Convention for direction of rotation of rotary throttle contol (motorbike etc)

[T i m]

<snip>

Well the laugh was on him.

That was often the stereotype of driving test examiners but ITRW they were (mostly) just people doing a job. As in any field you get the odd 'special case' and he sounds like one of them.

<snip>

I think if that was an issue then maybe you shouldn't be driving in the first place. ;-)

There was a lot of 'knowing when they expect you to click', rather than doing so when appropriate that's for sure.

Daughter fell for such a trap because unlike me, she hadn't gone out exploring the locale as a kid, first on a cycle, then moped etc.

We had gone out together quite often (just to get some supervised miles under her belt, not with the intention of me instructing her) and I was impressed on her general control and composure.[1]

It was a very short (50 meters long) section of what would be best described as 'dual carriageway in a 30mph area (it was also 30 mph) and with all the white lines at the exit point very worn. Even the keep left bollard in the middle of the 5m wide grass 'central reservation' didn't really stand out.

So, when you first come across it (especially on your test) it looks like two small two-way roads running parallel to each other.

So, she's approaching the end of these with them on her right and so she mirrored, indicated, shoulder checked and *just* went to turn (into what would be two lanes coming out) before realising something was wrong, correcting and carrying on the other 5m and *then* turning right. ;-(

Now, all the other instructors back at the test centre knew that that was a common trap and made their students aware of it. ;-(

Her examiner told her instructor that she was a 'good little rider' and that it was a shame that she had stumbled there.

She passed second time. ;-)

Having full car and bike licences at 19 has helped on some job interviews even if wasn't a key part of the role.

Cheers, T i m

[Chris J Dixon]

That's the one

Indeed. I've no idea where the real problem lay.

Yes, it all happened inside the guard.

I now find it hard to believe that I regularly did the run from Barnsley to Manchester, over Woodhead Pass, on this bike. There were occasions when I had to resort to 1st gear in order to battle against the wind whilst actually going downhill.

I didn't usually do the trip during winter, but there was one February at the end of term (thin sandwich) where I had to get it home to Barnsley. As I began the run the throttle started sticking open. Stripping it down in sleety rain wasn't an attractive proposition, so I just pressed on. As it had an automatic clutch, I was a bit unsure how I would cope, but it made it OK. Changing down, the engine was slowed enough to cope, changing up was a bit more vicious. There was only one stop line, and I managed to crawl across with judicious braking. Turned out it was water in the slide that was jamming it, and a bit of oil was all it needed.

It did have indicators, but they were almost completely hidden by the panniers. When right hand signals were called for, the throttle grip flew back. Nothing I could do with the various bits of springy steel seemed to improve matters, so life could be a bit interesting.

Chris

[Scion]

<snip>

On the test you are meant to click on a "developing hazard" (I think that was the wording) and in theory the sooner you click the better the score.

I bought a DVD that had dozens of clips and rated your score. I clicked waaaay to early on a lot of them; I got the correct hazard but I wasn't supposed to have realised by then.

Example: a cyclist some way in front on the left. Parked cars. Relative speeds made it obvious that the cyclist was going to be moving out to get past the parked cars at the same time the video car got there. Click. Zero points. Apparently the I was supposed to click as the cyclist started moving out.

Other examples - a car approaching a junction a little too fast; pedestrians approaching a zebra crossing; brake lights coming off a car parked on the left.

In addition, all but one clip had just one hazard you were supposed to click on. If you got the wrong one - a child walking on the pavement next to the road, for example - you couldn't then click on the intended hazard later on in that clip.

The CG version was much clearer, both in graphics quality and intention.

[NY]

The other two examiners I had were a lot more normal. One was a chap in his twenties - he was the one who failed me on my reversing round a corner. The other was the senior examiner (whom apparently they wheeled out for people who had failed a couple of times). His attitude was "I'm sure you can drive safely by now, but maybe you're a bit nervous and have made a couple of silly mistakes that you've learned from". He looked through the reports from the two previous tests - "Hmm, made a mistake while reversing around a corner - another car came - that's a situation where you need to be told what to do, because if you guess you might get it wrong. And who did you have before - ah!" [significant "say no more" pause]. And he briskly started the test, so he wouldn't be tempted to elaborate on "Mr Hemlock".

