Safety Glance / Lifesaver?

It was suggested to me that if you are a police biker travelling at high speeds (three figures) then every tiny advantage achieved by off-siding can be justified.

For the average rider, even experienced advanced riders, the advantage to be gained is so small that the disadvantages in terms of possible danger from other road users outweighs any potential benefit.

Consequently I changed from a rider who off-sided quite often (when I considered it safe to do so, was perhaps even a little blasé) to a rider who thinks twice about any advantage I'm likely to gain and now generally I stay on my side of the road - although undoubtedly there are times when it can be useful, given clear sight lines and the ability to lessen bends

This guy sounds just like me. Totally agree, and the photos kindly put up by Giles are fantastic examples. I think I may borrow them for instructional purposes ( and not just to associates, but more for those "I`ll show off and jump to the offside just before a bend" advanced riding Gods )
 
In all of Giles's photos above the vision ahead is obscured by one feature or another so common sense tells me to stay on my side of the road.

Engineer ... I've just got in and need a hot bath (40 miles on my push bike and I'm fecking freezing now..!)

But I'll reply to your observation .... :thumb2
 
It was suggested to me that if you are a police biker travelling at high speeds (three figures) then every tiny advantage achieved by off-siding can be justified.

For the average rider, even experienced advanced riders, the advantage to be gained is so small that the disadvantages in terms of possible danger from other road users outweighs any potential benefit.

Consequently I changed from a rider who off-sided quite often (when I considered it safe to do so, was perhaps even a little blasé) to a rider who thinks twice about any advantage I'm likely to gain and now generally I stay on my side of the road - although undoubtedly there are times when it can be useful, given clear sight lines and the ability to lessen bends

I entirely agree. A police rider trying to obtain the maximum view at 3 figure speeds is different from a civilian rider. To stick with the IAM example - why would you need to use extreme offside positioning at 60 mph? In my opinion any advantage to be gained is minimal and not necessarily worth the risk.
 
I pose a simple question;

So you've taken cornering position, why?

To see better, maintain stability and control.

Ok, why ?

To see any possible hazard earlier.

Ok, most get this far, but why ???

They looked flummoxed, they've given the books answer's what more can there be ?

WHY ????

To respond to the hazard !!!!!

There is Normal safety, approx 1/3rd from centre line of your lane; then there is safety.

This is anywhere on the road.

If you meet a 44 tonne articulated lorry coming head on down your side of the road, on foreign plates, are you still sticking to just off the centerline as the book suggests ?

Good for guidance, bad for rules. Think think and then think again. Car's don't bleed.

As for the original question posed !!

Sadly, you have to teach them what the dsa want to see.

As you get more experienced, you will be able to judge better, those who want to learn to ride, compared to those who just want to pass.
Offer to take them out for half an hour after they've passed their test, introduce them to any local advanced group, most do a free assessment, check out ridescotfree if your up here or build a relationship with bikesafe if its still going. If they're interested then they follow it up, everyone no matter the qualifications or their believed skill level knows everything, some however are riding gods and need no help thank you.



Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk
 
I think there's also a big a difference between straight lining stuff / ironing out those kinks in the road, and approaching a left hand bend from way out on the off side.

Tempting to straight line right? (so we're not talking brush the offside hedge, we're just talking straight line, maybe pinch a few inches of the offside). Eight out of ten times you'll get away with it, but it's uncanny how often another vehicle can completely hide in that dead section that you can't see. Don't be tempted to be greedy here, run it deep and get that view ... !

Two really important points that I agree with:

Trimming bends is a totally different issue from offsiding to gain a view. No problem at all with doing this, where it is appropriate to do so and it can make the ride flow much better :thumb2

Always be aware of what might be lurking in the back of a corner! Flowing Alpine roads are a classic for this where there are numerous fairly tight bends in succession. It can be tempting to try and iron some of it out, but I never do this until I have a view right into the back of a corner. A nasty surprise may await otherwise...

