strategy | MotoSKILLS from Survival Skills

January 22, 2026February 1, 2026

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.

January 22, 2026February 1, 2026

27. Cornering Problems 4 – Set up the brakes to stay out of corner trouble

Written originally before the widespread adoption of ABS and the current enthusiasm for trail braking, this piece has arguably become more relevant rather than less. Modern braking systems reduce the consequences of error, but they do not eliminate the need for judgement, preparation, or margin. In fact, on increasingly unpredictable road surfaces, relying on late or reactive braking strategies leaves the rider more exposed, not less. “In too fast” remains a dominant failure mode and has turned up in multiple recent crash studies, UK DfT KSI summaries, and police collision reconstructions. The bike is usually capable but the rider’s speed management is the failure point. Nothing in rider aids has meaningfully changed that. It’s still a knowledge gap vs skills gap issue. Braking studies have shown that most riders don’t think to brake for corners until too late.

Unfortunately, the false binary “good riders don’t brake” versus “bad riders use brakes” thinking is still present, even if it far less common than when I penned this piece. Brake preloading as an anti-surprise strategy aligns extremely closely with modern human-factors research on startle response and task switching. The principles discussed here are not about rejecting modern technology, but about using it as a safety net rather than a primary plan — and about preventing the ‘in too fast’ error before electronics are ever asked to intervene.

Cornering Problems 4 – Set up the brakes to stay out of corner trouble

Even in the years that I’ve been an advanced rider coach is the rider, I’ve seen a lot of change to motorcycle design and the technology that comes with them, and the UK’s training and testing regime has changed a lot too. Now, when accident studies look at crashes result from the ‘in too fast’ error, it’s nearly always the case that the BIKE could have made the corner. But in my time in training cornering crashes are much the same as they ever were. It’s not even a blink of the eye in terms of human evolution, and so it’s not surprising the rider always was and remains the weak link. But we can do better if we learn the appropriate skills. So given our propensity to find our way into trouble in bends, why aren’t we taught how to avoid one of the most common cornering crashes; running into a corner too hot? If getting the bike sorted for a bend really is as simple as getting back on the throttle before we try to steer, why do riders get themselves into such a muddle on corners by making the ‘in too fast’ error? Here are two answers.

The first involves the lack of time spent working on corners on basic training. As the test itself is conducted mostly on urban roads with a sprinkling of dual carriageway work, it’s unlikely that manys rider on the bike test will have to ride more than a mile or so along a reasonably twisty road. Not surprisingly, basic trainers tend to focus on the kind of roads the test will be conducted on, and whilst many will do some training on the twisties, it’s rarely ever in much depth. Even the technique of counter-steering is not guaranteed to be covered.

In my experience as a rider coach, many ‘cornering’ issues turn out to be a lack of confidence with the brakes. Why? Well, braking ahead of a bend is rarely taught on basic training for the reasons mentioned above, and how to break it’s largely left to the trainee to work out for themselves. Not having been taught how to brake before a corner, few riders ever practice braking upright before a bend. It’s a double-whammy.

But here’s a weird thing. We ALL know modern bikes can brake very hard in a straight line, most of us because our basic trainer spent hours teaching emergency stop technique. But for some reason, we never seem to appreciate that it’s the same basic ‘front first, rear second, progressively harder squeeze of the front’ approach that works wherever we need it – avoiding collisions, braking for red traffic lights or on the approach a roundabout…

…and approaching corners.

So for most riders – there are exceptions – it’s not a SKILLS gap, it’s actually a KNOWLEDGE gap perhaps because it was never made explicitly clear – no-one told them they can brake hard ahead of a corner.

But I also believe we also have problems at post-test level because riders are still being discouraged from braking for corners. Have you ever heard it said that “a good rider shouldn’t need to touch the brakes”? I have, and much too often for my liking.

I first read it back in my courier days, in articles written about the IAM test. It didn’t make a great deal of sense to me then, but when I put myself into the IAM’s hands towards the back end of my sixteen year stint as a courier, I was exposed to the thinking first-hand. Out with my observer on one of my favourite cross-country routes in Kent, it wasn’t long before I was pulled up. I was told “you are braking on the approach to corners”. Yes, I knew that so a “what’s wrong with that” debate followed. To keep it short, I was told that if I was “judging corners correctly”, I wouldn’t need to use the brakes – I could do all my deceleration with a closed throttle and judicious use of the gears. As I already knew, this was explained as ‘acceleration sense’.

The use of gears as a substitute for brakes is a topic for another day, but I turned the question-and-answer game around and got him to explain why he’d thought I wasn’t judging the corners simply because he’d seen me braking. I asked if I had gone into any of the corners with the brakes still being applied, off-line or at an inappropriate speed. He had to admit the answer to all these questions was “no, you didn’t”.

So I asked how it was, that if I wasn’t making these errors, that I was reading the road incorrectly? The answer was:

“Because you had to brake on the approach to a bend.”

You should be able to see that’s a circular argument, and totally unsupported by any logical thinking. It’s simply a repetition of a mantra: ‘acceleration sense good, brakes bad’.

The proper debate should have been about the proper timing and the relative effectiveness of the two techniques – acceleration sense or positive braking – at getting the speed sorted out in such as way as to prevent the ‘in too fast’ error.

So let’s do that by looking at the ‘in too fast’ problem. In the ideal world of advanced riding, we’d assess every stretch of road correctly. We’d read each bend perfectly. And we’d never make the ‘in too fast’ mistake.

Back in the real world, I am happy to admit that I do cock up. I am not a perfect rider, and every once in a while I do discover myself arriving too fast for the next corner. And here’s a truth none of us should ever forget. If we DO make a mistake and end up arriving too fast for the bend, we’ll be lucky if we get away with a horrible line round the corner. If we’re not so lucky, then the likelihood is we’ll run wide. On a right-hander, that’s likely to be off the road. Been there, done that. And if we happen to run wide on a left-hander, that takes us into the oncoming lane. Been there, done that too. And I don’t want to repeat it because it’s pure chance if we get away with it. The Grim Reaper could easily be driving a Scania coming the other way. Running wide on a left-hander is one of the killer crashes on UK rural roads.

So I prepare to deal with the ‘in too fast’ mistake rather than make an assumption that I got it right. And the easiest way to do this on the the approach to a bend is to roll off the throttle AND apply the brakes lightly rather than rely on engine braking alone.

Why? Quite simple. As soon as the throttle is shut, that’s the limit to our deceleration. There’s nothing left unless we start forcing the bike down through the gears.

By contrast, braking lightly at the same time as decelerating ‘sets up’ the brakes ready to use them. We can apply anything from a feather touch which barely slows the bike any more than engine braking alone, right up to a full-on emergency stop.

At this point, the critics usually pop up.

“Ah, but if you’d read the road ahead correctly you wouldn’t need to brake.” Well, most corners in the UK are blind as we enter them, and whilst I’m pretty good at asking “what if…” and preparing just in case, I’m not prescient and what I expect to happen and what actually appears isn’t always the same. I’d rather be prepared for getting it wrong than patting myself on the back for getting it right.

