discuss it, it’s often a bit of a biking hot potato, with supporters on the one hand and others who say it’s a dangerous race track technique with no place on the road. First of all, it’s important that we understand the difference beween the two techniques, but also how they are linked. And we also need to be aware of what is sometimes called the ‘Traction Pie’. Essentially, is explains how it’s possible that we can divide up the grip that’s needed BETWEEN braking AND cornering at the same time.

The classic braking technique on the approach to a corner is to complete all braking before we start to steer the bike. The big advantage of this technique is that it separates traction management into two phases, FIRST braking THEN cornering. By keeping them apart we allow the tyres to use ALL their grip for one task OR the other. As a result, we significantly reduce the risk of losing traction at either end of the bike.

By contrast, when using the trail-braking technique the rider carries the brakes from the upright approach into the corner, gradually reducing the pressure on the brakes while adding lean angle until the brakes are off and the bike is at the chosen lean angle.

So what’s the problem?

Essentially, because the braking forces are using up traction AT THE SAME TIME AS the leaning forces, it’s possible to exceed the total amount of traction they tyres can deliver. And if that happens, we’re in trouble.

It’s that potential for loss of grip that’s always been used to promote the traditional upright braking approach to bends – if a wheel does lock under braking, upright it’s controllable even on a bike without ABS.

Separating braking and steering is by far and away the simplest way of dealing with a bend, and there’s far less to go wrong. Not least, if we’re off the brakes, we free ourselves up mentally to look around the corner to see what comes next. If we’re on the brakes, we’re actually mentally focused on the road surface itself (think about it) and what we might hit if it all goes wrong – cars, walls and other hard objects – and that in turn leads us in the direction of target fixation.

So why bother with trail braking at all? Two reasons.

The first is simply ‘advantage’ – since we carry the brakes into the first part of the corner, it’s possible to brake a little later, which means we carry speed a little further down the preceding straight. You’ve probably realised where this would be an advantage – on the track.

You may also have heard that “the bike steers better with the forks compressed”. It’s actually written on Freddie Spencer’s site and it’s hard to argue with a racer as talented as Freddie. But I can honestly say that every road bike I’ve ridden has, to a greater or a less extent, sat up and headed for the ditch on the brakes. Maybe a race bike set up on race tyres and race geometry does steer OK on the brakes, but my thinking is that this is a misunderstanding of what’s happening – as the bike slows on the brakes, it turns on a progressively tighter line simply because the speed is dropping.

Anyway, we’re not riding on the track, we’re on the road. We’re not out-braking other riders, nor trying to squeeze half a second off our point-to-point time. In fact, attempting trail braking as a regular approach to getting round bends risks all the things that goes wrong in bends:

  • running in too fast

  • turning in too early

  • running wide later in the corner

But with an added problem – because we’re braking and steering at the same time, we’ll be edging closer to the limit of traction. And of course, we’re assuming that the surface can deliver the grip we’re asking for – but surface grip can very from metre to metre. When we deliberately trail brake into a bend and get it wrong or the surface fails to deliver, the bend will bite back – hard! Which brings us right back to the benefits of braking upright to sort out speed before we reach the bend itself. On the road, braking hard and late is rarely the key to riding quickly – it just unsettles the bike and unsettles the rider!

As it happens, Nick Ienatsch – another US racer and writer for the US mag Sport Rider who is a big fan of trail braking on the track – says in his ‘The Pace’ articles that trail braking makes steering more difficult and is out of place on the road.

So if we’re not simply trying to use trail braking to ride faster, what’s the other potential benefit?

The simple answer is that we’re not on a track, and that means the road ahead is essentially unpredictable. Not only do we misjudge corners – the bend that looked easy a moment ago suddenly starts tightening up – or we may find the road blocked just out of sight. Even if we approach the bend ‘at a speed that allows us to stop in the distance we can see to be clear’, if our forward progress reveals a couple of cows wandering around mid-corner, we’re going to have to lose some speed. We cannot throw our hands up and say “but I can only brake in a straight line”, we are almost certainly going to have to carry those brakes into the corner itself.

So now we really are talking about a technique that is of genuine use on the road. So long as we weren’t planning on enter the corner at knee-down speeds, then our modest lean angle allows for those brakes to be carried into turn.

And then we have two further options. We can keep the brakes on, and maintain our lean angle – and then, as I just mentioned, our reduction in speed will automatically make the bike turn tighter. That will deal with decreasing radius corner. Or we can use the reduction in speed to reduce our lean angle, and now as the lean angle comes up we can use the second option – brake progressively harder until the bike is upright and we’re braking at emergency levels. That will get us stopped if the road is blocked.

But in both cases we have to understand that if we haven’t already locked up the front wheel by braking in a straight line, there is ALWAYS grip to begin to steer and add some lean. It may not be much if we’re braking hard, but it’s there all the same.

We just have to lean the machine gently to start with, and remember that as we feed lean in, we feed the brakes out.

Mix and match. Slice that pie between the leaning and braking.

One final tip. Having got the speed where we want it, release the brakes smoothly and progressively – don’t suddenly ping them off. If we do, that will unload the front suspension equally suddenly, and that will give us a very nasty surprise indeed. Because we’ve added a little extra counter-steering input to fight the bike’s ‘sit-up on the brakes’ tendency, removing the braking force means that extra steering input makes it fall into the corner rather abruptly.

Posted on

58. Euphoria – when our riding is just too good to be true

Looking back, I think a good subtitle might have been — “when we are having too much fun!” It conveys the psychological angle to the reader and hints at the subtle danger: it’s not anger, panic, or incompetence, but a state of overconfidence. It signals that the article is about a mental state as much as a riding technique and touches on a psychological state that is increasingly recognised in traffic psychology: a subtle form of overconfidence or “flow-induced risk” rather than outright anger or recklessness. Skill and routine mask the creeping erosion of safety margins — a state that can be more dangerous than obvious adrenaline-fuelled risk-taking because the rider believes everything is under control. The danger is that we don’t notice the shrinking safety margin until something jolts us out of the flow. Awareness of this state, deliberate self-checks, and the willingness to slow down or take a break remain crucial safeguards — even for the most experienced riders.

Euphoria – when our riding is just too good to be true

I got thinking after I got an email from one of my regular correspondents:

“Riding home after work, I felt in the mood for ‘pushing on’ a bit. I was congratulating myself on the swift progress I was making through the traffic, some drivers seemed a bit more aggressive than usual, but, what the hell, that was all part of the fun. The prat who pushed in too close to me and got a stare in return was just that, a prat. The close-ish encounters with traffic islands were just good timing, as was the manoeuvre to avoid the cyclist I spotted a bit late as I filtered rather wide and swiftly along the road.

“However, when I went through the red light I realised maybe I wasn’t riding quite as well as I thought. Didn’t realise, in fact, that the light was against me until half way across the junction. Luckily it was clear, because if it hadn’t been I’m not at all sure I’d have realised.”

He went on to say that perhaps after a stressful day at work he was a bit wound up.

Anyone recognise the symptoms? I have to admit to having days like that when I was a courier, and occasionally on other rides too.

It used to hit me towards the end of a long day. Partly tiredness, partly boredom with doing what became as routine as any other job. I’d get into a groove. In town I’d find myself slicing through rush hour traffic, filtering at high speed, overtaking through small gaps, running amber lights. Out of town I’d be zooming through bends, using big lean angles and engaging in heavy braking. It wasn’t as if I was in a rush to get somewhere either, in fact I’d feel more relaxed than normal. As the risky manoeuvre came off, I’d try them again for fun. It felt all so easy.

All TOO easy.

This state of euphoria is a close cousin to, but not the same as, red mist. The problem is that what’s happening to us usually only becomes evident after something scary or an obvious mistake snaps us out of it. Whilst red mist is characterised by obviously irrational behaviour – usually massive risk taking – in this euphoric state, we really believe we’re doing our normal thing, but in reality we are eating much deeper into our safety margin – maybe even exceeding it.

