I don’t think it’s the absence of further training, I think it’s the slow acceleration and vague clutches meaning that you do your best to maintain speed and their light weight meaning that you can get away with really daft direction changes. It’s easier to ride a big bike smoothly, but it doesn’t make much odds on something as light as a 125.
I don’t think I covered anything in my training or tests that would particularly have affected the way I treat traffic. Is there anything like that in the new test?
Muhammed, a few answer: Why do schools insist on gear? A. Could be because they don’t want to have to witness your skin being burnt and scarred from road rash if you come off on a lesson? They are human after all…
Mod1 - I’ve always thought the slalom teaches you how to shift weight on a bike, for when you need to use it in real life, a bit like muscle memory.
Remember, the test is not a sign you are a good driver. It just means that you can go out onto the road, and probably won’t kill yourself in the first month. A bit like black belts in martial arts, the real learning starts once you pass the test
The fact that on another thread you were asking for advice for you actual test, things that you should have picked up on from a year of riding on a CBT, confirms to me the argument that a lot of those on CBTs, aren’t ready to ride as part of their jobs.
As for riding for one year on a CBT. I thought similarly after a year on my full licence, like I had experience and I knew what I was doing… and then I crashed and rolled into a hedge in the most comical of fashions… and shortly after I crashed again after target fixating and losing the bike on gravel… I can’t imagine how many more times I would have crashed if I had to negotiate london traffic, in all conditions, on a shitty bike, in a rush because I would get shit for delivering late.
Mod 1 seems to be a demonstration of your riding ability - so what if you won’t do a figure of 8 on the road, if you can’t do a figure of 8 then maybe you lack the control of the motorbike to be awarded a licence.
In regard to the gear, its easy to see why they insist on it. Even if some people think shorts, t-shirt and no gloves is acceptable attire (after someone mentioned de-gloving on here, any thoughts of not wearing protection were firmly stopped…)
In short, do the dance, then do what you want.
I’m still of the opinion that CBT is just that…Basic - and agree with others that being a professional rider on one is a bit nuts… maybe they should introduce a Commerical CBT , which is in addition to the regular CBT.
To be fair, I did do my training with wearing two pairs of jeans, some rugged trainers, heavy jackets I had and helmet and gloves the trainer gave me… Because I did my test a year before I even thought about getting a bike.
I can understand the frustration when you’re trying to find a school, but I can also accept schools not wanting to take the risk if you’re not wearing the gear as they will have to deal with the mess when they’re out riding with you.
The problem with this is that there is barely a scooter in London that doesn’t have L plates. The meaning of having them is diminished and no one pays attention to them anymore. To me, if I see a scooter with a big L on the back (which funny enough is missing), it means it’s either a pizza delivery guy/courier on his 6th CBT or some guy who only got one because it’s cheaper than using trains (no intention to get the full license though).
As per Muhammed’s question regarding the figure of 8 - I think the reason is quite obvious - it’s so that you learn to control your bike in situations you can’t predict. Same with slalom, if you can’t perform basic maneuvers in a controlled situation (test centre) then how on earth are you planning on swearving around potholes that you noticed at the last second or pedestrians jumping out in between buses.
Yeah, I agree with this, though it’s not something I’ve thought of before. I’ve long held that it ought not be possible for a professional driver to also be a learner-driver - that should be a contradiction-in-terms. But now I’ve something of a practical reason to hold that opinion, too
When you sign for your licence you are signing that you have read and fully understand the highway code. A fact most people seem to miss. Ride safe peeps.
I do CBTs and we spend 35 mins testing there Highway Code. If they don’t know there Highway Code,They don’t compleat there CBT. I ride out there and I like to think I only put peep out on road who understand how dangerous it is on the road and ride as safe as possible…
For the same reason as you bother with the practical test despite the CBT being largely practical - a CBT is a check that you’re safe enough to start learning to ride a motorbike, not a test where you prove you’re already a competent motorcyclist.
Moneymaking for who? And what’s your preferred alternative? That you get a two-year window to do the test and if you don’t manage it than that’s it, no motorbikes for you?
My alternative is to make a permanent certificate adapted to the specific bike power or rider age… Why do I need to pay money every 2 years if all I want is a 125cc? Why do I need to carry those ugly L plates, or not being able to ride with a pillion?
So when you want to learn to ride a bike you can go and get a 125, slap some L-Plates on it and get cracking with no instruction at all? I’m not sure what problem you’re trying to solve here.
A CBT is intentionally a low barrier to entry that is a check that you’ll probably manage to ride a motorbike without killing yourself or anyone else while learning how to do it. It’s not supposed to be a test of your ability to ride legally for 45 minutes (as the practical test is) or of your ability to recall the minutiae of the highway code (as the theory test is). It makes sure you know to ride on the left hand side and that you know where the brakes are.
As an incentive to do the test. It’s not supposed to be an every-two-years thing. The idea is that someone does a CBT and then gets a two-year window in which to do their learning and pass a test to get a full license. As that two year window ends, if they’ve not yet done the test their choice is between just doing it and getting a proper license or re-doing a CBT.
You have to offer something for those people who for whatever reason don’t manage to get their full license in those two years, and I don’t think requiring they re-do a CBT is a particularly problematic solution. It (along with the restrictions on roads they can use and the requirement for L-plates) reinforces the idea that it’s not a permanent thing without making riding motorbikes a complete arse.
If you want to find some sort of government conspiracy to make money at the expense of motorcycling then the new license categories are a better place to look than CBTs. There’s no more automatic graduation onto big bikes, it’s a full two-part practical and a theory for every step. If you’re always keeping up with what you’re allowed to do, you’d do your CBT at 16, A1 test at 17, A2 test at 19 and A test at 21.
