Anger over motorbike 'swerve test'

[Spiderman]

I see nothing wrong with setting parameters or guidelines for expected performance which is how the tests have always worked but I do think there's something wrong with applying an arbitrary limit.

John

Why do you say the 50kph is arbitary tho?
And its not a limit, its a minimum speed they require you to be above, below that its not test as others have explained above.

[ArtyLady]

Nope, sorry, maybe if you hadn't told me how long it was I'd have listened to the first 10 minutes.

I thought I put - at 1 hour 8 minutes...didn't I? short interview with very qualified man - zoom along to 1 hour 8 minutes

[dizzyblonde]

well i wouldn't want to do the new test.

I said to my OH earlier, it took me a fair while to feel comfy swerving about at a controlled speed and level of competence, without wobbling off into a bush. It takes a novice a while to learn such a thing. I'm not surprised theres been a few 'incidents' . Its bad enough falling off on a Uturn for some, without some slalom pirouette to perform on top

[Spiderman]

I thought I put - at 1 hour 8 minutes...didn't I? short interview with very qualified man - zoom along to 1 hour 8 minutes

Ah i thought it was 1hr 8 mins of discussion. I'll go have a listen now then.

[-Ralph-]

I thought I put - at 1 hour 8 minutes...didn't I?

You certainly did, which is why I didn't listen at all, didn't have 1hr and 8 to spare.

Maybe I'll do an hour of ironing tomorrow night and listen to it then and get loads of brownie points from the wife in the process.

[-Ralph-]

Ah i thought it was 1hr 8 mins of discussion. I'll go have a listen now then.

Ahh, OK, they guy starts talking at 1 hr 8, I thought the same as Spiderman. I'll listen now too.

[Magnum]

While you and I may be able to this on our own bikes, you try doing it on a CG or a CBF125 or a YBR125... those little skinny tyres and bad enough in the dry, let alone the wet... they also have a top speed of 28mph so getting to 31 can be a bit of a problem..


I disaggree... i own a CG125, and it has no problem reaching 40mph quickly (the lack of power is at higher speeds). I think the CG is quite easy to throw around, and ive been practicing swerves on empty roads without any problems.

[Dave20046]

I disaggree... i own a CG125, and it has no problem reaching 40mph quickly (the lack of power is at higher speeds). I think the CG is quite easy to throw around, and ive been practicing swerves on empty roads without any problems.
Agreed, nail it in second gear and you shouldn't have an issue magnum.
skinny tyres don't make that much of a difference lol - you ever ridden with em? Still got the same size contact patch (if I'm not mistaken)

[Spiderman]

Did anyone even bother to listen to the interview on the radio in the link I posted? :rolleyes:

:oops:
OK listened now. All good from the man with all the right cedentials i'd say. Couple that with the positive rsponses from the people on here who have done it and now i think i wanna have a go.

hey Bluepete, when you get those cones set up can we do and Org day over at yours so we can all try it out. I'll bring biscuits :)

[Magnum]

Agreed, nail it in second gear and you shouldn't have an issue magnum.
skinny tyres don't make that much of a difference lol - you ever ridden with em? Still got the same size contact patch (if I'm not mistaken)


Ive only ever ridden a cg, but doing the swerve test youre hardly going to flip it all the way to the edge of the tyre.

[Kuze]

Call me stupid but if its so "easy" in the wet then why did the examiner in the youtube video smack the cone and therefore "fail" his swerve test. :lol:

While I agree people should be safe to ride on the road surely the test should be about road compentence? I will admit i failed my CBT (hill start and too much gas you work it out :D) but my instructors sat me down made me reflect on things and reworked the basics with me. From there on i was confident enough to pass my test and i did so first time. This new test to me looks like some european pen pusher ticking boxes.

I do agree though that there are lots of idiots who buy a supersports bike way earlier than they should. Perhaps make a 33bhp license mandatory for 1yr? I know that certainly helped me get used to the feel of a big bike and its handling, after 2yrs i got the full er6f power going and it was great (yea i know it isnt "that fast" but it sure beats a chicken chaser).

I suppose you cant please everyone no matter what you do, perhaps some sort of mental assessment would help.........

[yorkie_chris]

This new test to me looks like some european pen pusher ticking boxes.

Nail ... Head ...

[ArtyLady]

Ah i thought it was 1hr 8 mins of discussion. I'll go have a listen now then.

Ahh, OK, they guy starts talking at 1 hr 8, I thought the same as Spiderman. I'll listen now too.

Sorry! I didn't make it very clear :oops:

:oops:
OK listened now. All good from the man with all the right cedentials i'd say. Couple that with the positive rsponses from the people on here who have done it and now i think i wanna have a go.

hey Bluepete, when you get those cones set up can we do and Org day over at yours so we can all try it out. I'll bring biscuits :)

But he did say that he thinks they ought to allow for wet weather and leaves...and I agree with him :geek:

[Spiderman]

Yeh he did but only if they are extreme i'm sure he meant.