“But you can also brake even if you’re using acceleration sense.” Absolutely we can. But if we’re shutting the throttle with our fingers on the twist grip, we have to disengage them and reach over to the brake lever, then we have to start squeezing progressively. If we are ALREADY braking lightly, we have eliminated the delay and we can go straight into positive braking. By removing this delay, we can either stop in a shorter distance or we can brake less hard than a rider who’s had to switch from decelerating using the engine to using the brakes.

“But you’re more likely to grab the front brake if you’re dangling your fingers over it.” This one actually makes some sense but it’s a misunderstanding of just why we’re using the ‘setting up’ technique. As you’ll know from my work on ‘No Surprise? No Accident!’ the trigger for the panic reactions that cause many motorcycle crashes is the SURPRISE! that results when we’re caught out by a situation developing in a way we didn’t expect. Keeping fingers off the front brake is no guarantee we won’t give it a huge handful as soon as we panic. By contrast, the action of switching from engine braking alone to the ‘set up’ approach which pre-loads the brakes with light pressure indicates we’ve already switched to a mindset where we are anticipating we might have to brake harder. And that means we’re far less likely to suffer SURPRISE! when the bend doesn’t do what we hope.

“OK, but you’ll slow down too much.” Remember, we’re only applying a feather-touch to the brakes on the approach to the corner. That’s not going to slow us dramatically – in fact, we probably won’t be any slower into the corner because we know we can lose speed rapidly if we need to. And if nothing reveals itself? Then we simply release the brakes and roll back on the throttle to get the bike balanced before we turn in to the corner itself. And in any case, it’s much easier to regain speed in a corner if we rolled in a bit too slow than it is to shed speed mid-corner if we ran in too hot.

And once again, I’m not the only one advocating this technique. The ‘setting up’ technique is routinely taught on the approach to unpredictable hazards in Australia.

Hopefully I’ve now persuaded you the ‘setting up’ approach to a corner has some genuine benefits and no real drawbacks. This isn’t about ‘riding perfection’ but all about being pragmatic. If it can go wrong, it WILL go wrong sooner or later – that’s the assumption at the foundation of Survival Skills advanced motorcycle riding courses. So if in ANY doubt, SET UP the brakes.

January 22, 2026February 1, 2026

26. Cornering Problems 3 – Five tips to understanding cornering dynamics

Were I re-writing this article today, I would still emphasise that on real roads, with uneven surfaces, limited visibility, and the very real possibility of needing to find a new line mid-corner, finishing deceleration early and rebalancing the suspension before steering remains the most reliable way to maximise grip, reduce workload, and free up the rider’s full attention to staying on the road, no matter what issues the corner throws up unexpectedly.

What has changed is the current fad for trail braking. Unfortunately braking into a corner leaves the rider entirely vulnerable to abrupt changes in surface grip, something that has actually deteriorated dramatically since the piece was written. If a rider loses traction braking in a straight line, it’s no big deal even on a non-ABS bike so long as the rider recognises what’s happening, and releases then reapplies the brakes. The bike remains upright.

When braking while leaned over, the front tyre is already using grip to generate lateral force (cornering). Adding braking demands longitudinal grip at the same time. If available grip suddenly drops thanks to a polished surface, stone chips or a pothole, and if the front tyre can no longer satisfy both demands, something has to give — and it is usually cornering force first. If we’re lucky, the result is a slide. If we’re not, the tyre lets go. Basic ABS can do little about this since it only modulates the braking force, not the lateral force. The role of cornering ABS is also poorly understood. Since trail braking depends on reducing speed to tighten the line, if the braking force is reduced to preserve traction, the bike will continue to roll into the corner more rapidly than the rider planned for, and that added speed means a wider radius turn. The result is that the bike stays upright but “drifts wide”. In short, when cornering ABS intervenes mid-corner, it prioritises preventing a fall, not holding trajectory.

Cornering Problems 3 – Five tips to understanding cornering dynamics

Why do riders get themselves in a muddle on corners? In my experience as a rider coach offering Survival Skills post-test rider training, much of the problem lies in the lack of training in cornering at basic level. One of the key issues is a lack of understanding of just important it is to get a motorcycle ‘set up’ well in advance of a corner, particularly when a new rider has a car driving background. Powered two wheelers simply don’t work the same way. Whilst the dynamics of cornering are the unique and fun part of riding a bike, they are also the source of many scary moments and crashes.

The key to getting cornering dynamics right is to arrive at the point where we need to steer with the bike settled on the suspension. This means that we need to be travelling at the right speed in the right gear with the brakes released, and with the the suspension balanced thanks to a slight rearward weight transfer that’s effected by a gentle application of throttle.

Forget any articles you may have read about how ‘bikes turn faster on the brakes’. It’s mostly a misunderstanding about what’s happening.

Here’s the first point to understand – as any powered two wheeler slows, it will automatically turn along a progressively tighter line just so long as the lean angle stays the same. So if we brake into a corner, the bike will spriral into the corner more quickly.

But here’s the second. If we go into a corner on the brakes, it affects the steering geometry. Whilst they may look outwardly the same, race bikes and road bikes are set up rather differently. Race bikes – or even a road bike set up for the track – are usually set up to turn on the brakes. The steering head angle is likely to be different, and compared with a road bike where the suspension is designed to absorb bumps, the suspension on a race bike will be very stiff. Track tyres are also a different profile and construction. stiffer. If we brake into a bend on a road bike, with its relatively soft front forks and tyres, the compression of the front end will make the machine sit up in the corner and try to go straight on. If you don’t believe me, try applying the front brake mid-corner and see what happens. Better yet, don’t try it and just trust me when I say it’ll sit up. That’s the force we must resist if we turn in to a corner on the brakes. Rather than working with us, the bike is working against us.

We CAN compensate by adding extra steering input, but that pushes us closer to the limit of grip – see the previous article. And in fact, a bike with a standard road set up on road tyres will handle most sweetly with the forks unloaded by a little throttle.

Of course, we need to slow down approaching a bend so the steering dynamics impose a simple rule – we need to get OFF the brakes and back ON the throttle before we begin to change direction.

Sounds easy? Yet we all get it wrong on occasion, so here are five cornering issues we need to think about.

Suspension dynamics – to soak up bumps, the front suspension on a road bike is fairly soft but when decelerating (either with a closed throttle or with the brakes) the forks compress. This compromises their ability to soak up the bumps. If we hit bumps in a straight line, this is uncomfortable but relatively relatively unimportant in terms of machine stability unless we are really hard on the front brake, but the bumps will cause the tyre to compress and rebound, which compromises front end grip – it’s why the ABS sometimes kicks in when braking hard on a bumpy road. But as soon as we are leaned over, there is a real downside to hitting bumps. Not only does the front tyre lose traction if the suspension’s not moving freely, but the more we’re leaning, the greater the tendency for the bumps to try to ‘kick’ the front end sideways. Even with ABS, we’ll know all about it if we hit a series of ‘stutter bumps’ with the forks compressed midway through a bend. The track is relatively smooth. The road isn’t.

Steering dynamics – if we’ve finished decelerating (either with a closed throttle or with the brakes) and we’re gently back on the power, then the front forks extend again, Now the vast majority of road bikes set up for the road will steer with minimal input from the rider. If we carry brakes INTO the corner, we have to compensate by adding extra steering input which pushes us closer to the limits of stability.

