I often hear from riders who feel they have been pressured into both riding faster than they felt comfortable and/or performing unnecessary overtakes in the name of ‘Making Progress’ whilst working toward an advanced qualification.
It matters not whether the pressure is real or percieved it pushes riders to put themselves at risk by riding beyond their own capabilities.
Lets clear up the myth that is ‘Making Progress‘
- First take the meaning of the word ‘Progress’ “forward or onward movement towards a destination’
- Second lets look at RoSPA’ s use of the word “using the road and traffic conditions to progress unobtrusively”
- Lastly the I.A.M. Who say their training will “encourage you to make good progress”
Civilian advanced riding’s origins are drawn from The Police System of Motorcycle Control aka Roadcraft, as civilians we do not need to ride with urgency or be required to respond to an emergency so there are parts of Roadcraft that do not apply.
Making progress is best achieved through good observation, anticipation and planning as opposed to speed. Due to the nature of our roads sustaining high speed for any length of time is rarely possible resulting in any high speed only coming in short bursts which have little or no effect on your overal journey time because those bursts do little to raise your overal average speed for that journey.
A good video that demonstrates quite nicely ‘Making Progress’
- Its 30 mins long but you quickly see how the car gets from Heathrow to New Scotland Yard in under 25 mins. a journey which would probably take over an hour, notable is the convoys lack of speed.
Also notable is despite the outriders pace at times they don’t arrive at their destination any sooner.
Hopefully by now you are clear that speed doesn’t equal progress.
Making progress is, not being unnecessarily delayed, maintain a good average speed over a whole journey by using good observation, anticipation and planning some examples are;
- Arriving at a roundabout when there’s a gap.
- Reaching a set of traffic lights as they turn to green.
- Filtering.
- Utilising all lanes to gain advantage in congestion.
All of the above prevent you from having to come to a complete stop as this will impact on your journey time (progress) as time continues but you are not covering any distance.
Road craft and any other riding manual will tell you that riding within your own limits, the limits of your machine and all within the confines of any given circumstances is an essential ingredient to being a good (or even better than good) rider.
Riders;
If you are feeling pressured into doing something that makes you feel uncomfortable then don’t do it.
Do ask yourself why it made you feel uncomfortable and if a similar situation arose how you could deal with it within your own limits and comfort zone.
If the discomfort is the result of pressure from someone who is supposed to be helping you improve your riding then tell them, make them explain to you why the ability to complete a particular manoeuvre will make you a better rider and add to your safety.
If you are not convinced it may be time to look for a different trainer/organisation as there are some really good ones out there.
Observer/Tutor/Trainer.
The ability to overtake in a safe and timely manner is an essential part of being a good rider, even more essential is restraint and the ability to assess ones own ability and confidence levels so making someone feel uncomfortable or pressurising riders into overtakes which return little or no advantage does nothing for their riding ability or safety.
Should a rider struggle with or be reluctant to overtake instead of hiding behind the old ‘making progress’ line try working with them constructively to improve their skillset, pressure and discomfort aren’t great teaching tools.
Chris Think Biker 
January 15, 2016 at 5:11 pm
Reblogged this on Thai Safe Rider and commented:
Very interesting post from Gloucester Think Biker on the subject of ‘Making Progress’ when riding.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 11:11 am
Good article. I became very disillusioned with the RoSPA ‘do as we say, not as we do’ approach and the whole need to get somewhere yesterday philosophy. Quite frankly on some of the rideouts I considered some riders actually dangerous. That’s why I selected a different organization.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 11:16 am
You are not alone, it’s a common mistake by trainers in trying to make a ‘mini me’ whereas they should be focused on the trainees current level and how they can make improvements not forgetting what the trainee wants from the training.
LikeLike
January 24, 2016 at 2:57 pm
We at bmw supplied all the ble boxers and their first job was escorting Diana’s coffin.
At the end of the day it’s the riders driving licence at risk NOT the bosses
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 25, 2016 at 9:24 am
Have agreed with these comments for many years. Progress means riding within the law and not exceeding the speed limit under any circumstances . no ADI will instruct a pupil going in for a test around town to overtake or do any manoeuvre that would break the law and that includes speeding. Therefore no so called Advanced advisor or assessor, be he police or civilian can advise you to ride above the speed limit or turn a blind eye to facilitate you doing so. No one should push you further than you want to go. maybe they may consider that benefit you but if feeling uncomfortable one will lose concentration with the task in hand and that could be lethal.
