VIEWS ON A REVIEW OF THE NEW MOTORYCLE TEST 13 JUN 2010 My name is Loz Williams and 2Wheelskool is a motorcycle training school in Bradford, which employs 4 other instructors and trains around 300 students to test standard per annum. “What aspects of the new test should be looked at is the review question?” “All of it is the answer!” OPENING STATEMENT We are in a quandary because at implementation of 2DLD it is reported our elected ministers were not even present and failed to challenge and ask for derogation to the 50kph measurement. This is what has caused the basis of most of the problems of the new test and should be the start point of the review and changed! This fixation with achieving 50 kph causes just about all the problems we have. The second main issue is gold plating directives. For some reason, in this country, whatever directives come out of Brussels we seem to interpret them to the extreme. 2DLD consisted of 4 manoeuvres our new test has 11. LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS 1. The DSA created the Module 1 test without consultation. It decided the layout and dimensions, allegedly trialled it and implemented it after two U turns and deferments. This all smacks of a test not ready to be imposed on the country. 2. I believe the exercises should as far as possible represent real road situations, so the case for conducting them on a road with undulations, cambers, Kerbs potholes etc…. is a very valid point. The slow ride exercises are sensible and could reflect real road situations (albeit the figure of 8) A controlled stop is necessary and if the obstacle avoidance is to be done it should be a straight line approach conducted at normal acceleration. I think a review to conduct the test in real road situations should be the way forward. The problem is the fixation with the speed element of the test. So unless this is rethought, relaxed, or removed our hands are tied to an off road test, with measuring equipment and a formal layout. 3. Assuming we stick with the current test the dimensions in my opinion are wrong on two main points. a. This test has all but denied access to some groups of riders. The A1 category test and licence is now virtually impossible to achieve. A low powered motorcycle with a heavy rider can not achieve the terminal speed required to pass. Manual change scooters are an example. I have had to train a scooter club to use my 125cc bikes for Module 1 and then they switch back to their own machines for Module 2. This is a ludicrous situation where one part of the test is not allowing certain vehicles to be used albeit they can be used for the second part Module 2. Simple answer is to have different dimensions for the standard and A1 bike tests. b. The swerve and stop. This exercise which 2DLD set as obstacle avoidance has become a double swerve and challenging brake exercise. (Gold plating) The layout is wrong and this has come to light as this exercise is the one responsible for most of the crashes on test. It should be amended immediately. The requirement to swerve back and brake should be removed and students should be allowed to pull up in their own time and space as you would if this incident occurred on the road. WEATHER The claim that MPTCs can grip as well in the wet as they can in the dry is factually incorrect. I would challenge any academic to prove any road surface has the same grip properties when wet as dry. However the DSA assume this, as no allowance is given for the test when it is wet. Firstly the DSA must start to collect data, I would not be surprised if the crash rate and fail rate rose dramatically when it is wet. Simple answer is to have a wet weather layout. This has already been called for by the Transport select committee report but I see no action to address the situation by DSA. COVERAGE There were over 240 test centres prior to the implementation of this test. There are now lees than 50. It does not take many brain cells to realise that coverage will be dramatically reduced after such a cull. At original consultation the training industry were promised up to 80 centres and no more than 20 miles or 45 minutes travel time. In West Yorkshire (my area) we were promised 2 centres however the DSA have reneged on that promise and ceased to search for a second MPTC. This leaves no service to the northern half of the county. I have been campaigning for a second MPTC since learning of their promise break and even offered simple solutions like re opening Dewsbury Road, Cleckheaton. This casual site was used to good effect for over a year and would be low cost and easy to re instate. I do not understand the 45 minute 20 mile criteria. In response to my campaign supported by Terry Rooney (ex MP) The DSA conducted trials from Bradford and admitted that from every point of origin the MPTC at Wakefield took more than 45 minutes to achieve but stated all points were within 20 miles. What I can’t get my head around is why have a time criteria if you are going to ignore it. There cannot possibly be a MPTC achievable that is more than 20 miles distance yet reachable in less than 45 minutes. What exactly is the dual criteria for? Coverage must be addressed. We had casual sites that brought the numbers up to a reasonable level and served poorly covered areas but the DSA has closed many of these causing a big rise in distances students have to travel. My question is WHY? and why not reopen them. (West Yorkshire a typical example) COSTS The cost to individuals and the training industry has soared. I have analysed the increase to students since April 09 and it is over 30 %. Test fees alone have risen 34%. Extra training time and extra time to simply take the test all add to the cost (it is a 3 hour turn around to test from my location). For training schools it is the same, I have had to pass on some of the extra fuel, running and test fee costs but to remain competitive I have had to absorb some. My profit margin and personal income has dropped markedly to the point where consideration to continue as a training school in this location is under question. That is wrong. I run a very efficient and well respected training school which is under threat due to lack of local testing facilities. TRAINING To pass the new test we have to train students to ride in an unacceptable manner and one which would result in a fail on Module 2. The need to accelerate hard off a bend up to the rev limiter in the case of 125s is ridiculous. Again it is the combination of the bend exercise and Controlled stop/Obstacle avoidance being combined. If the whole test was conducted on the road we would be teaching students in the environment they use. Real life techniques for their riding future instead of the sterile incorrect practises we have to teach. CLOSURES The additional costs, lack of coverage, lack of areas available to train students and complexity of the whole process has lead to many training school closures. Whatever the cause the Government should be concerned about this problem. If members of the public cannot find local, value for money training schools they will either continue to ride on CBT and “L” plates or ignore taking the test and risk riding illegally. Its not just the new test, training schools provide the CBT as well so riders may also ignore taking or renewing CBT if they can’t find somewhere local. This whole MPTC scenario is shrinking and focusing training availability to proximities around the centres. I always worried about this problem of “haves and have nots.” Training school survival is being dictated by where the DSA choose to site MPTCs Unfortunately in West Yorkshire my school is in the “have not category”. 3DLD This review has been called for due to some alarming statistics, a damning TSC report and general industry and media unrest at the new test imposed by 2DLD. My fear that lessons have not been learned and 3DLD is on the same catastrophic course seems to be realised. The consultation for it has closed and DSA has announced the results which are the usual gold plating. This will probably be the final nail in the coffin for training schools struggling to survive. It will involve a whole costly new purchase of a bike fleet necessary to provide for the tiered training and tests. Some of which the main manufactures don’t even build or import into the UK! The complexity is mind boggling, the consultation was almost impossible to understand and I still don’t think anybody knows exactly how 3DLD is going to impact. My basic understanding is to introduce riders to more powerful machines in a controlled manner, thru age and capacity/power restrictions. It’s a novel concept and hard to argue against it, as a sensible idea to make motorcycling safer. But as with 2DLD is it going to do this? I cannot see any benefit from the 2DLD as yet so why don’t we let the dust settle and analyse these changes before we rush headlong into other ones. 3DLD needs a lot more analysis, research and consultation (the one produced was not fit for purpose.) before any decisions are made. CLOSING STATEMENT It is refreshing to see a government and minister willing to listen and have a review. My points are my opinion and based on a life time of riding and 10 years of instructing in this industry. I am sure there are many counterpoints, considerations and other ideas from interested people and organisations. I love the phrase “if it aint broke don’t fix it”! In the current cost cutting environment I don’t think the MPTC project would have been allowed to happen it is gold plating to the extreme, My worry now is that the DSA have put so much, cost and reorganisation of test centres into this that change is almost impossible. I dread the thought that one day there will be a fatality while taking a Module 1 Motorcycle test. In any Licence acquisition test that cannot be right, something must be done. Regards L S Williams