New Bike Test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey

[quote author=Mark_Able link=1250235337/0#5 date=1250281830][quote author=gedmib link=1250235337/0#4 date=1250281789]bit of a plug there mark lol

---

You know I'm right though mate... ;)[/quote]

Only have your word for that!! Plus no pass % given so could have been really low ......but stayed the same for this year ;)

The swerve test is a piece of pi55 so can agree with you there - good instruction along with confidence as only the person on the bike will fail it the bike will do as its told [smiley=thumbsup.gif][/quote]

Stu, I refuse to state pass rates as the vast majority of training firms over rate theirs. You can think what you want, but there are plenty of bikers on here that know otherwise... :-X

Does anyone know what the motorcycle test is like in the rest of Europe? less or more challenging does it make them better riders than us? Do they have the same accidents rates as us.

from what ive seen in magazines and other articles we have the hardest riding test in europe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

The swerve exercise that everyone dislikes is very relevant. If you can't handle swerving between some cones at 32mph, how do you expect to avoid a car that had emerged from a side road, when you could be travelling a lot quicker? Demonstrating on a test area is far safer than practicing for real... ::)

---

The swerve manouvere is very relevant as I had to perform a real avoidance swerve a few weeks back at a higher speed and with no warning in advance! Also it could just as well be a dog running into the road,a sudden nasty pothole down a country lane at night or a couple of low flying birds heading for you.I encountered all of these !Safe riding! ;)

-

as mark will probably be able too verify i did me test the week before it changed and as i was pulling back into the test centre at chippinham i had a car pull out on me from behind a parked truck and had to carryout the "swerve", so it is a very relivent part of the new test...."SAFE RIDING"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

Incidentally, the swerve cone is set 0.3m off to one side, not 3m... ;)

---

You're thinking of a different pair of cones. Comparing the outermost cone leaving the speed gate with the outermost cone of the swerve, the offset is 3m. Here's the official diagram. I guess you wouldn't actually have to move the bike sideways quite that far because you could be a bit to the right of centre coming out of the speed gate and a bit closer to the left cone of the swerve, but I'd guess you'd still have to deviate more than 2m off the straight path to be reasonably sure of not clipping a cone.

Anyway, I wasn't commenting on the relevance or difficulty of the swerve itself, but rather the artificial lead-up to it: the hard acceleration at the end of the bend and the requirement to pass through a narrow gap at high speed, neither of which seem realistic or relevant to the swerve, but do contribute to the feeling of doing something dangerous before even beginning the swerve itself. I suspect the length constraint is set by the economic reasons that the DSA didn't want to make the test area any larger than absolutely necessary, and the width by the manufacturer of the speed detector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

We use Yamaha YBR125's and Suzuki RV125 Van Van's (which have to be about to blow up in second gear to achieve the speed).

---

The Transport Committee would like to know if you think this is "safe and appropriate".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ro

[quote author=Mark_Able link=1250235337/0#8 date=1250452429]Incidentally, the swerve cone is set 0.3m off to one side, not 3m... ;)

---

You're thinking of a different pair of cones. Comparing the outermost cone leaving the speed gate with the outermost cone of the swerve, the offset is 3m. Here's the official diagram. I guess you wouldn't actually have to move the bike sideways quite that far because you could be a bit to the right of centre coming out of the speed gate and a bit closer to the left cone of the swerve, but I'd guess you'd still have to deviate more than 2m off the straight path to be reasonably sure of not clipping a cone.

Anyway, I wasn't commenting on the relevance or difficulty of the swerve itself, but rather the artificial lead-up to it: the hard acceleration at the end of the bend and the requirement to pass through a narrow gap at high speed, neither of which seem realistic or relevant to the swerve, but do contribute to the feeling of doing something dangerous before even beginning the swerve itself. I suspect the length constraint is set by the economic reasons that the DSA didn't want to make the test area any larger than absolutely necessary, and the width by the manufacturer of the speed detector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

We use Yamaha YBR125's and Suzuki RV125 Van Van's (which have to be about to blow up in second gear to achieve the speed).

---

The Transport Committee would like to know if you think this is "safe and appropriate".[/quote]

Ro, I take your comments on board, and yes it certainly is a more difficult proposition on a 125 compared with the 500. But what I'm saying is, if you don't agree with the exercise, what could they do to test someones ability to take evasive action? It is a very difficult thing to test, but very relevant.

Also, you have to understand, the DSA are purposely making the test more difficult so that a higher standard has to be achieved. Lets face it, to pass the module 1 test, you have to be a good rider. Isn't that what they are trying to achieve?

Incidentally, we've stopped using the Van Van's for the test! It was going to cost a lot of money eventually. The YBR's will pull about 38mph in second gear at the redline, so that's what we encourage our pupils to do. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

[quote author=ro link=1250235337/15#16 date=1250510898]
... I wasn't commenting on the relevance or difficulty of the swerve itself, but rather the artificial lead-up to it: the hard acceleration at the end of the bend and the requirement to pass through a narrow gap at high speed, neither of which seem realistic or relevant to the swerve, but do contribute to the feeling of doing something dangerous before even beginning the swerve itself. I suspect the length constraint is set by the economic reasons that the DSA didn't want to make the test area any larger than absolutely necessary, and the width by the manufacturer of the speed detector.

[quote author=Mark_Able link=1250235337/0#8 date=1250452429]We use Yamaha YBR125's and Suzuki RV125 Van Van's (which have to be about to blow up in second gear to achieve the speed).

---

The Transport Committee would like to know if you think this is "safe and appropriate".[/quote]

Ro, I take your comments on board, and yes it certainly is a more difficult proposition on a 125 compared with the 500.[/quote]
You mentioned one of your students not reaching the speed on a 500, and the same had also happened to an earlier candidate on a 500 the day I did my test, so it seems it can be a problem whatever the capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

But what I'm saying is, if you don't agree with the exercise, what could they do to test someones ability to take evasive action? It is a very difficult thing to test, but very relevant.

---

Well, a good start would be to make the speed gate wider and give an extra 20m straight run, so getting up to speed isn't such an ordeal - then there'd be time to get in to 3rd gear, which would be more realistic than trying to do the swerve screaming along in 2nd.

It would be a better test all round if the "obstacle" was unpredictable. That would avoid the unnatural requirement to accelerate towards an obvious hazard and provide a more realistic assessment of a useful skill. The examiner could signal when to swerve from one lane to another, or which of a series of cones to swerve between, much as they already do for the emergency stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

Also, you have to understand, the DSA are purposely making the test more difficult so that a higher standard has to be achieved. Lets face it, to pass the module 1 test, you have to be a good rider. Isn't that what they are trying to achieve?

---

You seem to be agreeing that to be sure of passing on a 125, you have to be willing to redline the bike in 2nd gear. Is that a sign of a good rider? I think not: it's a sign of someone who has learned a technique to pass this test.

As for the DSA's motives: perhaps there are a few people there with our best interests at heart, but I suspect the main incentive was not primarily to improve standards, but to comply with Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, in particular, Annex II B. 6.2.4 which requires that the harmonised test includes:

Quote:

---

6.2.4. At least two manoeuvres to be executed at higher speed, of which one manoeuvre in second or third gear, at least 30 km/h and one manoeuvre avoiding an obstacle at a minimum speed of 50 km/h; this should allow competence to be assessed in the position on the motorcycle, vision direction, balance, steering technique and technique of changing gears;

---