Whilst the training books has to make it clear that all laws apply certainly it had becomes institutionalised amongst certain parties or individuals that if one needs to make progress one needs to speed and that there is a culture of overtake to be at the front. A position which is deemed to be the safest place. Not so if it means overtaking 19 other vehicles one by one or indeed overtaking one vehicle and break the law.
The Police Roadsafe manual wants throwing away on a number of errors. Whats the point in having a bible that is 97% correct but 3% incorrect. That 3% can cost lives.As an example when it comes to country bends and overtakes some 40% of KSI still occur and have done so for the last 50 years or so. I therefore believe that there is something terribly wrong somewhere in the way we train riders in those circumstances.
Keep up the good work and lest make changes that benefit riders and keeps them safer on our roads.
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 9:39 am
I think the problem with the Police Roadcraft manual is the way in which some people apply it.
The ethos behind both this and advanced riding in general is about making good decisions based on the circumstances you are presented with at any given moment, that can change in a second meaning no book or manual can include every possible scenario.
Many read Roadcraft and take examples literally applying them without thought or justification.
As most pre test training takes place predominantly on urban roads its no wonder riders get it wrong on rural roads.
Thanks for your feedback.
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 5:00 pm
I do not disagree with the ethos of the Roadcraft handbook. We are in agreement also that it was designed primarily as a training manual for police officers who at times would be required to do or perform certain actions out of a necessity. Much of that now no longer exists. They no longer patrol motorways or chase speeders or criminals. That is left to car pursuit drivers or helicopters. They still do perform general duties and a lot of PR. work. Civic duties performed by those Class 1 riders that have been selected to be Advanced motorcyclists and perform both slow and fast escort duties working sometimes alone but generally with others as a team, . As per the video shown.
There is therefore no need to train others such as civilians to ride in some manner like police officers who are by the nature of their job enabled to basically do what is required in the event of an emergency. There are now extremely few circumstances where a motorcycle police officer would be required to exceed the speed limit and those would have to satisfy the officer in charge usually and inspector in control room to give permission.
The Roadcraft manual should make this point specifically clear from the outset and repeat it numerous times throughout the book. It doesn’t……The book has been taken litterly by some, maybe police officers and others as being what is the acceptable norm. As an example a friend of mine whilst undertaking as assessment with a police observer was riding in a 50 mph limit open road when he was overtaken and beckoned to follow by the officer who then accelerated to 90 mph and kept at that speed for about 4/5 miles. Overtaking everything in sight. Now that is taking it literally, I would think. Not recommended. as you would agree..
Only just recently it was decided that overtakes should not require any speed in excess of the speed limit. Whilst this had always been the case in the Roadcraft book its not stated as a reason not to overtake and therefore reading through the lines and therefore the ommision being open to interpretation many assessors have allowed such overtakes to take place and that has to be wrong.
We have seen changes recently also with regards to off siding for forward vision.. no longer recommended and of the dangerous situation riders have been put in by the recommendation of on left handed bands being almost on the middle line, be it broken or full. Such a position may need to be sacrificed for safeties sake in the event of a vehicle approaching and cutting the bend . Those in power have suggested that this was done as some motorcycles a with back panniers are wider than a normal bike and therefore being close to the line may have offside bodywork stray over the line and that would be dangerous and an offence. Note Police bikes in the main all have panniers on and have been committing this manoeuvre constantly for the last 5 decades or longer. In fact I am sure they are aware of the statistics concerning bends especially left hand ones and have decided that a close to the centre line position should no longer be recommended as it is dangerous anyway. To my mind putting someone in a situation that would or may require them to take emergency action to avoid hitting an oncoming vehicle thus averting a collision should not have been recommended in the first place. That is something that will never be admitted to but at least it is no longer there in books or instructed, However it begs the question, as with overtakes just how many riders have lost their lives or been seriously injured because those recommendations or omissions re overtakes and bend positioning were in the book.