The bad news is that it’s almost addictive. And there’s a massive temptation to push towards the limits and enjoy the buzz as nothing seems to go wrong whilst we ride quicker and quicker, closer and closer to the edge. But sooner or later we WILL push too hard and cross the line. So riding in this way and waiting for the big mistake to tell us that we were actually in over our heads isn’t such a great idea.

Personally, I got to recognise the symptoms on those despatch jobs, and have been able to rein myself in before things get too out of control. I’d make a conscious decision to slow down, take a break or even turn off the radio and go home early!

One of the questions I ask myself as I ride is: “did that look dangerous to other road users?” If I have to say to myself: “yes, it probably did” then it’s time to dial down the fun and head, rather more slowly, for home.

Posted on

57. Surface Attraction

Modern tyres and suspension systems give riders more confidence, but the fundamental principle hasn’t changed: traction is limited not by the rubber, but by the surface; no tyre grips on ice.

Surface Attraction

A while back I read a research paper that examined just where road users actually look. Guess what? Motorcyclists looked at the road surface more than drivers. That surprised the researchers but was predictable because it’s the friction between tyres and road surface keeping bikes shiny side up. The level of grip we have impacts on our ability to accelerate, brake, steer and lean so it’s not surprising that we pay the surface a lot of attention. Nevertheless, it’s important to understand why some surfaces are barely ridable in the dry whilst others give near race track levels of grip in the wet.

Perfect surfaces are the exception rather than the rule, but still riders are caught out and panic when they see a dubious surface mid-turn. Why? Because we need time to react – spotting a problem already under the front wheel is too late.

Scan ahead then anticipate if the surface gets better or worse – a change of colour or visible line across the road often warns of a change, and though they look the same, two surfaces may have very different grip. Anything shiny is probably slippery. It makes sense to follow the Survival Skills advanced rider training approach by planning for the worst before we discover the hard way.

Slippery access covers are found around bends and junctions – don’t brake on them, aim to steer round rather than over. A shiny line could be a tar seam – like glass in the wet. Bumps and slippery surfaces together spell caution – beware cats-eyes when overtaking and paint markings that don’t follow an ideal line.

Discoloured patches could be wet patches, gravel, potholes or polished surfaces. Mud and gravel will wash downhill after rain and accumulate at the bottom of hills. Loose chippings will be pushed to the centre and sides of the cars’ tyre tracks – do we want to brake on those?

Irregular streaks are often fuel spills. Petrol is as slippery as diesel but evaporates quickly. If you smell diesel slow down and search! Guess where you’ll find it – near filling stations, bus depots and industrial estates, on roundabouts and long fast bends.

Watch out for shellgrip – it’s a high friction surface laid near pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, and sometimes on bends too, but rarely far enough round to get the bike upright again. Take advantage of the extra grip mid-corner and we’ll hit the less grippy surface still banked over – a recipe for a slide.

Don’t forget rain! After a prolonged dry spell, all surfaces will be extra-slippery.

Things we can change are tyres, suspension settings and – attitude! Super-soft track compounds just don’t work on the road. They don’t warm up and don’t like rain. Hard track suspension settings don’t allow the bike to follow road irregularities. Stick to road set-ups and road compounds, but even then we need to take some care. Modern tyres have excellent grip but can fool us into pushing too hard – our tyres can only deliver the amount of grip that the surface offers. A super-grippy tyre will have more more traction over wet metal access covers or on diesel. And once the bike starts sliding, it may well panic us into grabbing the brakes and having a crash that shouldn’t have happened!

So beware overconfidence. Don’t ride too fast for the conditions, keep back and don’t follow the vehicle in front. Just because the Land Rover made it round doesn’t mean we will too!

Posted on

56. Wide lines, tight lines, right lines – the law of Diminishing Returns

This article challenges the idea that “positioning for view” is ‘necessary’ to be seen as an advanced rider. Whilst it’s accepted that “positioning for safety” should always be first in the hierarchy of ‘safety — stability — view’, as an absolute rather than a trade-off. As I’ve said elsewhere, “safety” is an abstract goal, as in “more view must be safer”, but risk is a trade-off between exposure and benefit. Riders often accept a large increase in exposure (to oncoming traffic or hidden hazards) in exchange for a very small gain in information (measured in metres or fractions of a second), without consciously evaluating whether that trade is favourable. The extra metres of visibility only have real value we intend to act on them, and in practice that usually means carrying more speed through the bend, which magnifies the consequences of any mistake. That’s the paradox; more view doesn’t automatically make us safer if we simply use it to ride faster — and that’s where risk creeps back in. The safest line is not the widest or the tightest, but the one that leaves the greatest margin for error when something goes wrong — including our mistakes as well as the mistakes of others.

Wide lines, tight lines, right lines – the law of Diminishing Returns

Years ago, I went along to one of the very first BikeSafe courses run by the Met Police, and had a good day, picking up a couple of useful tips and generally being impressed with the comments. One of my few negative observations on the day was the way the police rider taking us out held a wide line, right out on the white line, around left-hand bends even when there was traffic coming the other way*. I felt the position was too extreme, and when writing up my day out, I made this comment on my regular bike forum. The ensuing discussion surprised me.

One forum member, a former bike cop himself, took me to task and insisted that if the rider gained an extra half-second view ahead, then the wide position was worth it.

I thought about the cornering crash stats, and just how many riders are killed on left-hand corners. It’s pretty obvious that seeing the spiky thing on the front of the tractor half a second sooner if it’s about to impale us doesn’t really help much. A second trainer :

“There are times when position for view is the last thing (but not ‘final’) to be considered. Narrow lanes, tight blind corners? Forget ‘progress’, hug the left verge.”

Then up popped a third instructor with:

“Seeing something half a second earlier CAN make a difference. What is important is that your speed is right such that you are able to deal with any situations as they occur.

“Very often people are simply carrying too much speed as opposed to being in the wrong position. The two combined are a lethal combination, 2 mph can be too much, just lose it and manage the problem.”

So which is it? Should we hold that wider line and get a slightly better view around a left-hander? Or should we tuck in a little closer to the nearside and sacrifice a bit of view for some extra clearance to oncoming vehicles?

The answer, to my mind, usually lies with the simpler option.

If we hold the wide line out alongside the centre line, and we DO see something we need to avoid, then we need to move – and pretty rapidly too – to the left to get out of the way.

If on the same corner we hold a slightly tighter line, we have slightly less view around the corner, but the chances of meeting a vehicle cutting the corner and requiring some evasive action are lessened. And we’ll probably not have to move so far for that evasive manoeuvre.

But there’s another consideration. The only real reason for holding a wide line around a corner is to carry more speed. Think about it – we need to be able to ‘stop in the distance we can see to be clear on our side of the road’ etc. That’s the instruction from ‘Motorcycle Roadcraft’, the police manual. If we move left, we can still apply the rule, just at a slightly slower speed because we can see a little less far.

How much is our view restricted? Well, mid-corner it’s not nearly as much as is generally believed. The diagrams in Roadcraft are massively exaggerated in terms of width of the road, simply to make the point clear. But on real roads which are much narrower, the extra distances we can see by taking up wide positions is just a few metres. If you’re sceptical, you can easily see for yourself. Stop near a left-hand bend, and walk to the centre of the lane – look up the road and see where the limit point is. Now walk out to the centre line, and have a second look. You won’t be seeing much further around the corner. If you don’t fancy getting round down, you can achieve much the same result by using the satellite view on Googlemaps and zooming in on a bend. Lay a straight edge over the screen and move it around to simulate the different lines of sight. I think you’ll be surprised how little extra the view moves forward as you shift from a centre-of-the-lane position to the extreme right.

The real benefit of the wide-right position on a left-hander is not what we can see of the the road ahead, it’s actually an earlier view – and more separation from – the other big threat on any twisty road; blind driveways, entrances to fields, and side turnings on the inside of the corner…

…and if we DO find something pulling out from the left or turning into the entrance across our path, we better be able to stop in short order.

