Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

General discussion of any issues that vaguely or not so vaguely relate to stuff about things that concern riding.

Moderator: BAM Moderators

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby wunwinglow » Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:46 am

I look forward to the statistical analysis proving the point. I note your belief that good training works.

I could make some smart-arse reference to The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy about Faith and Belief, Proof and Denial of Faith, and a subsequent disappearance in a puff of logic, but I won't.....

Coincidentally, I'm learning Spanish right now with the the dulcet tones of Paul Noble in my ears. Not so ikky as a fish.

I'll be able to test my success at this learning by how I survive up the Pyrenees in the Spring.

I'll send you a post card.

Tim P
Two things happen as you get older and I can't remember either of them.
User avatar
wunwinglow
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Stoke Gifford

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:17 am

ozzzie wrote:It think we're experiencing an example of the gap between academia and its ideals, and practical organisational management.


I think I know what you mean, but are you suggesting that I have little or no understanding of the practical requirements for managing large-scale rider training? :?:
I assert my author rights: Copyright Design Patent Act 1988 may be quoted in Chain Link posts, but contacted for written consent before any other use/storage/transmission/recording

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com
Horse
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:19 am

wunwinglow wrote:I look forward to the statistical analysis proving the point. I note your belief that good training works.

I could make some smart-arse reference to The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy about Faith and Belief, Proof and Denial of Faith, and a subsequent disappearance in a puff of logic, but I won't.....


Whatever you're smoking . . . I'll give it a miss :)

So you want statistical analysis of the changes which have been implemented in schools over the last decade? :?:
I assert my author rights: Copyright Design Patent Act 1988 may be quoted in Chain Link posts, but contacted for written consent before any other use/storage/transmission/recording

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com
Horse
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby ozzzie » Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:50 pm

Horse wrote:I think I know what you mean, but are you suggesting that I have little or no understanding of the practical requirements for managing large-scale rider training? :?:


That's a pretty glass-half-empty interpretation of what I said. I have no idea of whether you have experience of organising a charity consisting of eager volunteers who also have day jobs so I wouldn't dream of belittling your unknown (to me) experience, but I'm sure that you know where I'm coming from when I say it's often a challenge to get that kind of group to where it ultimately needs to go.

I think it's great that you have strong opinions about how motorcycle training should be delivered. I also think it's great that you have spent time and effort reading research that gives you a solid evidence base for those opinions. Informed debate is almost always useful.
Oz.
Site Admin
Image

Warning: Postings may contain traces of irony or sarcasm.
User avatar
ozzzie
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2255
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Willy Bridge

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:43 pm

ozzzie wrote:
Horse wrote:I think I know what you mean, but are you suggesting that I have little or no understanding of the practical requirements for managing large-scale rider training? :?:


That's a pretty glass-half-empty interpretation of what I said. I have no idea of whether you have experience of organising a charity consisting of eager volunteers who also have day jobs so I wouldn't dream of belittling your unknown (to me) experience, but I'm sure that you know where I'm coming from when I say it's often a challenge to get that kind of group to where it ultimately needs to go.

I think it's great that you have strong opinions about how motorcycle training should be delivered. I also think it's great that you have spent time and effort reading research that gives you a solid evidence base for those opinions. Informed debate is almost always useful.


OK, ta. I'll take that as a 'positive'.

Some of my background, so you have an idea of my experience:

- I started one of the first three pilot BMF Blue Riband centres in 1988, and took on the role of national co-ordinator to launch it at the '89 BMF Show with 12 centres then eventually increasing to 45, from The Orkneys to Cornwall via Northern Ireland.

- I ran Cooper Bike Training from '96 - 2007, concentrating on post-test training, with a small team of instructors.

- I was heavily involved in developing the Rider Ideas BTEC L3 Advanced Award in Motorcycle Training, and wrote the section of the manual which covered 'advanced' training.



I've been involved in training since 1979, initially with the RAC/ACU, then the BMF-RTS, finally as an independant. Along the way I passed the IAM test and Star Rider Gold test.

The three most significant influences on the development of my own training style (and beliefs, etc.) were:

1. Involvement with the US MSF, originally taking their MRC and ERC course in '82, then qualifying as a RiderCoach in '84 (a two-week residential course). It was a revelation to find training which was totally 'outside' of anything UK 'Roadcraft' style training involved, from content, training techniques and sound basis for the content. I was able to get a further 76 UK riders onto USAF bases to take the 'Experienced RiderCourse' and when this access ended TVAM (25 of those riders were theirs) decided to start their Look/Lean/Roll course. Also worth noting that, at that time, MSF training was including content of the type that only appeared on the '95 Roadcraft rewrite a decade after the MSF included it, such as the use of risk management, mental systems (the MSF had Search Plan Act) etc.