[-Ralph-]

Call me stupid but if its so "easy" in the wet then why did the examiner in the youtube video smack the cone and therefore "fail" his swerve test. :lol:

I think he was trying a bit too hard to prove a point and screwed it up.

[dizzyblonde]

I've heard that a few instructors have found it hard. After all, they are there to guide people through training, and not necessarily there to prove to people they can do it too.

[yorkie_chris]

How can you advise someone on how to do something if you can't do it yourself?

[jamesterror]

what about swerving round pot holes, pedestrians walking out, car coming out too far of a blind junction, and wet drain covers, isn't that the scenario the pen pushers are trying to enforce?

If I was offered the chance to do the new test, I'd like to try it.

Magnum have you done any mock tests with any local riding schools or anything?

[Magnum]

what about swerving round pot holes, pedestrians walking out, car coming out too far of a blind junction, and wet drain covers, isn't that the scenario the pen pushers are trying to enforce?

If I was offered the chance to do the new test, I'd like to try it.

Magnum have you done any mock tests with any local riding schools or anything?

Nope not yet. I was supposed to be doing my practical this week but the training school still havnt contacted me when they said they would... do they want my business or not?!

[jamesterror]

Nope not yet. I was supposed to be doing my practical this week but the training school still havnt contacted me when they said they would... do they want my business or not?!

Terrible, I'd give them a pester mate

[hob]

Found this on the BBC web site, any thought? Link is to a video report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067672.stm


I did lol at the part when she said: "If we stop 1 death or 1 injury it would be worth it all"

Despite 15 "incidents" in the first 3 months....

[-Ralph-]

Despite 15 "incidents" in the first 3 months....

Potentially prevented 15 deaths due the people having those "incidents" not getting a bike license, 'cos they are clearly are not ready for one.

[bris]

very clear :oops:



But he did say that he thinks they ought to allow for wet weather and leaves...and I agree with him :geek:
But you've got to remember that this test is about missing an object suddenly appearing in front of you, so the 50 kph speed is not unrealistic no matter how wet it is. Don't forget it simulates you riding along in a straight line of road then bam, suddenly a car appears. Will any doubters honestly say they dont do 30 in the wet. The fact is this test is even easier than it would be in a real situation because in the test at least you know exactly where the hazard is. This test is simple and if you can't do it then its right you fail in a controlled test centre rather than out in a busy road.

[hob]

@ 30 mph couldn't you break to a stop (emergency stop) in that distance (from where you see it).

Swerving is great providing you don't end up meeting something more deadly than a static object, I personally would break and take the car impact @ reduced speed.

[Kuze]

what about swerving round pot holes, pedestrians walking out, car coming out too far of a blind junction, and wet drain covers, isn't that the scenario the pen pushers are trying to enforce?

If I was offered the chance to do the new test, I'd like to try it.

Magnum have you done any mock tests with any local riding schools or anything?

Care to tear up your license and resit?

Its all well and good putting it into real life context but a "swerve" is to avoid something correct? In all those examples you can avoid swerving by anticipation. Your only swerving (in RL) cos either you've done something wrong or somebody else has. If its your **** up then you'll be blamed if its the car drivers etc they'll probably flee the scene.

If learning to swerve is so much a needed skill why isnt it on a car test?? Last time i checked it isnt..........

[21QUEST]

Holy Gosh, having watched the vid, I wouldn't even call that a 'swerve test' .
My first reaction was to burst out laughing after finally realising where the swerve was meant to have taken place....had to watch it a second time to catch it :D

Are we actually forgetting how fast 30mph actually is? :confused: . As has already been said, any person who could do that manouver(which doesn't even involve a proper swerve IMO...going by the vid) arguably doesn't deserves to pass. Yup, I'm talking in the wet.

And if the come a cropper doing it, they have no one to blame but themselves....practice makes perfect :rolleyes: ;)



Ben

[JohnMcL7]

We do, various parts of the test have a minimum speed at which they must be performed, including the cornering test (30kph) and the emergency stop (50kph).

They are not, the minimum speed is the same wet or dry. Sure it can be done quicker in the dry but riders are not expected to.

I don't follow. What approach and why does it fail you?

In the emergency stop (at least under the old one) if the road conditions were good and you only stopped within what would be expected for wet conditions then that was a fail. To me this seems to make considerably more sense than forcing an arbitrary limit regardless of conditions which is entirely unlike riding in the real world.

The other puzzling aspect although the videos I've watched may be incorrect is that the avoidance cones seems to be entirely static? If so that seems to make it pointless if you know exactly where the 'hazard' is as you are going to react differently if you have to suddently make the manuever as opposed to be able to planning in advance.

