Why riding quickly isn’t the same as riding dangerously
Discussion
As we hurtle towards an increasingly speed-limited immediate future (Intelligent Speed Assistance is mandatory on all new cars from next year), Rapid Training's blog may be too late.
Rapid Training said:
It’s Road Safety Week this week, and, naturally, we’re all for safer roads, who wouldn’t be? That said, it’s important the focus this week - and ongoing - doesn’t only focus around speed. Because riding quickly isn’t the same as riding dangerously just as riding slowly isn’t the same as riding safely.
Danger results from riding at speed beyond our ability.
If speed and danger went hand-in-hand we wouldn’t have a healthy roster of Rapid pro coaches, who all served time as advanced motorcyclists in the police force. We’ve all ridden in some pretty horrendous conditions in the line of duty, and at very, very high speeds, but thanks to our training and riding skill, we’re still here.
So, why isn’t riding quickly the same as riding dangerously? Because speed is a relative term. What is fast for an inexperienced rider can be slow for a highly skilled one. Danger results from riding at a speed beyond our ability to be in complete control and the skill of the rider is the major factor which determines this.
In truth, speed in the wrong hands is very dangerous and bad things can happen. It’s easy to twist the throttle and go fast. But to do so safely requires skill and a desire to learn and a desire to put the effort in.
Understanding the fundamentals is key to great riding.
The trick is to form a deep understanding of the fundamental skills that underpin great riding. After understanding them, you have to practice them. At this point you’re working on tuning your ability to read the road, intuitive planning, and precise machine control. And as you practice your brain develops mental shortcuts called pattern recognition, and it’s this that allows you to make decisions and react to situations quicker, and, ultimately, at higher speeds.
But that’s the point. Going fast does not equate to being dangerous. A skilled rider can ride quickly, safely. We did it for a living. Likewise going slow does not amount to being safe. Speed is a relative concept that quickly becomes dangerous in the hands of the unskilled rider.
In addition to the focus on speed, road safety initiatives need to focus on better education and skills training. Because not paying attention, getting distracted, not being able to properly control a vehicle, can all lead to accidents at all manner of speeds.
Danger results from riding at speed beyond our ability.
If speed and danger went hand-in-hand we wouldn’t have a healthy roster of Rapid pro coaches, who all served time as advanced motorcyclists in the police force. We’ve all ridden in some pretty horrendous conditions in the line of duty, and at very, very high speeds, but thanks to our training and riding skill, we’re still here.
So, why isn’t riding quickly the same as riding dangerously? Because speed is a relative term. What is fast for an inexperienced rider can be slow for a highly skilled one. Danger results from riding at a speed beyond our ability to be in complete control and the skill of the rider is the major factor which determines this.
In truth, speed in the wrong hands is very dangerous and bad things can happen. It’s easy to twist the throttle and go fast. But to do so safely requires skill and a desire to learn and a desire to put the effort in.
Understanding the fundamentals is key to great riding.
The trick is to form a deep understanding of the fundamental skills that underpin great riding. After understanding them, you have to practice them. At this point you’re working on tuning your ability to read the road, intuitive planning, and precise machine control. And as you practice your brain develops mental shortcuts called pattern recognition, and it’s this that allows you to make decisions and react to situations quicker, and, ultimately, at higher speeds.
But that’s the point. Going fast does not equate to being dangerous. A skilled rider can ride quickly, safely. We did it for a living. Likewise going slow does not amount to being safe. Speed is a relative concept that quickly becomes dangerous in the hands of the unskilled rider.
In addition to the focus on speed, road safety initiatives need to focus on better education and skills training. Because not paying attention, getting distracted, not being able to properly control a vehicle, can all lead to accidents at all manner of speeds.
Not invalid points - but only a part of the picture...
There is I believe reasonable evidence to show that as your ability increases, so does your risk - increased ability can either buy you extra contingency, or extra risk, so the person with 50% more ability who is driving down a country lane at 90mph rather than 60mph is driving at the same risk level - but if something happens they will now have less time to deal with it and probably more serious consequences... if though they take the same journey at 60mph they will possibly be safer, and if they only increase risk by a % of their % gain - i.e. 75mph then they are balancing risk and contingency.
There is also a big issue in the driving / riding world that people think in terms of being a slow driver or a fast driver - the implication being that you are always driving at a certain level of 'attack' - those who pride themselves on increased ability and therefore feel that they can justify increased speed sometimes forget that increased speed may not be appropriate across their whole journey...
