Course will help practitioners engage with motorcyclists

12.01 | 3 December 2018 | | 11 comments

The London Road Safety Council is hosting a one-day interactive workshop next month as part of its efforts to improve the safety of motorcyclists in the Capital.

The London Road Safety Council says that while powered two wheelers (PTWs) offer ‘low cost mobility’ and can play a ‘key part’ in reducing congestion and improving air quality, riders are significantly over-represented in casualties statistics.

Figures from RoSPA show that riders of PTWs, per mile travelled, are around 38 times more likely to die in a road crash than car occupants.

The workshop takes place at the Brent Civic Centre on 30 January 2019 and is designed for anyone wanting to engage effectively in behavioural change work with PTW riders.

Devised by Transafe Network, the agenda explores:

  • The differing nature of P2W safety issues in different areas
  • Differing safety issues for different demographic segments
  • How to identify which demographic you are working with
  • How to successfully engage with your target audience
  • How to measure the success of your intervention using outcomes rather than outputs

The course will be delivered by Saul Jeavons from Transafe Network, and Paddy Tyson, former campaigns manager at the Motorcycle Action Group.

The course fee is £150 plus VAT – for more information, or to book a place, contact the London Road Safety Council via email.



Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Duncan. What if the majority of what you say about apparently compliant motorists that are not speeding or not apparently breaking the laws of the land but in actual fact are doing things that are not recognised or identified as being dangerous. If organisations like Highways England were not aware of the fact that the greatest dangerous practise on their roads was tailgating they would not have identified it.

    In Towns and Cities it is not as easy to identify it as the danger that it is. That by far the greatest danger is again Tailgating but as yet no one does anything about this single and simple driving error to correct it.

    First we must start teaching drivers to keep good safe distance and that anything less than the safe stopping distances is increasing the risk of possible collisions, as stated in the DVSA handbook for Separation Distances. Simply show them that by one simple and easy to remember measure that ours roads could become the safest road in the world and stop the carnage.

    Agree (2) | Disagree (2)

    What keeps you incident-free on the road Duncan? Compliance and the right behaviour or.. luck? If you analyse that, it would be a good starting point.

    Hugh Jones
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    The question “What causes the majority not to ‘crash and die’?” is a most excellent one Hugh, but sadly one that far too few people actually do ask. Considering that according to the Governments own statistics, the biggest killers on the roads remain the fully compliant, non-speeding drivers, what is it that’s actually helping things to go right far more often than they go wrong if it isn’t compliance and it isn’t keeping within the speed limit?

    As to why I cannot use work to rule as an example Rob, why can’t I? We exist in a world of compliance and punishment so an example of ‘hyper-compliance’ is a very good one to use. The ‘behaviour change’ zealots are only interested in compliance because that’s the only thing that can be managed, counted and controlled. As I have mentioned earlier, if compliance is not the answer then what is?

    Duncan MacKillop, The Cotswolds.
    Agree (2) | Disagree (2)

    Hugh it’s a well known principle that in general its the majority of road users that make the system work. In other cases it’s a case of luck. Although there are other drivers who have gotten away with it it’s more than likely to be as a result of others driving ability that some collisions have been avoided.

    We must also consider that if there are say 100.000 incidents/ collisions that figure is only of reported ones and it’s more than likely to be that that figure is merely the tip of the iceberg and that there are many more unreported collisions or incidents out there but not reported.

    That’s a massive number of unreported circumstances.

    Something that needs to be taken into account.

    Agree (2) | Disagree (0)

    I agree but in the Uk isn’t there a saying ‘flogging a dead horse.’ In other words one is wasting one’s time.

    Agree (0) | Disagree (1)

    re Duncan’s comment: for all those who don’t ‘crash and die’, what are they (or we) therefore doing, that’s somehow not influenced by ‘every rule, regulation and procedure in the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act? What causes the majority not to ‘crash and die’?

    Hugh Jones
    Agree (1) | Disagree (1)

    Elaine’s link to the ‘dead horse theory’ is very pertinent and is well worth reading and has more than a ring of truth about it.

