Category: Risk

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

42. Living with Lifesavers

 

Even with modern mirrors, rear-view cameras, and blind-spot warning systems, the lifesaver over-the-shoulder check remains essential and with increasing use of cycles and e-cycles and ‘micro-mobility’ solutions like e-scooters, even a motorcycle is vulnerable when turning left or right. Technology can alert us to vehicles we might otherwise miss, but it does not remove the responsibility to confirm our blind spots in real time. Combining mirror checks with a brief chin-to-shoulder glance fills the gaps in situational awareness, especially in multi-lane traffic or when vehicles accelerate unexpectedly. Practising these lifesaver checks until they become automatic ensures that riders are less likely to be caught by surprise — No Surprise? No Accident!

Living with Lifesavers

For a lot of riders, the last time they make a lifesaver over-the-shoulder check is the moment they turn back into the test centre in front of the examiner. The reason for making the over-the-shoulder observation is explained early on in CBT – it’s to see into the two problem areas to either side. This area is behind our peripheral vision, yet not far enough back to show up in the mirrors. The blind area is quite big enough to hide another motorcycle and even a car can go missing alongside us. The chin-to-shoulder check ‘clears’ this area with a direct observation. So after all the effort that basic trainers go to, from CBT right up to the moment of the test, why do riders start dropping techniques that are intended to increase their riding safety?

In my article about rear observation, I mentioned that in some cases riders have been told to “forget all that stuff you learned – it’s only for passing the test”. Here’s the really disappointing thing. I’ve heard it from people training advanced riders.

I mentioned that when taking post-test training, the trainee is often introduced to the concept sometimes known as ‘mirror history’. The idea is that if we look in our mirrors frequently enough, we’ll know exactly what’s around us and have complete situational awareness without needing the over-the-shoulder check on basic training.

So the big question is: “can we rely on mirror history?”

Let’s think about what a mirror check achieves. We take a snapshot of the situation that exists at the exact moment we look in the mirror. Two mirror checks are thus two snapshots. Just like comparing two ‘before and after’ photos, we don’t know what happened in the gap between the two. And that means any decision we make on the basis of a sequence of snapshots is, simply put, an informed guess.

How good is our informed guess? The answer is that it’s only as good as our checks.

Hopefully, you can now see that there are three problems with relying too heavily on mirror history:

  1. the first is the frequency of our checks. If we leave long gaps in our rear observation, then pretty much anything can be happening behind us and we simply won’t know about it.

  2. the second is that we can forget what we saw, particularly when traffic is moving in queues. A vehicle can slide forward into the blind spot and if it sits there long enough, we can forget that it was visible some seconds ago and now isn’t where we can see it – I’ve made that mistake myself.

  3. the third is that mirror checks can fail to show a rapidly-changing situation that is about to put us at risk.

It might seem that to solve the first problem we simply need to ‘up’ the rate of mirror checks. Easy to say, not nearly so easy to achieve. The moment that a situation developing in front of us begins to cause us concern, what’s the first thing that goes out of the window? Yes, it’s mirror checks. It’s all very well to say that a skilled rider wouldn’t forget but even experts make mistakes under stress. The answer is not to rely on memory but make a real-time sideways check.

On motorways, riders sit alongside vehicles in their blind spot then wonder why the driver starts to move into their lane. The reason may not be that the driver “didn’t look” as we’re so keen to assume, but in fact “looked, saw and forgot”. So it shouldn’t be a big surprise when we find vehicles in our blind spots that we forgot were there.

And sometimes we’re just looking in the wrong mirror when a situation develops. Some years ago I was following another biker in my Nissan Serena people carrier. We were both in the middle lane of the motorway, and he was looking for a gap in the outside lane to overtake a slower vehicle we were catching. So he was making regular mirror checks to see what was coming up in the outside lane. Meanwhile, we’d just passed an on-ramp and I noticed a car accelerating very rapidly indeed down onto the main carriageway. The Mercedes shot straight through the inside lane, and at the moment the rider made his final mirror check before moving out into a gap to his right, the Mercedes was aiming for the same gap, and crossing through the middle lane behind me.

Naturally, because it was behind me, the rider couldn’t see it in his mirror. He started to move into the outside lane but the car was already in the gap and accelerating. The driver hit the horn, the rider was taken completely by surprise and barely swerved back out of the way.

Now, we can point the finger at the Merc driver but the biker needed to confirm his mirror history – he absolutely NEEDED to turn his head chin-to-shoulder to clear his blind spot. This is the role of the lifesaver. It’s to give real-time information that updates our situational awareness.

Is it dangerous to look over the shoulder at speed? An objection often raised against blind spot checks before committing to an overtake is that it’s dangerous to take our eyes off the car ahead in case it brakes suddenly. I don’t think it should take anyone long to work out that if we’re worried about looking away from the vehicle ahead, we’ll almost certainly struggle to make decent mirror checks too, and it’s unlikely our forward checks will be much better. There’s a simple solution – don’t follow so close and don’t try to force overtakes in restricted spaces. In any case, the quickest and most reliable way to make this final shoulder check is to combine it with a mirror check – follow the glance in the mirror with a chin-to-shoulder check.

We fill in the missing information by combining the two checks, and it only takes a moment longer than looking in the mirror alone.

In the example above, following into the shoulder check AFTER the final mirror check would have taken the rider a fraction of a second but it would have given him that vital update and filled in the gap in his mirror history. His informed guess nearly killed him.

Posted on

37. Mirror and blind spot checks – when and when not to!

Some newer motorcycles are now fitted with rear-view cameras and blind-spot warning systems, often using flashing lights or screen icons to indicate nearby vehicles. These can be helpful additions, particularly in poor visibility, but they do not change the fundamentals of rear observation. Cameras flatten perspective (as I’ve discovered with car interior mirrors) and can still leave lateral blind areas unobserved. Blind-spot warning systems are advisory only: they may not detect motorcycles, cyclists, or fast-closing vehicles, and they cannot judge intent or timing. Riders should treat these systems as prompts, not permissions. They may reinforce what the mirrors are already telling us, but they are no substitute for correct mirror use combined with a properly timed shoulder check. Good situational awareness remains a rider skill, not a software feature. Don’t delay or omit a shoulder check because “the light didn’t flash”. In short: these systems supplement situational awareness; they do not create it.

Mirror and blind spot checks – when and when not to!

Around three years after I started riding I demolished my beautiful Honda 400-Four in London. How? I was looking back over my right shoulder when the driver on my left cut across the one-way system in front of me. I was still looking the wrong way as I hit the rear of the car. Not surprisingly, I have been a bit cautious about timing shoulder checks and even mirror checks ever since. But what makes for good rear observation? There’s a lot of confusion out there. Why? Several reasons. What learners are taught changed dramatically as recently as 1997, and advanced groups tend to take a different approach anyway. And of course riders of all flavours forget what they learned. And then there’s the faulty thinking that what’s taught on test is “just for learners”. Throw in some dubious magazine articles, the wonders of YouTube and the internet generally, and the result is almost as many ideas about rear observation and what’s ‘right’ as there are riders. So I’m going to apply a slightly different approach – I’ll review the reasons riders get confused, then rather than say “this is what to do”, we’ll look at just WHY we need to know what’s around us to come up with some better answers.

WHERE DID THE CONFUSION COME FROM – At the time I started as a motorcycle trainer, the old DSA motorcycle test actually required that test candidates had to make a full ‘look-behind’ rear observation. Using mirrors wasn’t good enough – that’s why test candidates used to take the mirrors off for the test, to force themselves to look behind. Before slowing or braking, before indicating and before turning, test candidates as late as the mid-90’s were required to look right back over their shoulder.

Even more unbelievably, the test candidate had to look over the RIGHT shoulder before turning LEFT. I will categorically state looking right before turning left is almost completely worthless. More than anything else, it was probably being trained to make this rearward check that convinced a lot of riders that what was learned for the test was a complete waste of time!

In fact, I agree this check was pointless AND dangerous. Even if we manage to avoid dragging the bars around with us, causing a wobble, looking right back over the shoulder takes time. A couple of seconds. Even at urban speeds, that means we’re covering a considerable distance – twenty to thirty metres – looking the wrong way. It was exactly this kind of look that led to my own crash.

It sounds pretty unbelievable now because even a half-decent set of mirrors will gather much the same information as this old-fashioned full turn of the head, in a fraction of the time. But it was only with the introduction of Direct Access in 1997 that the DSA finally realised motorcycles had been fitted with mirrors for decades and allowed test candidates to use a combination of mirror use combined with more judicious blind spot checks. I still remember being informally ‘tipped-off’ to this change by the examiner. Mind you, even the IAM weren’t consistent on this – I have a older (but not THAT old) version of the IAM book that shows a rider doing the full-on look-behind check captioned as ‘the lifesaver’. That’s not what would have been taught on basic training since 1997.

GET THE BEST FROM THE MIRRORS – Mirrors are there for a reason – to find out what’s behind us. Whilst some mirrors still give a good view of our elbows, most can be set up to give reasonable rearward view. Set them up to give the best coverage – I tend to have the offside mirror up to give a more ‘wide angle’ view, whilst the left is angled behind – after all, I rarely need a view of the pavement. But I can change that on motorways or when in London to deal with multiple lanes going the same way. Mirror extenders that bolt-on between the mirror and mount can improve the view on some bike. Don’t forget, mirrors are convex. That offers a wider angle view but distort distances, making vehicles appear further away than they really are. Be cautious on a new machine until you have got used to judging distance and speed. Mirrors should be checked often enough that we’re not taken by SURPRISE! One tip – I avoid aftermarket mirrors if I’ve broken one because original mirrors are generally optically superior and balanced even if they do cost. Cheap mirrors often distort view and vibrate. I think it’s worth spending the extra.

SHOULDER, HEAD or BLINDSPOT CHECKS – Even the best mirrors have blind spots – so do the fancy rear view cameras as it happens, even if they eliminate the one between the shoulder blades. A police car once tried to hide when I was on my GSX-R750, and it’ll certainly hide another motorcycle, which should make you wonder why other riders persist in following in another bike’s wheel tracks. We can usually ‘clear’ this blind spot by tucking in an elbow (it’s how I let the police driver know I’d spotted him) or rocking our head from side to side.

