MotoSKILLS from Survival Skills

86. Rear‑First Braking: Does It Work, and Should You Use It?

admin — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:33:23 +0000

Rear‑First Braking: Does It Work, and Should You Use It?

Some years back, the idea that riders should begin an emergency stop with the rear brake first, then add the front a moment later surfaced. Advocates claim it “settles the bike,” “loads the rear,” or “balances weight distribution” before the front brake comes in. That’s a reversal of the standard front brake first, rear brake added a moment later approach that is taught by training schools across the world.

Both methods aim to manage weight transfer and maximise available grip, but the argument in favour of the ‘rear first’ approach is that when the rear brake is applied first, the initial deceleration is relatively low. it allows the rear brake to do a little more to slow the machine in the fraction of a second before weight transfer reduces rear tyre grip.

The key principle is that weight transfer is governed by deceleration, not by which brake is applied first. When the motorcycle slows, inertia shifts load forward. This increases the vertical load on the front tyre and reduces it on the rear. The amount of load transfer depends partly on the position of the combined Centre of Mass (cCoM) of bike and rider, and partly on the rate of deceleration. This load transfer does not depend on whether the rider begins with the rear brake or the front brake.

The theory behind the ‘rear first’ approach is that by applying the rear brake before the front, weight transfer occurs more slowly. During this brief state, before the full load comes on the front tyre, the rear tyre retains more grip than it will have once full braking force is applied and a skilful rider can exploit this to stop in a slightly shorter distance.

However, this is a temporary effect. As soon as the rider increases braking force, weight shifts forward regardless of the sequence, and at the same times as the front tyre’s grip increases, the rear tyre’s available grip reduces accordingly.

In theory, the tiny window available for firm use of the rear brake should result in slightly-shorter stopping distances. In reality, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of independent research into just how riders actually perform in real life when using the ‘rear first’ method. The belief that it delivers shorter stopping distances seems to be based on a single study, the research carried out in the early 2000s in Montreal in Canada by the Promocycle Foundation at the request of the Federation Motorcycliste de Quebec.

The full study seems to have vanished from the interweb, and my downloaded copy vanished with a failed hard drive more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, that means I can’t show you the raw results (rather than the averaged-out and summarised conclusions. What I recall was the difficulty the participants found in attempting to make the ‘rear first’ stops consistent. The best ‘rear first’ stops were slightly shorter than the best ‘front first’ results, but whereas almost all the ‘front first’ stops were reasonably-tightly clustered, when all the ‘rear first’ results were graphed, there was a considerable spread between best and worst, with no tight clustering. If I find it again, I’ll make sure to download it again, and upload the relevant section.

The Coordination Problem

Rear‑first braking requires the rider to perform two opposing actions at the same time:

- - squeeze with the right hand to increase pressure on the front brake
  - releasewith the right foot to decrease pressure on the rear brake

This is mechanically awkward because the two controls demand opposite motor patterns. Under controlled conditions and with practice this is possible, but under time pressure it becomes unreliable. My understanding is that human‑factors research suggests when there is real time pressure on us, when we are startled or stressed, coordinating complex muscle movements is one of the first things to break down.

In practice, this leads to two common failure modes:

- - The rider keeps too much rear brake on as the front loads, causing the rear to lock as weight transfers forward.
  - The rider delays application of the front brake because they are still modulating the rear, increasing stopping distance.

Neither outcome improves performance, and both reduce consistency.

The alternative — front first, rear second

The alternative is a progressive front‑first application followed by the rear brake a moment later. Rolling off the throttle begins weight transfer immediately. A smooth initial squeeze on the front brake builds the load on the front tyre gains load, its contact patch grows and its available grip increases. The rider can then build braking force up to the tyre’s limit or to the point where the rear wheel is leaving the ground. Adding the rear brake once the bike is stable can contribute a small additional amount of deceleration, but the front brake remains the primary tool. Even if the stops were slightly longer than the ‘rear first’ method, the riders stopped in a short distance more reliably.

I’d also point out that when under stress, riders tend to revert to their most practised sequence. The ‘front first’ technique is taught to riders in their earliest lessons. In the UK, the emergency stop is taught as part of the Compulsory Basic Training (CBT) course and performing a controlled stop is one of the exercises in the Module One part of the motorcycle test. Motorcycle trainers spend considerable time working with novice riders to ensure they can perform consistent stops. Changing to a rear‑first approach needs to reverse that learning and as the wide scatter of results showed, that’s harder than it may seem.

It is also worth pointing out that this research study was performed in controlled conditions, not in the middle of a genuine emergency. When under stress from a genuine threat, human factors research would suggest that the the front‑first method is simpler, is easier to apply consistently, and is more likely to produce the necessary rapid and controlled stop.

Conclusions

For these reasons, I prefer — and teach — the ‘front first, rear second’ method for emergency braking. It loads the front tyre predictably and allows the rider to build maximum braking force simply, resulting in more predictable stopping distances. The rear‑first method is not unsafe, but it is mechanically less efficient and offers no performance advantage when stopping distance matters.

However, this is for emergency braking, which is very different from gentle, even firm, braking. In those scenarios we are not trying to stop the machine in the very shortest distance we can manage, and in certain cases — such as when braking for a bend or for a traffic signal — then the rear brake method is easy to use and since the bike tends to ‘squat’ when the rear brake is applied rather than pitch forwards when the front is used, it confers a sense of smoothness and stability. It’s a technique I use myself when carrying a passenger.

But in emergencies, simplicity matters. The front brake is your primary stopping tool. Use it early, use it progressively, and let the physics work for you.

85. How easy is instructing?

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:32:59 +0000

Much of the discussion around rider training focuses on what we teach — braking, steering, throttle control, positioning — and far less on how that teaching is delivered or questioned. In earlier articles, I’ve argued that riding skill is unlocked not by technique alone, but by understanding when, where and why those techniques should be applied. The same principle applies just as strongly to instructors. If training is to improve outcomes rather than simply tick boxes, we need to examine not only how riders learn, but how trainers themselves continue to develop, reflect and challenge established practice.

How easy is instructing?

Riding — and teaching riding — is arguably the most dangerous activity most of us will routinely undertake. And yet, all too often, training is delivered and received in a surprisingly blasé fashion. I’ve already touched on the dangers of rote learning at basic level, but the problem doesn’t stop there. Even at advanced level, relatively few trainees are actively encouraged to question what they are being taught. Post-test skills are commonly delivered — and accepted — on trust.

That is not, in itself, a criticism of instructors’ enthusiasm or commitment. Most instructors care deeply about their trainees and take pride in their role. However, comparatively few spend much time reflecting on what they might learn in order to become better trainers. There are, of course, notable exceptions. I have worked alongside some excellent instructors who had clearly gone well beyond the minimum, and others who were actively trying to improve. Organisations such as the IAM have also recognised this and put systems in place to raise observer standards.

At basic training level, however, the picture is less encouraging. I have long been surprised that many CBT schools invest so little time and effort in developing their instructors once they are qualified. Even allowing for the commercial realities — the pressure to move candidates efficiently from CBT to test — better training would pay dividends, not least in reduced retests, fewer problems downstream, and safer, more confident riders. One frequently cited concern is that a well-developed instructor will “jump ship” and set up their own school. That may happen occasionally, but it is a poor justification for accepting stagnation as the norm.