Suddenly, the benefits of carrying more speed around the bend don’t look quite so important as the ability to stop when we find the road blocked.

  • I repeated BikeSafe in 2018 and am happy to report that the police rider was taking up rather less extreme positions!

Posted on

54. Overtaking – Questions and Answers

Nothing’s changed about overtaking. The central thesis — that overtaking is a risk management problem, not a technical skill exercise — aligns closely with modern advanced riding doctrine and collision analysis. Arguably, the risks surrounding overtaking have not diminished. Traffic density has increased, vehicles are quicker, and the fundamental problem remains unchanged: overtaking is one of the few manoeuvres where we commit ourselves to a manoeuvre which relies on predictable behaviour of other road users, all at high relative speeds. Modern motorcycles may accelerate harder and stop better, but so do cars either ahead of us or coming the other way. If anything, improved motorcycle performance is a trap into thinking it makes overtaking “easier” but actually making poor decisions unfold faster. The principles that follow are therefore not dated cautions, but enduring risk-management tools for one of riding’s highest-consequence manoeuvres.

Overtaking – Questions and Answers

I originally put this particular article together for two reasons. It was partly because of the volume of emails directed to my old ‘Doctor’s Surgery’ page, and an even larger number of questions posted on the bike forum I was moderating. And it was partly because of the crash statistics and the shocking rate of fatalities resulting from overtaking errors. Just one study from Cheshire (see ‘Accident Statistics – dispelling some myths’) showed that just under 10% of all crashes in the study resulted from overtaking errors, including overtaking a car that turned right and head-on collisions. As I wrote at the time I penned the original, that particular study is a few years old now, but from what I can see, nothing much has changed. Give riders a chance to overtake, and a significant proportion of us still manage to get it wrong – badly. So rather than write yet another “here’s the right way to overtake”, let’s look at the cautions we should build into our planning; cautions to be applied whether we’re new to biking or experienced.

There are two kinds of overtaking crash. Those made by riders who don’t understand how to perform an overtake in the first place – I was certainly in that category for my first few years of riding and was lucky to survive some serious errors. But there are a second kind too – what I’ve come to realise over the years is that experienced riders, and especially those with a post-test riding qualification, become rather blase about the risks of overtaking. The more we carry out the overtaking manoeuvre, the more it becomes routine. Riders who started with cautious overtakes and wide margins for error begin to get increasingly confident. And then they begin to cut back on those margins.

Whever the source of the error, the trouble is that when we get an overtake badly wrong there’s a fair chance it’ll be both the first, the last and the ONLY time it goes badly wrong – the consequences are often fatal. When overtaking goes wrong, we may not get a chance to learn from our mistake.

Q What are the legal aspects of overtaking?

A Off to the Highway Code. All overtaking must be made to the RIGHT or offside of the vehicle except:

  • when the driver in front is turning right and there is sufficient room, it is safe and legal to overtake to the left

  • when the rider is turning left and there is sufficient room to do so

  • in one way streets where traffic in the right hand lane(s) is travelling slower

  • in slow moving traffic where traffic is moving slower in the outside lane, provided the rider does not change lanes to gain advantage

YOU MUST NOT OVERTAKE :

  • where it would mean crossing double or single solid white lines. (The exception to this rule is when it’s safe to pass an obstruction such as a road maintenance vehicle, a cyclist or a horse. They must be either stationary or travelling at less than 10mph)

  • within the zigzag area on approach to a pedestrian crossing (i)

  • where signs indicate a prohibition

i) The actual traffic regulation is that you must not pass the car nearest the crossing within the zigzag markings – so you could legally filter up next to it, but not overtake until clear of the crossing.

YOU SHOULD NOT OVERTAKE where forward vision is restricted to such an extent that there is insufficient room to complete the manoeuvre in the area visible, such as on the approach to:

  • a corner or bend

  • dead ground

  • a brow of a hill or bridge

Q I often see bikes overtaking and squeezing by cars just inside a solid line on the rider’s side. Is that legal?

A The law says that no part of the bike (and that includes your body and your panniers – likely to be the widest part of your machine) should cross the solid white line. Just keeping the wheels inside isn’t enough. And crossing it, no matter how tempting, is illegal – points and a fine. But, technically, if there is room then it is legal to pass inside the solid line.

However… drivers will NOT expect to be overtaken on a road with a solid line, will not be expecting it and may react aggressively as most road users think a solid line means no overtaking.

Q What about cross-hatched areas?

A If there are no legal restrictions, there are no specific rules to say no. With cross-hatched areas bounded by a broken line, the problem is a matter of interpretation of the law, which says we can enter if “safe and necessary to do so”. We can – and I have – argued what constitutes ‘necessary’ many times. The problem is that your interpretation of necessary as “necessary to get ahead of a slower vehicle” may not be a non-biking magistrate’s interpretation. Cross-hatched areas are there to create empty space by keeping traffic flows apart, often to protect vehicles turning right, on bends where there is a lot of heavy traffic, or perhaps where lanes are about to diverge or merge together; they are not handy motorcycle overtaking lanes. Using them to ‘make progress’ may not be illegal per se, but it could be risky. I will use them, but I’ll have a good look to try to work out why they are there before I do.

Q OK, so how about up the middle of wide roads with a broken line? Can I pass between lanes of traffic where the road is wide enough? That’s legal, surely?

Legal perhaps, but no-one expects to encounter a bike overtaking down the middle of opposing streams of traffic. What if someone ahead moves out for a better view ahead? What if an oncoming driver reacts aggressively? What if we meet someone doing the same thing from the opposite direction? Although they’ve become very rare, three-lane roads which allowed overtaking from opposite directions were notorious for head-on collisions.

Q OK, so if I avoid those traps, all I have to worry about when overtaking is if it is safe and legal?

A Ask yourself: why you are overtaking? Is there any point in overtaking one vehicle in a long queue on a twisty road where you know there are no other overtakes possible for miles? Is there any point in overtaking just before a roundabout? Is there any point overtaking a car travelling at much the same speed as you? Is there any point making a difficult overtake on a single carriageway when there is a sign saying “DUAL CARRIAGEWAY 1 MILE”?

Q Of course – I make more progress. Isn’t that good?

A ‘Making progress’ has become a byword for ‘advanced motorcyclist’. After a decade and a half of working as a courier, I knew a little about getting from A to B without hanging around too much. Even so, when I put myself through the IAM system back in the late 90s, I rather surprised to be pulled up on an observed ride by my observer for failing to overtake a pickup truck travelling at around 40 in a 60 limit on a dead straight road, since we were just approaching a short stretch of 30 limit through a village, and I could see the national limit resumed on the other side. The conversation that followed was along these lines:

Obs – “you had an opportunity to make a safe pass before the village”
Me – “but what happened to the speed limit 300m past the point I would have completed the overtake?”
Obs – “It went from 60 to a 30”
Me – “but how long did it last? You could see the national limit sign at the other end of the village.”
Obs – “yes, but you could have made a safe overtake before the village.”
Me – “did you notice if the pickup slowed down for the speed limit?”
Obs – “No it didn’t.”

Now, about this point our planning diverged. Mine was based on the reasonable assumption that a driver ambling along a dead straight bit of 60 limit at 40 would probably continue ambling along at 40 in the dead straight bit of 30 limit. His was based on the letter of the law.

Me – “So, I would have overtaken the truck, then slowed for the limit, only to have it stuck to my number plate for the next half mile”.
Obs – “That’s the driver’s problem, not yours.”

I disagreed then and I disagree now. It’s very much my problem. By overtaking, I’ve converted a hazard that was ahead of me, where I can see it easily and can choose my own following distance, into one that’s behind me where I cannot control the gap and one which I can only see in the mirrors. I actually lose control of the situation.

Me – “did I lose the opportunity to make any useful progress?”
Obs – “yes, you could have overtaken before the village.”

