"Sacrifice position for safety"

[Horse]

"Sacrifice position for safety"

Recently,  I treated myself to a book. Actually,  I buy quite a few books, but this particular book is non-fiction and is about teaching advanced riding. [First impressions (it only arrived at lunchtime) are mixed. Review ... sometime]

Flicking through,  one statement caught my attention: "Sacrifice position for safety" (in the context of bends).

It's one of those 'I know what they mean, but ... ' things. It is recommending that riders don't position for 'view' if it would put you in a [safety wise] 'sub-optimal' place on the lane width. 'Within road width' is a whole different can of worms.

However, I have a couple of issues, concerns even, with the way it's described.

The first is that you have a 'position' wherever you are in the lane. That might be 'good' or 'bad', 'safe' or 'dangerous'. The only way to not have a position would be to be somewhere else Also, you can't move your bike sideways, this is always a looking ahead, decide, ride continuous process.

And that hints at the overarching use of words, terminology. It might seem irrelevant or insignificant, but it makes a difference.  For example: during research, people were asked to estimate the speed of a vehicle. Depending on how the task was explained influenced the answer. If there was an inference of dangerous driving, estimated speeds were higher.

So that leads to two interlinked points:

- 'Sacrifice'; not 'move away' from danger, not 'give up', or any benign term, instead it's  'sacrifice'. What associations are there with that word? A couple of definitions are "offer or kill as a religious sacrifice" and "give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations". At best, that's giving up grudgingly!

- Next is the priority in which the rider's choice of position is stated. I was taught, years ago, SVA. Probably more well-known is SSV. To save me typing it all again, here's the section from the Games:

[]

• Safety - View - Advantage
• Safety - Stability - View

It doesn't particularly matter which you use, as long as you understand what you can gain from each.

Safety. Children are warned: "Run away from danger". For you, a grown-up, thinking rider, this means keeping as far away from danger as reasonably possible, e.g. if there's a car in the junction to your left, move across to the right of your lane. If there are two hazards (add an oncoming car to the example above) then separate them either in time, i.e. change your speed so that you only encounter one at a time, or distance, i.e. go equidistant between them.

Stability. Choosing the best surface to ride on, i.e good tarmac rather than oil, gravel, horse . . . 'dust', or sunken drain covers.

View. See and be seen. One classic example of this is following HGVs, several of which now sport warning signs: "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you". Try to make eye contact with other road users; if the driver at the junction mentioned above can't see you, it's far more likely that he will pull out! A more extreme example of 'View' is positioning for corners, which is really beyond the scope of this 'game'.

Advantage. Again, this is slightly more involved, but one example is adapting your following position to overtake when leaving a bend, using the advantages of an earlier view and the bike's superior acceleration.

In the second version: Safety - Stability - View, ask yourself how you chose the position in the lane width you're riding in. Then 'project ahead' and choose - or plan - where you want to be, rather than deciding when you get there - by which time it's really too late to decide that you really ought to be somewhere else!

[/]

So note the priority: safest position first, then consider gaining view.

The implication from "Sacrifice position for safety" could be that rider's should be considering 'view' first, then safety. Is that such a problem? Potentially,  yes. It's the hidden emphasis again.

Finally, before Spin (or anyone else) starts typing, what about being 'safe'? Well, you can never be truly safe on a bike, so what we're considering is what's relatively safe - and that actually means whatever is lowest risk. Even that is likely to be a compromise, for example the S of SVA incorporates stability issues as well as bog hard steel concerns.

Games:
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/p/diy ... g.html?m=1

[Horse]

50 minutes on hold with Domestic & General to thank for that post

[wheelnut]

I’ve always used SSV, but while stability and view are easily quantified, safety is less so. The trick is teaching people what ‘safety’ means and what makes a situation a less maneagable risk.

[exportman]

Left hand bends are a particular problem. Advance riding books suggest you should be close to the centre line of the road on the approach to a left hand bend, but apply SSV in your decision making. So riders go right out to the white line but don't look at the other signs such as chevrons and worn out paint indicating its a tight bends and vehicle coming the other way cutting the corner. Also because they think they have the view and are safer they tend to ride a little faster but forget they may need to adjust their line if something appears in the opposite direction. Even worse are riders whose introduction to advanced riding was a bike safe and the biker bobby demonstrated off siding. That has resulted in some interesting conversations.

[Horse]

Left hand bends are a particular problem. .... So riders go right out to the white line but don't look at the other signs ... Also because they think they have the view and are safer they tend to ride a little faster ...

Yup, these may be of interest:
Limit point / Surprise Horizon
http://revtothelimit.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1438
Real world view gain example
http://the-ride-info-new.blogspot.com/2013/12/?m=0

[exportman]

I normally spend 9 months of the year delivering regular IAM and Bikesafe events. Some of the riders we get are quite scary. I have a rider at the moment not been able to do a lot with him due to Covid. Excellent bike skills, been riding for over 50 years including off road and grass track racing. There is nothing much I can help with his machine control. However riding on the road, only his machine skill has saved him on a number of occasions that I have been unfortunate enough to witness. Trying to get him to understand O A P / I P S G A and implement it is proving to be a challenge. I have even taken him out in the car to give a demo drive with commentary. Hopefully in 2021 I can get enough time with him to drill into his head the importance of signage road markings etc.

[Horse]

However riding on the road, only his machine skill has saved him on a number of occasions that I have been unfortunate enough to witness.

Sounds like the issue is more to do with Locus of Control.

[The Spin Doctor]

Safety is the overarching goal and as it's defined as 'absence of risk' (and as I said to the bunch of IAM / RoSPA types who disagreed that safety is 'absolute', look up the dictionary definition) and we cannot ride with zero risk, what we're really talking about here is 'risk management'. If we could accept that without getting into a tizzy it would make life a lot easier.

Stability only REALLY matters when you're about to need the surface to cooperate - that is by initiating a change of speed or direction to get into a position that gives you a decent chance of avoiding conflict.

Once we're in the 'Killing Zone' where we COULD come into conflict with another vehicle, and will struggle to get out of trouble if we don't change position, I prefer to use the term 'clearance' to imply keeping a distance from anything that threatens your health.

And everything starts with view You have to SEE or be aware that you CANNOT SEE the road ahead in order to make a decision about where to put the bike in relation to a hazard, and how fast to be riding when you get there.

And this isn't reinventing the wheel or attempting to be different for the sake of being different... it's about clarifying our choices in a logical way.

[The Spin Doctor]

Left hand bends are a particular problem. Advance riding books suggest you should be close to the centre line of the road on the approach to a left hand bend, but apply SSV in your decision making. So riders go right out to the white line but don't look at the other signs such as chevrons and worn out paint indicating its a tight bends and vehicle coming the other way cutting the corner. Also because they think they have the view and are safer they tend to ride a little faster but forget they may need to adjust their line if something appears in the opposite direction. Even worse are riders whose introduction to advanced riding was a bike safe and the biker bobby demonstrated off siding. That has resulted in some interesting conversations.

Have you been reading my books or FB page?

[exportman]

I describe Advance riding/driving courses as an education in active risk management. Virtually nothing is without risk, the objective is to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, mitigate the risks as much as possible whilst continuing to perform the task in hand.

[Horse]

Unfortunately, many of us are not particularly good at assessing risk.

I'll allow a polite interval for all those not included in that ^ to make themselves known

Here's one example: stopping within the distance that... etc. View on dipped headlamp, especially with oncoming vehicles. Be honest now.

[slowsider]

However riding on the road, only his machine skill has saved him on a number of occasions that I have been unfortunate enough to witness.

Sounds like the issue is more to do with Locus of Control.

Or the grasshopper of authority?

[slowsider]

I describe Advance riding/driving courses as an education in active risk management. Virtually nothing is without risk, the objective is to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, mitigate the risks as much as possible whilst continuing to perform the task in hand.

I'd describe it as advanced thinking, projecting forward a second or two (or ten) to anticipate the future situation at the location at which you will be, and applying the mitigation you speak of, but being prepared to discontinue the task if necessary.

[The Spin Doctor]

I describe Advance riding/driving courses as an education in active risk management. Virtually nothing is without risk, the objective is to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, mitigate the risks as much as possible whilst continuing to perform the task in hand.

Not a 'trap' question... but 'acceptable level'? Isn't that likely to create some 'creative thinking' in terms of what's acceptable? We all tend to have very different ideas as to what's 'acceptable'.

