New Bike Test

Spoke a mate yesterday who is only now taking his test. He rang me to say that he had failed module 1, this is the off road section which includes the swerve test, this was his first attempt & what he sadi was his back wheel clipped a bollard so he was failed on that.

While speaking to others at the test centre failing 1st time is not uncommon as others at the test centre where taking their 4th & 5th attempts.

Is this the case? talk is that they whoever they are are trying to have the swerve test stopped.

More info here
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...ewed/7691.html


Get writing and voice your opinion

I’m sure they are trying to get bikes off the road

I heard quite a few people have come off performing the 'swerve' test and broken bones..surely it can't be such a good idea.

I am SOOOOOO pleased that I did mine before all these new rules came in - sounds like maybe someone is trying to make it harder for the biker to get on the road in the first place??
:-/

There's no doubt the pass rate has dropped since they brought in the two module test. However, speaking personally, we've not had a problem. Our pass rate is pretty much the same as it was for last year. The good thing about the test is you have to be a good rider to pass. You have to be able to handle your machine. As it was, there were still riders who could pass the old style test who were not all that competent. There is no way you can fluke the new test.

The horror stories of riders falling off whilst performing the swerve test, would be enough to put anyone off. But to be honest, it's mainly (not always) down to bad teaching. We had a meeting with the examiners at Bristol test centre recently, basically to have a discussion and sort out where instructors were going wrong. In that meeting I got into a heated discussion with an instructor who insisted that it was not possible to perform the swerve exercise without braking whilst swerving! Not only did I demonstrate that it was possible, but I also demonstrated that they could stop a lot quicker if necessary. This was an instructor who did not understand or teach 'counter steering'. This is the only method available for taking evasive action (see 'counter steering' thread).

In short, if anyone is considering taking the new bike test, don't be put off. Just make sure you're taught correctly... ;)

bit of a plug there mark lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gedmib

bit of a plug there mark lol

---

You know I'm right though mate... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark_Able

[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]

I tried the module 1 test recently and failed on the swerve exercise for not reaching the required speed. Should I conclude that I had poor instruction, or that I lack confidence?

I had plenty of practice with Abbey Rider Training (though admittedly they didn't have the kit to check speed accurately) and I'm reasonably confident in most normal situations, but this test is hardly a normal situation. You have to go at least 19mph round a 210-degree bend of radius 19m, then immediately accelerate hard coming out of the bend while straightening up and aiming for a 1.5m gap 20m away. You have to keep accelerating hard for another 10m to be doing at least 32mph through the next 1.5m gap, where the speed detector is located. You then have 10m in which to swerve through a 2.7m gap 3m off to the side and 30m to get back on course and come to a stop with your front wheel inside a 1x1.5m box.

Maybe you can train someone specifically to pass this artificial exercise happily before they have acquired any feel for defensive riding, but even with my limited experience, I would certainly not choose to accelerate hard towards such a narrow gap and then keep going flat out through it towards another one when there was a potential source of hazard ahead. It felt pretty unsafe doing what was required in the dry; I imagine that if my re-test happens on a wet day, I'll will have even less confidence.

I'm all for improving riding (and driving) skills, but there must surely be a better way than this.

As I said, it's often, but not always, down to bad teaching methods. I accept that nerves will always play a part. The pupils of ours who do cock up, could normally be attributed to nerves. The swerve test is the only exercise that anyone complains about, yet we've had only two fail for it since it came in at the end of april. One clipped a cone (cos he rode with his feet pointing out!), and one for not achieving the speed (on a 500). Everyone on a 125 has passed without issue. 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). Both bikes are fairly nimble, but are not sports bikes by any stretch of the imagination. But if you use the right techniques, any bike can be hustled through the manoeuvres.

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

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... ::)

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;

---

Not attaining the speed on the 500 was not a problem with the bike, more like a confidence problem. Maybe they weren't ready, who knows? They seemed confident during training, and had carried out the manoeuvre without any problems.

An unpredictable swerve would definately get people's backs up. I guarantee there would be more candidates binning it.

Ro, you seem to be taking offence at anything I say, but the truth of it is (and many instructors agree), it is a better test than the old one. To have to be a better rider to pass, can not be a bad thing. It seems you want an easier test to accomodate you and your bike. But it is perfectly achievable on your machine. Maybe spend a bit more time getting your confidence before attempting it again?

Don't get me wrong about the DSA. I feel their 'hidden agenda' is to remove bikes from the road via legislation. But when you read the accident statistics, you can see why. Bikers make up less than 1% of road users but account for 19% of deaths and serious injuries. Apart from the trauma to all those families effected, the cost to the NHS, Police, Fire Service, Air Ambulance, etc, is astronomical. When you look closer at the circumstances of those accidents, and you realise that 2/3 of bike accidents involve other road users, and 2/3 of those accidents come down to a driver pulling out in front of us, you can see why they feel it necessary to legislate against us. On the other side of the coin, 1/3 of bike accidents involve no one else, and typically occur in a bend at speed. So any minister with a brain would deduce that it was necessary to a) test a bikers ability to take evasive action, and b)test a bikers ability to stop in an emergency from a high speed, and c) test a bikers ability to take a bend at speed.

I'm not against anything that produces better riders, but I am against any legislation that prevents a reasonable attempt at attaining a full licence. I don't see this new test as unreasonable, and neither do many in the industry. However, planned future changes to the test could be described as unreasonable, and those changes I will fight.

