As always, a good book can help identify topics that should be addressed in Rider Education. One of those good books is the Motorcycle Safety Foundation’s RiderCoach Guide, which, on another read, stirred some thoughts on how serious we are about safety. We commonly face this topic when experiences with students or peers cause us to reflect and use our better judgment. As motorcycle safety instructors and Rider Education program coordinators, our roles are integral and pivotal to this mission. Your role as RiderCoaches is crucial in shaping the safety culture in the motorcycle community.
The Rider Assessment Wall Chart, a significant addition to the 2014 Basic Rider Course updated (BRCu) RiderCoach Guide, is a tool of immense importance. It guides riders to self-assess their safety commitment on six key questions, rating themselves from 1 (low) to 10 (high). The Chart’s instructions were also integrated into the later eCourse, providing a baseline for a student’s emotional commitment to safety. The questions, such as ‘the likelihood of being in a crash,’ offer valuable insights into the alignment between what is professed and actual behavior.
When consistently and appropriately applied in the context of a course, recognizing unseen cognitive dissonance can also be a potent tool. Cognitive Dissonance is the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions, thoughts, and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. As RiderCoaches, we initially learn this concept through reading and applying it to the activities in preparation or certification courses and the classroom. However, the question remains: how often do we take the time to use the concept of cognitive dissonance for ourselves and our actions as RiderCoaches beyond a simple wall chart? This self-assessment is not just a suggestion but a necessity for our roles. It is crucial that we regularly engage in self-assessment to ensure our actions align with our commitment to safety.
When using our judgment as RiderCoaches, we take what we have come to know from our riding experiences, the curriculum, training, and our peers and apply this knowledge when leading courses with our students. In the process, we internally develop an understanding of the risks we are willing to consent to and those we have decided are beyond acceptance. Knowing that all crashes result from an interaction of factors, we must reduce the factors so that our students and ourselves show action toward being serious about safety.
Some of us also bring in outside forces and factors, such as riding groups, social groups, racing, hooliganism, counter cultures, rights groups, and friends, that sometimes influence how or what we think about safety. Occasionally, those mantras or myths can be detrimental to us and others, downright unsafe.
There are actions used within our community that should be addressed outright, without question. For multiple reasons, dark siding or using auto tires on a motorcycle to save money is an unsafe practice. Riding with an insufficient helmet or no helmet at all is a personal decision that costs the entire community when crashes happen, and our loved ones suffer the biggest financial and emotional consequences. Riding beyond our capabilities increases the rate of crashes and exposes us to unpredictable behaviors or even animosity from other road users. I could go on – Loud pipes, it’s always the cager’s fault… The bottom line is that the data proves that we are our own worst enemy on the road. It’s up to us to change the behavior that puts motorcycling and us at risk.
So, we will make decisions backed up by actions, influencers, and outside forces where answers are not found in a book, guide, or policy manual. The question then will be relevant: Are we serious about safety? Do our decisions support the safety of our students, or are they based on conveniences to make our work easier, put more money in our pockets, and not question our community’s problems? Do we accept lesser standards to a degree to avoid difficult discussions or potentially offending our social connections? Do we accept the liability that may befall our actions and recognize when our words and actions are not aligned? Do we put others in harm’s way by not identifying or exposing unsafe actions?
We express that we are not serious when we accept less than—a standard, a shortcut, a blind eye, or inconsistency. Selling safety is free; the cost is our willingness to identify what is unsafe and to be firm enough in our convictions to make our actions coincide with our words.