KISS and ‘keep things simple, stupid’ – even when road riders try to avoid braking into the first part of the corner, a common fault is leaving everything a little too late. So we’re arriving at the bend and trying to get OFF the brakes, ON the throttle AND steer all at the same moment. Not surprisingly, the timing often goes awry, and the rider enters the corner still playing catch-up. Starting just a few metres earlier, then performing each task in succession – off the brakes THEN on the throttle THEN steer – we only have to perform one task at a time. We’re far more likely to complete each stage and turn in to the corner back on the power.

A change of mental focus – where do we look on the approach to a bend? Most people will say “at the road ahead” but in fact we’ll be looking DOWN at the surface and OUT from the corner towards the point we might run out of road – it’s a natural tendency to look where we DON’T want to go. If you don’t believe me, analyse your own riding. You might be surprised but it’s really not at all instinctive to look around the bend and away from danger. So we should make it a lot easier by ensuring we’re comfortable with our approach speed good and early. A planned approach to a corner that sorts our deceleration – and thus our speed – in plenty of time is what frees up our ability to lift our view and look up and around the corner. Why does this work? If we are happy to get back on the throttle, we MUST be sure we will make it round the bend. We’re often told we SHOULD look further ahead. This is HOW. It’s almost impossible to open the throttle when we’re worried we’re going to run out of road.

Margins for error – last but not least, we simply must have some space to deal with misjudgements. We are performing a complex mental calculation every time we approach a corner – we have to judge the radius of the bend, work out the speed and lean angle that will match that corner, assess where we need to steer to follow the bend… and we can only achieve that if we correctly estimate how much we need to slow down. It’s easy to misjudge both our initial braking force and the corner entry speed. By AIMING to get our deceleration finished early, we leave ourselves some extra space in case we find we need to lose a little MORE speed.

All this and more is part of the Survival Skills advanced rider training ‘Performance’ courses, focusing on better cornering skills. If you’re serious about understanding how your brain functions as well as how your machine performs underneath you, why not check them out?

January 22, 2026February 1, 2026

25. Cornering Problems 2 – Cornering lines, stability and the ‘Point and Squirt’ technique

What’s changed since this was first written? Motorcycles have gained sophisticated electronic aids, but the roads have become less predictable. Stability control, ABS and traction control can soften the consequences of poorly timed inputs, but they do not change the underlying physics of cornering, nor do they improve vision or judgement. The real advantage of delaying turn-in and reducing time spent leaned over is not ‘progress’ but retaining options. Modern UK roads are rapidly disintegrating. and actually show the benefits of this ‘late apex line’ (as it’s now often called) even more than when I first wrote this; later commitment allows better vision before turning, slower approach means less lean, quicker steering means reduced time at lean and an earlier return to drive out of the corner. Modern riding aids do not eliminate the problems the roads themselves put in our path, and my demolition of the simplistic “upright = stable” mantra is still justified, as is the fact that it’s our inputs which keep the bike in a metastable condition, and the critique of the maximum-radius line is still necessary, since it’s still repeated uncritically in some advanced riding circles and the explanation that riders simply use that extra radius to go faster — rather than to increase margin — is a textbook description of risk compensation applied to cornering. “Point and Squirt” as a road strategy remains valid.

Cornering Problems 2 – Cornering lines, stability and the ‘Point and Squirt’ technique

You may have heard this statement:

“A motorcycle is most stable when it is upright and travelling in a straight line at a constant speed.”

You’ll find this in quite a lot of writing on advanced riding. Unfortunately, it’s not quite correct. A motorcycle is most stable when it is lying on its side. That’s not a great deal of use to us if we’re hoping to ride it.

So I’ll make an alternative statement for you to ponder:

“If we’re not actually crashing, the bike must STILL be stable – crashing is the definition of UNstable.”

All of our bike control skills achieve just two results:

changes of speed
changes of direction

So have a think about this too:

“If we don’t make steering inputs the bike will ultimately become unstable and it will fall over.”

In essence, as soon as we’re moving, the machine is generating is a different kind of stability which is sometimes called ‘meta-stability’, and by feeding in steering inputs we’re constantly maintaining a meta-stable state.

So what we’re actually interested in is not ‘stability’ per se, but understanding how stability is affected by the INPUTS we make to the machine change speed or direction, where we sit within the LIMITS of stability at any one moment, and whether our inputs (or even lack of inputs) in terms of changing speed and direction are pushing the machine towards those limits. Specifically we need to know if we are about to create an unstable state, because that’s when we are going to crash.

So let’s think about limits of stability. It’s determined by two things

how much input force we apply through the controls

tyre grip against the road surface – even the best tyres offer zero grip if the road surface can’t deliver its half of the bargain

Let’s start with the input forces. There’s applying a braking force (either via the brakes or a closed throttle) and there is a driving force (from opening the throttle), and usually forgotten is that steering also applies a force (which makes the bike change lean angle).

So what pushes us towards the limits of stability? Most of us will usually think of the consequences of an excess of force combined with insufficient grip. Big handfuls of brake or throttle risk tyre lock-ups (or triggering ABS) or wheelspin (or triggering traction control). Big lean angles risk sliding tyres. And these limits are ‘mix-and-match’ too. If we are braking or accelerating, we compromise our ability to lean the bike, and if we are leaning, we compromise our ability to brake or accelerate. This is the basis of the advice to keep braking or throttle use away from corners. If we’re upright, we can brake or accelerate as hard as the tyres’ limits. But once leant over, some of the grip is being used to maintain our curved path, and so we have reduced grip to brake or accelerate. This is the basis of what’s known as the ‘traction pie’, where we ‘slice up’ grip.

Less obviously, instability can be result from the rate of change of one of those forces. we can destabilise the bike by braking too hard (and pulling a stoppie) or accelerating too hard (and pulling a wheelie). Ultimately we could loop the bike. But we can also destabilise the bike if the rate of change of direction is too high – we can generate a big wobble or weave. Bumps or gusts of wind are external forces and can also destabilise the machine. To reduce the rate of change we just back off the input and reduce the force being applied.

So having said all that, if the machine is upright and with only just enough power being applied via the rear wheel to keep it moving at constant speed, then what we have are the biggest RESERVES of stability.

So how could we try to stay away from the limit of grip in a corner?

A common suggestion is to maximise the radius of the turn, instead of simply staying in the middle of the lane all the way round, which is – more or less – the approach taught on basic training. So on a right-hander, we’d start by kerb, cross the width of our lane to come close to the centre line mid-corner, then drift out again so by the time we leave the corner, we’re back over kerb. This way we fit the maximum radius line compared with the ‘middle of the lane’ line. In theory, we are “working our tyres less hard”. That very advantage is mentioned in an early 2000s BikeSafe video from West Midlands police which I have in my collection.

But let’s think about that a little harder.

That’s only true if we keep our speed the same. Let’s think about cornering physics. If we accelerate at the same lean angle, we’ll spiral out onto a wide line. If we slow down at the same lean angle, we’ll spiral inwards. Corner grip – and thus stability – isn’t just lean angle OR speed. It’s a combination of both – angular momentum.

