On 06/04/2021 08:59, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:38:24 +0100, Chris Green wrote:
NY wrote:

Is there a convention for which way the handlebar of a motorbike etc rotates
to control the throttle?

Motorcycle throttles are 'top towards you' to increase speed.

... or as you say, looking at the end of the RH handlebar, you turn it
anti-clockwise to increase speed.

Not just me then where looking at the rotation direction from the
middle is a bit 'unusual'? ;-)

That might be a 'right-brainer' thing?

Now it may well be on an 'electric wheelbarrow' you have two steering
arms (reminiscent of typical wheelbarrow handles but not what I took
from 'central handlebar axle') and so could be viewed from the inside
out?

I can't quite understand your technique of making a statement and adding
a question mark at the end? Is that a right-brainer ting as well?

--
Spike

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 08:16:39 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

NY wrote:

But I think I could walk up the very non-PC Blackboy
Hill quicker than my mate's Honda 50 moped could manage it ;-)

I remember having to take the test again, in the 60s, having
upgraded from my dad's old NSU Quickly (there's an oxymoron)

I had a 3 speed and it was faster than many mopeds at the time but it
certainly wasn't 'fast' (not compared with a tuned 'Fizzy' anyway).
;-)

which was a moped, back when that designation meant it had
pedals,

'... as an alternative means of propulsion and had to be less than
50cc'? I think the rule that it 'not be able to do more than 30 mph'
came in quite a bit later.

to a Honda 50, which was not in that category.

If it was the 'Honda 50' (Cub), the stepthough motorcycle then no, it
wasn't a moped, unlike the my 'Honda P50' with the engine in the back
wheel, that was.

Pretty
daft really, since it then meant that I could (and still can)
legally drive any bike; not that I would dare.

Same here. Mrs had to do her CBT and took one test (+ theory?) and
could ride anything after 2 years on max 25hp or something? However,
she chose to do her apprenticeship starting with a KH100 then CG125
(then she got why 4/s were 'better' than 2/'s), 2 x XV535 and then her
XV750 (and towing optional camping trailer). ;-)

Daughter had to do CBT, Part 1 and 2 (and theory) was also restricted
for 2 years to a lower hp bike and could then ride anything (currently
a 600cc Suzuki Bandit). Because of her age I don't think there was any
point her doing the 'Direct access' (to the bigger bikes) at the time
as she was below the age for bigger bikes in any case (so just waited
out the two years on a MZ 250). ;-)

Two wheels were
for me simply an economic necessity at the time, not a lifestyle
choice.

They have never been a lifestyle choice for me either but a transport
option / choice. They also provide some alternative entertainment.
Like, I rarely 'just go for a drive' in the car, but will 'just go for
a ride' on a bike, when the weather / circumstances suit. We will also
turn up at the biker hut in the car, if the weather isn't too good.
;-)

Initially it was the interest of getting powered transport (I bought
the Honda P50 off my English teacher at Secondary school (for £5) with
a stripped plug thread) repaired it then rode it from my 16th birthday
till being given and collecting the NSU Quicky as a wheelbarrow full
of parts, put it together, got that road legal and carried on on that
.... because it was Quicker than the P50. ;-)

I've currently only got my CB250 (Nighthawk) on the road but the BMW
R80 could be if I fancied but I'd say I get just as good a kick
pootling round the twisties on the CB250 as I have on anything (even
though it's a bit small on me). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:53:13 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

There was always speculation that the early Japanese bikes had these
on the 'wrong' side because they had a reversed photograph or some
such to work from when studying the 'bikes of the time.

Yebbut was it down for up gear or up?

On the Enfield, I think it was up for up gear (down into 1st etc,
neutral between 1st and 2nd), just on the wrong side.

My Honda was up for up gear (I
think), with the "proper" neutral between 1st and 2nd (with an "idiot
light" to show when you were in neutral).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22979049@N07/51098827681/

Sweet, looks fairly similar to my CB 'Two fifty' (especial that twin
cylinder engine and twin exhaust).

Cheers, T i m

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
A Nissan Leaf allows one pedal to act as 'go' and 'stop' doesn't it ?.
This means you can hold the car on a slope without the handbrake.

Not sure if you put you foot under it and attempt to lift it that
the car goes backwards :-)

Having learned to drive on a car with at least two and preferably three
pedals, I would find it very difficult to get used to a single-pedal car,
where releasing the pedal completely applies the brakes.

