Explainer videos

[exportman]

Hi

Whilst being bored and unable to ride during the lockdown I have tried to make some explainer videos for the Observers and associates of the bike group I am a member of. They are not perfect I'm not a graphics artist or anything but I am hoping they help the people these are aimed at. At the risk of being pilloried, they are on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1UWFb ... vA/videos? if you want to take a look.

[Hot_Air]

I think these videos are a superb idea, and I love their simplicity

In the SMIDSY video – if I'm nitpicking – I might add a little more about moving laterally to increase the chances of catching the driver's attention. (Albeit not relying on the driver seeing me.)

Will others nitpick too? This is an online forum, and I expect so. But your videos are excellent; it takes a stroke of genius to make complex things look simple.

[Horse]

I think these videos are a superb idea, and I love their simplicity

In the SMIDSY video – if I'm nitpicking – I might add a little more about moving laterally to increase the chances of catching the driver's attention. (Albeit not relying on the driver seeing me.)

Will others nitpick too? This is an online forum, and I expect so. But your videos are excellent; it takes a stroke of genius to make complex things look simple.

Been meaning to reply 'elsewhere' (exportman will, I trust, recognise my name), however your 'lateral' comment gives me an opportunity to mention my Z Line - active positioning.

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/2008/ ... n.html?m=0
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/2008/ ... n.html?m=0
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/2008/ ... n.html?m=0
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/2008/ ... t.html?m=0
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/2008/ ... s.html?m=0



Diagram:
http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/2008/ ... s.html?m=0

[Horse]

And, more importantly, I meant to say ...

- huge amount of work, well done
- difficult to make stuff simple
- great title!
- i found multiple bikes in the same image confusing
- additional lines/arrows to show movement would be beneficial

[iansoady]

Just had a look at the 2 second rule one and it's clear and well explained. The only thing I would say is I would bring the text in a full line at a time as the letter by letter approach is irritating for those of us who can read quickly....

But well done.

[exportman]

Hi

I have been a IAM observer for many years. Trying to explain these concepts is often difficult especially as the side of the road. As I could not ride I though it an opportunity to try this. Couple more should come out in the next few days I have changed the style a little, hopefully clearer for the watcher. New ones will be filtering multi lane roads ( just about finished) and momentum overtakes which will take me a little while longer to finish.
Thanks for the positive comments. I will look at the suggestions and consider incorporating them in new releases

Any suggestions for future editions I will be happy to look at

[Hot_Air]

I have been a IAM observer for many years. Trying to explain these concepts is often difficult especially as the side of the road.

The books don't help. The IAM Roadsmart book is like something for primary school kids: way too simple - and slightly patronising - for grown ups. But Motorcycle Roadcraft is too wordy to convey its golden nuggets before the reader nods off.

So, keep up the excellent work with these videos

Will you share them with the Comms team at IAM HQ? The IAM could promote your YouTube stuff via Twitter and Facebook.

[exportman]

Hi

Thanks I have posted another one on YouTube.

Last week Amanda Smith participated in a Podcast with Chris from our group that is now on Anchor https://anchor.fm/chris-kelly27/episode ... ns-eejhc1? Hopefully we will get a plug from HQ but Im not holding out much hope we have sent in a few articles for Inform and nothing has been published so far.

[The Spin Doctor]

I have been a IAM observer for many years. Trying to explain these concepts is often difficult especially as the side of the road.

The books don't help. The IAM Roadsmart book is like something for primary school kids: way too simple - and slightly patronising - for grown ups. But Motorcycle Roadcraft is too wordy to convey its golden nuggets before the reader nods off.

So, keep up the excellent work with these videos

Will you share them with the Comms team at IAM HQ? The IAM could promote your YouTube stuff via Twitter and Facebook.

There is of course the 21st century alternative...

Survival SKILLS
https://www.lulu.com/en/gb/shop/kevin-w ... dn6je.html

The publishers are even offering 15% off until 5 June... SAVE15

[Horse]

Hi

Thanks I have posted another one on YouTube.

