Petition to remove swerve from new motorcycle test.

[JPreston]

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/stopswerve/

Found this petition on MCN and since there a few bikers here I thought I'd post it here.

Bikers will probably know the deal already but for the benefit of any concerned car drivers the new off-road part of the new motorbike test includes a 50km/h swerve manoeuvre. This is a dangerous 'last-resort' manoeuvre in real-world riding and the lack of discretion around the required speed forces novice riders to ride faster than is suitable for the (possibly wet) conditions - entirely the wrong message to send.

The new test has already failed spectacularly due to this manoeuvre - on day one of the new test one candidate crashed and broke his arm, while a member of staff was reporting this to MCN a second candidate crashed outside the window. Another candidate was failed for doing the manoeuvre in lashing rain at 'only' 49km/h.

My issues with this are:

1) Specifying a fixed minimum speed limit that is not reduced for wet or icy conditions is completely contradictory to safe riding practice. The only speed requirement of the old test was to make 'proper progress' as measured by the examiner's discretion. Riding to your ability was encouraged; going 'too slow' was not a fault as long as proper progress was maintained.

2) The manoeuvre carries an unacceptable risk of expensive damage and personal injury as evidenced by the multiple crashes at test centres. You get two attempts at this manoeuvre (assuming you survive the first) before you fail the test. When a candidate is told he missed the first due to insufficient speed, the DSA official is effectively telling him to ride faster regardless of his ability or the road conditions. In any other situation the HSE would step in at this point...

3) The manoeuvre shifts the focus of the test away from forward observation, hazard awareness and anticipation towards 'heroic' and dangerous improvisation.

4) Candidates who complete the manoeuvre and pass the test may begin their solo riding careers mistakenly believing that they have the track skills of Rossi.

5) There is absolutely no requirement for learner car drivers to carry out high-speed swerves (what a ridiculous idea!). In fact, perform one during a driving test and you will certainly have failed due to failing to spot the arising hazard before dangerous evasive action became necessary.

6) When taking the test on a 125cc bike it will be necessary to redline the bike in second gear to gain sufficient speed around the bend. This is poor riding, in fact riding in this manner will still be marked down as a control fault (improper use of gears) if done during the second on-road part of the test.

Here's a video of the swerve undertaken by an instructor (who still manages to clip the cone).

To pre-empt posts saying that making the test harder will lead to safer roads, I'd draw your attention to points 1), 3), 4), and 6) above, all of which have the opposite effect. The new test is longer and more difficult than the one it replaces, which will still be true once this element is removed.

[KidChameleon]

I was under the impression it was not legal to use metric speeds and distances on British roads.

[Flibb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIfIXlPmYk

[schmunk]

I'm not sure your speed argument holds any water.

50 kmph is roughly 30 mph, which is the slowest speed one will generally travel on an open road - to do it slower than this would be false.

In the driving rain, would you be riding slower than 30 mph on every road?

In icy conditions, would you be riding at all? (I very much doubt a bike test would proceed in such conditions...)


With regard to the car vs. bike test comparison, whilst it may seem unfair, bikers are far more likely to need to swerve to avoid objects, not due to their lack of observation and planning, but instead due to other road users' lack of observation and planning.

[studentinneed]

the swerve didn't look that sharp in the video... is there a minimum 'angle' that the bike has to swerve in order to pass the test?

[Rave]

Signed (although not until I check my email which is still on the old computer downstairs).

A bit of background here. The new test is a load of crap, but it's not really our government's fault- inasmuch as having sold out much of our sovereignty to the EU, they had no choice. The new test is an EU wide standard, which was imposed upon us. In fact I believe that the UK government was the sole dissenting vote against the new test (and the new motorcycle license rules) but being outvoted 23-1 we were out of luck.

This new test is stupid, for sure- but what's really crazy is that in a few years you won't be able to directly qualify for direct access to a full power bike until you're 24:

http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/en...cycle_licence/

I got slightly screwed by the old rules- I passed my practical test in 1997*, but because I didn't pass my theory until Jan 3rd 1998 I got stuck with a restricted license for two years. In the event, I went to university and couldn't afford a 33bhp+ bike until I was 21 anyway- in fact I didn't buy one until I was 27. I then crashed it twice in two months through poor planning and poor use of the front brake.

I'm all in favour of improving road safety, but I'm not in favour of making under-24s sub-citizens. If they're not entitled to the rights all us older folks enjoy, then why should they be subject to the same rates of tax? It's very obviously unfair.

I actually think that the UK central government has the right attitude to motorcycling and improving safety. I've seen adverts in MCN for a subsidised training scheme run by the DSA over and above the already cheap and apparently very good Bikesafe scheme.

Of course there are pockets of local/regional government ruled by anti-bike prejudice- say Westminster Council/ Brunstrom's N. Wales police- but as a whole central government's attitude to motorcycling is one of the very few areas in which I have no problems with them. The problem is the EU, pure and simple.