When we corner, we almost all develop a ‘comfort lean angle’ where rider and bike are at their happiest. Now, a moment’s thought should tell us that if we adopt our comfort lean angle at the same time as we follow the maximum radius line, then the wider line does NOT reduce the need for tyre grip at all because we’ll be riding the corner faster. So we’ve not actually increased our tyre grip margins at all because we’ve increased our angular momentum. We actually need to reduce our lean angle (and angular momentum) to increase our margins and to “work our tyres less hard” as claimed in the video.

But in reality, wide cornering lines are nearly always used to carry more speed at our comfort lean angle. A clue to that is its other name – the racing line.

There are other problems. Compared with the middle-of-the-lane line, the maximum radius line starts earlier and finishes later. Or to put it another way, we’re leaned over for longer. When we’re leaned over, our ability to brake or accelerate is compromised. And that means on the way into the corner, we can’t brake as late. On the way out of the bend, we cannot get on the gas as early.

You might have noticed that many bends in the UK are blind – that is, we cannot see our way out of the bend from the point where we start turning. Taking a line that commits us to an early turn-in makes it even more difficult to see through the corner, which means it becomes more difficult to assess it. And if we do get the line wrong, committing ourselves onto this maximim radius line commits us to a wide exit line. If the bend goes on just a bit longer than we expected when we committed to the maximum radius line, there’s a risk we’ll run out of room on the way out of the corner. And that’s the main reason I only ever use the maximum radius line when I have 100% vision, right through the corner and out the other side.

So… if the maximum radius line is a potentially risky one, what are the alternatives?

Ever since CBT was introduced in 1990, basic training has taught riders to follow a middle-of-the-lane line, or even keep a little to the left of centre. It may be ‘basic’ but it keeps us away from the extreme edges of the road. It has some pluses:

it keeps us away from the centre line on right-handers (and gives us a slightly better view ahead)

it keeps us away from the nearside on left-handers (and gives us a slightly better view ahead)

it keeps the bike upright slightly later on the way into the bend (we can brake closer to the corner if we need to)

it gets the bike upright slightly earlier on the way out of the bend (we can get on the gas sooner if we need to)

Whilst we trade off a bit of mid-corner speed at our comfort lean angle, because we’re reduced our angular momentum, we actually need a bit less grip, even though the lean angle is the same as on the wider line. And this bonus tyre grip is useful in case we need to brake or swerve to avoid an unseen hazard.

A second option is to push this ‘follow the bend’ line out closer to the edge of the lane. Not so close we’re at risk of meeting an oncoming vehicle on a left-hander, but far enough towards the centre line that we get a little more view still. Likewise on a right-hander, a line closer to the verge would also improve our view ahead.

But remember I said that if the machine is upright and with only just enough power being applied via the rear wheel to keep it moving at constant speed, then what we have are the biggest RESERVES of stability?

What if we mix and match these ideas? How about this – what if we use that ‘follow the bend line’ shifted to the outside of the corner around the first part of the bend, then use a quick steering input to straighten out the final part of the corner and get the benefits of the maximum radius line when we can see where the bend goes?

What are the benefits? By avoiding turning in on the maximum radius line initially, we do deeper into the corner and stay upright longer before we change direction. Mid-corner, we’ve trade off the sweeping line’s mid-corner speed which gives more reserves of grip, which in turn allow a more positive steering input to change change direction more rapidly at the delayed ‘turn-in’ point which happens only when we can see where we’re going next. The more positive steering input gets the bike turned faster, and pointed where we want to go sooner, which means we can open out the final part of the bend on that maximum radius line. Finally we get the machine upright sooner, which means we’re back on the power earlier.

This is the technique I’ve been teaching ever since I launched my Survival Skills advanced cornering courses, and I call it the ‘Point and Squirt’ line because what we effectively do is ‘point’ the bike first, THEN ‘squirt’ the power on to drive the bike clear of the corner.

It’s slower INTO the corner, but gives us a better view THROUGH the bend before we start to turn, and that means we’re more likely to spot mid-corner obstructions like a parked vehicle, a pothole or a fuel spill, as well as identify a double-apex corner before we’re committed. The wider line means we can keep away from extreme left or right positions in the lane and we can build in a bigger clearance to entrances to our left and oncoming vehicles to our right. The lower speed at the point where we steer to open out the corner means we’ve more reserves of grip. And whatever speed we lose INTO the bend we more than recover on the way OUT. In a short sentence, managing corners to keep both the time and the distance where the bike is learnt over as short as possible is a good thing, not bad.

Despite the explanations, this line still comes under fire, with critics saying:

“it’s slower” – yes, it’s slower mid-corner – is that such a bad thing – but we’re upright sooner and faster out, which fits with the well-known ‘slow in, fast out’ advice. But we’re also upright a little longer into the corner which allows us to decelerate slightly later, and because we’re upright much sooner, we regain speed whilst the rider on the maximum radius line is still leaned over. Yes, that rider will catch us MID-corner, but we’ll leave them behind on the way out of the bend.

“it needs more grip because you’re steering harder” – a misunderstanding of the angular momentum issue. The reduced mid-corner speed more than compensates for the more positive input needed to make the quicker change of direction.

“it’s less fun” – well, if having your head removed by a passing truck is fun, carry on. If I want big mid-corner lean angles, I’ll go to the track where I’m unlikely to have to take evasive action halfway around. The only real difficulty is that we have to get used to a late, postive steering input. If we’ve used to turning in early on a sweeping line, it can take some adapting to.

“if it’s so good why doesn’t everyone teach it” – as it happens, Andy Ibbott, the former racer writing as the UK director of the California Superbike School, featured exactly this approach in an MCN article some years ago, so there are other rider coaches who recognise the advantages.

January 22, 2026February 1, 2026

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.

January 21, 2026February 1, 2026

20. Filtering – what’s legal and how to do it

Although this article was revised in 2019, the principles behind safe filtering have not changed. UK law still does not define filtering as a specific manoeuvre; instead, riders are judged on whether their behaviour would be considered reasonable and competent in the circumstances. What has changed is traffic density, and possibly driver distraction from in-car systems like GPS. And riders also need to pay attention to and the frequency with which vehicles move unexpectedly within queues.

A modern complication is the rapid spread of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) such as lane-keeping assist, blind-spot monitoring and adaptive cruise control. At the time of the 2019 update, these systems were far from widespread. It’s likely they do not reliably detect filtering motorcycles, particularly at higher closing speeds or when the bike is offset from the centre of the lane. Some were never tested against motorcycles. It’s likely they change driver behaviour. Many drivers may now rely on warning lights rather than mirrors, make lazy steering inputs because the car normally ‘looks after’ lane position, or make sudden movements when automation disengages in slow traffic. The result is that filtering riders can no longer assume they are dealing with fully attentive human drivers. With autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle trials already under way in the UK, this trend will only increase. As a result, filtering today demands even more emphasis on anticipation, stopping distance and the assumption that we will not be seen—because legality offers no protection once physics takes over.

Filtering – what’s legal and how to do it

This is another tip I’ve completely rewritten for 2019, because filtering past or through slow-moving or stationary traffic is one of the most hotly-debated topics in biking. Please note that this article refers ONLY to UK practice. Whilst other nations have legalised filtering (Belgium for example) and lane splitting is legal in California (which has produced a code), it’s up to you to determine what the law is if you’re not a UK reader. And don’t forget to reverse left and right if you ride on the wrong side of the road.