Last week Amanda Smith participated in a Podcast with Chris from our group that is now on Anchor https://anchor.fm/chris-kelly27/episode ... ns-eejhc1? Hopefully we will get a plug from HQ but Im not holding out much hope we have sent in a few articles for Inform and nothing has been published so far.

I didn't listen to it

But I did listen to #2 in the set, about overtaking and 'progress', which I thought got a bit muddled by talking about both filtering and 'open road' overtaking.

And, after 30 minutes or so, I'm not sure there was a clear answer.

- I think it was said that the IAM examiner 'expects' to see a rider overtake - does that mean, however good the rest of the ride is, not overtaking would be an instant fail?

And a possible contradiction:
- 'Being aware of opportunities' and 'we don't expect them to be making overtakes every time'
Vs
- Something about 'use the system, why they should be doing this overtake'. ['Should'?]

So, on training rides, do riders have to overtake, even if they demonstrate that they recognized every opportunity?

One other thing: knowledge of the HC was mentioned, in particular overtaking on chevrons. Actually, the HC says "should not unless it is necessary". We're not on an emergency call, so . . .

[MotorSportsFan]

I didn't listen to it

But I did listen to #2 in the set, about overtaking and 'progress', which I thought got a bit muddled by talking about both filtering and 'open road' overtaking.

And, after 30 minutes or so, I'm not sure there was a clear answer.

- I think it was said that the IAM examiner 'expects' to see a rider overtake - does that mean, however good the rest of the ride is, not overtaking would be an instant fail?

And a possible contradiction:
- 'Being aware of opportunities' and 'we don't expect them to be making overtakes every time'
Vs
- Something about 'use the system, why they should be doing this overtake'. ['Should'?]

So, on training rides, do riders have to overtake, even if they demonstrate that they recognized every opportunity?

One other thing: knowledge of the HC was mentioned, in particular overtaking on chevrons. Actually, the HC says "should not unless it is necessary". We're not on an emergency call, so . . .

Hi, I'm Chris from the podcast

• I'm not sure why you thought it was muddled, the concepts and techniques of the "System" apply equally to filtering and 'open road'. If you can be more specific I'll try to answer your question.

• There was no suggestion of an instant fail so I'm unsure where you got the notion? What was said was that if there was a clear opportunity for an overtake the examiner would expect that it would be taken. To expand on this, those who show no indication of having seen such an opportunity are exhibiting poor observation skills. A single missed overtake is easily dismissed as nerves on the test however if it is part of a systemic failure to make proper observations then it could well CONTRIBUTE to a test fail

• Please bear in mind that a rider needs to demonstrate competency throughout the course as well as the test. We are not able to assess and thereby provide guidance on a competency for a rider that never demonstrates it. As overtaking is one of the more dangerous competencies it rightly receives a great deal of attention and as with any skill regularly practising the correct technique is the route to mastery. There are many elements to the technique but observation, anticipation and planning key parts, an experienced IAM Observer will know the difference between a rider who has considered but rejected as unsafe a potential overtake from a rider who simply isn't looking. Further to this we see riders who look but do not execute overtakes that would have been easily achievable, it is not uncommon for me when assessing Observers to overtake the Observer, the trainee and the vehicle ahead completely without drama, which begs the question if I could do that from much further back why didn't the trainee? So to answer your question, "it just depends" if a rider is employing advanced techniques they should be making overtakes where safe to do so (this is a relative term, absolute safety is not possible), equally they should be showing good judgement and rejecting overtakes that are not.

• As I mentioned on the podcast I struggle to reconcile the notion of 'necessity'. If you are setting the bar at the height of an emergency call then no overtake is necessary unless you are a member of the emergency services. As we are legally permitted to overtake I would set the bar somewhat lower and say that an overtake is necessary on any vehicle that is impeding my safe progress within the bounds of the HC. Therefore the question becomes where am I best able to execute the overtake, again mentioned on the podcast, usually for a motorcycle the easiest places are acceleration zones and the chevron areas can fall into these providing care is exercised. While there may be plenty of reasons not to use them, ignorance of the rules should not be one of them. Unfortunately that is often the case.

