I couldnt physically take mine by direct access - the bikes just weren't low enough - I've bought the cbf600 and paid to get that lowered and the seat sculpted but there was no way i was going to use that. As for being prepared, I was.  I've not ridden for a couple of years without learning so much off Mark and I too practiced several times. Some times I got it right and sometimes I didn't   -  Steve stood further back than the examiner to give that time to lose the speed a bit.   Maybe that is something they could look at too when it comes to 125's. If it hadn't been for Mark and his training all year, I would have probably killed myself a hundred times over and if anything, it;'s made me a better rider.                                                                                                                                                                             

Fem, Sorry to hear about your accident on your test, that sucks, hope you get better soon   I have to say i've always had the worry that taking the test witth this advoidence module thing on a bike with wide bars and loads of leverage as a new rider was a recipe for problems, perhaps if this happens a lot the DSA will have to look at the test at lot harder in future,   I guess time will tell....                                                                                                                                                                             

Sorry to see you suffered such injuries on your test Fem. Hope you make a speedy recovery!

Does anybody know how the rest of Europe is coping? Wasn't all this as a result of a Europe-wide directive to "harmonise" rider training across the EU? Smaller-engined bikes/scooters/mopeds are much more prevalent in other European countries, so are they suffering as many in-test accidents elsewhere? If not, why not?

I don't really understand how the UK can undo the work they've already done with the off-road test centres & whatnot, as allegedly, this was all done in order to comply with the EU directive. Wasn't it the 3rd Driving Licence Directive or something?

The excuse for building the test centres (& in the process, doing so many out of work!) was that the EU directive meant the avoidance manoeuvres had to be done at 50 kmph. So how do they propose complying with the directive if they're opting for on-the-road avoidance manoeuvres?

Allegedly this wasn't possible before, given the inherent dangers of having to carry out the manouevres on higher speed roads than on say, quieter back streets with 30mph limits in place.

Besides... With all the spending cuts that are currently taking place and ongoing well into the future, does anyone really imagine that HM Govt is going to allocate many pennies to the future of riders' licensing?!

Then again... If they proceed with changing it all again, they can point to the test centre development as a prime example of public funds being wasted on a minority of the population & slag off Labour a bit more... Hmmm... Cynical, moi?
                                                                                                                                                                             

Nope, the directive says that it must be translated into British legislation, there was no need to introduce the stupid speed swerve test at that speed at all. Nor was there any requirement to have dedicated test centres.
The five elements are: 1) introduction; 2) practical on-site training; 3) practical on-site riding; 4) practical on-road training, and 5) practical on-road riding.
Again its up to the UK in how that is translated into UK legislation
What is more important is the following
The Third EU Directive was adopted in 2006. Its provisions must be transposed into national legislation by early 2011, but has to be implemented fully only in early 2013. The Directive makes new provisions for the training and testing of drivers of a range of vehicles, including mopeds and motorcycles, for driving examiners as well as for the administration of driving licences. As regards motorcycles and mopeds, most provisions in the Directive will only apply to tests taken after the Directive has entered into force in 2013. In relation to mopeds and motorcycles, the most important changes will be:
a)  changes to size categories of motorcycles, including a new medium-sized category;
b)  an increase from 21 to 24 in the minimum age for motorcyclists gaining direct access to the most powerful motorbikes, and
c)  a new formal test, or a training programme, for younger motorcyclists wishing to progress in stages to the larger and more powerful machines (currently, unlimited access to all motorcycles is gained automatically after two years' experience on less powerful machines).
8.  The DfT and the DSA indicate that they have taken a minimalist approach to the implementation of the Third Directive, making changes only where absolutely necessary, or where changes were planned anyway (yeah right!!!). In November 2009, a consultation on proposals for the implementation of the Directive was launched by the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Driving Standards Agency (DSA). 

                                                                                                                                                                             

Hmmm... Enlightening - thanks. & yeah sorry - I got my Directives in a muddle - the initial changes were made to comply with the 2nd weren't they? The 3rd's still to come!

I'm still confused (it's a fairly natural state!) cos every piece I've ever found online state that the Directive requires certain elements be carried out at the speed of 50km/h?