I'm sorry if your opinion differs from mine, but as I stated, if trained correctly, and with a good level of confidence, I don't see why you or anyone else should feel the test is beyond their capabilities.

Best of luck next time... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Mark, if i remember correctly i was one of the first people you had to take the new module 1 and passed first time even though i had high sided that morning, even though we got lucky and had a practice before hand. I then did my module 2 and failed with able which i admit wasn't able's fault but my own. then i went and did my module 2 with my dad on my own bike and passed.
The module 1 isn't as hard as people say it is, i must admit that the swerve test is quite daunting when you hear about it, but you don't need to brake to do it just the balls to counter steer one way then the other quickly, in fact it was good fun getting 54 kmph on the swerve and 56 on the controlled stop in second gear which is something i wouldn't do on the road.

All in all the new test is and isn't a good thing it depends how you look at it, but some schools will teach you to ride to pass, it's not till your riding with friends/family or by yourself that you become the better rider by reading the road correctly

Rob

Cheers Rob. I think the test has had so much bad press that it's putting people off. All I've been trying to say is that it's no where near as bad as it's been made out to be. If the press continue to slate the test, we will be seeing bike shops and training firms going out of business this winter. We are seeing about a third of the number of people taking their test this year compared to last. It's the last thing we all need when we're in a recession. MCN has got a lot to answer for. It always blows everything out of proportion by sensationalising every story.

It's good to hear someone who has done the test, giving some support... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Nice bike by the way... ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ro

I tried the module 1 test recently and failed on the swerve exercise for not reaching the required speed. Should I conclude that I had poor instruction, or that I lack confidence?

I had plenty of practice with Abbey Rider Training (though admittedly they didn't have the kit to check speed accurately) and I'm reasonably confident in most normal situations, but this test is hardly a normal situation. You have to go at least 19mph round a 210-degree bend of radius 19m, then immediately accelerate hard coming out of the bend while straightening up and aiming for a 1.5m gap 20m away. You have to keep accelerating hard for another 10m to be doing at least 32mph through the next 1.5m gap, where the speed detector is located. You then have 10m in which to swerve through a 2.7m gap 3m off to the side and 30m to get back on course and come to a stop with your front wheel inside a 1x1.5m box.

Maybe you can train someone specifically to pass this artificial exercise happily before they have acquired any feel for defensive riding, but even with my limited experience, I would certainly not choose to accelerate hard towards such a narrow gap and then keep going flat out through it towards another one when there was a potential source of hazard ahead. It felt pretty unsafe doing what was required in the dry; I imagine that if my re-test happens on a wet day, I'll will have even less confidence.

I'm all for improving riding (and driving) skills, but there must surely be a better way than this.

---

Dont lose heart, my friend just paased the test on the second attempt. But he did tell me that 4 people went up with him and only he passed. I dont think the success rate is the same. Riding schools are alittle like the skippers I go out with sea fishing, they will tell you things are better than they are. Nerves will always play a part, and if not, sometimes abit of bad luck. You will get there. I failed my test on the u-turn, even though, I could do them all day long. Nerves on the day I guess. Just a little tap on the ground for a split second, most people then failed on the u-turn. But this is part of the test. The new test is not impossible or that hard, but the building up of speed on the turning was also pointed out by my friend. I would say the worse thing is that the test is done in 2 parts, more money! Good luck next time, you sound confident and should soon enjoy the joys of the open roads.

Keep your chin up Ro and you'll get there mate [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Thanks for the kind words. After some interminable waiting, I pleased to say that have now I passed module 1 and 2, hurrah!

In many ways, I agree the new test being harder than before is a good thing, but having learned how to pass it, I still do not think that module 1 is a good test.

Plenty of people give Module 1 the thumbs down...but I've yet to see anyone else come up with anything better?


I think the new test system is a step in the right direction...however I think they really need to think about doing away with 125's for the test and making the bike size a minimium of 250cc. (And also cancel the test if the weather makes it dangerous)

Way I see it is a CBT should be upto 125cc, and then the proper test for above 125cc!


How someone didn't get upto speed on a 500cc I'll never know!

Anyway ro...now you can get bigger bike that hopefully you'll be more comfortable on (or at least look it!) ;D

Congratulations ro :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducatista

Congratulations ro :)

---

X 2

8-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by furry-TLR

Plenty of people give Module 1 the thumbs down...but I've yet to see anyone else come up with anything better?


I think the new test system is a step in the right direction...however I think they really need to think about doing away with 125's for the test and making the bike size a minimium of 250cc. (And also cancel the test if the weather makes it dangerous)

Way I see it is a CBT should be upto 125cc, and then the proper test for above 125cc!


How someone didn't get upto speed on a 500cc I'll never know!

Anyway ro...now you can get bigger bike that hopefully you'll be more comfortable on (or at least look it!) ;D

---

Good comments JP. Incidentally, we have had tests terminated when the weather turned really bad. Expect to see early tests cancelled in the winter, when the test area hasn't thawed from an over night frost.

Well done Ro, I knew you'd get there. Happy biking... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Congrats Ro. Now the real learning begins.

kj

well done ro maybe see you round sometime

Well done "Ro"on getting your full licence! way to go! [smiley=thumbsup.gif]