TC1474

Absolutely correct. I have covered this subject before (maybe worth looking for) but the bottom line is legal expenses insurance is a rip off, and as Fozzie has already mentioned, if you are involved in a crash that is not your fault, you can choose a solicitor of your choosing, and getting your case funded on a no win no fee (conditional fee agreement) means that they will fight your corner on th basis that if they don't win they don't get paid, whereas legal exenses appointed solicitors will do the minimum work for maximum fees, they will often undervalue your case for a quick settlement to get you off their books and you probably will not deal with the same fee earner twice.

Good on you and I applaud you for admitting that you got it wrong. None of us are perfect and you show me someone who claims they have never made a mistake and I will show you a liar. Important thing is that you are still here to tell the tale and lesson learnt

There is nothing in law that states that you cannot ride 2 abreast, you just need to ensure that your actions do not cause other road users to alter course or speed. Why would it go against someone in a crash? It would all depend on the evidence and the circumstances, so to make a carte blanche statement like that is missleading and inaccurate.

Very good and worthwhile course. I have been working with Essex and Gloucester Biker down, I am also talking to Cheshire and South Yorkshire, for a while, and I have been invited to the national Fire Bike safety conference (which runs the biker down course) in November to meet the other teams. I don't think it will be long before the Fire Bike safety teams take over from Bikesafe, especially as some are now losing their accreditation. Enjoy, it is worthwhile.

Because of my disability I have difficult feet. For the past 12 years or so I have worn Prexport http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorcy ... t_cat/1660 and Richa http://www.sportsbikeshop.co.uk/motorcy ... nt_cat/587 I have a size 11 right foot and a size 13 left. My left os so difficult, but both these brands not only go up to the size I need, but they are aso immensly comfortable, well made and not over priced. Fowlers of Bristol used to be the UK importer for Prexport, not sure if they still are, but of you can find a local stockist of either brand and get the opportunity tp try them on, I think you will be impressed by both comfort, quality and price.

If you do a search you will no doubt find the article I wrote here some time ago, but the bottom line is that research has shown that riers are 70% more likely to suffer a diffuse fracture to the base of the skull (broken neck) than compared with a conventional full face or open faced helmet. The frontal area is also a known weak area and has been known to cave in on impact as it is an inherent weak spot.. I actually had one case where the rider choked to death because the front caved in and it was impossible to raise the front or get the helmet off until it was to late. This was an extreme case, but my old force used to issue flip fronts as standard, but after a couple of riders were killed, and the flip front helmet was shown to have contributed, they reverted to conventional full face. It is like anything, horses for courses. But for what it is worth, I never consider a flip front, even when instructing or examining.

Some of you may now that my firm sponsors Talan Tacing. Talan Skeels Piggins is the only paraplegic racer in the UK who holds a full UK competition licence and is allowed to race against able bodied riders. He is currently racing an adapted SV650 in the Thundersport series and at Brands at the weekend he finished 13th out of 34 starters. Not bad for someone who has to rely on upper body strength only. Anyway, he is currently beng filmed for a documentary to try and spread the word about what can be achieved despite major handicaps. The documentary is being produced by someone doing it in their spare time at no cost, but their are costs to be incurred for example editing, voice overs and so on. More information is available at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/tala ... ocumentary I am posting this just to make people aware, and hope that some of you feel as I do that this project is worth sponsoring so that the message can be put across to a wider audience. Whether it is £3 or £5 (or more if you are feeling generous) every little helps. I hope like me you feel that this is something worth donating a few quid to.

Go to advanced level and left foot down is not best practice. Last thing you should be doing is going through what is called the "Hendon Shuffle" However, putting my instructors head on for a moment from the L test point of view, whilst there are some examiners who like to see the left foot go to ground so that the rear brake is covered, at the end of the day this practice has to be flexible according to circumstance. It is no good putting your left foot down if the road is cambered away from you or there is a steep drop. It is about doing what is safe for the circumstances, and so although even I like to see right foot go to ground when stationary when I am examining, it is not a deal breaker, it is about doing what is safe.