Including this paragraph from a Transport Committee report:

The new standards specified in the Directive require the practical motorcycling test to include specified manoeuvring exercises on slow speed control (slalom, figure of eight, riding a curve in 2nd or 3rd gear) and three manoeuvres (obstacle avoidance, controlled stop and emergency stop) which must be carried out at least at 50 km/h (31.5 mph). The Directive does not specify administrative details about how the standards are implemented. Member States have flexibility which allows the tests to be organised and delivered in a way that best suits prevailing local conditions.

I can understand that the UK translated/interpreted this in such a way that they chose to make the off-road testing a separate module and that they chose to group the elements of swerving & stopping together... but I can't understand that the UK has interpreted the required speed to be 50 km/h, unless that's what the Directive demanded. It seems an unlikely figure to pluck out of thin air, when most of our roads are limited to 30mph?

Because they are knobs and have done the usual bend over for Europe.

The directive says it can be translated into UK legislation, they just didn't.

The EU apart from Poland and Slovakia, (they have 60kph) have 50kph as their national speed limit, but that is their national legislation not an EU requirement, we, like plonkers just followed suit and decided we would use the same limit as a test requirement, which meant it couldn't be done on a 30mph road, don't know why ti couldn't have done in a 40mph limit though??                                                                                                                                                                              

So what you're saying is that other European countries aren't carrying out the manoeuvres at 50 km/h... "It's a limit, not a target!", as my old Driving Instructor was so keen to tell me with regular monotony! 

As I understood it, they declared 40mph roads to be too unsafe for riders to be carrying out hazard manouevres on & that's why they wanted to off-road those elements of the test. I think that was quite a valid argument. Last thing other road users need is an L-plated bike suddenly swerving for no apparent reason in front of them

I remember when it was first coming in that people were advising to aim above the 50 kmph, as 50 kmph was the minimum speed required to pass. i.e. 52km/h would be a pass, whereas 48km/h would be a fail.

If it's NOT a specification that these manoeuvres are carried out at a minimum speed, then why faff around now & waste all the money spent on off-road test centres? Why not just change the speed requirement, as it seems to be that, more than anything else, that's a major contributory factor to all the test accidents? & why does everything you read about it state categorically that the speed MUST be 50km/h to comply with the Directive?

I just don't geddit... *insert thicko smiley here*

I don't get it either - does this mean that 50 kmph is not required ?????????  please dont tell me that i'm going through this when I've not needed to and others alike.   I'm being thick here so sorry about that                                                                                                                                                                             

They are carrying it out at 50kph and as that is their national speed limit, they don't need to translate the directive to their legislation.

We've decided that we are just falling in line, rather than translating it to 30mph.

Yes you do need to go through it, because our government said so                                                                                                                                                                              

So do they carry it out on or off road?                                                                                                                                                                             

Current requirement is 50kph or above, they fail you if you are too slow but you do get a second chance to re-do the speed manouvers provided you've completed everything else and not hit a cone.   There is so much pressure to achieve the speed that many people actually go too fast to ensure a pass and risk hitting the cones or worse, having an accident. I know it is possible to do it faster if you have good control and quick reactions as my mate did his same day as me and recorded 59kph for the swerve and 61kph for the emergency stop. There's also a local lad that hit 74kph for the emergency stop because he just gunned it for the speed, luckily he completed the stop without incident. These aren't speed freaks, just people felt pressured to exceed the speed so they didn't fail for being too slow, this same pressure no doubt causes a lot of accidents too.                                                                                                                                                                             

Sorry - poorly worded there on my part. I'll try again...

The distinction I'm trying to make here, is that in another member state, that's carrying out the manouevres on a road, which has a 50 km/h speed limit... if you take your test here and carry out the manoeuvre at 48 km/h, you won't fail the test, as they presumably won't have the electronic gizmos set up on every roadside to measure your speed at point of manouevre. (But you might fail the test if you did the manouevre at 52 kmph, because you'd be breaking the speed limit.)

In the UK, 50 km/h is the minimum speed you have to travel at while executing the manoeuvres in order to pass the test.