Part of the problem is structural. Ours is a largely solitary profession. Once past the initial training stage, even in larger schools, instructors rarely observe one another teaching. There is little cross-fertilisation of ideas, limited challenge, and few incentives to reflect critically on established practice. The results are easy to spot: instructors still insisting that trainees look over their shoulder before signalling — a habit the DSA dropped back in 1997 with the introduction of Direct Access — or basic trainers still following long-defunct CSM manuals, often third- or fourth-hand copies of material from an organisation that ceased trading in the early 2000s.

Another factor may lie in the DVSA’s own approach to check tests. For many basic trainers, these are viewed with genuine trepidation. The reason is simple: check tests are almost always experienced as critical rather than developmental. Innovation is rarely encouraged, and deviation from a narrow interpretation of “the approved way” is often discouraged. Faced with that, it is hardly surprising that instructors play safe, stick rigidly to familiar routines, and avoid experimentation or reflective practice.

Finally, there is a cultural issue. Motorcycling has always traded heavily on ideas of freedom and independence, and that can sit uneasily alongside professionalism in training. Riders’ rights groups have often opposed further training requirements as restrictive or unnecessary. Against that backdrop, it can be difficult to persuade riders that better training brings genuine benefits. And yet the evidence is there: the introduction of structured basic training, and particularly Direct Access, has significantly broadened the appeal of motorcycling — not least by encouraging far more women to take it up.

If training is to move forward, we need to accept an uncomfortable truth. Teaching riding is not just about transferring techniques. It is about developing judgement, decision-making and understanding — in trainees and instructors alike. Without a culture that values questioning, reflection and continuous improvement, training risks becoming little more than a production line, delivering certificates rather than competence.

If there is a single thread running through all of this, it is that good training is never static. Riding is a complex, high-risk activity carried out in an unpredictable environment, and it demands more than the mechanical repetition of drills. The same is true of teaching it. An instructor who simply delivers a syllabus without questioning its purpose, relevance or application is no better placed than a rider who can operate the controls but does not understand the risks they are managing.

Professionalism in rider training should not be seen as restrictive, bureaucratic or contrary to the spirit of motorcycling. On the contrary, it is what allows riders greater freedom — freedom from fear, from uncertainty, and from avoidable mistakes. Encouraging instructors to reflect, to learn from one another, and to keep their knowledge current is not an optional extra; it is a safety intervention.

Ultimately, better-trained instructors create better-thinking riders. And better-thinking riders are not just more skilful — they are better equipped to survive in the real world, where judgment matters far more than any single technique ever could.

84. ‘All dressed up’ – coping with loose chippings

admin — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:15:29 +0000

This is based on an article I wrote for the old ‘Survival Skills’ forum on a now-defunct bike forum back in 2007. Having looked over the text (which has had a mild rewrite for clarity) nothing I wrote two decades ago has changed; at least, not the advice about dealing with the freshly-load surface itself. However, what has changed, and changed significantly, is that we now have solid research evidence showing that chip seal isn’t merely an unpredictable low-speed stability problem — once fully cemented in place and when riding speeds are back to normal, it’s exceptionally destructive to rider clothing once things go wrong. It’s one of the harshest abrasion environments we’ll meet on public roads. That makes clothing choice for open-road riding to the fore. The danger is that riders who accept lighter kit because it’s “fine for ordinary road speeds” may be making assumptions that surface-dressed chip seal roads directly undermine. This shifts surface dressing and chip seal from being “a handling problem” to being “a personal protection problem” too, and that’s something all riders ought to be aware of.

‘All dressed up’ – coping with loose chippings

One worry that new riders have (and I guess a few more experienced ones too) is how to treat roads which have been ‘surface dressed’; this is the low cost repair where a new layer of chippings is simply spread on top of a layer of sticky resin sprayed on the old surface. The road is then re-opened with a temporary low speed limit and relies on the passage of vehicles to ‘roll’ the loose chips into the resin binder to form a permanent bond and create a durable surface. Eventually, a sweeper comes out and hoovers up the remaining loose chips. This surface is quite common on quieter UK roads. In France and the US, I’ve found surfaces treated this way to stretch for miles at a time, and is widely used in Australia and New Zealand where it’s known as ‘chip seal’. The locals cope, so we can too.

Most concerns focus on the loose chippings themselves, and on how each lane of traffic quickly becomes a pair of relatively clear wheel tracks with a ridge of loose stone between them, as well as another ridge along the centre line, and one more at the edge of the carriageway.

Generally speaking, riding in a wheel track makes sense since it’s usually the cleanest line and offers the most predictable grip. I’d normally pick the offside wheel track since it keeps us well clear of unexpected hazards on the nearside, and I wouldn’t attempt swapping lines on twisty road. On narrow roads where oncoming traffic could get close, I’d likely chose the nearside track though.

Either way, it avoids riding directly on the deeper ridges of loose stones, and it’s rarely as dramatic as people fear. Provided we avoid hard braking, excessive lean angles or handfuls of throttle, then we can treat the gravel in the wheel tracks much like any other low-grip surface..

If we genuinely have to ride though the deeper, loose material — maybe the road has only just been reopened to traffic — it’s still perfectly possible to ride through it. Counter-intuitively, trying to crawl along at walking pace can make the bike feel less rather than more stable. A modest, steady speed creates momentum and that helps stability. The bike may squirm slightly beneath us, but that movement is normal and self-correcting. The trick is to use the ‘brace position’ — the posture where we keep our upper body, shoulders, elbows and wrists loose to allow the bars to move around but lock onto the bike with the knees on the tank. This is the key — to stay relaxed and let the bike move under us. But keep good gaps and get braking done early and in a straight line. There’s often more grip available on loose chippings than riders expect, but sudden inputs overwhelm it quickly. Keep cornering lean angles modest, maintain a neutral or gently positive throttle, and wait until the bike is upright before accelerating.

If we need to cross a ridge of loose stones, do it deliberately. My tip here is to turn the bike as much as possible so as to cross the ridge as close to a right-angle and as upright as possible. It should go without saying, we should avoid braking or accelerating while in the deeper deposit.

Other hazards worth watching for include:

- Piles of chippings mid-corner or at junctions, where traffic sweeps them sideways, and at downhill stops where stones fall from car wheel arches. Brake early and positively, then ease to a stop with minimal front brake pressure at walking pace.
- Hidden potholes, sunken repairs, and speed humps, which can disappear completely under fresh stone. Visual clues are reduced, so read the wider road environment carefully.
- Freshly laid high-friction surfaces (such as Shellgrip), which often shed loose aggregate initially. Treat them with caution until they’ve bedded in or been swept.

Finally, I’ve found that speed limits are often set unrealistically low and as a result they are widely ignored. If we ride too far below the prevailing speed, we’re simply inviting close overtakes and being sprayed with flying chippings. I’d recommend riding at something closer to the general flow, whilst leaving a generous gap to the vehicle ahead. That way we can avoid being pebble-dashed as we ride, and we’ll also have plenty of space to brake smoothly if we need to.