The Manual is still wrong in some of the advice that it gives once again in regards to the overtaking position and also in regard to the taking of forward vision and of overtaking vehicles on open roads actually on bends that do not have a white line. and of blind bends and the VP. That’s my opinion and I will do everything that I can to have the general motorcycling public aware of the increased dangers that they are put into if following literally the principals of so called safe riding expressed in the Police Roadcraft Manual. and of those that still teach or instruct on such matters.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 4:28 am
So it would be fair to say it’s not the book that’s at fault but it’s application and so often riders take one part in isolation, safety overides everything else, ignore that in the name of making the next overtake and you are not riding according to ‘the system’.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 9:17 am
I couldn’t agree more, it really is a case of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 29, 2016 at 8:43 am
The Mantra of Roadcraft is “Always be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear”. In my opinion this and riding within the law are the cornerstones of the manual, so it is vital to always apply them as prerequisites when making decisions on riding safely. To take any other element of Roadcraft in isolation is missing the point of the manual, hence their insistence in repeating the message.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 6:20 pm
So from my comments a unanimous decision has been made between you and you both decided that its fair to say that the book is not at all at fault but that therefore its the individuals who read it who are wrong all the time . That they should obviously apply whatever they read in the whole of the manual or have been taught by instructors using the Manual and that they should do certain things to benefit themselves and keep themselves safe. However you both now say that they are wrong in that they should not believe and take into isolation any specific individual pieces, words, lines or paragraphes, pictures etc. Therefore if parts are taken in isolation then they are wrong and that the whole is greater than its parts. That trainees have to look at the whole of the manual and the essence of what it wishes to achieve rather than factually the many pieces of useful, practical pieces of information contained therein?
I merely pointed out that it is to my mind right in say a conservative 97% of the advice that they gives and totally wrong in the remaining 3 %. One would also question why a book that is primarily designed as a teaching aid for serving police officers and one that contains information that the general public need not know about, should be in common use. Quite a number of alterations were made to the latest manual some were deletions so that others would ride safer. That means that certain pieces of information and advice were considered to be no longer suitable to be published.
A manual that in common with all or most other riding manuals, following its examples, expressly gives advice on certain matters that are completely at odds with the Highway Code. A book that is always recommended should be read before and/or in conjunction with all other manuals.
I wonder what others might think?
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 9:18 pm
I try to take my information from as many sources as possible. I often find the same point made by different authors can seem quite at odds with one another. I then tend to take on board what I feel makes sense to me, after all it is my backside on the saddle. However saying that, I can still own up to revisiting information some time later only to find I interpret it differently. Like they say, you learn something new every day, it just concerns me that I’d forgotten it in the first place. That’s why I try to default to could I make it safer, rather than getting caught out by the letter or interpretation of a piece of information.
LikeLike
February 9, 2016 at 3:18 pm
Without being argumentative or aggressive if I say that I have taught First aid from a manual for many years and if it is found that items in that manual are now believed to be wrong , controversial , injurious or dangerous then they need serious looking at and changing. Lets face it lives could be at stake.
That is what has happened with the amendments recently made to the latest issue of Roadcraft and changes were made.The whole ethos of such a book is to be a useful , informative. aid to training and to save lives. It therefore cannot in any way shape or form contain ANY material within its covers that creates a dangerous situation and puts persons lives at risk.
Personally I would like to see some deletions and changes made but within time these changes may or will take place particularly regarding bends and overtakes, irresponsible, unnecessary and inappropriate speeds
.Unfortunately in the mean time more lives will be lost and that is a shame.
I know that I am criticising an institution and an ethos of riding that has been accepted since the 1950’s but without someone doing it nothing will change and the status quo and KSI quotas will remain unjustifiably high.
I might be a lone wolf howling at this moment in time but it will grow and others in power will have to take note and do something about it.
Please do not throw this reply away and let it create debate.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 2:23 pm
I’m not aware of anything in Roadcraft which is in itself dangerous I would go further to say it does not instruct anyone to make any particular manoeuvre on the road, the issue is with some people who claim to be teaching Roadcraft but in reality are merely passing down what they believe to be advanced riding.
LikeLike
February 13, 2016 at 5:58 pm
May I make a comment on the picture at the beginning of this item.
here we have a usual scene of several vehicles approaching a roundabout and from what I can see it must be a single carriageway major road with a limit of 50 or 60 mph. It has high street lighting so illuminates during the hours of darkness.
What is see and believe is that vehicles are maintaining their speed or perhaps maybe even slowing down a little as they take the bend and approach said roundabout further along the road.
What concerns me is the apparent distance that can be seen between a number of these vehicles all travelling at the same speed and in the same direction. One car is almost hiddenfrom view by the other car close to its rear end. The vehicles are to my mind all travelling far to close to each other and in the event of an emergency some are so close that they cannot guarantee stopping in such a short distance and not collide with the rear of the forward vehicle. Many drivers drive to close in the belief that if the vehicles in front applies his brakes and the brake lights show then he can do the same thing and they will both be able to brake without any contact. They therefore believe that they are safe drivers. However as in this case they are only giving something like 30 or a generous 40 ft between themselves. At even 40 mph they cannot stop if a vehicle comes to a sudden stop in front of them and doesnt show any signs of braking or indeed doesnt show any brake lights.