The advanced road user will understand that a journey (like a piece of music) is dynamic with soft and slow music in one place and loud and fast somewhere else - the more advanced you are, arguably the bigger your range of dynamics stretching out and giving the opportunity for faster driving in one place, but equally understanding the need for far slower elsewhere - and a far greater set of nuances inbetween...
advanced riders / drivers look to optimise the road, maximising how it is used, but always looking to match their speed and approach to the context (road / users / weather / etc.), hence a higher range of dynamism in their drives. As such they are looking to that optimisation as the goal, not speed itself - equally they are looking to do it smoothly and safely. With that optimisation / smoothness / stability / safety will indeed come speed - but generally those who drive to maximise pace or speed will drive badly / jerky, context insensitive / etc.
I am someone who has been known to enjoy speed (in the right places
) but I am quite anti this type of non-contextual post which implies that with advanced training comes the ability to ride / drive faster - take it into a race track context where everything else outside the rider or driver is a controlled environment and it is true - but on the roads it really isn't - there is so much more complexity that just because you are a better driver does not automatically make it safe for you to go faster - a simple example: a newly qualified driver may lack the confidence to do much more than 70 on the motorway... 10 years on and several courses under your belt and you can justifiably claim to be far better able to handle your car at 120mph on the motorway - yes, but the context is no different to that offered to the new driver - you are passing other vehicles doing 60-70 - your ability to handle your car at 120 does not automatically translate to more awareness / skill for other drivers - the car you are hauling in and about to pass may read your speed inaccurately and move out in front of you - yes you can handle your car well but suddenly you have a 50mph differential and are about to kill yourself by planting headfirst into their boot.
courses on advanced handling of a bike / car do not make someone an advanced driver.
an advanced driver is someone who has a better ability to read the road / make the decisions / increased observation / etc. to know when to use their better handling skills and when to not use them. Their comment:
I see why they are posting, trying to explain why speed itself is not necessarily a danger - and I agree... but it is not the handling skills that allow safe speed - it is the whole framework of being a more advanced rider / driver
There is I believe reasonable evidence to show that as your ability increases, so does your risk - increased ability can either buy you extra contingency, or extra risk, so the person with 50% more ability who is driving down a country lane at 90mph rather than 60mph is driving at the same risk level - but if something happens they will now have less time to deal with it and probably more serious consequences... if though they take the same journey at 60mph they will possibly be safer, and if they only increase risk by a % of their % gain - i.e. 75mph then they are balancing risk and contingency.
There is also a big issue in the driving / riding world that people think in terms of being a slow driver or a fast driver - the implication being that you are always driving at a certain level of 'attack' - those who pride themselves on increased ability and therefore feel that they can justify increased speed sometimes forget that increased speed may not be appropriate across their whole journey...
The advanced road user will understand that a journey (like a piece of music) is dynamic with soft and slow music in one place and loud and fast somewhere else - the more advanced you are, arguably the bigger your range of dynamics stretching out and giving the opportunity for faster driving in one place, but equally understanding the need for far slower elsewhere - and a far greater set of nuances inbetween...
advanced riders / drivers look to optimise the road, maximising how it is used, but always looking to match their speed and approach to the context (road / users / weather / etc.), hence a higher range of dynamism in their drives. As such they are looking to that optimisation as the goal, not speed itself - equally they are looking to do it smoothly and safely. With that optimisation / smoothness / stability / safety will indeed come speed - but generally those who drive to maximise pace or speed will drive badly / jerky, context insensitive / etc.
I am someone who has been known to enjoy speed (in the right places
) but I am quite anti this type of non-contextual post which implies that with advanced training comes the ability to ride / drive faster - take it into a race track context where everything else outside the rider or driver is a controlled environment and it is true - but on the roads it really isn't - there is so much more complexity that just because you are a better driver does not automatically make it safe for you to go faster - a simple example: a newly qualified driver may lack the confidence to do much more than 70 on the motorway... 10 years on and several courses under your belt and you can justifiably claim to be far better able to handle your car at 120mph on the motorway - yes, but the context is no different to that offered to the new driver - you are passing other vehicles doing 60-70 - your ability to handle your car at 120 does not automatically translate to more awareness / skill for other drivers - the car you are hauling in and about to pass may read your speed inaccurately and move out in front of you - yes you can handle your car well but suddenly you have a 50mph differential and are about to kill yourself by planting headfirst into their boot.courses on advanced handling of a bike / car do not make someone an advanced driver.
an advanced driver is someone who has a better ability to read the road / make the decisions / increased observation / etc. to know when to use their better handling skills and when to not use them. Their comment:
Rapid Training said:
Danger results from riding at a speed beyond our ability to be in complete control and the skill of the rider is the major factor which determines this.