Do let us know when you find one. As far as Im aware they dont exist.

So the reference to the Nissan Leaf was incorrect? And I've seen other
references in this and other newsgroups about some electric cars having a
brake (typically regenerative) built into the accelerator pedal, such that
when the pedal is completely released, the car doesn't coast but instead is
slowed down by regenerative braking. I don't have any experience of this:
I'm just quoting other people's descriptions of it.

I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without using
that
pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much" ;-) Some cars are better than
others for doing clutchless gearchanges: my 13-year old Peugeot is dead
easy, and I think it always has been fairly easy even from about 20,000
miles when I got it. But my wife's 5-year-old Honda is a lot more fussy
about getting the speed very accurately the same - it is less forgiving.
I
never try a clutchless change while she's in the car ;-)

Why would you bother other than as a €œparty trick€�? Its not good for your
synchromesh.


Agreed. It is mainly a "party trick". I was commenting on someone's
description of the clutch as a pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much" by
saying that, apart from the skill of doing clutchless gearchanges, it *is*
rather important and definitely does do something.

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without using
that
pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much" ;-) Some cars are better than
others for doing clutchless gearchanges: my 13-year old Peugeot is dead
easy, and I think it always has been fairly easy even from about 20,000
miles when I got it. But my wife's 5-year-old Honda is a lot more
fussy
about getting the speed very accurately the same - it is less
forgiving. I
never try a clutchless change while she's in the car ;-)

Why would you bother other than as a €œparty trick€�? Its not good for
your
synchromesh.

Its not bad for it either if you know how to match speeds

If you get it exactly right, I grant you its harmless but youre asking
your synchromesh to do a job it wasnt designed for. Do you always get it
*exactly* right?

It all depends on how good the baulk rings are and how much tolerance either
side of the matched speed they allow. I imagine that cars that are very
fussy about clutchless gearchange have very effective baulk rings which
prevent the synchromesh cones coming into contact until the speeds are very
closely matched, and make the characteristic graunching noise if the speeds
are not closely matched. That's good for the cones because there will be
very little rubbing at contact point. If the baulk rings are less effective,
they will allow contact when there is a greater disparity of speed, which
potentially puts a greater strain on the rings if you happen not to match
perfectly. OK, so you'd feel it as a sudden retardation or acceleration of
the car.

On my car I can usually change down OK, because you just increase the
throttle gradually until the gear slips in. I find changing up more
difficult for some reason, even though in theory it's just the same throttle
adjustment in the opposite direction.

Clutchless gearchanges aside, I always try to match my engine and road
speeds reasonably well - I've got to know roughly how much the rev counter
needle needs to move from its speed for the old gear when changing to a new
gear. At the very least, I keep the engine revs constant during the
gearchange, and preferably I actually change the engine revs the right
amount in the right direction. What I don't do is what some people do: let
the engine revs fall to idling, let the clutch up on the idling engine and
then reapply power (*). That causes horrendous lurches and must do horrible
things to the clutch which has to take the strain of the mismatch. I got a
lift with a woman who had been driving a few years longer than me but had
never learned about rev-matching. After she'd apologised for the n-th time
about her jerky gearchange, I rather diffidently suggested that there might
be a "different" (ie "better") way of doing it. She let me demonstrate and I
talked her through the process (which surprisingly difficult to analyse when
you do it subconsciouly). She was gobsmacked. Goodness knows whether her
instructor taught her badly or whether she'd slipped into bad habits
afterwards. I suspect the latter, because the gearchanges she was doing
would not have got her to pass the test.

It's a skill. No-one is born knowing how to do it. It takes a lot of
practice. The miracle is that having acquired the skill, it is transferrable
from one car to another and doesn't have to be re-learned to take into
account different clutch bite point, different responsiveness of throttle,
different spacing of gear ratios etc - it just requires a bit of mental and
muscle-memory tweaking of the parameters in the mental algorithm.


(*) The technique that was required for drivers of 1st generation DMU
trains, to allow time for several different gearboxes on engines along the
train all to change gear by remote (drive-by-wire?) control. I have "fond"
memories of the DMUs on the Aylesbury-Marylebone service in the 1970s and
80s which would accelerate hard in first gear after leaving a station, then
disengage and let the engine idle for what *seemed* like almost a minute
during which time the train not only stops accelerating but actually starts
to slow a bit, and then there was a sudden surge of power in the new gear.