Sect 126 of the Highway Code stipulates what should be considered the SAFE SPACE for vehicles travelling at the various speeds and none of those vehicles is anything like that distance apart. On A and B roads or roads with up to a 60 mph limit a safe distance would be two lamp posts apart. On urban road a single lamp post and on motorways a 100 mtr market post apart are the SAFE DISTANCES .
When next you drive out see what I mean, drivers are far to close both in front and behind and that creates problems. See if when you give those distances that I have outlined if things improve they should and the drive or ride should be better and a safer one.
Let us know.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Completely agree, drivers seem to take comfort in traveling too close to the vehicle in front as a biker it can make overtakes particularly difficult having to pass a number of vehicles in one manoeuvre.
LikeLike
March 8, 2016 at 9:44 pm
You mention that to your are not aware of any advice in Roadcraft that would be considered dangerous or an instruction that would commit a motorcyclist to make any particular manoeuvre.
Perhaps I may i draw your attention to the HC S.126 about safe distances . That could i suppose be considered the full stopping distances and therefore the SAFE following distances advised at various speeds. That would make it the safe following distances if one could not commit to an overtake. However the Roadcraft and IAM hand book go further as do many other, if not all, authorities on motorcycle safety and suggests that a closer position could be taken, perhaps for a few seconds only and that position would be the much closer overtaking position.
That to my mind is an invidious position. One fraught with all sorts of additional danger that is not worth advising of. It not only places the motorcyclist into a dangerous position but also one where he could also be considered tailgating because of the close proximity to the vehicle in front. Dependant upon the type and size of the forward vehicle he could have great difficulty looking whats in front of it or indeed of the road in front. He is more likely to collide with it should it come to a SUDDEN STOP as stated in the HC.
We now all agree that a motorcyclist should not exceed the speed limit whilst committed to an overtake and that with the power and acceleration speed that they have will have no difficulty and can overtake from the following on position so why then do we teach them to put themselves in greater jeopardy by being so close to the vehicle in front. Something that is contrary to the advice given in the HC and other safety publications and indeed to common sense and could be considered therefore as an offence of riding without due care and attention or reasonable consideration to other road users.
To my mind Roadcraft and the IAM Handbook and i am sure others have followed suit and have been advising, in my view, wrongly on this issue and they all need to seriously look at that advice and see what alternatives ,if there are any, could be put forward.
I only put this forward since certain other matters concerning advised road positioning has now been altered. I may mention the offside of road viewing position, and the close to the white central line position on left handed bends. Both of these positions has been totally removed from the latest Roadcraft.
As i have stated before over time training has become accepted practises. Complaicant and acceptance has become institutionalised to such a degree that it is almost heresy to argue against them.
Maybe thats why over the last 50 years or so we still suffer many KSI’s on bends and overtakes on our country roads. With all the training, through whatever authority, its still not right. Something is badly wrong and needs putting right.
Your opinion on this single matter would be much appreciated.
LikeLike
February 1, 2018 at 4:44 pm
In relation to the I.A.M telling you to stay out wide on left hand bends so you can see through them , BAD ADVICE i personally know 2 people that have had accidents with on coming vehicles , YES, they could see them coming but on both occasions they did not have time to move out of the way , if they had both been a few feet further in they would BOTH have missed the slightly “over done it”on coming vehicle , so i do not do this anymore, better to be going at a pace that you can stop in if something appears in the bend, luckily being able to see through the bend on right handers works in you favour, any thoughts or opinions on this???
LikeLike
February 1, 2018 at 7:08 pm
Hi Andy,
There is a common misconception that in advanced riding your position is dictated by the construction of the road or by its change of direction, this is of course incorrect.
The criteria for choosing a position is based primarily on your own safety so if you cannot see for enough ahead to be certain that positioning close to the centre line on the approach to a left hand bend then you shouldn’t be positioned there.
We do not move out to get the view we move out to extend an already sufficient view.
LikeLike
February 1, 2018 at 7:45 pm
done mi I.A.M test , personally i think its a load of tosh, my experience is that it is a group of people that seem to think they are in some way superior and can ride and better and know more than “ordinary ” people . One of instructors “T-BONED” somebody that was training for their I.A.M test , it happened on a roundabout when the trainee was exiting then cut back on to the roundabout at the last minute as they thought they were taking the wrong exit, the instructor that was following ran straight into the side of them braking their leg and pelvis as the instructor had not kept their distance ,and i can tell you it was all kept very quiet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
February 1, 2018 at 9:44 pm
A short while ago the IAM deemed it unnecessary to go close over to the white line[s] in order to gain any better forward vision on a left hand bend. The first thing to remember is that we must have sufficient view in front in order to be able to stop in the distance that we can see to be clear. This is a prime objective for any rider and so when taking left hand bends our speed should be one in which we can stop in that distance we can see to be clear. that could mean on a blind bend we could actually go extremely slow., It goes without saying that the sharper the bend the slower we must approach and ride round. Sometimes it can be a sharp 90 degree bend, like a corner and in which case if we put ourselves more to the offside of our lane by say moving about 2 ft to the right the only advantage we would get is actually a 2ft one of further vision so its not worth it.