    Hugh Jones
    Agree (1) | Disagree (1)

    Duncan you cannot use the ‘work to rule’ situation that occurred in the 1970’s. that was a particular problem when persons refused to do more than they were required to do and in an extreme political and volatile situation.

    That is far different from the issues of today when one is asking drivers to actually understand more about some simple road safety issue which for decades have been available to them. As you say made for their benefit and that of other road users. The human frailties that you mention are about ignorance [ of legislation of advise that would keep them safer], apathy [ it won’t happen to me so why do I need to know about it] . complacency [ everyone else does it and gets away with it so why can’t I] and an altogether poor attitude of mind to being told that their driving is poor or in any way possibly dangerous.

    People have selective memories and will only remember some and not all parts of a subject. Remembering only those parts they wish to and that they will hold for for ever. By doing so they generally misconstrue something that would keep them safer on our roads. An example is:- Many do not know the difference between the words ‘Should Not’ and ‘Must Not’.in the Highway Code[ if they have ever read and understood it] Those that do feel that ‘Should Not’ means that they will not be prosecuted but fail to understand that in fact the actions that they undertook could go some way to supporting a prosecution

    Agree (2) | Disagree (2)

    “It is generally acknowledged that human frailty lies behind the majority of our accidents. Although many of these have been anticipated by rules and procedures, some people don’t do what they are supposed to do. They are circumventing the multiple defences that management has created.”

    The theory goes that if we can somehow change people’s behaviour so that they will do what they are supposed to do then all will be well. Trouble is that although this theory is very easy to believe (and very profitable for some), it’s actually complete rubbish. Even if you managed to make people follow every rule, regulation and procedure in the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act they would still crash and die in significant numbers simply because it’s not their observed behaviour that is the problem.

    Remember the industrial disputes of the 1970’s where people ‘worked to rule’? The outcomes of these actions were inevitably complete chaos rather than the smooth running that behaviour change theory says you might expect from full compliance.

    Funny isn’t it that if people do do what they are supposed to do then the entire system breaks down, yet this is what we are expected to go along with. Perhaps it’s now time for a re-think on the whole behaviour change fallacy before things get too far out of hand.

    Duncan MacKillop, The Cotswolds
    Agree (3) | Disagree (2)

    I’m sure you know the answer to your last question. Outputs is about what you do, outcomes is about what it achieves.

    In Wales the “times more likely” is around 60 to 80, depending on age group, the year you are checking etc. I don’t ride my bike every day any more but every time I get on it, the relative statistical risk of riding verses driving comes to mind and ratchets up my defensive riding technique/alertness another notch or two. So the general “times more likely” point works for me. Perhaps it is just the way I’m wired?

    I’m not a qualified motorcycle trainer but when I talk to young riders/drivers about defensive riding/driving, it often seems to be the first they have heard about it. I’m sure that can’t be the case, so I wonder why they act surprised?

    Part of passing on an effective message is that the presenter is able to check that people are “receiving clearly” what he is “sending”. That’s a people skill regardless of technical ability and yes motorcycle presenters can have it too.

    Pat, Wales
    Agree (7) | Disagree (0)

    In reference to that old chestnut – “Figures from RoSPA show that riders of PTWs, per mile travelled, are around 38 times more likely to die in a road crash than car occupants.”

    You do know that depending on which report, which country, which authority, which expert – there are a variety of “times more likely” ranging from 5 to 50 times.

    I know that you’ve probably seen this video, but hey! The point of it is that you need to question the logic of the figure of miles/kilometresd travelled versus 38 times:

    Then you could follow that with “The Dead Horse Theory”:

    My point is that we need to move on and work with people who actually have knowledge of what they are talking about. While I have no doubt that the gentlemen delivering the course know how to ride a motorcycle and deliver a good presentation, I just wonder how effective their message will be. No disrespect intended. Having worked in the Road Safety sector for 15 years, I despair when I read “How to measure the success of your intervention using outcomes rather than outputs” What does that mean?


    Elaine Hardy, Belfast
    Agree (5) | Disagree (3)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.