U turns...swerve tests...for or against

Typical - they introduce a swerve test for bikers and neglect to train car drivers to look out of their windows. That's progress!

Originally Posted by SVeeedy Gonzales

Typical - they introduce a swerve test for bikers and neglect to train car drivers to look out of their windows. That's progress!

fair point!

Originally Posted by hovis

how can it be illegal to swerve ? "

oh look theres a car pulling out in front of me, i better not swerve to avoid it, as that would be illegal , no....... straight into the side of the car, thats what i'll do ?"

If you swerve to avoid animals etc and you move into the path of any other vehicle then you are at fault and can be charged for dangerous driving.

Got this from the cops some time ago.

Originally Posted by stuartyboy

If you swerve to avoid animals etc and you move into the path of any other vehicle then you are at fault and can be charged for dangerous driving.

Got this from the cops some time ago.

Unless it's a dog apparently, or so I was told some time ago.

Originally Posted by phil24_7

Unless it's a dog apparently, or so I was told some time ago.

Hmm given that if you hit a dog it's the dog owner that is liable for the damage (or so I am told) I'm suprised at the above.

I believe, but it could be an urban myth, that PSV (bus) drivers aren't required to take any avoiding action in an incident where someone pulls out in front of them. They just take their feet of the pedals and hit whatever it is. This avoids them be liable for any injuries to their passengers (who are members of the public) that might be caused by harsh braking or swerving.

I haven't heard the full story about this new test. But I don't much like the sound of it, mainly from the perspective of restricting access to bikes.

I also don't get what brake and swerve is about on a bike. That sounds damn difficult if not damn dangerous - or are ABS equipped machines going to be used \ become compulsary on vehicles sold?

I think an improved CBT is a good idea because letting people loose on two wheels unaccompanied with minimal road sense is insane.

I think the swerve test was devised with the right intention. It may be that we should teach car drivers to look out of their windows - but that doesn't stop riders being more prepared and better equipped to deal with incidents as they arrise.

Someone in the government has been playing too much Tourist Trophy!!

Personally, since I'm pretty new to riding, I think that with a little practice I could pass the new bike test.

I think the avoidance thing (as is shown on the above image at number 6 - ride towards a cone & tuck in last second) can only be good, because it's teaching avoidance THEN braking.

The liability for swerving is an offshoot of causing another vehicle to change direction or speed (formerly called "dangerous driving") and should only count if you involve a 3rd party to the events. So, a cat runs in front of the bike, you swerve and as a result, the guy on the other side of the road runs into you. Your fault. On the other hand, if you swerve and the guy behind you runs you over, he's liable for not leaving sufficient space.

The U-turn is redundant IMO. Instead, just get students to ride around mini-roundabouts (I did on an industrial estate during DAS). No-one bothers with doing a U-turn so strictly after test.

[quote=stuartyboy;U turn...I'm for. You wouldn't put your foot down on a mini roundabout and it shows low speed control.[/quote]
Well have a mini roundabout at the test centre then.

If you're doing a U turn and put a foot down do you think "that was serious" or do you barely notice? Of course it shows low speed control, but a serious fault, an instant fail? Cobblers.*








* - Conflict of interest declaration, Mrs Tiger failed her test on the U turn this week

Originally Posted by Tiger 55

If you're doing a U turn and put a foot down do you think "that was serious" or do you barely notice? Of course it shows low speed control, but a serious fault, an instant fail? Cobblers.*

Personally, I think it's good to have load speed control and I do actually do U-turns with reasonable regularity IRL, rather than having never used it since the test. I do agree though, that if there's any doubt in my mind as to if I'm going to make it round (usually when U-turning in too tight a space and the front wheel nearly clips a kerb) I tend to put a foot down. Not very often I do and it doesn't look good, but if it comes down to that or drop the bike I know which I'd go with.

As to should it be an instant fail? No way. Probably the most disproportianately weighted penalty on the current test IMO. I think a slow speed slalom between cones would be both more useful to most riders and a fairer test.

Perhaps if we're taking 'real life' situations, bad driving\riding and innapropriate practise into account we should require DAS testee's to wheelie sufficently to flick the bars from lock to lock before landing it again. This would ensure that those people doing their test and jumping straight on sports 600s could 'cope' with suddenly gassing it in 1st or misclutching it in 2nd.