The others are over the shoulders to the the left and right. Vehicles can lurk in this blindspot so we have to be careful when turning into side roads, manoeuvering round roundabouts or changing lane on one-way streets or dual carriageways. There is only one solution to blindspots (hence the term blindspot check) and that’s a physical turn of the head (hence the term head check) to see what’s alongside us and in the mirror’s blind area. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of confusion about just how, when and where:

riders who get confused about the difference between the full-on look-behind observation and a chin-to-shoulder blindspot check and may – usually during an advanced course when memories of the bike test resurface – try to look too far round

riders who say that ANY head check is dangerous

in the middle is conventional advanced practice, where newly-qualified riders can be actively discouraged from making a blind spot check – the argument is that if mirror checks are frequent enough, nothing can sneak up so relying on ‘mirror history’ (that is, remembering what we saw in the mirrors a moment ago) will be good enough but having been surprised often enough by vehicles – usually motorcycles – that had slipped into my blind spot unnoticed, I’m not convinced

Remember, it’s not a full-on look behind, simply a turn of the head sufficient – chin to shoulder – to see into the blind area (hence the term shoulder check). Anything further back should be visible in the mirrors. So head, shoulder and blindspot checks are more or less interchangeable.

A further advantage to a physical head movement is that it might alert another driver that you are about to do something.

MIRROR BLIND SPOT CHECKS – So how do we make them? Let’s start by asking some key questions:

what am I looking for – the presence (or absence, come to that) of other road users

why am I looking for it – the reason we are looking is to decide if there might be a conflict between what we want to do and what the other driver might do

where am I looking for it – the clue is in the name, we’re filling in the gap between peripheral vision and what we can see in the mirrors, very roughly backward from the line of our shoulders, hence the ‘shoulder check’ name

when am I looking for it – simple enough, before we move away, signal, change speed or change direction

Gathering this information is called taking ‘Rear Observation’ in the language of basic and post-test training. So to sum up we combine:

a rearwards look right behind ONLY when moving off

regular and sensible use of the mirrors

'shoulder checks' (sometimes called 'head checks') which are looks into the blind areas to either side

By doing so, we develop what’s called ‘Situational Awareness’.

WHICH WAY TO LOOK – Since the old DSA system of looking right when turning left completely confused many riders, I tell trainees just use common sense:

look in the direction you are about to move - right before moving or turning right, left before moving or turning to the left

look into any space that's big enough for another vehicle to squeeze into (and don't forget that could be a cycle or a scooter!)

THE REAL LIFESAVER – Probably the most important shoulder check, and one that fully deserves to be called a Lifesaver, is a final blindspot check that confirms it’s safe to take up a different position. It’s usually over the right shoulder before turning right into a side road, but it could be to the left too – for example, before exiting a roundabout after a right turn, and I’d check before turning left too. Many trainers say it’s unnecessary but I remember where I might have overtaken you when I was a courier, and there are cyclists to consider too. It’s also important to check before changing lanes on one-way streets and multilane roads, or where lanes merge back together. The lifesaver CONFIRMS our other observations. The key point is timing. We must make this check BEFORE we start the manoeuvre. If we’re already halfway into a manoeuvre and then look, it could be too late. So, the term ‘lifesaver’ really explains WHY we carry out a shoulder check!

COMBINING MIRRORS and SHOULDER CHECKS – Understand that a shoulder check is NOT a substitute for a mirror check, nor vice versa (whatever you might hear about mirror history). Whilst we often only need the mirrors to discover what’s behind us, it’s important to check the blind spot when we need to know what’s alongside. To save time, don’t make two separate observations, but combine the two – look in the mirror and then turn the head a little further to make the blind spot check. It takes just a fraction longer.

MOVING OFF FROM THE SIDE OF THE ROAD – There is one exception to the ‘only turn the head enough to see into the blind spot’ idea, and that’s when moving off from the side of the road. On CBT and on the Module One and Two parts of the DVSA bike test, the test candidate IS expected to ‘take rear observation’ before moving off, and this is the full-on, right behind look. It’s safe enough at a standstill. (And as a reminder, if you’re reading this before taking the bike test, you MUST look behind you ANY time you ride the bike in the off-road areas! You’re even supposed to look behind before pushing the bike out of the imaginary garage. On Mod One, if in doubt, look behind.) Nevertheless, on the road I would still combine this check with mirrors – check the mirrors first, THEN make the final check behind. But which mirror? If the road behind is straight, then looking in the right mirror before making the final rearwards check makes sense. But if the road curves to the LEFT behind, the right mirror won’t show anything useful and there’s a risk that we won’t see anything looking over the right shoulder either. When I was a basic instructor, one of the examiners had a habit of getting the trainees to pull up on a left hand bend (probably because it was the only place where there was room to stop for the ‘move off again’ exercise rather than any malicious intent) and it wasn’t unknown for a trainee to look over the right shoulder and not see anything. The curve in the road meant the car coming up behind was behind their left shoulder. A check in the LEFT mirror was therefore a very good idea.

PRACTICE – Work on rear observation so that it becomes automatic. Constantly ask yourself what is behind you – if you don’t know at all times, you need to improve your rear observation! But be aware that just looking isn’t enough. We need to understand what we’re seeing and be ready to act on that information – situational awareness. And there’s one final caution to add. Be certain it’s safe to look away from the road ahead, even if all that’s needed is a glance in the mirrors. This is often forgotten by new riders – like myself all those years ago – and not emphasised enough by trainers. We must time rear observation carefully, and any time there’s something more interesting going on in front…

…then keep your eyes ahead. If I’d known that, my 400-F might have finished the journey in one piece.

 

 

Mirror and blind spot checks – when and when not to!

Around three years after I started riding I demolished my beautiful Honda 400-Four in London. How? I was looking back over my right shoulder when the driver on my left cut across the one-way system in front of me. I was still looking the wrong way as I hit the rear of the car. Not surprisingly, I have been a bit cautious about timing shoulder checks and even mirror checks ever since. But what makes for good rear observation? There’s a lot of confusion out there. Why? Several reasons. What learners are taught changed dramatically as recently as 1997, and advanced groups tend to take a different approach anyway. And of course riders of all flavours forget what they learned. And then there’s the faulty thinking that what’s taught on test is “just for learners”. Throw in some dubious magazine articles, the wonders of YouTube and the internet generally, and the result is almost as many ideas about rear observation and what’s ‘right’ as there are riders. So I’m going to apply a slightly different approach – I’ll review the reasons riders get confused, then rather than say “this is what to do”, we’ll look at just WHY we need to know what’s around us to come up with some better answers.

WHERE DID THE CONFUSION COME FROM – At the time I started as a motorcycle trainer, the old DSA motorcycle test actually required that test candidates had to make a full ‘look-behind’ rear observation. Using mirrors wasn’t good enough – that’s why test candidates used to take the mirrors off for the test, to force themselves to look behind. Before slowing or braking, before indicating and before turning, test candidates as late as the mid-90’s were required to look right back over their shoulder.

Even more unbelievably, the test candidate had to look over the RIGHT shoulder before turning LEFT. I will categorically state looking right before turning left is almost completely worthless. More than anything else, it was probably being trained to make this rearward check that convinced a lot of riders that what was learned for the test was a complete waste of time!

In fact, I agree this check was pointless AND dangerous. Even if we manage to avoid dragging the bars around with us, causing a wobble, looking right back over the shoulder takes time. A couple of seconds. Even at urban speeds, that means we’re covering a considerable distance – twenty to thirty metres – looking the wrong way. It was exactly this kind of look that led to my own crash.

It sounds pretty unbelievable now because even a half-decent set of mirrors will gather much the same information as this old-fashioned full turn of the head, in a fraction of the time. But it was only with the introduction of Direct Access in 1997 that the DSA finally realised motorcycles had been fitted with mirrors for decades and allowed test candidates to use a combination of mirror use combined with more judicious blind spot checks. I still remember being informally ‘tipped-off’ to this change by the examiner. Mind you, even the IAM weren’t consistent on this – I have a older (but not THAT old) version of the IAM book that shows a rider doing the full-on look-behind check captioned as ‘the lifesaver’. That’s not what would have been taught on basic training since 1997.

GET THE BEST FROM THE MIRRORS – Mirrors are there for a reason – to find out what’s behind us. Whilst some mirrors still give a good view of our elbows, most can be set up to give reasonable rearward view. Set them up to give the best coverage – I tend to have the offside mirror up to give a more ‘wide angle’ view, whilst the left is angled behind – after all, I rarely need a view of the pavement. But I can change that on motorways or when in London to deal with multiple lanes going the same way. Mirror extenders that bolt-on between the mirror and mount can improve the view on some bike. Don’t forget, mirrors are convex. That offers a wider angle view but distort distances, making vehicles appear further away than they really are. Be cautious on a new machine until you have got used to judging distance and speed. Mirrors should be checked often enough that we’re not taken by SURPRISE! One tip – I avoid aftermarket mirrors if I’ve broken one because original mirrors are generally optically superior and balanced even if they do cost. Cheap mirrors often distort view and vibrate. I think it’s worth spending the extra.

SHOULDER, HEAD or BLINDSPOT CHECKS – Even the best mirrors have blind spots – so do the fancy rear view cameras as it happens, even if they eliminate the one between the shoulder blades. A police car once tried to hide when I was on my GSX-R750, and it’ll certainly hide another motorcycle, which should make you wonder why other riders persist in following in another bike’s wheel tracks. We can usually ‘clear’ this blind spot by tucking in an elbow (it’s how I let the police driver know I’d spotted him) or rocking our head from side to side.

The others are over the shoulders to the the left and right. Vehicles can lurk in this blindspot so we have to be careful when turning into side roads, manoeuvering round roundabouts or changing lane on one-way streets or dual carriageways. There is only one solution to blindspots (hence the term blindspot check) and that’s a physical turn of the head (hence the term head check) to see what’s alongside us and in the mirror’s blind area. Unfortunately, there’s plenty of confusion about just how, when and where:

riders who get confused about the difference between the full-on look-behind observation and a chin-to-shoulder blindspot check and may – usually during an advanced course when memories of the bike test resurface – try to look too far round

riders who say that ANY head check is dangerous

in the middle is conventional advanced practice, where newly-qualified riders can be actively discouraged from making a blind spot check – the argument is that if mirror checks are frequent enough, nothing can sneak up so relying on ‘mirror history’ (that is, remembering what we saw in the mirrors a moment ago) will be good enough but having been surprised often enough by vehicles – usually motorcycles – that had slipped into my blind spot unnoticed, I’m not convinced

Remember, it’s not a full-on look behind, simply a turn of the head sufficient – chin to shoulder – to see into the blind area (hence the term shoulder check). Anything further back should be visible in the mirrors. So head, shoulder and blindspot checks are more or less interchangeable.

A further advantage to a physical head movement is that it might alert another driver that you are about to do something.

MIRROR BLIND SPOT CHECKS – So how do we make them? Let’s start by asking some key questions:

what am I looking for – the presence (or absence, come to that) of other road users

why am I looking for it – the reason we are looking is to decide if there might be a conflict between what we want to do and what the other driver might do

where am I looking for it – the clue is in the name, we’re filling in the gap between peripheral vision and what we can see in the mirrors, very roughly backward from the line of our shoulders, hence the ‘shoulder check’ name

when am I looking for it – simple enough, before we move away, signal, change speed or change direction

Gathering this information is called taking ‘Rear Observation’ in the language of basic and post-test training. So to sum up we combine:

a rearwards look right behind ONLY when moving off

regular and sensible use of the mirrors

'shoulder checks' (sometimes called 'head checks') which are looks into the blind areas to either side

By doing so, we develop what’s called ‘Situational Awareness’.

