The Importance of the Enhanced Rider Scheme for Motorcyclists

What do riders learn by experience – trial and error?

What is not learned by experience, for which additional training is needed?

Summary

The background is a 8% increase in PTW KSI’s last year, and a recent 50% increase in young rider KSI’s. It’s currently aĺl going the wrong way.

There was a 14% increase in fatalities from 2023-24.

The DVSA data below indicates that it currently takes around 25 years, on average, for 80% of riders to master riding a motorcycle competently.

Far too long?

In order:- ‘Cornering‘, ‘Planning‘, ‘Defensive Riding‘, ‘Use of Speed‘ andOvertaking – were found as the major rider shortcomings

Braking‘ and ‘Filtering‘ also stand out as particular extra training needs.

We now know what additional training is needed, and where current learner training and testing is falling short.

The Enhanced Rider Scheme looks to be effective, well managed and subject to continuous improvement.

In contrast, no benefits were found from current ‘Advanced’ training. (Agilisys).

Government action should be considered to make DVSA ERS licensed training far more available in the interests of public safety. This could easily be achieved by making DVSA trainer licensing compulsory for all commercial trainers. This would ensure, that the training is properly and safely conducted, and focused on the priorities.

The charities working in the sector, with volunteers, should also all be working to the same official standards.


History

The DVSA Enhanced Rider Scheme (ERS) was launched in 2006. It was to provide additional safety training for licence holders, particularly those returning to riding in later years.

Up to 1989 the examiner stood by the roadside, so it is only after this date that examiners followed riders on their test.

Compulsory Basic Training (CBT) was not introduced until 1990.

Currently most riders over 50 years old will not have had any training, nor been subject to a ‘pursuit’ licence test.

Findings

This is the data supplied by the DVSA following an information request. The speed of the response shows that the DVSA have clearly been closely monitoring the ERS Scheme, on an ongoing basis.

This is, I believe, the latest 5 years of data. The first observation is how relatively few riders are attracted to the scheme. This is the only post-test training in the UK delivered by qualified licensed trainers. That it is such a small number of riders, is a concern.

The vast majority of post-test training is performed by volunteers, or untrained unlicensed trainers, mainly to Police Roadcraft standards, but also sometimes encouraging ’emergency response’ and racing practises, such as trail braking by commercial trainers.

(A recent review by Agilisys found no benefits from traditional ‘Advanced’ training).

Agilysis report on Advanced Training

There is no other published rider assessments that I can find.

DVSA Data

The bar graph shows the number of riders who needed, or who did not need, additional training following their riding assessments.

Green is needed training, Red is didn’t.

If you compare ERS attendees to the population of riders by age, you get this:-

Young riders look neglected? These are at the highest risk, so it looks like an opportunity?

The ERS scheme was aimed at ‘returning riders‘ and has hit the mark.

Training needs diminish up to 45, where the number of riders peak, then increases again. Strange?

There are are also two large peaks in training needs. 17-30 and 51-65 years – the Red bars vs the Green bars.

Training needed by age

If you present the data as the percentage of riders, by age, requiring training, a rather odd profile emerges.

Having stared at it for some time, and initially considering it as two separate distributions, a ‘light bulb’ moment.

You might have come across Dunning-Kruger before. It’s the journey from:-

‘Unconsciously incompetent’ to ‘Unconsciously competent’

The theory has been applied across many different fields. In this case the ‘Y’ axis is ‘training required’ – incompetence not confidence. However, it does look like younger riders don’t seem to be looking for more training, so could be over confident?

If you flip the graph, competence is shown to peak at 41-45 years. It then deteriorates as we move into later life.

It maybe a bit misleading, as the scheme is aimed at ‘born again‘ bikers, who have a big experience gap. And these will be riders who mainly felt they needed more training.

The riders over 50 will likely not have had training or a pursuit licence test, so are essentially a different group, who are mostly untrained.

Their apparent ‘lack of competence’ is  reflected in the accident figures which are slightly higher. So there looks like there is a relationship between competence, as measured, and the risk of a collision.

Modules taken

So what additional training was found to be needed to get riders up to standard?

You can see there is no particular training needs identified. They are various. Training needs are across a wide spectrum.

Cornering‘ tops the chart, followed by ‘Planning‘, ‘Defensive Riding‘, Progress and Overtaking.

Mastering Safe Cornering on the Road, with ‘Slow In Fast Out’ Technique

Extra Modules Taken

This is where rider needs are identified, that needed extra training.

This identifies ‘Braking‘ as the main need – more than a third of riders, and nearly twice the demand of the next module. Braking from higher speeds is not part of the licence test – just from 30 mph.

Probably circa 50% of riders cannot meet Highway Code braking distances from higher speeds, and many skid and fall in an emergency. It is encouraging that this is recognised and is being addressed.