On 06/04/2021 15:43, NY wrote:
I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without using
that pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much"

Cough. You don't change gear on a pure electric car, because it
doesn't have any. All hybrids are automatic too (AFAIK).

On 06/04/2021 18:21, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/04/2021 17:04, Tim+ wrote:
NY wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2021 13:29, T i m wrote:


You press a pedal on the floor and the car goes faster and you press
another pedal on the floor, the car goes slower and press a third that
doesn't appear to much. ;-)


A Nissan Leaf allows one pedal to act as 'go' and 'stop' doesn't it ?.
This means you can hold the car on a slope without the handbrake.

Not sure if you put you foot under it and attempt to lift it that
the car goes backwards :-)

Having learned to drive on a car with at least two and preferably three
pedals, I would find it very difficult to get used to a single-pedal car,
where releasing the pedal completely applies the brakes.

Do let us know when you find one. As far as Im aware they dont exist.

I have got too used
to no pedals meaning the car coasts and I have to make a positive action to
apply more than token air-resistance/bearing-friction levels of retardation:
having to maintain *some* pedal pressure all the time to keep the car at a
constant speed would be very tiring on the foot.


I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without using that
pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much" ;-) Some cars are better than
others for doing clutchless gearchanges: my 13-year old Peugeot is dead
easy, and I think it always has been fairly easy even from about 20,000
miles when I got it. But my wife's 5-year-old Honda is a lot more fussy
about getting the speed very accurately the same - it is less forgiving. I
never try a clutchless change while she's in the car ;-)

Why would you bother other than as a €œparty trick€�? Its not good for your
synchromesh.

Its not bad for it either if you know how to match speeds

If you get it exactly right, I grant you its harmless but youre asking
your synchromesh to do a job it wasnt designed for. Do you always get it
*exactly* right?

Tim




I always knock my Astra into neutral without using the clutch, as I slow
down aproaching red lights or a junction or line of stationary traffic.

It's easy to recognise the situation where the engine speed and road
speed are in synch whe you are slowing down and going slower than about
20mph.

If the traffic moves off it is also possible to put it back into 2nd
gear while still moving at low speed without the clutch.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2021 15:43, NY wrote:
I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without using
that pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much"

Cough. You don't change gear on a pure electric car, because it
doesn't have any. All hybrids are automatic too (AFAIK).

Yes, in my statement I was excluding (without saying so explicitly) any car
that doesn't *have* a clutch pedal, either because the gearchanges are
automatic or because there's only one fixed ratio between motor and wheels
(which may be 1:1 if the motors are directly connected to the wheels).

Do any electric cars have separate motors for the two driven wheels, or is
there always a single motor and a differential?

NY wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
A Nissan Leaf allows one pedal to act as 'go' and 'stop' doesn't it ?.
This means you can hold the car on a slope without the handbrake.

Not sure if you put you foot under it and attempt to lift it that
the car goes backwards :-)

Having learned to drive on a car with at least two and preferably three
pedals, I would find it very difficult to get used to a single-pedal car,
where releasing the pedal completely applies the brakes.

Do let us know when you find one. As far as Im aware they dont exist.

So the reference to the Nissan Leaf was incorrect?

No, you read that it could be driven in €œone pedal€� mode and made in
incorrect extrapolation. It still has a brake pedal that you use in the
normal way if and when you want to.

Not all EVs will come to a complete standstill when you just lift off the
throttle but some have this as a selectable mode. It can be very handy in
stop/start traffic in towns as you dont have to keep switching between
accelerator and brake.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:48:21 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

It was the only way I could use something motorised when I was 16. ;-)

I started learning to drive, in a combination of my mum's car (Renault 6)
and an instructor's car (Honda Civic), as soon as I turned 17.

I also started soon after my 17th but only in my instructors Triumph
Toledo. Dad had a company car at the time so I never thought to ask if
I could drive that and there was no thought / mention of him
instructing me. I did however used to steer the car up private roads
when very young and sitting in his lap but not that often.

I passed my
test (third attempt) shortly after my 18th birthday in 1981 (I failed the
second (*) time on my 18th - and the examiner commiserated that he wasn't
able to give me a pass certificate for my birthday!).

I passed mine first time but my instructor was a real stickler for
detail and I had a good few lessons (because of that). His idea was
'If I can make you twice as good as you need to be and you are only
half as good as you need to be on the day ...'. Sounded good in
theory. ;-)

I passed my bike test the first time as well but it was very different
in those days. ;-)

But after that, apart
from driving mum's or dad's cars occasionally when we went on journeys, I
didn't drive much until my last year at university when I bought myself a
car because my final-year hall of residence was not on a bus route and was a
long way from the site where I was based.