WHICH WAY TO LOOK – Since the old DSA system of looking right when turning left completely confused many riders, I tell trainees just use common sense:

look in the direction you are about to move - right before moving or turning right, left before moving or turning to the left

look into any space that's big enough for another vehicle to squeeze into (and don't forget that could be a cycle or a scooter!)

THE REAL LIFESAVER – Probably the most important shoulder check, and one that fully deserves to be called a Lifesaver, is a final blindspot check that confirms it’s safe to take up a different position. It’s usually over the right shoulder before turning right into a side road, but it could be to the left too – for example, before exiting a roundabout after a right turn, and I’d check before turning left too. Many trainers say it’s unnecessary but I remember where I might have overtaken you when I was a courier, and there are cyclists to consider too. It’s also important to check before changing lanes on one-way streets and multilane roads, or where lanes merge back together. The lifesaver CONFIRMS our other observations. The key point is timing. We must make this check BEFORE we start the manoeuvre. If we’re already halfway into a manoeuvre and then look, it could be too late. So, the term ‘lifesaver’ really explains WHY we carry out a shoulder check!

COMBINING MIRRORS and SHOULDER CHECKS – Understand that a shoulder check is NOT a substitute for a mirror check, nor vice versa (whatever you might hear about mirror history). Whilst we often only need the mirrors to discover what’s behind us, it’s important to check the blind spot when we need to know what’s alongside. To save time, don’t make two separate observations, but combine the two – look in the mirror and then turn the head a little further to make the blind spot check. It takes just a fraction longer.

MOVING OFF FROM THE SIDE OF THE ROAD – There is one exception to the ‘only turn the head enough to see into the blind spot’ idea, and that’s when moving off from the side of the road. On CBT and on the Module One and Two parts of the DVSA bike test, the test candidate IS expected to ‘take rear observation’ before moving off, and this is the full-on, right behind look. It’s safe enough at a standstill. (And as a reminder, if you’re reading this before taking the bike test, you MUST look behind you ANY time you ride the bike in the off-road areas! You’re even supposed to look behind before pushing the bike out of the imaginary garage. On Mod One, if in doubt, look behind.) Nevertheless, on the road I would still combine this check with mirrors – check the mirrors first, THEN make the final check behind. But which mirror? If the road behind is straight, then looking in the right mirror before making the final rearwards check makes sense. But if the road curves to the LEFT behind, the right mirror won’t show anything useful and there’s a risk that we won’t see anything looking over the right shoulder either. When I was a basic instructor, one of the examiners had a habit of getting the trainees to pull up on a left hand bend (probably because it was the only place where there was room to stop for the ‘move off again’ exercise rather than any malicious intent) and it wasn’t unknown for a trainee to look over the right shoulder and not see anything. The curve in the road meant the car coming up behind was behind their left shoulder. A check in the LEFT mirror was therefore a very good idea.

PRACTICE – Work on rear observation so that it becomes automatic. Constantly ask yourself what is behind you – if you don’t know at all times, you need to improve your rear observation! But be aware that just looking isn’t enough. We need to understand what we’re seeing and be ready to act on that information – situational awareness. And there’s one final caution to add. Be certain it’s safe to look away from the road ahead, even if all that’s needed is a glance in the mirrors. This is often forgotten by new riders – like myself all those years ago – and not emphasised enough by trainers. We must time rear observation carefully, and any time there’s something more interesting going on in front…

…then keep your eyes ahead. If I’d known that, my 400-F might have finished the journey in one piece.

Posted on

28. “Don’t search for safety, identify risky — then avoid it”

I’ve actually retitled this particular article since it reinforces the central idea — that riders should stop chasing an abstract notion of “safety” and instead understand “risk in context” — because It reinforces personal responsibility and judgement, aligns with how riders actually make decisions — moment by moment, under imperfect information, and most importantly it avoids the false promise implied by “safety”. Safety is defined as absence of risk and there’s no such thing on the road. Understanding risk, rather than searching for an ill-defined notion of “safety”, remains the key to surviving real-world riding.

“Don’t search for safety, identify risky — then avoid it”

When delivering my Survival Skills advanced motorcycle riding courses, one of the concepts I ensure that is covered in depth is risk, and its relationship to safety. Why focus on risk when it’s so much more usual to hear motorcycle training and road safety experts talk about ‘safety’? There’s a good reason for this. It’s because safety is defined as the ‘absence of risk’. So given that it is impossible to ride without risk, it’s only by understanding risk that we can begin to appreciate whether particular manoeuvres are actually relatively low or relatively high risk. Once we know that, then it’s possible to begin to manage risk and thus attempt to make our riding as safe as possible.

So let’s start by define what we mean by ‘risk’ a bit more clearly? We can say something like:

‘Risk = the chance something might happen X the impact on us when it happens’

It may be a simple explanation but it makes it easier to understand how a hazard might affect us. For example, you’d probably agree that most metal access covers are potentially slippery. But does that mean they ALWAYS pose a risk?

Follow some riders and you’d be forgiven for thinking they’d been treated with teflon as they weave left and right to avoid them in the dry, but if the metal surface is relatively small and flush with the surface, and we are neither cornering, braking or accelerating, then what’s the problem? We can ride over them with no fear of a loss of grip, and we can focus on other issues, such as taking a line that avoids getting close to oncoming vehicles. Even when wet, a small access cover is unlikely to result in anything more serious than a slight twitch even when leaned over. Running over it might be a better decision than shaving past an HGV coming the other way. But what if the metal plate is big? What if it’s just where we’re planning to hit the brakes, to avoid an emerging car? What if we’re carrying serious lean through a corner? And it’s wet too? Now we have a more serious problem.

What I’m getting at is we need to anticipate whether the hazard poses a threat in the context in which we are about to meet it.

One useful place to develop an understanding of risk is to examine the ‘killed and seriously injured’ statistics. If you do that, you’ll discover there are three common crashes:

  • at junctions

  • on corners

  • during overtakes

Then we can drill down further to find out more about the risks of each location.

For example, if we look at crashes at or near junctions involving motorcycles, we find that in an URBAN environment most collisions happen when another vehicle pulls out from a side road, and turns across the motorcycle’s path. Although these incidents are very common (so the risk of a COLLISION is high), the fatality rate is low UNLESS the rider is exceeding the speed limit – then the fatality rate sky-rockets.

But there’s a second collision to consider – when an oncoming vehicle turns right turns across the rider’s path. The risk OF the collision is low (there aren’t very many) but the risk FROM the crash is high (it’s a much bigger impact and far more likely to be fatal).

But once out of town, where speeds are higher, both types of collision are likely to have serious consequences, simply because the speeds are higher.

And in the same way we can find other high-risk activities. If we crash on a corner, we’re more likely to survive if we fall off on a right-hander (in the UK), but on a left-hander we cross the centre line and the resulting collision is often fatal. Overtaking is almost certainly the most dangerous of all biking activities, because there is so much that can go wrong. Not too many years ago, a highly qualified motorcycle instructor told me that “done right, overtaking is perfectly safe”. Hopefully, you read that and asked yourself “is that really true?”. The answer, of course, is that however well-planned and executed, NO overtake can ever be ‘perfectly safe’. We can try to manage the risks as best we can, but there is one element in an overtake over which we have no control whatsoever…

…and that’s the other humans in the mix. We can be trying to do everything ‘right’ and the unpredictable actions of another human can still put us at risk.

So to sum up… to ASSESS risk, we must recognise the potential for any particular activity to go wrong. To MANAGE risk, we have to know our options, and whether we have alternatives open to us. In the case of an overtake, I could simply not attempt it – that would manage the risk pretty effectively. And when deciding whether or not I need to ride over that manhole cover mid-corner, there’s another solution – I could SLOW DOWN! It’s easier to recover from a slide when we’re more upright.

It’s amazing how long it takes riders to actually remember that slowing down is nearly always an effective risk management option.

Posted on

24. Trusting to Luck, Awareness of Hazards, and Risk Assessment and Risk Management

This was a very early post, written before I’d fully investigated concepts like the ladder of learning and later work on the concept of insight training, and risk homeostasis allows us to sharpen it and correct a few early assumptions. My central argument — that riders mistake statistical survival for skill-based safety — is entirely consistent with modern safety psychology. In fact, it aligns very closely with the phenomena known as:

:: Normalisation of deviance
:: Outcome bias
:: Risk compensation / risk homeostasis

The fact that familiarity dulls risk perception is now well established in behavioural science. Repeated exposure without consequence reduces perceived risk even when objective risk is unchanged. My observation that “they stop planning ahead and trust to luck again” is arguably the most important line in the article, and modern thinking has reinforced it rather than undermined it. The ‘six levels’ I mapped out fit well with models I discovered later:

Levels 1–3 → unconscious incompetence / conscious incompetence
Level 4 → rule-based competence
Levels 5–6 → insight-based, anticipatory control

Since this was first written, our understanding of why riders fail to manage risk effectively has moved on. It is now clearer that the problem is not simply a loss of skill, but a shift in thinking. Riders do not consciously decide to take more risk; instead, familiarity quietly reshapes their expectations. When nothing goes wrong, we unconsciously downgrade hazards from “threat” to “routine”, and begin to interpret safe outcomes as evidence of our own competence rather than statistical good fortune. This is closely related to what psychologists call risk compensation: improvements in skill or experience are often “spent” on riding faster, overtaking more often, or accepting smaller margins, leaving overall risk unchanged. The critical difference between riders who continue to progress and those who stagnate is not technical ability, but whether they maintain a habit of questioning their assumptions — actively challenging the belief that because something has always worked before, it will continue to do so next time.

Trusting to Luck, Awareness of Hazards, and Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Risk is a funny concept. It’s always there in our lives, whatever we do, to a greater or lesser extent. The odd thing is that whilst we are sometimes very aware of risk, at other times we tend to forget all about it. Witness the number of people who step backwards off cliffs taking selfies. We also have a skewed perception of what is actually dangerous and what isn’t. Take flying as an example. Compared with driving, which is far more likely to kill us, flying is statistically safer. But most people don’t fly very often, so never really get used to it and we’re also in someone else’s hands and the situation is almost totally out of our control. So how does risk play a part in our riding decisions? What skews our concept of risk?

