Motorcycle Roadcraft - new edition?

[Horse]

Incidentally, counter-steering gets its own section in the latest edition of Motorcycle Roadcraft.

Oh, what's that about then?

[The Spin Doctor]

I agree about the emphasis on ‘progress’. It makes complete sense for the emergency services, but it’s less necessary for the rest of us. Although hasn’t the IAM reduced this emphasis?

Incidentally, counter-steering gets its own section in the latest edition of Motorcycle Roadcraft.

There were supposed to... I was at a conference where that very issue was discussed. I see little evidence of it filtering down to group level. Just had a trainee who got tired of being told to 'make progress' by a local group and came along for a sanity check as much as anything. He wasn't slow, just didn't see the need to spend every moment of the ride lining up overtakes when a) the vehicle ahead was only going marginally slower and b) we'd have leapfrogged one vehicle in a queue.

And the book doesn't cover it all that well. (Unless this is yet another new edition that I haven't yet seen.)

[The Spin Doctor]

If we didn't progress, it could lead to long tailbacks. A vehicle doing 10mph under speed limit needs to be overtaken for the sake of following traffic. Imo.

That's not 'making progress' in the IAM / RoSPA sense - I have a quote somewhere from guidance from one of the organisation to the effect that a rider making progress will move more swiftly over the ground than an "ordinary driver".

You'd be expected to overtake something like a tractor travelling well under the limit on the DVSA basic test if the overtake could be made without risk. Many DAS test candidates were really quite shocked to be told that if the conditions allowed, they'd be expected to hit 70 mph and overtake HGVs on the local dual carriageways. So they get taught how. They're also taught to make a sensible decision about when NOT to bother.

[Hot_Air]

In my recent experience, the change in emphasis on progress has filtered down to IAM groups. But individuals vary.

Last week, an ADI was tailgating me but it doesn’t mean every the DVSA advocates bad driving. (On the contrary, most ADIs drive well.) But individuals vary.

However, the RoSPA Advanced Drivers and Riders organisation hasn’t changed its policy on making progress. A fairly ‘progressive’ ride is still required for a high grade.

I should add that I’ve no personal bone to pick (a First in my IAM test and a Gold grade with RoSPA). But I feel the mindset of making maximum (legal) progress is unhelpful for civilian riding.

[Hot_Air]

And the book doesn't cover it all that well. (Unless this is yet another new edition that I haven't yet seen.)

If you meant Motorcycle Roadcraft, a new version was published this week. However, it’s (a) intended for police riders and (b) merely supplements their training on the road. Hence all the stuff about riding on blue lights, ‘noble cause’ psychology, etc.

The authors never intended Motorcycle Roadcraft to be used (standalone) by civilians - let alone without on-road training. Thus, the IAM has another book for its associate members.

[Horse]

The authors never intended Motorcycle Roadcraft to be used (standalone) by civilians - let alone without on-road training.

Which authors? Those who created the original training courses (Lord Cottenham, etc), or those who were involved with the first publicly-available copies (1950s), or those for the '95 rewrite, or ... ?

It might not originally have been intended for the public (I think that I first bought a copy in '80 or '81, and it wasn't something bookshops usually stocked), but more recently it has been aggressively marketed to the public, even to the extent of HMSO producing a video/DVD.

[The Spin Doctor]

And the book doesn't cover it all that well. (Unless this is yet another new edition that I haven't yet seen.)

If you meant Motorcycle Roadcraft, a new version was published this week. However, it’s (a) intended for police riders and (b) merely supplements their training on the road. Hence all the stuff about riding on blue lights, ‘noble cause’ psychology, etc.

The authors never intended Motorcycle Roadcraft to be used (standalone) by civilians - let alone without on-road training. Thus, the IAM has another book for its associate members.

But it's openly promoted to and sold to the public. So that defence doesn't stand M'lud.

[The Spin Doctor]

Incidentally, who ARE the authors?