Surface dressing isn’t pleasant, but it isn’t a lottery either. With good observation, smooth inputs, and sensible decision-making, it’s just another surface — not a reason to tense up or tiptoe.

83. Using goals to defeat anxiety

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:00:44 +0000

The longer I’ve been involved in rider training, the more I have come to realise that a focus on the purely mechanical side of riding (the use of the brakes, the throttle, the gears, balance and steering etc) is more or less useless without a full understanding of how, where, when and why those skills should be used. In short, mechanical skills determine what a rider can do but mental skills determine what a rider will do — and whether they do it at the right time, for the right reason, in the right place. This thinking aligns with the use of outcome, performance and process goals from sports psychology and contemporary thinking on workload management, stress and attentional control. We just need to make it mainstream in riding and driving.

Using goals to defeat anxiety

Some time ago, a rider came online and posted a tale of woe about his regular commute. It was, it seemed, all going horribly wrong. After a couple of years of relatively trouble-free riding, he been badly scared by some near misses in the past few weeks and was seriously thinking of giving up biking altogether as “too dangerous”.

OK, so let’s ask a question. Is riding really dangerous? Well, if we simply look at the comparative figures for different modes of transport then riding a motorcycle is around 30 to 40 times more likely to end in a fatal crash than if we drive a car over the same distance.

However, in terms of how likely we are on an individual basis to be killed, then the risk is actually pretty low. For the last few years, the annual number of fatalities has hovered between 300 and 350. Still too many but given there are anything between one and two million active powered two-wheeler riders, the risk’s not that extreme. A bit of perspective always helps when it comes to risk.

But even so, it’s a good idea to tilt the odds somewhat to our side, and we can do that in a number of ways. Once more, I’m going to dip into Sports Psychology by talking about outcome goals, performance goals and process goals.

Our overall ‘outcome goal’ represents the big picture and in this case it’s to get to work and to return home again. Our ‘performance goal’ is how we’re going to achieve that and we might say it’s to maintain situational awareness and an effective risk management strategy over the whole of the ride. But how do we reach our performance goal? How do we break our journey down into manageable, bite-sized chunks?

Think about a batsman in cricket. His outcome goal is probably to help his team post a big score, and his performance goal might be to make one hundred runs. But stood at the crease when the bowling is good and it’s hard to stay in, let alone score runs, that goal’s a long way off. It’s easy for it to see impossibly far off, rather like getting home safely seemed to the worried rider.

How would the batsman cope with the pressure. One way is to set PROCESS GOALS. These are the small steps via interim goals we take to move step-by-step towards our performance and outcome goals. The batsman might decide first of all to survive until the first bowling change which brings on a weaker bowler. Having achieved that, he might decide that he will aim to stay put for the first ten overs. And having made it that far he might start to aim to score ten runs as his next goal. Then another ten. Then ten more. (If I’d known about this technique myself, my-best ever batting score in quite a few years of playing cricket might have exceeded 19!)

So how can we transfer that to riding? Well, if we’re on a regular ride which is getting on top of us, we can break it down into sections. Reaching the first major junction. Getting out of the 30 limit. Reaching the motorway. Getting off the motorway again. Negotiating the rural roads to get home. Whatever represents your own journey.

The important points are that process goals are entirely under our control and they break down a task that might appear overwhelming when view in toto, into smaller and much more achievable chunks where we can focus on specific aspects of each task – maybe negotiating a busy cross roads, dealing with a known slippery corner, finding our way around a complex roundabout. At each stage, we mentally reboot for the next section of the journey.

Viewed one at a time as individual tasks, an overwhelming outcome goal suddenly seem much more achievable.

82. Input, Processing & Output – the necessary steps within a ‘system’

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 15:48:52 +0000

A riding system exists to support decision-making, and is worth nothing without that understanding. It’s also worth pointing out that IPSGA, the Police System, is heavily weighted toward outputs which can lead some misunderstandings about where the effort should be placed. This is another article which expanded out of my investigations into ‘Spidey Sense’.

Input, Processing & Output – the necessary steps within a ‘system’

Exactly what IS a ‘riding system’? How does it work, and what is it meant to achieve? Those are sound questions because only by answering them will a riding system be an effective tool.

In short, it helps us link our answer to the “What IF…?” question we asked about what we observed to “…then THIS” response that explains what we’re going to do about it. So a system consists of three sequential phases:

INPUT
PROCESSING
OUTPUT

That’s all a riding system is; to be able to use one is not the goal in itself, since a riding system – ANY system – is only there to help us enhance our situational awareness and make better and more reliable proactive decisions to the events developing around us.

If you think about that for a moment, you may already have spotted the weakness in the Police System – ‘Information Position Speed Gear Acceleration’. Position, speed, gear and acceleration are all outputs. The equally important components of the system, the INPUT and PROCESSING stages, are all compressed into ‘information’.

By structuring the system so that it culminates in Position, Speed, Gear and Acceleration, there’s a real risk users end up placing too much emphasis on the importance of those outputs, with a consequent under-emphasis on the importance of the input “gathering information” and processing stages, and that’s likely to result in a flawed result. In computer programming terms, “garbage in, garbage out”. Our riding plan may be worth nothing if our choice is based on incomplete inputs or faulty processing.

Moreover, with IPSGA implicitly biasing riders toward action — particularly visible or measurable action — it subtly presupposes that evaluation must result in a physical intervention. That’s not surprising since the original police ‘seven point’ system from the old Blue Book version of Motorcycle Roadcraft showed how to use it to make left and right turns. Indeed, my own belief is that IPSGA was primarily designed as an ASSESSMENT tool first and foremost, to allow instructors to check whether their trainees were doing what they were supposed to do.

The fact is, a physical intervention is not always the best — or even a necessary — outcome. Two important points:

First, doing nothing can be a deliberate, skilled output. Choosing to hold speed, maintain position, keep a neutral throttle and simply observe is not a failure of decision-making; it is often the result of good evaluation. In uncertain or ambiguous situations, the safest and most information-rich response may be to delay commitment, increase vigilance, and allow the situation to resolve itself. That is still execution — just not a mechanical one.

Second, evaluation is often about buying time, not spending it. Many hazards do not demand immediate control inputs. They demand attention, patience and monitoring. For example, a vehicle edging at a junction, a pedestrian near the kerb, or an oncoming driver whose intentions are unclear may all trigger a “Spidey Sense” response — but the correct execution may simply be “watch closely, cover the controls, and wait”. This aligns perfectly with the “What if…? Then this…!” model, where the “Then this…” can legitimately be “no change yet”.

It’s important to see that the output phase of any plan can be defined as any conscious decision, including:

holding a stable plan,

maintaining space and options,

or deliberately postponing action until more information is available.

Whether we follow IPSGA, SEE or any other system, it’s important to realise that the goal of a riding system is not always movement, but only ever an appropriate response — and sometimes the most appropriate response is simply to keep watching and let the picture develop.

The information stage of IPSGA is sometimes divided into three sub-stages which are ‘Take’, ‘Use’ and ‘Give’, with the information element ‘stretched’ over the PSGA outputs to imply that new information is available at all times, and that plans need to remain flexible. Structurally, it’s all become a bit of a mess.