2. Learning about the GADGET/GDE Martric, which allows training content to be identified into various types, from simple 'skills' trough to deep-seated attitudes

3. Learning about the WALT / LI / SC way of planning training . .. which I may have mentioned here :)
I'd heard about 'pupil-centred learning, but never really understood how it was any different to what we did already - surely what we did was 'pupil-centred', who else was it for? This principle, method, whatever, suddenly made the term sensible.


Re: the WALT/LI/SC If you can cope with 'aims and objectives' then you can do Success criteria and Learning Intentions. But it's the underlying principle which is different. Most of you don't know me so it's ridiculous for me to suggest you 'trust me'!

But here's a suggestion, tell me what you think of it:
The next time you're doing an observed ride for an associate, let them complete the post-ride assessment sheet.

If you already do this, great. If you don't, would you have any objection to it?
I assert my author rights: Copyright Design Patent Act 1988 may be quoted in Chain Link posts, but contacted for written consent before any other use/storage/transmission/recording

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com
Horse
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby ozzzie » Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:14 pm

Horse wrote:The next time you're doing an observed ride for an associate, let them complete the post-ride assessment sheet.

If you already do this, great. If you don't, would you have any objection to it?


I already do with some people (OK, I do the writing, but I ask them for the values - that's more about the form design). It doesn't work for everyone though. Some people don't realise how bad they are, even after hints. :)
Oz.
Site Admin
Image

Warning: Postings may contain traces of irony or sarcasm.
User avatar
ozzzie
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2255
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Willy Bridge

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:20 pm

ozzzie wrote:I already do with some people (OK, I do the writing, but I ask them for the values - that's more about the form design). It doesn't work for everyone though. Some people don't realise how bad they are, even after hints. :)


Which loops back to what I quoted yesterday:

Horse wrote: You'll note, if you read through them, that one (the PPT) mentions:

‘If learners are to take more responsibility for their own learning, then they need to know what they are going to learn, how they will recognise when they have succeeded and why they should learn it in the first place.’
- (An Intro to AfL, Learning Unlimited, 2004)

This echoes the 'coaching' philosophy which DSA are currently evaluating.


Perhaps the concern you have with some associates is that they're unable to 'realise how bad they are' is because they don't understand what 'good looks like' or do not have sufficiently well-developed self-awareness to notice what they're doing.

If the former, the that's where the 'success criteria' come in - ie your asociate doesn't understand what is required.

If the latter, then that's part of the 'coaching' philosophy, raising self-awareness which will lead to improved self-evaluation - again needing those SC.

Going backwards in the process, can you explain in one line what it is - for that aspect - the trainee needs to know? That's your Learning Intention.


Now, if at that point, you're thinking 'aims and objectives', there's a not-so-subtle difference: creating 'objectives' identifies what your lesson is intended to cover, and you can achieve those objectives (as an instructor) by teaching the session - but at the end of that lesson the trainee can remain clueless; success criteria, however, allow you (and, more importantly, the trainee) to determine whether or not learning has taken place.

There's a further aspect to this method, that of formative assessment.

The IAM test is a 'summative' test (or, for another example, here's what DIAmond say: 'The DIAmond Advanced Test is the ultimate way to measure your road driving ability'), but using formative assessment allows you to 'form' the training content by determining what the trainee already understand then identify the gaps. This further develops the pupil-centred aspect, as you're not teaching a generic course, instead one that addresses each learner's needs.
I assert my author rights: Copyright Design Patent Act 1988 may be quoted in Chain Link posts, but contacted for written consent before any other use/storage/transmission/recording

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com
Horse
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby ozzzie » Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:17 pm

Horse wrote:
ozzzie wrote:I already do with some people (OK, I do the writing, but I ask them for the values - that's more about the form design). It doesn't work for everyone though. Some people don't realise how bad they are, even after hints. :)


Which loops back to what I quoted yesterday:


That's was intended as an humorous, throw-away comment, rather than a serious discourse.