So, here in the UK Motorcycle Roadcraft explains that filtering is a form of overtaking to make progress past stationary or slow moving traffic but gives no real advice on where or where not to do it. Filtering and other road users’ response to filtering motorcycles is also laid out in the Highway Code, which says in the section about ‘Road users requiring extra care’ that:

“It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.”

There is also guidance on the Highway Code which refer to overtaking, but can be applied by extention to filtering. Let’s mention the places you must not overtake first.

You may not:

cross solid white lines except to pass an obstruction or to overtake a slow (10mph), horse, bicycle, local authority vehicle (with its amber beacon flashing)
overtake after passing a No Overtaking sign, until you reach the end of restriction sign
overtake the vehicle nearest a pedestrian crossing
However, you may overtake vehicles where there is a solid white line on your side of the road if you can pass the vehicle without crossing or straddling the white line with any part of your vehicle.

You may:

enter a hatched lane divide as long as it has dashed boundary lines and it is safe and necessary to do so
pass traffic on the left (ie undertake) queuing or slow moving traffic but you should not change lane in order to gain an advantage
pass traffic on the left if the vehicle is indicating to turn right
pass traffic on the left if you are turning left in a dedicated left turn lane
pass traffic on the left in a one way street

So whilst there are some places we must NOT filter, there are no clear legal guidelines about HOW to filter. Unfortunately, some years back a wholly inaccurate article on filtering claimed to explain the law. As is the way of the internet, search engines turn it up from time to time, whereupon it’s ‘rediscovered’. I’m not going to tell you were to find it because it’s inaccurate but I will tell you why you shouldn’t trust it.

The article’s starting point was that a filtering crash should always be the driver’s fault. Commenting on a case, probably Leeson vs. Bevis Transport (1972), where the motorcyclist was found equally responsible for a collision with a van driver emerging from a side road, the article was penned in a way that implied that a filtering collision was always the other driver’s fault:

“I mean, you’re filtering past stationary cars and some clown t-bones you and you have to pick up half the bill?””

The Survival Skills approach is always to look at why things go wrong on the road, and I always encourage riders to see a situation from the other road user’s perspective. We could easily rewrite that statement:

“I’m trying to pull out of a side-turning into a busy street with parked vehicles on either side making it almost impossible to see, and some clown filtering past the bus that has kindly let me out t-bones me and I have to pick up half the bill?”

But it got worse. The writer then claimed that the law on filtering ‘changed’ after a case was heard in the Court of Appeal in 2006. The writer said:

“…in the case of Davis vs Schrogin, the judge found that “a filtering motorcyclist passing stationary or very slow moving traffic could not be to blame if a collision occurred if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action”, then jumped to the conclusion: “Ladies and Gentlemen, filtering past stationary traffic is no longer a grey area – it’s completely legal”.

First of all there was no ‘change in the law’ for the very simple reason that there was – and never has been – any road traffic law that defines filtering or how to go about it.

You may be wondering how do courts make a judgement on a filtering crash? The answer is based partly in terms of how each road user behaved. The question asked is “did the rider or drive behave in a way that that a competent driver or rider could be reasonably expected to drive or ride?”

Where it gets complicated is that a previous judgement (‘precedent’) by a magistrate’s court, crown court and county court is not binding. Although judges will look at previous decisions if the case is sufficiently similar, each case will be judged on its merits. However, higher court judgments (except in the House of Lords, where the Lords can change their minds) including those from the Court of Appeal, are binding on themselves and lower courts, UNLESS it can be shown that a new case has enough differences that it should be decided on its own facts. In that case, the judge can distinguish it from the previous case by pointing out the relevant differences and thus not be bound by precedent.

So the second error is to argue that a judgement in a single court case defines how other cases might turn out. Whilst case law sets a precedent, that precedent only applies in identical circumstances and the assessment of each individual case will depend heavily on statements and witnesses. There’s no ‘law making it legal’.

In any case, being on the right side of insurance claim doesn’t mean much if being in the legal ‘right’ doesn’t stop us being carted off in a pine box! So, let’s move on to looking at filtering from a practical perspective.

Above all, we need to be aware of where we might need to stop suddenly. What we mustn’t do is treat empty road ahead of us as a ‘motorcycle lane’ whether we’re filtering down the outside of a queue of traffic against oncoming vehicles, or (to use the American term) ‘lane splitting’ between queues moving in the same direction.

And that determines our speed. We have to be able to stop in the distance that we can see is clear AND EXPECT TO REMAIN CLEAR. So what’s the ‘right’ speed? Well, it’s all down to the physics of stopping. Two issues. The first is ‘double your speed, quadruple your stopping distance’. The second is ‘three-quarters of your braking distance loses one-quarter of your speed’.

In the collision between Messrs Schrogin and Davis, Mr Schrogin was stopped in a traffic jam in his car on a straight road, whilst Mr Davis was overtaking the stationary queue on his motorcycle. As nothing was coming in the opposite direction, Mr Schrogin decided to execute a U-turn and failed to see the approaching bike. Mr Schrogin accepted that he had looked the wrong way but argued that Mr Davis was contributory negligent. Mr Davis admitted seeing Mr Schrogin’s car moving towards the kerb in preparation for the U-turn but claimed that as he was no more than five cars’ length back from the point of impact, he had no chance to stop.

What surprises me is that when the case went to the Court of Appeal, it held that Mr Davis was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, so there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence. But could the rider have stopped, given the quoted five car lengths?

Let’s do a quick sum. Something like a Vauxhall Astra is around 4.5 metres long, and that’s a fairly average sized car. Multiply that by 5 and you get 22.5 metres. Add a metre gap between the five vehicles and we probably have at least 25 metres in which to stop. When I demonstrate emergency stops, I can bring the bike to a standstill on a reasonable surface in the dry in around 10 metres from 30mph. So could a competent rider be ‘reasonably expected’ to stop too? if Mr Davis was accurate in his memory of distance (and post-crash, most witnesses are hopelessly inaccurate) then I’d say “yes, a competent rider could be reasonably expected to stop”…

…if he wasn’t taken completely by surprise by the event! If you’ve read Keith Code’s ‘Twist of the Wrist’ books, you’ll know all about ‘Survival Reactions’, the unplanned response to emergencies. They’re triggered by SURPRISE!, something you can find out more about by looking up our ‘No Suprise? No Accident’ campaign. If we’re not predicting something to happen, then SURPRISE! kicks in and triggers the Survival Reactions, which include freezing and ineffective braking. So the problem is really our expectations about that happens next. Is it really unexpected if a pedestrian steps out from between two vehicles? Or a door opens into our path? Or a car swaps lanes? Or a van pulls out of a side turning. Or a car starts to make a U-turn. Of course not. At least, not if we’re planning for the Worst Case Scenario, rather than looking at the empty tarmac as a motorcycle lane.

