Forum menu
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.