The "driving commentary" for the IAM test is a weird one. It takes a bit of practice to be able to describe the road ahead and the actual or potential hazards that you can see, while still driving safely without the commentary distracting you. The problem is editing what you say, because things happen far more quickly than you can put into words. I found I spoke in short staccato bullet points, stripped of all unnecessary words - none of the laid-back chat in

(leaving aside the much quieter roads and the greater "politeness" in 1963), though I suspect that the commentary was recorded later, after he'd had the benefit of watching the film again. Some parts are a set-up: the red Triumph Herald near Marlborough (sorry, "Mawlborough") has got to be a plant, to demonstrate bad driving. One thing that always interests me about this supposedly "exemplary" driver is how aggressively he sounds his horn several times to "persuade" the Hillman Minx to move over to Lane 1 to allow him to overtake I might give a single headlamp flash after a few seconds when the other driver could have moved over but hasn't, but after that I'd sit tight, trying not to let my frustration show. I wouldn't keep on hooting/flashing, because that would be to invite road rage, of which a V sign (*) would be the least of my problem.

(*) Nowadays, with the US influence, it would probably be a middle-finger: people can't even swear in British any more!

[NY]

Yes, that's the problem with automated, non-human tests: they can't allow for the "I hadn't though of that hazard, but well done for spotting it". And they need to have a way of distinguishing "this *could* develop into a problem, but might not do - watch and wait" versus "this *is* a problem - take avoiding action now". I think the video driving test that I saw (as a small window inside a 14" PC screen - it was 1990s technology!) wanted only the latter, when they should be looking for the former so you are prepared for it developing (or not developing!) into the latter.

[T i m]

<snip>

;-)

As you sometimes do. I tried to do that when the condenser became disconnect by pedaling to supplement the very low engine power. Unfortunately pedaling a moped any distance wearing the same gear you would wear when just sitting on a moped at 30 mph through a cold night aren't the same thing so I (fairly quickly) had to stop and see if I could do anything about it.

Sometimes the risk (of further damage) is worth it though.

Which, had you know, you might have had on you via the dipstick or gearbox filler / level screw, assuming you didn't carry anything. I generally carry one of those mini spray tins of WD40 wrapped up in a rag.

My BMW has a friction knob on the throttle so you can actually lock it off, or give it a load more friction but it just feels too dangerous to me to use (unlike an electronic cruise control that would automatically disengage etc).

Whilst *having* to fettle the less well made / less reliable machines (not the Hondas here) was a PITA when they let you down on a trip, they did make the journeys you did make with no issues more of an event. With the reliability of modern transport and with it's automatic / home comforts and features, most people are completely disconnected from the both the mechanics and the process / responsibility of that they are still driving a dangerous machine amongst other people / things.

I'm not blaming people *today* because there isn't much most could do to fix anything should it happen, but I'm not sure they still get the idea of the (completion of the) journey itself being part of the event. [1]

Or maybe they are bringing that back with PEV's and 'range anxiety'! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] I say that when in nearly every instance I was able to sort something to be able to get home. Two exceptions being a failed clutch splines on my R100RT BMW 175 miles from home and the other being a snapped cambelt on the Sierra. I was previously towed home on the BMW when the ignition amplifier failed and the most embarrassing bit was being towed by the Mrs on her Yamaha XV750 Virago. Not sure you would be allowed to do that now days, other than to get to a 'safe place' possibly?

[T i m]

<snip>

I think that was the most common 'fault', even by those who weren't already drivers / rider (especially the computer game players). ;-)

Quite.

Yup.

When I joined BT we had to watch a load of safety training videos and one was about driving (I guess in case any of us ended up out on the 'Holes and poles'). The video was stopped as a black cab was pulling out from the kerb opposite a petrol station as a blue car was about to go past the cab from behind with other cars around etc. The trainer asked us if we could say what was going to happen next and my suggestion was that 'the blue was going to go in off the black'. (I guess you had to be there). ;-)

Yes, I think there were such interlocks and as you say, a sliding scale of scores, depending on how soon you saw the hazard, but not before.

Can you get a trial / demo of that online do you know OOI?

Cheers, T i m

[Scion]

Not that I know of, but there may be something out there. I've not had reason to look recently.

[T i m]

<snip>

Or the numpties that look at a theory test question of:

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

And *not* click on:

C. Be prepared to give way to large vehicles in the middle of the road

*Because* ... 'a large vehicle couldn't fit under that bridge!!'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Scion]

Heh, the theory test was dead easy. Multiple-choice, often with only one realistic answer.

"You are approaching a pedestrian crossing. Your traffic light is flashing amber but an old lady starts to cross. Do you a) Accelerate - you can squeak past if you swerve; b) Stop but rev your engine and sound your horn to make her see the error of her ways; c) Run her over. You have right of way and she looked like didn't have long left anyway; d) Stop and wait until she has crossed before continuing."

[Fredxx]

A large vehicle with a height less than the given limit will fit under this bridge, and if close to the limit will be in the middle of the road.

Therefore "C" is the obvious and correct answer.

[Fredxx]

The Highway code has a throwaway instruction to avoid accidents, so that overrides the feeling of being in the right, or where you have a right of way, so "d" is the obvious answer.

[NY]

"A" may additionally be the right answer (as well as "C") if you yourself are also driving a high vehicle ;-) And that could apply to car drivers (ie not just HGV or PCV drivers who have an additional level of test) if they had a bike on a roof-rack.

[Scion]

Would "a" not also suffice?

[Fredxx]

Difficult to prosecute anyone in that case, but the examiner is probably wanting to know whether you intend to exercise care.

In this case the implication is you have time to stop, and hence a way from the crossing. The anticipated need for remedial action implies you are taking an unnecessary risk if you should "squeak past".

YMMV

[Fredxx]

I agree but isn't the test here for a 'car'.

[NY]

But is it assumed that it is a normal-height car with nothing on a roof-rack, and not a higher-than-normal SUV - or a Transit van which can still be driven on a car licence? OK, I'm being picky here.

Once the bridge is proved to be clear, I tend to go through the highest part if it looks as if the edges will be anywhere *near* the height of my car - taking no chances.

I remember seeing a road-safety question that gave several different answers for "is it safe to overtake on a hill approaching a bend". The question did not specify whether up or down. I maintain that it is safe to overtake on a

*down* hill because that gives you a very good view of the road beyond the bend, and also accelerates your car quickest, so you can be on the wrong side of the road for the least time.

Of course they wanted the "proper" answer that overtaking on an *up* hill before a bend is bloody stupid because you can't see round the bend and over the brow of the hill, and you are having to accelerate with gravity working against you.

It shows that you have to word your questions very carefully to avoid smart-arses who are looking for get-out clauses ;-)

[Steve Walker]

There was one in the papers about the French theory test a few years back. They asked which was it safest to be in when hitting a wall - a tank or a car. The answer they wanted was car, because it has seat belts, crumple zones and airbags. But obviously the wall makes a difference - if it is a metres thick castle wall, then the car may be best, but if it is a dry-stone wall around a field or a house wall, then the tank would likely just roll through it safely.

[T i m]

<snip>

Ah, interesting, thanks.

Quite.

That is strange though (that they should be 'reversed') because the chances are that motorbikes (front brake) and TAG mopeds / scooters (2 off hand operated brakes) would be 'normalised' throughout the world?

I wonder if they just set them up wrong and only you thought to question / swap them?

(Not sure any non regular / non experienced 'holiday' cyclists would realise the difference)?

Cheers, T i m

[NY]

It's an interesting one. Car gear levers, pedals and stalks are the same way round in LHD and RHD cars. When I first drove an LHD car, I instinctively used the correct pedal and gear layout but for some reason expected the stalks to be reversed (indicators on right, wipers on left). Strange the way the brain works.

Likewise I'd expect motorbike controls to be standardised (at least on modern bikes) and not to be reversed (either pedals or handlebar twist/lever) for LHD/RHD.

But I've heard that for bicycles the brake levers (and maybe the gearchange lever or twist) *are* swapped for LHD - and the reason is to allow braking with the rear brake (the one that is safest on its own) if the hand that uses the front brake is occupied with signalling a turn *across* traffic - ie the left hand for LHD and the right hand for RHD.

The one that is very hard to get used to is driving a go-kart because the layout precludes having a brake pedal on the right to be operated alternately with the throttle. So you have to get used to left-foot braking. After 40 years, my right foot is used to the delicate job, with small travel, for braking and accelerating, and my left foot is used to big to-the-floor movement of the clutch. The first few times I went to brake I spun the car because I instinctively slammed my left foot right down ;-) We were all warned at the end of the go-kart session "if you've driven here, make damn sure that you go back to right-foot braking in your own car, otherwise you'll forget to use the clutch when you change gear" ;-)