John

[JohnMcL7]

But you've got to remember that this test is about missing an object suddenly appearing in front of you, so the 50 kph speed is not unrealistic no matter how wet it is. Don't forget it simulates you riding along in a straight line of road then bam, suddenly a car appears. Will any doubters honestly say they dont do 30 in the wet. The fact is this test is even easier than it would be in a real situation because in the test at least you know exactly where the hazard is. This test is simple and if you can't do it then its right you fail in a controlled test centre rather than out in a busy road.

How can this test be about missing an object suddenly appearing in front of you when it's there the whole time? People are going to react different if it is genuinely unexpected therefore it's not really a test of that at all, in that test and in many cases in real life as well prevention is better than the cure.

Looking at the type of corners the route seems closer to a residential route rather than out on the open road, I tend to take it easy in a residential 30 if it's wet in either the car or the bike.

John

[-Ralph-]

In the emergency stop (at least under the old one) if the road conditions were good and you only stopped within what would be expected for wet conditions then that was a fail

if you know exactly where the 'hazard' is as you are going to react differently

Nothing has changed there, if you take too long to stop for the conditions now you'll still fail. The only differences is they've stipulated a minimum speed that you need to stop from. 30mph, the same speed that examiners have always wanted to see you travelling for an emergency stop anyway.

If your examiner says, "I'd like you to ride along this street and when I drop my arm I'd like to see you perform an emergency stop", thats not exactly testing your ability to react to an unexpected hazard is it? But thats been acceptable for years. Short of jumping out in front of people and filling their trousers how can you simulate an unexpected hazard in a test? Now they want to test peoples ability to swerve a bike, it's about bike handling ability, not about making you **** yourself to test how good your reactions are.

Sorry John, but I have to say, you seem to be finding details to argue about for the sake of it...

[hob]

I thought the hazard perception test was supposed to take the "perception" part into it, you can't really safely reproduce a sudden "situation" on a test.

[-Ralph-]

I thought the hazard perception test was supposed to take the "perception" part into it, you can't really safely reproduce a sudden "situation" on a test.

"Supposed to" are the operative words there :rolleyes: but yes, I agree in principal

[-Ralph-]

But he did say that he thinks they ought to allow for wet weather and leaves...and I agree with him :geek:

He said that they ought to consider the safety of performing the test in very heavy rain (i.e. if it's biblical with standing water then cancel the test) and they should ensure the surface is clean and clear from anything slippy such as wet leaves. He didn't say they should reduce the speed or change the layout in the wet, he said that there should be plenty grip to perform the swerve in ordinary wet conditions, and that he considered the test to be safe.

[JohnMcL7]

Nothing has changed there, if you take too long to stop for the conditions now you'll still fail. The only differences is they've stipulated a minimum speed that you need to stop from. 30mph, the same speed that examiners have always wanted to see you travelling for an emergency stop anyway.

Not according to you, in your last post when I asked they didn't apply the same approach to the rest of the test (where conditions do not affect any limits) but now you're saying they do vary the limits depending on conditions? Quick refresher:

me:
"So why don't we apply that to other portions of the test then?"

you:
"We do, various parts of the test have a minimum speed at which they must be performed, including the cornering test (30kph) and the emergency stop (50kph)."

Those are two contradicting points of view, if conditions are taken into account for stopping distances with emergency stops then clearly there is a lack of consistency by ignoring them for the swerve maneuver.

In regads to the emergency stop I'm referring to the distance to stop rather than the speed limit but 30mph is not the same speed the emergency test is taken at - in the old exam if you were riding in poor conditions (such as rain), you'd be expected to be running below 30mph as for the rest of the test as this is driving with an appropriate speed for the conditions. Something I was warned about constantly by my bike instructor and the source of two minors for my car test - 25mph was considered too fast in a 30 by my driving examiner.

If your examiner says, "I'd like you to ride along this street and when I drop my arm I'd like to see you perform an emergency stop", thats not exactly testing your ability to react to an unexpected hazard is it? But thats been acceptable for years. Short of jumping out in front of people and filling their trousers how can you simulate an unexpected hazard in a test? Now they want to test peoples ability to swerve a bike, it's about bike handling ability, not about making you **** yourself to test how good your reactions are.

It tests it far better than the new one does as you don't know when or even if the examiner is going to drop raise their hand, my examiner caught me by surprise as he put his hand while I was still a reasonable distance away which tested my reactions pretty well as an unplanned maneuever especially as I'd thought I was doing another loop first.

If you have to swerve to avoid an unexpected hazard on the road, it is going to test your reactions as you're not going to have time to think it out first.