If anyone is attending the Southend Shakedown this coming bank holiday Monday, then do feel free to pop along to the MW Solicitors stand and say Hi. I will be there all day, so I will be delighted to have a chat to anyone, and we are also running a prize draw for £2000 worth of kit and 2 tickets to the MotoGP event at Silverstone. Hopefully weather will be better than last year

It's a plastic novelty german helmet makes a 50's pudding basin look positively enormous. Anyway my way of saying to lid laws OK, fair enough, The picture did not do it justice. It looked like an old corker, which was the point I was trying to make

http://i1249.photobucket.com/albums/hh504/wr6133/IMG_20140313_133146_zps787a6f62.jpg If that helmet was legal at the time of manufacture, regardless of its age, it still remains legal. I dealt with a crash a few weeks ago where the rider (albeit he was an old chap) was wearing an old corker from the mid 1950's. he was still legal. So I stand by my comment All the legislation states is that it had to be legal at the time of production, and so it should have a suitable kite mark for its time. In short, if someone purchased their helmet in 1955 and chooses to continue to wear it in 2014 (as some old timers do), it remains legal. There is nothing about changing a helmet when new regulations come into force.

A helmet does not have to be 22/05 stamped to be legal. You can still quite legally wear a BS6658-85 helmet and be legal, in fact you can even wear a pre 6658-85 helmet and remain legal. So nothing blatant about wearing a non 22/05 hat.

That is a very sweeping statement. Any helmet sold in the UK must comply with EC22/05, so it has to comply with a minimum standard but in any case, a cheap well fitting helmet will afford a darn site more protection than an expensive poorly fitting hat. I have not long concluded a case where a chap was wearing a £400 helmet, and it actually contributed to his death. In the same vein, I have dealt with cases where the so called "Cheap and nasty helmet" has actually saved their life or prevented them becoming a vegetable. Watch Fake Britain on BBC1 next month, and you will see a case of an expensive branded helmet actually splitting in two after only a couple of impacts.

Why does the debate over compulsion still raise its ugly head? It has been compulsory for more years than most riders have been alive let alone riding (I can just remember the days of non compulsion), there is no dispute that whilst it may not prevent a fatality (although they have in many cases), they have reduced the severity of serious brain injury cases, and I for one cannot ever see why people would want the legislation repealed other than to give them that freedom of choice. There are more pressing issues that time could be constructively used, this is debate on helmets is past its sell by date. Just my opinion for what its worth.

If it has met your goals and expectations, then that is terrific and I am delighted for you, and I mean that sincerely. As I have said there are good and bad out there, and I was not intending to tar everyone with the same brush, it is just unfortunate that I hear many of the shall we say "naughty" stories, and in cases where the "Student" has no previous or limited experience of what is required of advanced riding technique, it can be a scary or intimidating experience. It still does not get away from the fact that many do the course and then think that because they have done the course they are qualified advanced riders, and which is not helped by the fact that insurers offer a discount for having attended the course. And this was the point that I was trying to make (although badly) in the first place.

I have no issues with the points you have made. On NSL roads I will also allow riders to pinch a bit if circumstances allow, although I still enforce 30's, 40's and 50's. However as I have tried to point out (probably not very clearly) is that when you have someone who you have never seen, you have no idea of whet their standards are, not only does it cause a potential problem if it goes pear shaped, but it is nigh on dammed near impossible to be able to provide a constructive critique or diagnosis of a persons ride when they are barreling off down the road at warp 5. Any instruction has to start from a consistent base or platform so that the improvements can be measured. rattling down the road at 100MPH is not going to give that base to work from. As I also mentioned, instruction should start slow, and then as they become more accurate with their positioning, forward observation, planning, observation links, confidence grows at a natural pace and thereby their speed increases naturally but at a controllable rate, thereby allowing the receiving student to appreciate the noticeable difference over a period of time.