Like this thread :)
 
This has just about been done to death now but I have to confess all this focus on offsiding annoys me slightly. Historically it seems to have permeated down from the Police riders/drivers through ROSPA and IAM. In Police training you could get a bollocking for not being on the offside purely because at the speed you were travelling you needed a better view of the next left hander.

Now Micky used to say, and probably still does, 'Is it safe? Is it legal(ish)? Is it to advantage? I'll skip the middle one because even with Micky at times that has been compromised. But the other two are quite important.

I've lost count of the number of 'advanced' riders who stick themselves on the offside of the road, even on narrow lanes 'for a view' and then have to lunge for the nearside because they've done it at the wrong time for the wrong reason. I've done I myself and hopefully I've grown out of it. I've even seen some of the riding experts on here including my personal heroes get it wrong.

The truth is for most mortals the offside on approach to a left hand bend can be a dangerous place and more often than not at legal or near legal speeds the advantage of the extended view is limited at best.
 
I have long thought the IAM should drop the "Skill for life"tag and insist on 3 yearly retests.
The "Skill for Life" tag was dropped last year, it is now called the "Advanced Rider" (or "Advanced Driver") course, and as pointed out by 'Tractors are go' they are shortly going to offer periodic retests.
Each individual member will have the choice of what type of membership they take up on passing the test, a "member" will be pretty much as it is now, pass the test and that's it, or the alternative is a type of membership (there was talk of it being called a "Fellow") whereby to maintain the membership they will have to be retested every three years.
 
The "Skill for Life" tag was dropped last year, it is now called the "Advanced Rider" (or "Advanced Driver") course, and as pointed out by 'Tractors are go' they are shortly going to offer periodic retests.
Each individual member will have the choice of what type of membership they take up on passing the test, a "member" will be pretty much as it is now, pass the test and that's it, or the alternative is a type of membership (there was talk of it being called a "Fellow") whereby to maintain the membership they will have to be retested every three years.

Being a National Observer/Local observer assessor i have to do the assessment every three years. It is done by RQM Mick Kinghorn, a nice chap from geordie land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The "Skill for Life" tag was dropped last year, it is now called the "Advanced Rider" (or "Advanced Driver") course, and as pointed out by 'Tractors are go' they are shortly going to offer periodic retests.
Each individual member will have the choice of what type of membership they take up on passing the test, a "member" will be pretty much as it is now, pass the test and that's it, or the alternative is a type of membership (there was talk of it being called a "Fellow") whereby to maintain the membership they will have to be retested every three years.

What he said. They've recognised the need to offer something with an ongoing quality element not least because their favoured insurer IAM surety have crunched the numbers and found out that for those who have been 'qualified' for over 5 years the risk of a claim is the same or greater than for non members. Being an insurer their logic is bound to be why offer them cheaper insurance? You can't really argue with that can you?

Problem might be that the status of 'fellow' not only comes at a higher cost but also if they fail the retest they have to start from scratch and qualify again, presumably paying the course fee again. 'Fellow's' will get a better insurance deal from IAM surety.

I did ask why National observers, for whom part of the qualification is riding above the IAM test standard, weren't in line for a cheaper insurance deal. Surety said they were looking at it and the IAM hierarchy said effectively that it didn't count at the moment because riding was only part of the NO qualification and it wasn't a full riding test.

There is as already mentioned a requalification system for observers and those who hold a 'masters' qualification.
 
The "Skill for Life" tag was dropped last year, it is now called the "Advanced Rider" (or "Advanced Driver") course, and as pointed out by 'Tractors are go' they are shortly going to offer periodic retests.
Each individual member will have the choice of what type of membership they take up on passing the test, a "member" will be pretty much as it is now, pass the test and that's it, or the alternative is a type of membership (there was talk of it being called a "Fellow") whereby to maintain the membership they will have to be retested every three years.

IAM Roadsmart actually


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What he said. They've recognised the need to offer something with an ongoing quality element not least because their favoured insurer IAM surety have crunched the numbers and found out that for those who have been 'qualified' for over 5 years the risk of a claim is the same or greater than for non members. Being an insurer their logic is bound to be why offer them cheaper insurance? You can't really argue with that can you?

