From_: owner-safety@myrddin.imat.COM Sat Apr 22 12:17:46 1995 Received: from relay1.UU.NET (relay1.UU.NET [192.48.96.5]) by swifty.dap.CSIRO.AU (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA22961; Sat, 22 Apr 1995 12:17:40 +1000 Received: from myrddin.imat.com by relay1.UU.NET with ESMTP id QQymmr22344; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 22:17:20 -0400 Received: (from bin@localhost) by myrddin.imat.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA23266 for safety-digest-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:54:34 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:54:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199504220054.RAA23266@myrddin.imat.com> From: owner-safety-digest@myrddin.imat.COM To: safety-digest@myrddin.imat.COM Subject: safety-digest V1 #83 Reply-To: safety@myrddin.imat.COM Errors-To: owner-safety-digest@myrddin.imat.COM Precedence: list safety-digest Friday, 21 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 083 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cnorloff@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 09:50:19 EDT Subject: Re: Rolling vs. Sliding traction / Antilock Brakes vs. Skilled Rider. >An interesting (hopefully) insight into this might be the experience of >Cadence Braking. This (manually operated antilock.....) system *used* to be >taught to plod sqaudcar drivers untill someone actualy measured teh results, >adn found that the transition times between on and off led to significantly >geater stopping distances that either thresholding or (in dry conditions only) >locked tyres. While ABS will be far more efficient than cadence braking, it >will still have teh same problem to a lesser degree. A significantly lesser degree, that invalidates your conclusion. ABS cycles the brakes 10-15 times per second (depending on the system). Humans could do only a tiny fraction of that 'cadence rate'. Your comparison is not valid. Chris Norloff ------------------------------ From: cnorloff@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 09:54:21 EDT Subject: Re: Rubber - Myth or Magic? >>Anecdotes are personal stories, "I was there ...", not based on >>scientific evidence. MSF results *are* based on scientific, repeatable, >>results. They are simplified, they may well be over-simplified, but >>they do work, and they are not anecdotal. > >Do you have references to the research tools and results they've used? I'd >be very interested in getting my hands on them and reviewing them myself. > >As a researcher, I know that there's nothing worse than data that's been >massaged by someone else before you get it, worse yet data that's been done >over twice. The Hurt report: _Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors: Identification and Countermeasures_. and The Photographic Task Anaylsis of control operation (I forget the exact title). There have been many good studies on motorcycles, and more recently, many poor ones (typically funded by insurance companies and 'safety' organizations). Unfortunately, these are never published or promoted in the popular literature, and seldom directly referenced. I've met many people who think there is no scientific literature simply because they haven't seen it ('course, it can be pretty dry stuff!). Chris Norloff ------------------------------ From: Tom Coradeschi Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 11:05:27 EDT Subject: Re: Rubber - Myth or Magic? >>>Anecdotes are personal stories, "I was there ...", not based on >>>scientific evidence. MSF results *are* based on scientific, repeatable, >>>results. They are simplified, they may well be over-simplified, but >>>they do work, and they are not anecdotal. >> >>Do you have references to the research tools and results they've used? I'd >>be very interested in getting my hands on them and reviewing them myself. >> >>As a researcher, I know that there's nothing worse than data that's been >>massaged by someone else before you get it, worse yet data that's been done >>over twice. > >The Hurt report: _Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors: Identification and >Countermeasures_. > >and The Photographic Task Anaylsis of control operation (I forget the >exact title). Neither of which bear on the issue of threshold vs sliding braking efficiency, which is what we've been discussing. :-{ tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil President, Skylands (NJ) BMW Riders http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/tom/sbr/sbr.html Joe Senner MOA#59030 for MOA Secretary! ------------------------------ From: Chris BeHanna Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:08:07 -0400 Subject: Riding on ice kgenus@ubmail.ubalt.edu writes: >Pardon my language, but Shit, you must be crazy...how many of us RIDE on >ICE.... I did for the better part of winter '93-'94, on a 570 lb. fully-faired sportbike, no less. I got forced into it when the alternator on my truck seized the day after an ice storm. Took the dealer a week to replace the alternator, by which time I realized that ice and snow was manageable on two wheels, so WTF? I rode more than I otherwise might have. That and the AMA District 2 Polar Bear series kept me out all winter, and that winter was a hard one in the Northeast U.S. Later, Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA Ed Green 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike behanna@syl.nj.nec.com Fan Club #004 1991 ZX-11 - Zexy kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. FOLMA #17 1973 RD350A - seized Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? 