Once again, I disagree. The gain was one vehicle on a lightly-trafficked road. Given the short stretch of 30 limit, it was perfectly reasonable to defer the overtake until I was out the other side, and back in the national limit.

So, here’s the first question we ask, and it’s not “is it safe?”. It’s “is it sensible and does it make USEFUL progress?” Getting one vehicle further up the road is neither here nor there, and having to slow down right in front of the vehicle we’ve just passed isn’t sensible.

And here’s the kicker. Overtaking is ALWAYS risky. So if we can defer a riskier manoeuvre – like that overtake on a single carriageway – until there’s less risk on the dual carriageway, that has to be a good thing.

Q Surely if an overtake is done properly, there’s no risk?

A Years ago, an ex-police instructor told me quite categorically that “done well, an overtake is perfectly safe”. He was wrong. As a moment’s thought would have told him, we can NEVER completely eliminate risk. From the moment we ride away from the kerb, there are always things that can go wrong and so our job is risk management. The biggest problem with overtaking is that we’re not facing what the DVSA have called a ‘static hazard’. A bend is a static hazard. The bend cannot change its mind about which way it’s going – what we see is what we’re going to get, and so long as our observation skills and ridiing technique are reasonably proficient, we should get round it. The only person who can get it wrong is the rider.

But an overtake involves at least one other human, quite possibly several humans. And however carefully we plan ahead, we CANNOT control what another human does. And if there’s one thing we should have learned almost as soon as we hit the road, it’s that humans make mistakes. Mid-overtake, however carefully we plan ahead, we’re relying on other drivers to do what we expected them to do. It’s when they behave in a way we were NOT expecting that things go wrong.

Q What are the big dangers whilst overtaking?

A Apart from making such a foul-up of the overtake that we hit a car coming the other way, the biggest dangers are colliding with the vehicle we’re passing as it pulls out itself to overtake, hitting a car as it turns right, being hit by a car emerging from the right, or running into a car emerging from the left and turning into our path!

Q But no-one can miss seeing a car coming towards them!

A Sometimes riders don’t miss the oncoming vehicle, but deliberately choose to pull out into its path. What we have to look at is not just the distance we need to get past a slower vehicle, but to allow AT LEAST the same distance ahead to deal with an oncoming vehicle appearing just as we commit to the overtake. Think about it.

The big problem is that our ability to judge the speed and distance of oncoming vehicles is sketchy at best at the kind of speeds and distances we need for overtakes on the open road. And the quicker the traffic we’re passing, the easier it is to misjudge the gap ahead. Don’t rely on just one glance to judge speed and distance – it’s easy to miss the Ferrari being driven enthusiastically and closing from the other direction at high speed. That’ll fill the gap we were planning on using. We’d better not be in it.

But sometimes we cannot see the oncoming vehicle when we commit to overtaking, because we’re approaching a blind corner or maybe a blind crest. Legally, we have to be back to our side of the road where the line on our side turns solid, so most riders aim to return to the nearside as they pass the two ‘toeing-in’ arrows. But what if that Ferrari appears around the bend going like the clappers? That point-of-return will be far too late. So we need to build in a much bigger margin – essentially, if we cannot return to the left WELL BEFORE the arrows, we really shouldn’t commit ourselves. Likewise, we shouldn’t be cutting back in right in front of the vehicle we’ve just past. A ‘well-judged’ overtake that returns just before the solid line is actually an overtake with no margin for error. And with no margin, they have a habit of going wrong.

The final reason for hitting something head-on is because we attempt a multi-vehicle pass, aiming for a gap somewhere ahead, and the gap closes leaving us hung out to dry. Firstly, the old pilot’s adage – never take-off without knowing where to land. We need to be absolutely certain of a gap to return to on the nearside. I’m highly cautious overtaking towards oncoming traffic, even when there appears to be a gap, because it may close up. I’ve had drivers try to help me out by braking just as I’m planning on pulling back behind them, and I’ve also been caught out passing vehicles that are themselves catching a slower-moving HGV. So we need to be really sure that the gap will still be there when we need it. Really, we should have TWO gaps to aim for – our intended landing zone and a back-up. And of course, if the car we’re intending to pull in behind suddenly brakes to ‘help out’, it’s possible to run into the back of it. That’s a sign the landing zone was too short!

Q But what about the collision with the car turning right? If I’m overtaking and someone turns right, it’s not my fault is it? He’s supposed to check his mirror, isn’t he?

A Unfortunately, riders think they have a ‘right to overtake’ and that it’s the driver’s responsibility to keep them safe. Motorcycle News went as far as putting a “Think bike before turning right” sticker on an issue years back, telling riders to put them on petrol pumps. I’m not even going to go into all the reasons drivers miss bikes in the mirrors. I’m simply going to ask you, if a car COULD turn right, what on earth is the biker doing overtaking just there?

That campaign was another excuse for riders not thinking for themselves. On a quiet bit of road, take a look at all the places a vehicle COULD turn right – side turnings, access roads, petrol stations… they’re all obvious. What about driveways? Is it always easy to see the drive of a cottage on a country road? Where can a tractor turn right? Anywhere it likes. Knowing how difficult some of these places are to spot detunes me compared with less-cautious riders.

Because it’s hard to spot a lot of the places where a vehicle COULD turn, we need to be really on the ball. We can watch the vehicle itself for clues. If it’s just slowed down, that’s not an invitation to overtake, but a warning sign. Watch the driver to see where they’re looking – if it’s not ahead, it could be where they are about to turn. We need to be particularly careful when we’ve just caught a slower vehicle up, particularly on a twisty road or if we’ve just overtaken from behind – the driver may not have seen us. If we do decide to pass, there’s the horn? A short note just before we fully commit will warn him we’re are there!

Q So if I’m sure the driver won’t turn right, I’m safe to overtake, right?

A Wrong. What goes in must come out. If a vehicle can turn right, another can pull out. Most of us – bikers included – look right before turning out to the left. Expecting a motorcycle on the wrong side of the centre line is not in most road users’ minds when they prepare to emerge. Watch out for lay-bys too – drivers are usually searching for traffic in their mirrors.

Q OK, so I’ll take care to look for junctions on the right, but what’s the problem overtaking a car turning left?

A Simple. Here’s one issue. The slowing vehicle swings out wide to make the turn easy and sideswipes the bike into the undergrowth. Surprisingly common. Another is that a second vehicle pulls out ahead of us because our bike is in the blind spot behind the turning vehicle, and the driver’s not expecting anything to be overtaking. If the driver turns right, they’ll be looking left too, and we’ll have a head-on. If the driver turns left, that may be the gap we were planning on moving back into. And of course, the driver may cancel the signal and carry on, hanging us out to dry on the wrong side of the centre line.

And here’s one that nearly caught me out as a courier. I went to pass a car that was turning left on a wide road, but the driver flashed another driver of a car that was waiting to turn right in the same road, intending for him to cross first into the side road. The second driver started to turn, then spotted me bearing down on him and stopped! The road ahead of me was now almost completely blocked. Fortunately I’d long since learned to keep the speed down when overtaking, and was able to stop.

Q So, I’ve finally decided it’s safe to pass – with my powerful bike I should be able to get past as quickly as possible, right?

A Wrong. The performance of modern bikes is a trap, not an advantage, partly because modern cars and trucks are a lot quicker too and partly because the straights on our roads haven’t got any longer. And once we’ve gained speed, we have to lose it again. Especially when we’re passing more than one vehicle, if we simply aim to pass “as quickly as possible” (and I winced when I heard another instructor say that) sooner rather than later we’ll end up regretting all that speed as things don’t go as we expected ahead. It may be tempting to blast past a line of slower vehicles, but we need to treat each individually as a separate overtake and be able to bail out at each stage – if we’re thinking of overtaking, what’s to stop one of those drivers doing exactly the same? So if the only way to pull off the overtake is in one hit at high speed, then don’t.

Q So what’s so risky about overtaking on dual carriageways?

