advanced training and coms use

[dern]

I did my IAM course a couple of years ago and we didn't use comms. I was expected to pay attention to the indicators of my 'instructor'.

[exportman]

As a rule the IAM group I'm with don't use comms. It can be helpful but also distracting. Having been out with the local bib and the Police instructor behind me giving a running commentary over the radio I had to ask him to shut up as it was too distracting. In the middle of the Yorkshire moors having a spirited ride he said we will turn right at the A** traffic is moving freely I can sea blue van and a green car proceeding at good pace, I'm looking for these vehicles and nearly ran into a hedge. When I did find them it was miles away and they looked about the same size as micro machines
If we perceive a need then some of us are qualified to use comms, it is always one way we can speak to them but they can not respond. Sometime I find it better to take the associate out in my car for a run and use commentary then. They don't have to think about riding and we can have a conversation about things as we progress. Some may think is not a good idea to get in a car with me but so far........

[Bob D.]

I did my IAM course a couple of years ago and we didn't use comms. I was expected to pay attention to the indicators of my 'instructor'.

Do you reckon it'd have been easier via radio?

[dern]

I did my IAM course a couple of years ago and we didn't use comms. I was expected to pay attention to the indicators of my 'instructor'.

Do you reckon it'd have been easier via radio?

I don't think so. I only went the wrong way a couple of times and the structure was discuss, ride and observe, discuss... repeat. I think it would have put me off if we had comms.

I had comms on my bike test and I still went the wrong way.

[Horse]

I had comms on my bike test and I still went the wrong way.

Going the wrong way - even done deliberately, for example if you have local knowledge and want to avoid a particular junction - isn't a test fail!

[dern]

I had comms on my bike test and I still went the wrong way.

Going the wrong way - even done deliberately, for example if you have local knowledge and want to avoid a particular junction - isn't a test fail!

The only bit of my test I was shitting myself on was the u-turn. I was on a cg125 and couldn't get full lock without sitting all the way back and splaying my knees. Had to do three of them in the end due to going the wrong way twice.

[iansoady]

I had comms on my bike test and I still went the wrong way.

Going the wrong way - even done deliberately, for example if you have local knowledge and want to avoid a particular junction - isn't a test fail!

But surely the examiner may want you to go the difficult way to see how you cope?

[Horse]

I had comms on my bike test and I still went the wrong way.

Going the wrong way - even done deliberately, for example if you have local knowledge and want to avoid a particular junction - isn't a test fail!

But surely the examiner may want you to go the difficult way to see how you cope?

Yup, they have set routes, with selected hazards.

But it's - for test purposes - more important that, whatever you do, it's to test standards. The examiner 'might' have mumbled or made a mistake giving directions.

[The Spin Doctor]

Eh up everyone - this's my first post, so hello and I'll start by saying that there's a lot of informative and interesting posts on RTTL.

Let me get straight to the point. I've been reading a copy of Advanced Rider Training by Stephen Tucker and David Rainford. It covers various issues, but one thing I noticed was the emphasis and focus on wireless/bluetooth etc. communication between trainer and trainee.

My questions are pretty simple.......Thanks in advance everyone.

Meant to get round to this ages ago, but other work intervened.

- is this standard practice for advanced training?

Since there is no standard as such for advanced training, there's no standard practice unlike DAS where the trainer MUST be in radio contact with the trainee at all times

- Would those in the know say that the majority of advanced trainers use coms? Or is it 50/50, or just a minority? I appreciate this is almost impossible to answer with any degree of certainty at the national level, and perhaps even the local group level - but if any long-serving trainers can give any info or insight here I'd be very grateful.

Depends what you mean by 'advanced training'. The IAM long denied that they 'trained' riders although they now have an 'advanced course'. To my knowledge some observers use comms, most don't. AFAIK, the vast majority of independent post-test trainers like myself use comms.

- One more question - how do those who've trained - and train - using coms find they work? Do they make it easier, more difficult?

