Concern over motor cycle 'swerve test'
11 readers have commented on this story
A BBC News report last week claimed that the DSA is under pressure to re-think its new motorcycle test following a series of crashes in the first few weeks of its use.
The report says that some instructors are blaming a new manoeuvre known as the 'swerve test' which they say is dangerous and ill-thought out.
In a statement, the DSA said: "Although the new test is designed to be more challenging, this does not mean it is more dangerous.
"Riders who have trained and practised enough should be perfectly capable of passing. We have had one instructor who has told us that out of 12 of his trainees taking the test in one day, 11 passed.
"There have been reported incidents on less than one per cent of the new module one motorcycle tests conducted so far. The most common mistake seems to be accelerating too fast up to the avoidance exercise and then braking before swerving. Candidates should be building up speed steadily and only applying braking after the bike is upright again following a controlled swerve.
"When we consulted with the motorcycle industry it was agreed that it was important that riders should be able to demonstrate that they could keep the bike under control while doing the avoidance exercise. We will continue to hold meetings with the motorcycle industry, as we have done throughout the consultation process on the new test."
For further information contact Chris Lee at the DSA Press Office.
Click here to see a BBC News video report about the new test.
Readers comments:
Having failed 2 mod 1 for not being able to get my 125 up to 50kph for the swerve test and emergency stop (I am a Larger man!)I am now being forced to do the DAS scheme in order to get a licence. Crazy! and very expensive! It is a dangerous part of the test and should be seriously looked at and changed as people are so concentrating on the speed and not on where they are going.
Mark, London
I failed my module 1 yesterday for only achieving 49kph in the swerve and avoidance discipline. This discipline is an extremely dangerous addition to the bike test. In my case the testing area was wet after a night's rain and I was using my 3.5 years experience of riding to make sure I didn't do anything dangerous. When the examiner failed me he said "You were too cautious in the speed test"!! Err....sorry for being cautious and riding with saftety in mind. This part of the test ought to be re-addressed before a rider or even an examiner become hurt. What legal position would a rider be in should the swerve test result in the rider dropping the bike and hitting the examiner?
Dan, Middlesex
I took and failed my mod 1 bike test today. I did the whole test in text book fashion but only reached 49.6 in the swerve avoidance part of the test. It's sad that I failed the test and there is no room for allowing some leaway for riding safely in a controlled manner. The really sad thing is that I actually passed my motorbike test in 1983 and have been riding daily ever since. However I went to test ride a new motorcycle a few months ago only to be told by the store that I didn't have the a cat A entitlement. After 3 months of trying to reason with the DVLA the bottom line is that I have to retake my test at much expense as they have no record of my ever passing. So after spending 27 years riding a motorcycle daily (never had any form of accident) I was failed for 0.4 kmh in a manoeuvre which is a little dangerous as it takes no consideration of weather conditions,or bike spec ie: I took my test today on a Vespa T5 which is a little wider than the average 125 motorcycle
Stephen, London
Thanks for that Roy. There was as you were no doubt aware no critisism intended and it was nice to know where u are coming from. Good to hear you have so many years of motorcycling under your belt.
Most points have been covered I think but I would still make the point. Countersteering has been around and understood perhaps even before the wright brothers made mention of it. However it is a good tool that can be used to assist a motorcyclist to steer a safer route around any oncoming danger.
On the road is a very different space to a level well tarmacadamed and coned training area where the most that can happen is to lay the bike down with little or less risk of injury.
It has to be taught, that is for sure and many will benifit from its instruction. Once again... however it is not the be all and end all but is only part of the arsenal availiable. I am sure that many motorcyclists basically lay the bike down and suffer the lesser consequence rather than hit the object in their way because there is nowhere else to go. The road being full of others hazards. And thereby is the problem. If the road is full where can one swerve to?
Bob Craven, Blackpool
As an addendum to my response to Bob Craven and the his point regarding police training; I recall that California Highway Patrol also teach a similar manoeuvre on their motorcycle training course at the CHP Academy in Yolo County. It is some time since I saw this but I think the rider was required to approach a line of cones at speed, brake to a compulsory lower speed then 'snake' through the cones. The motorcycles used at that time were Kawasaki K1000Ps, a 1000cc, fully equiped, police machine, the weight of which must also have been "massive".
To watch, it was impressive, but then again, California Highway Patrol motorcyclists are inspirational.
Roy Buchanan, Principal Road Safety Officer, London Borough of Sutton
Please may I answer Bob Craven's question in his second letter. I am a motorcyclist with 47 years experience. My understanding of the rationale for introducing this manoeuvre is to teach a method of collision avoidance. A rider, braking to avoid a collision and realising there is insufficient distance in which to stop, should consider releasing the brakes and riding round the obstruction. Such action may result in no contact being made with the obstruction. To continue braking hard but in a straight line may, due to lack of distance, result in a collision. However, Bob goes on to make a valid point. It takes a considerable presence of mind to take this kind of action in real-life circumstances but to practice the manoeuvre on an off-road training area could be beneficial in preparing the rider for the occasion when it happens on the road. Bob may like to refer to "Motorcycling Excellence" (published in 1995 by The Motorcycle Safety Foundation) page 88, first column, paragraph 2, entitled "Evasive Manoeuvres". I cannot comment on the reference to current police teaching but I can say that a very similar manoeuvre was taught at the Metropolitan Police Driving School in the late 1960s. Bob's first letter is sublimenally refering to defensive riding which I think any experieinced rider would readily support.
Roy Buchanan, Principal Road Safety Office, LB of Sutton
Just one. Does Roy Buchanan ride or has he ever riden a motorcycle? does he know what he is expecting of us riders.
No one in their right mind would want to commit to this manouver. Unless life is at risk. My bike weighs a massive 260 kg and to swerve and brake will take a lot of guts.
Its okay saying in principal that there is no problem, lets all bury our heads in sand or blame the motorcyclist.
Bob Craven, Blackpool
I dont think some trainees are being trained in counter steering which at 30 plus mph this is all about.
One cannot steer and brake [or other way round] at the same time. It is not possible to control the bike. First one countersteers one way and then the other and then one brakes. This has not been pointed out at any time what its all about. So it needs to be more widespread and taught to the candidates. Its very easy to do when you know what to do.
However I do think that in wet conditions a greater distance is required.
Why is it that motocyclists have to learn a dangerous practise in order to avoid a car coming at them from a side road. I dont see the police instructing this as one of their proceedures.
We should be training other vehicle drivers to see bikes and riders to be in the correct position in the road relative to other vehicles and intersections.
Bob Craven, Blackpool
The new two part test is fine, its all just media hype! I did my module one last week without formal training and just a few months riding on the road getting to grips with my bike.
I'm sure people get accustomed to it soon enough.
Charlie, Berkshire
I have failed my Module 1 test today due to 'crashing my bike' during the swerve avoidance section of the test! It is extremely dangerous. My test was undertaken in the rain in an HGV testing station. This location is completely inappropriate. As a result of my 'accident' I have an extremely sore right shoulder and left leg. Fortunately, I was dressed with suitable safety clothing or matters would have been worse.
This addition to bike training programme has to be rethought before a serious injury takes place!
G. MacDougall, Scotland
From the evidence of the video clip the manoeuvre does not seem dangerous or difficult so, properly trained, the candidate should cope. If the objective is to train the candidate in collision avoidance I cannot see the problem although I am open to persuasion.
Roy Buchanan, Principal Road Safety Officer, Sutton