If we can see what’s happening ahead – a car edging the left in a queue is a great clue that the next movement will be the driver swinging out to perform a U-turn, whilst a gap being left between two vehicles is an equally fine clue that someone’s leaving space for an emerging vehicle or for someone to cross the road – we just have to interpret what we see. But the moment our view ahead is restricted – perhaps by a bus – then we have to assume that whe might have to stop level with the front of that vehicle – and down comes the speed.

You may read that so long as you keep to a 15 mph speed differential with the vehicles you’re filtering past, you’ll be safe. I know where that claim came from, and what they ignored was the physics. If we’re filtering past stationary traffic at 15 mph, our stopping distance is about a metre. If we’re filtering past traffic moving at 10 mph at 25 mph, our stopping distance is about six metres. By the time our speed climbs to 55 mph, filtering past traffic moving at 40 mph, our stopping distance is out to 35 metres or so. That’s a huge distance back from where things can go wrong. It’s already too late to worry about the cars we’re passing NOW.

Now, if you take a look at the shape of a braking graph, it takes us around half the total stopping distance to lose (very, very roughly) one-fifth of our speed. And we lose approximately three-quarters of our speed in the final quarter of the available braking distance. The result is that if we can’t stop, impacts are MUCH harder than riders intuitively expect. We only need to run out of space by one-quarter of the distance, but we hit with three-quarters of the impact of not braking at all. And the higher our starting speed, the worse the impact. Only considering traffic speed differentials is a really nasty filtering trap. Once traffic is moving at around 20, I’ll be back in the traffic stream. You certainly won’t see me lane splitting at motorway speeds.

What other tips can I give you?

Most important of all, assume you will NOT BE SEEN. Don’t expect to be seen in a mirror. Just like you, drivers are watching the traffic ahead when it’s moving in queues, so that they don’t run into the back of a vehicle that stops suddenly. Mirror use is erratic at best, the view is often blocked by the next vehicle back, and as soon as there is the slightest curve in the road, the mirror won’t show a filtering motorcycle until the last second in any case. All the hi-vis kit in the world, even riding with lights on main beam – makes no odds if the bike’s not visible. And loud pipes? When I’m driving, it’s not uncommon that the first time I hear them is when the bike is alongside. They project the engine sound backwards, not forwards. They do not save lives. So we need to look forwards and be ready to change our plans and even take evasive action. And keep a thumb near the horn – it might just stop a driver moving into your path.

When passing stationary traffic on a single carriageway road, where possible move into the opposite carriageway and stay wide – it gives us a better view of emerging and U-turning vehicles. But don’t be tempted to carry too much speed – as we’ve seen, it may be necessary to stop suddenly so watch out for junctions, where pedestrians might cross and only filter past after checking it’s clear. Don’t be tempted to go the wrong side of a solid line on your side of the road or Keep Left islands, it’s an offence and a guaranteed nick if you’re spotted. When confronted with oncoming traffic it’s still possible to filter IF there is sufficient margin, but as we get closer to the vehicles we’re filtering past the speed must come down – could we stop if a door opened? Eventually, when further progress cannot be safely made, we should find a space and move back into the queue. Don’t forget we should never force another vehicle to swerve or slow down – this could count as grounds for a prosecution.

What about filtering on the left? First of all, there is no offence of ‘undertaking’ if you pass the left of slower traffic on single carriageway roads, dual carriageways or motorways. But… like all filtering or lane splitting, if done in a way that inconveniences other road users, specifically forcing them to change speed or direction to avoid us, it can be construed as careless or even dangerous driving, offences which carry points, a fine and even a custodial sentence if dangerous enough.

Legal or not, fltering to the left of a queue is generally riskier for several reasons. The first is because – bar the odd foreign vehicle – the driver is sitting on the far side of the vehicle and is much less likely to see a bike coming up in the passenger side mirror. Keep a good eye out for side turnings and entrances, and watch for vehicles turning left into it. We’re also at risk from oncoming vehicles turning right through stationary or slow-moving queues because we’re blindsided by the vehicles we’re passing. And don’t forget emerging vehicles too – drivers often miss spotting cyclists as well as bikes filtering alongside the pavement because they’re busy looking at the queue of traffic and working out whether someone will let them out. Although some bus lane allow motorcycle access at any time and it’s perfectly legal to use them when not in use – check the sign boards at the beginning of the lane – we’re now passing slower traffic to our right and the same problems apply. It’s not difficult, if there’s a turning to be see or a gap to the right, then look for – and respond to – the turning vehicle. Slow right down, expect NOT to be seen and be prepared to Give Way.

When lane splitting on any dual carriageway including a motorway, we’re always passing to the left of a stream of traffic, so the same mirror issues appear. Where there are three lanes, passing between lane two and lane three (the right-hand lane) is usually the best bet. HGVs are not allowed to use the outside lane so there’s a bit more space, a slightly better view, and you won’t be lane-splitting between two trucks too often. As a rule of thumb, look ahead for gaps in each lane big enough for a vehicle to move into – if there’s a space, someone will aim to take it, and it’s usually the driver on our RIGHT who, because they are usually moving to a slower-moving lane – is least likely to see us approaching in the passenger side mirror. Be particularly careful when lanes move at different speeds. It’s called ‘lane shear’ and drivers will do exactly what we’re doing – try to get to the faster lane to make progress. Be ready for lane swapping to the faster-moving lane. Watch out too near junctions and services. Drivers will generally move left through the lanes to get to an off-ramp, and after we pass the on-ramp, they’ll be moving to the right. And don’t forget, there are junctions where drivers can turn right across a dual carriageway.

Plan as far ahead as possible. Be particularly cautious passing long vehicles. The driver’s view from the cab is often not very good, they need space to turn on bends and at junctions and may swing wide, so hang back till you know what they are doing, and pass when they’ve straightened up. Watch out for buses parked at an angle in a bus stop – if you can’t see the mirror, the driver can’t see you. Make sure you spot left or right turn lanes so you can anticipate turning vehicles. Look for obstructions like traffic islands and bollards, pinchpoints either side of the road, or cyclists – they will all make vehicles change position and possibly ‘squeeze’ our space. Watch the surface for cats-eyes and painted lines, potholes or slippery surfaces which could make braking or steering difficult. Look for lane markings approaching junctions to predict traffic movements, and watch traffic lights to judge the sequence – we may be able to slip to the front whilst they are red, but we may need to look to slip into a gap in the queue so we don’t get stuck against the island when they turn green.

Watch out for legal traps too. Just because you see lots of other riders breaking laws, don’t imagine they all get away with it. Don’t get caught out by cycle lanes bounded by a solid line, and be aware that we’re not supposed to use the advanced cycle stop box at lights. In practice, nearly everyone on a bike uses them, but riders do get nicked – some are monitored by CCTV. Likewise active bus lanes are often monitored too. Passing in a zone marked with a broken line and cross hatching is allowable if “safe and necessary”, but it’s illegal to enter a zone with chevrons and a solid line. Be careful about moving back and forth to the fastest moving lane on a multilane road to make progress in heavy traffic. A traffic cop told me that he was shown a video of a motorcyclist moving at speed from lane to lane on a busy motorway on a training course, and was asked for comments. He thought that the rider was safe enough, although a little closer to some of the cars than he’d like, but that generally he had no problem with what he saw. So he was surprised that the video evidence had been used to prosecute the rider, who’d be found guilty of dangerous driving and handed a ban!

