How many of you have had professional coaching to improve your road riding

[Horse]

To late to ...

Edit: there was a stunt rider interviewed and asked wasn't doing bike into car crashes dangerous? Apparently, no. "But you have to practice"

[The Spin Doctor]

You must be one of the very few riders who already knew to look out for the collision with the oncoming vehicle turning right, rather than focus exclusively on the one emerging from the left then. Few riders know about that one being the killer crash. It's still a shocker to most people.

Had to pull my best mate out from under an 18t sainsburys truck after just such a crash so pretty much etched on my mind I'm afraid, he pulled through but the police preserved the scene in case he hadn't done so

Alot of the other stuff I've seen or read about over time, I was an active MAG member, taught cycle awareness at my kids school, cycled huge distances before I even got my first motorised bike at 18 and hate DRLs probably just as much as you.

The concept of Dazzle ships is over 100yrs old now, jesus even OMDs album of that name must be 40 odd years old now

Sorry to hear about your mate.

As I make clear on the https://scienceofbeingseen.wordpress.com site, much of the research is decades old, practical understanding of camouflage techniques is a hundred years old, and some elements of visual perception have been known about since the 1500s.

But because YOU know, doesn't mean EVERYONE does.

The point I was making really is that SOBS is the FIRST place you'll see ALL the issues covered logically in the same place, and backed up with links to the research. A little credit for that would be nice

RIders still come to grief because no-one tells them about right-turning vehicles - it's one of the two urban killers. MAG regularly protested compulsion to use hi-vis and DRLs but had little substantive evidence - I've provided that with the project. And whilst dazzle ships aren't new to you (or me), few riders know about them or that their multi-coloured riding kit isn't 'conspicuous' but disruptive camouflage - the IAM group I had dealings with in the past were very pleased with their new multi-colour, multi-panel hi-vis vests until I pointed out that solid colours with sleeves are far more effective! In fact, in good light black would be a better option than random blocks of colour.

[The Spin Doctor]

When Threads Collide ...

In a demo video to show how effective airbags are, the stunt rider isn't waiting for impact, he's preparing to bail out.

In another promotional vid, the rider bails out into a raft of cardboard boxes rather than impact the ground!

[The Spin Doctor]

The concept of Dazzle ships is over 100yrs old now, jesus even OMDs album of that name must be 40 odd years old now

And yet 'tribal' pattern and 'urban cammo' bike gear still exists.

People choose to wear it, which is their choice and fine by me. I'm sure they don't think it's 'hi-vis'.

The problem is this kind of kit

multicolour hi vis.jpg (89.66 KiB) Viewed 292 times

Although it has bold blocks of colour, it actually manages to break up the silhouette!

The colours are brighter but it achieves the same 'hide the outline' effect as the 'Berlin Brigade' urban camouflage scheme developed during the cold war.

Berlin_camo_Landie_(cropped).jpg (240.96 KiB) Viewed 292 times

[Horse]

Although it has bold blocks of colour, it actually manages to break up the silhouette!

The colours are brighter but it achieves the same 'hide the outline' effect as the 'Berlin Brigade' urban camouflage scheme developed during the cold war.

Berlin_camo_Landie_(cropped).jpg

And they painted tanks in that pattern for urban camo. There was one at Duxford with a replica of the pattern.

Fun fact: every vehicle type was painted to the same pattern so Ruskie observers were less likely to be able to confirm 3 tanks passing by, or one tank going around the block three times.

[Dickyboy]

But because YOU know, doesn't mean EVERYONE does.

The point I was making really is that SOBS is the FIRST place you'll see ALL the issues covered logically in the same place, and backed up with links to the research. A little credit for that would be nice

Thought I'd made it clear that I signed up to it to see if I could learn anything, I certainly wasn't commenting about helpfulness to anyone else & your preample clearly shows you've received plenty of credit for your valiant efforts. To be honest I thought the SOBS presentation was great for highlighting the problems but quite short on serving up potential solutions, but hey that's just me a minow in the motorcycling world.

[The Spin Doctor]

But because YOU know, doesn't mean EVERYONE does.

The point I was making really is that SOBS is the FIRST place you'll see ALL the issues covered logically in the same place, and backed up with links to the research. A little credit for that would be nice

Thought I'd made it clear that I signed up to it to see if I could learn anything, I certainly wasn't commenting about helpfulness to anyone else & your preample clearly shows you've received plenty of credit for your valiant efforts. To be honest I thought the SOBS presentation was great for highlighting the problems but quite short on serving up potential solutions, but hey that's just me a minow in the motorcycling world.

I hate to say it but there are TWO entire sections devoted to solutions. The first covers PASSIVE aids:

1) hi-vis appropriate to the conditions and background which means something other than Saturn yellow for riding in rural environments. Pink is recommended a good daylight all-round colour if you want just a single hi-vis because of its ability to contrast with most likely backgrounds.

2) day riding lights that are yellow, not white, via fitting an inexpensive Perspex headlight cover plus the 'triangle of lights'

3) retro-reflective material applied low down, not up on the shoulders where it's too high for urban use when everyone is on dipped lights, alternatively the 'ghost jackets' which have all-over and all-round reflectivity.

The second covers PROACTIVE riding and explains taking control is a superior strategy than relying on someone else seeing us and keeping us out of trouble:

1) the 'three second' at risk zone concept

2) the effect of speed on a) stopping distance b) impact speed

3) the need to search for difficult to see entrances, establish lines-of-sight, and the need to be aware of the right-turning vehicle

I did forget to mention the importance of lateral movement to attempt to overcome motion camouflage - I'll make sure to cover that in the next one.

But even after leaving that out, I'll be honestly surprised if you had heard ALL these options. If you have... well, there are exceptions to the rules and you must be one of them.

Your initial comment about "turns out it didn't tell me much" wasn't exactly encouraging anyone else to watch, was it?

[weeksy]

You must be one of the very few riders who already knew to look out for the collision with the oncoming vehicle turning right, rather than focus exclusively on the one emerging from the left then. Few riders know about that one being the killer crash. It's still a shocker to most people.

Had to pull my best mate out from under an 18t sainsburys truck after just such a crash so pretty much etched on my mind I'm afraid, he pulled through but the police preserved the scene in case he hadn't done so

Alot of the other stuff I've seen or read about over time, I was an active MAG member, taught cycle awareness at my kids school, cycled huge distances before I even got my first motorised bike at 18 and hate DRLs probably just as much as you.

The concept of Dazzle ships is over 100yrs old now, jesus even OMDs album of that name must be 40 odd years old now

Sorry to hear about your mate.

As I make clear on the https://scienceofbeingseen.wordpress.com site, much of the research is decades old, practical understanding of camouflage techniques is a hundred years old, and some elements of visual perception have been known about since the 1500s.

But because YOU know, doesn't mean EVERYONE does.

The point I was making really is that SOBS is the FIRST place you'll see ALL the issues covered logically in the same place, and backed up with links to the research. A little credit for that would be nice

RIders still come to grief because no-one tells them about right-turning vehicles - it's one of the two urban killers. MAG regularly protested compulsion to use hi-vis and DRLs but had little substantive evidence - I've provided that with the project. And whilst dazzle ships aren't new to you (or me), few riders know about them or that their multi-coloured riding kit isn't 'conspicuous' but disruptive camouflage - the IAM group I had dealings with in the past were very pleased with their new multi-colour, multi-panel hi-vis vests until I pointed out that solid colours with sleeves are far more effective! In fact, in good light black would be a better option than random blocks of colour.

You know when you said not all instructors get all ranty and talk down to people like they're inferior, you're very much moving into that camp.

At the moment I'd go as far as to say you're alienating more people than building customers with some of the stuff you're writing.

[The Spin Doctor]

And they painted tanks in that pattern for urban camo.

I know... the Landie photo was the only one I could find that was creative commons labelled without a long search.

[weeksy]

Your initial comment about "turns out it didn't tell me much" wasn't exactly encouraging anyone else to watch, was it?

Without being too cruel, that's kinda how reviews work, sometimes people say xyz is great, sometimes they say xyz is a bit meh. That's not his fault.

[Horse]

At the moment I'd go as far as to say you're alienating more people than building customers with some of the stuff you're writing.

I'm not going to fight Spin's battles, instead will comment from my perspective.

'Conspicuity' is part of my day job, I typically do one project on it each year. [Edit: for clarity, those are research projects. Unfortunately, I can't always talk about them. But there's a fair chance you will see the outcomes of it]

But, a bit like Mr Dazzle with his engineering knowledge, over the years I've had several people on the various boards tell me I'm wrong. And over those years, Spin has continued to delve into the research (although I try and keep on top of it, despite the hobby aspect it's a bit busman's holiday). He now knows more than I do.

Mentioning the boards, we have been covering a lot of the basic stuff for about 20 years. It was controversial then to take any sort of stance against headlights and hi-viz being a Good Thing.

So, I guess that what Spin heard in his head was 'nothing new' - whether or not that was what was intended.

[The Spin Doctor]

You know when you said not all instructors get all ranty and talk down to people like they're inferior, you're very much moving into that camp.

At the moment I'd go as far as to say you're alienating more people than building customers with some of the stuff you're writing.

So in essence you're saying that someone is allowed to talk down my presentation and imply to people who HAVEN'T seen it that it's not worth watching, but I shouldn't respond to that to try to explain what the presentation is all about, and who it's aimed at?

And when they follow that explanation up by claiming that I didn't tell them something, I'm not allowed to say "actually, I did tell you that" either?

And that's because setting the record straight is "talking down" and "being dismissive"?

As I said, it's possible Dickyboy DID know everything the talk covers. After all, I've always said the information in the talk is all there if you look for it.

But SOBS is the first effort that pulls it all together, puts it in one place and presents it to BIKERS in a way that lets the rider decide what to do next... and gives you the links back to the science.

[The Spin Doctor]

Without being too cruel, that's kinda how reviews work, sometimes people say xyz is great, sometimes they say xyz is a bit meh. That's not his fault.