Is inaccurate and irresponsible - if they are ex-police, they will have been taught that it is far more than this - safety does not come from the ability to handle your bike / car - it comes from your ability to manage you and others in the complex context of the road. Sure - on an empty road with no-one else and no other considerations, then this is closer to the truth - but the vast majority of bike accidents are not the rider falling off the bike because they got the bend wrong - but hitting or being hit by cars / lorries / etc. because they judged the context wrongly and their speed gave them far less contingency to manage that inadequacy...I see why they are posting, trying to explain why speed itself is not necessarily a danger - and I agree... but it is not the handling skills that allow safe speed - it is the whole framework of being a more advanced rider / driver
Edited by akirk on Wednesday 17th November 11:25
1. You've got to be self aware, manage yourself & your own failings successfully.
2. You've got successfully manage risks that the particular purpose of that journey throws up.
3. You've got to successfully manage your interaction with others on that journey.
4. You've got to successfully manage how your own inputs relate to the movement of your own vehicle on that journey.
The list is hierarchal.
Everything in the list is potentially affected by everything above it in the list.
2. You've got successfully manage risks that the particular purpose of that journey throws up.
3. You've got to successfully manage your interaction with others on that journey.
4. You've got to successfully manage how your own inputs relate to the movement of your own vehicle on that journey.
The list is hierarchal.
Everything in the list is potentially affected by everything above it in the list.
akirk said:
but the vast majority of bike accidents are not the rider falling off the bike because they got the bend wrong - but hitting or being hit by cars / lorries / etc. because they judged the context wrongly and their speed gave them far less contingency to manage that inadequacy...
I disagree that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents are the rider's fault. Clarify, please.Edited by akirk on Wednesday 17th November 11:25
akirk said:
Their comment:
It does depend a bit if you read control to mean purely vehicle control or control of the situation as a whole. Rapid Training said:
Danger results from riding at a speed beyond our ability to be in complete control and the skill of the rider is the major factor which determines this.
Is inaccurate and irresponsible Toltec said:
akirk said:
Their comment:
It does depend a bit if you read control to mean purely vehicle control or control of the situation as a whole. Rapid Training said:
Danger results from riding at a speed beyond our ability to be in complete control and the skill of the rider is the major factor which determines this.
Is inaccurate and irresponsible akirk said:
As they talk about the solution being skill, I would be pretty certain they are talking about vehicle control, not situational control… that would be supported by the fact that they talk about speed / riding fast, they certainly don’t appear to be recognising that the road needs a variety of speeds / approaches…
"At this point you’re working on tuning your ability to read the road, intuitive planning, and precise machine control."It is all of it really, a large and possibly greater part of riding quickly on the road is being aware of all of the things you could hit. It isn't something I have done for a long time, but it is all about being ahead of everything else in the mental planning space. Do you or have you ridden? I'm just thinking I read it with a biker's mindset and fill in what is unsaid that a driver may not.
but the full paragraph says:
that is track based talk, it is handling skills based talk - learn how to read a corner to take it faster, embed the pattern and skill to pull it out in the sub-conscious to allow you to use it automatically… that is sports skill talk, grooving skills into the subconscious etc…
yes, handling has a place in driving / riding, but not as the only factor in raising speed, the whole concept of pattern recognition and automating a response is the antithesis of advanced driving / riding where expecting the unexpected is key.
pattern recognition leading to faster decisions = dangerous assumptions, I have riden this bend 43 times, I know exactly how the bike will handle it -> less thinking required, so I can go faster… oops, who parked a tractor there?