That’s why I personally prefer and teach the US Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s SEARCH EVALUATE EXECUTE approach. The three stages match the input – processing – output structure of a system far more exactly, and they can be applied cyclically; we collect information, we consider it and form a plan, we go ahead and carry it out, and then we check the results to see if they are working or if the situation calls for a revised plan.

In particular, the EVALUATE stage matches the “What if…?” “Then this…!” question and answer I talked about in the last article. We use what we see (or hear or smell or even feel) to provide the input which the “What if…?” “Then this…!” routine then processes. Only when we have the “Then this…!” answer in our head can we actually make a decision about position, speed, gear and acceleration.

Finally, here’s something else to consider – if we’re more concerned with demonstrating that we know how to use a plan – by showing off our ‘position, speed, gear and acceleration’ – then the routine has become more important than outcome. Systems are there to serve us, not to control us.

81. Developing “What IF…?” “…then THIS!” routines

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:32:01 +0000

Seeing a potential hazard is only the first step. To ride safely, we must pre-plan our response and rehearse it until it becomes automatic. The brain works best when it recognises patterns and has a ready-made response, allowing split-second reactions without freezing or overthinking, and dramatically reducing the risk of panic-driven mistakes. It’s not enough to notice danger; we must know exactly what to do, and have practised doing it, particularly when under stress when decision-making speed slows and cognitive load spikes. This is supported by research into dual-task interference and real-time hazard response. Cognitive psychology research supports this principle: hazard perception without a prepared response has limited protective value. This threat-response model explains why experienced riders consistently outperform novices; it’s not because they “see more” but because they know what to do when they see it. However, while planning responses is essential, riders must retain flexibility. Hazards rarely present identically each time.

This is another article that developed from my original ‘Spidy Sense’ tip, as I investigated how we respond to hazards and was incorporated into my paperback MIND over MOTORCYCLE, which you can purchase at http://lulu.com/spotlight/SurvivalSkills.

Developing “What IF…?” “…then THIS!” routines

A fundamental part of the Survival Skills approach to riding is to develop an understanding of the risks of riding, and having a strategy to manage those risks. And an essential part of the approach is to have those strategies in mind when we detect a hazard. Here’s what I mean. Asking the “What if…?” question is a good start because we’re making some educated guesses about what will happen next.

But here’s the problem.

If we ask the “What if… the driver pulls out anyway?” question, we need to follow it up with an answer. Why? Because when things start to happen, it’s almost certainly too late to figure out the correct course of action. The situation changes very rapidly when we’re riding and we’ll almost certainly succumb to SURPRISE! and set off all the unwanted ‘Survival Reactions’ that Keith Code has talked about. We’ll freeze or we’ll panic. We need to know how we’re going to deal with the problem BEFORE we actually have to take emergency action.

I’ve talked about how we can apply sports psychology techniques to riding and this is another place they work. We need something akin to a ‘pre-shot routine’. A golf course, for example, is designed to set traps for the golfer. Bunkers are full of sand, greens slope, and the ball can vanish into water hazards and long grass. There are two ways to play hazards. We can try to get out of trouble after things go wrong. Or we can make pro-active compromises to the ideal shot that gives us the best chance of avoiding the obstacles.

That’s not too different from the road if we consider the road to be full of traps too. We too need a routine that applies a pro-active response to the next hazard once we’re aware of it. And here’s how. Asking the “What if…?” question is good, but we need to follow it with a statement about how we’ll then proceed; we extend the “What if…?” question to include a “Then this…!” answer.

Here’s a very simple example. We see a car waiting ahead of us, indicating and clearly ready to turn right into a side road on our nearside. “What if… the driver doesn’t see us and pulls across our path?”

It’s almost certainly too late to figure out the correct course of action if we wait until the car starts to move. Even if we have time (unlikely) we’ll almost certainly succumb to SURPRISE! and all the unwanted Survival Reactions that Keith Code has talked about. We need real answers in our heads, ready to apply to the problem BEFORE we actually have to take emergency action. Seeing a car about to turn across our path at a junction should trigger a veritable cascade of possible defensive responses – mirrors, reduction in speed, possibly a change of position, use of the lights and / or horn, preparing for a possible emergency stop, or getting ready for a swerve if we can see an escape route. Even, finally, if a collision is inevitable, Malcolm Palmer’s version of an ejector seat, the ‘jump’ routine.

Each and every one is a possible “Then this…!” response to the “What if… the car turns across me?” question. But none of them will be in the front of our minds unless we already understand that they are possible responses.

Here’s another example. Having seen a bend, “What if… it tightens up out of sight?” “Then this… we check mirrors because we may need to change speed or position, perhaps select a lower gear, ensure we don’t turn-in too early, and maybe even slow down mid-corner so we don’t run wide”. But if we’re to avoid a nasty SURPRISE! we have to be aware of our options and have them in our minds as we approach the corner.

In many cases the “What if…?” trigger event is a ‘visual cue’. We can use the colour and shape of road signs (which is why they are different shapes and colours), the presence or absence of vehicles in a junction or even the fact that we have a view or there’s a ‘vision blocker’ obscuring our line-of-sight. A hazard warning sign should trigger us to check mirrors and consider slowing down, whilst scanning harder for the specific hazard we’re being warned about. A vision blocker might prompt a change of speed and position, and readiness for an emergency stop.

Of course we can use other senses. “What if… we hear a siren?” “Then… start searching for the emergency vehicle!” What if… we smell diesel?” “Then… start scanning the surface for the tell-tale traces!” What if… we feel an unexpected vibration?” “Then… pull over and find out what’s wrong with the bike!”

The great thing about the “What if…?” “Then this…!” routine is that it IS a routine – and that means it is:

consistent

efficient

effective

easily repeated

Still struggling to see how extending the “What if…?” question with the “Then this…!” answer will benefit us?

How about the humble traffic light? We all know that red means stop, green means we can proceed if clear, but what about amber? It means we “should stop unless it would be dangerous to do so”. So how do we know if it would be dangerous or not? What dies dangerous mean in this context?

Well, it could mean being too close and / or too fast to brake without risking a locked wheel. Or it could mean that we’d put ourselves at risk from a following vehicle if we braked. So our third “What if…?” question is:

“What if… the lights change when we are right on top of them?” “Then we have to decide whether it’s safe to stop or safer to carry on!”

Generally speaking we don’t ride through red lights or stop at green lights unless we are completely distracted by another task. But even the best of us WILL cock-up when it changes to amber IF we haven’t already made a conscious assessment of the situation. How long has the light been green? Is it likely to change? How fast are we approaching, and how much space would we need to stop? What’s behind us?

If we haven’t asked those questions and got some answers, then getting the stop / go decision right is going to be guesswork.

80. Cue : Response – learning to link what we see to how we react

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:19:41 +0000

This article came about because of questions about the original ‘Spidy Sense’ tip that investigated how we respond to hazards. I realised that the use of visual cues is absolutely fundamental to developing ‘situational awareness’ (and an integral part of my Survival Skills advanced rider training courses), and my increasing understanding of how they work together with a pre-learned but subconscious response also came from deeper research that eventually became incorporated into my MIND over MOTORCYCLE book, my first foray into publishing [which you can purchase at http://lulu.com/spotlight/SurvivalSkills.]