More than anything else, what interferes with accurate risk assessment is familiarity. The more often we encounter a risk, yet nothing goes wrong, the less we see it AS a risk. If we drive or ride on a regular basis, in situations we are familiar with, we generate such a level of familiarity and a sensation of ‘ordinariness’, we begin to lose awareness of the risks. Worse, we begin to believe we are in control of the risks.

But is that actually the fact? We should be aware of another factor that could be keeping us safe.

And that’s statistics. Crashing badly is rare event.

What do I mean? You’ll probably have heard that the risk of being killed on a motorcycle or scooter is around 30 to 40 times higher than if we’re in a car. And you probably know there are (very approximately) around 350 fatal motorcycle crashes in the UK each year, and that serious injuries (equally approximately) total around 3500.

But those numbers need context.

There are somewhere between 1 and 2 million active motorcyclists who ride several billion miles each year.

So for you and me, when we look at motorcycling on an individual basis, the chance of having a fatal accident in any one year is tiny. The UK is one of the safest places on earth to ride a motorcycle.

I originally wrote this article under the misapprehension – like most people in the advanced riding community, and in road safety generally – that it is good skills that keep us safe. I wrote about how I thought road users including motorcyclists go through a sequence of developmental stages of hazard perception, risk awareness and risk management:

Level 1) we aren’t even aware danger exists
Level 2) we see a hazard but don’t understand how it poses a risk
Level 3) we see a hazard, recognise it poses a risk but don’t know how to deal with it
Level 4) we see a hazard, recognise it poses a risk, and react by taking appropriate avoiding action
Level 5) we see a hazard, recognise it poses a risk, and respond by proactively reducing the risk
Level 6) we anticipate a hazard, and act to eliminate the risk before it can develop

I described those levels in terms of how a rider might respond in the most common collision scenario – the SMIDSY crash involving a driver emerging from a junction on the left.

1) we aren’t even aware danger exists
How would a rider at this level of development rider respond if a car started to emerge from the side turning? Simple answer – having failed to recognise the scenario as a hazard, the rider will be caught completely by SURPRISE! by the emerging car. There will be no planned response to the hazard. The outcome is entirely in the lap of the gods.

2) we see a hazard but don’t understand how it poses a risk
How would this rider respond to an emerging car? The rider may have realised that cars emerge from side turnings, but assumes that as the bike has right of way, the car driver will see the bike and wait. The rider will still be caught completely by SURPRISE! by the emerging car, there will be no planned response and the outcome is still with the gods.

3) we see a hazard, recognise it poses a risk but don’t know how to deal with it
Perhaps the rider has learned from some previous incidents but what missing now is any form of planned response. Maybe the rider develops excessive caution (perhaps avoiding ‘dangerous’ roads), slows down excessively ‘just in case’, or maybe crashes taking evastic action. The rider is no longer taken by SURPRISE! but there’s no planned strategy to get out of trouble.

4) we see a hazard, recognise it poses a risk, and react by taking appropriate avoiding action
Now the rider is capable of basic defensive riding and collision avoidance. This is essentially the level aimed at by basic training. The rider will detect the emerging car, and go into a routine to deal with the problem – perhaps slowing down and sounding the horn, whilst being ready to make an effective emergency stop or swerve.

5) we see a hazard, recognise it poses a risk, and respond by proactively reducing the risk
This is essentially the level aimed at by advanced training. Having spotted the junction ahead, the rider will respond PRO-ACTIVELY by slowing to reduce stopping distance, changing position to open up lines-of-sight and introduce a ‘safety space’ before the driver even begins to create a threat by starting to emerge. The essential step is to move from being a reactive rider (who responds AFTER the threat develops) to a pro-active rider (who takes preemptive steps to reduce risk) by constantly asking the “what if…?” question and having a “then this…!” answer ready. This stage is often marked by an attitudinal change. Rather than relying on the other driver to see and respond to the bike (“I have right-of-way”, “the driver should look harder for bikes”) the rider now begins to understand that “it takes two to tangle” – if the driver’s error sets up the POTENTIAL for a collision, the biker still has to ride into it to COMPLETE the collision. After a scary experience, this rider will probably ask “what else could I have done to avoid the situation?”

6) we anticipate a hazard, and act to eliminate the risk before it can develop
This is the next level where the rider has developed ‘insight’, and is the level Survival Skills advanced rider training courses aim to reach. We don’t have to wait until we see a junction. We can anticipate that ANY BLIND AREA – or ‘Surprise Horizon’ – could be concealing a vehicle about to emerge into our path, and we anticipate we haven’t been seen, and take appropriate steps – change of speed, change of line, ‘setting-up’ the brakes – before we even see a vehicle. Or pehaps we see a car still APPROACHING a junction and we consider strategies such as a slight increase in speed to get clear of the junction before the car gets there. And should emergency action still be needed, we are not just ready to brake hard or swerve but have already identified possible escape routes.

With my old CBT instructor hat on, novice riders on CBT are usually in Level 1, particularly if they have car experience because the lessons learned on four wheels do not apply to two.

So where does motorcycle training take us? In theory, a rider with a CBT certificate should be up at Level 4, but in reality, they’re far more likely to hover between 2 (blind faith) and 3 (luck) because there’s too much to cover on CBT to develop anything like proper defensive riding.

Donning my old Direct Access hat, riders at Level 2 would accumulate ‘serious’ faults on the bike test, and riders at Level 3 would pick up minor ‘driving’ faults. So my aim was to get riders to at least Level 4 where they could react reliably to most hazards and get a clean sheet. But if I had time and the trainee was receptive enough, I’d begin to introduce Level 5 thinking where they started to understand how to ‘get their retaliation in first’ by being pro-active in attempting to distance themselves from harm.

And with my post-test headgear in place, I’d definitely want to see Level 5 and preferably Level 6 thinking going on.

What if we don’t take post-test training? Given time and some ‘learning-by-experience’ forced on the rider by a couple of crashes in the ‘School of Hard Knocks’, it is possible to climb to Level 5. There are some very competent motorcyclists out there who have never taken post-test training. We just have to be self-critical and willing to advance.

But even if we do take higher training, there’s no guarantee it will stick. When I wrote the original version of this article, I noted that “unfortunately having passed beyond the sight of the trainer and examiner, many riders slip back to Level 3.” I was thinking in terms of basic training, but I’ve seen it can apply to riders with advanced experience too.

You’ll remember that I said back at the beginning that I originally wrote this article under the misapprehension that it is good skills that keep us safe, so at the time I’d thought this was just the natural erosion of skills and learning that happens as the memories of our training slip further into the distance. That has an effect, of course, but I’d actually hit on the really significant problem when I concluded:

“They stop planning ahead and trust to luck again.”

Why do we do this? It’s that skewing of risk that results from familiarity. The more often we encounter a risk, yet nothing goes wrong, the less we see it. Go back to the KSI stats. Out of those 350 fatal crashes every year, something under 100 happen at junctions. Let’s just make that absolutely clear. With over one million riders covering several billion miles annually, and passing uncounted junctions every single day, in the course of a year just 100 fatalities happen at junctions. The vast majority of us pass junctions perfectly safely all year long. And because things so rarely go wrong it’s easy to begin to believe that it’s our own abilities keeping us safe when the fact is it’s statistics doing the job. Without being aware of it, we are ‘trusting to luck’. And the same issue arises with every other activity on a motorcycle including the two other big killers – cornering crashes and overtaking incidents.

A former police instructor once told me that

“Done right, overtaking is perfectly safe”.

Of course it’s not. There’s always risk. It’s only when we constantly ask ourselves “what if this goes wrong?” that we are in a position to manage risk effectively. The more vivid our imagination, the more likely we are to have a realistic perception of risk. The better our technique, the less risk SHOULD be involved…

…but what if we simply use our skills to take more overtakes? What if we use them to make technically tricky passes? Haven’t we just upped the risk whilst pretending that we’re managing that risk effectively?

We think it’s our skill preventing a crash when in fact, the dice just haven’t rolled the wrong way…

…yet.

Posted on

23. Organising and joining group riding – some rules and tips

If I were rewriting this article today, there’s little I’d change. I would emphasise the ever-widening gulf between hot-of-the-production line bikes and old-school machines. My observation that group riding introduces unique risks remains correct and is now widely accepted in safety research. The Lincolnshire statistic reference aligns with later findings elsewhere, that peer pressure, pace escalation and delayed fatigue recognition are all major contributors to group crashes. The framing of “organising a ride equals accepting responsibility” has received some legal attention, with group rider organisers being held responsible following fatal crashes on riders. That’s a fact that’s rarely emphasised when articles cover group riding . Fatigue as a hidden cause is also something that modern crash analysis has shown up, not just as an end-of-day problem, but as a mid-ride cognitive degradation; rider performance likely begins to degrade before the warning signs actually tell us we’re “feeling tired”. I’d probably reframe the decision to leave a ride early, to emphasise that it’s not a personal failure, but a success in identifying that the ride doesn’t suit us.

Organising and joining group riding – some rules and tips

This particular article was originally penned after a friend of mine (at the time member of an advanced group), told me a sorry tale of things going wrong on their group rides. Three rides, three crashes bringing the rides to an unplanned halt. Now, having organised trouble-free group rides for years I’d like to say that on a well-organised ride, with proper rules and sensible riders this shouldn’t happen. But having written the article, the next three rides I organised were also brought to a halt by silly crashes. Two riders fell off at walking pace on sharp corners, and required medical attention. The third ran out of road on another tight bend and whilst unhurt, needed a van to take his bike home. Bad luck? Perhaps. But maybe we were actually. Shortly afterwards, a survey of rural riding fatalities in Lincolnshire found that ALMOST HALF occurred on group rides. So if we take on the organisation of a group ride, we take on a lot of responsibility and we need to understand just how group riding brings some very unique problems. But we also have some responsibilities if we join a group ride.

Most discussion on how to organise a group ride tends to focus on how the ride’s organised once it’s underway. But if we’re setting it up, we really need to back up a stage and focus on some risk assessment and management.

Virtually all the serious problems I’ve seen on group rides result from just a few issues. Three really crop up in the planning stage:

poorly-planned routes

fatigue

lack of organisation to deal with a mix of abilities

worst case scenarios

And one is down to the ride attendees:

individual poor attitude to riding and a lack of self-control

Planning and Organisation

The route: start by deciding what the ride is for. Is it just a couple of hours out with some buddies? A club outing to a different part of the country? Or do you want to put on a day’s riding for riders you don’t know?

That’s important because it’ll influence the route. For example, if we’re leading a small club group off for a few days riding in a totally different area, then planning a ride up a motorway is likely to be the quickest way of getting there – it’s easy enough to organise a rendezvous at a particular service area or junction. But on a day-long ride with a big group of unknown riders, then short stretches of motorways can cause real problems with keeping the group together. And believe it or not, I was on one group ride where the organisers had forgotten there were a few riders on L plates.