Like any tool, it depends how you use them. Here are some reasons that radios are very useful:

• to direct the trainee on to the planned route
  to aid the trainee in negotiating a hazard
  to prevent risk of injury or damage to vehicles or property
  to prevent the trainee from breaking the law
  to assist the trainee to deal with extreme, unplanned circumstances
  to prevent mechanical damage to the bike

Most of those can only be done via a radio link. You might argue that an 'advanced' rider shouldn't need assistance, but there are plenty of situations on the road that even experienced riders haven't dealt with before... and we all make mistakes! Even a rider with a RoSPA gold missed a NO RIGHT TURN sign after I'd told him to take the 'take the next available turning' and was about to make an illegal right turn - it would have been difficult to have prevented that without the radio, but the error told me that he hadn't seen the road sign.

As well the emergency interventions, radios are - in my opinion - a highly effective tool for giving directions and occasional 'prompts' whilst on the move, plus some quick positive feedback on something done well. And occasionally, when I don't want to stop and get off the bike, I'll pull over to the side of the road and use the radio to give some quick instructions that are still a bit too longwinded to deliver on the move, or some rapid feedback on a particular incident where I don't want to go into detail but just want to bring something to the trainee's attention before it evaporates from memory.

What I don't use them for are complex instructions or 'teaching on the move'. If we're approaching a complex junction or one where something unusual will happen - one of the DAS routes used to feature a right turn onto a dual carriageway, not something that crops up very often - then I would stop short and explain what we were about to encounter at a standstill - the trainee's full attention is available for the explanation. On the move, the trainee's attention needs to be focused on riding the bike, not trying to understand what's being said over the radio.

Reading the instructor DAS assessment notes I wrote for the training school I was with back in 1997, I said:

"It is important that instructions given over the radio are spoken clearly, but are also understandable and concise. Don’t use complicated words or try to make long-winded observations over the radio when the trainee is moving – if we need to make a long statement, get the trainee to stop."

ANY radio transmission - no matter how good the comms system - can come over garbled or broken up. If both words AND instructions are kept short and precise the trainee has the best chance of understanding and acting as we expect. The best way to do that is to give clear and consistent instructions that follow the same pattern of words each time.

It's also vital to give the trainee the instruction in good time so the trainee has time to see the problem, think about what they are going to do, then start doing it. That usually helps us to make corrections in good time of they are needed, for example if the trainee starts signalling right when we wanted to make a left turn. But sometimes it's safer to accept they're going the wrong way, follow them and sort it out round the corner.

So yes, the radio is highly useful, but we must also consider when it might be better to stop and give instructions.

- If anyone has any objections to using them, I'd be interested in reading about those too.

Used badly, the radio can be a serious distraction - we can't think with someone yacking constantly in our ear. I took my DAS assessment at Cardington back in 1997 when the student ratio with the examiner was 2:1. I have never had a more graphic illustration of how 'less is more' than from the other instructor on the course. He knew his stuff, but he couldn't keep his mouth shut, and at one point I was riding along as he was 'instructing' the assessor shouting "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP" at the top of my voice inside the helmet. Virtually everything he said was entirely valid but should have been delivered at a standstill. The radio is a valuable tool but we must never forget that the trainee is trying to ride the bike at the same time.

- For those who use coms, and have two-way contact between trainer / trainee, is commentary riding ever used? I'm talking about a purely civilian context here.

Since there are a number of basic trainers who are now using Bluetooth comms which are two or even three way, I've been experimenting with two-way comms myself. However, I would NOT get a rider to deliver a commentary on what they are seeing and doing on the move. It takes experience and training to do that well - I had the benefit of a high quality seven day instructor training course to be taught how to use a radio link effectively and to practice using it before I went anywhere near a trainee, and even after several months of practical use doing CBT / DAS training full time, I was still developing my radio communication skills on the job. After twenty five years training experience I believe I can DELIVER a concise and non-distracting commentary to OTHER riders (I nearly always do it from ahead incidentally, rather than behind - it gives the trainee a little more time to become aware of the hazard I've just mentioned) but I don't ask trainees to deliver a commentary to me.