The core message — that linking visual cues to pre-learned subconscious responses reduces cognitive load and improves hazard management — is essentially ‘pattern recognition + motor-program automation’ remains highly relevant. Modern cognitive science confirms automaticity frees conscious attention for higher-priority tasks. This is the principle behind much aircrew instruction. The discussion of mental overload, task shedding, and attention limits is aligned with current understanding of working memory and selective attention, and the examples of overload during complex overtakes and the benefits of automated responses to hazards accurately illustrate real-world application.

Cue : Response – learning to link what we see to how we react

In a previous tip, we looked at the concept of “Spidy Sense” and how riders develop an early warning system to danger – a vague sense that something isn’t quite right somewhere – and the roles played by the various parts of the brain in avoiding harm when riding. The problem is that the rider may not know what caused that sense of unease, and so won’t know what the correct response is. We looked how the Mid-brain filters incoming information and decides whether to route it for further processing in the real-time, thinking part of the brain – the Neo-cortex – or hand it over to the subconscious Reptilian brain, which deals with responses to the threat of harm by triggering our automatic panic ‘Fight or Flight’ modes which may result in our reacting in an unwanted response.

So it might seem that so long as our thinking brain is engaged, all will be well. After all, that’s the basic concept behind the idea that if we ‘concentrate properly’ (something that crops up over and over in road safety theory and advanced riding guides), we’ll be able to cope effectively with riding hazards.

But there are two major problems.

The first is one we should really know about – human attention span. We can only concentrate on anything for short periods because our brains get tired. Twenty minutes or less is that adult attention span before our brain needs to switch gear. That’s why learning to ride and drive is so utterly exhausting. Unless we stop every ten or fifteen minutes to recharge the brain, the concept of ‘100% concentration’ is a faulty one.

The second issue is something I covered in a previous article. There’s not just a finite limit to the number of tasks that the thinking brain can handle at any one moment, but there’s active competition for the ‘channels’ that the brain uses in real-time. Any riding activity that takes up a lot of mental processing power will mean that other tasks – potentially important ones – are shed to free up attention for the most important task. This is what Keith Code is getting at when he talks about $10-worth of concentration in his ‘Twist of the Wrist’ books. Read my ‘workload’ article for more on this.

Here’s an example of the workload problem. Overtaking is a complex task. We need to search the road ahead for blind areas and junctions, watch the mirrors for vehicles attempting to overtake us, calculate how long it will take us to pass the slower vehicle and return to our side of the road, and we have to spot oncoming vehicles and work out their speed and distance, and decide if the ‘time-to-collision’ calculation allows us time to complete the pass safely.

If we’re on a dead straight road, with bare ground to either side, in fine conditions with good visibility, then the only really complicated bit is making sure we don’t pull out into the path of a vehicle approaching at a higher speed than we expected.

But what if the overtake is tricky? What if we’re trying to overtake a queue of slow-moving traffic behind a tractor, on a twisty road on a wet day with rain trickling down our visor? Now the task is considerably more complex. Guess what? We reach mental overload and begin to shed tasks. The one that goes missing most frequently, by my observation of other riders and recognising my own errors, is checking the mirrors.

So if we’re already saturated with information, how can we train ourselves to NOT to lose sight of important tasks like this? How can we process MORE information?

Well, the answer is that it can be done – aircrew have to learn to take in and process lots of information, and so do police drivers. Even riding instructors have to learn to ride safely for themselves, whilst monitoring what the trainee and other drivers are doing, plus anticipating what might happen, have a plan to cope… and at the same time as all that, we have to communicate with the trainee too! Training other riders is a much more complex task than the average rider realises.

But if we can up our game, so can a ‘normal’ rider.

The key is to learn to automate some of the less-complex tasks. Some riders – particularly those schooled in the idea that we need to concentrate 100% as we ride – have a problem with this idea that we can process information below the level of the real-time, conscious part of the brain, but we all learn just that technique – we just don’t realise it.

For example, how do we deal with traffic lights? When we first started using the roads, we all have to use our real-time, conscious brain. We look to see:

if there is a traffic signal at a junction

check what colour it is

remember what to do next

With a bit of practice, more and more of the task becomes automated. We simply ‘see’ the lights, and our response to a green or a red light is automatic.

What we’ve done is to learn to recognise ‘visual cues’ – the presence of the traffic signal itself, and the colour of the light, although it’s worth pointing out that many experienced riders still make a real-time decision when the light turns amber! And this automated system can break down completely when we go to France (where the light sequence is different) or the US (where the lights aren’t where we’d expect to find them). I rode straight through the first red light I encountered in the US because I wasn’t expecting it to be strung from a wire high above the road.

Another, more complex, visual task is performed by using a combination of peripheral vision and unconscious steering adjustments to steer the bike accurately within the lane. Once we’re out of the novice stage we don’t have to think about it, we just keep the bike on the tarmac. That works right up to the moment when there’s a difficult decision to make – which side of a pothole to ride, for example. We suddenly find our real-time, thinking brain is fired up to make that decision, because our subconscious system steering the bike down the lane decides it’s not got a routine to deal with the pothole.

Now, here’s the clever bit. We can train our brain to handle some of the essential visual search tasks via this subconscious subsystem. Road signs, particularly the triangular red and white hazard warning signs, provide information about hazards which we need as we ride, but searching for them consciously takes up a lot of processing power. So we do a bit of programming of the subconscious brain. All we have to do is ride the bike, and slow down a bit – because that frees up some processing power – then actively SEARCH for road signs. As soon we give ourselves this little bit of extra time, the signs start leaping out of the hedges at us. Try this out, and in a very short period indeed you’ll find that you no longer have to search for them, they simply appear in your consciousness. This is a technique I apply in my Survival Skills advanced motorcycle training courses and my trainees are usually astonished just how many road signs there are that they’d previously failed to spot.

Now, this is a big step forward but we can go one better. We can tie this ‘visual cue’ to trigger a response. Here’s what I mean. If we see a triangular warning sign telling us that there’s a junction ahead on the nearside, what might be appropriate responses? I’d suggest that a movement out towards the centre line (if safe) would be a good one. Covering the brakes is likely to be a smart move too. And we might also hold off on any acceleration too.

Well, here’s the good news. It’s entirely possible to automate those responses too. All we have to do is start by applying them as a thought-out response to seeing a junction on the left, and very quickly our brains learn that this is an appropriate response to the visual cue.

And now we have built the cue : response link. We see a side turning, and we automatically change position, get ready to brake and ensure we’re not carrying more speed into the danger zone. And having automated those responses, not only do we defeat the SURPRISE! mechanism that’s liable to trip the unplanned and unwanted ‘Survival Reactions’ identified by Keith Code, our conscious real-time attention is freed up to search for vehicles, to see whether we have a line of sight to the driver, and judge whether or not the driver is likely to turn into our path or not…

…and check for following vehicles. It’s amazing just how often mirror checks go missing in times of stress.

Hazard warning signs are particularly effective visual cues because of their distinctive shape and colour. Once catalogued in the subconscious brain’s database of important things, they will start to jump out of the background at us.

