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.