Advanced Motorcycle Test - examiners commentary 

Scuse me but. Who or what made, appointed these 'Experts' I ask this as being an police advance driver and motorcyclist, and IMHO at times they simply relate.............zilch.

@@mikeallen693 ex police drivers usually are the examiners

You did the right thing by taking the great micky

Glad it was of some use.

2 short beeps is usally considered polite.

I don't know how is regulated the use of horn in UK road law, but where I live, it is stated that horn should be used to warn others in order to avoid an " immediate danger". So, if other vehicle let's say, fail to yield, and only forces me to slow down, without any consequences, after that, honking at him would not be only useless, but also, quite illegal.

They apparently do it - even encourage it occasionally - in the UK. Police advance riding they call it...

But honestly he should have overtook it on the first bend very bad rider, must be the nerves on test. :D

From the look of things being in a non restricted road the safest place for the rider to be behind the trailer was probably where the police rider was.. that would be about 120ft if they were doing 40 mph or 175 ft. if they were doing 50. or 240 ft. if they were doing 60. So the rider was far to close and without a chance of passing on such a road he should have pulled back until one of those safe distances applied. At one point he followed close on a slight left handed bend but instead of moving towards the inside line for a view past the trailer on its inside he actually pulled out over the white line to gain the view and had immediately to pull in because there was oncoming traffic. That was a No No. I understand that in the latest Police Roadcraft Manual that going over the other side of the road or wrong siding is no longer recommended as its considered to dangerous for normal plebs like us to do it safely.

Rob k Really? A very bad rider? Daftest comment I’ve read in a long time.

My view is the same as yours. Like other hazard warnings its there for a reason and should be considered as part of the information phase. To blindly ignore it and get into difficulty would go against you on test and could form part of the evidence to prosecute you in the event of an accident. I'm not sure how you could even STRICTLY apply it. Does the speed apply from the sign, entry into the bend and when does it no longer apply as there are never any advisories telling you it no longer applies. Common sense i would suggest needs to be applied but as I'm sure we both know, often that isn't the case!.

Usually the advisory speed limit is there for the purpose of slowing traffic on that bend or other hazard ahead. Its usually because there have been motorists in difficulties before on that particular stretch of road and generally because of an inappropriate speed together with a definite lack of forward visibility ie. not enough safe space to stop in at higher speeds. So one can take it easy and maybe slow a little an be observant and able to stop in the distance one can see to be clear.

@@mickjones3860 I haver never ever seen any advisory sign whist approaching a bend say or other danger and then seen a sign negating it at all. They just don't exist.

One should never exceed the legal speed limit, that noways is a no no.. Never mind what others may say. We have all done it and some years ago a blind eye was turned to it but certainly with the IAM speed in excess of the limit is a fail. Some would still argue that the faster that you overtake the safer the overtake is which is not necessarily true. One must pull out to finalise the view ahead and then whilst in the wrong lane accelerate in the right gear so that you move past the target vehicle but at a steady pace. Most riders will continue to accelerate way past the target vehicle accelerating all the time and that is not necessary once the correct speed has been obtained and that can be 5 mph then continue past the target vehicle and then when sufficient distance ahead of the target vehicle then and only then pull back in with a mirror check and a left life saver. Many riders believe that whatever speed is appropriate and that is not the case plus they look in front of the target vehicle and see some space in front but they don't allow for other vehicle movements like slowing or acceleration and that small gap can easily disappear and then you are on the wrong side of the road unable to return to the correct lane so with out a paddle and in danger so make sure there is a large enough gap up ahead that you will easily make it within the speed limit and one that will not disappear in front of your eyes.

@@judgedredd49 what about +10% +2?

@@raymond_luxury_yacht What about it? I presume that you are referring to adding 2 mph plus 10% as a police directive as when not to report speeders. Am I right. Well you are wrong. the paper that came out about 10/12 years ago from the then ACPO Chief Police Officers was a paper designed to advise all police officers in the UK to recommend a standard response to speeders. So whatever action should be taken by all police officers with a speeder depending on the speed recorded and the responses and behaviour of the speeder themselves. So it showed a table of speeds from 30 up to 70 mph and then first gave a 2 mph tolerance for any designed speedo discrepancy and then added 10% on top. The first table was one of speeds and the next was the total speed allowable and what actions should be taken At the first, of 2 mph plus 10% ie 35 pr 45 mph etc a police officer would or could verbally caution or issue a FPT or advise a driving course. At other % over 10% then other actions were advised and could be taken etc. up the scale of speeds being found doing until at the end the fastest speeds drivers were to be reported for summons only Unfortunately many people reading that paper including many motoring correspondents got it wrong and believed that the police would not prosecute or take any action for speed under and up to that 2 mph plus 10%. That was not the case and never was the case. Police officers could always report or caution at whatever stage particularly at the lower end of the speed ranges, for speeds above whatever the speed limit for that road was. That is why some drivers complained that they were only doing 32/3 mph and still got done for speeding, believing themselves to be none reportable at speeds of up to 35 ,mph on a 30 mph road or 46 mph on a 40 mph road. etc. So in answer to your question there is NO POLICE SPEEDING TOLLERANCE other than the 2 mph at speeds up to 60 mph and one of 3 mph at the higher speed of 70 mph. To believe that there is an allowance of 2mph plus 10% for any speed limit is a fallacy and therefore we must ride and drive accordingly by our speedometers otherwise we will possibly be caught out someday.

@@judgedredd49 thanks for clearing that up. that's my understanding too but some people think this... cheers

Never say never. If a student attempted an overtake of a vehicle travelling at 55 you'd expect it to be on a very long straight with 'miles ' of view, no opposing vehicles and no junctions etc, allowing them to trundle past at 60. Sometimes, however, an overtake can be on - and safe, but a car driver may speed up and the gap you left may have closed up... in a scenario like that you still have to apply system. Your information has now CHANGED, but your position has been dictated (from your prior application of system, as has your gear, so if you can't retreat to your previous holding position you need to put safety first and accelerate smoothly to get out of danger, if that takes your over the limit, so be it. Safety first. Remember the speed limit is ultimately ABOUT safety....But a skilled rider can often SPOT impulsive/erratic drivers and plan around them. RE: 10% + 2; this is not an exempive discretionary rule, it's simply an acknowledgement that most vehicles speedometers under-report speed by roughly 10 %, so for a pull on the motorway a driver would need to be doing in excess of 77 under normal conditions. Contrary to commonly held belief, traffic officers aren't of to get people, once you've been to a fatality involving children, or anybody for that matter, it absolutely changes you in a way that can't really be articulated. My knowledge is no longer current, and there are far wiser people than me who may give a more up-to-date answer. Choose a line- and ride safe!

My interpretation would be this (possibly wrong): when you're moving at slow speed and have only stationary hazards ahead you are able to safely monitor the rear using mirrors. A lifesaver may have been required if he'd had to take his eye off the rear for a length of time due to a moving hazard ahead. For same reason, the rider performed a lifesaver when he stopped behind the van because his focus had been on the van, to ensure that it had indeed moved away. Advanced riding is about continual evaluation of the road to anticipate and avoid hazards, and so understanding and evaluating in the moment why you are performing actions e.g. lifesavers, indicating etc, rather than doing things slavishly as one might do for the basic test.

Tick! The examiner should cover this in the pre-brief. He will tell you to do your own ride, ignore that he’s there, ie his positioning is going to be based around his own safety but watching out for what you do how you do it and how early you can show him you have spotted, understood and reacted to the hazards as you approach them. He’ll probably explain that if an overtake is on for you, but not for him, take it if it’s available, it might be the only chance to show off your ‘3 stage overtake’. He’ll either catch up or will have told you the RV points to go to depending where you are.

There was no 'island' he did not cut anything, the positioning was slightly tight is all.

Jafman thier was an island just the paint is faidedhe also states twice it’s a roundabout along with the double roundabout sign

I was hoping russ from roadcraft Nottingham got it wrong but no he’s spot on again....dam lol

Hi Guys. Not sure which roundabout, but as you know signal only when another road user will benefit/help from it (depending which section of road craft your looking at). Having skimmed through it again I can't see an issue as we don't signal when exiting as a matter of course or a mandatory requirement - or have I missed your point.

Either at 1:15 or 1:38, at neither point are they turning left. You can't indicate to go straight, if you did it would just cause a hazard for yourself

You might like to read this. Taken from the UK Highway code. 186.Signals and position When taking the first exit to the left, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise  signal left and approach in the left-hand lane  keep to the left on the roundabout and continue signalling left to leave. When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise  signal right and approach in the right-hand lane  keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout  signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want. When taking any intermediate exit, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise  select the appropriate lane on approach to and on the roundabout  you should not normally need to signal on approach  stay in this lane until you need to alter course to exit the roundabout  signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want. 188.Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this

Yes, that's the highway code. It's also for left turns, not for straight over, or 'intermediate' as the highway code calls it. The main difference being whether or not to signal on approach or on the roundabout. Granted, the highway code says you should indicate on exit but it also points out that there is less time to do so on mini-roundabouts, and logically, you really can't indicate to go straight. If you indicate to go left on approach with the intention of going straight over, people on your left may assume it is okay to pull out in front of you and then you'll ride straight on into them. Likewise if you indicate right on approach, you are going to inconvenience the driver opposite you because they'll be waiting to give way and you won't be going that way. That'd be a minor or serious fault on a test depending on when you decided to indicate and how the other driver responds. I was taught on both category A and B that when going straight over mini-roundabouts, don't bother indicating because it can cause confusion and there's no benefit to do so, it's what I done on all my tests and it's what you see in the video here because, despite what the highway code says, there's simply no point in indicating for that 1 second window when leaving a mini-roundabout which poses more risk than benefit. In terms of legality, there is simply not enough time to indicate when going straight over on a mini-roundabout, as the highway code warns you that may be the case.

Ok, point taken.

You are expected to make progress where it is safe and legal to do so.

@@plasycoedfarm9841 Progress doesn't mean that one should ride as fast as one can at all times and overtake anything and everything on the road. Yes an assessor would want to see that you can overtake with some degree of safety but it's not always possible and sometimes the safest way of making progress is one of staying well back and out of harms way. To only overtake if it a is both safe and lawful to do so. Overtakes are an increased risk and therefore an increased danger . So they should not be considered lightelly or forced upon one and if the circumstances are such where it could be in your mind, dangerous or unlawful then one doesn't have to overtake at all. To many incidents and collisions or run offs. loss of controls or full on crashes occur as a result of inappropriate or unnecessary overtakes so riders should hold back and take up a position of safety, being the full stopping distance behind the vehicle in front,. Anything less than that distance could nowadays be construed as Tailgating.Which in itself is a danger not only to oneself but to all other road users. A position that many a motorcyclist has placed themselves in unbeknowingly.

@@judgedredd49 The comment is correct, making progress when it is safe and legal to do so encompasses what you've written but in more concise and covers more than your explanation, it includes road conditions and other environmental factors for example. Nor does the comment you're replying to say "one should ride as fast as one can at all times" If that was your interpretation then you have misunderstood the lessons of advanced motorcycling

Crossing the broken/dotted white line is perfectly fine when safe to do so. The solid white central line is a no no.

Its an old concern and out of date about riding in the sump line of a carriageway. Yes, many years ago cars and vans lost oil but that is not the case nowadays and not only that but diesel spills are on the tyre tracks as the filling cap is on the offside or nearside of the vehicle usually a HGV or big van. There is also the fact that with age the tarmac, with tyre tracks are well worn and the aggregate is gone or worn down so there is less grip on the tarmac to ride on and at times of being wet can certainly be very slippy. So it's the central sump line that is not driven on by the vast majority of vehicles that gives better grip. That said one should always move to whatever part of the tarmac is beneficial and safest to do so.

@@judgedredd49 nicely put. A lot of people need to bring their information up to date.

@Mike Allen I agree that the civilian Advanced riders course with any of the training organisations is absolutely nothing like the training that an actual police officer undertakes. The difference in riding and safety is enormous.A police officer may be required to have some 400 hours plus of training to end up as a class 1 or 2 Advanced rider on a motorcycle and what does a civilian undergo 10 to 20 hours only. Perhaps the words Advanced Riding and the word Police should not be together as it makes riders believe that they can and do actually ride like one and that is far from the truth. We cannot continue to train riders in this way as many a life is lost and many more riders are seriously injured on our country roads on taking bends and overtaking inappropriately.

@@russellgoodban7068 Whilst I agree that crossing the broken white central line is not necessarily an offence in itself, if instructed then it's possible that it can be abused by some. In theory and practise many years ago without speed limits vehicles could travel a lot faster than are allowed to today. As such a police officer should be able to make faster progress in the eventuality of being needed somewhere fast. We may also be talking about following a criminal in pursuit circumstances,. It's obvious that police need a lot of training in order that they can at times do their duty and drive or ride at faster speeds than the law permits. Under those circumstances it may be considered necessary to be over the line to improve forward vision and therefore position for ones safety. However under civilian normal riding situations that would not be absolutely necessary and in the event of an incident the rider could find himself in trouble with the police. The last thing that another road user wants is to be met with a motorcyclist approaching him at speed and on the wrong side of the road. Yes in an overtake one does it and when vehicle are parked on the nearside etc. but whilst it's useful to have in in ones armoury its should be used sparingly and not frequently as that could lead one into unnecessary danger.

Trailer with no lights and difficult windy road? Forget any thoughts of overtaking if you want to stay alive.

Could be part of the course to show safe overtaking manoeuvres.

As long as the road is clear and it is safe to do so, you're not ridding like a bellend and there are no cars approaching no police would ever pull you for going over the speed limit to safely overtake. It just wouldn't happen.

@@russellgoodban7068 Russell , are you Advanced? It doesn't really matter if you are or not.That attitude is not a correct one to have as it justifies almost anything one can do whilst on the road and that's not the point. No one should overtake if it means that the speed limit needs to be broken. That's the rule of law but unfortunately there are those and that includes some Advanced riders who believe that no matter what laws are broken they have the god given right to do so. I feel that its somewhat hypocritical that in Advanced training that candidates would fail if they went over the speed limit say when passing a lower speed limit sign from 60 mph down to 30 mph but it seems to be acceptable to some assessors, examiners and police officers to support one exceeding the speed the limit if in the process, as they a would put it a' lawful overtake'. That is the problem that we will always have with some motorcyclists and other road users who would justify an offence saying that its ok to do so as no repercussions would occur...... A bad attitude and example, particularly for road safety for oneself and for others.

@@judgedredd49 it's more dangerous, as a motorcycle rider, to just dawldle past a car trying not to break the speed limit when you could just zip past then drop back dow to the limit again. That is a fact. The longer you are in the danger zone- next to a car or on the wrong side of the road, the greater the risk to you. You font have to be an advanced rider to realise that.

It is also incredibly annoying for people who live in the houses at the side of the road.

The sounding of horn makes others aware of your presence so could save a life. This is the whole point of the advanced training!

Either that or a Pan

I don't - Triumph Tiger :-)

@@freetimeonlineme neither, I ride a Honda VFR.

A secret desire to look like a traffic cop

Agree, bike was on wrong side of road to clear stationary nearside cars. - I'd have thought bike should have slowed and moved in to his side thus reducing risk to all. Not all decisions on test are intuitive.

The horn is there to warn others of your presence. Thats all. Sounding it would never be a test fail.

Rule 112 of the Highway Code is very clear on the purpose of vehicle horns, and states that they are only to be used in order to warn another road user of your presence, no driving instructor worth their salt is going to fail you if you use the horn in this manor if there is a reason to do so. interpretation of that reason is another thing...

Advanced means driving defensively/safely AND within the speed limit.

you didn't see position 3 on the left hand bends ? position 1 on the right handers ? the potential expectation to overtake ?

@@ArcadeCabNBud On such narrow country roads and understanding that a van or car with trailer is a longer vehicle its normal to use common sense. A Police Officer under NORMAL patrol duties would stay behind and would have only needed to overtake as and when his duty required him to do so., Not all police riders go hell for leather all the time. The vast majority of the time they are riding as they should in all ways that are safe and within the the law Advanced riders should not necessarily ride faster but safer than others.

If there's no incoming vehicle then keep a door width space when passing parked vehicles.

Yeah, actually, you can. theres no law saying you cannot cross over the broken centre line for safety or a better view.

Chunky ... it is not the "wrong side of the road" ... it is the offside lane and available for use when safe to do so!