I'm perhaps not a good example to use group-wise, as I do have some formal training in training. Most observers don't, so we get them fresh and unblemished. It's interesting that you make those points though because it makes me realise how far we've come and how much of that approach is now embedded within the training that we provide for observers without them actually realising they're being shown how to do it.
Oz.
Site Admin
Image

Warning: Postings may contain traces of irony or sarcasm.
User avatar
ozzzie
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2255
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Willy Bridge

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby Horse » Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:14 pm

ozzzie wrote:
Horse wrote:
ozzzie wrote:I already do with some people (OK, I do the writing, but I ask them for the values - that's more about the form design). It doesn't work for everyone though. Some people don't realise how bad they are, even after hints. :)


Which loops back to what I quoted yesterday:


That's was intended as an humorous, throw-away comment, rather than a serious discourse.


Ah. OK. Oh well, never mind.

One of my more disasterous training incidents was when I was out with a guy on his first Blue Riband session. He rode along for some considerable distance really close (0.5s) behind a car, dead in-line with the driver's interior mirror. Absolutely no chance of an overtake since it was a long straight road with an excellent view of a long row oncoming traffic (here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=reading ... 07,,0,3.87 )

So when we stopped I thought "Take it gentle, get him to work it out . . . " so I asked, first, whether he would have changed anything about that first few miles?

"I don't think about the past, what's done is done, I'm not bothered with it" . . . or words to that effect.

So I changed tack, instead asking about how he decided what his following distance should be behind cars. This approach didn’t fare much better, and after several (really) minutes, he yelled (really) at me “Why don’t you just tell me what it is you want me to know?”.

So I did “I think you were travelling dangerously close behind that car when there was no possible chance of an overtake and you had no escape route if the driver braked.

Apparently, he explained, he’d been taught to ride like that . . .

AAMOI, he used to advertise his services as ‘one of the UK’s most highly trained instructors’

ozzzie wrote: I'm perhaps not a good example to use group-wise, as I do have some formal training in training.


Did your formal training training cover the use of success criteria?

ozzzie wrote: how much of that approach is now embedded within the training that we provide for observers without them actually realising they're being shown how to do it.


Do you think there could be a benefit from them knowing specifically rather than not realising? Although ‘typical’ assessed rides might not fit a ‘lesson plan’ format, it may help them frame the advice they give, particularly if they identify a problem (or, indeed, the associate suggests one themselves) and they have to formulate a session devoted to it.
I assert my author rights: Copyright Design Patent Act 1988 may be quoted in Chain Link posts, but contacted for written consent before any other use/storage/transmission/recording

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com
Horse
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby ozzzie » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:34 pm

Horse wrote:
Did your formal training training cover the use of success criteria?


I don't know. Will it be on the list of outcomes in my training materials?
Oz.
Site Admin
Image

Warning: Postings may contain traces of irony or sarcasm.
User avatar
ozzzie
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2255
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Willy Bridge

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby wunwinglow » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:44 pm

If I'd been observing that chap riding so dangerously, I'd have pulled him over almost immediately, and just explained to him straight away what was up. And I have done so, on at least two occasions that I can recall. Sometimes, you just have to be pragmatic and make a call on what you see, rather than play games with someone. I can understand why he got so pissed.....

Tim
Two things happen as you get older and I can't remember either of them.
User avatar
wunwinglow
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Stoke Gifford

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby wunwinglow » Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:27 pm

Oh, filling in the report form. Yes I have tried it, and it works very well with those who have the humility to understand their own failings and want to improve on them. It is a complete failure with those whose character is less able, or less willing, to self-assess. They tend to be the ones who need much more direction, and look to have rules to apply, rather than to work it out for themselves. These candidates invariably take more work, just to get them thinking continuously about their riding, rather than switching off between hazards. And then it becomes a matter of building their thinking stamina, as they won't be able to sustain it without some practice.

Your Blue Riband chap was clearly of the latter party; somewhere down the line he had been given that advice, or maybe misinterpreted some different advice, and was obviously not thinking through why he was in a particular place, (speed, gear etc) with reference to his own safety. He was happy in the comfort of a rule being strictly applied. In other words, a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the underlying concept of IPSGA, or any of the other mnemonics used, to get riders to think. It has happened to me. I was once advised, by an observer, to keep to the left when in the No. 2 lane, so I could see better between the lines of traffic ahead of me, and hopefully get a filtering opportunity. In busy traffic. This seemed to work and I passed it on to others. It came back to haunt me, as of course this is NOT such a good thing to do! I know better now, and I use it as an example of why riders should NOT apply rules, but think it through for themselves.