Town centres also cause problems, even with a good system of marking. As well as having drivers get annoyed by being ‘blocked in’ by a stream of bikes crossing a junction, and deliberately pulling out, a big group can be chopped into numerous chunks by traffic lights or roundabouts. This happened on a ride down the French coast through Bolougne with thirty-odd riders. One rider didn’t follow the group riding rules and failed to mark an exit from a roundabout. The next rider just ahead of me couldn’t see where he’d gone so followed the ‘all directions’ sign. He guessed wrong so the back end of the group went the wrong way. After ten minutes we stopped when we realised we’d lost the front. But the group leader was still blissfully unaware because he still had bikes behind him, thanks to that rider who didn’t stop. With no contingency plan and no route map to the lunch stop, we had to contact him by phone – not so easy when someone’s riding with the phone in a pocket. We made it to lunch, an hour late, and that meant we had to abandon our pleasant ride back to Eurotunnel. One mistake totally disrupted the day. One group kept stopping and reassembling after each junction, but this causes inconvenience to other road users, and eventually becomes unworkable if the group’s a big one. You could have a reassembly point marked on a map. That’ll work IF people can read a map.

For the same sort of reason, right turns on fast, busy roads are best avoided. It’ll take ages for a big group to make the turn. Meanwhile, there’s a long queue of bikes backing up and potentially blocking the road.

And think about whether the group will cope with really awkward corners or turns. I planned one route for some new riders, but overlooked one very tight, right-back-on-itself, downhill junction. As I approached I suddenly realised it would be a major problem for some of the less-experienced in the group. I had to pull the group up and warn them at the last moment. That one would have been best avoided.

It may be that the UK’s not blessed with vast areas of open roads, so we’re bound to encounter villages. But with a bit of careful planning, it’s usually possible to avoid the bigger towns and motorways, and to avoid the most awkward manoeuvres.

Don’t forget fuel. It’s amazing how often it’s a last-minute consideration but plan your stops and make sure everyone can reach them. It’s no good planning around your own 250 mile tank. My Hornet has a notoriously short reliable fuel range of 120 to 130 miles. With reserve, I can be reasonably certain of hitting 150 miles… unless we’re riding at speed. On one group ride in France, our destination was only 90 miles away, so starting with a full tank should have got me there with plenty to spare… except the leader didn’t take the obvious route, but a much longer ride that was marginally quicker thanks to some autoroute with no service area and didn’t check if anyone would need a top-up. I had just hit 135 miles when we turned off the motorway and a moment later I ran out of fuel. Fortunately, I was able to coast downhill into the town and straight into a filling station half-way down.

Getting tired: the problem of fatigue shouldn’t be underestimated. I know that because it’s something I’ve been guilty of. I tend to forget that I’m used to spending long hours in the saddle. Just recently, I left at 9am to ride 90 miles to meet a trainee at 11am, covered another 90 miles in five hours training (which actually took six and a half hours because we talked so much), then rode just under 100 miles for another two and a half hours to my final destination, not arriving until 8:30pm.

But not everyone is capable of doing that. We have to remember that for some riders, one hour in the saddle is likely to be a long ride. Others will make problems for themselves. Having organised a ride in North Yorkshire a while back, I was rather flattered that someone had ridden almost 150 miles to make our 10 am start, but in retrospect it meant he’d set off at 7am and by the time he crashed, at about 4pm, he’d covered another 120 miles of fairly technical riding with only a couple of twenty minute refueling stops and an hour’s lunch break. Even though it was in clear sight, he failed to spot a sharp kink at the end of a gentle left-hander. The bike left the road at walking pace, but fell a metre on the far side. The bike was unrideable, and was ultimately a write-off. He said some months later that he was absolutely knackered when he crashed.

Make sure you plan stops. Dehydration is an issue on a bike so we all need to personally refuel and rest up on a long ride, but be aware of the issue that the slowest riders will be last in and have least time to recover. Up front, you may feel refreshed. The rider at the back may barely have got the helmet off. And factor in loo stops, and bum and ciggie breaks. Be particularly cautious after lunch when the combination of food and biorhythms cause a low point in our riding.

Who’s on the ride: we also need to think about who is on the invite list. If we know the riders, then we should be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Similarly if it’s closed-to-club, we should have a reasonable idea of who will turn up. But once it’s an open ride, we have no idea who’ll turn up. We can pitch a ride for ‘experienced only’ or ‘suitable for newly qualified’ but we’re relying on attendees to self-assess. I’ve seen plenty of ‘experienced’ riders with poor skills. Ultimately, we won’t have any idea of their capabilities – or level of self-control – until we see them ride. Or we can suggest a ‘fast’ or ‘slow’ ride. One of the problems of ‘fast’ riders turning up for ‘slow’ rides is that they get bored and start messing about.

We also need to think about the size of the group. It may stroke our ego to be leading a big group of thirty-plus riders, but it causes any amount of problems. We have to find ways of keeping the group together, and to keep it under control. Having said that, I have ridden in groups of thirty where everyone’s behaved impeccably but I’ve also seen chaos. My own preference these days is for small groups – single figures. And with just four or five riders, the leader can usually see everyone else in the group. Plus it’s more intimate, everybody gets to know everyone else – and it’s easier to find somewhere to stop for lunch.

And it almost guarantees a mix of abilities. So what do we do about inexperienced or new riders mixing with an experienced group? The usual solution is to put the slowest or least experienced rider behind the leader. That way, in theory at least, the pace is set for the entire group and no-one will be left behind. But think about this. However much they are told to “ride at your own pace”, the rider behind the leader will not want to hold the group up. So there’s a serious risk they’ll override, and the leader will progressively up the pace to the point where they can no longer sustain it.

If the group’s a large one, does everyone ride together? Or should it be split up into mini-groups which ride at their own pace? This is one way to deal with a mix of experienced / inexperienced or fast / slow riders. Or does everyone do their own ride but following a common route?

If the ride is split into mini-groups do they cover the route at their own pace? That’s an approach I have used successfully in France. Or do the mini-groups plan to meet at intervals along the route? Do they set off together again? If they do, this inevitably means the slower riders have less time to recover. Or if everyone is riding alone, do they do their own thing once they’ve set off?

How are you going to organise the ‘marking system’ so riders know where to turn? Is overtaking allowed? These are all decisions that need to be made before the ride.

With small groups of half-a-dozen or so, the leader can keep everyone in sight, but bigger groups need a marking system. There are two alternatives – the ‘caterpillar’ (as used by the National Motorcycle Escort Group which escorts cycle races and similar and of which I was a member for some years) or the ‘leapfrog’.

In the caterpillar system, the rider immediately behind the leader stops when the leader turns off, and waits for the next rider who slides into his place as the first rider moves off again. This works well with groups which are riding on open roads where riders are riding at their own pace and can lose sight of the rider ahead. Why? Because everyone stays in the SAME ORDER. Each rider knows exactly who is ahead and behind. You’ll see why that’s important in a moment.

With the leapfrog system, the rider immediately behind the leader stops to mark the point where the leader has turned off, but this time that rider stays there and lets the entire group pass by, only moving on again when the tail end rider, sometimes called ‘the sweeper’, comes into view. Now, if no overtaking is allowed within the group, then the group order stays the same aside from this ‘front to back’ rotation. But many groups do allow overtaking. And then two problems arise. Unless it’s a small group and we know exactly who’s on the ride, we’ll probably not know everyone. And that means it’s possible a random rider can get into the group. It’s always possible that the next group rider won’t realise the interloper is not part of the ride, and will follow that random bike when it turns off. Riding with a buddy, that’s exactly what happened when I pulled out into what turned out to be the middle of a group ride. I turned off, stopped to wait for my buddy to appear, and whilst the front half of the group carried on on the main road, the back half thought I was marking a turn for them and turned off where I’d stopped. The second issue is that in my experience getting back to the front can become a competition for some riders, who end up constantly passing the slower riders. I’m not a great fan of this method as it results in dodgy overtakes and scary moments for slower riders as they are passed by the quicker guys.

Worst case scenarios: what can go wrong? The obvious issues are the group splitting, crashes and breakdowns. What are your fallback plans to deal with each? Are you going to provide a route map? Does everyone have a contact number? Can you hear the phone and answer it? Have you got anyone with first aid training? Does anyone have a first aid kit? What about tools? Can you deal with a puncture?

Here’s another to think about. How do you deal with a disruptive rider? It’s worth thinking about because sooner or later, you will get someone who thinks a group ride is an excuse to pull wheelies down the village high street.

On the day

Don’t just set off. Hold a briefing at the beginning of the ride. Make it clear that rules will be operating. You may find that some people will leave at that point. Too bad. If they’re not happy to follow rules, then we don’t really want them along.

Whether you provide route maps and contingency meet points is up to you, but make sure everyone knows the lead and the last rider (the ‘sweeper’) in the group. Ideally, make it easy for everyone to see you. Don’t just wear a fluoro yellow hi-vis, as half the group will – try a different colour like blue or green. Maybe use a coloured headlight cover. There’s little to be gained from an introduction such as I saw on one group ride where we were all sitting in the cafe, drinking tea. “Bob will be sweeper, there’s Bob for those of you who don’t know him”. Bob duly stands up, in his pullover, waves and smiles all round. Yeah right, that’s going to make him very easy to spot when he has his gear on and is riding his unidentified bike.

Joining a ride?

You may be joining a ride, and possibly a bit nervous, so here are my tips for group participants. The main thing to remember is that it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of not looking any further ahead than the tail light of the rider in front and never checking your own mirrors.

1) Ride your OWN RIDE

Don’t ride in the wheeltracks of the bike in front! In the event of a sudden stop, you might not! On twistier roads where there’s only one line, sit well back. On wider and straighter roads, it’s possible to stagger alternately, one bike to one side and the next to the other, but it does require everyone to understand how it works. It’s particularly useful in town, as it makes the group shorter and more compact, thus taking up less room on the road, which helps prevent drivers turning into the middle of it.

Don’t follow the rider ahead either. Stay back and look past the bike in front. Get too close and it’s hard to look at anything other than the brake light. The bike you’re following speeds up, you speed up. That bike slows down, you slow down. The rider cocks up and you follow them straight off the road… it happens. If you find yourself struggling to do this, drop back until the rider ahead is out of sight and trust the marking system – if it works properly, there’s no need to worry about getting lost. That way, it’s possible to focus on your own lines, pick your own speeds, choose your own braking points and cornering lines. Most importantly you deal with hazards for yourself.

2) Ride at your OWN PACE

A major cause of group crashes is someone over-riding to try to keep up with the rider in front. Once you begin to stress over speed, you tense up, stop scanning ahead but fixate on the bike in front, and your riding will go ragged. Let them go. Similarly, if a rider behind catches you up, don’t try to speed up. You can move over on straights, but don’t make silly efforts to let them past, so hold your own line where necessary – it is up to the rider behind to overtake safely, not for you to make things easy. The moment things start to surprise you and scare you, slow down!

