[Closed] motorbike swerve test

Was there a swerve? it looks like they're just riding round some cones. I think you're right. If that's the test then anyone who can't do that without falling off shouldn't be riding a motorbike.

I think the point being is that they cannot make allowances for bad weather. The move would be easy to make in the dry, but if it was teeming down it would be another matter. And of course different road surfaces handle differently.

I did my DAS just before this came in but we did have a go on the new pad at the test centre as the instructors were getting used to the layout. I did fine on that, seemed much tighter than in that vid though and might be a bit dodgy in the wet. The other factor is that a lot of these testing areas will be fresh tarmac that might be quite slippery at first. On the old-style test things like an acceptable distance for the emergency stop were down to the discretion of the examiner - so in the wet, or on a poor surface he'd have some leeway. The new Euro-style test is all fixed speeds and distances.

I heard the interview with someone on R4 this morning - he made the good point that teaching people to swerve as an instictive thing isn't a great idea. A swerve could take you into oncoming traffic or into the hazard itself - usually you'd be better off doing an emergency stop to get as much speed off as possible rather than swerving as a first move.

If they can't pull that off at 30 in the wet I suggest we stop all motorcycle use in wet weather effective immediately, as that simply makes them lethal in any situation requiring hazard avoidance. Stopping is nice but not always possible.

Put it the other way round, if we said you can't use a bike in the wet how much of an uproar would there be with people pointing out how easy such a move is?

That is pathetic. If they cannot perform that in the pissing rain at 30mph and stay on they should NOT ever ride a motorbike on the road. This is coming from a motorbiker.

I think the point being is that they cannot make allowances for bad weather. The move would be easy to make in the dry, but if it was teeming down it would be another matter. And of course different road surfaces handle differently.

Do most people ride at sub-30mph in the wet then? (Not from what I've seen but perhaps I only remember the nutters!)

A swerve could take you into oncoming traffic or into the hazard itself - usually you'd be better off doing an emergency stop to get as much speed off as possible rather than swerving as a first move.

I see what you're saying but if you are close enough to a hazard to need to swerve round it like that, are you going to be able to perform an emergency stop in time (esp. in the wet)?

That actually made me laugh, I'm sure it is harder in person but it is hardly a huge swerve to execute!

if people can't handle their bikes, they shouldn't be able to ride them on the roads, no ifs or buts.

if people can't handle their bikes, they shouldn't be able to ride them on the roads, no ifs or buts.

While I agree, you do have to be careful that the test isnt impossible when stating things like that. That said, this test does appear to be very easy from most peoples viewpoints, even bikers.

If it was at random on a blind bend at national speed limit in the wet then yeah maybe a little more difficult but swerve in a straight line when you can see it and know where the exit is, piece of piss.

People obviously are not spending enough time on the bikes before they are attempting to fail the test.

Now having watched the vid I know I could do that very very easily. I've been riding 10 years and that wouldn't even register as a swerve to me....

BUT
We're talking about nervous newbies here, so it's whole new kettle of fish.
Having said that, I see no reason why people can't be taught this 'test' easily enough, and yes, if you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen. Maybe it's a training issue: As in they're not getting the correct/enough of it...?
Maybe it's the test. I dunno.

On the flip side, why should motorcyclists have to do this anyway? Car drivers don't and that's who the motorcyclist will be swerving to avoid, most likely.

I'd like to see the car test a lot harder too (And don't get me on to regular retests!) There's people out these who really shouldn't be in contol of a car, but they regard it as a RIGHT to be able to drive. But that will never happen, will it? 10% less car drivers = 10% less tax. And nobody gives a crap about the motorcyclists, do they? We're always in the wrong, right?

It looks easy, but I think it would be quite tricky doing such a thing on your test, being speedgunned by the examiner, in full view of the test centre waiting room and car park, in the wet, when you're nervous and have only a few hours riding experience.

Car drivers don't and that's who the motorcyclist will be swerving to avoid, most likely.

Because generally swerving is out of he question for a car, as any significant swerve will take them into another lane. Bikes are obviously narrower and more easy to slip though gaps - I suppose it's just another aid to safety for them

that's who the motorcyclist will be swerving to avoid, most likely.