1987 EX500 - the RaceBike Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft dodger sleeps in the White House. ------------------------------ From: David Christopher Whalley Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 16:33:17 bst Subject: Re: Rubber - Myth or Magic? > people who think there is no scientific literature simply because they > haven't seen it ('course, it can be pretty dry stuff!) Has anyone got time to build a bibliography of information on this sort of stuff. Here are two refs for worked performed locally for starters: Author Fulton,E. J Title Motorcycle conspicuity:evaluation of selected lighting options for daytime use Credits by E.J. Fulton Publisher Institute for Consumer Ergonomics,1983 Author Stroud,Peter Title Motorcycle speed estimation:the effect of headlight use and machine size Publisher Institute for Consumer Ergonomics,1982 I would love to have access to more data and less opinion. David Whalley ------------------------------ From: Tim Graves Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 09:46:12 TZ Subject: Re: I love Wales - ---> From: Mike Waller - ---> To: safe - ---> Subject: Re: I love Wales - ---> Date: Thursday, April 20, 1995 1:46PM - ---> - ---> - ---> - ---> ---> The MSF taught me the SIPDE technique - Scan, Idendify, Predict - ---> (assume!), - ---> ---> Decide and Execute. - ---> - ---> Does MSF teach anything to compliment SIPDE such as a sequential approach - ---> to negotiating hazards...?? The beginners course teaches three techniques for dealing with hazards: minimize (for single, one-at-a-time hazards) seperate (for multiple hazards at the same time, which are then minimized) compromise (for multiple hazards at the same time that can't be separated) I've never specifically heard the term 'sequential approach', but if I had to guess at it's meaning with regards to negotiating hazards, it sounds like the 'separate' technique. -tim ------------------------------ From: Mike Waller Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 08:56:00 PDT Subject: Cadence Braking was Re: Rolling vs. Sliding etc... Andy wrote >>>> >An interesting (hopefully) insight into this might be the experience of >Cadence Braking. This (manually operated antilock.....) system *used* to be >taught to plod sqaudcar drivers untill someone actualy measured teh results, >adn found that the transition times between on and off led to significantly >geater stopping distances that either thresholding or (in dry conditions only) Then Chris Norloff >>>>>>> A significantly lesser degree, that invalidates your conclusion. ABS cycles the brakes 10-15 times per second (depending on the system). Humans could do only a tiny fraction of that 'cadence rate'. Your comparison is not valid. Cadence braking came into fashion when most vehicles had drum brakes and under heavy braking the brake linings would heat up so much that brake fade would occur, often at the point when you should have stopped......so enter Cadence braking, the on off on off situation, to eliminate brake fade.....because the brakes were not fading and working at their maximum, so bright spark obvioulsy thought that Cadence Braking was the answer, and so it became the norm at Police Driving Schools, (bobbies having great big " plates of meat ", were very good at hitting the brakes). Cadence braking does work on ice, as the sheer force of the wheel locking melts the ice and grip occurs (well in a cage it does). But what you have to remember is that you are heading full bore towards something you don't want to hit, and instinct tells you not to let go of the brakes, because the essence of cadence braking is that you release the brakes...you hit them hard and then release them, which means that you are rolling again TOWARDS the thing you want to avoid.....a hard one for your brain to compute.... (Mind you in a cage you can bring in a whole new bag of party tricks, like locking the wheels, steering to avoid, and then releasing the brakes, you get your steering back, and roll, but we aren't talking cages so the jury will disregard that last remark !!!) Look at it this way _ IF _ cadence braking is so effective, why does Nigel Mansell, Damon Hill et al: F1 drivers _NOT _use it to slow down from 200mph to 50mph for a bend....they brake at the maximum, very rarely locking up, but always getting maximum stopping on the wheels. TFP ^O^ wellington new zealand waller_m@wcc.govt.nz ------------------------------ From: Mike Waller Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 14:22:00 PDT Subject: FW: I love Wales ---------- From: Mike Waller To: owner-safety Subject: Re: I love Wales Date: Friday, 21 April 1995 10:57 Priority: High TRied to send this but got the adress rong ---------- Tim wrote in reply to ---> Does MSF teach anything to compliment SIPDE such as a sequential approach ---> to negotiating hazards...?? The beginners course teaches three techniques for dealing with hazards: minimize (for single, one-at-a-time hazards) seperate (for multiple hazards at the same time, which are then minimized) compromise (for multiple hazards at the same time that can't be separated) I've never specifically heard the term 'sequential approach', but if I had to guess at it's meaning with regards to negotiating hazards, it sounds like the 'separate' technique. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Here in NZ they have combined the two, SIPDE and the System, I learnt the system,in the UK but SIPDE is part of the system as well....to get your position, you need to read the road, (Scan, Identify) and be aware of what might happen (Predict), you consider what action you will undertake,be it move, signal, speed etc (Decide), and then you move or take your position (Execute)...this process takes place for every feature...(wonder how we ever find the time to ride the bike....??). I have included the system in the message for those who wish to peruse and consider.... I lived and breathed the System as it is required by police driving schools that there be absolute adherence to its principles and methods, but it isn't fixed there so I can't see the benefits of anything else that works...I can talk and ride the system till the cows come home so any questions.....feel free.. MSF Instructors......does any of this fit in with what the ethos of MSF is for....bearing in mind that " By not following the system in the sequence of the features, there is an increased risk that the rider will not have the time to react, and become involved ina n accident" ie... Right speed, right gear, wrong position....(Hazard not minimised) .......Right position, wrong speed. right gear......(Hazard not minimised)....etc THE SYSTEM OF MOTORCYCLE CONTROL Feature 1 COURSE or ( POSITION ) Feature 2 SPEED Feature 3 GEAR Feature 4 LIFESAVER Feature 5 ACCELERATION THE SYSTEM OF MOTORCYCLE CONTROL IS A SYSTEM OR DRILL, EACH FEATURE OF WHICH IS CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE, BY THE RIDER ON THE APPROACH TO ANY HAZARD. It is the basis upon which the whole technique of good driving is built. A HAZARD IS ANYTHING WHICH CONTAINS AN ELEMENT OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL DANGER, WHICH WILL CAUSE THE DRIVER TO ALTER COURSE OR SPEED, OR CONSIDER DOING SO. Hazards are a combination of three main types: a) physical features, such as a junction, roundabout, bend or hill crest etc; b) those created by the position or movement of other road users; and c) those created by variations in road surface or weather conditions. By definition, every feature of the system is considered at the approach to any hazard. Only those applicable to the particular circumstances are put into operation, but whichever features are selected, they must always be in the correct sequence. When progressing along a road a driver constantly has to observe and assess an ever changing combination of hazards. It is only by constant practice that the skill in the application of the System can be acquired. Feature 1 Course or Position: This relies entirely on the rider observing the hazards correctly and planning correctly. Instant recognition should result in a mirror check and a glance over the shoulder (compulsory part of the system at this stage, not a consideration). Consideration is given to a deviation signal and then a change of position if required, onto the correct line to be followed. Feature 2 Rear Observation, Signals and Speed: Again a glance over the shoulder as well as a mirror check, consider signal and adjust speed to that required to safely negotiate the hazard. Speed adjustment may be slower, faster, or remain constant, turning at a junction, overtaking a moving vehicle, or driving around a moderate bend for example. A signal could also be an audible signal ie horn, rarely used but it should be considered, is there a road user out of sight around a narrow blind bend or insight but walking with their back to you across the road, etc. Feature 3 Gear: Once position and speed are right, the gear required to safely negotiate the hazard can be considered and selected. This gear chosen should provide flexibility to allow the engine to comfortable slow, maintain or increase speed. If the hazard is a stop situation, no gear change is required usually. A low speed turn may require a change from top straight to second ( the intermediate gears/s not required), as second gear speed should have been reached as per feature two. An overtake may require a lower gear and acceleration a bend may require a lower gear, but no change of speed, etc. Feature 4 Lifesaver or Headcheck: This is the most crucial of points to remember and carry out. This is the final chance you will have as a rider to confirm the situation behind you before you commit yourself to the manouvre. Having correctly reached position, speed and gear for the hazard , a final check on the mirror, a glance behind over the shoulder. Essential for moving to the right, either turning right at intersections, pulling out to pass another vehicle or when changing lanes. Feature 5 Acceleration: Do we accelerate through the hazard or away from it ? Perhaps our speed remains constant. This depends on the hazard and the developing view ahead, but save firm acceleration for straight lines into open views. Familiarise yourself with these five features. Note that the use of the mirror can be deemed compulsory, but that every other part of each feature is considered and then a decision is made to do or not do as the situation dictates. ALWAYS THE SAME FEATURES AND IN THAT ORDER ON THE APPROACH. We thus achieve our main objective - as we go negotiate a hazard we are in the correct position, travelling at the correct speed, in the correct gear and able to stop if necessary, able to concentrate fully on the hazard itself and observe the unfolding situations beyond. Nothing automatic, just one thing at a time, in a logical order, safely and smoothly, yet briskly progressing from A to B. For those who are IAM members, the system promoted was CMSBGA Course Mirror Signal Brake Gear Accelerate (can my safety be given away,) which never quite fitted with the "roadcraft" system. Roadcraft has recently ammended the system to 4 feature for cars Position, Speed Gear Accelerate, which now fits perfectly with CMSBGA...Position includes Mirror and Signal, Feature 1 of roadcraft, (features 1,2&3 of CMS). Speed adjustment is feature 2 of Roadcraft,( Feature 4 of cmsB brake means speed adjustment) Gear is feature 3 of roadcraft (and feature 5 of cmsbG) Accelerate is feature 4 of roadcraft (and feature 6 cmsbgA) now there is consistency in both systems. The Flying Pig ^O^ wellington new zealand waller_m@wcc.govt.nz ------------------------------ From: Tom Coradeschi Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 12:29:59 EDT Subject: Re: Cadence Braking was Re: Rolling vs. Sliding etc... >Look at it this way _ IF _ cadence braking is so effective, why does Nigel >Mansell, Damon Hill et al: F1 drivers _NOT _use it to slow down from 200mph >to 50mph for a bend....they brake at the maximum, very rarely locking up, >but always getting maximum stopping on the wheels. He's obviously doing it wrong then! :-} FWIW: the way the guys at Skip Barber (racing and street driving schools) tell you to decide if you're braking one of their open-wheel cars at the threshold is to listen: if it sounds like you've got a sack full of cats, you're braking at the threshold. Sick, but it makes sense... tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil President, Skylands (NJ) BMW Riders http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/tom/sbr/sbr.html Joe Senner MOA#59030 for MOA Secretary! ------------------------------ End of safety-digest V1 #83 ***************************