I checked the last lot and they were a bunch from 'rent-an-author' - two of them generally collaborate on financial report writing... which leads me to wonder about their ability to critique the content adequately. I do realise that they will be polishing up someone else's words, but it's hard to write well on a topic that's not one you work in, day in day out.

[Horse]

It used to be, AFAIK, a group of instructors from various police driving schools.

[Hot_Air]

It appears Motorcycle Roadcraft has two co-authors and the editor (normal stuff for a nonfiction book). Sometimes, other contributors add a little bit to the text of a nonfiction book. I've toured with a contributor to the last edition (Paul Mostyn, who set up BikeSafe). With expertise in cognitive rider development, not "just" police training, he was precisely the sort of guy I'd want contributing to this book.

Unusually, Motorcycle Roadcraft also has a Standing Advisory Board (eight police instructors), plus nine Reflective Practitioners from the fire and rescue, police and ambulance services. It's a lot of expertise but 'design by committee'. So the book's almost doubled in length over the last couple of editions - making it harder to read!

The book's clear about its primary market: "Motorcycle Roadcraft is the official police rider's handbook and is widely used by the other emergency services." Hence the many pages about emergency response.

It might not originally have been intended for the public …

Sure, Motorcycle Roadcraft is available on Amazon but aren't most books? Incidentally, I've worked with publishers, and they can't afford to do aggressive marketing anymore (unless the author is someone like JK Rowling). A publisher will sell to the primary market, but won’t spend a penny on marketing to the secondary market.

[Horse]

With expertise in cognitive rider development, not "just" police training, he was precisely the sort of guy I'd want contributing to this book.

There's an entire separate book, published some time ago. 'Human Aspects ... ' Gordon Sharp

The book's clear about its primary market: "Motorcycle Roadcraft is the official police rider's handbook and is widely used by the other emergency services." Hence the many pages about emergency response.

Intriguingly, 'Roadcraft A manual ... ' was publicly-available in 1955. In 1968 HMSO published 'A manual of ... ' without the Roadcraft brand and vehicle photo on the cover.

This picture has them included:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Jqncq1cU2KM/ ... 01crop.JPG

It might not originally have been intended for the public …

Sure, Motorcycle Roadcraft is available on Amazon but aren't most books? Incidentally, I've worked with publishers, and they can't afford to do aggressive marketing anymore (unless the author is someone like JK Rowling).

With its own website, news, etc.? That's not typical. Www.roadcraft.co.uk

"Roadcraft... represents the gold standard ... and the general public."

[Wossname]

I've had a good look through the new edition, and it's left me a bit puzzled as to its target readership. Compared with the previous one (1996), there's a complete new chapter which is solely aimed at "emergency response" riding - what you can/can't do under blues & twos. It's interesting as info, but not really relevant to a civilian rider. OK - it's a "police" manual. There's an earlier section which explains in some detail that the low gears are good for going up steep hills, but you can't use them for going fast, while the higher gears are good for going fast, but not really for steep hills. Who's that aimed at? CBT?

There's much more emphasis than before throughout the book on "human factors" affecting the ride - OK, I suppose - I won't knock that, and it was barely mentioned in 1996. You get about 5 pages of what they call "manual handling" - how to get on/off a bike, how to get it on/off a centre stand, and wheeling it about (CBT again?). In contrast, countersteering gets about 3/4 of a page; a very sketchy outline of how to do it, but no discussion of how efficient it is and how crucial it can be when, for example, you need to correct a line mid-bend when something new has cropped up, or you've misjudged. That's a huge opportunity missed, IMO, and it can't be because "they" don't know about it.

Interestingly, the term "3-stage overtake" has disappeared completely from the new version. In 1996, it took up 6 pages. The basic technique is still described - including the requirement to move from the "following" to "overtaking" position prior to an O/T. I'll now climb on a bit of a hobby-horse....