Whilst many of the cues are visual, there are cues we can hear (horns, engine noise) and smell (diesel or freshly-mown grass).

Remember – link the cue to a response. Freshly-mown grass means there might be a hedge-trimming tractor just round the bend, so we might have to slow down suddenly – losing some speed NOW would be a very good idea, as would being ready to take prompt evasive action, whilst not forgetting a mirror check.

Other cues I consciously practice spotting include dropped kerbs, broken white lines at the side of the road, gaps in hedges, direction signs and finger posts, traffic islands and islolated lamp posts. I’m sure you can guess where you’re likely to spot all these and just how I’ve trained myself to respond.

Having seen a waiting car in the junction, what kind of visual cues might set off a more significant response? How about:

not being able to see the driver

not being about to see the driver’s head behind the A pillar

the driver looking the other way

sudden left / right movements of the driver’s head

one hand taking up a different position on the wheel

the car visibly beginning to move forward

Here’s some really good news. None of this is difficult, and we can learn it quickly, as people who’ve taken my Survival Skills advanced riding courses will testify – just a few minutes working on this cue : response technique will show improvement out of all proportion to the effort put in.

But we also have to make the effort to keep the skills fresh by working on them for a few minutes every few now and again. The brain is a bit like a cluttered desk – what we use all the time is right at the front where we need it, but the bits and pieces you haven’t looked at for a while slide backwards. And what we haven’t used for ages has probably fallen clean off the back! Practicing regularly keeps techniques in the forefront of the mind. A good time to refresh is when we’re in no rush to get anywhere, or perhaps stuck on a road with a solid line for several miles. Drop back, open up some space and practice spotting visual cues and using the correct response.

It’s this cue : response pre-programming that allows us to move a significant step beyond ‘Spidy Sense’. By identifying then learning the specific cues that can be seen, it’s a relatively straightforward task to link them to a specific response to deal with the hazard.

All it needs is a little thought about the hazards we face, how we spot them, and what we do about them. And then some practice to gain – then KEEP – our subconscious defence mechanism functioning at a high level. Don’t take my word for it – after a two-day course Barbara Alam commented:

“I’ve got a lot better at that since doing your course. It really didn’t take more than a day or two of practice, with the occasional effort to “revise” by consciously doing it, to make it become an unconscious thing”.

79. Working to gain a BTEC Part Two

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:10:31 +0000

The second half of a two-parter on getting a qualification in rider coaching.

Working to gain a BTEC Part Two

Working towards a BTEC – part 2
A couple of weeks before the second practical assessment part of the BTEC, Malc dropped a couple of training scenarios over in an email, and asked for a draft lesson plan for each. My initial view of this was that it would only take a minute or two to knock up the required plan, as both scenarios were something I have dealt with dozens of times in real courses. For example, when I looked at the first scenario (“fairly new rider having problems with bends and following partner”), I thought “easy enough, I’ve run this one myself several times”. So of course, because of the pressure of work through August and September, I left everything to the last minute.

When I sat down to finish the assignment, my initial thoughts ran along the lines of:

“Don’t take anything for granted and go for a ride along a road with some nice bends. The rest of the lesson would be based on what I detect as a problem from that point on. I really wouldn’t work to much of a plan because it’s ‘problem solving’, not training to a syllabus or set plan”.

Having submitted that in an expanded format as a draft for the assignment, another email from Malc bounced back with some helpful hints:

“But would you arrive ‘cold’? No ideas of what to expect i.e. what clues are iin the information provided? Would you bring along anything besides yourself & your bike? You’ve already started to plan, like it or not, by choosing a road with ‘nice’ bends! And what does your experience tell you to expect? Look back at the clues in the scenario again.”

I began to see what Malcolm was driving at… several hours and several balled-up printouts later, I had fleshed out that bald statement and presented my idea of a lesson plan.

Back came the reply. I was close, but no cigar. It wasn’t in ‘lesson plan’ format.

Err. OK, what was it about my lesson plan that wasn’t a lesson plan? I spent a few evenings on the internet discovering how to structure my plan into the kind now used by teachers.

I sent off a second draft. Almost there. A couple of constructive criticisms, another evening of work and one final rehash and I had it in shape – Malc passed it.

As I just hinted, any teacher would be instantly familiar with the format. Every activity is clearly explained with the aims of the exercise, the time to be taken, the results to be achieved and a way to assess the results. Also listed are the resources required, right down to pen and paper.

Now you might well argue in ‘real life’ we run sessions in a much more flexible manner, because we have the knowledge, experience and skill to do adapt quickly to a ‘real person’ when they meet us for training. That may well be true, but by formatting the planning for a session we do gain benefits:

we can identify and work on specific objectives to ensure that learning takes place

our knowledge, experience and planning skills are clearly demonstrated not only to any external assessor, but also to the trainee, and heaven forbid, anyone looking at the course after the event with a view to preparing a liability claim

having identified the key information using the format will make planning (and training) more accessible

Where there is a clear benefit is for a relatively inexperienced instructor. He or she will have a much better chance of doing a decent job following a carefully prepared plan. It took a long time but ultimately the DVSA moved in this direction with CBT and DAS training just a few years back.

Nevertheless, I do think there are limitations to the use of lesson plans.

One thing that we can be sure of is that when we encounter a trainee in person, we may have to revise our plan based on our assessment of their real-life abilities. Although my pre-training discussions with the trainee usually get the trainee onto the appropriate course, it’s not unknown for me to have to change the course. Usually the trainee has underestimated their ability and I’m able to move them from the Confidence: BUILDER one-day course to one of my more advanced sessions. Only occasionally do I have to go the other way and drop to a less-technical course but it has happened.

But of course, I do have multiple lesson plans to deal with trainees with different needs and different wishlists. But it’s not unusual for a lesson plan based approach to lead to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to training, forced onto trainers and trainees alike – CBT is a good example. For all the recent changes which encourage trainers to make the course ‘client-centred’, the course is so prescriptive, so heavily dominated by the DVSA’s lesson-planning approach that says what can be done and in what order, that it has little room for flexibility or originality. But that’s something else altogether and for another column.

Back to the BTEC story. I turned up for the practical assessment at the venue in Newbury, and was met by Malc, and introduced to Steve Dixey (formerly of the BMF – I’ve known him online for many years) and a gentleman who turned out to be an external moderator from Edexcel. I was on assessment with copper, writer and road tester, Ian Kerr.

Initially Steve and I spent some time going over my portfolio to fill in a few holes in my explanations and to answer a few penetrating questions. After a short Highway Code/Roadcraft multiple guess test, next up was an interesting exercise. Ian, as a class one police licence holder, was to assess my riding whilst I tried to ride to advanced standard. Malcolm would assess us both. And when we got back, I would also sit down and assess my ride.

I have every sympathy with trainees who ride badly when being watched because I do too. Entirely predictably, with all those eyes watching my every move, I rode like a plank. Ian concurred and said I would have barely scraped through with an advanced pass in his view.

But what WAS interesting, given our very different backgrounds and even though there were predictable areas of disagreement on progress and comfort braking, was that when Ian, Malcolm and I compared our marking sheets, they turned out to be eerily similar. The implication was that even though our backgrounds were very different (I was a self-taught courier and CBT/DAS trainer, Malc used to run the BMF ‘Blue Riband’ advanced scheme and Ian was a trained police rider), we all spotted the same mistakes and the same good points, and had very similar ideas of what constituted good technique.