The exercise I do use - and would recommend every rider tries from time to time to improve their observation skills - is to stop at the side of the road and describe what they can see, what they can't see, what is likely to happen and - the essential thought process that's missing from Roadcraft - what COULD happen even if it's unlikely including the WORST CASE SCENARIO that would put us at risk.

Most trainees need considerable prompting before they've seen everything that is capable of being seen, and more prompting before they really process that visual information. Two-way comms are useful for this because we don't have to get off the bikes.

- One last thing - is there an equivalent to Roadcraft for trainers, that gives advice and guidance on how to train associates for advanced riding? Is there a "go-to" publication of any kind?

I've been writing one for the last ten years. Maybe I'll finish it... but it's aimed at being a handbook on HOW to instruct, not what to instruct - it's a very different book to the one you mentioned.

HTH.

[Horse]

ANY radio transmission - no matter how good the comms system - can come over garbled or broken up.


Since there are a number of basic trainers who are now using Bluetooth comms which are two or even three way, I've been experimenting with two-way comms myself.

'Transmit receive error' (ie "send three and fourpence") has the potential to be a big problem.

It helps to have reliable equipment. The PMR kit I used had superb noise cancelling, some systems will just amplify wind noise and blast it at the unlucky recipient.

Even then, their helmet wind noise and, possibly, earplugs have to be overcome.

The only two-way coms I used was the trainee tapping the side of their head if they couldn't understand the message Rarely more than one stop to adjust volume.

- One last thing - is there an equivalent to Roadcraft for trainers, that gives advice and guidance on how to train associates for advanced riding? Is there a "go-to" publication of any kind?

I've been writing one for the last ten years. Maybe I'll finish it... but it's aimed at being a handbook on HOW to instruct, not what to instruct - it's a very different book to the one you mentioned.

The BTEC manual was quite comprehensive, but now 20 years old and unavailable. Apart from that ...

[Bigyin]

'Transmit receive error' (ie "send three and fourpence") has the potential to be a big problem.

It helps to have reliable equipment. The PMR kit I used had superb noise cancelling, some systems will just amplify wind noise and blast it at the unlucky recipient.

Even then, their helmet wind noise and, possibly, earplugs have to be overcome.

The only two-way coms I used was the trainee tapping the side of their head if they couldn't understand the message Rarely more than one stop to adjust volume.

Exactly the same as i use and same signal. I also tell them i dont need a thumbs up or any sort of waved hand acknowledgement apart from a nodded head if i make a quick correction or reminder of a missed lifesaver or signal for example.

For those who dont normally use comms I carry 2 radios, 1 set to vox to speak and 1 set to RX to listen so i know when my transmissions are cutting or excessive wind causing the mike to activate when i dont need it to.

[Horse]

and 1 set to RX to listen so i know when my transmissions are cutting .

Blimey! That's dedication

excessive wind causing the mike to activate when i dont need it to.

That's where my Starcom was ace - set the VOX once when installed, never had to adjust it, the noise cancelling adjusted automatically.

Spin had one, hated it!

Downside: hardwired to the bike.

[Cousin Jack]

Going the wrong way - even done deliberately, for example if you have local knowledge and want to avoid a particular junction - isn't a test fail!

Try telling that to the "Senior Observer" who was the last point of contact I had with the IAM!

[Horse]

Going the wrong way - even done deliberately, for example if you have local knowledge and want to avoid a particular junction - isn't a test fail!

Try telling that to the "Senior Observer" who was the last point of contact I had with the IAM!

'L' test

One of Foal's friends 'accidentally' misunderstood the examiner's instructions - several times! He wasn't impressed (and made sure she knew), but she passed.

Was your acquaintance giving directions by indicators?

[Cousin Jack]

Was your acquaintance giving directions by indicators?

Yes. Went around a blind bend, on a road I didn't know, to be faced with another sharp bend, a junction on the left with a car edging out, oncoming traffic indicating right and a parked car somewhere in the mix. I stayed on the main road, and TBH looking in my mirror was way down my list of priorities. Apparently I should have turned left.