Problem might be that the status of 'fellow' not only comes at a higher cost but also if they fail the retest they have to start from scratch and qualify again, presumably paying the course fee again. 'Fellow's' will get a better insurance deal from IAM surety.

I did ask why National observers, for whom part of the qualification is riding above the IAM test standard, weren't in line for a cheaper insurance deal. Surety said they were looking at it and the IAM hierarchy said effectively that it didn't count at the moment because riding was only part of the NO qualification and it wasn't a full riding test.

There is as already mentioned a requalification system for observers and those who hold a 'masters' qualification.

I'm not quite sure what the IAM is saying there. The NO qualification has to be much tougher than the simple "ordinary" test because not only do you have to demonstrate a very high standard of riding you also have to observe and pick holes in the examiners ride too. The Masters is even tougher with little or no leeway for even minor errors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I had someone explain that getting a f1rst is harder than getting a masters; I really did try not to laugh.

I got a silver for my first rospa car, as the examiner didn't believe anyone is good enough to get a gold first time.

Whilst I am sure we can all give our personal gripes over IAM/ROSPA, this thread is about DSA and lifesavers
 
I had someone explain that getting a f1rst is harder than getting a masters; I really did try not to laugh.

I got a silver for my first rospa car, as the examiner didn't believe anyone is good enough to get a gold first time.

Whilst I am sure we can all give our personal gripes over IAM/ROSPA, this thread is about DSA and lifesavers

Dear gawd he was misinformed lol. Ride to what you can see if your obs are good then it will be like a knife through butter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Some great posts here. Just goes to show that you never stop learning. I'd certainly consider some advanced training at some point.:thumb
 
I'm happy that anyone does any kind of further training, but more importantly it is not an end in itself.

I'm sure we've all come across the badge collector's at some point.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk
 
In all of Giles's photos above the vision ahead is obscured by one feature or another so common sense tells me to stay on my side of the road.


So ....

The original post was sort of about life savers and shoulder checks and some of the replies were basically saying, no harm in doing too many. My view is, yes there is .... if you live in a 20m bubble of life saver here, life saver there, look down this side road as I pass it etc, generally your vision can become quite short.

So lets expand on that.

There are a few kitchy sayings that driving school use, I think it was Micky that used the phrase 'never put yer bike somewhere that your brain hasn't already been..' (something like that.. !). I sometimes use an analogy about magnets. (Not you Magnet .. :D). Imagine two magnets on your work surface both north up. As you push one towards the other it repels it and pushes that magnet away. My brain, and my bike are both north up magnets, and as my bike goes down the road, it's constantly pushing my brain further away ahead of it. They never meet.

Obvious huh? But it's not. A classic advanced rider that I would see from a club (so not having a dig ... !) would do an overtake, pat himself on the back for a good job well done, come back in immediately afterwards and then head towards his left hand bend thats 200 yards away. His brain and his bike have met at the overtake. He wasn't pushing his brain ahead whilst the overtake was going on. You must have seen the lefthander? Why not build that into your plan whilst dealing with the overtake? Instead we've got sucked into here and now - This is what I call dot to dot or paint by numbers. Tick the box, done the overtake ... now what?
The thinking rider will ... as he's doing the overtake, keep his brain that 200 years ahead of him. Bike and brain not meeting. So as he's passing the vehicle he's identifying the left-hander, and he's altering his approach line to that bend and that 'turn in point', that bit on the road he want to aim for. So his return to the nearside (traffic allowing) is much lazier and much longer. Now he's on the offside (overtaking), he's using that position and holding on to it for a little longer.

That's just a simple example, but a good illustration of not getting suckered into here and now but of keeping the flow and the momentum and the north up magnet alive.

So .... Engineers corners ...



As I approach this I immediately identify where I want to be in 200 yards 300 yards etc. It's 'never put yer bike somewhere your brain hasn't been' ... It's 'north up magnets'

Where do I want to be in 200 yards?