3) Don’t hassle other riders

So you’re quicker than the rider ahead and you’d like to pass. Hang back and wait for a safe overtaking opportunity. Don’t hassle slower or less experienced riders, because if they feel they’re being pressured, they’ll often either speed up and over-ride to avoid holding you up, or slow down and pull over in the daftest places. And if the rider ahead is trying to pass another bike or a car, wait your turn, however long it takes.

Whilst it’s important not to get sucked into a copy-cat mentality when riding in a group,

If you’re not happy with the group’s behaviour or simply not enjoying the route – that’s happened when I’ve joined an unknown group and the route consisted entirely of busy A roads – go home. Don’t just turn off but ride to the next group stop, and let the leader know you’re leaving.

And don’t show off. Easy enough.

 

Posted on

18. Staying awake

If anything, this article was another to pick up a riding issue well before it became better known. Drowsiness remains one of the most consistently underestimated risk factors in road safety, particularly among private motorists and motorcyclists, and we can fall asleep anywhere. Prof. Jim Horne’s research was at the time I reported hot off the press, but now there’s a deeper body of evidence backing up his work. The central premise — that sleepiness kills more people than drink-driving — is broadly consistent with the research base then and now, as modern studies continue to show that fatigue is strongly associated with serious and fatal collisions and still under-reported. Yet the cultural blind spot — acknowledging drink-driving risk but dismissing fatigue — is still very real.

02:00–06:00 remains the highest-risk window and the mid-afternoon dip is well established between 13:00–15:00. The observation that riders feel tired well before control degrades, underestimate how badly they are performing, and push on because “we’re nearly there”, is strongly supported by human-factors research. It’s a danger on group rides, and I have experienced it myself, because experienced riders — who often volunteer to lead — often underestimate how tired other riders are, and because nobody wants to be the rider to stop the group. The phenomenon of micro-sleeps remains one of the most misunderstood fatigue mechanisms, and the “long blink” warning is accurate. Caffeine can temporarily improve alertness, but it does not reverse sleep debt. One modern insight worth adding is that fatigue is cumulative and many riders start long journeys already impaired. It strengthens the “planning matters” argument, before the key is turned. We can fall asleep anywhere.

Staying Awake

This article was first written in the early 2000s, and was prompted by research by Professor Jim Horne of Loughborough University’s Sleep Research Centre. His findings indicated that more people are killed on UK roads due to sleepiness than through drinking and driving. Whilst we generally think of monotonous roads such as motorways are as the problem areas, because of the high speeds and serious consequences are often serious, we can fall asleep anywhere. Whilst bus, truck and coach drivers are strictly monitored, drivers and riders are particularly at risk because there are no rules which regulate the amount we can drive or ride. And as a group, motorcyclists seem to be blissfully unaware of the problems.

So why do we have problems staying awake? The obvious one is spending too long on the road at any one time. I discovered it was a particular issue in New Zealand, because towns are far apart and the roads are slow, but clearly if we’re riding from London to Edinburgh, that’s a long way and if we attempt it in one hit, we will get physically tired and sleepy.

Less obvious are the body’s natural biorhythms. We are programmed to fall asleep at certain times. Not surprisingly the highest risk time is between 2am and 6am, but fewer people are aware there is a similar period between 12am and 4pm, which is made worse if you have had a heavy meal or if you are an older driver. Shiftworkers are particularly at risk because their sleep patterns are disrupted.

So first and foremost, we should try to avoid the risk of getting sleepy in the first place. And that means planning a journey to avoid excessive daily mileages. We should also factor in breaks. At least fifteen minutes in every two hours is recommended, but regular longer breaks are a good idea, with a nap as needed when we start to feel sleepy. And avoid heavy meals during breaks and strong coffee or ‘energy’ drinks. The former divert blood to the digestive system away from the brain, and the latter only provide a very limited, short term lift.

So how do we know we’re at risk? We get some early warning. Simulator research shows a driver will often start to feel sleepy around forty minutes before the real problems occur, but typically we try to ride through this stage rather than pull over and take a break, frequently because we’re close to the end of our journey. At the same time, we don’t realise how badly we are riding, even though others often notice. Witnesses to accidents involving a dozing driver often report that the vehicle was being driven erratically before the accident occurred.

As soon as we realise we’re getting tired, we should stop as soon as it is safe. If you are on the motorway, don’t push on to the next service area, pull off at the next exit. Common ‘cures’ such as opening the windows / flipping up the visor, singing to ourselves or turning the stereo up loud don’t seem to work.

The next stage is something called ‘micro-sleep’, where we doze off for a second or two. Ever had that really disconcerting ‘long blink’ when you suddenly discover the truck ahead is no long three or four seconds away but right in front of the wheel? That’s a micro-sleep.

If we start to be concerned about keeping our eyes open, then stop IMMEDIATELY, even on the motorway. The hard shoulder is for emergency use and in my opinion this is an emergency. Although the police might not interpret it that way, if you get off the bike and kick the tyres or something, even a five minute stop should wake you up enough to get safely to the next exit, where you can leave and take a proper break.

It’s likely that tiredness-related problems are at the root of some seemingly-inexplicable group riding crashes. I know that I had a crash on one of my rides that was fatigue-related. The rider had started early because he’d had a long way to ride. I had tried to cover too many miles on the road and hadn’t factored in sufficient breaks. With around forty minutes to the end of the ride, he lost concentration on a bend and went off the road. He was unhurt but the bike was a write-off. So if you’re organising a ride, watch for signs. And if you’re in a group ride and YOU start to feel sleepy, stop the entire group rather than try to push on to avoid inconveniencing everyone else.

And finally, just in case you think you can’t fall asleep on a bike, you can! It happened to me years ago when I was a courier.

It was a hot summer’s day, around 3pm. I’d been riding since about 9am with just a couple of short breaks and had just passed the last exit before a 20 mile stretch of the M26/M25 where there is no exit, when I started to feel really sleepy. I knew I was riding badly, and then I experienced a micro-sleep. I suddenly found myself about five metres behind a truck.

But I carried on. I lifted the visor, started trying to sing myself away, and made the mistake of trying to push on to the next exit because of that rule about not stopping on the hard shoulder.

Bad move… five minutes later I found myself riding diagonally across the hard shoulder, heading for a grass embankment and with the left hand indicator on.

The weird thing was I could remember a little dream of seeing the exit ahead. This time I stopped, got off the bike and took my helmet off, walked around and jumped up and down for a few minutes before getting back on the bike and pulling off at the next exit. I found a stretch of grass beside the road, and had a kip for half an hour. That way, both rider and parcel made it to their destination, just a few minutes late.

I posted this story to a motorcycling group elsewhere. To my surprise, few people took the danger of drowsiness whilst riding at face value and hardly anyone considered it as a real (or even potential) problem.

A scary number came up with a “I get tired but I continue to ride/drive whilst singing/looking around/jumping up and down and that works for me” rationale. One very experienced rider claimed, he could tell non-dangerous tiredness from dangerous tiredness. Yeah, right.

The interesting thing is that the report highlighted that people do not see driving whilst tired as a high risk activity, and here was a group of experienced riders responding in exactly the way the report predicted.

My guess is that what’s happened is that they have driven or ridden many times whilst tired and got away with it. So they dismiss the dangers as negligible, despite solid evidence to the contrary. It’s the same “I can handle it” attitude that drink drivers habitually use to excuse their behaviour, right up to the day they fail to handle it. I guess we need a lot of educating before we believe the dangers of our behaviour.

Posted on

15. Getting it wrong is easy, learning from a mistake seems a lot harder

Motorcycle crashes aren’t random. They follow patterns that haven’t changed for decades, yet many riders continue to repeat the same mistakes and the persistent human factors behind motorcycle crashes are overconfidence, poor anticipation, and failure to learn. Modern studies in accident analysis still emphasise that cognitive biases, overconfidence, and misjudgment are major contributors to crashes. Encouraging riders to ask “what could go wrong” and analyse their own role in crashes is a principle that should underpin all modern advanced rider training.

Getting it wrong is easy, learning from a mistake seems a lot harder

However good we are, we all make mistakes. Provided we survive them, then do we learn from them? It’s a good question and insurance industry statistics suggest that most riders don’t. Riders who have had an accident in the previous three years are three times more likely than average to have another accident in the following year – insurance companies do not load the premiums of riders who crash for no reason! And here’s something else to think about. We don’t have to learn from our own experience, we can look at where other riders crash, and historically we still have the same accident types as motorcyclists have always had. Here are the Big Three. Collisions at junctions. Crashes on corners. Overtaking accidents. Look at statistics from the 1950s and 2010s and you’ll find nothing has changed. What does that tell you? It should suggest we don’t learn well from experience – either our own, or someone else’s.

Have you had a ‘moment’ recently?

Have a think. Ask yourself some questions.

Did you see it coming, and if you did were you able to react in time and take avoiding action? If you couldn’t take evasive action, why not?

If you didn’t see it coming, what were you looking at? Did you fail to spot the clues to what was about to happen or did you fail to anticipate the likely sequence of events and consequences of what you were seeing?

We should know by now that the most common motorcycle crash is a collision between a bike and a car. But have a think on this. If the driver failed to spot the bike, the car was almost always where the rider could see it. Riders usually report that “the driver didn’t see me” and not that “I didn’t see the car”. In fact, they often say something along the lines of “the driver was looking right at me”. So the rider saw the vehicle they were about to collide with, no problem.

So what was going on in the rider’s head at that moment? Do they simply glance at the car, then leave it to the driver to sort it all out? That certainly seems to be the case in most car : bike collisions.

Here’s another example. A typical overtaking and filtering crash occurs when the driver turns right across the bike’s path. The rider’s cop-out is usually that “the driver should have checked his mirror properly” or “the driver didn’t signal before turning”. But think about it. If a car COULD turn right, why is the rider overtaking? Did the rider fail to spot the junction or driveway? Or did the rider simply assume that the driver wouldn’t turn?

If we haven’t anticipated a dangerous situation, then it’s our mistake as much as anyone else’s. And many bike crashes are down to the rider alone. Most cornering crashes and many overtakes that go wrong result from really poor decisions by the rider and the rider alone. Even when legally it’s the fault of another road user that we found ourselves in a difficult or dangerous situation, we should be looking for ways not to get into that situation in the first place. There’s no benefit to blaming the other road user from the stretcher.

If we don’t ride in a state of mind where we are looking for things to go wrong, then we WILL be caught out by unexpected – and very much routine – crashes. If we habitually say “it was the other guy’s fault” or “there was nothing I could do”, then we are fooling ourselves and will learn nothing. We need to assess our riding critically. Yet many riders find it almost impossible to admit to making a mistake. “The corner’s surface was rubbish”, or “the driver coming the other way was speeding”.