After lunch, it was onto the mock lessons where I had to to brief, observe, assess, correct and finally debrief the ‘nervous’ rider accordingly. Each on-road training scenario was complex enough to be reasonably challenging whilst nothing I had not seen before. The main problem in teaching ‘select chunks’ from a broader lesson plan is determining exactly what can be taken as ‘prior knowledge’ and exactly where in the lesson we actually are. But Malcolm’s own briefing and play-acting made it reasonably straightforward for me to determine what was expected.

Rather amusingly, I picked up an issue that wasn’t part of the play-acting. I noted that Malc’s foot position on the pegs could have led to a dragging toe at greater lean angles – there a danger that if you hit a bit of a bump, the foot can then get dragged backwards under the peg, breaking an ankle. So when I mentioned it, thinking it was part of the scenario, Malc looked a bit surprised. He said it was his normal riding style and that he’d check it out.

Many hours later, we finished for the day. It was tough enough to be a challenge, but it was also a thoroughly enjoyable day. Steve and Malcolm were efficient but friendly, our BTEC moderator sat quietly in the background and only occasionally asked a clarifying question, and it was of particular interest to have been matched with a police rider to watch the contrast in styles.

So, now all I have to do is wait for the the result!

(I’m pleased to say my BTEC was granted shortly afterwards.)

78. Working to gain a BTEC Part One

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 13:06:57 +0000

How do you get a qualification in motorcycle coaching? Here’s my experience.

Working to gain a BTEC Part One

Soon after starting Survival Skills, I decided to look for some kind of recognised qualification as a post-test instructor. Although I was already a CBT and DAS qualified instructor and have a Masters degree in a science, something more relevant would look good on the CV, I thought. The best bet at the time looked to be a Driver Education course at Middlesex University, firstly partly because it had a distance learning option and I lived in Kent, and secondly because it could be extended through NVQ to degree, master and even PhD level.

After signing on and parting with the relevant amount of cash, my first modules arrived in the autumn. I knuckled down and got stuck into the work. With the deadline approaching two months later, I presented the work only to discover my tutor had taken a holiday just as we were supposed to be submitting the work. I was told it would now be marked too late to move onto the second module in the spring. I wasn’t particularly happy about that. I was even less happy when several of the topics I’d submitted were rejected because they were motorcycle-specific – I was told they didn’t have a tutor who knew anything about motorcycles. Hardly my problem, I thought. Eventually, I gathered a couple of points towards an NVQ, but as the experience hadn’t been brilliant I reluctantly decided to drop it and save my money.

Instead I turned to the BTEC in Advanced Motorcycle Instruction that was run by South Lincs Motorcycle Training. It turned out to be a far better choice than the Middlesex University course.

Both courses used an element of ‘accreditation of prior learning’ (APL) element for instructors with previous experience to replace traditional ‘taught’ courses. The idea is that you show the assessors that you have not only been teaching, but that you have used the courses you have taught as a learning experience for yourself to develop and improve both personal skills and the training being delivered. It avoids the need to spend weeks in the classroom being taught what you already know.

The required format for the BTEC was slightly different from the Middx course. This meant the original submission I had made to Middx was a useful background document, The main exhibit was to be a portfolio which still needed fleshing out with the hard evidence.

Sounds easy? Yes, at first sight. Easy enough to provide photocopies of my driving licence and CBT card. Not too difficult to provide copies of my current training notes. But to demonstrate learning?

Fortunately I’m one of those people who NEVER throws anything away. That does mean the office is knee-deep in paperwork and old bike magazines but it also meant I could lay hands on old notes which I used to develop the syllabus, briefing notes at various stages of development, course details themselves including debriefing notes and so on, right up to the current ‘in-use’ stuff.

First up I assembled notes from the original instructor training course I attended in 1995. I added the DAS training course I personally wrote back in early 1997 for the basic training school to help instructors pass the Direct Access assessment. I had a large pile of notes which became the drafts, redrafts, final versions and revised final versions of my advanced training syllabus itself. I had the same stacks of papers showing the various stages of development of the course handouts that go to the trainees. I added copies of other training materials such as training aids and assessment sheets. I added items of interest from from the website and motorcycle forums. I added original drafts and photocopies of items that appeared in the various magazines I have had articles published in. Finally, I added selected emails from trainees requesting courses and the follow up written debriefs that are provided with the courses.

The result? An overflowing A4 box-file on which I couldn’t actually shut the lid.

I made a date for an interview to determine whether the portfolio was up to the job and to see if I could justify the learning I was claiming. It wasn’t quite the grilling I had expected – Malcolm Palmer popped over to meet me in Oxford and spent a long evening chatting informally over several mugs of tea and a plate of fish and chips, whilst going piece-by-piece through the file. However, he was thorough – around 4 hours later (too late for a quick pint) Malcom left me with a list of what he would like included and copied for the formal submission for APL.

Now all I had to do was copy those I needed to submit, and annotate them to explain what they were and why I was submitting them. Job done, I thought.

Ha. What seemed like a couple of hours work dragged on into weeks of sifting the box, and hunting for the original files on the PC and long-lost zip disks (remember them?). Sometimes I discovered they were formatted for an extinct version of a word processor it seemed no-one else had ever used. In some cases I was able to reformat and print a copy, but where the notes were handwritten or the PC version was long gone, I had to scan then print page-by-page for the portfolio.

Eventually, everything was neatly placed in a large red ring binder and dropped off to Malcolm the evening before the second part of the APL assessment.

…. to be continued ….

77. Visualisation – how to improve riding from an armchair

Kevin Williams / Survival Skills — Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:59:54 +0000

This was another article that pulled the concept of mental rehearsal — widely used in sports, aviation, and emergency services — into the realm of riding motorcycles well before its potential was recognised. Research shows that mental simulation activates many of the same neural pathways as actual physical practice, helping to consolidate procedural memory. Paired with structured, progressive practice and periodic mental review—what cognitive psychologists call “spaced repetition”—visualisation becomes a powerful tool to maintain and enhance riding skills, even from the comfort of an armchair. It bridges the gap between safe practice and unpredictable road conditions, preparing both brain and body for situations that cannot be safely replicated on the tarmac and overcomes the limitations of controlled drills which rarely replicate the surprise element of real-world hazards. The predictability of training vs. unpredictability of the road is a critical gap in rider preparedness.

Visualisation – how to improve riding from an armchair

In the last previous Spidy Sense article, I looked at how experience allows us to develop our red-alert Spidy Sense. But I’m going to describe an incident that happened when I was a basic trainer. At the time, the current two-part Module One / Module Two test was still a couple of years off, so the special exercises – including the emergency stop – were still tested on-road rather than off-road at the special sites adjacent to the test centre. One wet afternoon, the examiner came back early minus my test candidate – she’d crashed doing a real-life emergency stop. As we’d spent a lot of time working on this very skill, I dug into the research to try to gain a better understanding of how we react in an emergency. And what I unearthed was quite scary; the emergency stop we practice before the motorcycle test is almost entirely useless in terms of preparation for a real-world emergency. The basic concept was expanded in ‘MIND over MOTORCYCLE’, a book which you can purchase at http://lulu.com/spotlight/SurvivalSkills]

Virtually everything I’ve talked about to date – and of course what I deliver on my practical advanced rider training courses – implies that we have to be actually out on two wheels to improve our riding. But step back a pace.