                                                                                                                                                                             

I agree its poss to do it faster providing you have the right bike - I can guarantee that you'll never get them speeds off a 125 intruder.  I was determined one one occation to do it so much that i nailed it round the cones and scraped the peg on the ground - my pride and joy that is now :) and even then I couldnt get to them speeds - at 20 mph around the cones I can then open it fully and get to just about 50 if im lucky - its bloody difficult on them bikes;

i do also have another issue - something I heard in the bike club.
What is the exact wording they need to use on the emg stop or swerve ?   the bit about stopping as quickly and safely as poss etc ? I've heard that they are meant to also add something to the effect of 'as long as you don't go past me' and if that is the case then none of them have ever said that to me.                                                                                                                                                                             

I wasn't told about the "don't go past me" on the emergency stop, just the stop as safely and quickly as possible bit. My examiner stood well back, about 6ft before the blue cone box which you stop in for the avoidance test. Standing there made it easy to stop before getting to him.   I totally agree about the achievable speeds depending on the type of bike, those i quoted were all on 500cc machines. Riding a 125 cruiser myself for 12 months (similar but cheap copy of the intruder) there is no way you could do that. My own cruiser had footplates and i scraped them a few times on normal riding going around corners much wider than the test one. I wouldn't even have attempted the test on mine.   I understand where you are coming from Fem, it's a real shame they couldn't supply you with a better test bike to ride but an even greater shame that you then had an accident while trying to complete it on what is a good bike but not enough for the test they require you to perform, all because some paper pusher didn't do his/her job properly (i bet they don't even ride a bike).                                                                                                                                                                             

I also haven't heard of anyone having an examiner add "so long as you don't go past me" and it wasn't ever said to me by my instructor.

Maybe it's just something that has become a general rule of thumb with the exam? It's at the examiner's discretion whether or not you make the grade with the manoeuvres and it would make sense to position themselves in such a way that to go past them, would be to automatically fail on that element.

When I took my test he didn't say don't go past me ... He did say please try to come to a complete stop safely and under control without hitting me !

I feel sorry for anyone who has had an accident whilst on test but it cannot be adapted dependent on the bike your riding that would be silly and inpractical.

I don't agree however in putting the 2 parts in one test .. It will cost more to do and if you fail on the offroad it's going to be very costly.

i had to put my bike down whilst on my test many many moons ago, as i stopped at a junction off the narborough road in Leicester, due to a dog having a go at me, luckily the examiner was around three streets back, so after a discussion with the said animal it decided to run away from my honda CB125 superdream very quickly !!!!

I think a simple adaptation e.g. a reduction on speed requirements if you're taking the test on a 125, would be fairly easy to administer.
That seems to be the main problem - it appears that you're having to push a small bike ridiculously hard to meet the speed in the space given.   Either a 2-tier speed requirement for 125/500 bikes... or perhaps 50km/h with a margin of +/- 5% instead of automatic fail for not reaching 50km/h ?                                                                                                                                                                                 

Have to agree with WB.   You are taking a different level of test on a 125 as opposed to a 500cc. Some people are doing the straight A2 (i think thats it) for a full 125 licence which doesn't step up later. Some are doing the restricted 33bhp test on a 125 which is restricted for 2 years and others go for the 500 and full licence with no restriction.   Different levels of licence yet all expected to do exactly the same test, why?   I agree that if you are taking the test on a 125cc bike then the speeds should be lowered slightly to accomodate the lack of power for these machines, say 40kph and leave the 500cc tests at 50kph. It would be a lot safer and achievable yet still show the riders capability to control thier bike.   I dont like the single test idea especially having to carry out those manouvers on a road no matter how quiet it may be. We all carry out U-turns and avoidance moves on the road, in traffic, when we ride but you don't have the added pressure of being on a test which makes even the confident riders nervous. The extra cost of a single pass/fail test is also something to consider as the current MOD1/MOD2 is already very expensive and this can only go up.   Why is there such a gap between driving lessons & bike lessons?   Round by me you can get driving lessons at £10/hour yet the cheapest i've seen bike lessons by the hour is £40/hour! Still involves 1 instructor but usually with 3 students at a time so make that £120/hour they are charging, quite a big difference compared to driving instructors.