As I mentioned right at the beginning, we have the same crashes as we always have always had. Why haven’t we learned?

Posted on

12. Training for skills, pushing the envelope and margins for error, and over-confidence

The core principles discussed — balancing skills training with risk awareness, avoiding overconfidence, and recognising the limitations of both human ability and bike dynamics — remain absolutely relevant today. In fact, they’re arguably even more pertinent given the continued growth of powerful motorcycles, rider-assist technologies, and the wider availability of advanced track or skills training, which can unintentionally reinforce overconfidence. The key to reducing risk is not just honing our skills—it is understanding hazards, managing risk, and maintaining a margin for error. This article explores why true ‘better’ riding is as much about mindset and awareness as it is about technique.

Training for skills, pushing the envelope and margins for error, and over-confidence

Fundamentally, training in hazard awareness, risk assessment and risk management is the essential counterweight to balance training in riding skills. If we don’t get the balance right – or ignore the risk aspect altogether – then it’s easy to become overly confident, particularly as most of us (at least, right up to our first big crash) have false sense of indestructibility. Skills training, particularly when combined with inexperience, can lead to levels of confidence which take us into situations we cannot handle. It’s vital to recognise that this is a real issue. We should see training as a way to INCREASE our margins for error, and not an excuse to push our skills to the limit.

Let’s explain what I mean by asking a question. Why do we take training? The usual answers will be “to be a better or safer rider” or “to gain confidence”.

Let’s look at the ‘safer rider’ idea first. As I’ve said many times, there is no such thing as ‘safety’ on a motorcycle, and anyone who tells us that training makes us ‘safe’ riders is kidding us and themselves. Instead of safety, we need to think in terms of risk. In very simple terms, risk is:

the chance of something going wrong MULTIPLIED BY the impact on us when it goes wrong

So we really need a good grasp of what can go wrong!

That means understanding WHAT creates a threat to our health; that is, a ‘hazard’, WHERE we’ll find those hazards, and WHY the hazard creates a risk. Once we know that, we can assess the risk, and have a better understand how to manage that risk. It may sound the same but it creates a very different mindset when we start looking at riding in terms of “what can go wrong” rather than “what I’m doing makes me safe”.

And what about the concept of becoming a ‘better’ rider. What does ‘better’ actually mean?

For many training courses, it means that the trainee goes away with better ‘skills’. Skills tend to focus is on vehicle manoeuvring. This might be improved braking technique, better use of the throttle, the ability to swerve around an obstacle or techniques designed to improve cornering. This is particularly evident in track-based training and I often hear it suggested that new or less-confident riders to take a track-training day “to get used to handling the bike at higher speeds / greater lean angles / under harder braking”.

So the question we have to ask ourselves is “what does the trainee come away with?”

The answer is that whilst the trainee may have improved what were previously disfunctional skills, there is a risk they’ll come away from the session being able to use – and FEELING CONFIDENT TO USE – those higher speeds, greater lean angles and harder braking out on the road. It should be fairly obvious that there are potential problems here:

IMPROVING our own level of skill does NOT change bike dynamics. For example, our skill level does not change the level of grip between tyres and road. We may be more capable of braking harder or leaning more, but it also pushes us closer to the edge of the envelope.

EXPLOITING improved skills to ride faster, at greater lean angles or to brake harder DOES significantly changes bike dynamics. For example, we should know that if we double our speed, we QUADRUPLE our stopping distance. So even if we increase our speed by 25%, we increase our braking distance by more than might be obvious. More speed also increases the radius of a turn which means to get round a particular corner requires more lean angle, which makes it harder to brake or change direction, or even to respond to a slippery surface.

There’s a secondary effect. If we’re taught skills that allow us to perform more complex manoeuvres, then because they are more complex they nearly always have a higher risk of going wrong. For example, learning slow handling skills encourages riders try U-turns in confined areas where there’s a greater risk the manoeuvre will go wrong.

And finally, there’s no guarantee that we’ll use any of these added skills in an emergency. That’s something Keith Code noted years ago in his ‘Twist of the Wrist’ books. He realised that even highly-trained riders revert to instinct and panic because their training leads them to expect things to go right. When they go wrong, SURPRISE! kicks in, and they suffer from what he called ‘survival reactions’ – typically, panic reactions, freezing and target fixation.

So what I’m getting at is that there’s another kind of ‘better’ and that’s an improved understanding of what can go wrong, a heightened awareness of risk, and an ability to make better decisions when confronted with a threat.

Here is a very simple example. What’s the most common crash involving a rider in an urban area? You probably guessed, it’s the ‘Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You’ SMIDSY collision.

So first of all we need an understanding that driver can fail to see a motorcycle even when it seems to the rider that the bike is perfectly visible. (If you want to find out more about that, check out my work on the Science Of Being Seen or SOBS for short at http://scienceofbeingseen.wordpress.com.) ONLY when we have THAT understanding, do we have an awareness that there is a genuine risk that we may not be seen.

Then when we have achieved that, we can put BOTH parts – better skills and better awareness of what goes wrong – together. Stategies can be put in place to manage the risk, including our skills-based training – slowing down, changing position to improve lines of sight, sounding the horn, being prepared to take evasive action by emergency braking and / or swerving.

So here’s the Survival Skills approach to advanced motorcycle training. Rather than push closer to the ‘edge of the envelope’, let’s increase our ‘margin for error’. Instead of using our ability to brake harder to carry more speed, let’s use our awareness of the risks of riding to exploit those skills to stop in shorter distances in emergencies. Instead of using our ability to lean over further to increase our cornering speed, let’s understand what can go wrong in a corner to hold it at the same angle in case the corner tightens – so we have ‘BANK in the BANK’, to quote one of the Nosurprise.org ‘Rhyming Reminders’. Instead of trying to perform a U-turn in a confined space, understand that making life complex increases the risks of things going wrong, so look for somewhere easier or perform a three-point turn instead.

Posted on

06. Where riders crash – dispelling some myths

LATEST UPDATE JANUARY 2025

SUMMARY

Updating this article with the latest UK motorcycle crash statistics show that the fundamental patterns of motorcycle collisions have remained consistent over the past two decades — even as total numbers have moved mostly down. These figures come from the 2023–2024 “Reported Road Casualties Great Britain” factsheets published by the Department for Transport (DfT), which are the latest comprehensive government data available.

Overall Casualty Numbers (Trend vs 1998)

Then (1998):

  • ~24,969 injury accidents involving motorcycles

  • 498 rider deaths

  • 5,944 serious injuries

  • 18,168 slight injuries

Now (2024):

  • 340 motorcyclists killed in reported collisions

  • 5,468 seriously injured (adjusted)

  • 10,152 slightly injured (adjusted)

  • On average (2020–2024) about 6 riders are killed and 101 seriously injured per week in GB reported road casualty data.

Interpretation:
While the exact numbers have shifted due to changes in traffic levels, exposure, reporting and other factors, the pattern remains: motorcycles are still involved in disproportionately high numbers of serious and fatal collisions relative to their traffic share (under 1% of traffic).

Collision Type: Rural vs Junctions

Junction Incidence (2019–2023):

  • A majority of motorcycle fatalities (≈59–63%) occur not at or within 20m of a junction.

  • Only around 27–32% of fatalities occur at T/Y or other junction types.

  • Junction collisions remain a noticeable but not dominant proportion.

  • Majority of fatalities are not at junctions; many occur on rural roads.

Rural Roads:

  • ~69% of motorcycle fatalities occur on rural roads (where speed and cornering challenges are greater), even though rural traffic is a much smaller proportion of total vehicle miles travelled.

Interpretation:
This echoes my original point that high-speed rural road accidents and loss-of-control incidents continue to be very significant, rather than urban/driver-at-junction scenarios being the overwhelming cause.

Involvement of Other Vehicles

Recent breakdown (2019–2024):

  • A significant portion of fatalities still involves other traffic—fatal accidents involving two vehicles including a car ≈38%

  • These include overtaking crashes, not just collisions at junctions.

  • Many fatalities occur without any other vehicle involved, underscoring the role of single-vehicle incidents.

Interpretation:
This supports the earlier narrative that not all crashes are “car vs bike”, and that single-vehicle crashes are a significant part of the overall picture. While total fatal and serious injury numbers have decreased compared to the late 1990s, the distribution of crash types is little changed.

Back to the Future: the original article

Starting work as a courier in late 70s London made me very aware of the consequences of crashing – after all, if I couldn’t ride, I couldn’t eat. So not only did I do my very best to avoid crashing out on the roads, I also researched the topic as I tried to find out as much as possible about where, how and why motorcycle riders crash. The result was that I survived sixteen years and around half a million miles as a courier. Not surprisingly, once I became a motorcycle trainer, it became a self-appointed goal to educate other riders about why we crash.

Naturally, avoiding crashing has been a feature of my Survival Skills advanced rider training courses but I’ve also been writing on the topic for well over twenty years. My very first column for the Motorcycle Action Group’s magazine back in 2002 addressed crashing, but unfortunately it seems the topic needs revisiting on a regular basis.

Let’s start with a fact. There are a lot of urban collisions between bikes and cars. In 2019, just before re-publishing this article, MAG launched a new safety intiative online and one of the very first comments was along the lines of “it’s time we stopped drivers killing bikers”. It’s an attractive belief – after all, we hear a lot about bikes colliding with cars and now we have YouTube as an easy means of posting up the ‘evidence’.

Unfortunately, it’s largely a myth. Whilst there are fatal collisions at junctions, the fact is that far more riders kill themselves running wide in corners or through a badly-judged overtake.

But so is the idea that it’s power which is the problem. Here’s the text of an article that went up on my website in the early 2000s as I researched my first MAG articles in response to threats of a power restriction on bikes.

Since then, I’ve kept an eye on each new report or study into motorcycle crashes. And here’s the bad news. If you care to dig out the latest stats on motorcycle accidents, you’ll find nothing’s changed. We’re still having the same crashes in the same places. Some elements have changed since I wrote the article below – the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ on power went out of the window – but the essential analysis of crashes is still entirely relevant two decades on.

Power Output

If you are a member of either the BMF or MAG, or just interested in motorcycle politics, you’ll know that the EC and various member governments have had serious concerns about power and motorcycle accidents.

Motorcycle manufacturers are slowly waking up to the fact that there has been a change of approach by road safety campaigners, and that vehicles capable of such high speeds are being targeted as socially unacceptable, and possible solutions include compulsory bhp limits and speed restrictors.

Limiting speed of traffic has been on the agenda in the UK for months, and Dutch and German governments have shown concern over recent high performance models. Euro-wide plans for a power limit have been around in one form or another for ten years. Some countries have had power restrictions in place for years. Since 1984 French bikes have been restricted to 98 bhp and Swiss riders have to make do with 85 bhp.