How do we develop skills for an event for which we CANNOT practice?

If the examiner returns minus trainee, there are several possibilities. The bike may have broken down, the trainee could have lost the examiner, or the test might have been abandoned. Or the bike’s been damaged – occasionally a low-speed topple-off on the U-turn would snap off a lever – I always had carried a spare for that reason. So when the instructor said my candidate had crashed and was unhurt, I wasn’t unduly worried until he told me she’d been trying to avoid a car that had pulled out of a junction and sped off.

“When the car pulled out, she locked the front wheel on the wet surface.”

The odd thing is”, he mused almost to himself, “we’d only just moved away after she made a perfect emergency stop for me.”

Over five days, Sue – my trainee – had performed at least fifty wet and dry emergency stops off-road during her training, and was perfectly competent at making controlled stops on the road too, because we’d practiced them there too.

I was puzzled too, and over the next few days, I wondered what had happened. Eventually, the reason for the crash became clear to me. It was a combination of WHERE the emergency stop is taught, and HOW the response was triggered:

WHERE – the e-stop is taught off-road in a safe environment

HOW – the instructor or examiner stands out of the way and signals the trainee to stop by raising an arm

So the first thing to note is that there’s no real emergency – it’s simply an exercise, a drill, that creates a repetitive ‘routine’. And the second point of note is that the instructor or examiner is giving the trainee a visual ‘cue’ to drop into that routine – ‘off the gas, on with the front brake, on with the rear, squeeze harder, etc.’ routine. It’s what they would have performed at least a couple of dozen times in the past. By the time the trainee met the examiner, that routine would be well-oiled.

And in fact, as the examiner explained, when my trainee responded to the examiner’s cue of a raised arm, she performed her routine and demonstrated a perfect wet road e-stop.

So what went wrong moments later?

The answer is simple. She might have mastered the TECHNIQUE. But she had no awareness of when she might need to use it. The real-life emergency that happened just a few seconds later came out of the blue and she was taken completely by SURPRISE!

Surprised, her careful “squeeze, don’t grab” technique deserted her. Insted of her learned drill, the threat of harm alerted the primitive reptilian brain, which took control of the situation, and responded with one of the ‘Survival Reactions’ I’ve talked about elsewhere. She grabbed a handful of front brake, and down bike and rider went.

If a freshly-trained rider who’s just performed a perfect e-stop on the same road cannot stop safely in a real emergency just a few metres away, then it’s small wonder that collision investigators often find that in the “Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You” SMIDSY collision, the bike could usually have stopped and it was the rider failed to deliver.

And think about the current emergency stop and swerve routines in the latest version of the test.

It removes even the tiny element of SURPRISE! that came from wondering just when the examiner might raise his or her arm.

Practiced in a safe environment around cones, where the rider aims past the speed trap radar, All the rider has to learn is to pass the trap at an appropriate speed, then stop or swerve in a reasonably brisk fashion.

No wonder we haven’t solved the SMIDSY problem!

So what could we do better? How could riders be trained to respond to an emergency that off-road training cannot reproduce?

We need to introduce ‘unpredictability’ into the training. Only half-jokingly, I suggested long ago that maybe instructors should pushing a hidden rubber car out into the trainee’s path.

A rather better answer would almost certainly be a simulator. Airline pilots learn to fly in simulators, and are put through all manner of training situations so they have an idea of what COULD happen before they’re out flying the plane and get into trouble. Increasingly, high-fidelity simulators are being used in research into driver and rider behaviour because it’s been realised that many of the earlier studies were unrealistic and “based on still photos, short video clips, or contrived on-road trials” as one research paper put it recently. We may not be able to afford a simulator with all the bells and whistles of an airliner, but even a cheap ‘three screens powered by a PC’ simulator would be a start. I first saw one demonstrated in the 90s. I’m still waiting for trainers to be offered the software to run on one.

So failing that, we can exploit a technique from Sports Psychology. It’s called ‘visualisation’ and it’s a way of using our own brain’s built-in simulator – we call it ‘imagination’.

All we have to do is close our eyes and imagine the scenario we want to learn the response to. Our imagination has the ability to fool the brain into thinking “I’ve been here before and this is what I did last time” and the more vivid and realistic our ‘experience’, the better the learning process.

Don’t just imagine seeing the car pull out and applying the brakes, ‘see’ the whole run-up to the emergency. ‘See’ the junction warning sign, spot the gap in the hedgerows, ‘feel’ the road surface under the wheels, and ‘hear’ the sound of the bike. Visualise the car at the junction. ‘Watch’ it starting to move and the look on the driver’s face as he spots us and stops in our path. If we also talk to ourselves by saying what we’re going to do to avoid the collision, and AT THE SAME TIME make the real-life muscle movements at our imaginary controls as we take our successful evasive action, the brain will memorise the events as if they were real.

And here’s the pay-off.

When we face the situation for real – EVEN THOUGH WE’VE NEVER BEEN IN THAT SITUATION – the brain will remember. It can recall the “been here, did this last time, and it worked” response.

Sports-people and other performers have used this technique for decades to avoid ‘choking’ on the big stage – the sprinter who’s used to running in front of a few hundred people suddenly in front of 100,000 people at the Olympics, the county cricketer making his test debut at Lords, the actor appearing in the West End for the first time.

On the bike, the ‘memory’ of our successful emergency stop prevents the primitive reptilian brain kicking in, taking control and grabbing that big handful of front brake. Practicing visualisation gives us a chance to respond to a real emergency with the same well-oiled response we’ve learned offroad in a safe and sterile environment.

But visualisation is not just for emergencies. Visualisation can help us recall and perform a sequence of steps in the order when stress means we we have a difficulty recalling some elements.

For example, there are a series of steps involved in performing a successful U-turn. Even off-road, trainees are often so focused on balance and moving off smoothly that they forget the all-important ‘look over the shoulder’. When a trainee had a problem, I used to get trainees to shut their eyes and do a mental run-through in their minds-eye. If they remembered this visualisation trick just before committing themselves to their once-only attempt on the bike test, they had a far better chance of successfully completing the exercise.

We can also use visualisation if we don’t ride so often. We can actively pre-program the brain by imagining going for a ride, thus mentally ‘rebooting’ ready for getting the bike out again.

And here’s a final point.

One of the biggest problems of any kind of learning is that we don’t retain much of it. In fact, a couple of weeks after training, we’ve forgotten most of what we learned. This is a psychological issue we’ve known about for over one hundred years. What makes training permanent is repetition. Each time, a little more becomes embedded. It’s not practical to expect trainees to keep coming back over and over to repeat training…

…but we can use visualisation to mentally repeat and review training to make sure it sticks.

So if you’ve completed a Survival Skills advanced rider training course, you should now have an idea just how you can review what was learned from the comfort of your own armchair – visualisation.