Ultimate Guide to Emergency Motorcycle Braking

Filtering‘ is the second most popular training module, which is widely known to be hazardous.

Training vs Casualties (KSI).

If you add casualties by age (orange line), you now have a complete data set.

Young rider vulnerability is very clear. 10% of riders but 28% of the casualties.

After 30 years of age, KSIs roughly follows the rider population, with a divergence from 40-50, where the accident rate halves, before moving back to a standard KSI percentage.

So is the 40 – 50 group showing the results of experience? Or the peak of physical or mental ability? How much are older new riders part of the problem?

The answer is probably the lack of compulsory learner training and pursuit testing for the older riders, which only became compulsory in 1990.

If you look at the downward slope of the orange KSI line, there is an upward bump at 50 years which coincides with the introduction of CBT. It then continues downwards at the same slope but displaced upwards.

It will be interesting to see if this bump moves further along in the coming years.

Conclusions

It’s difficult to draw firm conclusions, but the data seems to confirm the positive impact of CBT from 1990. The ‘bump’ currently at 50 years should move along year by year?

But that currently leaves older riders at relatively high risk, which still needs addressing.

The high level of KSIs for younger riders is graphically illustrated, with a steep circa 10 year learning curve which also needs urgent action. This surely should be the priority?

The most obvious risk, which could be quickly addressed, is in young riders moving from a moped to a geared 125cc motorcycle with no additional training, despite the massively increased risk.

After 30 years old, the graph shows a steady decline in KSI’s which is probably continuous learning by experience, but at a lower steady rate.

This would seem an ideal opportunity to review learner training and testing (which will be ongoing internally within the DVSA) to address identified shortcomings in training.

Although inevitably, any major changes will have to be a political decision. This to balance the accessibility to PTWs, which are currently very high risk, with public safety.

The ERS scheme is currently poorly promoted and consequently very under-utilized, with far too few riders trained to likely have any effect. Only circa 1,000/year based on these figures.

The graph also suggests that ‘advanced’ training doesn’t currently fill the lack of learner training within older riders >50 years.

This would appear to support the recent Agilisys report, which found no benefits from advanced training.

Unqualified and unlicensed advanced trainers are currently allowed (probably illegally) to train riders commercially. This puts properly trained qualified and licensed DVSA trainers at a financial disadvantage, but more importantly potentially puts riders at risk,

The argument has always been that The Law states ‘driver‘ not ‘rider‘ trainers have to be DVSA licensed. However the CPS definition of ‘driver‘ is whoever is steering – by legal precedent I understand. This would include ‘riders’.

This could be implemented today.

The Enhanced Rider Scheme has been around for 19 years and is collecting data which will be used to improve training. The scheme has trained, tested, qualified, licensed trainers. They have a syllabus and standards to work to:- ‘Ride – The Essential Skills’. They are also regularly check tested whilst delivering the training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dvsa-enhanced-rider-scheme-syllabus/dvsa-enhanced-rider-scheme-syllabus

It only costs around £1,000 for a week’s training to obtain a DVSA trainer’s license.

Government action is needed to make this compulsory, in the interests of public safety. Motorcycle riders are the most vulnerable road users by a margin, so need the best training available.

The ERS scheme is established and proven, so just needs fully implementing, as I believe was always intended.

We now know what is needed to get riders up to standard, and what the priorities are.

Police BikeSafe assesses circa 7,500 riders per year, with 20% or 1,500 going in to take further training. RoSPA and the IAM also provide ‘advanced’ training although the total numbers are not published, nor any findings.

Are they focussing on the same identified  rider’s priority needs to stay safe, and shortcomings?

And as only 1,000 riders/year are being been ERS trained, with a population of 1.7 million, we’re all just scratching the surface.

Feedback and opinion encouraged.

Mike Abbott MBA, RoADAR (Dip), DVSA RPMT 800699, ACU Coach #62210

Advanced Rider Coaching

17.7.25

Updated 13.12.25

The Fox’s Face – the ‘Traction Circle of Grip’ applied to motorcycles

(From Biral, Francesco & Lot, Roberto from 2009)

So what does it mean for riders?

The ‘Fox’s Ears’

It means that you can accelerate the hardest at 45 degrees of lean, which seems odd, but have to roll back the throttle as your lean angle decreases and the front of the machine starts to lift.

Riders need to be acutely aware of the dangers of ‘High Siding’.

The ‘Fox’s Nose’.

This also shows a rider can brake (briefly) at up to 1.5g when upright(ish). This is twice as hard as the Highway Code standard.

This is probably from top speed due to the drag on the rider and bike preventing it flipping over. 1g tips most bikes at lower speeds. You can also briefly brake harder as energy is dissipated rotating the bike during weight transfer.

The ‘Fox’s Jaw’

The ‘jaw’ show a linear relationship between lean angle and braking, up to the extremities of banking – red lines. So track riders can brake deep into corners using the front brake, gradually releasing it proportionally as the lean angle increases.