I hope this clarifies things for you?

[Dodgy69]

Imo...in an overtake manoeuver, we should be allowed to briefly exceed the speed limit, making for a quicker, safer overtake. How often are we following a vehicle travelling below the limit but to do a pass within the limit would mean staying on the opposite lane for longer than ideal.

I have always understood we should travel to the limit if safe to do so. Is this still the case.??

[iansoady]

As far as I'm concerned an overtake is never "necessary" unless a vehicle in front has crashed and stopped immediately. But even then if you'd left sufficient space you should be able to stop. Desirable, useful - possibly.

[Horse]

Hi, I'm Chris from the podcast

Hi Chris, thanks for taking the time to answer.

For context, I've never done any training with an IAM Group (there's a big 'although' for another time) and I passed the IAM bike test in the '80s, so things have probably changed since then (like that I had to do 50 in a 30 at one point to catch up with the examiner! Again, perhaps a story for another time).

• I'm not sure why you thought it was muddled, the concepts and techniques of the "System" apply equally to filtering and 'open road'.

Filtering is, I suppose, technically still 'overtaking' and similar principles apply.

However, I got the impression from the introduction to the 'progress' section of the podcast that it was related to a Facebook exchange on 'open road' overtaking. If that's not the case, and that exchange included filtering, then my bad.

• There was no suggestion of an instant fail so I'm unsure where you got the notion? What was said was that if there was a clear opportunity for an overtake the examiner would expect that it would be taken. To expand on this, those who show no indication of having seen such an opportunity are exhibiting poor observation skills. A single missed overtake is easily dismissed as nerves on the test however if it is part of a systemic failure to make proper observations then it could well CONTRIBUTE to a test fail

It was said that "the examiner will expect it". That sounds like an absolute, i.e. "if you don't overtake, then you have not met the expectations = fail".

It's that 'essential / necessary again. If the lack of overtaking is not associated with any systemic failure to make proper observations, does that mean the examiner would accept it?

• As overtaking is one of the more dangerous competencies

Indeed, it's one of the main (if not the biggest) 'gotchas' that riders die as a result of. Not something to get wrong. Every time you overtake, that really increases your risk exposure. It could be argued that choosing not to overtake where there is minimal gain ('necessary'?) is a good risk reduction strategy.

During the filtering part of the podcast, heading to the front of a queue (at traffic lights, IIRC) was mentioned. There is a likelihood here that the law-abiding (and potentially on test) advanced rider would get to the fron of the queue then, when the lights go green, become a 30mph rolling road block, obstructing the rest of the people who have their own ideas about 'making progress'.

• Further to this we see riders who look but do not execute overtakes that would have been easily achievable, it is not uncommon for me when assessing Observers to overtake the Observer, the trainee and the vehicle ahead completely without drama

TBH I've done the same with trainees.

• equally they should be showing good judgement and rejecting overtakes that are not.

Ah, now this relates to one particular bit where there seemed to be a mismatch between the views expressed on the podcast.

I don't know who said them, but a couple of comments were:

1. "Reasons to overtake, rather than reasons not to"
2. "If use of the system is enforced from the beginning, then they would understand the reason why they should be doing this overtake"

1.This risks confirmation bias creeping in. If there is an imperative to 'make progress' then the rider will be encouraged to look for overtakes (however much the 'look for danger' message is added).
2. Two things here:
- I'm sure many riders crash despite riding to 'the system'*. Very few people deliberately ride to crash. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that the failures of judgement (riding to the system) can be seen. Conversely, many cr@p riders, not riding systematically', manage to get along OK and not crash.
- The 'should' word. 'Necessity', again.

* Which system? There are loads, mental and physical. My early advanced training was to the old Roadcraft system. Learners are taught systems (MSM). Other countries have different systems (SIPDE Search Predict Act SEE). The Smith visual search system.

• As we are legally permitted to overtake I would set the bar somewhat lower and say that an overtake is necessary on any vehicle that is impeding my safe progress within the bounds of the HC. Therefore the question becomes where am I best able to execute the overtake, again mentioned on the podcast, usually for a motorcycle the easiest places are acceleration zones and the chevron areas can fall into these providing care is exercised. While there may be plenty of reasons not to use them, ignorance of the rules should not be one of them. Unfortunately that is often the case.