And that, your situation / location can make a big difference to how
soon you 1) learn to drive and get a licence and 2) then get a bike /
car.

Like a mate always lived in inner London where parking a car was
difficult so he always used public transport.

Even though daughter didn't want to drive a car, we advised her to
take her test asap as having a (car particularly) license can be
another tick box when applying for a job. As it happened it did and
has and does drive all sorts of stuff (cars , trucks, vans) in her
current role. She's also pretty handy in a JCB 4CX backhoe digger
(under supervision on private property).

Until then, I walked between hall
and university, apart from occasional rainy days when I got the bus. I think
the majority of people walked or cycled: a few had hand-me-down cars and a
smaller number had motorbikes (yes, surprising that there were fewer with
motorbikes than cars).

Yeah, I think there are places where some vehicles are better than
other. Like if the only easy access to a place involves a long trip or
getting though a width restriction (excluding cars etc).

My only two wheeler commute (to BT) was on my Lambretta SX150 and that
was much more predictable than the car / van because you could
*always* get over the railway crossing per each opening. ;-)

But I think I could walk up the very non-PC Blackboy
Hill quicker than my mate's Honda 50 moped could manage it ;-)

Yeah, it's quite surprising just how many vehicles that are ok on the
flat (given time) struggle up a hill.


(*) I don't really count the first failure because I drew the short straw
and got "Mr Hemlock" who very rarely passed anyone. My instructor said
almost none of his pupils passed with Mr H, whereas roughly the same
proportion passed with all the other examiners.

Yeah, that does happen as there is some discretion involved (or was
then).

The only person I know who
passed was my next door neighbour who was in her 70s when she had to learn
(or re-learn) to drive after her husband became too ill to drive. Mr H said
"I am very sorry to have to tell you that I cannot find sufficient grounds
to fail you, so I obliged against my better judgement to pass you."

;-)

Apparently he was moved every few years from one test centre to another in
the Home Counties because he kept failing far more than the normal quota and
was obnoxious to "the public". I imagine if he kept that up, he would have
been disciplined at an "examiner's examination". On my test he gave me an
ambiguous instruction which I asked him to clarify "do you mean turn left
into X street or Y street" and he accused me of showing off my local
knowledge of street names,

He he. My Mrs did similar on her bike test when the examiner (over the
intercom) told her to turn second left whilst counting a shop access
road (that led back onto the road). He couldn't fail her on that as it
wasn't a fault as such.

and on another occasion when I asked him whether
he would want me to turn left or go straight on at a junction some distance
ahead, so I could get into the correct lane in plenty of time, he blew his
top.

Oh!

When he did eventually tell me, I had to indicate far too late and got
hooted at for pushing in, so I explained *that* was why I'd asked several
hundred yards further back. So that wasn't a realistic fair test.

A mate taking his HGV test was asked to 'pull over here' and he
didn't. The examiner said it again and he didn't, but pulled up a bit
further on.

The examiner asked why he hadn't pulled up when first asked and my
mate said that he, the driver, didn't feel it was safe to do so. The
examiner accepted his answer but just countered that he considered it
safe but wasn't the one driving the vehicle at that time (so had
something bad happened, it would have been my mate, not him who might
have been in trouble).

A trick some say you can / should do on bike tests (where the examiner
follows you on another bike or sometimes a car) is to not filter past
stationary traffic, even though you might normally as that opens up
more opportunities for things to go wrong and more time to do more
stuff with the same risk). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 11:04:30 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 06/04/2021 15:43, NY wrote:
I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without using
that pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much"

Cough. You don't change gear on a pure electric car, because it
doesn't have any.

You may be right for most (all?) production electric cars but there
are plenty of custom / conversion electric cars out there where they
have retained the gearbox, even if it's not needed in many cases.

The electric motorcycle I designed, built and raced (40 years ago) had
gears as the 24V DC motor had a fairly narrow rev range and so you
used the gears to match the motor revs with the speed with the course
(and initially pulling away etc).

A short twisty circuit you might keep it in a low gear and when we
went round the MIRA test track, it was mostly kept in the same gear.
;-)

snip

Cheers, T i m

On 07/04/2021 11:11, NY wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2021 15:43, NY wrote:
I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without
using that pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much"

Cough. You don't change gear on a pure electric car, because it
doesn't have any. All hybrids are automatic too (AFAIK).