Given they have an emergency stop system which works well enough on the road with a single examiner it's not difficult to envisage an automated marker system in an off road yard which at some random point would indicate the rider to make the evasive maneuver. At least that would be a more accurate test of how the rider would have to react in a real world situation.

As it is the current system teaches candidates they should ignore the road conditions and when they see an obstacale up ahead not to bother slowing down instead focus on maintaining their speed. If anyone did actually do that in real life and did hit something unexpected behind the expected hazard they'd probably find themselves being rewarded with penalty points on their license hence why I find this inclusion in a test bizarre.


Sorry John, but I have to say, you seem to be finding details to argue about for the sake of it...

Before making such comments it might be worth bearing in mind that you were the one posting sarcastic smillies instead of any textual response which comes across as deliberately trying to stir up the thread.

The obvious counterpoint is that I'm hardly in my own in criticising the new test with many of the vocal complaints coming from instructors despite the fact they could well benefit more from this test in additional lessons. Clearly they are most certainly not arguing for the sake of it.

You make the unfounded extrapolation above that the 15 people that fell during this maneuver are potentially 15 saved deaths but I think you're kidding yourself if you genuinely believe that. Pass rates are irrelevent in terms of measuring the success of the new test as it assumes what is being measured is directly applicable to the on the road driving but I've yet to see anything convincing that a sequence of moves that on the real road would be at best highly frowned upon and at worst an offence is absolutely correct to have in a test of riding ability for the roads.

I'm genuinely surprised at the staunch support for this on the forum given most people here are have not had the defining swerve in their test, do those who have accidents believe they would have handled them better if they'd been taught this move first? I have a hard time believing that, it wouldn't have helped prevent my accident and in retrospect I think that sticking with a low powered bike for a while before stepping up to a bigger one was far more useful to me than an unrealistic, planned swerve to prepare for an actual, unplanned swerve.

John

[Jamiebridges123]

To be honest everyone can argue all day about the test procedures, but what really tends to kill people is poor observation, judgement, etc.

Going into a bend too fast on the road, or what's more not knowing what to do once you're into that situation is the problem. People not knowing their machines capabilities, people who get target fixation... people panic in a corner and jam on the brakes..

No matter what test you take, whether it's the new style one, or the older style one, the same still remains. If you're not being taught properly then you're no better off with one test or another.

Personally, I took the old style test in December last year. I had done my CBT in September and rode about on a derestricted RS125. Did I bin it, or did I go racing around, no... and I was 17...

Have I crashed, yes, on my Z750.. although in my defense I had done 1000 miles on it with full power, in the winter, in the salt... in the freezing, and then several months after I got it restricted I crash it riding home from my mates house..

In actually fact I think restricting it made me more complacent.. I'd just crack the 1/8 turn throttle wide up all the time, where as before as there wasn't that limiting factor I'd be much more careful.. eitherway..

Although I'm digressing, I think riding a full power Z750 as a direct step up from the old RS125 was probably one of the best things I've done... it taught me OODLES of respect for the rotating right thing on the right handlebars...

anyway back on somewhat topic...I have crashed... How did I crash, it was my own fault. I wasn't really concentrating and, well, all I remember was the front end went, I'd guess. But even so I wasn't riding erratically. It was a momentary lapse of concentration, mind straying, and I'd guess an unlucky breeze and yup, you guessed it, Bridgestone's BT014 tyres. Either way was it caused by

I've done, well, very close to, if not over 10,000 miles my bikes since completing my CBT and can't say that I've had to "swerve and then brake", or anything. I've had to make avoidance maneuovours, normally when some **** in a Transit pulls out on me, or an emergency brake, for example when some t*sser thought it'd be a good idea to pull out on me in a roundabout, and instead of keep going, STOP perpendicular to 2 lanes of traffic! But never have I had the oh so idealistic opportunity to have to swerve and then brake. That'd be too perfect!

I passed my emergency stop segment in my test without problem....However when a child or a van pulls out infront of you, your first instinct is to grab a load of brake. It's all very different looking at the examiners arm dropping, you are EXPECTING it, and surely EXPECTATION is not akin for EMERGENCY...

Depending on you as a rider you'll then probably lock up, and then release and reapply, or if you're a 2 wheeled cager you'll slide it down the road..

Myself I've locked the front in an emergency situation (all caused by pillocks in cars/bicycles/old people in mobility scooters etc) and after doing it a few times learnt the limits of braking.. You know the best advice? Find a straight piece of road, accelerate to 60mph or so and strongly but progressively bring in the front brake. You'll find a point where it's starting to slip, and if you learn....

The simple fact of the matter that no test will give you any clue of what a real ride is like...

Until the day an examiner takes you for a 2 hour ride, both through town, A-roads and back roads... well car park theory only goes so far...

cba to get in a huge discussion about this, it's stupid o clock in the morning and I wanted to waste time writing a post. :)

[ranathari]

I thought the hazard perception test was supposed to take the "perception" part into it, you can't really safely reproduce a sudden "situation" on a test.