I want to be here;



As you ride, be creative with you imagination, create the line on the road in your mind, 'see' the line that you're going to take. So my point to you Engineer, is that Yes ... from the still picture nobody (I hope!) is going to straight line the corner, but if you let that flowing road evolve, and carve that line in your mind .... it could all change.

Are there any hazards on this bend? Have I seen it all?

No I haven't. What I'm not too sure about is this;



So I'm going to run a bit deep into the bend and investigate that.

Having run deeper into that and opened up my view, and seen the bit I wasn't sure about ... I now have choices. If all is good and theres nothing there to worry about I can iron out a bit of that corner, borrow some of the offside and head to my original 'turn in point' on the black path.
If whatever is hidden in that few feet that I couldn't see gives me a bad feeling (junction ?) I can choose a different line but still heading for that same turn in point.



The difference in lines is only a few feet, and I completely endorse Harry the Cat's post that at legal speeds are those few feet worth it. And ... yes ... they can be ... :p


An almost identical set up;



I identify where I want to be - my 'turn in point' C. (I don't really like that phrase - it's a keith code term from twist of the wrist, but it sums the idea albeit a bit boy racerish), I know I need to run deeper into the bend to get the whole picture, but once I do and if it's safe, can I take option A or must I play safe and take B ??

So we saw this picture earlier;



And my very point here is that you can't afford to clip this, but it's easy to get suckered into doing that. Speed, and excess speed will drag you off line. Good nearside positioning is probably the hardest bit of the road to really put yourself in and carrying too much speed into a corner like this will unquestionably pull you off line early. Too early!

We know we want to roughly be here;



But what we can't afford to do is take the red path .. excess speed here or stress in the wet with tight arms, will put you on the red path!



Another example of the above from an earlier post. Speed will drag me off line here (This is quite a quick bit of road). I need discipline to stay on my nearside and not get dragged of it early;




So the idea of 'seeing' your line in your minds eye before you actually do it is nothing new ... you all do it ... but some do it better than others, and the key to it is in it's simplest form, how far you look up the road and plan. So again ... I take you back to living in this world of a busy neck, of staring down every side road as you pass it, of five life savers on and off the roundabout .... does it help you? Is more OK? No! because it detracts from everything above.

Ive got me crayons out so lets do some more .... !

What do you see here? What line are you going to take? Where is your end point of vision? (Your ultimate turn in point), what hazards have you got to take into account? What can you see, can't you see and what might you reasonably expect to develop?



Clearly we're going to approach this in an offside position, and no ... I wouldn't be worry about the finger post and the driveway. Thats a crisp packet. I'm not going to stare down it as I pass it!!! If there's something there I'll see it (and would have done 200 yards back which is where we deal with things ... ).



North up magnets? never put yer bike somewhere .... I identify the end of my vision, quite literally the last bit of the road I can see, and it's clear its a right hand bend and i want to be on the nearside somewhere. What I clearly don't know, is the missing chunk.



What can I see what can't I see ... and what do I think the road will do? (which of course can sometimes catch us out! Telegraph poles swapping sides etc). So I carve an imaginary line in my brain, it's flexible ... it might change .. something completely unexpected may appear, but I build a picture and that picture helps create flow, swan on the water and that beautiful quiet efficiency.



Thats in my mind .... but that's flexible. Do I need to get really nearside for that right hander? Could I take a different line? if its all free and open can i sort of straight line it to my ultimate turn in point?



And the answer to that is that we don't know until we get the whole picture. If there's nothing there, I might still take the black line because it will deliver me to my goal with a degree of momentum and flow. The red choice might see me having to knock of pace for what might be a slightly tighter turn?

Who knows?

Keep your vision, literally as far as you can see. Carve a line in your mind, be flexible with that and give yourself 'what if's'. As micky says, ask yourself "how could i get hurt here?".




:thumb2
 
How are your gear changes during these manoeuvres :D

Fucking brilliant on a KTM ... :D


<a href="https://gileslamb.smugmug.com/Quality/i-CjvS5km/A"><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Quality/i-CjvS5km/0/L/073-L.jpg" alt=""></a>
 


Back
Top Bottom