Is there any clear statement on the IAM website about the expectations for 'making progress' and overtaking?

I used to run a lot of 'advanced' training, but gradually found it more difficult to reconcile this aspect with what many riders actually needed, so (after 30 years involvement) I focused mainly on problem-solving and specific requirements.

I quite understand that if 'progress' is essential as part of achieving the 'advanced' certificate then 'it's the IAM's ball so they can go home whenever they like', IYSWIM. On that basis, if progress and overtaking is what's required, then that's what candidates will have to do!

I do wonder, though, whether 'advanced' will struggle in the future to sell itself? i.e. What's really different about advanced riding? Even 'L' candidates are expected to 'make safe progress'!


Edit: I suppose there's one simple question that I still don't think has really been answered:
- Can you be an 'advanced' rider without overtaking?

[The Spin Doctor]

I concur with everything Horse says...

Here's something else to think about...

How can we tell if a rider made all the right judgement calls... or simply overtook completely blindly?

If nothing goes wrong, we have absolutely NO WAY of knowing what their thought processes were.

Despite overtakes being the biggest killer of riders on a 'by opportunity' basis, by the law of overall odds, the vast majority of overtakes go right - if they didn't overtaking riders wouldn't make it to the end of their first few rides. But was that 'skill'... or blind chance?

The fact that the accident stats for advanced riders don't show any significant difference to 'ordinary' riders after advanced training tends to indicate that the arrow is pointing more towards chance than skill... and that's not just me saying that, it's from Dr Cris Burgess's work with the IAM.

The problem is that the examiner only works with what he sees for the short period he's watching another rider, and even if that rider pulls off half a dozen overtakes, there's no guarantee he'll see a duff one... which is the ONLY way of being 100% certain assessing the rider's overtaking understanding if all we are relying on is observation of the ride.

A 'for example'. Years ago I took a candidate in for test - he was pretty competent except in ONE area... he had real trouble judging when to stop and when to go at roundabouts. He'd been taught by his car instructor that he should ALWAYS stop if there was nothing approaching from his right - which he'd interpreted to mean "a vehicle in the next approach to the right, even when it wasn't actually ON the roundabout - and sometimes not even moving". As a result he'd often sit at the Give Way line with nothing moving towards him and wait because another car was sat at the Give Way lines at the exit to his right. Although I did all the explanations about how he could safely use the space available without causing another road user to 'change speed or direction', his judgement on this one issue was way off. So when I took him in to test my hopes weren't high. In fact, given as Ashford had so many roundabouts and a fav route involved a good half dozen on the ring road, I expected him to fail.

When I got back to the test centre with the other trainee and his bike was already parked up (a short test) I was convinced he'd failed. Blow me down, he walks round the corner with a big happy grin and a pass certificate.

"What happened on your test?"

"You know those roundabouts you took me round where I had such a problem?"

"Yes"

"You were right - the examiner took me round them too. But there was nothing there. Each one was deserted. Not a vehicle in sight."

So... he didn't have to make a difficult (for him) decision, the examiner didn't see his thought processes in action, and could only go on the outcomes... result - test pass.

Whilst a decent instructor / observer / examiner will often spot subtle clues that will give us hints about a problem, it's only when it all goes wrong that we REALLY know for sure!!

And that's why I focus on two areas:

- the mental processing that's going on - getting riders to explain what they are thinking rather than simply looking for 'outputs' to the 'Systen'
- getting trainees to start looking for reasons NOT to overtake rather than opportunities they COULD take

Survival Skills, not 'better than ordinary riders' skills.

[Hot_Air]

Can you be an 'advanced' rider without overtaking?

In my experience, no. I would say it’s tricky to get an IAM pass, and a RoSPA Gold is unattainable, without overtaking and making brisk progress.