That's what the theory test is for: there's a video at the end and you have to press a button every time you spot a hazard (car pulling out of t-juction, pedestrian stepping out from behind a parked car etc). Sure, it doesn't assess your ability to spot hazards while controlling the bike but it's the best bodge you're going to get that's not actively putting the testee at risk.

[Owenski]

But you've got to remember that this test is about missing an object suddenly appearing in front of you, so the 50 kph speed is not unrealistic no matter how wet it is. Don't forget it simulates you riding along in a straight line of road then bam, suddenly a car appears. Will any doubters honestly say they dont do 30 in the wet. The fact is this test is even easier than it would be in a real situation because in the test at least you know exactly where the hazard is. This test is simple and if you can't do it then its right you fail in a controlled test centre rather than out in a busy road.

Bris see my previous post, I've been following this thred since posting in it and its just going round and round. I think its clearly got a divide in the biking community. Some are convinced its a good thing others not so much, the only odd thing is everyone seems to have completely differnt reasons to why they sit on thier side of this fence.

[-Ralph-]

No John.

The application of a minimum speed limit at which the maneouvre is to be carried out is consistant.

This is a different thing from the amount from time taken to stop, which of course will be variable dependant upon the conditions.

These are two completely different factors and do not contradict each other.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to debate the difference between a dropped arm for an emergency stop and a stationary cone in the swerve test. In my opinion the both come as no surprise to the rider and given that they are not intended to test reaction time, but ability to swerve or stop the bike, it's irrelevant anyway.

The sarcasm smiley, just like all smileys are essential on a forum to let other people know the motives and emotions behind their posts. My post about saving 15 lives proves this point very well, if I didn't put a sarcasm smiley on this post then I should have done as you obviously were not sure how to interpret it.

This really is getting silly and splitting hairs, though I don't believe you are trolling, I should have stopped responding long ago, and we wouldn't now be having long drawn posts about nothing, so thanks, and I look forward to chatting with you again in another thread.

[ArtyLady]

To be honest everyone can argue all day about the test procedures, but what really tends to kill people is poor observation, judgement, etc.



Probably the most sensible angle on this topic so far - you've hit the nail on the head....

I know I'm a bit of a stuck record on the subject - but if everyone was to go straight into advanced training then the accident rate would probably be greatly reduced IMO.

[Hockeynut]

just watched the youtube vid, I take back any objections to this aspect of the test. Doesn't look like anything other then what you might do to avoid a manhole cover (if you hadn't already observed it).

[Spiderman]

Probably the most sensible angle on this topic so far - you've hit the nail on the head....

I know I'm a bit of a stuck record on the subject - but if everyone was to go straight into advanced training then the accident rate would probably be greatly reduced IMO.

You're right of course, nothing would be of more benefit to a new rider than on road experience. But i do think the point of this thread is not if thats better or worse than the swerve test, it seems we all agree on observation and road skills being more important than anything else.

However it seems some people have a problem with the swerve test even being part of the test and saying its dangerous as tho 15 people dropping their bikes is proof of that. I'd love to know just how many passed the test in the time the 15 failed.

i'd be prettty sure those same 15 would have failed for other things if they cant even perform such a simple manouvre.

JohnMcL7 seems to have a major issue with it....but for all the words he's typed i still cant see what the issue is tbh.

First it was about the surface, then the fact it followed a long turn, then the 'arbitary' minimum speed it has to be done at. I'm a little baffled tbh.

Before i saw the vid of the test i was very curiousas to how hard it may be... having now seen it i cant believe anyone would have an issue with it and i know i'd rather be on the road with somone who can perform that manouvre rather than someone who cant.

[JohnMcL7]

I can't really see how you're baffled (although I guess it's an easy way to ignore them) - it's not difficult to understand that you change your riding speed to one that is appropriate for the conditions, you list those terms as being mutually exclusive and hence causing you confusion yet the opposite is true. The road conditions should be one of the main factors in determining speed as is the condition of the road, the layout and the lighting. If anyone rode the way they are expected to in the test then I sure as heck wouldn't want to be anywhere near them on the road. I'd rather people were taught to anticipate hazards and react accordingly, not completely ignore the road conditions and keep their speed steady when they know there's a hazard ahead especially as you don't know what's beyond that hazard. All that aside, the basis of the test is flawed as it doesn't actually test a person's reaction to an unseen hazard as they know exactly where it is and the precise set of manoveurs.

Time will be the ultimate test to see whether this swerve test is the defining moment in motorbike safety some here are suggesting it is but I have my doubts. I did ask if anyone here felt that if they'd had this as part of the test they would have avoided the crash to which there hasn't been a single instance and looking over the entire thread I can't see any evidence there either despite most people here having sat the old version of the test.

As I've said already, the comments against me here makes it sound like I'm the only one to disagree with the new test which I'm sure many here wish it was the case but it's most definitely not.

John

[sinbad]

But the swerve is just an element of the off road test. There is still the whole on-road part to assess your judgment of conditions and traffic, it is a seperate exercise on almost every level. You are supposed to simply demonstrate that you can operate the motorcycle. Like a CBT but with specific targets. Is that so wrong?

[JohnMcL7]

As far as I'm aware though, the off road section replaces portions of the on road test so the emergency stop for example is only tested off the road? Is there any maneuver which now tests your reactions?

John

[sinbad]

As far as I'm aware though, the off road section replaces portions of the on road test so the emergency stop for example is only tested off the road? Is there any maneuver which now tests your reactions?

John

The emergency stop element, which is seperate from the "swerve" is also done off road, yes. But in exactly the same way, the examiner raises his/her hand.
This explains it all http://www.dsa.coionline.tv/newbiketestvideo/

The animations are a bit crappy though! :)

[Ruffy]

...
Is there any manoeuvre which now tests your reactions?
...

Personally, I don't believe you can devise a repeatable method to genuinely test the sort of reactions that I think you refer to: To panic or not to panic? The "emergency stop" has always been merely a test of hard(er) braking. The setup never induced real panic (or if it did you hadn't been prepped well enough). The "swerve" seems to me to be a similar issue. Different technique required but you can practise until successful.

Personally, I have no strong view on the new bike test vs. the old. Both seem reasonable enough typical simulations to me but neither will ever be a substitute for real road riding. I actually support the need to improve standards as there are many examples of truly shocking driving witnessed every week. However, for the new bike test, I have concerns regarding accessibility to test facilities. And what I do have a real big issue with is the fact that bikers appear to be being singled out, i.e. why is there no equivalent wholesale re-vamping of the car test? Why is there no off-road CBT equivalent for car drivers to demonstrate basic machine control? etc. etc.

I find it intriguing that only two or three of the many posts in this thread so far have mentioned (or clearly implied) this point.

(For the record, I passed my car test first time 22 years ago. Four years after that it took me 3 attempts to get through my bike test. I remain convinced to this day that the standard of my riding on my 1st bike test was streets ahead (ahem!) of my driving on my car test, despite failing. Ironically, my last "off" came after successfully completing a real world swerve around a car pulling out across my ROW - I was concentrating on remonstrating so much that I failed to observe the need to stop, in a straight line, in time.)

[TheRamJam]

You simply cant blame the DSA for your mistakes. The swerve test seems a perfectly simple manouvere provided you do the right things.

Yes I agree that the instructor/examiner has a duty to asses the conditions on the day. IMO if its monsoon conditions or frosty then it should be cancelled or be done in a speed that the road conditions allow. I mean isn't that what your taught while your driving a car or a bike, to asses any situation be it traffic, pedestrians, road signs and of course the weather. All these factors ultimately affect what speed you'd be doing. So why isn't that factored into the test??

Even at walking pace in the dry if you pull the front brake whilst turning the fronts just gonna slip. It was one of the things I had to do in the CBT was walk with the bike in a straight line and pull the brake sharply. No problems there but then i did it again whilst turning the front wheel and the bike just hit the deck.

I guess for new learners its a natural reaction to instantly grab the front brake. Its up to the instructor to teach them to use the back brake not the front in case of the swerve test or use the front after the initial swerve manouvere is completed.

If more and more people are failing then maybe the onus should be on the instructor to rethink how they teach this to new riders. Yes people naturally pick things up quicker than others so maybe its a case of practice makes perfect. But please don't just quit because you had an off, it will make you a better rider for the future. Just get back up and try, try again.

[Owenski]

I can't really see how you're baffled (although I guess it's an easy way to ignore them) - it's not difficult to understand that you change your riding speed to one that is appropriate for the conditions, you list those terms as being mutually exclusive and hence causing you confusion yet the opposite is true. The road conditions should be one of the main factors in determining speed as is the condition of the road, the layout and the lighting. If anyone rode the way they are expected to in the test then I sure as heck wouldn't want to be anywhere near them on the road. I'd rather people were taught to anticipate hazards and react accordingly, not completely ignore the road conditions and keep their speed steady when they know there's a hazard ahead especially as you don't know what's beyond that hazard. All that aside, the basis of the test is flawed as it doesn't actually test a person's reaction to an unseen hazard as they know exactly where it is and the precise set of manoveurs.

Time will be the ultimate test to see whether this swerve test is the defining moment in motorbike safety some here are suggesting it is but I have my doubts. I did ask if anyone here felt that if they'd had this as part of the test they would have avoided the crash to which there hasn't been a single instance and looking over the entire thread I can't see any evidence there either despite most people here having sat the old version of the test.

As I've said already, the comments against me here makes it sound like I'm the only one to disagree with the new test which I'm sure many here wish it was the case but it's most definitely not.

John

I know what your saying John, no-one is singling you out to have a go at, its just your the only one who is willing to stand up for your corner so it may feel a bit personal but I'm sure you know its definetly not.

I do have one concern about your comments though, the section I've changed to red. This hints that in an avoidance situation you would prefer to do an emergency stop than to continue and avoid. I believe exsactly the opposite is true, if I am aware of a hazard which can be avoided I WILL continue at a normal pace and avoid it as necessary. Id do it to cause minimum disruption to the road users behind me far too often do I see cars heavy on the brakes causing everyone behind to do the same all for a mcdonalds cup on the road or items to this effect.

If people re-acted and manouvered to a hazard then many many many more accidents would be prevented. I believe that is the benifit to this swerve test and thats the point of it. To know that the people who are getting through are at least able to swing the bike round an hazard rather than grab anchor and cause a pile up.

Something thats been hinted at perviously is about the speed involved with this swerve, I may be a day behind on the argument but has it not occured to anybody that it is a MINIMUM SPEED of 30mph?
If it was indeed impossible and sucidal to do the swerve in the wet at a speed greater than 30mph then they would have it as 30MAXIMUM. They obviously feel that this can be done much much faster in good conditions. I think you'll find its very design is so that in the wet 30mph is a safe speed and in the dry your free to go as fast as your confidence allows, retards bimbling upto it and falling off then fail AND TOO BLOODY RIGHT!
Of all those people who've come off I bet 100% have handled the situation poorly more than likely braking with the front and in which case its them who cant handle to conditions its nothing to do with the test. It in fact proves the test works preventing even more muppets becoming statistics.

[Samurai Penguin]

The spokesperson from the DSA said the new enhanced test was worth it 'if it saved one life or prevented one injury'.

Given the concerns of some instructors, and injuries to some new riders taking the test, this should be looked at as a matter of urgency by the DSA rather than the blah blah blah european legislation blah blah blah tosh they spouted on the news.

At the very least the swerve should be suspended during wet conditions pending an investigation.

[Spiderman]

I can't really see how you're baffled (although I guess it's an easy way to ignore them) - it's not difficult to understand that you change your riding speed to one that is appropriate for the conditions, you list those terms as being mutually exclusive and hence causing you confusion yet the opposite is true.
I was confused by the fact you use a thousand words where 10 would probably do. Now i'm begining to get irritated by you so i wont be posting after this. You seem to move the goalposts every time somone challenges what you have posted. But anyway....

The road conditions should be one of the main factors in determining speed as is the condition of the road, the layout and the lighting. If anyone rode the way they are expected to in the test then I sure as heck wouldn't want to be anywhere near them on the road. I'd rather people were taught to anticipate hazards and react accordingly, not completely ignore the road conditions and keep their speed steady when they know there's a hazard ahead especially as you don't know what's beyond that hazard. All that aside, the basis of the test is flawed as it doesn't actually test a person's reaction to an unseen hazard as they know exactly where it is and the precise set of manoveurs.


No-one on their test is being asked to ignore the road conditions. What they are being asked to do in this portion of the test is simply prove they can perform a swerve manouvre where its safe and clear to do so (hence this is done off road) in either wet or dry conditions. Thats all./ The rest of the test asks the rider to prove other skills. Why can you not just look at the swerve test one its own merit without bringing all those other factors into the discussion i dont know.

I asked you before where you get the idea that its an "arbritary limit" that you have to do the swerve at, yet for all your words you have yet to address this.

[Ceri JC]

Saw this on the news this morning. I think the main issue people have is that no concessions are made for bad weather and there are a number of reports of people being very badly injured after falls when doing this in bad weather. Now, put me on the test in bad rain or other poor conditions and ask me to do that where I don't think it's safe to do so and I'll say no and ride it a safe and steady pace that befits the conditions. If they then fail me, I'll see them in court. Not the examiners fault, but the DSA needs to iron this one out. It's good in principal to always be looking at ways of teaching new riders and drivers the reality of using the roads and the skills to cope with different situations, but this module is, at the moment potentially dangerous and so needs to be altered somewhat!

Odd they brought this in at all, seeing as you're not supposed to swerve from an insurance/blame POV.:roll:

A sadistic ***k of an examiner got me to emergency stop downhill, in the rain on my car test. He complained about it skidding and pretended he was going to fail me, until I explained the "why I skidded and how I recovered it" with the model answer rather than the, "well, it was raining and down a steep hill, so the ABS had to kick in to save it." that I first gave. :rolleyes:

[JohnMcL7]

I asked you before where you get the idea that its an "arbritary limit" that you have to do the swerve at, yet for all your words you have yet to address this.