I wrote this a couple of years ago, and although it is a couple of years old, most of it is still relevant, so you may find it helpful in deciding who you will give your hard earnt cash to or who you will trust with in affect your life. One of the most commonly asked questions I get, is how do I know if my instructor is suitably qualified or is going to teach me the right things, and some have had bad experiences because they have found out their instructor is not as good as they were led to believe the hard way. As a result, they have followed their instructors advice in the belief that "It is the advanced way" when in fact what they were taught not only goes against the grain of what we seek to achieve at advanced level, but is downright dangerous. Now you as members of the public often have to take someone on face value, and if someone says that they can teach you to a higher level, who are you to question their ability? Well you would be right to question their qualifications in order to ensure that the training you will be given is from a suitably qualified or competent person. So what questions should you ask. Well here are a few to start with! 1 How long have you been riding? There are some instructors who only do 2 - 3K miles a year and struggle to keep up let alone instruct. 2. How long have you been instructing, and at what level. There are quite a few CBT and DAS instructors jumping on the advanced bandwagon and feel that because they are qualified to teach learners, they can also teach more experienced/advanced students. 3. What advanced riding qualifications do you have? You should get an answer along the lines of Police class 1, RoSPA diploma, IAM Observer, RoSPA gold, Btec level 3 or 4 qualified advanced instructor. Anything else like self taught advanced instructors or having no formal advanced qualification, or I spent 15 years as a courier so I am well qualified should be treated with suspicion. 4. What sort of courses do you run? Do they do assessments, full courses, do they run groups of three, four or more, do they specialise in smaller groups? If they say that they like to work with groups any larger than 4, find someone else. 5. Which advanced test do you recommend, and what sort of pass rate have you obtained? Bit of a silly question if you are joining an IAM or RoSPA group, but it is a worthwhile question if you are going to an independant trainer. If he/she favours RoSPA, how many of his students have attained Gold grade? If IAM how many have simply passed the test. 6. Can the trainer provide some references from students he /she has trained in the past. If he is a quality instructor and you have some doubts about their ability to do the job, then he should be quite happy to put you in touch with previous students where you can discuss the potential of the instructor you are considering. If any of the above questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, then walk away and find someone else, there are plenty more properly qualified instructors out there. In addition to the IAM pass, there is now the IAM Masters which is on a par with the RoSPA Gold grade (and which I have to say appears impressive) But I hope this gives any of you considering enrolling with a group or instructor a few pointers, although the list is not exhaustive.

TC - are there any groups in the East Midlands that you'd recommend? I've been wanting to do an advanced course for a good while, now, but a lot of this talk has made me wary of choosing a bad instructor... Derby RoSPA advanced riders is a quite new group, and having met them, although only a small group at the moment, they have some good guys and they try to put over the message in the right way. Their website is not up and running yet but their contact details are at http://www.roadar.org/groups/east-midla ... riders.htm There is also a Nottingham advanced riders group which is IAM affiliated, but I don't know a great deal about them. Hope this is of some help

Rest assured, I am not a member of TVAM, and I have had people tell me similar things to what you have mentioned. As you rightly say, what authorises the observer to decide which limits can be ignored But then for many years their slogan was something along the lines of "Its not how fast you ride but how you ride fast" A few years ago I had to examine one of the chief poo bas. As part of the briefing I told him to ride normally and naturally and whilst I would allow a little bit of discretion on NSL roads if conditions were appropriate, I expected all posted restricted limits to be complied with. Well, to cut a long story short, we (he) entered the first 30 at around 60, and the next 2 or 3 limits were identical. he did not even get the hint when I dropped off the pace and he went flying off into the distance (this was the day before radios were the norm). Anyway, I terminated the test and failed him and he really threw his toys out of the pram questioning my ability to tell him what he was doing wrong and that at his level he should be able to pick and choose what limits he chose to comply with or ignore Turned out that he was teaching students exactly the same, and this was from a senior observer/instructor. Didn't like it when I asked him what would have happened had one of his students had a big off whilst under instruction and causation was down to excess speed because it had been instructed to do so, or if they had picked up a speeding ticket, bearing in mind that even though they are volunteers, they are deemed as instructors for the purpose of civil law and they have a legal duty of care. Talk about throw his toys out of the pram, but I have come across this sort of attitude on a few occasions. But, I would also add that there are some very very good instructors out there and there are some very very good groups. I have been fortunate to visit many when I am invited to attend as a guest speaker, and when I see the effort and commitment that many of these volunteers make, it makes me think that all in not wrong with the world

That is a fair point you make and something I have heard myself in the past. It also shows a level of arrogance on the part of the instructor, because it needs the student to understand and appreciate the points being made to the point that if it is qualified, then the likelihood is that you will take that information on board. I have always encouraged students or candidates to ask questions, the aim being that they take on board the points being made so that they have an alternative view point. Advanced riding is not cast in stone, it is about taking all the information on board and applying the parts that you feel are appropriate. It is most definitely not about speed, it is about giving riders the tools that allows them to make progress should they wish wish and if circumstances are appropriate. Some of the best riders i have known have also been some of the "Slowest" riders (which I appreciate is subjective), but instructors should never be so arrogant as to think that their word is final. You can have several different riders who all deal with the same hazard differently but safely. Who is to say who is right or wrong? If it is done safely without a twitchy bum moment, then just because someone has dealt with it differently to say how I would deal with the hazard does not mean that person was wrong. But unfortunately their are some instructors who are power junkies and make up for their lack of knowledge with arrogance.

