New motorbike test too dangerous?

[User]

 

[yello]

Difficult for me to be objective here. As a biker of some years, I personally would have no difficulty in performing the manoeuvre but I can see that it might be a little frightening or unnerving for a learner. I think there is some real-world relevance to it, but one could build a case for any number of such tests on that basis.

So on balance I'm not sure that it should be in the test, for the following reason; having passed the test does not mean it's the end of your training. You still carrying on learning (as does a car driver) as you accumulate the miles and become more experienced. To my mind, the test is about basic road skills, awareness and safety. As long as a rider shows those then all the instructor is doing is saying to the rider that they can ride on the road legally - and continue their training. Sadly, some newly licensed riders/drivers think that they have finished their training too and think they know it all.

 

[marinyork]

As an outsider it sounds like the DSA doing a repeat of the hazard perception test.

 

[very-near]

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

Is this the kind of manoeuvre that bikers will need on the road to avoid potential collisions?

Is it reasonable to expect someone to be able to complete the manoeuvre on the test?

Are people putting in for the test without adequate training?

Are the conditions for the manoeuvre the problem (not enough space to get up to speed)?


And please, regular parties, don't misinterpret this or turn it into an argument.

Yes, it could save their life, but the standard of training has to be high to make the maneuver safely.

I was following a car in 2002 between the M50 and Newent. Single carriageway road, Dry conditions, solid white line down the centre of the road behind a solitary car at 40mph (in a 50mph) about 3 or 4 car lengths behind it. I was straddling the cars wheel tracks, when from the centre of the cars rear end appeared a lump of concrete stationary on the road the size of a large grapefruit which had been dug out of the verge by a lorry. The car straddled it and didn't apply brake lights, I had about 1 second to respond and target fixation took over which meant I ran over it with my front wheel. It deflated the tyre instantly which made the bars feel like I had a donkey hanging off each one. Fortunatley the wheels are so wide, the rims are very stable in a straight line and I rolled to a halt.

The things I learned from this and other close calls over 25+ years of road riding

1) You can train yourself to avoid target fixation
2) You can learn to countersteer to push the bike around an object in the road without loading up the front end with braking (and practice it regularly to keep it fresh)
3) Don't ever straddle a cars tyre tracks. They won't brake for an obstacle if they can straddle it which gives you next to no warning of it being there.

If you try braking and turning in the wet, the front will tuck in most road conditions given the general level of contamination, tyre temperature/ compound etc etc.

The test IMO can be done, but provided the braking is done before tipping into the corner, and afterwards with no additional loading when the tyres are on their edges mid corner, and this would have to be successfully conveyed to the rider prior to the test. There are many riders who have been on the road for 20+ years who would be caught out by this test.

In addition to this, the idiotic and pedantic approach of a direct conversion to 31.5mph from 50kph means also that the test has to be done on private land - pushing up the cost of the test and training.

 

[Tony]

Why was the instructor teaching in metric? How to totally confuse a learner and make the manoeuvre even more difficult.

 

[summerdays]

The bit I saw in the news this morning seemed to imply that it became a lot riskier in the wet. Perhaps it shouldn't be tested if it is wet - yes I know they may have to do it for real in the wet eventually but is it an acceptable level of risk to practise it in the wet when you aren't an experienced motorcyclist. (This is speaking as a non motorcyclist so I can't really fully appreciate the level of risk vs the risk of not learning it).

 

[asterix]

Yes, it could save their life, but the standard of training has to be high to make the maneuver safely.

I was following a car in 2002 between the M50 and Newent. Single carriageway road, Dry conditions, solid white line down the centre of the road behind a solitary car at 40mph (in a 50mph) about 3 or 4 car lengths behind it. I was straddling the cars wheel tracks, when from the centre of the cars rear end appeared a lump of concrete stationary on the road the size of a large grapefruit which had been dug out of the verge by a lorry. The car straddled it and didn't apply brake lights, I had about 1 second to respond and target fixation took over which meant I ran over it with my front wheel. It deflated the tyre instantly which made the bars feel like I had a donkey hanging off each one. Fortunatley the wheels are so wide, the rims are very stable in a straight line and I rolled to a halt.

The things I learned from this and other close calls over 25+ years of road riding

1) You can train yourself to avoid target fixation
2) You can learn to countersteer to push the bike around an object in the road without loading up the front end with braking (and practice it regularly to keep it fresh)
3) Don't ever straddle a cars tyre tracks. They won't brake for an obstacle if they can straddle it which gives you next to no warning of it being there.

Also sounds as if your following distance was too short? I'd agree about not straddling the two tracks, I like to be able to see as much as possible of the road ahead of a car I am following.

WRT the test, it makes it sound as if the examiner expects the biker to ride at the speed limit regardless of conditions whereas the correct procedure would be to travel at a lower speed if necessary.

On French motorways speed limits are lower in wet conditions e.g. 110km/h instead of 130km/h.

 

[Crackle]

So what would be the equivalent car test. Braking and turning around a tractor coming out of a gate?

On the face of it it seems sensible but in fact you seem to be asking someone to take a risk with no kind of safety back up. Get it wrong and you're off, ouch.

You're also asking them to do two things at once, reach and maintain the speed and swerve. That's not real, it's false and you're being tested on maintaining the speed through the obstacle; I mean that's crazy.

 

[very-near]

Also sounds as if your following distance was too short? I'd agree about not straddling the two tracks, I like to be able to see as much as possible of the road ahead of a car I am following.

WRT the test, it makes it sound as if the examiner expects the biker to ride at the speed limit regardless of conditions whereas the correct procedure would be to travel at a lower speed if necessary.

On French motorways speed limits are lower in wet conditions e.g. 110km/h instead of 130km/h.

40mph = 40ft per second, so I had maybe 1 1/2 seconds tops to respond from point of vision. If the car had responded to the lump, I'd have done as well, but they didn't even lift off the gas so I had no warning of it until it was in my vision. It cost me £250 to replace the wheel and tyre - hard lesson to learn, but no injury and I never do it now given my experience.

If you ride in either tyre track, then there is a risk that they could stand a nail up for you to run over, but this is far preferable than hitting a lump of concrete in the road. It was a narrow road with a solid white line so I'm not going to ride on that for fear of hitting something coming the other way, and I'm not going to ride in the gutter as it is never a good place to ride.

The only way I could have avoided it would have been if I'd have sat a minimum of 10 + car lengths behind the car, and that is provided that target fixation could also be avoided.

It was in reality a freak accident.

 

[byegad]

Sorry to be pedantic but 40mph is 58.667 fps. This is quite a lot faster!

 

[very-near]

Sorry to be pedantic but 40mph is 58.667 fps. This is quite a lot faster!

So the old 'feet = thinking time x mph' is actually nearer 2/3rd of a second than a full second then. The chart on the highway code is a bit off then.