Try to be courteous to other road users, even the ones holding you up. Don’t harass them with rev bombs or drive a centimetre behind with lights on stun. Even if your impatient bahaviour doesn’t trigger an equally aggressive response, it can distract them into making a mistake that puts you at greater risk. Give drivers a chance to see you – a highly-manoeuvrable bike can cut through traffic and really DOES appear from nowhere. Back when I was a courier, the best despatch riders used to move through traffic almost imperceptibly – but they were always there at the head of the queue. And if you’re from a big city, don’t try the same filtering techniques out in the sticks. What works on the Euston Road in London is asking for trouble in a small Scottish town.

If you are not confident you can do it, don’t! And don’t copy other riders if you’re not sure what you’re doing either. You’ve no guarantee they have a clue what they’re doing. If there’s one rule to follow, look for places it’s easy to filter – wide roads, stationary traffic. Avoid it where it’s tricky – narrow lanes, against heavy oncoming traffic. You might see someone else taking a risk, but a little caution, a little extra time on your journey will mean you arrive at your destination by bike rather than at hospital by air ambulance.

Taken cautiously, filtering can be relatively low risk and we can still make good progress by combining excellent observation with careful planning. I spent sixteen years as a courier, and covered half-a-million miles, so I must have filtered tens of thousands of miles through London, and the worst that happened was hitting a taxi driver’s door when he opened it to empty his ashtray just as I was filtering past. His door caught my clutch lever, which broke one of my fingers. But as I point out in my Urban Survival Skills advanced motorcycle courses, filtering isn’t ‘safe’. It’s one of the main killers of riders in big cities, usually because riders become complacent. Nothing ever went wrong before – but it only needs to go wrong once, and we’re in the KSI stats.

January 21, 2026February 1, 2026

19. Don’t just ride for yourself, ride to deal with the other road user

Although the incident described in this article happened getting on for three decades ago, it still gives me the wobbles just thinking about it; it was that close. The central lesson remains unchanged. Most serious motorcycle crashes are not caused by a rider lacking technical skill, but by a failure to anticipate how other road users might behave when under pressure, impatient, distracted or simply mistaken. Modern road-safety research increasingly recognises that collisions arise from interactions between people, not isolated errors. Riding well, therefore, is not just about what we do ourselves, but about actively managing the risks created by others — and sometimes giving them space, time or options when they run out of judgement. Were I writing this today, I’d probably mention that systems thinking, applied to road safety, explicitly recognises that collisions arise from interactions between multiple road users, not isolated “fault”. With that in mind, my criticism of the coach driver could be usefully reframed as a missed opportunity to reduce overall system risk, rather than suggesting primary fault. That was over-the-top.

However, the idea that we should not rely on others doing the right thing is still as far from mainstream acceptance as ever. Riders still rely legal right-of-way as a safety strategy and explain passive riding (“I was minding my own business”) as a defence.

Don’t just ride for yourself, ride to deal with the other road user

I originally wrote this article after hearing from a friend about a fatal collision including a rider. It seemed a car travelling in the opposite direction had come under a railway bridge on the wrong side of the road. The car had apparently been racing another bike. It brought back memories of a personal near-miss on my regular weekend route when I was working as a trainer at Cinque Ports in Kent.

It was a lovely early morning in summer and I knew the road well, having been up and down it hundreds of times. One section took in a quiet country lane, wide and well surfaced with mostly good views and few houses, farms or side roads. One section is a flat-out downhill straight, almost a mile long. It finishes with a sharp, 20mph left-hand bend which has caught numerous riders and drivers out (the skid marks tell the tale) but that’s not where things got interesting. About a third of the way down this slope, where it would be quite easy to be doing three figure speeds on any modestly-powered machine, is a slight rise. It creates a blind crest with a hidden dip on the other side. I never took it too fast over the top because I knew there was a farm entrance just ahead.

But on this particular Saturday morning, at about 7:30 am, Spidy Sense kicked in. I don’t know why, but I approached the crest rather slower than normal. Coming the other way, the top of a coach appeared. I slowed even more and moved to the left of the lane. Damn me if a speeding car didn’t appear appear on my side of the road, desperately trying to complete an overtake!

If I hadn’t reacted, our closing speed would probably have been around 120mph. But slowing down gave me just enough space to swerve right over to the nearside, and we got past each other with maybe a metre to spare. By the time I got to work fifteen minutes later, I had stopped shaking.

I hadn’t thought about this for ages, till I received Steve’s e-mail, but it brought it all back and I sat down to think about it again.

Whether the driver overtaking the coach was incompetent or took a stupid risk is irrelevant, I found him where he was and I had to deal with it. Any blind area – whether it’s riding over a crest, under a bridge or round a bend – is riding into the unknown. And we need to apply some caution – “never ride at a speed faster than one that allow you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear and EXPECT TO REMAIN CLEAR” is a good the rule but we have to be aware that it’s all controlled by just what we expect. If we expect vehicles not to cross the centre line, then we’re not expecting a whole raft of potential problems.

I’ve no evidence how fast the dead rider was travelling and it seems no blame attached to him, but being completely objective, although I’m probably more cautious than nine out of ten riders, historically I probably rode over that crest a little faster than I should have done. Why? Because for “nothing had ever gone wrong before”.

The trouble is, in situations like this, it’s only ever likely to go wrong once.

It scares me witless when I see riders launch themselves at blind corners and junctions at speeds that give them no chance of stopping in the event of something blocking the road. We should always be thinking of the Worst Case Scenario, planning to stop or at least take evasive action in an emergency.

But ultimately, the driver who was really at fault was – in my opinion – the coach driver.

Why? He made zero effort to get either of us out of trouble. Even if he was half-asleep, he’d have seen the suicidal driver attempting the overtake, and that the car wasn’t going to get back to the correct side of the road before the crest. And his higher-up driving position would have given him a sight of me a moment or two earlier than the driver could see me. If it had been me behind the coach wheel, I would have slammed the brakes on, and made as much space as possible by keeping left, hoping to give the car driver space to avoid the bike.

In the event, the drive didn’t change position and as far as I could see he didn’t even touch the brakes!

Bloodymindedness? Possibly, truck and coach drivers are loath to lose speed because it takes them so long to build it up. But more likely it was a complete lack of recognition that there was a head-on collision about to happen alongside him. It didn’t threaten him personally, therefore it didn’t even register as a danger.

Whatever the reason, the coach driver’s inaction had committed the car driver to a single, unalterable course of action. I call it ‘putting someone in jail’. The driver had no escape route and no alternative other than to keep going and hope for the best.

The point I’m making is that we might be riding along minding our own business, but by doing nothing when other road users create a dangerous situation, we still contribute to it. A good example is the rider who forces a driver to abort a turn across a main road by simply carrying on, doing nothing because “I have right of way”. Or holding a wide line around a left-hand bend forcing a truck to steer to the left to avoid hitting the bike. Backing off the throttle, turning a little tighter would make life easier for everyone. So we need to b aware of everything that goes on around us, including assessing the problems other road users face, and deciding if there’s anything we can do to help them out or even give them a way to get out of trouble.