Edit: the * reminded me when I was proofreading. On my test in late December 1997, I'd ridden a hired CG125 from Catford, down the A2, through the Dartford tunnel to Hornchurch as that was the only test centre anywhere near me that had available test slots before the new year. I got there quite early, and was very nervous. When the test started the bike was cold so I pulled out the choke. 5 minutes into the test we got onto an unlimited dual carriageway. I knew that I was expected to ride at traffic speed so I nailed it but the bike wouldn't go above 55mph- because I'd left the choke on. At the tester's instruction I pulled off the A-Road onto a single lane road. 5 mins later I was going down a single carriageway, just about looking suburban. I hadn't seen a speed limit sign and was fretting, but doing an indicated 37mph as a reasonable fudge. Then I noticed the traffic lights. Down to 30mph in as seemly a fashion as possible. Then the instructor told me to turn right at the next set of lights. I looked for an opportunity to turn right at a pelican crossing and earned a frustrated correction from the tester.

Back to the test centre and the verbal questions. I needed a few prods from the tester before I got out all the answers about carrying pillions safely etc.

It wasn't looking good for me.

Result: Pass. There's a system that trusts in the judgement of trained professionals (because, for all my mistakes, I was by the standars of the test a safe and competent rider, whatever my mistakes 10 years later may say).

Now you can be failed because you can't swerve a bike to the correct standard.

[james_d]

The new test is an EU standard, yes, but as usual we've gone beyond the requirements.

There's no need for the distance between the 30km/h turn and the 50km/h swerve to be so short - there's no requirement for them even to be done one after the other.
There's also no requirement for only 2 attempts.

Both the above points the DSA have decided upon, and if they made the swerve test standalone, with a much longer acceleration length, and allowed more than 2 attempts it'll be a lot less intimidating and you won't get incompetent riders going hell for leather on the 2nd go - that seems to be where the problem lies.

[JPreston]

Oops forget I posted this here so am just checking back on the thread today.

Thanks Rave (I knew you were a rider) and james_d for your informative comments.

@KidChameleon, that's quite a philosophical question since every speed and distance can be equally measured in metric, imperial, and any alien systems that may be proposed. Less facetiously, it's not an MOT requirement to have a speedo denominated in mph (my bike is in km/h). But the 50km/h speed is critical because it equates to 31mph - 1mph over the speed limit in a built up area - which meant the government had to construct special-purpose off-road testing centres at vast expense and had to delay adoption of the new test by ~6 months. Value for money?

@studentinneed, there's no specifed angle, you need to attain the speed through the speed trap then swerve into the area marked by cones. The instructor in the video would most likely have failed because he didn't swerve sharply enough and moved the cone. With the caveat that it's a ridiculous thing to be doing on your test in the first place, I'd say it's probably easy to do in dry conditions on a suitably nimble bike but the problems come in when it's wet or icy, or when done on a heavier and lower-power cruiser-style bike etc (it's not reasonable to expect learners to all be riding similarly-capable machines all equally optimised for the test. There is no aspect to the car test that focuses on the car's acceleration or handling performance, for example)

@schmunk, I'm not sure you ride a motorbike . The manoeuvre is meant to simulate approaching a T-junction on the major road to have a car unexpectedly pull halfway out of a side-road on the left (although I think the entire course can be mirrored, in which case it perhaps simulates swerving into the kerb rather than into oncoming traffic. Either way...). Yes, in this situation I will slow down until I am sure the driver has seen me and will not pull out. If the driver makes no eye contact or show signs of nudging out I will happily slow down to a walking pace to pass the junction - at no point would I regard suddenly swerving into the direction of oncoming traffic as being a 'fall-back' substitute for correct use of speed and anticipation. This is especially true in the driving rain. And yes I do ride in icy conditions. The point is that for safe riding it is necessary to ride according to the conditions - specifying an arbitrary minimum speed teaches completely the opposite. The tests do indeed take place in the rain and throughout winter (it's left up to local staff to decide whether the centres should be closed).

I completely disagree that bikers 'should' swerve more often than cars - a safe rider should ride defensively, assuming the other road-users have not seen him at all, this involves slowing down for hazards rather than sudden changes of direction at the last instant, presenting a danger to themselves and all other road users. What happens when the car does not stop halfway and so can't be swerved around anyway? The rider who has already slowed can stop in good time. The one who did not anticipate the hazard will not be able to avoid an accident even if he is riding Streethawk. Having bikers rehearse a particular specific avoidance is of little value and is done at the expense of teaching anticipation and appropriate use of speed, which are universal skills applicable to any and every incident which could ever arise.

[schmunk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8067212.stm

[JPreston]

Cheers, and video is here:

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

It's admittedly a bit of hyperbole to suggest that someone might die doing the test(!) but I suppose it's possible. You hear horror stories about people wearing the minimum legal standard of protective clothing (i.e. just a helmet, bermuda shorts, vest and flip-flops), skidding down the road after falling at just 20mph and subsequently bleeding to death. However, it'd be very easy to break an arm or leg like the woman in the video (and all the other people to have done so) and/or write-off the bike (how much damage do you need to a £500 bike to write it off?) or at least take it off the road. It's just a ridiculously dangerous thing for officials to instruct the public to do.