Following a Google (as you do), I came across a statement where the write identified a fundamental difference in mind-set between police training in the UK and the United States. He said:
“Over there they teach evasion techniques; that is what to do when you meet an accidient (or more correctly, crash) situation. Over here if you have gone that far you have got it seriously wrong in the first place.”
I have to comment on that! Keeping out of trouble is a great idea but from day one when we first let ourselves loose on the roads, we’re trying to avoid situations where we put ourselves at risk of a crash or a collision. That’s not an “advanced” concept, it’s basic survival!
All advanced training in hazard “avoidance” does is make us better at seeing those situations and stying out of them; it’s not in itself a concept unique to advanced drivers and riders!
But if we’re honest, however “advanced” we get at reading the road ahead, sooner or later we’ll still make a mistake, and at that point evasion tactics are our key to escaping from the situation that’s developing badly.
In the course of my researches, I’ve had quite a lot of dealing with MSF instructors and the coursework that they teach, and have been favourably impressed by the evasion tactics in their work and as explained by US writers like David Hough.
Many accident reports highlight the fact that the bike could have escaped IF the rider had used the right inputs at the right time, yet the very latest UK Driving Standards Agency advice on bends crashes in the UK simply repeats the sage advice “don’t go into a bend too fast”.
Aside from the obvious question about how do you know it’s too fast, it’s not much practical help to the rider who’s already committed the error is it?
The inescapable conclusion has to be that neither the “don’t get into trouble” nor the “let’s learn to get out of trouble” approaches are in themselves wrong; but that each, if practiced to the exclusion of the other, is inadequate alone.
