Explainer videos

[exportman]

I do think that often people get the wrong message from advanced rider courses. I look at it more as advanced active risk management. Actively looking for the hazards and think how you are going to reduce the risk in advance. Too many riders and drivers arrive at the hazard then think OK now what do I do now? Be it a bend, a junction, another vehicle what ever, if it may cause you to change speed or direction you should be considering how best to deal with it. If you want to pootle along with the 4 wheeled 45 mph everywhere brigade that's fine but most riders I would expect don't, and if you don't, then at some point you are going to need to make an overtake. I would suggest that knowing how to do it with a reasonable degree of safety helps.

You can never ever plan for every eventuality, everything we do ( or don't do) involves risk if we can manage that better hopefully we will live longer and happier.

[iansoady]

All reinforces what I've thought for some time - it's about attitude not bike handling / "roadcraft" / observation etc skills.

[Horse]

I do think that often people get the wrong message from advanced rider courses. I look at it more as advanced active risk management. Actively looking for the hazards and think how you are going to reduce the risk in advance. Too many riders and drivers arrive at the hazard then think OK now what do I do now?

I had a trainee - very experienced rider, who's GF was an IAM observer (they were both doing a session with me) - say exactly that: "I've realised that I can't just ride up to a corner ... "

When you say "get the wrong message", how do you mean? From advertising or delivery?

FWIW I was able to experience US training, developed in the 1980s, that included substantial emphasis on risk management.

You can never ever plan for every eventuality, everything we do ( or don't do) involves risk if we can manage that better hopefully we will live longer and happier.

Which is why it's essential to know the likely ways it can go wrong, expect it (include the management in your planning) and know what to do when it does.

Roadcraft and system doesn't guarantee success and safety.

[Hot_Air]

All reinforces what I've thought for some time - it's about attitude not bike handling / "roadcraft" / observation etc skills.

While I posted a criticism of "traditional advanced" riding, I still got a huge amount from it. The "roadcraft" and enhanced observation have saved my neck on more than one occasion. On at least two occasions, I would have been toast without the positioning that the IAM taught me. It's good stuff!

No training is perfect. My (only) criticisms are three: not enough emphasis on avoiding SMIDSYs (although it's covered a bit), too much emphasis on "progress", and the omission of "insight" training. Nonetheless, I would be less safe without the benefit of advanced training.

[The Spin Doctor]

As I've said many times, I like riders to go away from my courses with a bunch of answers to the questions they arrived with but also some new questions which they are now in a better position to answer for themselves... and most specifically the most important question they go away asking is "what could go wrong?"

I've focused on risk assessment and risk management which is how we make this switch towards 'insight' (even though I hadn't heard that term when I started) and away from 'progress' since I first started advanced training over 20 years ago! During that time it's been a real challenge to hold to that position under some pretty fierce criticism at times...

...so I'm actually very pleased to see what's been written above.

[The Spin Doctor]

You can never ever plan for every eventuality, everything we do ( or don't do) involves risk if we can manage that better hopefully we will live longer and happier.

That's very true... but our continuing inability to avoid the 'standard crashes' at junctions, on corners and when overtaking shows that we aren't planning for even the most OBVIOUS eventualities.

It's a depressing fact that if you look at crashes from the outside in, there's no evidence that modern riders do any better at avoiding them than we did historically. What's even more telling is that the same crashes happen pretty much independent of the culture of training and road safety right across the world, which argues very much for human error rather than it being anything to do with training, enforcement or infrastructure.

[Dodgy69]

Regarding fatalities...what are the stats on rider error versus none rider error.

My biggest concern when riding is still, is that car gonna pull out. We stare at driver, cover brake and hope he doesn't move, sometimes they do.

I've said it for a while now, ask my lad and mrs, when in car joining main road at a T junction, if a bike is coming make a big point of staring at him. He wants to see your looking at him. Imo.

[exportman]

I think the message is changing slowly. When I joined as an associate many of the observers where very gung ho, some concentrating on speed above all else. That was quite a time ago over the last 10 years or so the group I'm with has changed a great deal The IMI qualification was a great excuse to change the culture, along with a committee who are all observers and always willing to listen and learn themselves. I think the IAM is moving forwards but there are still quite a number of groups who are reluctant to consider change. Maybe the present situation will move things along a little.

[Horse]

Regarding fatalities...what are the stats on rider error versus none rider error.

Do you mean fault / blame? In a typical SMIDSY SMIDSY it's likely that the car driver will get the blame. But they won't be the one getting mangled.

Most types of bike crash aren't secret (loss of control, braking or cornering, SMIDSY, overtaking / filtering), so riders need to be wary of these situations, i.e. don't abdicate responsibility to the other person. No reason to join in with someone else's crash.

My biggest concern when riding is still, is that car gonna pull out. We stare at driver, cover brake and hope he doesn't move, sometimes they do.

Looking is just pointing your head and eyes, it's not the same as seeing and that's not understanding what is seen.

I've often had drivers look towards me, but pull out anyway.

[Dodgy69]

When riding past a junction with waiting car, I feel more comfortable if the driver is staring at me as opposed to looking the other way or looking back and forth. I feel they've seen me and waiting for me to pass. It tells me nothing if their not staring at me.

Casual glancing is different than looking. If they look properly and don't see you, they shouldn't be on the road. Imo.

[Hot_Air]

If they look properly and don't see you, they shouldn't be on the road.

If they look properly and don't see you, they need to read Spin's book: The Science of Being Seen

[Horse]

On at least two occasions, I would have been toast without the positioning that the IAM taught me. It's good stuff!

Could you explain those situations?

It tells me nothing if their not staring at me.

Casual glancing is different than looking. If they look properly and don't see you, they shouldn't be on the road. Imo.

Think of it like a car with its indicators on. All it really tells you is that the bulbs work.

'Pointing their head' in your direction is nothing more than showing they have neck movement.

Casual glancing is different than looking. If they look properly and don't see you, they shouldn't be on the road. Imo.

You won't see everything that you look towards.



Spin's SOBS book has already been linked. However, him being a kind chap, he's also put a load of stuff online for free.
https://scienceofbeingseen.wordpress.com/

Also, go back through his Facebook feed a couple of weeks and his SOBS presentation is there too.

What have you got to lose, what's the worst that could happen?

[iansoady]

Casual glancing is different than looking. If they look properly and don't see you, they shouldn't be on the road. Imo.

True. However, some of them are. As said many times it's you who will suffer so it's well worth making sure they have ample opportunity to actually see you and respond appropriately and in the worst case make sure that you know what you will do should the worst happen.....

[Dodgy69]

Modern bikes have permanent headlights or drls, even flashing drls. I can add hi viz if I feel it would help, I can't stop or slow too much because there is a car at the junction ahead, it would confuse any following. I have to ride passed, if they pull out in front of me, i carnt stop. BANG.

So, maybe at the end of the day, we are in the lap of the gods, when we have people on the road who can't see properly, when they have clear site of oncoming bikes.

[Dodgy69]

I think the xmas lecture clip has very little relevance. Tbh. We are not sure what we should be looking at, what we should expect to see or of its importance. On the road at junctions, I'm looking for moving vehicles, cyclists, horses etc. I know which direction there coming from and where they will be. I know where to look and what they look like.

Interesting stuff though.

[exportman]

Modern bikes have permanent headlights or drls, even flashing drls. I can add hi viz if I feel it would help, I can't stop or slow too much because there is a car at the junction ahead, it would confuse any following. I have to ride passed, if they pull out in front of me, i carnt stop. BANG.

So, maybe at the end of the day, we are in the lap of the gods, when we have people on the road who can't see properly, when they have clear site of oncoming bikes.

Hi as

Hot_Air

mentioned earlier a lateral move in your lane helps attract the drivers attention a sort of zig zag move. In traffic my standard position would be directly in front of the driver of the vehicle behind so even with their horse blinkers fitted they are still looking at the back of my bike. Move out of this and generally they will shift their focus onto the vehicle in front of you, but a short zig zag will probably wake them up too.

When people don't see you I wonder if it is actually that during their quick glance their brain has seen you but the primitive part does not see you as a threat so in their often overloaded mind( listening to the news playing with their satnag talking on the phone or just remembers they have to do something etc) it does not prioritise you so they pull out.

[Horse]

Modern bikes have permanent headlights or drls,

And how much difference has it made to the crash stats?

even flashing drls.

M/cs shouldn't have, since it's illegal. Bicycles can.

when we have people on the road who can't see properly, when they have clear site of oncoming bikes.

Seriously, read the linked web pages.

So, maybe at the end of the day, we are in the lap of the gods

I have to ride passed, if they pull out in front of me, i carnt stop. BANG.

We make out own luck, Up to you whether you want to abdicate responsibility, but it's not usually the car driver who suffers.

There's a relatively small zone where a collision is inevitable, where you can't brake or accelerate to avoid a crash. Simply move away in the lane width may reduce that zone. If it does happen, jump.

[Horse]

I think the xmas lecture clip has very little relevance. Tbh. We are not sure what we should be looking at, what we should expect to see or of its importance.

It's trying to explain just one aspect of why a driver might look, but miss you. As I said, read Spin's SOBS pages.

[Horse]

When people don't see you I wonder if it is actually that during their quick glance their brain has seen you but the primitive part does not see you as a threat so in their often overloaded mind( listening to the news playing with their satnag talking on the phone or just remembers they have to do something etc) it does not prioritise you so they pull out.