Yup, as the main other road user it is highly likely they'll be avoiding a car. Like the 4 seperate individuals I saw at the weekend, this might come in very handy when overtaking on a blind crest with oncoming traffic, we should train them to do it with on-coming 60mph cars with 50 yards to spare, taking special care to scare the **** out of the person they were overtaking by cutting them up 😀

There's plenty of motorcyclists who are great drivers, and often do have amazing hazard perception. Unfortunately there are a few who ruin it for the rest, just like the few car drivers who give them a bad rep with bike owners - bikers, you're guilty of the same stereotyping.

If you only have a few hours riding experience and find being watched makes you nervous enough to crash you should not be taking a test to be allowed into real-world situations!

I'd regard it as something I'd want to be taught as a newbie. Being a vulnerable road user I want more defence options available to me. That test presumably shows that some people are not up to the job and should therefore recieve more training before being allowed out.

If you only have a few hours riding experience and find being watched makes you nervous enough to crash you should not be taking a test to be allowed into real-world situations!

Exactly. Which is why I suggested car tests should be toughened up too, but you don't seem to like that idea
One rule for one, another for another?

If you only have a few hours riding experience and find being watched makes you nervous enough to crash you should not be taking a test to be allowed into real-world situations!

That statement seems aimed at my original post.

A few hours of experience is - realistically - all anyone has when they go into their test, whether it be bike, car or larger.

And it's not uncommon for otherwise perfectly capable people to be bad at testing. There will be countless bright and intelligent people out there with poor exam grades because the stress of exams takes it's toll.

And thinking back to my bike test, ear hurting from the earpeice delivering crackly, barely audible instructions into the sweaty rental helmet with greasy scratched visor, your high vis bib flapping in the wind, under the watchful eye of the examiner and everyone in the test centre, the stress of knowing how much you've got to perform at that specific moment can be a bit much. Suddenly the thought of having to confidently perform a swerve at a specific measured and quite high speed in the pissing rain and wind (and trust me, getting quickly to 30 seems very unnatural in the confined space of a car park/testing centre pad) doesn't seem so easy.

There's more to it than "finding being watched makes you nervous". Off-road test situations don't ever realistically replicate real world situations, either mentally or practically.

I'm not saying the swerve test is easy or hard. I'm saying that I see the point of people (industry and otherwise) who feel strongly enough to speak out against it on an internationally broadcast BBC report. And to dismiss it at the stroke of a few keyboard fingers seems a bit short-sighted.

I think the point being is that they cannot make allowances for bad weather. The move would be easy to make in the dry, but if it was teeming down it would be another matter. And of course different road surfaces handle differently.

But in a real life scenario, you would have to swerve anyway. Hazards don't just occur in the dry and on perfect road surfaces!

15 accidents as a result of this test exposes the fact that the motorcycle test is not a stringent enough test of a rider's ability to handle a bike and is not safe!

Knowing the rules and getting through a test isn't easy, but it doesn't filter out the people with insufficient machine handling skills. The test is focused on doing everything safely to the exclusion of competent handling.

I say make everyone learn to handle a motocrosser on rough, muddy, wet and hilly terrain. Learning to slide and shift your weight around to this extent will make for a much more competent road user.

I did a DAS a couple of years ago and rode almost 30 years ago for around 3 years without bothering to take a test (36k miles). However I learned to ride a bike offroad first, the best handling course imho!

A little swerve like the one in the video is a non-event to a competent rider. The test should ensure riders are competent in all respects - period!

I think this people should not take the test...
Look what you have to do to get half of the test over here
[url] http://www.motoplanete.com/permis/permis-arsouille.php [/url]
You only get on of each test (motor off, slow speed, normal speed)...

"think the point being is that they cannot make allowances for bad weather"

But they do- the test was designed as all-weather, it's not like they designed a dry weather test and forgot it might rain. I think possibly they should have made it harder in the dry personally.

As a rider myself, I say anyone who can't safely execute the maneouvre isn't competent to ride on the road. The reports of people failing the maneuvre or falling off and being injured just proves that they weren't ready for the test, not that the test is unsafe.

I read in another article that the woman who was interviewed fell because she braked mid-maneouvre- she was asked for a comment and said that the "brake and swerve" test was unsafe. You're not supposed to brake in this test! I don't know if she really said that, or if it was just a slip of the tongue, but if she did try and brake in the maneuvre it's no wonder she fell.

But in a real life scenario, you would have to swerve anyway. Hazards don't just occur in the dry and on perfect road surfaces!

those french tests look cool. I'm assuming these (brit and french) are basic tests that must be taken before someone can take a 125cc bike out on the road?

Any motorcyclist should be able to do that particular "maneuver" without it even registering as a swerve, as PeterPoddy rightly points out.

However Asking novices to do it in the wet, presumably with cold tyres as well, really isn't a great idea and is poor judgement on behalf of the DSA IMO. What if a candidate has had dry conditions throughout training and it's the first time in the wet? That person would probably be bricking it, and when you're bricking it you are NOT relaxed on the bike.

Spending £70m on these new centres just seems mad to me. The woman on the news this morning said "if it saves just one life it will be worth it.". Absolute comedy gold!!

Anyway, the new test will make no difference to the number of deaths or seriously injured riders on the roads, just as the "hazard perception" has done nothing.

The problem with the swerve test is not the swerve by itself, nor is it the surface conditions, it has more to do with the limited space available to get up to speed. At Musselburgh test centre, you have to give it beans to get up to speed then you are straight into the swerve manoeuvre when the weight distribution isn't at its optimum. Add a wee bit of front brake into the equation and you have a recipe for disaster. Bear in mind that these are nervous newbies doing a test.

The tarmac surfaces on the test areas cost a fortune as is it designed to get rid of surface water pronto.

Richtea - hazard perception has done plenty...

Smee - plenty? [url= http://tinyurl.com/r4crwu ]I'm not so convinced[/url], and neither are the govt! Improvements under laboratory conditions, yes, but not exactly mirrored in real life (sadly)

That link just tells me that DfT thought their on-road test was crap.

Must be dodgy tarmac at the test centre.

I guess to a newbie it might be tough but if they can't do that then they should ride a 50cc scooter and gain experience and then go for their test.

Motor bikes are always moving around from dodgy drains and car driving idiots pulling out at junctions and stopping.

Decent tyres in the wet and it's fine but dodgy test centre tarma isn't so grippy.

Get better test centre training?

And if you were riding in the teeming rain, you would have altered your speed according to the conditions. The test doesn't allow the rider to change their speed according to the prevalent conditions

I totally agree with that thought, but 30mph in the rain is not a high speed in many many situations and if a suddenly hazard comes from nowhere, you might not have time to adjust your speed. I think it is daft expecting a rider to continue at the same speed before a swerve in this test exercise. The test is failing to recreate a certain hazard scenario.

Maybe an extended test ride would be more useful - 2 hours or so. The examiner could instigate a hazard anywhere along the route regardless of the length of the test, but hey, that would be dangerous wouldn't it?

I totally agree with that thought, but 30mph in the rain is not a high speed in many many situations

hmmm - interesting point M_F - tests can be cancelled for snow, ice, poor visibility, high winds and heavy rain. wonder how heavy the rain would have to be before the cancelled the test.

Presumably the same as any test would be cancelled, at the point where it is considered inadvisable to use the vehicle?

Exactly. Which is why I suggested car tests should be toughened up too, but you don't seem to like that idea
One rule for one, another for another?

Doesn't bother me at all. I'd opt for people having speed and power limited vehicles for the first few years if I had the choice, and I drive a fast car now - I "cut my teeth" in a low power, slow vehicle and learned as I went. These days new drivers can jump in a fast car with little effort (as most cars are pretty fast) and write themselves and others off in no time. But I suppose it has always been thus to some extent. Maybe if we tracked new drivers for 2-3 years and checked they didn't speed or make stupid mistakes, using some supertechnology, we might bore them into driving safely, but ultimately it's down to peoples attitude, and for a good percentage that is a fairly throw-away attitude towards everything.

A few hours of experience is - realistically - all anyone has when they go into their test, whether it be bike, car or larger.

I disagree. I know most of my driving mates have 30-40 hours of driving lessons prior to their car test which is fairly appreciable? I didn't, but I'm not sure it did me any good passing in 10 hours, however I was already comfortable with the car controls etc so I was only concentrating on the road rules and situations.

CK - I think it would be a wee bit before that point that the test was cancelled.....

Average number of lessons to pass a car test now is 76 according to the DSA. That is a fair amount of training. In my experience it isn't the folk who have just passed their test that pose a danger, it is the folk who think they are shit hot at driving that are the worst.

smee - I'm dont know personally, I don't know how/where they'd cancel any other test/lessons. I learned in all good weather so had no experience of cancellations. But I suspect that unless its icy/standing water that test is no harder when raining cats and dogs than when its that nasty drizzle that seems to float the hydrocarbons on the road surface 😀

76 hours?!?! AVerage?! I'd never have learned, it would have cost far too much to be viable.

I thought I was a fairly good driver as a youngun. Obviously wasn't too bad as I never had any close calls for 6 or so years, then I got a little complacant and found myself in a field. That was after 50 or 60K miles lol.

personally, speaking as an experienced cyclist, while i swerve around things like that, staying UPRIGHT comes before impact avoidance.

if the road conditions, situation, weather and all other totally unpredicatble factors, mean my unconcious reaction is that a swerve will cause me to sack it, i WONT swerve, its far less dangerous to hit the back of a suddenly stopped car, than to be lying in the oncoming lane.

not that its EXACTLY relevant on a motor bike, but any swerving manouver comes with experience and a split decision based on the situations specifics, not making a predictable manouver through traffic cones!
IMO its [b]TOTALLY 100% irrelevant[/b].
its essentially testing to see if you can make a dangerous manouver that youve chosen to make! (like whipping in and out of static cars)

I'll give you all a hint the manoeuvres on these tests aren't designed to replicate a real life scenario.

A bit OT, but this is where it is heading: [url] http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/papers/visionzero.html [/url]

Vision Zero: A campaign with the goal of eradicating road deaths completely.
I remember it being discussed a couple of years ago.

All well and good. Noble, at least, and we all know it is good to aim high and "one death is one death too many" etc etc.
Problem is, the architects of the strategy were reputedly aware that their noble target would be impossible to achieve in a world where bikes coexist with cars.
QED: Ban bikes.

Claes Tingvall, the Swedish guy behind Vision Zero, has said there is "no place for motorcycles" in it. He recently said motorcycles presented a "challenge".

Apparently, the British Government will discuss whether this concept should be adopted by the UK from 2010, when current road casualty targets expire.

Stephen Plowden, advisor to influential road safety group the Slower Speeds Initiative, has written to the governmental committee stating bikes over 600cc should be banned

Personally, I'm not sure, but there is a school of thought that believes that 'they' are making motorcycle training more complicated and costly in a bid to put potential riders off ... while hiding behind the 'improve rider standards' card.

Would they still expect a rider to do it in snow or ice too?

now that is just being silly!

Unless you get caught in exceptional circumstances, riding on ice and snow is suicidal behaviour. 99% of bikers don't attempt this.

 

Stephen Plowden, advisor to influential road safety group the Slower Speeds Initiative, has written to the governmental committee stating bikes over 600cc should be banned

Well the misuse of power is one element that presents danger, but this wouldn't reduce fatalities. People are resourceful, and manufacturers will produce highly tuned "rockets" whatever the legal capacity thresholds are. Frankly, I think 600cc is plenty for most riders. I used to be able to risk my life at breakneck speeds on a 2 stroke 250cc. It would be a shame for the guys who like to plod round on big heavy Harley Davidsons, or the guys who do long journeys on supertourers. Another case of people misunderstanding the problem!

Personally, I'm not sure, but there is a school of thought that believes that 'they' are making motorcycle training more complicated and costly in a bid to put potential riders off ... while hiding behind the 'improve rider standards' card.

Probably. "No bikers" would be an ideal solution for road safety campaigners etc.

it isn't very realistic to place cones in the road at a predetermined point visible to the rider from a long way off. in the real world you would simply pick another line/approach.
surely a swerve like that is likely to be used in an 'emergency' situation. and as said before an emergency stop would be a better manouver in most situations.

and besides, what are people doing stepping out into traffic? have they no road sense.

infact i have little sympathy for the individuals who get hit by traffic (for the most part). their families on the other hand; that's different.

One point I'm curious about - is countersteering taught as part of DAS (or otherwise)? - 'cos the swerve should be piece of cake if it is. Certainly wasn't taught when I did DAS about 10 years ago...

Me neither. Interestingly though, I was taught to ride a motorcycle, not just to pass the test. several times, the instructor said, "this is not part of the test, but.." and then covered swerving and not braking. We also did slow cone work for about half a day to develop control, even though that wasn't part of the test then either. It did help with general control.
Part of the problem with the swerve test might be that instructors who are focussing on the test, not on riding the bike, haven't been teaching the control skills which make the swerve bit a piece of p1ss, so now struggle to teach those skills.
Although not part of the test back in the old days, I have since passed the swerve test several times in "uncontrolled" circumstances.

"Frankly, I think 600cc is plenty for most riders. I used to be able to risk my life at breakneck speeds on a 2 stroke 250cc. It would be a shame for the guys who like to plod round on big heavy Harley Davidsons, or the guys who do long journeys on supertourers. Another case of people misunderstanding the problem!"