Approach with caution any bend you don’t know and always presume it tightens up [ reducing radius] and then if it does you are in the right position and at the right speed, in the right gear to take it and come out the other side. If its a normal bend you have lost nothing but covered it correctly. The IAM and others now suggest a 3 lane only approach…. the inside line being the inside tyre track a car would make, the middle or sump line and then the offside track being that which the offside wheel of a car would make and move in between these areas as needs dictate but no longer do we approach the middle white lines as if there is something coming the other way and over or close to those lines then we would need to sacrifice that line to be safe so why should we put ourselves in that danger if we perhaps need to take evasive action later it doesn’t make sense does it.
LikeLike
February 3, 2018 at 10:15 am
The problem is that ‘advanced’ riding has forgoten what the basis of being an ‘advanced’ rider is about now falling into the trap of setting rules.
You cannot set a rule for a dynamic system in which we as riders and other road users have free will.
I was once asked to settle an arguement amongst observers as to how many lane positions there were when riding, 3 or 5?
My response, there is only one position and its the right position for that given situation, a position that is right for me taking everything into account doesn’t automaticaly make it the right position for you.
My point is that the best riders are those capable of making the best decisions based on the current set of circumstances.
LikeLike
February 4, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Chris….
Yes it can be done and has been done dynamic or not. free will or not.
Highways were made by man in the first place
Rules or the safe passage of man upon those Highways were made by man
man can identify the dynamics.
having disseminated and identified the varied and multiple problems within the dynamics
Man solves them for the safety of mankind
Men with free will bend to the rule of law.
The rule of law was created by man
No man is above the law.
One can set rules that can be accepted and taught within the dynamics of any situation
LikeLike
February 4, 2018 at 6:50 pm
Highways that were designed by man have been shown to have been designed incorrectly and often lie at the cause of collisions.
Humans do not bend to the laws that goven roads, social norms are the greatest influencer by far but lets not digress too far.
It has been proven that humans perform far better with fewer rules & guidence the removal of signs and paint at junctions has resulted in fewer collisions.
Humans are extremely adaptable so why add constraints?
Why limit a rider to an imaginary boundry for positioning?
Far more effective is to teach riders how to assess the best position for any given situation as it is only them that can make that decision as it is only them that have all of the information to base that decision on.
LikeLike
February 5, 2018 at 8:51 am
I agree in some part. Highways were made centuries before the car became king and so its understandable that in time they were found wanting. Before the 2nd world war statistically it was shown that some 70% of traffic was by two wheels and that was bicycle and motorbike. We would therefore believe that in those times 2 wheeled transport was far safer than it is today.That said however in 1934 some 1364 cyclists were killed on our roads. Its understandable that Highways have to catch up and even in recent times we can complain that motorcycles have not yet been considered in new road proposals or manufacture even though the rules nowadays say that all forms of transport should be accommodated and that no one form should have priority at the cost to others.
I also agree that our roads have become just to busy and perhaps over regulated but much of that was done was for our safety and for the business of our society.but more often for the passage of information that could be considered unnecessary . A prime example is.. Do we really need to know where the latest home building site is? and yet everywhere you go there is a plethora of such signage. I think that much signage has to do with local Authorities making monies out of such signage or should I say advertising. How often have you seen adverts on roundabouts about the height that the drivers eyes are and that reduce, sometime dramatically the safe vision for oncoming traffic on that roundabout. And yet where are all the white middle lane lines gone or the stop lines or give way lines on junctions. That said some would argue that we apparently drive more carefully where there are no middle lines so why bother with them at all.
As far as positioning I agree with you that ‘some’ riders will by accident or experience obtain the best possible view but it would be better, would it not if they have received some form of training in order to achieve that aim or goal earlier in their motorcycling life. Without education ie training they will just look and for no reason other than their eyes are open and looking in the direction we are going [ hopefully] They need instruction to be able to know just what they are looking for what reason, why and know the result ….how it improves their safety and of course the safety of others.
LikeLike