Never said it WAS his fault.

I just said it wasn't an entirely fair review.

[Yorick]

I've met Spin and he's a top bloke. But all this training malarkey is just dull and boring. IMHO.

[weeksy]

You know when you said not all instructors get all ranty and talk down to people like they're inferior, you're very much moving into that camp.

At the moment I'd go as far as to say you're alienating more people than building customers with some of the stuff you're writing.

So in essence you're saying that someone is allowed to talk down my presentation and imply to people who HAVEN'T seen it that it's not worth watching, but I shouldn't respond to that to try to explain what the presentation is all about, and who it's aimed at?

And when they follow that explanation up by claiming that I didn't tell them something, I'm not allowed to say "actually, I did tell you that" either?

And that's because setting the record straight is "talking down" and "being dismissive"?

As I said, it's possible Dickyboy DID know everything the talk covers. After all, I've always said the information in the talk is all there if you look for it.

But SOBS is the first effort that pulls it all together, puts it in one place and presents it to BIKERS in a way that lets the rider decide what to do next... and gives you the links back to the science.

I do t think you're going to listen irrespective of what I write here now, so I'll stop here. You can write whatever you like, in the same way you can tell whatever you like in your instruction, however that doesn't mean everyone will either accept or appreciate it.

The guy watched your course and have his view. Maybe you could take something from what he said instead of telling him he's wrong.

Are you seeing a pattern here.

I'm really hoping we don't fall out here, but this isn't his fault.

Back in the day I had a huge fight with Andy Ibbot after he gave me 2 free days at CSS, I didn't bother turning up for day 2 and gave him a rather scathing review of CSS, which I still stand by 100%.
Does that mean CSS is crap, no. But it was for me.

[weeksy]

I've met Spin and he's a top bloke. But all this training malarkey is just dull and boring. IMHO.

You are very experienced though. It could be a difference between someone less experienced crashing or staying on. So it has potential for being very useful.
It depends on the audience though and it seems you're not his audience. (Me neither by the way, but hey, I'm not sure who's right and wrong here lol)

[The Spin Doctor]

I do t think you're going to listen irrespective of what I write here now, so I'll stop here.

I DO read what people write, and I DO think about just why they wrote what they did.

You can write whatever you like, in the same way you can tell whatever you like in your instruction, however that doesn't mean everyone will either accept or appreciate it.

Training is optional. People come to me (and any other trainer / outfit) because they want to. They do their research and they find what fits best. I don't expect to be all things to all people.

The guy watched your course and have his view. Maybe you could take something from what he said instead of telling him he's wrong.

The issue is that he wrote what he wrote in a public forum, he didn't just keep it as "his view". Think bad review on TripAdvisor - there's a right to respond.

So yes, I provided the information to put the record straight. I pointed out - reasonably politely, given the dismissive tone of the 'nothing new' statement - that there is a lot of information that may not be 'new' but most riders are unaware of, and that he may have 'picked it up over the years' but that SOBS puts it in one place. Both of those statements are factually correct.

Back in the day I had a huge fight with Andy Ibbot after he gave me 2 free days at CSS, I didn't bother turning up for day 2 and gave him a rather scathing review of CSS, which I still stand by 100%.
Does that mean CSS is crap, no. But it was for me.

Your right to respond... and Andy Ibbott's right to respond to you.

I try to avoid 'fights', and I certainly won't call this a fight... but I will state my position when I think it needs stating, and I'll make corrections to what people have written when I think it needs correcting.

I'm really hoping we don't fall out here, but this isn't his fault.

I never said anything about 'fault' but if we're on a public forum, then I'd say it's only fair both sides get to make their case.

I know there will be some people who'll be turned off "because it's that bloody bike instructor throwing his weight around and showing off again". But if a casually dismissive remark stops people coming along to see what they can learn, then I think it needs to be said.

[The Spin Doctor]

I've met Spin and he's a top bloke. But all this training malarkey is just dull and boring. IMHO.

Didn't you spend years doing track...
.
.
.
.
.
training?

[Dickyboy]

Jesus H christ on a bike, from what Spin had said on various bits of this forum I was seriously thinking of doing one of his courses as I'd had a bit of a quiet spell motorcycle wise and thought I'd dip my toe in so to speak with the SOBS presentation to see if he was someone I could gel with, after which I intended to email him with a few suggestions but posted on here first with my overall view. Sorry if it offended you that someone with far less motorcycle experience can actually know about some of the issues you've highlighted without having done the legwork so to speak, don't get me wrong the content is great & lateral movement was one of the things I was going to mention but if you are really serious about saving bikers lives you need to pass this on to someone who can update it and present a slick video. Best wishes & not wishing to offend.

[Horse]

FWIW, a couples of years ago the content only existed as a stack of published research papers and ideas. The current Zoom presentation is AFAIK simply to adapt to restrictions.

A video would be great. If you have any contacts to fund it, or do it as a freebie, that would be great.

From a previous work life in the tv and movie video editing industry, I know that creating something is time consuming and can be costly.