Riders need to be aware that grip levels on the road can vary considerably, and the dangers of a front wheel ‘wash out’ and ‘Low Siding’.

The DVSA advice, which should be taken, is for road riders to complete their braking before corners, and only use the rear brake in an emergency. Applying the front brake mid corner, as opposed to carrying it into the corner, flips the machine up. This will make it run wide, potentially through the scenery or into oncoming traffic.

However, with training and practice, road riders can be trained to carry the front brake into corners in an emergency, which can be a life saver. But braking into corners routinely just significantly diminishes your safety margin, and likely increases impact speeds.

It’s not sensible to ride on the road anywhere near the limits of grip. However, on a track, it’s necessary, with care, for fast lap times. You need to know where the limits are.


We tried applying the standard traction circle maths to motorcycles in 2015, looking to see what traction should be available for braking as the lean angle increased.

If you use Mohr’s Circle, you get what we called the ‘Cats Claw’ which is the shape of the calculated additional area of grip.

It didn’t look right, and showed far more grip when banked than was available in practice. The question was why?

We looked at Cossalters ‘Motorcycle Dynamics’ which shows an oval, which looked better, but not perfect. 1g on one axis for braking and accelerating, 1.6 g for the other when banked.

There was a recent post on LinkedIn from Mikko Bartolossi, a MotoGP Engineer, introducing a paper from Biral, Francesco & Lot, Roberto from 2009, showing an alternative traction circle for motorcycles.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267715875_An_interpretative_model_of_g-

It looks like a fox’s face!

The diagram shows the lateral and tangential g force acting on a motorcycle when cornering, and either braking or accelerating at the same time.

The left and right hand areas show the g force acting on the machine when it is banked. The braking force is shown on the lower half, and accelerating on the top half of the diagram.

The tip of the ‘fox’s nose’ shows that a rider can momentarily brake at around 1.5 g as long as the machine is nearly upright. This will be very briefly as the bike will flip forward otherwise, and is probably from top speed relying on wind drag to stop the bike from tipping fotwards. But shows how a high level of skill can reduce stopping distances. Most motorcycles will flip forward at 1g. (For E-Scooters it’s only 0.4 g). The Highway Code assumes 0.67g.

Riders need to be aware of the dangers of snatching the front brake and skidding and falling, or on machines without ABS. Also somersaulting, when can also occur with earlier ABS systems without pitch control

The red lines at the bottom show a linear relationship between lean angle and the maximum braking force that can be applied, when you’d probably expect the grip to diminish exponentially as the lean angle increases (Cat’s Claw).

This will be using mainly the front brake, as the rear brake will have little effect due to the weight transfer forwards, making a rear wheel skid very likely.

But what is even more interesting, are the ‘fox’s ears’. Accelerating on a motorcycle is limited to 0.9g not by tyre grip, but because the machine will flip over. This time backwards, not forwards as in hard braking.

It shows that motorcycles can be accelerated harder when banked, the peak shown at 45 degrees of lean. Why is this? It’s probably because the centre of mass is lower and to the inside of the corner, and the front of the machine is held down partly by the centrifugal force. The weight is transferred to the rear tyre from the front tyre at the same time, giving more grip at the rear.

This is where racers can gain an advantage, but for trackday and road riders this is where ‘Highsides’ happen. The rear tyre loses grip, slides sideways, then grips again when the rider instinctively snaps the throttle shut in response. The rider is usually thrown up into the air, often over the top of the machine.

We know traction control will not necessarily prevent this. It’s too quick and too brutal. However, modern bikes with Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) are better and can sense tbe limit aporoaching.

Modern MotoGP and WSBK bikes have traction control, (BSB bikes don’t) so it very rarely happens now in world racing, but many older road going sports bikes also don’t.

This makes older sportsbikes quite difficult to ride safely, particularly as grip levels on the road, as opposed to a track, can vary considerably. There are also two generations of traction control for road bikes, the latest being IMU’s are ‘lean sensitive’ which makes them more effective and safer.

We know from experience at ‘The School’, that riders can still lose traction by accelerating too hard at extreme lean angles., even with traction control. However, the newer systems seems to prevent ‘high sides’ (so far), with the bike ‘low siding’ and the rider just slipping off the side of the machine.

The new Yamaha R9 and other top end bikes now have 6-axis IMUs (Inertial Management Unit) which makes them ‘lean sensitive’, so should be safer in this respect, although the Laws of Physics will eventually intervene at the extremes.

So a 10-year mystery solved, it’s not a ‘Cat’s Claw’, it’s a ‘Fox’s Face’.

Were now working with Prof Owen Williams on a 660 Aprilia fitted wirh a 9-Axis IMU. Next step?

Mike Abbott, British Superbike School

17th June 2025

Updated 16.8.25