Same suggesting as to DK - read Spin's SOBS pages (or, better still, buy his book!) for far more information on this.

[The Spin Doctor]

Regarding fatalities...what are the stats on rider error versus none rider error.

Most COLLISIONS are driver error. Most happen in town (but not all) and most are relatively low speed and likely to be survivable. The most likely cause of a fatal crash in urban areas are 'loss of control' and hitting something like a telegraph pole or parked car, at junctions when a car from the OPPOSITE direction turns across the rider's path, or when filtering when the rider topples off and gets run over.

Most FATAL crashes are rider error. Most (but not all) happen out of town on corners and when overtaking, or when colliding with a car by blasting around a blind corner where the driver couldn't see the bike coming or at higher speed when drivers see the bike but misjudge speed and distance.

My biggest concern when riding is still, is that car gonna pull out. We stare at driver, cover brake and hope he doesn't move, sometimes they do.

It's the 'wrong' junction crash to be really concerned about. Whilst this one makes up something like 60% of all collisions in a built up area, the much rarer 'oncoming car turns across your path' is much more likely to kill you. According to stats from a BikeSafe some years ago, the conventional SMIDSY with the emerging driver results in 1:12 fatalities in London, the oncoming car turning across your path is about 50%. Most of the rest are filtering gone wrong.

I've said it for a while now, ask my lad and mrs, when in car joining main road at a T junction, if a bike is coming make a big point of staring at him. He wants to see your looking at him. Imo.

How can they see that, until you are right on top of them? The degree of head movement when you are 30 metres away is negligible and by the time you are right on top of them and they can see 'the whites of your eyes' you're too close to take evasive action. In any case, what do you think it achieves?

When riding past a junction with waiting car, I feel more comfortable if the driver is staring at me as opposed to looking the other way or looking back and forth. I feel they've seen me and waiting for me to pass. It tells me nothing if their not staring at me.

Firstly because of the narrow foveal zone of the eye, you can't tell if the driver is looking at YOU... or the gap just behind you. If he's focused on the latter, the danger is you're out of sight, out of mind. I've lost count of the number of riders who've told me "he was looking straight at me and still pulled out". Well, he wasn't looking 'straight at you" he was focused on the empty space just behind you - that's why he pulled out.

Secondly, if they are looking the other way, it's a VERY useful piece of information - they aren't looking at you and may not know you're there.

Thirdly, if they are looking both ways, they're still looking for a gap. The danger of a gaze focused in one direction is that they might have seen it - then they'll make one quick check the other way... and pull out.

Modern bikes have permanent headlights or drls, even flashing drls. I can add hi viz if I feel it would help, I can't stop or slow too much because there is a car at the junction ahead, it would confuse any following. I have to ride passed, if they pull out in front of me, i carnt stop. BANG.

From crash stats - rather than lab studies - there's relatively little evidence either DRLs or hi-vis clothing make any significant difference. Something to consider is that from 30 mph YOU should be able to stop in 10 metres. If you aren't seen ten metres away it's not likely that DRLs or hi-vis will swing the balance. There are other factors involved

Casual glancing is different than looking. If they look properly and don't see you, they shouldn't be on the road. Imo.
......So, maybe at the end of the day, we are in the lap of the gods, when we have people on the road who can't see properly, when they have clear site of oncoming bikes.

Human visual perception is not a camera and film. We don't see what's in front of our eyes, our brains process the picture for information and assembles its own version of what's out there. Put a scene in front of a detective and an ordinary person and they'll see completely different things. Yet nothing in the scene itself differs.

There are plenty of reasons we can look and fail to see an object. Ask any sniper.

And that's assuming we CAN be seen - in around 1/5 of all collisions, the bike wasn't where it COULD be seen in the run-up to the crash - it could be behind another vehicle, hidden by pedestrians or roadside furniture... or the structure of the car. Take a look at the thickness of the A pillar in a modern vehicle. It's about the thickness of the palm of your hand. Hold your hand out, block out the bike with your hand, then see how close you can get to your bike before you can see it. Be afraid.

Final point - a driver pulling out of a T junction is looking in both directions and trying to monitor the movements of a number of vehicles, and gaps, all moving at different speeds. Approaching a junction all we ahve to do is see if there is a car there, or if a car might be hidden. Much easier.

And for what it's worth some Dutch research a few year ago estimated that the rate of Right of Way Violations where riders pulled out in front of other bikes was pretty much the same as for drivers pulling out in front of bikes. We ALL - driver or biker - make the same perception errors.

More than happy to talk about this but please put the idea that 'drivers don't look properly' out of your mind. There were 100 fatal junction collisions in 2018, out of 1.2 million bikers, travelling several billion miles across god knows how many junctions. The vast majority of drivers get it right the vast majority of the time. We simply don't notice. We only remember the scares.

Time to sit down and watch SOBS...