A 125 bhp “gentleman’s agreement” in the UK was scuppered, ironically enough, by Triumph when they released their 143 bhp Daytona 1200, and since then the power race has been on, and speeds have climbed to match, to the point where the Hayabusa and ZX12-R are nudging the 200 mph barrier. The result of concerns in the UK is that the Big Four Japanese manufacturers have put in place a voluntary speed limit of 186mph on their most powerful models.

Power limits are generally justified on the grounds that power equates directly to speed, and that speed causes accidents. The mid 90s Martin Bangemann-inspired 100 hp limit was only ditched by the EC when the research on which it was based was shown to be flawed. More recently a Dutch safety study into motorcycle accidents found no link between accidents and bikes of 100 hp or more and clearly showed that power is not an issue in motorcycle accidents. The study, which was carried out by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, included a survey of existing reports, as well as evidence from the Dutch police.

Existing reports clearly showed that the major factors in accident risk were not engine power, but the motorcyclists themselves

age
experience
attitude
alcohol

and the accident circumstances

type and condition of the road
location
weather etc.

Evidence from the Dutch police accident investigators showed that high speed and taking risks was also a significant factor :

losing control on a bend
other road users wrongly estimating speed
reckless riding

Even there though, there was no evidence that more than 100bhp was being used at the time.

Accident Statistics

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) figures published in February 1999 show that in 1998 there were:

24,969 Injury Accidents Involving Motorcycles
498 Motorcyclist Deaths
5,944 Serious Injuries
18,168 Slight Injuries

Motorcycle riders and passengers accounted for 15% of those killed or seriously injured in 1998, but powered two wheeler traffic represented less than 1% of all road traffic.

There were 17,422 two vehicle accidents involving motorcycles in 1998 and 5,529 single vehicle accidents. Of the single vehicle accidents, 1,446 involved one or more pedestrians; in these accidents there were 1,490 pedestrians hit, of whom 29 were killed and 344 seriously injured.

On built-up roads, over three quarters of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and almost a half at T or Y junctions. By comparison, on non built-up roads, less than a half of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and just under a fifth at T or Y junctions.

The motorcyclist casualty rate was higher on built-up than non built-up roads. Less than half of motorcycle traffic was on built-up roads, which accounted for 72% of casualties. The lowest casualty rate was on motorways. However, the proportion of accidents involving serious injury was higher on non-built up roads and motorways, reflecting the higher speeds on these roads.

London had the highest rate of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured in road accidents but was only slightly higher than that for Scotland as a whole, but twice that of the South West region which had the lowest rate. London had the highest rate and the North East had the lowest rate for all severities of casualty.

Per registered motorcycle, Great Britain had a high death rate in comparison with other countries. Ireland had the highest and Japan the lowest. Britain’s death rate of 6.8 per 10,000 licensed motorcycles is about eight times that of the Czech Republic, with the lowest rate.

When accidents occur

The average daily casualty count was higher during the week than at the weekend, with Fridays having the most casualties in 1998. However, the proportion of casualties killed or seriously injured was higher at the weekend, at 32% compared with 24% during the week.

There is a marked difference between the proportion of motorcyclist casualties injured during summer and winter, whilst there is much less seasonal variation in all road user casualties. The highest percentage of casualties occurred in August for motorcyclists and in November for all road users.

Who causes accidents?

Riders have long taken (cold) comfort in the findings of the Booth Report (1987) which, looking at accidents in urban areas, concluded that car drivers were at fault in two thirds of accidents involving motorcycles. Equally, high casualty rates amongst the under 25’s were often put down to youth and lack of experience.

The DETR figures show that accidents involving a motorcycle and another vehicle still account for 2/3rds of all motorcycle accidents. However, they also show that single vehicle accidents with no pedestrians or other road users involved accounted for 18% of all motorcycle accidents resulting in injury. This compares with 14% for cars and 7% for goods vehicles.

However, an in-depth analysis of accidents in Cheshire between 1 April 1998 and 31 October 1998 reported in Street Biker (Feb-Mar 2000), the MAG newspaper. John Moss MBE, Chief Road Safety Officer for Cheshire (and MAG member) revealed that fully 67% of all the crashes studied were due to rider error and that the traditional view that most motorcycle accidents are down to blind Volvo drivers is badly flawed.

Let’s look at the bald statistics:

lost control on right hand bend - 16.7%
lost control on left hand bend - 13.7%
right turning vehicle hit by overtaking motorcycle - 12.7%
motorcycle hit by emerging vehicle at junction - 9.8%
motorcycle collides with rear of stationary vehicle at junction - 7.8%
fell off - 6.9%
collisions on roundabouts - 6.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on l/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 5.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on r/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 3.9%
motorcycle collides with vehicle turning right across its path - 7.8%
stationary motorcycle hit from behind - 5.9%
others - 2.0%

Sports bikes were involved in 43% of these accidents and the 26-40 age group in an overwhelming 55.3%. The supposedly high risk group of under 25’s accounted for 23.6%. Not unexpectedly in a survey area which includes the infamous “Cat & Fiddle” over 50% of riders lived outside the survey area.

How can we interpret these figures?

The fact that London dominates the casualty list is hardly surprising. The population of London is something like 6 million, around 10% of the entire population of the UK. In addition, several million drivers and riders more commute into and out of London. Traffic density is high over a very large area. What is rather more of a surprise is that Scotland was only slightly lower. What is not clear is whether the casualties are concentrated in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas or whether rural accidents make a significant contribution.

Neither is it surprising that over three quarter of motorcycle accidents and just under three quarters of injuries occurred at junctions. If you hit a car, even at twenty miles per hour speed you are likely to be injured.

What is not so clear until you look at the figures more closely is that the DETR figures show that accidents out of town occur at higher speeds and result in more serious injury, even though the figures for in-town accidents appear to dominate the statistics. The problem is one of interpretation. Lumping together serious and fatal injuries is misleading and many serious injuries are not necessarily life threatening. As I understand it a broken finger requiring medical treatment would be considered a serious injury and relatively minor injuries of this kind are much more likely to occur when you ride a bike and are involved in a minor accident than if you drive a car.

The way the figures for serious injury and fatalities are taken together tends to disguise the consequences of rural accidents. Earlier statistics from 1994 show that 50% of all fatalities occur out of town.

Although single vehicle accidents account for slightly less than 1/5th of all motorcycle accidents according to DETR figures, these accidents usually occur outside town and at higher speeds and lead to more serious injury. This is borne out by the higher proportion of serious injuries and fatalities occurring at weekends and in the middle of the summer, which implicates recreational riders rather than workday commuters.

So who is at fault for rural accidents? A common factor between Californian, Dutch and UK research into motorcycle accidents is that many could have been avoided it the motorcyclist had the rider shown more awareness of potential danger, been more visible or had been capable of braking, steering or cornering properly. Alcohol, experience, attitude, high speed and risk taking were other contributory factors, as were the type and state of the road and weather conditions.

The Dutch study in particular showed that losing control in bends was a significant factor. The Cheshire figures show that accidents involving misjudging bends make up 40% of accidents in rural areas. The fatality rate for these kind of accidents is high. This was made clear in our local IAM magazine a couple of years ago when a serving police officer revealed that out of twelve riders killed in Kent in a year, eleven lost control on bends. The Dutch study also found that many of the accidents investigated would have been less serious, or avoided altogether, if the rider had been able to make an emergency stop.

Other more recent statistics than the DETR report showed that there has been a shift in location of accidents from urban to rural environments and that the peak age for accidents has moved away from young to “born again” riders.

The Cheshire report should shake the traditionally-held view that bikers are usually the innocent victims of car drivers, which the DETR figures appear at first glance to support, or that only young riders are at risk. The reduction in accident rates amongst youngsters resulting from Compulsory Basic Training is well documented, and these figures highlight that the 25-40 age group of riders who largely predate the widespread emergence of training schools and would have been mostly self-taught are very much at risk too.

Mr. Moss goes on to consider what conclusions can be drawn from the research. He says:

“Consideration of the various factors relating to rural motorcycle crashes leads unerringly to the conclusion that riders are failing to ride their machines within their personal capabilities even though the bike itself may have been well within its performance envelope at the time of the crash. The vast majority of the “bend” crashes had clues which indicated that the riders had either braked or shut their throttles mid-bend, resulting in understeer crashes. In the crashes where right turning vehicles were hit by overtaking motorcyclists, it seemed that the rider should have foreseen the likelihood of the turning movement e.g. garage forecourt, side road etc..”

Look at the figures. 20.5% of the accidents, the total of bikes hitting cars turning right or hitting them from behind, can be largely attributed to poor observation and anticipation, probably made worse by excess speed, and in my opinion this is not entirely unexpected.

However, the fact that 40.2% of the accidents occurred when riders either lost control in, or ran wide in bends is chilling and far worse than I thought. Bend-swinging is so fundamental to our enjoyment of the sport that we take it for granted. Now it seems that we have to think again. As well as a lack of the observation and judgement skills we need to ride safely, it also betrays that most riders lack a fundamental lack of understanding of the way a motorcycle steers and behaves in a corner.

Mr. Moss recognises that whilst police enforcement of existing traffic laws is important in restricting the activities of a “lunatic fringe” of riders who flout deliberately regulations, it cannot by itself tackle the underlying problem of lack of skill, and cites the North Yorkshire BikeSafe 2000 initiative as kind of mix of enforcement, education and encouragement that police forces across the country should be pursuing. However, he rightly points out that it places heavy demand on police manpower so that its impact is not as widespread as would be desirable, and indicated that some forces have declined to join the scheme as they “do not have a problem”, even though their riders may be crashing on another county’s roads.

He goes on to say “there is a countywide need to equip riders with the skills needed for them to avoid or minimise crashes caused by their shortcomings in machine control, otherwise increased machine sales will be reflected in a parallel increase in casualties” and points out the valuable role that the IAM, RoSPA and commercial advanced riding schools have to play in rider training.

Conclusion

So, research shows that claims that power causes accidents is flawed. But so is the traditional motorcyclist’s view that it is blind Volvo drivers that kill motorcyclists.

Riding experts like the IAM agree that speed and power alone don’t kill. Speed in the wrong place, speed without judgement, speed without skill can and does.

The evidence also pinpoints the sad fact that a lot of us can’t manage to negotiate corners without falling off or hitting oncoming vehicles, and when we get it wrong, the result is often very bad indeed. The message John Moss is giving is that it is down to us as riders to put our house in order. As a member of MAG, he can hardly be classed as a killjoy or a scaremongerer. “Get trained and improve your riding skills” he says. With the proper skills you can have fun, but be safe at the same time.