This is one of the issues I have with Bikesafe. The whole concept was designed by my old buddy Phil Curtis (who is no longer with us RIP) and the intention was to introduce riders to the principles of advanced riding, give them a taster and encourage riders to take further training. The trouble is that shortly after it was introduced, many forces either reduced or did away with their bike fleets and so there were less people obtaining the class 1 qualification, most having a class 3 or standard ticket which is only just above the basic DSA test standard. However, there is a difference between being able to ride to a standard, and being able to ride to a standard and then assess, diagnose and then rectify the standards of others, and this is where the system falls down. Firstly, I have heard many people say that they have an advanced qualification because they have done a Police advanced course which turns out to be Bikesafe. Bikesafe is not a course as such, just an introduction, and so it amazes me that insurers will offer discounts to someone who has done a few hours of introductory advanced riding, but those who have worked their butt off to attain the highest standard that they can are not recognised. I even had one insurer tell me that Bikesafe was a higher qualification than my Police class 1 or my examiner qualifications which goes to prove that many insurers do not have the first idea of the market they are in. The second issue is the number of times I have heard someone say that their Bikesafe instructor encouraged breaking the national speed limits. I have 2 problems with this. Firstly, as an instructor/assessor you are riding with someone whose ability is an unknown quantity. Therefore how can you assess someone properly when the emphasis is on making progress when they should be looking at how they position the bike, assess a corner, how they read the road and so on. The first rule of any instruction is start slow, diagnose the key points and as the knowledge and ability develops speed develops naturally as a by product. But most relevant is the speed issue. No one can authorise someone to exceed speed limits, and my point is that if someone had a crash with a copper behind them doing an above the speed limit ride, I bet a pound to a pinch of sh1t that the copper would turn round and say that the student was told to stay within limits (in other words drop the rider in the poo) or, on the ride home with your new found knowledge and pinching a few miles an hour the same copper would be stood there ready to write out a ticket. What I am getting at is that there appears to be a culture of double standards by many coppers who are not much better qualified than some of those they are assessing. I was talking to a Bikesafe copper a few weeks ago, and he was trying to encourage me to enroll and do a course. I asked him how it would benefit me and he made some comment that made my ears prick up (I cannot remember exactly what it was now) but he went on a ramble just digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself, but mainly bigging himself up. Anyway the offshot was I asked him if he held a class 1 or 2 and the response was "I am a standard rider" (class 2) and they no longer have class 1 or 2 qualified riders But they were setting themselves up as the experts. It was quite funny when he kept pushing me to enroll (given that I was not from this particular area anyway) and I replied thhat maybe I could teach him something based on what he had told me. I then told him my qualifications His face was a picture The point is, the concept of Bikesafe is brilliant, as a PR exercise it can do so much good, but it is the application that lets it down with its double standards and I am sure that poor old Phil would be turning in his grave if he could see how his baby has developed.

The Brighton Burn UP, the last Ace Cafe of the event of the year is being held this Sunday (15th September) If anyone is going, then feel free to pop by stand 34 and say hi to me or our motorcycle legal team. Oh and we will be dishing out a few freebies as well

Whilst any good advanced training is worthwhile, what I have seen of the ERS has not impressed me as it is nothing more than an extended DAS course. There are some ERS instructors who will follow accepted practices rather than DSA guidelines which is fine. But I have had some ERS trained riders on test and I have failed them 10 minutes into the test (although they do not get told this until the ride is complete). if you get something worthwhile out of it, then terrific, but the quality of this scheme is very much down to the quality of your instruction and instructor.

If you have not yet decided on a school yet, give Abbey a call, speak to Jim the owner and tell him that I recommended you. He has a good training site, a good pass record and will take all the time you need without ripping you off.

2 piece for road use is also a safer and more protective option. I won't cover it all again as I have covered the reasons for this statement on many occasions.