I often wonder what gave me that premonition… did I in fact spot the coach and car in the far distance before they vanished? I don’t remember seeing them, but it’s possible I clocked them subconciously. I don’t give myself any credit for getting out of a highly dangerous situation alive where another biker didn’t. I’d rather it was seen as a reminder that however careful we are, to some extent we depend on other drivers and riders help out in moments like this, and it’s up to us as thinking riders to actively look for the problems affecting other road users, be aware of their mistakes and help them out too.

POSTSCRIPT

Some weeks later I mentioned the story and the value of keeping left over blind crests to my riding buddy Keith as we were sat on the ferry on the way to Chimay for the June racing. He was not completely convinced about the value of keeping left over blind crests. But guess what happened on the way back? A driver decided he couldn’t wait any longer to get to the front of a short stream of slower-moving cars and went to overtake the lot, towards a blind crest. He ran out of space and ended up passing the final vehicle on the wrong side of the centre line…

…just as a motorcycle appeared coming the other way.

Somehow they missed each other. I don’t know how, because I was already on the brakes, looking for an escape route to escape the expected carnage.

January 21, 2026February 1, 2026

14. Who is writing your biking advice? Make sure it’s good!

I sometimes pick up criticism for commenting negatively on other articles on better biking skills. “Why are you being so negative? They are only trying to help” was something I heard a while back. The trouble is, not all advice is created equal. When it comes to cornering, there’s a still a focus on prioritising ‘progress’ and textbook lines over hazard awareness, leaving riders exposed to surprises. Where we look and how we think about hazards in corners matters more than how fast we take a bend; the aim of the article is to explain why situational awareness should always come first in advanced riding. The reference to the MAC courses from 1998 may seem out of date, but in fact there is still a need for similar cautions, particularly in this age of modern tech; that might change the machine dynamics but cannot replace situational awareness.

Who is writing your biking advice? Make sure it’s good!

Some years back I was reading a new section on advanced riding on another website. The section was designed to pull in readers to the business, and I wasn’t surprised to see that the first article dealt with cornering – it usually does! But rather than being written ‘in-house’, contributions were from readers. In this case, the article appeared it was written by someone who had completed a two day Motorcycle Appreciation Course (MAC) in 1998 as part of that now-defunct Honda-run training initiative. No problem, I thought, I’m always interested in new ideas and new sources. However, reading it more closely revealed a couple of misunderstandings. At least I hoped they were misunderstandings and not what was taught!

So what did I spot that concerned me? The most important one involved our old friend the Limit Point (or vanishing, distance or convergence point) and what we should do with it.

He states “quick riding particularly through bends is all about position. Correct positioning will enable maximum visibility and consequently more rapid progress.”

Uh-oh. First warning sign. Notice the emphasis on quick riding and progress. As I stated in a previous tip, skills-based training has to be tempered by a knowledge of what can go WRONG. My first thought would be “what might make me slow down and maybe even stop”, not how fast I can get around the bend. Our goal in a bend is NOT ‘more progress’. It’s all about identifying hazards that might make us slow down. IF and ONLY IF we are certain that we cannot see any reasons to slow down, THEN we can choose whether or not making ‘progress’ is appropriate. And I know this is where the Survival Skills risk-based approach to training parts company with a lot of other post-test training in the UK.

“Therefore moving to the left for a right-hander, staying in to the left watching the vanishing point until you can see the exit then drifting away from the left towards the right easing out the bend and accelerating away will open the bend out allowing more brisk progress. The opposite applies for left-handers”.

No. Once we realise that our first task is always to work out where we might to stop, then we need to look out for the hazards that might make us stop. Gaining the best possible view around the bend isn’t the same as maximising our view of hazards.

If we’re going to experience a nasty SURPRISE! on a corner, it’s most likely to appear from a hazard called a ‘surprise horizon’. The surprise horizon is a blind area between us and the furthest point we can see is clear. The reason a surprise horizon is a hazard we need to be aware of is because of the risk that a vehicle (or a cycle or a person or even an animal) could suddenly appear. And it’s appearing between us and the limit point.

And that in turn leads to two other conclusions:

positioning to see as far as the limit point MUST be subsidiary to changing position to open up views into these blind areas. If we simply ride to open up view around a right-hand bend, it can place us perilously close to these blind entrances on the nearside.

our speed must be set to allow us to take some evasive action at the surprise horizon, not the limit point

Are there any other hazards?

We mustn’t forget that the more we position to the right-of-centre and close to the centre line, there is the potential risk of conflict with oncoming traffic. The narrower the road or the sharper the corner, the worse the risk. Too far to the right and the only benefit will be that we see what we’re about to hit a moment sooner. We must give up position if keeping right on a left-hander would potentially expose us to a risk of head-on collision. We MUST maintain a broader focus on the ROAD, not just the the corner – we must maintain SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.

Then he continued: “if all this seems rather obvious, it is probably because it is and certainly it came as nothing new to me. So why was I losing speed on the approach to bends and in some cases while negotiating them?

“I had forgotten not the need to assess the line of the road well in advance, but to maintain concentration on where it was going, in other words where I wanted to go… It took me some while to realise that instead of watching the vanishing point and chasing it, my eye was straying to changes in the road surface, the instruments, or minor obstructions. As soon as my concentration strayed, my momentum through the bend or on its approach reduced.”

Maybe I’m deliberately failing to read between the lines, but to me (and possibly to someone reading this with whilst looking for advice) this reads as if the broader situational awareness is being seen as a distraction from the all-important task of ‘making progress’ through the corner.

Of course we look at the road surface, of course we look at ‘minor obstructions’. We have to, because we are not on a race track and we need to keep an up-to-date 360 degree mental map of our surroundings, and a lot of vital detail can only be assessed when we’re closer-up. What’s a dark patch spotted in the distance? Only close up will we be able to tell if it’s a road repair with different coloured tarmac, a pothole, a damp patch or a fuel spill. Clearly, there are good times to make mirror checks and glance at the instruments, and that’s probably not in the middle of the corner, but denying that we need to check the surface or what’s left and right of our path is just plain wrong.

My guess is that the entire diagnosis of the writer’s problems was wrong. It was not ‘lack of forward vision’ so much as a late response to the hazards he had spotted – hence running in on a closed throttle – plus a general lack of a plan allowing the rider to negotiate bends as a flowing sequence. Possibly he got a lecture on the dangers of target fixation.

That would tally with what he says later about it being “a truism that we go where we look”. That’s another old chestnut. We actually look at what scares us – it’s built-in to human responses to threats. It’s target fixation and it’s a far more natural response to the threats of the road, and it takes a real effort to lift our view further ahead and away from the threat. And one of the things that creates target fixation, pulling our view down and to the immediate surroundings, is trying to ride too fast – we start focusing on the Number One job which is simply staying on the tarmac. If we haven’t got time to spread our vision around, then we’re riding too close to our limits. And there’s another reason progress should never be a goal of training, but an outcome of eliminating risk.

So next time you’re out on the bike, have a think about where you are looking. If you’re being surprised by hazards appearng AHEAD, then you need to pick your vision up and search further ahead. If you’re being surprised by hazards appearing from the SIDES then you need to spread your view left and right. In either case, you may need to slow down initially, but what you should not be doing is focusing exclusively on the limit point.