A One of the biggest dangers are junctions where vehicles can turn through the central reservation. These junctions are relatively rare (most have been blocked up) but the crash risk is high. Even when there is no crossing the lanes, slip roads are often very short with emerging drivers struggling to gain speed to match the traffic bearing down. The result can be hard braking or sudden lane changes ahead. In either case, I usually defer overtaking till I’m clear of the junction, unless I can see that the junction’s clear.

Most of the other issues are down to speed differentials. Slow-moving vehicles including cycles and tractors are allowed on dual carriageways and we can come up on them quickly, so we need to look and plan well ahead so we can move out in good time. If we’re already passing slower traffic, look for cars in the inside lane catching HGVs that will probably want to pull out to overtake themselves. Don’t hover alongside in mirror blindspots and don’t approach at excessive speed – you may need to slow down if they pull out. suddenly in front of you, so don’t sit in their blind spots. On three lane stretches, watch out for someone moving from the inside lane as we move back into the middle lane from the outside lane. A signal helps enormously.

And before we move out to make a pass, a series of mirror checks is best followed by a final blind spot shoulder check. However good our mirror checks, there’s always the risk of finding a vehicle lurking right in the OUR blind spot.

Q So I just sit behind the vehicle ahead and wait for a big gap.

A Sort of. The simplest way to overtake is if we can simply move out wide early to get a view past the slower vehicle – if the road ahead looks clear, we simply carry on and our speed differential carries us past the slower vehicle. And if it’s not clear, we simply move back in, then match speed.

But once we have to wait for a gap, then our first decision is how far behind the slower vehicle we should ride. If you’ve read ‘Motorcycle Roadcraft’ (or taken Roadcraft-based training) you’ve probably heard of the ‘following’ and ‘overtaking’ positions.

Essentially, the ‘following’ position is the normal distance behind the vehicle ahead, which allows us to stop if the vehicle ahead comes to an unexpected halt. That’s where we should be when there’s no prospect of overtaking. But if we think we may have an opportunity to pass, then it’s suggested we move up into a much closer ‘overtaking’ position from where we make the final Go/Stay decision.

Now, the big problem is that we’ve compromised our following distance. In theory, we only move up when we think we might be able to pass and if it turns out we can’t, we should drop back again and reinstate a safe distance. On a lightly-trafficked road, we should be able to make the overtake without too much delay and just a couple of forwards / backwards iterations, and that was likely the case on most roads when Roadcraft was first written to deal with 50s and 60s traffic.

Unfortunately, real life and heavy 21st century traffic intrudes on the theory.

The first observation I’ll make (and one that I have never heard anyone else explicitly admit) is that the only reason we NEED to use the closer ‘overtaking’ position is because we’re looking for to overtake in less distance – either a shorter straight between bends, or a smaller gap between oncoming vehicles. That restricted distance is why we need to be closer up in the first place. If that weren’t the case, we could overtake from the more distant position.

The second issue (also rarely mentioned) is that we’re often being followed by other vehicles. The drivers will of course maintain THEIR OWN following distance behind us. As we move up, they stay the same distance behind us. So when we try to drop back, we drop back into THEIR following space. And they are now too close behind. Put that together with a busy 21st century road and this moving up / dropping back means we’re ping-ponging back and forth from the tailgate of the car ahead to the bonnet of the car behind. If we make this forwards/backwards movement too exaggerated or too often, it can and will confuse and irritate the driver ahead (who is watching you in the mirrors) and the driver behind (who wonders why you can’t ride at a constant speed).

On a busy road, the temptation is to sit permanently in the close-up overtaking position waiting for the next opportunity because we don’t have so far to travel, but the lack of following distance not only increases the risk if the car ahead slows suddenly, it actually interferes with our observation – if we’re worried about running into the back of the car, then that’s what we focus on – and we end up watching its brake lights rather than the road ahead or even our mirrors. Riders who say “I don’t have time to take my eyes of the road and make a shoulder check before overtaking” are admitting they’re too close. We also have to move out first THEN accelerate if we’re too close behind – overtakes often become ‘swoops’ ending with excessive speed making it difficult to pull promptly back to the left.

You might read something like “moving up to the overtaking position is a difficult skill to learn – timing it right requires excellent observation and planning and anticipation too”. I actually wrote that in the previous version of this article, but being totally honest, this forwards / backwards business quickly becomes exhausting. If it was needed for one overtake, the chances are it’ll be needed for the next… and the next… and so on. And my old courier instinct to make life simple kicks in. If overtakes are that tricky, I probably won’t bother – at least, not till a simple opportunity comes along and I am pretty sure I DO will have an opportunity to pass. I may miss a few overtakes, but I am reducing my exposure to risk significantly.

Q So how do YOU plan an overtake from the following position?

A Typically, I’ll be looking for a straight after a right-hand bend where my following position behind the vehicle ahead will actually give me a good, clear view of both sides of the road – remember, I’m not just looking to see if something is coming the other way, but searching for junctions ahead which could be on either side of the road. If clear, I’ll turn from the final part of the corner straight onto the other side of the road and accelerate whilst the vehicle I’m passing is just exiting the curve. This means getting my rear observations and gear changing done in advance. Done right, the acceleration from the following position to the overtaking position and into the overtake is one smooth movement. We shouldn’t have to accelerate hard or brake hard to dip back in.

Q I find that by the time I’ve moved up to the following position to the overtaking position, the opportunity has gone

A This is why forward planning is so important.

Q I get impatient waiting for cars to overtake. I signalled, so why do they always pull out in front of me just as I want to go?

A Remember other vehicles (most cars and all trucks) have much less acceleration than we do, and will need a much bigger gap to pass, so as soon as such a gap appears it’s a good idea to be ready for the driver to go for the overtake. The average car driver has a lot less practice at overtaking, and will be focusing all his / her attention on the road ahead, so don’t expect your signal to be spotted. And if the car ahead has already signalled, don’t attempt to bully your way through by accelerating more rapidly. Collisions with vehicles ahead moving out to pass out are not uncommon, so be cautious.

Drivers are far more likely to make a mistake and do something dangerous for both of you if you are right on the back bumper. In particular do not harass learner drivers. In any case, hanging back and giving the driver ahead ‘first go’ is polite – dropping back makes it clear that we’re not intending to pass there and then, and that may help the driver ahead make a prompt decision. We may be able to follow through in the same gap, or even pass the overtaking car a moment later. And if the driver does have second thoughts and decide not to use the big gap after all, we can probably still pass ourselves – don’t forget rear observations in case someone behind has seen the big gap, and be ready with a horn warning in case of a last-second change-of-mind by the driver ahead.

Q On my RoSPA test, the things I was marked down for were:
1) changing gear mid overtake
2) following position too aggressive
3) overtook next to a left hand junction

A Hopefully by now you’ll have seen that because most overtaking takes place in a brief window of opportunity, we have to be absolutely prepared to go when that opportunity arises. If we are having to change gear mid-overtake, we clearly weren’t in the right gear to start with, and so we weren’t planning far enough ahead. We may have got away with it on that occasion, but on another overtake which doesn’t turn out as we might rue that missed acceleration. And we’ve already seen the problems of sitting too close to a slower vehicle, and the risks arising from overtaking near a junction.

Q So is any overtake necessary?

A If not overtaking means becoming part of a mobile road block, then the answer is a guarded yes. For example, if we cannot overtake a slow-moving tractor, then we’re adding the the hazard it’s creating, because other drivers will now have to overtake two vehicles, rather than just the tractor. And that puts us at additional risk. But once we are riding along in the general flow, then overtakes are ‘nice’ rather than ‘necessary’.

Q Anything else?

A However quick you are, there will be someone quicker. Mirrors and blind spot checks are essential. Riders DO get taken out by vehicles they haven’t seen catching them from behind. And if you’ve not got time for a blind spot check? You’re rushing the overtake.

Q So what’s a good system for overtaking?