the whole basis of their argument is that skills based training (handling / pattern recognition / etc) allows you to go faster because you are now safer faster than someone without that training would be at a slower speed - it implies that the speed you choose and its safety is simply a factor of the rider’s abilities and skills - so, same road, same conditions and the trained rider can handle their bike better so is safer at eg 90 than someone else at 60… that completely ignores the fact that safety of a specific speed is as much about the conditions and context, meaning that the trained rider has little safety or speed advantage in reality…
in fact higher speed almost entirely comes from observation and reading the context further ahead, and that context is unique every time you make that trip, so embedding the pattern of that road is counter-productive… sure, you then need the skill to cope at the speed you can now use, but the opportunity to ride faster does not come from the bike and rider, but from the surroundings…
I don’t think that is their theme, or they would refer to increased skills leading to a wider variety of speeds, sometimes faster, sometimes slower…
original quote said:
The trick is to form a deep understanding of the fundamental skills that underpin great riding. After understanding them, you have to practice them. At this point you’re working on tuning your ability to read the road, intuitive planning, and precise machine control. And as you practice your brain develops mental shortcuts called pattern recognition, and it’s this that allows you to make decisions and react to situations quicker, and, ultimately, at higher speeds.
they talk about reading the road and machine control to develop pattern recognition to go faster…that is track based talk, it is handling skills based talk - learn how to read a corner to take it faster, embed the pattern and skill to pull it out in the sub-conscious to allow you to use it automatically… that is sports skill talk, grooving skills into the subconscious etc…
yes, handling has a place in driving / riding, but not as the only factor in raising speed, the whole concept of pattern recognition and automating a response is the antithesis of advanced driving / riding where expecting the unexpected is key.
pattern recognition leading to faster decisions = dangerous assumptions, I have riden this bend 43 times, I know exactly how the bike will handle it -> less thinking required, so I can go faster… oops, who parked a tractor there?
the whole basis of their argument is that skills based training (handling / pattern recognition / etc) allows you to go faster because you are now safer faster than someone without that training would be at a slower speed - it implies that the speed you choose and its safety is simply a factor of the rider’s abilities and skills - so, same road, same conditions and the trained rider can handle their bike better so is safer at eg 90 than someone else at 60… that completely ignores the fact that safety of a specific speed is as much about the conditions and context, meaning that the trained rider has little safety or speed advantage in reality…
in fact higher speed almost entirely comes from observation and reading the context further ahead, and that context is unique every time you make that trip, so embedding the pattern of that road is counter-productive… sure, you then need the skill to cope at the speed you can now use, but the opportunity to ride faster does not come from the bike and rider, but from the surroundings…
I don’t think that is their theme, or they would refer to increased skills leading to a wider variety of speeds, sometimes faster, sometimes slower…
Pothole said:
akirk said:
but the vast majority of bike accidents are not the rider falling off the bike because they got the bend wrong - but hitting or being hit by cars / lorries / etc. because they judged the context wrongly and their speed gave them far less contingency to manage that inadequacy...
I disagree that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents are the rider's fault. Clarify, please.Edited by akirk on Wednesday 17th November 11:25
For example, approaching a side junction with a car waiting to pull out, a more advanced rider might back off the throttle slightly and cover the brakes in anticipation the driver might do something stupid. Whereas some newly qualified weekend warrior might keep the power on. In both cases, 99% of the time it's no problem, the car driver waits until the road is clear before pulling out, but in those <1% situations where they don't see the biker , the more advanced rider is better prepared to react.
In both cases, if the car was to pull out in front of them, it is clearly not the rider's fault, but the difference is the more advanced rider has put themself in better situation to avoid an accident, or lessen the impact.
Zetec-S said:
Pothole said:
akirk said:
but the vast majority of bike accidents are not the rider falling off the bike because they got the bend wrong - but hitting or being hit by cars / lorries / etc. because they judged the context wrongly and their speed gave them far less contingency to manage that inadequacy...
I disagree that the vast majority of motorcycle accidents are the rider's fault. Clarify, please.Edited by akirk on Wednesday 17th November 11:25
For example, approaching a side junction with a car waiting to pull out, a more advanced rider might back off the throttle slightly and cover the brakes in anticipation the driver might do something stupid. Whereas some newly qualified weekend warrior might keep the power on. In both cases, 99% of the time it's no problem, the car driver waits until the road is clear before pulling out, but in those <1% situations where they don't see the biker , the more advanced rider is better prepared to react.
In both cases, if the car was to pull out in front of them, it is clearly not the rider's fault, but the difference is the more advanced rider has put themself in better situation to avoid an accident, or lessen the impact.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff