HondaHero

I think he'll get his licence back in time. It took DVLA 2 weeks in my case. If you call them up you will be able to find out which batch of licences they're working on. They get sent a batch, or a list, from DVSA roughly once a week. Then you'll know roughly when to expect the licence.

That sounds dramatic. Leaving it there at 4K rpm. I suppose I said that's what I do. Oh wait, no I didn't. I said 'a few moments'. Sorry to bugger up the group bonding and reassurance ritual here, but.. really. And maybe let this thread go back to answering the OP.

Regardless of what some of you have said, I will continue to let my bike warm up for a few minutes before riding off, for the reasons I have already given about oil and the behaviour of the moving parts at cold vs warm operating temperatures. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. My bike has twin carbs, it's in perfect order, it doesn't need choke to start but I put it on anyway for all of 3 seconds or so when starting, then hold it at 4000 rpm for a few seconds, then take my hand away. What I've just described is nothing unusual, contrary to the view you have taken. There is no way to warm up an engine without running it. Someone actually wrote that leaving the bike on idle causes more wear and tear than just riding off without letting it warm up and the oil fully circulate around the engine and clutch. I have no further comment.

It isn't bollocks, nor is it a fueling issue. Stalling isn't the problem. The real purpose of warming up the engine is to encourage the flow of oil around the engine. When all the parts are properly lubricated, there is less likelihood of seizure. What the OP suggested, which was basically pressing the 'on' button then driving off, is damaging to bikes. The highest level of wear and tear occurs at the point when the bike is started, and this is because the oil hasn't properly covered all moving parts at that time. To accelerate, from cold, an unlubricated bike engine and clutch, is to hasten damage and risk catastrophic component failure.

Not taking sides here, but yes, it is necessary for the bike to rev above idle for a little while before it can be used. All 4-stroke bikes should be warmed up for between 3 and 5 minutes before use, or their engines can seize early into the ride, causing catastrophic damage. Most bikes will need a little gas to start up from cold, as well. For example, my bike idles at 1200 rpm. However, I can't just start it and leave it to idle at that speed, or it will just cut out immediately. I have to hold the throttle open to about 4000 rpm (noisy) for several moments because I can let it drop down to 1200 rpm. Then I can leave it for 3 to 5 minutes to warm up. Like I said, I'm not taking sides but I'll tell you this, and you won't want to hear it: 7:30 in the evening is way too early as a cutoff point for environmental noise in residential areas. You have to be reasonable here. The cutoff time for noise nuisance (you can look this up if you don't believe me) is 11 pm. If you expect everything to go dead at 7:30 you're not being reasonable. Sorry, but someone had to say it.

Let's suppose the CBT is scrapped, and you can hop on any bike from the age of 17 without L-plates and without taking any form of test. Everyone who seeks out and pays for an instructor to teach them introductory CBT-like things would then be doing it entirely out of their own free will. Paying voluntarily for that service means their eyes and ears will be peeled. They will ask about and memorise everything they are told, from points about the Highway Code to vehicle maintenance and safety gear. Why? Because nothing compels them to be there. The pressure would be off. As a result, rather than learn off by heart the Theory Test questions (like I did) or the show-me tell-me questions (like I did), their attitude to learning would help them absorb reams of information. The bottom line is that if you had an American type of situation ('endorsement', MSF, etc.), where there is no real practical barrier to having any motorbike you want (except being alive and having enough money to buy it), the majority of riders would have enough of a self-preservation instinct to go and make sure they were really good, by getting whatever training they needed. To put it another way, if I had been able to hop on a Ducati 1098 at the age of 17 with NO sense of accomplishment, I would be a much better rider than I am today, with not even a year's experience and a massive sense of accomplishment for jumping through all the hoops of the licensing system.

In all third world countries, 125cc motorcycles are ubiquitous on public roads. In fact, most 125 and sub-125 bikes are designed to target those markets, rather than the UK. Entire families can be seen riding on them, without a helmet or any other safety gear, on the wrong side of the road, etc. Casualty rates are much higher than in developed countries, but it doesn't really matter because small displacement motorcycle riders there can take advantage of this mode of cheap transport to take them to work, to do business (e.g. delivery and dispatch), etc. Those little bikes and their untrained riders are the lifeblood of lots of major cities. Without them, they simply wouldn't work. Economies would fail overnight if they were just banished overnight. The reason given for the imposition of testing and licensing in countries like ours is always safety. However, no discussion is ever held over what the acceptable casualty rate is. This has led to the dangerous assumption that there is no acceptable casualty rate, that no deaths or serious injuries are tolerable, or, in other words, that the acceptable casualty rate is a figure no greater than 0. We know that there will always be casualties, as long as there are motor vehicles. Therefore all measures to reduce the number of injuries and deaths from motor vehicles tend to become established as permanent fixtures in a ratchet that tightens in only one direction. This means that whatever happens, we can be sure that it will never become easier to get on the road with a motorcycle. It can only get more difficult, because we haven't set a casualty rate target above 0. Therefore the ultimate and inevitable end-game, until we set a target figure of, say, 1000 motorcycle deaths a years being acceptable, is in fact the elimination of motorcycles from the road. A further problem with regard to this difficulty-based approach towards making riders safer is that difficulty simply reduces opportunity by a number of means, rather than making a better rider. This is because if someone who wants to ride has to surmount several obstacles before getting on a machine, the goal of road safety, and the zero casualty rate target, is already part-achieved, as long as he is prevented from riding! You can prevent him by making the cost of training or qualification prohibitive, or by setting the age limit higher. There are many ways to do it. But it would have nothing to do with making him a better rider. Why? Because handling skills, roadcraft, hazard awareness, confidence and common sense are all products of experience, and trial and error. Many of these things are easier to learn when young, when the body is more capable of healing after injury, etc. I don't see much value in rote learning, in a mechanical way, the set of questions needed for the theory test, for example. The Highway Code is much bigger than that, and it contains legal obligations which drivers are expected to know. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Another bugbear is instilling basic general knowledge by means of the CBT, and show me tell me questions on the Mod 2. If you want to ride a bike, it's up to you to find out how to make sure it's safe and roadworthy. It shouldn't be necessary to make all this part of a nationally prescribed system (the CBT talk). The bottom line is that there is no end of nuggets of advice, lectures and warnings you could tack on to the CBT, and it will just become more of what it already is, a means by which people obsessed with motorcycles (as opposed to people who want or need a cheap mode of transport) get on the road. Making it bigger will excuse making it more expensive, and money is a real barrier to getting a bike licence, even for the bike-obsessed. Thus reducing those riding to an ever-dwindling number. In my opinion the CBT is too wide-ranging with its emphasis on the obvious and common sense (such as safety gear and the Highway Code). In the 80s in France I remember it was the norm for all French kids who could afford it to have a moped or small motorcycle from the age of 14, which they rode always without a helmet, etc. Of course there will be accidents, but learning about consequences and responsibility are a part of growing up. Take that away, as has been done, and you are left with an expensive scrap of paper that's little more than a mental safety blanket. Nobody is that precious that they shouldn't be allowed to risk life or limb. Accidents happen.

Makes sense! Thanks.

[]

The point of the maneuvers mod is to ensure you have full control of the bike at slow speed so you are safe on the roads (pulling out, in traffic etc). It's not really productive to try and "cheat" this section as it's something you will need to be good at in every day riding. How is it cheating, to control the bike a different way? I wasn't taught this technique as a 'cheat', but as a legit way of controlling the bike. The examiner isn't interested in exactly how you get the speed under control in the U-turn.

No, that's not right. Firstly, you won't stall because your revs are up. Second, dropping the bike or piling into the nearest hedge will happen if you look down or look straight ahead at that hedge. This method is actually a lot easier for beginners and provides more than enough control to complete the maneuvre but the speed during the maneuvre is more variable. It takes the burden away from having fine motor control in the left hand. Why do I feel like I'm selling it to you? Just try it or don't. The end. Oh thanks for letting me know.

It works and you can try it yourself. Just keep the revs high and you will see this is a crude way that works and requires less finesse. Alternatively you're going to have to see it demonstrated. But I think you'll get it the first time. You sort of lurch through the U-turn maneuvre with this technique. The only way it's different from just feathering the clutch is that you're treating the rear brake as if it were the clutch. The effect is the same: moving you forward faster or slower. It will wear out the rear brake faster, and probably the clutch as well. There is yet another way to do the U-turn too! That is to use a bike without EFI, and set the idle mixture and speed on the carb so that it's running fast and a little lean at idle, then just slowly letting the clutch out without any throttle. It will move forward at a slow, constant pace just on idle, without stalling. Then all you need to do is balance the bike and look where you're going during the maneuvre. I haven't mentioned any obs, not putting left the foot over the white line, etc. because I've just been talking about moving the bike around. Many ways to skin a cat.

Agreed. However, even though it's malicious comms, it's also assault ("“the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of harm”). Malicious communications legislation is newer law than the very old common law crime of assault, although emailed threats would most likely be prosecuted under the recent legislation. This is largely irrelevant other than to prove that the culprit could be prosecuted for several crimes, although most likely to be prosecuted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I fully understand that the offence is complete (there is evidence of 'persistent' harassment as required by the 1997 Act). Things have stopped for the time being, but I may go back and ask for police follow-up. The main reason I complained to the police was for my own (legal) protection in case things escalated.

Yes, that's it exactly. Apologies for any confusion. When I used the term 'feathering' I meant dabbing on and off to control the speed and to keep the bike rolling. Of course you should hover over the clutch and take it in and put it out when necessary, but the technique I was describing, taught to me by my instructor when I was cackhanded with the clutch and nervous with a big bike (so nervous and so cackhanded I tipped it over in training), was to do much less with the clutch than with the back brake. It involves holding the clutch just a little beyond biting point but really just keeping the revs higher than comes naturally, and dragging the back brake. This technique can make it easy, but if it's something completely new and if clutch control isn't a problem don't do it. No point trying a second technique that does the same thing if you can move it around another way.

If you look where you want to go, and not where your body is telling you you are going, that's where the bike will go just as long as your chin is up. If you watch someone else do it, you will see that their head is cocked in an unnatural and peculiar position, like a bird. About the controls: if you listen to jazz or swing or bebop or similar, note what your foot does when you're sitting down. That's the feathering back brake action: high frequency, semi-conscious, small range of movement in the ankle. Clutch pressure: no change at all once moving. Keep revs up and feather the back brake and look up and where you're going, and you can't go wrong. This maneuvre is the most boring to practise and causes fatigue in the right hand when practising. Also, you will occasionally make a mistake when practising, even when you've got it. It can be a useful maneuvre. Since passing the test I've done many U-turns while riding around exploring new areas, and never feathered the back brake. However, when the examiner's eyes are on you, you will want to use that back brake and keep revs up for the U-turn exercise.