Another Bike Test Accident

it is a minimum speed, of 20mph, and 30mph, you are allowed to go faster, just on a 125 its hard to get there in the space of a car park:ermm:

I did the test in November when it was raining heavily with big puddles in the test centre. It is nerve racking in foul weather as you really have to ring the neck of a 125 to be up to speed going through. One major problem is the rigidity of the speed required, with no reduction in wet weather.

Also, the EU does not require the swerve test to be done in conjunction with a breaking exercise; the DSA have not explained why they have chosen this combination.

It is appalling that there is no requirement for a first aider on site, especially with the number of accidents there has been. I hope the poor lass is fully recovered.

A good rider will ride within their abilities, within the abilities of their bike, and according to the condition of the road and the weather. The test says, forget all this. You are going to do the test even if your bike has to be at its limits to do that speed in that amount of space. Most people fail for not going fast enough. That tells you that the test stretches the performance of bikes limited by law in power and power/weight ratio.

As somebody who has failed Module One 5 times, every time on the swerve test, it isn’t dangerous in my opinion (in the dry) but it is tricky to get right (especially if you haven’t done any training for it!)

The worst thing is I’ve swerved around all sorts in the road, including Franco :smiley: but put me in the test centre, where it is so clinical and I fluff it up.

That was comical :smiley:

The new test centres have a special surface that drains water away so that the grip is as good in the wet as it is in the dry thus making it safe.These test centres cost 2m pounds to build because of the surface.

No one should worry as long as you have proper training it will be easy

You must have deep pockets!

Such a surface doesn’t exist. Falling rain can’t be magically made to flow away instantly. There will always be water on the surface that the tyres run on if it is raining.

Stevie makes a good point which is my real problem with the test. It is completly artificial. A far better test would involve longer on the road giving the examiner a better chance of seeing the rider positioning and anticipation skills. Unfortuinatly DSA want learners to ride in the wrong position which is another issue I have withn the current testing regime.

By the sounds of it, it’s probably porous asphalt. It does allow the water to drain extremely quickly but the surface with have water on it which will impact the level of friction.

It would have been better to coat the surface with shell grip.

I don’t think the module one is hard at all, then again I had been riding for about 9 years before trying it.

Agree with your post although im not sure, let me explain. I agree its better to be out there in the thick of the traffic with the examiner to watch your riding…that way you are right, your positioning and everything will be far different to that of a test centre layout where there is no traffic or people milling about…but on the other hand, as with this poor girl, who needed a bit more time on bikes as she wasnt quite there yet with the confidence and think panicked maybe? Then the “quietness” of a test centre may have been better for her, for now? So i can see both sides…some riders take to it a lot quicker, others have to have more time and even then im not so sure they should have a licence cos they go out and buy 1000cc bikes and wonder why they crash up the road from the dealers !! Im glad i didnt have this form of test though, i prefer being out on the road in the proper environment as i would be when i was on my own with my bike? And i will admit to this day, there are certain people i ride out with, who are way, way out of my comfort zone…and then there are others that im wondering where miss daisy is…:wink:

Giuliano makes a good point about positioning on the test as well.

Up to the point I got knocked off, I’d done about 15000 miles in a year, in all weathers, night and day, twisties and straights (even though a certain LBer would say that I’m like Valentino Rossi on the straights and Fracis Rossi in the corners :D).

I also use all of the road - I learned a lot about the practical side of positioning from other riders. I also read Roadcraft a lot and picked up the theory and I actively practised it.

However, when I go to do my test, I have to stick to the middle of the road like a frightened virgin.

Nuts.

  • Not all test centres are newly built, some are existing centres and shared with other facilities, i.e. lorry driver training. I know as I have been to them. They are all accredited by the DSA, obviously, so you won’t get gravel etc but you may get some slopes or not perfect surfaces which may induce surface water (I had to push an ER-5 up an incline on the manual handling maneuver, not fun for a weakling like me!

  • It is a minimum of 50kph, about 32mph if I remember correctly. You can go over but not under. It is not recommended to go too far over as you have a limited space to stop in so you make it hard on yourself

  • Tests are canceled if the conditions are too poor. Mine was after the back end slid a number of foot due to heavy rain and deep surface water. This was on the avoidance/swerve maneuver - I still managed to stop in the box!

HTH

That is the reason the test centres came in. It was judged that doing these manoeuvres in a 40 mph zone would be to dangerous.

The reason that it is 50 kph (and 32mph) is because this was a European ruling iirc.

The swerve test has been part of the Dutch motorcycling test for years. We used to try to see how fast we could do it in our lessons and then get reprimanded for too much speed. It’s not a big deal and with enough practice any compitent motorcyclist should have no problems.

According to the official layout, there is only ten metres between the speed trap, and the offset cones through which you have to swerve. You then have 31 metres (only 8m more than the minimum stopping distance in the dry at 30mph according to the Highway Code) from the swerve to make a safe controlled stop. The speed trap is only ten metres from the exit of a curve.

I don’t know if this is how they do it in the Netherlands, but that means out of the curve, ten metres hard acceleration to hit the speed trap going 32, then ten metres to swerve approximately 2 metres to the side, then 31 metres to stop. My understanding is that no other country combines the swerve test with the emergency stop test like this.

Why do we think that avoiding a cone they know will be there at a known speed that it has any relevance to avoiding a car or pedestrian that they could have observed seconds earlier if they had more experience on the road and were better positioned for observation? Why teach people to accelerate towards known hazards? Exactly how many killed or seriously injured will not happen because someone was lucky enough to have to swerve only 2 metres to the side in exactly 10 metres at 32mph?

The french one does but there is no minimum spped, you just have to do it within a gioven time frame which is extended by 3 secs, if my memory serves me correctly, in wet weather