Exactly... My SV650 would be banned, as would the ER6N, BMW F800, Honda Deuville... None of them performance machines, all of them great practical road bikes. A modern 600 is faster than a 1000 was just a few years ago, so it's a nonsense cap. If they were going to do something like this (and who knows, they might) then ptw would be the only way to make it work.

The whole "600 is plenty for most riders" doesn't make a lot of sense to me... Bigger engines give more power but also more usability. For the real world I'd choose a race rep 1000 over a 600, not because a 600 is slow but because it's less good at moderate speeds. They're both too fast 🙂

its far less dangerous to hit the back of a suddenly stopped car, than to be lying in the oncoming lane.

Having hit the back of one car and swerved round dozens in my time, I can happily say I'd rather swerve than hit, unless I'm pootling along at 10mph. When I hit the back of the car I had to re-arrange my nose, check my teeth were still intact and pick myself up from the lane before traffic came too. Then wipe the blood off the roof of the car and offer to pay for any damage. Generally my swerving incurs no loss of speed, stability or doing more than skimping around on the white line, though I appreciate motorbikes are totally different kettle of fish 😀

Strikes me as demonstrating the difference between being taught to pass the test and being taught to ride a motorbike properly.

(Personally I have ridden motorcycles for 20 years, I'd hate to have to go through the hoops current riders have to)

The whole "600 is plenty for most riders" doesn't make a lot of sense to me... Bigger engines give more power but also more usability. For the real world I'd choose a race rep 1000 over a 600, not because a 600 is slow but because it's less good at moderate speeds. They're both too fast

It makes no sense at all, unless you'rre talking to people who just commute and rip about town.
recently, i did a 1600 mile tour of Britain. The bike was a 1000cc V twin. Cruising easily at motorway speeds, without revving the tits off
it, and still with plenty of "get out of trouble fast" in reserve. And the bike is big and comfy enough to sit on for long distance miles. But it's not a fast bike, it was bought for longish distance, middle aged, comfort touring. There's nothing smaller I can think that would do the job as well, apart from a VFR or BMW (neither of which I want)

Coffeeking - not that different in this case, speed and agility are the only differences. And you're not as well dressed for an accident on a bike.

"Strikes me as demonstrating the difference between being taught to pass the test and being taught to ride a motorbike properly."

Well, you can't really make a test that accurately reflects what happens when some clown pulls out in front of you, but this at least reflects what you have to do when it happens to some extent- exactly the same as the emergency stop in the old test.

But it's a minimum standard, if a rider can't safely complete this move (can't spell maneuvuruuruure) in such controlled conditions then they're not going to manage it on the road. Whereas if they can, then they might. That's why I find it so laughable that people are crying about how hard it is. It makes me wonder just how bad many experienced riders actually are.

I stand by that: some places are teaching people to pass the CBT and get them out the door ASAP and some places are teaching riders how to ride and understand what goes on eg countersteering....

You only have to ride behind a few of the summer racers and watch their poor observation, thruppenny bit cornering and crap line choice to see how poor many 'experienced' bikers are, or is that just the BABs?

They did teach counter steering on my DAS 2 years ago.

Re. the comments about it being better to go into the back of a suddenly stopped cars - there was a bloke at my old work who did this on a pushbike and spent 3-6 months having his face rebuilt! He never looked anything like normal at the end of it. He was lucky to survive!

"I stand by that: some places are teaching people to pass the CBT and get them out the door ASAP and some places are teaching riders how to ride and understand what goes on eg countersteering...."

This is definately true. TBH I think CBT is a bit of a farce, with no independant testing and a financial penalty to the school for "resits" it's no wonder some schools will just give anyone a certificate.

When I did mine, I found it very tough, I had a bad first attempt that really tore out my confidence and it took a lot to get past that, so it took me 4 attempts to get up to a suitable standard. The school were straight up about it- I wasn't good enough, I wasn't getting a certificate off them. And they were right.

But my mate Stewart, when he did his, went to the other local school... crashed in the practice yard and broke his wrist without ever getting out onto the street and was still given his certificate! After 2 years, he went to them again to get it extended and they said "Oh, we're a bit busy, tell you what- give us the money and we'll give you a certificate, no need to do the course".

I had exactly the same thought as Jond. For people to understand the mechanics of the swerve then you've got to teach them countersteering - which wasn't the case when I did my test. If they are teaching newbies countersteering then I think that's a really good thing.