For the avoidance of doubt he wasn't signaling prior to the first bend, I looked.

[Horse]

Yes. Went around a blind bend, on a road I didn't know, to be faced with another sharp bend, a junction on the left with a car edging out, oncoming traffic indicating right and a parked car somewhere in the mix. I stayed on the main road, and TBH looking in my mirror was way down my list of priorities. Apparently I should have turned left.

For the avoidance of doubt he wasn't signaling prior to the first bend, I looked.

Don't need to tell you that most problems happen from stuff in front of you I totally agree that, in the circumstances you describe, looking away wouldn't have been a great use of your concentration!

As much as 'systematic riding' - whether OSM PSL or IPSGA - suggests that you start by looking behind, a bit of common sense should apply too

'Timing' applies in many ways, and having a good check when pressure / workload is low and you're about to lose view - as you were - is a good idea.

[Cousin Jack]

IIRC when I went out with Spin we had problems with the radio so managed without.
I have also been out with another IAM observer, 2 different Bikesafe people, another trainer, and assorted mates who knew the way but were riding behind me. None of them used radio, and I had no problems. Signaling works, but the person doing the signaling needs to think about the person who is doing the watching too.

[The Spin Doctor]

ANY radio transmission - no matter how good the comms system - can come over garbled or broken up.

And if you ever used the old 'baby alarm' intercoms (59MHz I think they were on), you could be quite literally standing next to the trainee and the trainee would be unable to hear the radio. There were some notorious dead zones in Ashford where the radios simply didn't work - I assume there was another transmitter operating. (And that's not to mention interference from the REAL baby alarms in homes - handy hint, if you have a baby alarm in the room, turn it OFF before engaging in intimate relations )

It helps to have reliable equipment. The PMR kit I used had superb noise cancelling, some systems will just amplify wind noise and blast it at the unlucky recipient.

Bluetooth is pretty good generally - which goes to show how utterly overpriced the Autocoms were at the time!

Even then, their helmet wind noise and, possibly, earplugs have to be overcome.

The trainer's helmet also contributes to wind noise but you're right - if the trainee has a helmet that makes a racket, they're not going to hear even the best radio link.

The only two-way coms I used was the trainee tapping the side of their head if they couldn't understand the message Rarely more than one stop to adjust volume.

I'm not convinced it's useful. There are a lot of basic trainers who say they can get the trainee to explain what they are seeing and why they are doing it, and whilst that's good in theory, I'm not convinced it's actually sensible on the move, particularly with someone who's inexperienced on a bike.

The BTEC manual was quite comprehensive, but now 20 years old and unavailable. Apart from that ...

And my own manual-in-prep draws heavily from the one I wrote for Cinque Ports in the winter of 1996

[The Spin Doctor]

That's where my Starcom was ace - set the VOX once when installed, never had to adjust it, the noise cancelling adjusted automatically.

Spin had one, hated it!

Downside: hardwired to the bike.

I simply could NOT get it to work... and using it on two different bikes was a complete PITA.

[The Spin Doctor]

One of Foal's friends 'accidentally' misunderstood the examiner's instructions - several times! He wasn't impressed (and made sure she knew), but she passed.

Yes, I've had a few like that

One genuinely got flustered every time he was given directions (by me too) but whatever choice he did make, he did well. He got back from the test and the examiner sent him inside, and stopped for a quiet word; "if I asked him to turn left, he turned right, when I wanted him to go right he went left, and he went the wrong way at every single roundabout - was he like that with you?" I nodded. He added "We went to parts of Folkestone I've never seen before and at one point I wasn't even sure how to get back to the test centre". But he passed with just a couple of minors.

Another deliberately avoided the roundabout he'd failed at twice before - the examiner, who'd taken him for the two previous tests too - aimed him at the same set of roundabouts and he deliberately turned left rather than go straight over. The examiner was not amused, but he rode the rest of the route near perfectly, so he had to pass him!