I could argue quite happily to PC Plod that barring a deer running across the road or finding a fridge in the middle of the carriageway, 150 mph up the M1 at 4am on a June morning is probably 'acceptable' as risk goes. PC Plod probably wouldn't agree.

A US instructor buddy of mine said years ago "riding is an ongoing exercise in disaster management". My approach is to predict then plan for the Worst Case Scenario - then we're more likely to cope.

[The Spin Doctor]

I'd describe it as advanced thinking, projecting forward a second or two (or ten) to anticipate the future situation at the location at which you will be, and applying the mitigation you speak of, but being prepared to discontinue the task if necessary.

Out in InZid in 2018 when I was working with the NZTA on the Shiny Side Up initiative, I did a 'mentoring' ride run by a group from Wellington. The aim of that ride was to remind riders of, and help them use, the 12 : 6 : 3 vision concept.

That was a new one on me too.

The basic idea is that we scan twelve seconds ahead to get an overview of what is coming next. It is where we should be spotting road signs and side turnings.

Then if I understood correctly, we start focusing harder on those hazards six seconds out.

And we make sure we are three seconds behind any car so that we have time to look into side turnings, make mirror checks and turn our head to look over a shoulder (a 'head check' in the local lingo) without any worries that we will run straight into the car ahead.

[Horse]

Sounds like the issue is more to do with Locus of Control.

Or the grasshopper of authority?

A fair question



There are two variants of LoC: internal and external.

External says "It wasn't my fault, he pulled out in front without looking!"

Internal accepts responsibility for being part of the situation and tries to avoid riding into someone else's crash.

Now, knowing that doesn't mean changing his mental approach is easy - or even possible. That you *will* need to read up on, but I'd guess that rather than you doing the commentary, get him to do it, expanding beyond simply what can be seen into likely scenarios, then into potential actions (preventative and, working through the scenario as it might unfold, evasive).

Probably best done with videos? Play, pause, discuss. Spin used to do this on Fb as 'video nasty' posts. But matey has to do the mental heavy lifting, working out the answers, potential outcomes, actions, preventative or evasive.

Potentially this leads into the theory of planned behaviour.

Caveat: I'm not a psychologist but, to me, these seem appropriate!

[The Spin Doctor]

Spin used to do this on Fb as 'video nasty' posts.

I'll restart in the New Year...

Some of them are worth re-running over and over frankly. Unfortunately, some of the videos get taken down when the rider involved doesn't get the sympathetic response expected!

[Horse]

Out in InZid in 2018 when I was working with the NZTA on the Shiny Side Up initiative, I did a 'mentoring' ride run by a group from Wellington. The aim of that ride was to remind riders of, and help them use, the 12 : 6 : 3 vision concept.

The basic idea is that we scan twelve seconds ahead to get an overview of what is coming next. It is where we should be spotting road signs and side turnings.

Then if I understood correctly, we start focusing harder on those hazards six seconds out.

MSF used to (and may still) recommend 12 seconds for ideal forward planning, with anything happening within 4 seconds ahead being an imminent emergency so requiring immediate attention.

[Horse]

Stability only REALLY matters when you're about to need the surface to cooperate - that is by initiating a change of speed or direction to get into a position that gives you a decent chance of avoiding conflict.

Once we're in the 'Killing Zone' where we COULD come into conflict with another vehicle, and will struggle to get out of trouble if we don't change position

I recommend that, on the approach to those situations, riders have a good look at the surface (through the length of the KZ) - and then don't look at it again, it won't change in a few moments. Keep attention where it's needed, on the potentially encroaching vehicle.

[The Spin Doctor]

Stability only REALLY matters when you're about to need the surface to cooperate - that is by initiating a change of speed or direction to get into a position that gives you a decent chance of avoiding conflict.

Once we're in the 'Killing Zone' where we COULD come into conflict with another vehicle, and will struggle to get out of trouble if we don't change position

I recommend that, on the approach to those situations, riders have a good look at the surface (through the length of the KZ) - and then don't look at it again, it won't change in a few moments. Keep attention where it's needed, on the potentially encroaching vehicle.

So you need to be in a position where you have a view of the surface first