A If we want to make a safe overtake, it’s all about doing it methodically. SEARCH, EVALUATE, EXECUTE. There are plenty of guides to safe [sic] overtaking out there, so this article focuses on understanding the risks. Here are four simple rules to remember:

ONE – just because you COULD, doesn’t mean you SHOULD. If our attitude is “if I didn’t overtake I might as well be in a car” then it’s the wrong attitude. Although ‘progress’ is often talked about as the result of advanced training, what we really should be doing is performing better risk assessments and making better risk management decisions.

TWO – overtaking is NICE, rarely NECESSARY. We should be looking at overtaking as a high risk activity, not somewhere to show off our technical skill. Skills should be used to build margins for error by asking “how could this go wrong?”

THREE – if we’re thinking of an overtake, then so is someone else. And that someone might be ahead or behind. We need to be able to change our plan on an instant.

FOUR – if we don’t KNOW, we don’t GO! A lot of overtakes that go wrong fail because the rider’s taken a chance. And it didn’t work out.

Q Aren’t we being too cautious? Everyone knows bikes overtake cars.

A But bikes are also ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Because we can use smaller gaps, most drivers won’t be considering an overtake, so the possibility that a bike will be passing won’t occur to them – we have to get into the habit of doing the other driver’s thinking for them.

Riding a bike is great fun, but there are few manoeuvres where speeds of vehicles are so high and the risks so high. It’s no consolation that the words on our tombstone read “I had right of way”.

Posted on

48. Ever gone into a corner too hot and had it tighten up on you?

Over the years I’ve been a rider coach, I’ve done a lot of thinking about my riding, and I’ve realised I’m both a realist — that is, someone who accepts the world as it is, not as it should be — AND a pragmatist — someone who’s actions are based on what’s been shown to work. Running wide on blind bends remains a leading cause of serious motorcycle crashes, and no amount of technology can compensate for horribly misjudged entry speed or unseen and dramatic changes in radius. In fact, improved grip and electronic safety nets may encourage some riders to commit harder and later, increasing the risk when the road tightens unexpectedly. Superior tyres, better suspension and rider aids do not — and this is crucial — remove the geometric reality of running out of road. The solution is still the same as it has always been: conservative entry, delayed commitment, and a willingness to revise the plan mid-corner without panic.

Ever gone into a corner too hot and had it tighten up on you?

Of course you have – you’d be a very lucky rider if you hadn’t. I’m a realist. That’s why my training courses are called Survival Skills. Remember, any bend can get worse out of sight and this is a classic biking problem – the ever-tightening corner that just seems to go on and on. Unfortunately, by the time we spot the bend is tightening, it’s often too late, and we’re going to run wide. If we run wide on a right-hander (in the UK) we will run off the road. It’s a common bike crash. But if we run wide on a left-hander we’ll cross the centre line. If we’re lucky, nothing’s coming the other way and we get away with it. But if we’re unlucky, we meet a Scania coming the other way. Running wide into oncoming traffic is a major killer on roads not just in the UK but anywhere in the world. And it’s worth mentioning that when we hear about head-on collisions between a bike and a car on a bend, whilst riders often assume it must have been the car driver on the wrong side, it’s nearly always the rider who’s crossed the line.

I’ve yet to meet the rider who doesn’t make mistakes, so whilst it’s easy to say it’s a mistake we shouldn’t make and that a good rider would avoid getting sucked into a corner too fast, the fact is that it’s often not so easy to spot a decreasing radius corner until it begins to tighten.

‘Limit Point’ analysis is no use if the bend tightens out of sight – we’ll already have set our speed based on what we could see before we commenced leaning. And one technique I would advise anyone on two wheels to avoid is what’s sometimes called ‘chasing the Limit Point’. It’s normally explained with a statement such as:

“The Limit Point moves away from you, telling you that the corner is beginning to open out, so you can get back on the gas and chase the limit point out of the corner.”

‘Beginning to open out’. Think about that for a moment. What happens if we’re NOT seeing the end of the bend? What if the bend suddenly tightens up again? Now we’ve been conned into accelerating towards a second apex in a corner that’s not over yet. In fact, hardly any of our rural bends are actually smooth corners, they are nearly all complex shapes with multiple radii in a single bend. So rather than try to add speed as the bend appears to open up, ask yourself “how could this go wrong?” If we can imagine a decreasing radius, downhill, off-camber corner with a wet surface that’s covered in loose gravel lies just beyond the point where the bend appears to open out, it’s a good incentive to delay acceleration until we really can see our way out of the corner and down the next stretch of road which has completely straightened out. This will avoid the “OhMiGod the corner’s tightened up again and gone downhill and it’s off-camber and… etc” problem!

In fact, the best clues to dodgy corners are nearly always the road signs, specifically the red and white triangular warning signs. They are placed to warn us about hazards that have caught others out and are often out of sight. So the moment we spot a bend warning sign, particularly when it’s backed up with a SLOW marking, it might be a good idea to go into a corner a little slower than the Limit Point might have suggested. And if we’re lucky enough to glimpse a black and white chevrons sign, that’s almost certainly where the corner gets awkward.

It may be the Worst Case Scenario, but that’s what we have to plan for on every single blind bend. And we do that not by setting our speed to the ‘distance we can see clear and stop’, but by using the Limit Point to set our entry speed considerably lower, so we have a built-in safety margin in case the bend gets worse just out of sight. A cautious entry speed allows us to deal with a tightening bend by adding leaning angle, rather than hitting the brakes immediately. Apply the Survival Skills approach to riding once again – anticipate where things will go wrong, and don’t assume you’ve got everything right until you’re upright and accelerating away again.

But even a cautious rider, looking for trouble in bends still won’t get every bend right, and so right now we’re looking at a bend that needs some quick revisions to our line and lean. What are our options for getting out of trouble mid-corner?

Here’s our first option, which often mentioned on post-test training courses. Stand the bike up, brake in a straight line and then lay it over again. Hmm. It needs some room, even though once upright we can brake very hard indeed. And if we’re already on a wide line around the outside of the lane, we’re don’t have the space to straighten up – we’re straight off the road. So there’s a variation on the theme where we actually turn TIGHTER before we stand the bike up – this way we can maximise the straight line braking distance. But unless we absolutely have to lose a huge amount of speed – or stop – then if we have the room to lean in, pick up, brake hard, and lean in again, we probably could have made the bend in the first place. And if we don’t get the bike slowed enough…

…we’ve just guaranteed we’re going to run out of road. So although I’ve mentioned this option first, it’s really to move it to the back burner, behind some alternatives.

So are there better options? I mentioned above that we if we’re going to maximise the space for upright braking, we need to tip into the corner first. If we have this additional lean angle in hand AND we’re confident enough to use it, we could just keep the throttle open – which stabilises the bike – and keep the bigger lean angle going right through the rest of the corner. This should deal with a corner that tightens just the once, onto a sharper radius, so long as we didn’t make the mistake of turning-in too early.

But what about a corner that progressively tightens up? We can only increase the lean angle so much before we run out of ground clearance. So we may have to exploit some basic cornering physics – a motorcycle cornering at the same angle will turn on a tighter line if we reduce the speed. These are techniques we explore on the Survival Skills Performance: SPORT two-day advanced riding course.

So how do we reduce speed to turn on a tighter line?

The simplest solution is shut the throttle. The bike WILL slow, and it WILL turn tighter (provided we’re not going downhill at the same time). Don’t slam it shut as that will destabilise the bike, but roll off smoothly – this allows us to cope with the change in steering geometry. We can help out a little by applying the rear brake, but if we’re already generating engine braking, there’s often not a lot the rear brake can achieve before the rear wheel starts to lock, triggering the ABS or skidding on a non-ABS machine.

So if we need to tighten the line even more, then there’s only one way left – and that’s to apply both brakes together. The weird thing is that we see racers braking into bends all the time, yet the technique is frowned on in bike training. It’s true there’s a risk, because sudden applications of the front brake mid-corner can make the bike sit up and go straight on – which isn’t what we want particularly on a left-hander – or if we’re really hamfisted, we can even lock the front wheel.