Picture the scene. A single c/way road, following a vehicle which is going a bit slower than you want to. You're just about to perform one of the most tricky procedures you do on a bike; all sorts of things could change/go wrong/affect your plan in a minute. You're in the "following position", about 2 secs back (minimum - your safety bubble), all is stable, driver in front is probably aware of you but you're not affecting him significantly. O/T opportunity is approaching; you do all your obs, then what do you do? Throw away your bubble. You don't reduce it, you lose it - it's no longer there. You close up to the "overtaking position" - the suggested interval is now 1 second.

That has several direct effects. You lose view. You "disturb" (i.e. distract) the other driver who is now likely to react, either by slowing down (brake even - what does that do to your bubble?), speeding up (change your plan?), move left to help you (whoops - too far because he's now watching you as you fill his o/s mirror- swerve out again). He was fairly predictable when you were 2 secs back - he's not now. You also now have to make 2 more extreme steering movements to get beside the car than if you had moved out from 2 secs back.

What are the claimed advantages of this "overtaking position"? You save 1 second on the O/T. That's about 22m at 50mph. If that turns an unsafe manoeuvre to a safe one, I suspect your definition of "safe" is different from mine. What are the disadvantages? See above. My suggestion is simply to start your O/T from your "following position" - smoothly out to check your views, then past. The first thing the other driver is aware of is that the the bike that was behind him is now in front. Job done, safely.

Off hobby-horse, nearly, except to say that the change in definition of the 3-stage O/T in this new edition is, I hope, a hint that it may be quietly dropped at some stage in the future - hopefully not another 24 years away.

Overall, I was disappointed by this book. I hoped to learn a little/a lot. I don't feel that I did.

As you were....

[Horse]

Compared with the previous one (1996), there's a complete new chapter which is solely aimed at "emergency response" riding - what you can/can't do under blues & twos.

Which is quite a bizarre inclusion since it was never included from 1955 onwards.

It is interesting to see how content has altered over time, with cornering lines being one example. 'ish' covered in 1955, heavily emphasised by 1980, lighter coverage in 1996, then almost overlooked in the more recent volumes. Although TBH, I've not bothered buying this new one or it's predecessor.

[The Spin Doctor]

Overall, I was disappointed by this book. I hoped to learn a little/a lot. I don't feel that I did.

That's a pity. Much as I critique Roadcraft, and even criticise it in places, it's generally been a big help to my own development as a rider, and has useful elements that I have incorporated into Survival Skills. If you're interested, drop me a PM in my squeaky-clean, never used inbox here and I'll give you a link to a PDF version of my own book 'Survival SKILLS' which is what I call a 21st century guide to better riding. Always keen on feedback

The CBT-level references are interesting. There have always been a few. Who teaches future police riders to ride? The answer is basic training schools. I believe that originally basic training was 'in-house'. I suspect it changed with the introduction of CBT in 1990. Certainly, when I worked at Cinque Ports in Kent between 96 and 98, we put all the Kent police who wanted to get into the driving school through CBT then through the bike test. I don't know if that was 'official' policy or unofficial recommendation. They were generally quite well prepared. Perhaps they are now left to get on with getting the bike test sorted out on their own, and if that's the case perhaps the information in the book is intended to clarify points that maybe differ between ATBs (though given the rigidity of the CBT syllabus I'd have thought that unlikely) or perhaps have less emphasis now at basic level than the police driving school would like, because it's still insisted on in police schools. Maybe the intent is for the book to be studied RIGHT THROUGH learning to ride, from CBT up to the police in-house training - after all, few ATBs bother with any kind of CBT / DAS manual for new riders.

Human factors may not have got much of a mention in 96, but the very fact that they did was telling, because it was an area almost totally ignored at that time. Sports psychology has been around since the 1960s yet motorcycling has pretty much ignored the big nut holding the handlebars as a factor in riding beyond blaming 'bad behaviour' for a lot of crashes, whilst we pat ourselves on the back and say "we'd never do that" either by collectively decrying driver standards and ignoring the pretty appalling rider behaviour* or by pretending that we are upskilled from "ordinary riders" and thus immune to crashing. That'll be worth a read.

Counter-steering was a new inclusion in the directly previous edition - which came out (from memory) in about 2010. I didn't bother to buy it, as I have a stack of versions. The chapter on steering was actually available as a free download and I remember thinking that it was very poorly covered. If I remember right it said something like "there may be circumstances in which you need to counter-steer". Rather ignores the fact that we're ALWAYS counter-steering, it's just the degree of pressure and the rapidity of the input that changes depending on the steering challenge we face.

And I'm absolutely with you on the 'three stage overtake' for all the reasons you've just mentioned, and try to get riders to maintain that longer gap as much as possible. Good luck persuading the 'progress-oriented' rider who's been taught the technique by his advanced group and thinks that being able to judge it 'safely' is one of the pinnacles of advanced riding.

I suppose I ought to cough up for it, just to stay abreast of what's changing.

* Whilst out in the car y'day - taken a walk in the Chilterns - we were caught by four riders on the Marlow to Henley road. All on sports bikes wearing hoodies. The overtaking manoeuvres were... ahem interesting. Two overtakes into blind right-hand bends ahead, and the rider who didn't make it past me initially sat about 10 m behind whilst I was doing 50-ish. I'm pretty sure one of them crashed on a left-hander soon after passing us. We passed two bikes were parked up in a bus stop on the other side of the road on the outside of a bend. One was facing the direction they'd been going, one was facing the wrong way. One of the others was a couple of minutes up the road heading back, the fourth was almost five minutes away going like the clappers back down the road. Good rear observation, obviously.

[Horse]

* Whilst out in the car y'day - taken a walk in the Chilterns - we were caught by four riders on the Marlow to Henley road. All on sports bikes wearing hoodies. The overtaking manoeuvres were... ahem interesting. I'm pretty sure one of them crashed on a left-hander soon after passing us.

1. A case for more widespread use of the Scottish chevrons?

2. There have been a couple of times when I've seen a rider and thought "blimey, that chap is looking a tad iffy, I hope he stays upright" (perhaps not quite those words).

One was a kiddie (says the old git) on a 125, really close behind a car. Over a crest, mini roundabout. Car stops. Crunch. Bike has rear wheel in air, rider goes over the handlebars. Luckily, no serious damage to either.

Another was a guy on a biggish bike (and sat lop-sided on it) weaving through 70mph traffic on the Basingstoke ring road. Shortly after, I passed an exit slip and glimpsed him still sat on the bike, T into the armco, surrounded by a cloud of dust. Next time I passed there, a shiny new section of barrier had been installed.

[Hot_Air]

Regarding the overtaking position, police driving schools vary in what they teach. While most do teach closing to 1-second back before moving offside, some police schools teach maintaining the 2-second safety margin.

I’ve done a lot of riding, and touring, with several police riders. Usually, I’ve noticed they use forward planning and anticipation to avoid being 1-second back for long. But it’s civilian riders (trying to emulate the police) I’ve noticed holding the 1-second position too long for comfort.

As my bikes have got faster, I’ve found that being close to the ‘target’ vehicle usually make no difference to overtaking opportunities. On a modern litre plus bike, I can be past in a blink (irrespective whether I’m 1- or 2-seconds back).

And I agree about the disadvantages of being close, such as unsettling the driver in front (making them unpredictable).

[The Spin Doctor]

Regarding the overtaking position, police driving schools vary in what they teach. While most do teach closing to 1-second back before moving offside, some police schools teach maintaining the 2-second safety margin.

I’ve done a lot of riding, and touring, with several police riders. Usually, I’ve noticed they use forward planning and anticipation to avoid being 1-second back for long. But it’s civilian riders (trying to emulate the police) I’ve noticed holding the 1-second position too long for comfort.

As my bikes have got faster, I’ve found that being close to the ‘target’ vehicle usually make no difference to overtaking opportunities. On a modern litre plus bike, I can be past in a blink (irrespective whether I’m 1- or 2-seconds back).

And I agree about the disadvantages of being close, such as unsettling the driver in front (making them unpredictable).

If you can be "past in a blink", have a think about what that means for your closing speed and your ability to take evasive action IF the vehicle being overtaken changes direction.

There's a reason for keeping the speed differential down.

And if that means missing a few overtakes because you need more space? So what?

[Wossname]

I found it helpful to distinguish between single- and three-stage overtakes because it helped make my overtakes safer.

.... And I've found 3-stage overtaking invaluable (and safer) on rural roads.
[/quote]

Yes, I've more safety with 3-stage overtakes because I don't have to commit early......

Either way, I find three-stage overtaking an extremely useful tool in my toolbox. (But not the only overtaking tool.)

If you overtake from close behind where your speed is matching the vehicle you're overtaking, you a) have to pop out to make your final visual check and b) you have to build speed to make the pass and that also takes time.

I never said anything about “close behind”, did I? ....

Regarding the overtaking position, police driving schools vary in what they teach. While most do teach closing to 1-second back before moving offside, some police schools teach maintaining the 2-second safety margin.

I’ve done a lot of riding, and touring, with several police riders. Usually, I’ve noticed they use forward planning and anticipation to avoid being 1-second back for long. But it’s civilian riders (trying to emulate the police) I’ve noticed holding the 1-second position too long for comfort.

.... I can be past in a blink (irrespective whether I’m 1- or 2-seconds back).

And I agree about the disadvantages of being close, such as unsettling the driver in front (making them unpredictable).

What distinguishes a 3-stage O/T from any other sort, as it's described, is the move from following (2 secs?) to overtaking position (1 sec?), which I would regard as "close behind" - you could hardly be any closer. You seem to be expressing conflicting views in the above posts. Your earlier ones recommend 3-stage; your later ones, however, agree that a) you can be past in a blink from either start point, and b) that you risk making the driver's behaviour unpredictable. Your police mates will have the same effect on the driver, but will justify their approach because that's how they've been taught since Adam got his first bike, and anyway "it's in M/C Roadcraft, 2020 edition" - QED, and the end of the discussion, as I have found. In contrast to their approach, I try to "use forward planning and anticipation" to avoid being closer than 2 secs when I make my move.

I'm encouraged by the fact that you say some police schools are NOW teaching that 2 secs is best i.e. safer. It would be interesting to hear the discussions they have with their 1-sec colleagues!

[dayglo jim]

It is a shame there is not more on how long a rider should remain in the overtaking position. I had a discussion with a senior IAM observer on the subject and we tried to work out some criteria to apply but ended up agreeing that if you had to overthink it then it wasn't viable and should drop back to following distance immediately. It came about after he was finding a lot of riders presenting for cross checks felt that they must overtake/make progress and the overtaking position was almost the standard following position.

[quote=Hot_Air post_id=27933 time=1604484278 user_id=240

The book's clear about its primary market: "Motorcycle Roadcraft is the official police rider's handbook and is widely used by the other emergency services." Hence the many pages about emergency response.

[/quote]

Some here may know more but I think there was an issue somewhere in the South West where paramedics were undertaking class 1 pursuit training with the police and it went horribly wrong for one of them. I believe there were questions asked about them needing pursuit training rather than rapid response. I don't know the details and only heard snippets/gossip but it was around the time where, across the board at advanced level, 'good progress' was under review.

[Hot_Air]

What distinguishes a 3-stage O/T from any other sort, as it's described, is the move from following (2 secs?) to overtaking position (1 sec?)

No, not how I was taught. What distinguishes a 3-stage overtake is the move offside prior to accelerating. It means I make my final decision offside, which I find safer because the world can look different from the offside.

However, I’ll re-emphasise what I mentioned earlier:-

But overtaking is tricky to discuss in words, and better conveyed on the road.