The tick box approach to checking understanding, especially when done by the candidate themselves, is limited, simply because humans are so good at fooling themselves. Seeing the rider make mistakes, or avoid hazards, is the only effective way to check that they REALLY do carry the whole process through to improving their riding. Not just understanding the theory, but to being able to perform the observations effectively, understand the implications, decide a safe route through and then execute the maneuvers with skill, and grace. While dealing with the other physical aspects, mechanical, environmental, etc as well.

Horse, I think you are talking to the wrong people here. The IAM is going through a big re assessment of exactly this matter, but it is being done way above the heads of us front-line troops. Contact London, offer your extensive experience in the subject to them, and no doubt we will see changes in our training material as it trickles back. That way, everyone in the IAM will benefit from your wisdom, instead of just the three of us here on the forum who bother to reply.
Two things happen as you get older and I can't remember either of them.
User avatar
wunwinglow
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Stoke Gifford

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby Horse » Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:17 pm

wunwinglow wrote:If I'd been observing that chap riding so dangerously, I'd have pulled him over almost immediately, and just explained to him straight away what was up. And I have done so, on at least two occasions that I can recall. Sometimes, you just have to be pragmatic and make a call on what you see, rather than play games with someone. I can understand why he got so pissed.....


To put this into context, this was many years ago before radios, so stopping him wouldn't have been so easy (the usual ways then were either toot & signal - and I'm not sure him looking away from straight ahead was a great idea! - or pass and lead), plus we had a planned stop just a couple of miles down the road.

Interesting when we talked ‘dangerous’ – it was, like many things, fine as long as it all continued ‘in balance’. The problems would have come if the driver had decided to do anything ‘interesting’.

But I too have stopped people when necessary.

wunwinglow wrote: . . . want to improve on them.


I guess I've been lucky in that most of the people I've trained over the years have been those who wanted to be there. That's part of the reason I moved away from formal 'advanced' training to conentrate on what might be called 'remedial' training. I spent a lot of time with people who knew they had a problem but couldn't sort it themselves. In a few cases they were on the verge (perhaps literally) of giving up riding.

wunwinglow wrote: Your Blue Riband chap was clearly of the latter party; somewhere down the line he had been given that advice, or maybe misinterpreted some different advice, and was obviously not thinking through why he was in a particular place,


I know exactly where he got that advice - but I'm not posting it on an open board! But you're right, he'd taken on board what he heard, not what was meant.

wunwinglow wrote: Horse, I think you are talking to the wrong people here. The IAM is going through a big re assessment of exactly this matter, but it is being done way above the heads of us front-line troops. Contact London, offer your extensive experience in the subject to them, and no doubt we will see changes in our training material as it trickles back.


It would be nice to think/hope/trust that they pick up on the same information.

However, I wasn’t aware of that process. I’d rather deal directly with Obs, I see no reason why they shouldn’t gain extra information whenever they can.

wunwinglow wrote: That way, everyone in the IAM will benefit from your wisdom, instead of just the three of us here on the forum who bother to reply.


Not my wisdom – anyone who’s been to visit their kid’s school (particularly Junior/Infants) over the last decade and been in a classroom is likely to have had the opportunity to see a WALT statement (We Are Learning To) and possibly success criteria displayed as a constant prompt of what the lesson is about.

It has been bloomin’ dead in here lately . . .

Has anyone ever mentioned this discussion at BAM meetings . . . ?
I assert my author rights: Copyright Design Patent Act 1988 may be quoted in Chain Link posts, but contacted for written consent before any other use/storage/transmission/recording

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com
Horse
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby ozzzie » Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:19 pm

Horse wrote:It has been bloomin’ dead in here lately . . .

Main contributors have been busy and others only tend to reply to new posts rather than post themselves. Most of the members are solely readers rather than posters.
Horse wrote:Has anyone ever mentioned this discussion at BAM meetings . . . ?


I think it has been mentioned in chats at certain get togethers.
Oz.
Site Admin
Image

Warning: Postings may contain traces of irony or sarcasm.
User avatar
ozzzie
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2255
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Willy Bridge

Re: Dubious IAM statement on bike safety

Postby ozzzie » Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:00 pm

Horse wrote:Not my wisdom – anyone who’s been to visit their kid’s school (particularly Junior/Infants) over the last decade and been in a classroom is likely to have had the opportunity to see a WALT statement (We Are Learning To) and possibly success criteria displayed as a constant prompt of what the lesson is about.


And out of a classroom as well. It was a much repeated theme in the OU degree that I finished about 5 years ago.
Oz.
Site Admin
Image

Warning: Postings may contain traces of irony or sarcasm.
User avatar
ozzzie
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2255
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Willy Bridge

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Riding Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron