View Full Version : Potential Changes to Motorcycle Licensing
aesmith
13-01-17, 01:27 PM
Hi,
Just noticed this proposal, at the consultation stage at the moment. At first glance the proposed changes seem sensible, and actually may smooth the way for some people, unlike all previous changes which have simply made it more difficult. Have a look, and it is still open for responses if anyone wants to comment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/improving-moped-and-motorcycle-training/improving-moped-and-motorcycle-training
this pizzes me off no end. they always target bike riders but what about car drivers test getting a tier system... at the moment the only thing that keeps a car driver that has just passed their test getting a powerful car is the cost of insurance. the practical car test has not changed in ermm well sort of never.
also statistics of motorcycle deaths.. how many of these deaths were caused by other road users and not the actual bike rider.
i say get car driver learners to pass a skid pan test as well a slalom course.
i also say basic resits every 10 years till 70 then every 2 years after including bikes.
Blapper
13-01-17, 05:37 PM
This will be inflammatory: I think the one thing that would save most lives would be to either focus on filtering more during training and testing of motorcyclists and motorists, or to ban filtering altogether.
SV650rules
13-01-17, 06:01 PM
Car drivers are protected from their stupidity and carelessness by the safety cage and plethora of other safety devices in cars, on a motorbike you are on your own - but motorbike riders only normally hurt themselves, not people outside their vehicle, if only the same could be said of all the other vehicles on the road who normally involve innocent people in their crashes - has anyone seen any stats that show how many people other than the driver get hurt / killed by other vehicles besides bikes ?
aesmith
13-01-17, 06:10 PM
Without seeing stats I would guess that nearly 100% of pedestrian and most cyclist casualties would be better classed as "car casualties".
aesmith
13-01-17, 06:16 PM
This will be inflammatory: I think the one thing that would save most lives would be to either focus on filtering more during training and testing of motorcyclists and motorists, or to ban filtering altogether.
As you see their proposing covering filtering in the CBT. As for banning it, what exactly would you ban? Overtaking? Overtaking on the inside? I can see difficulty creating a legal definition. A clampdown would be easier using the existing careless or without consideration offences. It would just take one court finding that filtering was inherently inconsiderate to other users.
Red ones
13-01-17, 06:36 PM
Ban filtering
I'd be one less in this community. Working in London the commute becomes acceptable because I can filter. If filtering became illegal there would be no incentive to get cold, wet, dirty and have to get changed at each end of the journey. I'd be another cager getting in your way.
daktulos
13-01-17, 10:34 PM
This may be controversial, and I'm probably biased having taken a direct access course, but I think a lot of problems are down to allowing the learn-as-you-ride method of passing your test. I realise not everyone can afford courses, but there's so much you learn from decent instruction which would otherwise be missed.
When I used to commute by bike (15 years ago now), I was horrified by some of the learner riders out there. I've also never been happy with paid work on learner plates. At the time, the worst offenders seemed to be "Deliverance" riders - I don't actually know what they delivered, but I'm certain they were paid by the number of jobs they fit in, so you had the least qualified riders being financially pressured into pushing their limits.
Anything that the government does to improve the CBT and encourage safer driving while learning is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
Blapper
14-01-17, 08:59 AM
When I am driving my car, I am shocked by the speed differential that bikes filter at - there is no margin for error and any accident is automatically a bad one. Also, at what speed does filtering become overtaking on the inside? I've been passed when I'm in three lanes of traffic all doing about doing 70mph! So, do the cars have to be stationary, doing 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70mph? What is your view?
In my opinion, riding a motorcycle is dangerous enough even when you are riding to a high standard (IAM) let alone when the mindset is that 'it won't happen to me'.
daktulos
14-01-17, 10:38 AM
When I am driving my car, I am shocked by the speed differential that bikes filter at - there is no margin for error and any accident is automatically a bad one. Also, at what speed does filtering become overtaking on the inside? I've been passed when I'm in three lanes of traffic all doing about doing 70mph! So, do the cars have to be stationary, doing 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70mph? What is your view?
In my opinion, riding a motorcycle is dangerous enough even when you are riding to a high standard (IAM) let alone when the mindset is that 'it won't happen to me'.
You're allowed to overtake on the left in "slow moving traffic" (if my memory serves me correctly). I assume this covers filtering as well - I would personally consider 70% of the speed limit as "slow moving", but I wouldn't actually filter unless it's crawling as I'm not usually in a rush.
On my Direct Access course, filtering was covered and it the importance of relative speed drilled into us. I can't actually remember what was said now (so it failed in that respect) but I think something like "never more than 10 mph faster than the speed of traffic". They also covered things like awareness of gaps and what car drivers may do suddenly (change lane into them).
It's this sort of thing which I think gets missed out if you just do a CBT and pass your test a couple of years later without any sort of training.
SV650rules
14-01-17, 12:10 PM
It is asking for trouble filtering through moving traffic (lane splitting), even overtaking on the inside when you are in a marked lane is dangerous above very low speeds as people don't expect overtaking traffic to their left, save filtering till you are in stationary or very slow crawling traffic and you will live longer.
yamrdtez
14-01-17, 01:02 PM
i work in the motorcycle industry and all i can say is that the youth of today riding around on their 50/125 cc bikes need to be shown how to maintain their bikes. just the basic stuff, it horrifies me what condition i see a lot of bikes in
SV650rules
14-01-17, 01:55 PM
i work in the motorcycle industry and all i can say is that the youth of today riding around on their 50/125 cc bikes need to be shown how to maintain their bikes. just the basic stuff, it horrifies me what condition i see a lot of bikes in
Yoof of today aren't interested in anything that is not on a phone or tablet, I bet most of them had bike bought for them so no interest in looking after it as bank of mom and dad will get them another one (or a car).
Easy come easy go
Blapper
14-01-17, 03:14 PM
I agree it's probably not lack of education, more like lack of giving a toss.
I'm sure even the most experienced rider can always learn more and be more aware but the awareness of some drivers is atrocious. The sight of drivers texting, calling and even women putting make-up on in traffic riles me. We can all do more to ride safe but it doesn't do anything to make other road users more aware of us on the roads. When I passed my test 13 years ago I don't recall much regarding motorcyclists and cyclists and where as that could be my memory I'm sure it's more to do with no real coverage of it in the test or at the learning stage.
Blapper
14-01-17, 07:59 PM
We need +1 buttons on this forum.
As a rule of thumb I only filter in town when the other traffic is stationary, and only on dual carriageways / motorways when other traffic is doing 40mph or less. I think I'm quite conservative with this seeing what other people do but that's just what I'm comfortable with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SV650rules
16-01-17, 08:11 PM
[QUOTE=Ds77;3061288]As a rule of thumb I only filter in town when the other traffic is stationary, and only on dual carriageways / motorways when other traffic is doing 40mph or less.[d/QUOTE]
Riding between cars travelling at 40 seems pretty dangerous to me, but maybe that is why I have survived long enough to retire and still enjoy riding. I have seen many vehicles change lanes at very short notice, sometimes without a signal, and people on their phones, well they are completely unaware of their surroundings and unpredictable.
timwilky
17-01-17, 08:11 AM
Come on people, read the proposals. They make a lot of sense.
CBT candidates to know some theory, many kids have never even rode a push bike on the road, know basic traffic law/ good practice. Certainly the ped kids round here are ignorant of basics.
Requiring candidates to have suitable clothing. I took my daughter for her CBT, she wore leathers, some kids turned up in trackies etc. hardly likely to protect if you go down.
The ability to upgrade your licence by taking an instructor led course has to be a plus.
Restricting learners who do a CBT on automatic bikes to automatic, ffs you have not demonstrated during the training that you are able to manage clutch/gear control etc. An integral element to slow maneuvering, bike control.
Filtering to be part of the training. What is wrong with this?
Upgrading the qualification of trainers, no brainer.
My humble opinion. These proposals are a win for biking. I have heard bitching from young bikers that they can no longer graduate from 125s etc with multiple tests etc. now here is a proposed route called training. I think DAS probably takes about 3-4 days of training before the test. So I think this exercise is simply to get riders to the same level "On Paper". Please don't give me the old argument that restricted riders could well have hundreds of hours of real road experience. This is a potential route for probably a day back on L plates.
Fen Tiger
17-01-17, 08:16 AM
Re filtering, I don't see a need for a ban on "lane splitting" as per some of the States. This would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The existing UK traffic law is sufficient and the dangerous or careless undertaking which is seen more and more could be dealt with if there was more enforcement of the existing law. As it stands we are able to carefully get through stationary and held up traffic. Those that choose to weave along the motorway through fast flowing traffic are doing us all a disservice as well as putting themselves and others in danger.
these proposed changes are all about making money and the prime example is trainer examination periods.
one think that training cant do is take the stupid out of the equation. stupid is as stupid does.
the gov dont give a flying fek about road safety, its all about how much more money they can get out the public. if it was really about road safety then ALL licence tests would be so strict that very few would pass.. which in turn would have a knock on effect on the vehicle industry.. we cant have that now can we.
maviczap
17-01-17, 01:39 PM
these proposed changes are all about making money and the prime example is trainer examination periods.
one think that training cant do is take the stupid out of the equation. stupid is as stupid does.
the gov dont give a flying fek about road safety, its all about how much more money they can get out the public. if it was really about road safety then ALL licence tests would be so strict that very few would pass.. which in turn would have a knock on effect on the vehicle industry.. we cant have that now can we.
Agreed. All training is going this way. I did my sea survival training many years ago, then it was a certificate for life.
Rules changed, now i must redo this course every 5 years, even though ive not forgotten how to swim since the last course.
the gov dont give a flying fek about road safety, its all about how much more money they can get out the public. if it was really about road safety then ALL licence tests would be so strict that very few would pass.. which in turn would have a knock on effect on the vehicle industry.. we cant have that now can we.
This is probably true but the economic impact of deaths in the community is huge, regardless of cause. So they do actually have a vested interest in road safety - in order to get the most money out of the public, of course.
SV650rules
17-01-17, 04:44 PM
The health and safety / wrap everyone in cotton wool bandwagon is like a snowball, the further it rolls the bigger it gets - I bet soon there will be more trainers and H&S bods in this country than productive people - it just adds time and cost to everything and there is only one group who pays for all this - the end user.
Think it was J Stalin that that said "one mans death is a tragedy , the death of a million men is a statistic"
Restricting learners who do a CBT on automatic bikes to automatic, ffs you have not demonstrated during the training that you are able to manage clutch/gear control etc. An integral element to slow maneuvering, bike control..
I disagree with this. My experience is a case in point. I wanted to do my CBT on a geared bike but struggled at first to co-ordinate balance, clutch and throttle on the Honda CG supplied by the course. After several failed attempts I was taken off the CG and put on a scooter for the course which I passed easily (over 40 years driving a car). I then went out and bought a used Honda CG to learn on. 30 minutes and I had got the hang of it. I went on to ride for the full 2 years CBT term, commuting and perfecting my riding skills. At the end of the 2 years I went the DAS route, passed and got my SV.
I disagree with this. My experience is a case in point. I wanted to do my CBT on a geared bike but struggled at first to co-ordinate balance, clutch and throttle on the Honda CG supplied by the course. After several failed attempts I was taken off the CG and put on a scooter for the course which I passed easily (over 40 years driving a car). I then went out and bought a used Honda CG to learn on. 30 minutes and I had got the hang of it. I went on to ride for the full 2 years CBT term, commuting and perfecting my riding skills. At the end of the 2 years I went the DAS route, passed and got my SV.
I can see both sides to that, however it brings it almost in line with cars. Learn in an auto, test in an auto, restricted to an auto.
So while you are quite correct it wasn't hard for you to learn after the fact and by the sounds of it a valid reason, there are those around nowadays who are too lazy and idiotic to be trusted.
When I did my das I used a geared bike for the cbt, it was awful getting used to it even with a couple years driving and understanding clutch control etc. There was a young lad who had the option of also using a 125 geared bike (would have made sense as he had one at home waiting for him) but no, he asked for the 50 scooter because it was easier to pass even though he needed to know gears for his bike at home.
A less pointless route in to biking should be welcomed. Rather than the current version of sitting the same test 2 or 3 times or whatever it is which is prohibitive to a lot of people.
So while you are quite correct it wasn't hard for you to learn after the fact and by the sounds of it a valid reason, there are those around nowadays who are too lazy and idiotic to be trusted
Not sure it's quite that harsh. There are definitely those with enough nouse to be able to pick it up easily.
But ya don't know. The point of the training is to train someone. You shouldn't then gain an entitlement to a type of vehicle which you haven't been trained on. I'm sure some will be fine but the whole point of the training is to remove that uncertainty as far as is practicable.
Not sure it's quite that harsh. There are definitely those with enough nouse to be able to pick it up easily.
But ya don't know. The point of the training is to train someone. You shouldn't then gain an entitlement to a type of vehicle which you haven't been trained on. I'm sure some will be fine but the whole point of the training is to remove that uncertainty as far as is practicable.
Bit of a generalisation yes but you get my meaning.
And that's pretty much my point right there, though arguably better put 👍
if your spare parts material then no amount of training is going to stop that.
SV650rules
18-01-17, 08:24 AM
if your spare parts material then no amount of training is going to stop that.
True, Darwins Law is the one true law for all life on Earth.
if your spare parts material then no amount of training is going to stop that.
yeah but you can fail a CBT and therefore they won't let you ride legally. This is likely to at least reduce the number of incompetent riders out there.
You're right, you can't stop idiots from killing themselves. But you can stop the well-meaning but simply-can't-get-the-hang-of-riding type from taking to the roads. I think the idea is to do everything you can rather than expecting a 100% success rate and zero road deaths.
This has been discussed on other forums. I don't know that much about it to be honest.
On the one hand any improvement in training standards should be welcomed I suppose. The only question I have is what problem they are trying to address exactly? I can't help feeling that initiatives like this are often somewhat "knee-jerk" reactions.
"There is a problem, something must be done. This is something therefore we must do it."
What aspect of road casualty rates are they trying to address and how much effect do they think it will have?
Not saying it isn't a benefit, just asking (rhetorically) whether there is a specific issue identified which these changes will address. Generalisations like young riders have more accidents isn't enough, we all know inexperience is a handicap, but experience can't be taught, it's gained. Awareness might be the main aim I guess.
True, Darwins Law is the one true law for all life on Earth.
As a bit of a tangent but I was discussing this this with someone the other day, does survival of the fittest really apply now due to the advancement in medicine etc prolonging life and saving people that in theory would not survive.
Not just accidents but illness and disease etc
SV650rules
18-01-17, 12:49 PM
You can train people until you are blue in the face, but stupid will often out in the end. "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" may cover it - some people go through the motions to get the qualification but once they have it they may well revert back to stupid mode, maybe if you are lucky some of the training may stick. Put someone on a powerful (or any bike) if they do not have the basic instinct of self preservation, and are not immune to being coerced into going faster than they can handle by 'mates' then it will end in crying.
You can train people until you are blue in the face, but stupid will often out in the end. "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" may cover it - some people go through the motions to get the qualification but once they have it they may well revert back to stupid mode, maybe if you are lucky some of the training may stick. Put someone on a powerful (or any bike) if they do not have the basic instinct of self preservation, and are not immune to being coerced into going faster than they can handle by 'mates' then it will end in crying.
So you can't save the worst ones. But you might well have a high success rate of saving the more normal people - or at least reducing injury.
You seem to be advocating just giving up on the entire human race just because some of us are stupid. Training might not work on stupid people - we get it. For everyone else it's probably a very good idea.
basic road craft should be taught including the car test. for instance 'look where you want to go not where you are going' is rule number one. all to often i see people looking 10-20ft in front of them when in reality they should be looking as far up the road as possible, a lot of people dont realise that if something occurs in your peripheral vision then your brain will detect it so that takes care of the near stuff, with looking as far as you can further up the road you have more time to react in a controlled manner to danger. things like this are not taught at basic level but its things like this that are as far as i'm concerned the number one basic skill drivers need.
at the moment its all about teaching people to control a vehicle and not what it should be and that is driving the vehicle. once the intimal control of a vehicle has been taught then it should be about teaching them 'road craft'.
how about a 3 strikes and you resit your test law. if your found to be the cause of an accident then on the third time you would be required to do a resit test.
resit tests every 10 years after passing.
there are faaaaarrrrr too many people on the road that scraped through their driving test and a lot of these drivers have had many tries before hand. should these people really be in control of a potential murder weapon.....
statistics are going up but so are the amount of people taking to the road. the death/injury statistics dont include this as the gov want 'shock' numbers so they can do what they want. 1700 deaths sounds a lot more than .01% of licensed riders.
KSI figures in London are a lot higher for motorcyclists than for cyclists, but you don't hear anything about it at all. The papers never report it. There was apparently a TFL campaign in 2015 but it didn't seem to get any coverage.
Knowledge is nothing without wisdom,that on a motorcycle normal comes with experience.
SV650rules
18-01-17, 03:03 PM
The Aussies have a handle on it, you are not allowed to display an 'L' plate on a vehicle unless a learner is driving, many use magnetic plates so they can fit and take them off quickly - this means that people give more leeway for an' L' plate vehicle because they know a learner is driving. For 12 months after you pass you test you HAVE to show a 'P' plate front and rear, and if you are involved in any moving traffic violation you have to retake the test, also alcohol in blood level is halved for a P plater (just checked it is actually zero for a P plater).
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/geared/your_licence/getting_a_licence/on_your_bike.html
...and if you are involved in any moving traffic violation you have to retake the test...
Seems a bit late by that point.
Surely any means that would help to avoid the accident in the first place would be preferable?
edit: you said violation not accident - ignore me. Wouldn't work round here - you'd have to actually catch ppl. No-one gives 2 flips as long as there's no accident, save for speeding & red lights.
KSI figures in London are a lot higher for motorcyclists than for cyclists, but you don't hear anything about it at all. The papers never report it. There was apparently a TFL campaign in 2015 but it didn't seem to get any coverage.
thats londrome. with a population of 3.2 million more the the whole of Scotland in such a tiny geographical area then of course the statistics are going to be high.
KSI figures for motorcyclists are actually higher than cyclists nationally as well. In fact we're the road users with the most deaths and hence the greatest risk of dying on the road.
Red ones
18-01-17, 05:44 PM
Please don't blame Darwin. He didn't say about survival of the fittest, he referred to the survival of those best adapted to change
SV650rules
18-01-17, 06:46 PM
Please don't blame Darwin. He didn't say about survival of the fittest, he referred to the survival of those best adapted to change
His work 'On the origin of Species' was called 'survival of the fittest' by others as an overall catchy name (probably by Saatchi & Saatchi or some other Advertising agency of the time who wanted to jazz it up a bit and sell more books).
I'm just glad we humans are descended from an animal with opposable thumbs, otherwise riding a motorbike would be out of the question (or a lot different anyway).
Blapper
20-01-17, 01:02 PM
I think that we are talking about whose responsibility it is to ensure a rider or driver is safe to be on the road and putting in place adequate tests to ensure that cover what they learned.
Funny how one can learn in a manual car then be allowed to drive and auto though when one could forget what car one is driving and straight-leg the brake with the left foot thinking it was the clutch or even putting a second foot on the brake pedal as one rolls to a standstill which results in and unexpected instant stop (I have done that one).
I thought about getting an NC750 once and looked at the twist-and-go version. Low speed manoeuvring would be pretty challenging for a while, but it is learnable eventually I suppose. Interesting that I would not have to take a test to swap to it.
I had a BMW R1150RT which had linked front and rear brakes on the back brake pedal and front only on the handlebar lever. It made it a nightmare to U-turn as I couldn't drag the rear brake only to steady it. No test needed to ride it and the salesmen sold it as a clever innovation (of course).
Blapper
20-01-17, 01:04 PM
I'm just glad we humans are descended from an animal with opposable thumbs, otherwise riding a motorbike would be out of the question (or a lot different anyway).
LOL! Nah, they would just fit 'ape hangers' as standard!
SV650rules
21-01-17, 09:52 AM
I have worked at companies where the answer to everything is training and more training (may have been that training costs are tax deductable LOL).
From experience, after training the lazy ones were still lazy, the careless ones were still careless, the 'I know everything. why do I need training' ones still thought the same - a few people who really wanted to learn did benefit from training - but in 80% of the cases the training did little good - but if there was an accident the company could turn round and say to insurance 'they have all had training' - get out of jail card, covering their arzes call it what you will.
I have worked at companies where the answer to everything is training and more training (may have been that training costs are tax deductable LOL).
From experience, after training the lazy ones were still lazy, the careless ones were still careless, the 'I know everything. why do I need training' ones still thought the same - a few people who really wanted to learn did benefit from training - but in 80% of the cases the training did little good - but if there was an accident the company could turn round and say to insurance 'they have all had training' - get out of jail card, covering their arzes call it what you will.
Bit harsh. If as a company you provide training and then all your employees immediately forget or ignore it, it's hardly your fault is it? Surely the fault lies with the employees?
An old sage told me many years ago that everything with humans is made up of thirds i.e, 1/3 lead, 1/3 follow and 1/3 are there just to make the numbers up,as with the training.1/3 will learn and apply, 1/3 will learn and not apply and a third don't give a monkeys.If you take any 1/3 away these others re-arrange back into thirds.Wise old man was Mr Hackett !!
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.