On this issue, I believe the IAM has improved: the IAM entry-level no longer has as much emphasis on “making progress”. But it’s still one of the competencies, and I doubt it’s possible to get an IAM F1RST (let alone Masters) without overtaking and a lick of speed.

My experience was that RoSPA expected even more progressive riding than the IAM. But I’ve been out of RoSPA for a few years. Has anything changed?

I’ve no bone to pick – having got several Golds and a F1RST – but I think there should be less emphasis on “progress” and significantly more focus on things like avoiding SMIDSYs and “insight” training.

[Hot_Air]

Dr Cris Burgess's work with the IAM.

I'd love to see this work: where is there a link to it?

[Horse]

Can you be an 'advanced' rider without overtaking?

In my experience, no. I would say it’s tricky to get an IAM pass, and a RoSPA Gold is unattainable, without overtaking and making brisk progress.

To clarify, 'be an advanced rider', not 'pass the test'. As I said, of course I accept that if the test requirements have to be met, so be it.

If what you say is the case (we'll need a reply to confirm/deny), what happens if the rider knows that an overtake is essential, isn't that additional pressure?

However, I was thinking about in general riding. Did I stop being an advanced rider the moment I swung my leg over GF's MZ125? FWIW, the guy who used to train Hants police riders had an interesting choice of commuting bike: Honda C90!

but I think there should be less emphasis on “progress” and significantly more focus on things like avoiding SMIDSYs and “insight” training.

See above, where I added info on Z Line. Which, I was pleased to note, Spin includes in his SOBS presentation*, with a scenario very similar to the one in the Explainer video.

* Can be watched from his Fb page


One other thought:

I remember hearing, years ago, that the secret to going fast is knowing when to go slower.

So does the same apply to overtaking? Look for all the reasons not overtake, then whatever is left is where you can.

[Horse]

Dr Cris Burgess's work with the IAM.

I'd love to see this work: where is there a link to it?

No idea, but read the acknowledgments ...

https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/P ... icuity.pdf

[The Spin Doctor]

Dr Cris Burgess's work with the IAM.

I'd love to see this work: where is there a link to it?

Presented at the conference I attended last autumn... and reported on my FB page at the time.

----------------

Dr Cris Burgess was one of the main speakers on the day. He is a psychologist and a motorcyclist himself. And Cris has been working on rider psychology for quite a while including studying the results of IAM training.

What he has found should ring alarm bells throughout the advanced training world.

He believes that current training interventions offer positive feedback which boosts confidence. Do a quick Google and see how often the combination of words "motorcycle, training, improve and confidence" turn up.

But his findings are that increased skill and confidence does not mean few crashes. His studies suggest IAM-qualified riders show no reduction in crash rate over 'un-trained' riders - in fact, he went as far as to say they just "crash faster".

He asked if "collisions may be avoided by greater road skills?" The conventional answer is yes but a key point Cris made was that training interventions MUST be designed to REDUCE confidence. Currently, the vast majority - and I honestly believe Survival Skills to be one of the few exceptions - do the opposite. They make riders believe that they have come off the course 'better' than they went in.

We also misunderstand where risk lies - another common theme on this [www.facebook.com/survivalskills] page. Showing a beautifully-surfaced stretch of road with sweeping corners, and a narrow, twisty road with an iffy surface, he asked "which one is the riskier ride?". Most people voted for the twisty road. The answer is, of course, the beautiful sweeping bends, which encourage speed and confidence. The fact is that we feel less confident in our abilities on challenging roads and take more care. If training increases the rider's self-perceived ability, it also reduces the perceived task difficulty and that can lead to high risk behaviour. Getting riders to question what they know is likely to be the way to lower risk behaviour.

A new term - if not a new concept - was that of 'somatic markers'. These are events within our riding experience that cause us to change our behaviour in a similar situation in the future. If the event scares us, we're likely to be more careful next time around - it's the same basic principle I have termed 'Spidy Sense' that causes us to ride on heightened alert. As I've also pointed out, training allows us to learn by experience too - it's just someone else's experience. So a session that causes us to reflect on our previous riding behaviour may lead to a review of that behaviour - and a change in behaviour going forward. But the training has to be designed with that in mind.