The definition is self-explanatory, what do you believe is the relevence in choosing the speed given that nowhere in the UK uses that as a speed limit - based on the design of the corners it's a reasonable bet that it's based on the average riding speed of a 30mph area as many people go a bit over but then that doesn't fit in with the lack of reduction for wet conditions where in a 30 people should be under that if the circumstances dictate it. 30mph is the only limit it makes any sense for comparison as even allowing for people running that portion of the test a bit faster they're still going to be below 40. Putting aside the choice of the 50kph speed, why choose this speed as a fixed constant when other conditions are not fixed? (such as the weather)

John

[JohnMcL7]

I do have one concern about your comments though, the section I've changed to red. This hints that in an avoidance situation you would prefer to do an emergency stop than to continue and avoid. I believe exsactly the opposite is true, if I am aware of a hazard which can be avoided I WILL continue at a normal pace and avoid it as necessary. Id do it to cause minimum disruption to the road users behind me far too often do I see cars heavy on the brakes causing everyone behind to do the same all for a mcdonalds cup on the road or items to this effect.

That's not really what I meant - if I saw a hazard up ahead that I'd need to swerve fairly tightly round and the road was wet or greasy, I would certainly not emergency stop but I would back off the throttle slightly to ensure I could comfortably make the move.


Something thats been hinted at perviously is about the speed involved with this swerve, I may be a day behind on the argument but has it not occured to anybody that it is a MINIMUM SPEED of 30mph?
If it was indeed impossible and sucidal to do the swerve in the wet at a speed greater than 30mph then they would have it as 30MAXIMUM. They obviously feel that this can be done much much faster in good conditions. I think you'll find its very design is so that in the wet 30mph is a safe speed and in the dry your free to go as fast as your confidence allows, retards bimbling upto it and falling off then fail AND TOO BLOODY RIGHT!
Of all those people who've come off I bet 100% have handled the situation poorly more than likely braking with the front and in which case its them who cant handle to conditions its nothing to do with the test. It in fact proves the test works preventing even more muppets becoming statistics.

It has been mentioned several times that this is a minimum speed however I think there are a couple of issues with that. A candidate who manages the minimum speed in the dry equivalently hasn't done as well on the swerve as someone who manages to do it in the wet. You've mentioned you prefer vehicles to keep as normal as pace as possible when moving past a hazard but this test will allow candidates through who perhaps will slow down more for these hazards as there's no need for them try it at a higher speed.

I'm still not entirely sure how the emergency stop is rated in the current test as there's been contradictory responses so I'm going by the old one. With that version there was no minimum distance that a candidate had to stop within regardless of whether it was dry or wet, those taking the test in dry conditions would be expected to brake in a reduced distance compared to those taking the test in the wet. Similar to above a candidate taking the test in the dry but only stopping within a distance expected of in wet conditions would fail the test as they are expected to perform better in the dry where the conditions are better.

John

[AndyW]

Watching a video of the swerve test and commenting its easy or its hard is like watching football and complaining that there is no way that 2 million pound player could possibly have missed an open goal from 5 yards like that, and that you could have done it much better.

edited because I can't type straight at 16:47 on a Friday.

[sunshine]

after passing my test a year ago i was asked a few months later to do this to see if its possible for a newbie rider, i used there CG125 and that was on the car park with some new scratchs, where as using my VL125 intruder it was a walk in the park, maybe they should use bikes with a longer wheel base, fat back wheel, and a baby V-twin engine?

[zsv650]

tbh i think they should have just left it as it was it was fine and worked i do think it's gonna put off a few people.

[sunshine]

i want to know if you have to this with the moped test? that would be funny to watch
as someone said before you generally spend months/a year learning to drive a car and still are a crap driver, bikes you could learn in a week. this test forces people to spend longer learning and make people more confident on there bikes.

The real cause of bike accidents are ****ers in cars, making the car test harder would be a better way to stop bike accidents put car drivers on a bike for a day with them cars sat on your rear wheel all the way up the road when you follow the speed limits!

[custard]

have just got in from trying the test at the DSA centre in cambridge.

piece of ****! (admittedly i have been riding for 5 years). but having said that i cant get over the amount of space you actually have to stop in (and, according to the instructor i was doing 10kph over what was required). The swerve isnt actually as big as you would think - its only a couple of foot, more of a jink than anything else...

not sure what all the fuss is about really. i think the only way you will injure yourself is if you break mid swerve and the front folds.

if it goes some way to increasing the skills of new riders, however marginal, then its only a good thing.

i should add that it was dry. however the surface i rode on was decent tarmac that should drain very well so i cant imagine there being too many problems in the wet.