So the point I’ll make here is that most the crashes happen as a result of a panic-grab, when the rider is surprised by events, rather than through a controlled application. Braking into bends is actually surprisingly easy just so long as we ease the front brake on to allow us to adapt to the geometry change. Here’s the big plus. With the brakes on, we’ll lose speed very rapidly – and as the speed comes down, our line tightens equally rapidly. So we rarely need to brake hard to adapt to a decreasing radius corner, just smoothly and progressively.

So to sum up, if we enter corners mentally blind to the possibility of them getting tighter out of sight, that’s when we’re most likely to arrive too fast AND to make the panic-grab at the front brake that causes all the problems. But if we are more pragmatic and anticipate that what’s out of sight could get awkward, then we’re far more likely to respond in a controlled way to a decreasing radius corner when we do get it wrong.

By admitting we can make mistakes in judging the radius of a corner, we have taken a huge step to improving our risk management and margins for error out on nice twisty roads.

Our first problem is how to read the radius – the tightness if you like – of a corner from far enough back to get our speed right. One of the techniques you may have heard about is to use the ‘Limit Point’ (sometimes called the ‘vanishing point’ or ‘distance point’ – it’s all the same thing). The idea is that we enter a bend at a speed that allows us to stop before the road vanishes around the corner.

But there are three problems:

  1. at any one moment, the Limit Point is just a single snapshot of what we can actually see. It cannot give us any clear idea how the bend ahead might change – nor can it warn us of other hazards. If we wait till we have a series of these snapshots suggesting the bend is tightening up, it’s likely we’ll react far too late to the decreasing radius.

  2. focusing too much on the Limit Point actually pulls our attention down and away from the longer view where we look BEYOND the point at which the road itself vanishes and pick up clues about the road’s future path.

  3. if the bend does tighten, we may have to brake mid-corner – something usually frowned upon, but actually an essential skill. How’s your mid-corner braking technique?

If we rely too much on the Limit Point to make an educated guess about where the road goes beyond what we can actually see, it’s a bit like making a weather forecast – the further ahead we forecast, the less accurate it’s going to be. Do we really want to commit ourselves into a corner on what is effectively a guess? I don’t think so.

To overcome this problem, advanced rider training often focuses on getting riders to pick eyes up and look further round the corner – we may see the back of the hedge on the inside of the corner, buildings, telegraph poles, trees, even the tops of approaching vehicles and the speed they enter and leave the bend. Clues are just that – they’re not definite knowledge, but they can help us make an informed guess about what’s beyond the Limit Point.

But in my experience hardly any trainers mention an obvious clue – road signs! If the council have gone to the trouble of sticking up a triangular warning sign, painting SLOW on the road and putting a black and white chevron ahead of you, don’t you think the road engineer is trying to tell you something? And that you should pay them some heed? They don’t just tell us the direction of the bend, they tell us that other people have been caught out in the past. And the more effort that’s been made, the more dramatic the change of speed or direction is likely to be.

Once we’ve realised that, then instead of trying to figure out how fast we can go into a bend, we need to recalibrate and instead think about what might make us slow down (or even stop).

OK, so all that might help us avoid running into a decreasing radius turn too fast, but I’m a realist. We don’t get every bend right, and so we need ways of getting out of trouble mid-corner. That’s why my training courses are called Survival Skills.

So how do we do this? Well, if we’ve followed the advice above, we can go in, increasing our lean angle to follow the tightening bend. But what if we’re running out of lean?

Then there’s only one solution – to lose some speed, because slowing down means the bike automatically turns tighter at the same lean angle. So how do we slow down?

If we’re lucky, we can simply ease the throttle shut in a smooth roll-off. . If we’re not so lucky we are going to have to brake. The usual suggestion is to use only the rear brake. Unfortunately, if the throttle’s already shut, then we’re not going to scrub off a lot of speed this way – try too hard and there’s a real risk locking the rear wheel. And that’s disconcerting even with ABS.

So that leaves both brakes together. So one suggestion is to pick the bike up, brake in a straight line and lay it over again. Errr, yes. Well, if you have the room that required, you could have made the bend in the first place.

Another option is to brake with the rear. Unfortunately, you can’t scrub off a lot of speed this way, you still compromise stability and there is always the risk of locking the rear, and if you aren’t careful, having the rear overtake the front.

So what about the front brake? This is where trail braking becomes important. So long as we’re not already sliding the front tyre, there’s some braking grip available. So long as we apply the brake gently and progressively, we can exploit it to add to our rate of deceleration.

But of course, it’s always better NOT to need technically-demanding techniques like this, and a better answer is not to be able to “get out of trouble” but to use an approach to riding that tends to keep us out of trouble. And that’s why the ‘slow down in, cautiously round, fast out’ approach to bends pays off. If we enter a corner with lean angle to spare, we have the option to start using it and to slow down at the same time if things turn bad later on. But if we’re cornering close to the limit, well, there’s not much of a margin for error, is there? .

Posted on

43. Which Foot? The Hendon Shuffle – Question and Answer

This article first appeared way back when I was still a basic instructor, and involves a simple question which ends up with a complicated answer; which foot to put down to hold the bike up at a standstill. The “Hendon Shuffle” is still a topic of discussion in some advanced courses. The core message — that the primary purpose of putting a foot down is bike stability rather than strict adherence to a specific foot — is timeless. The modern trend to ever-heavier bikes — particularly the bike adventure and touring models which are often ridden two-up, make this seemingly-simple topic even more important.

Which Foot? The Hendon Shuffle – Question and Answer

Although this is another tip written a long time ago (I note that I updated it in 2007), it’s still an active topic for conversation – I had a trainee out the other day who is retaking his RoSPA test and told me that the local examiner “likes to see the Hendon Shuffle”. Yet as you’ll see in the answer to the first question, there’s been no consistency in how putting our feet down has been taught over the years. And in each case, one very important point gets overlooked – we put our feet down primarily to support the bike at a standstill. Everything else is a secondary decision.

Question When I did my DAS I was told that I should always stop in the Safety Position – that is with the left leg down and the right foot on the rear brake. But I was told by an IAM observer that I should stop with the right foot down and the left foot ready to change gear. Which is correct?

Answer A good question. The Safety Position has been taught by generations of CSM trained CBT/DAS instructors whose approach is that anything other than left foot down is 100% wrong. To my knowledge, some IAM groups encourage a right foot down approach and some IAM observers are equally vehement about this. Just to complete the confusion, the old DSA’s ‘Motorcycling Manual’ used to say (page 64):

“with the clutch lever still pulled in

  1. use your left foot to move the gear lever selector to neutral

  2. release the clutch lever

  3. place both feet on the ground”

So who is right? Well, the only answer must be “none of them”! There are certain circumstances when each of the three methods have value.

Q I’ve heard about something called the Hendon Shuffle. What is it?

A Well, it’s not a North London card sharping technique. It’s something taught to trainees at the Hendon Police school which involves a foot-swapping procedure allowing the rider to find neutral at a standstill – right foot down, left foot up, change gear, left foot down, right foot up to cover brake to get out of gear. Of course if you ride an old British bike, you’ll have to reverse all that!

The same foot-swapping procedure is needed to get back into gear. The theory is that we are always covering a brake all the time you are stationary. It’s something many experienced riders dispense with. It’s time-consuming, it’s debatable whether it’s ever ‘necessary’ and in certain circumstances where we may need to move of smartly (for example, we realise the car behind isn’t stopping) potentially dangerous.

