New bike test to be reviewed

[MtotheJ]

I know it has been discussed to deat and yes we are all REAAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYYYY bored by it but i thought you may like to have a look

Clicky

Not really sure what to think of this, i definitely agree that more test centres need to be created. But i think the swerve is a good idea, just a bit of discretion on the speeds in different conditions etc.

[Guest]

Surely its better to swerve and have an accident off the road than on the road? Maybe they should introduce say 1 hours compulsory training before the test so you know fully know what to do?

I hope they don't make the test any worse!!

[pumilio]

Surely its better to swerve and have an accident off the road than on the road?

 

I've never seen anybody argue that the new test was bad because it fails to make safe riders (maybe even safer riders than the old test).

The problem with it is 1) initializing the test before the proposed amount of testing centres were functional and; 2) the swerve test, while I think it is fine under ideal conditions, has no concession for poor weather conditions where it appears there have been a lot of accidents during the test. This latter point is important because if you require someone to reach a speed they would not be comfy reaching under normal riding conditions (you must get to 31mph before the swerve even if it is pissing down the wrath of god or you fail), it might be filtering out the most aware of new riders under poor weather conditions.

[YamahaWolf]

I agree, it will ibe nteresting to see the results of the review.

[Guest]

pumilio, you make a good point..

I doubt they will stop it, probably change it slightly if at all, the government cant be wrong you know

[Guest]

I did my Mod1 test (about 2 weeks ago) and most of my training for it, in the rain. I passed it and the Mod2 first time

The swerve test REALLY isnt that hard. I dreaded it so much before training, what with all the hype, but it turn out to be the easiest part of the test.

I think it is a good , essential part of the learning process. Plus, it is only a tenner.

I do agree however, with the lack of test centres. i had to ride 65miles to take mine. If I had failed, that would have meant i was unfit for the road.... but I would have to ride back!?

it is a bit daft really, in that respect.

[brooklyn]

I thought the Mod1 test was a not so bad. It can certainly be easy with lots of practice and the main thing on the swerve is NOT to brake on the maneuver..

It also shows the examiner that you can handle the bike

[Guest]

I'm new to biking so only ever knew the new test, what was the format of the old test?

[MtotheJ]

Exactly like the car test mate. Everything was on the road. Youd go out with the examiner riding round, he'd ask you to pull over then to do the different manoeuvres, U turn and emergency stop. Then youd keep riding rounf and go back to the test centre and youd be told if you had passed or failed . Minors and majors for doing things wrong on the ride or manoeuvres.

[YamahaWolf]

The old test was simple and did the task, but now they seem to have gone a little over the top following the EU. I did not see anything wrong with the old test. I don't see how the new test will make you any better a rider.

[Guest]

The old test was simple and did the task, but now they seem to have gone a little over the top following the EU. I did not see anything wrong with the old test. I don't see how the new test will make you any better a rider.

 

In theory a tougher test will result in candidates having to be trained to a better standard in order for them to pass the tougher test. On that basis, I fully support the changes already introduced, and would probably support further change if better training was the result.

How else do we reduce the number of casualties, and the resulting cost to society of fixing broken bikers?

For what its worth, I took the new test in mid June this year, and I didn't have a problem with any element of the test. Now of course I hadn't taken the old style test so actually have nothing to compare it with, but my training adequately covered everything I needed to know and do in order to pass.

[YamahaWolf]

I passed the old test so I can not compare, but when I passed my test you were assessed on your riding ability, being able to travel slowly, U-Turn all of the things that you have to do off the road in the new test I did on the road.

With regards to reducing casualties I do not think a tougher test will make a difference, sure the rider is trained to a high standard but when they hit the roads as a fully licenced rider they ride how they want to. I think more safety campaigns and police led courses are the answer.

Now I am not a seasoned biker by any means, I have been riding nearly 2 years, but I like to make sure I know as much as I can as regards to being safe on the ride but that is my riding attitude I choose to do that, all bikers have a riding style and a riding attitued irrespective of the level of test/training they have had.

[Guest]

The old test was simple and did the task, but now they seem to have gone a little over the top following the EU. I did not see anything wrong with the old test. I don't see how the new test will make you any better a rider.

 

In theory a tougher test will result in candidates having to be trained to a better standard in order for them to pass the tougher test. On that basis, I fully support the changes already introduced, and would probably support further change if better training was the result.

How else do we reduce the number of casualties, and the resulting cost to society of fixing broken bikers?

For what its worth, I took the new test in mid June this year, and I didn't have a problem with any element of the test. Now of course I hadn't taken the old style test so actually have nothing to compare it with, but my training adequately covered everything I needed to know and do in order to pass.

 

More training would be nice but, not on our wallets! i can see it now £1000 3 day DAS course!