Q So what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

A Assuming a standard left foot gear change, right foot brake…

Left leg down:

  • hill starts are much easier using the back brake

  • allows the use of the rear brake for improved stability and slow speed control, for instance when coming to a standstill or filtering at walking pace where we might have to stop suddenly, or descending a steep hill

  • allows us to show a brake light, improving visibility to traffic behind

  • we have to do the ‘Hendon Shuffle’ to get out of gear and back in to gear

Right leg down

  • w can get in and out of gear easily

  • we can gently hold the front brake for the visibility effect of the brake light

  • we can’t use the back brake so have to rely on the front brake only when coming to a halt, reducing stability and control when the bike is least stable

  • hill starts are more difficult using the front brake

Q I never need to put the right/left foot down

A The most important thing is to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages in each individual situation we find ourselves and definitely not to get anal about one or the other.

I don’t believe that putting the left foot down should not become a rule – yes, holding the bike on the rear brake is useful on a slope but it’s often pointless on the flat, and there are other occasions when the left foot down is equally pointless – for instance when waiting at a pelican crossing – we know the lights are going to change in a couple of seconds so there is no point in worrying about changing in and out of gear, we can select 1st gear as we roll to a halt and just hold it on the clutch.

Q I was told that keeping my right foot up on the rear brake was safer if hit from behind when stopped

A Does it seem likely that the rear brake of a motorcycle will stop a few tonnes of car in its tracks, even if it’s only a gentle tap? No. Even if we do manage to keep a foot on the rear brake, the bike will be shunted forward. And then, speaking from personal experience, both feet go down to try to keep it upright. The biggest plus is that the brake light is on, which will hopefully prevent a car hitting the bike from behind but the best defence is to keep a good lookout in the mirrors and to be ready to move forward in an emergency.

Q This is a silly discussion – I want to make sure the bike doesn’t fall over, not mess around with brakes and gears

A To a great extent I agree. What both arguments tend to overlook is the reason we put a foot down in the first place – it’s there to support the weight of the bike. All other advantages and disadvantages are irrelevant if the bike is now lying on top of us. Many times we would be better advised to put the right foot down to support the bike. For example, when the camber works against us, we may be struggling to reach the ground when turning left at a junction here in the UK. Of course on the continent or in the USA the camber would work in the opposite direction so at a right turn next to the kerb, we might have to put the left foot down to support the bike. Where the surface is poor or oily I will put down which ever foot looks like it has the better grip. Sometimes you simply need maximum stability when stationary. On that slippery surface I might need both feet down. And if it’s a windy day, or I’m carrying a passenger or riding a heavily loaded bike, I would probably have both feet on the ground too.

And just occasionally, we know we’re going to be sat waiting for a long time. Perhaps we know the lights sequence or we’re at roadworks. Now, if we’re out of gear, it gives our clutch hand a rest, but I’d probably put both feet down. I might even put the bike on the side stand!

So I do whatever makes sense to me at the time. Incidentally, despite what you might have been taught at the time, you will not fail the DSA test for not using the Safety Position – the examiner is far more interested in the way you manage your gear changes and braking, and the overall control, then the precise nature of which foot you put down.

Posted on

40. Overtaking – don’t get caught up with a vehicle turning right

The fundamental error — overtaking without accounting for a right turn — is still one of the most common and most avoidable causes of serious and fatal motorcycle collisions. Increasing numbers of damaged, hidden or missing signs, near-universal use of sat-nav, many more delivery vehicles turning unpredictably, ever-more erratic use of signals; no rider-aid system can detect a driver’s intention to turn across our path. The principle here is therefore unchanged: if there is anywhere a vehicle could turn right, it should be assumed that sooner or later it will. There’s no point blaming the driver after the event. It’s all about anticipating what vehicles are likely to do. Then staying out of trouble.

Overtaking – don’t get caught up with a vehicle turning right

As I’ve mentioned before, overtaking is never ‘safe’ and in fact, a quick look at the accident statistics reveals just how often motorcyclists get overtaking wrong. Passing another vehicle throws up a whole range of potential errors from misjudging speed and distance (and thus time to collision) to observation failures. Not least, we’re always relying on the driver we’re passing to do what we expect. Essentially we’re always taking a calculated risk, so we should be making the pass in such a way as to minimise the chance of something going wrong. But some riders make one of the mistakes that also one of the easiest to avoid; don’t overtake where there is a chance the vehicle we’re planning on passing might turn right!

There’s a slower vehicle we want to pass. But before we commit to the overtake, it’s essential to engage our brain before we engage warp drive.

Let’s start with the ‘look and feel’ of the situation. The vehicle ahead is moving rather slower than we’d expect. Does that mean it’s an easy target for an overtake? Or should it set our Spidy Senses tingling that something’s not quite right. Why might a vehicle be slower than us? It could simply be that the driver’s not in so much of a rush. Or it could mean that the vehicle’s about to make a manoeuvre.

Some years ago, we had a long debate on a forum after an experienced rider tailed a Landrover into a right-hand bend, with the Landie driver on the brakes all the way round. The rider knew the road, and that there was a straight after the bend, so he set up his position ready to overtake as soon as his view of the road ahead opened up. As it did, he cut to the other lane and started to accelerate…

…just as the Landrover continued to steer right, into a farm track he’d never noticed before.

The rider just avoided a collision.

There followed the usual debate about the failure of the Landrover driver to use mirrors or signals. But ultimately, it’s our own responsibility to ask the question “What if…?” and to come up with the right answer. If there IS a place a vehicle CAN turn right, then sooner or later it WILL turn right.

And of course, what was forgotten in all the righteous indignation about the driver’s failings was that “what goes in, must come out”. The rider could have set up the same overtake behind another car, and pulled straight into the path of the Landrover turning right OUT of that farm track.

So it’s not just the road ahead we need to ensure is clear, we need to scan for places a vehicle could turn in.

We need to look for side roads, access roads to car parks or delivery bays, driveways, farm tracks… and more besides. These entrances are often tough to spot. A side turning can be hidden by anything from a hedgerow to a parked van. It was a parked furniture removals lorry that caught me out years ago. It was parked on the grass, so given the long straight ahead, an overtake past a slower car seemed perfectly reasonable. Only at the last moment did I spot the car pulling out from the side turning – the driver hadn’t seen either of us approaching thanks to the same van. Cominig back down the road the other way an hour or so later, I noticed the clue that would have warned me – the finger post pointing into that side road.

There are plenty of side turnings on rural roads, but also plenty of cottages, and each cottage has a driveway. They’re often totally blind, concealed behind a neatly-trimmed hedge. The driver can’t see out, and we can’t see his car either. But there are usually plenty of other clues; the hedge is neatly-trimmed, perhaps with a sliver of mown grass. We might see flowers, a wheelie bin, and even the mirror on the opposite side of the road which the driver uses to compensate for his lack of view. As the No Surprise? No Accident Rhyming Reminder has it, “GAPS=TRAPS”.

In town or country, it’s tempting to overtake slow-moving delivery vans. But pause for a moment. What do delivery vans do? They deliver. If the driver is constantly slowing down then speeding up again, what’s happening? Do you think it might be that he’s trying to spot his delivery address? Is it a good idea to overtake as he slows down? Or should we be thinking about hanging back and waiting for him or her to find the building they’re searching for? What if the van is simply driving slowly? Could the driver be in a strange town and checking the GPS or route signs to find his way? Is it a good place to nip past? If it’s a hire van, and it’s come from a different part of the country, that’s more than likely. Even if we’re looking at a car and thinking that there’s no obvious reason for hesitant driving, it could simply be an inexperienced driver at the wheel. Or maybe it’s a foreign visitor in a hire car, and not used to driving on our side of the road.

If we do decide we’re going to overtake, try to give the driver chance to see us in the mirror. Once committed, pass decisively but slowly enough to be able to take avoiding action. And DON’T BE AFRAID TO SOUND THE HORN – it’s what its there for. If the driver hasn’t seen us coming, the horn will hopefully make him think twice before swinging across the road and into our path.

But don’t give in to impatience. It’s easy to do that, and then we get taken out by a driver turning right into an entrance we didn’t see. We have to be pretty darn certain there’s no way the driver could turn right before passing. There’s a Rhyming Reminder rule for that too – “if you don’t KNOW, you don’t GO”.

Overtake cautiously out there!