Yes, in my statement I was excluding (without saying so explicitly) any
car that doesn't *have* a clutch pedal, either because the gearchanges
are automatic or because there's only one fixed ratio between motor and
wheels (which may be 1:1 if the motors are directly connected to the
wheels).

Do any electric cars have separate motors for the two driven wheels, or
is there always a single motor and a differential?

can have one per wheel no problem

Its a lot simpler way to do a 4x4 torque distribution, than mechanically.

Electric motors automatically transfer torque to non spinning wheels.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2021 11:11, NY wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2021 15:43, NY wrote:
I defy most drivers to be able *reliably* to change gear without
using that pedal that "doesn't appear to [do] much"

Cough. You don't change gear on a pure electric car, because it
doesn't have any. All hybrids are automatic too (AFAIK).

Yes, in my statement I was excluding (without saying so explicitly) any
car that doesn't *have* a clutch pedal, either because the gearchanges
are automatic or because there's only one fixed ratio between motor and
wheels (which may be 1:1 if the motors are directly connected to the
wheels).

Do any electric cars have separate motors for the two driven wheels, or
is there always a single motor and a differential?

can have one per wheel no problem

Can have, yes. In practice the vast majority are one or two motor, a single
motor being the commonest configuration.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
NY wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
A Nissan Leaf allows one pedal to act as 'go' and 'stop' doesn't it ?.
This means you can hold the car on a slope without the handbrake.

Not sure if you put you foot under it and attempt to lift it that
the car goes backwards :-)

Having learned to drive on a car with at least two and preferably three
pedals, I would find it very difficult to get used to a single-pedal
car,
where releasing the pedal completely applies the brakes.

Do let us know when you find one. As far as Im aware they dont exist.

So the reference to the Nissan Leaf was incorrect?

No, you read that it could be driven in €œone pedal€� mode and made in
incorrect extrapolation. It still has a brake pedal that you use in the
normal way if and when you want to.

So you can turn off brake-when-lifting-off-accelerator mode if you choose,
while still retaining regenerative braking in addition to friction braking
but controlled by the separate brake pedal? I got the impression that
regenerative braking was often only available when lifting off the power,
and that the separate brake pedal only controlled friction braking. I may
well be wrong ;-)

Not all EVs will come to a complete standstill when you just lift off the
throttle but some have this as a selectable mode. It can be very handy in
stop/start traffic in towns as you dont have to keep switching between
accelerator and brake.

As long as you have got used to the extra retardation caused by lifting off
the accelerator completely, compared with that for a mechanical/automatic
gearbox and an IC engine.

For normal driving, is it necessary to keep your foot on the accelerator all
the time that you don't want more-than-air-resistance retardation?

"T i m" wrote in message
...

The only person I know who
passed was my next door neighbour who was in her 70s when she had to learn
(or re-learn) to drive after her husband became too ill to drive. Mr H
said
"I am very sorry to have to tell you that I cannot find sufficient grounds
to fail you, so I obliged against my better judgement to pass you."

;-)

Exactly. Talk about grudging praise. I'd forgotten one thing. When he did
the eyesight test, he asked me to read the number of my own car! I said
"well, it's ABC 123A but I know it very well because it's my car - maybe you
should ask me another one". "Don't you get smart with my, lad" he snapped.
He really did have an obnoxious and poisonous personality. There was
evidently no pleasing him.

Apparently he was moved every few years from one test centre to another in
the Home Counties because he kept failing far more than the normal quota
and
was obnoxious to "the public". I imagine if he kept that up, he would have
been disciplined at an "examiner's examination". On my test he gave me an
ambiguous instruction which I asked him to clarify "do you mean turn left
into X street or Y street" and he accused me of showing off my local
knowledge of street names,

He he. My Mrs did similar on her bike test when the examiner (over the
intercom) told her to turn second left whilst counting a shop access
road (that led back onto the road). He couldn't fail her on that as it
wasn't a fault as such.

and on another occasion when I asked him whether
he would want me to turn left or go straight on at a junction some
distance
ahead, so I could get into the correct lane in plenty of time, he blew his
top.

Oh!

When he did eventually tell me, I had to indicate far too late and got
hooted at for pushing in, so I explained *that* was why I'd asked several
hundred yards further back. So that wasn't a realistic fair test.

A mate taking his HGV test was asked to 'pull over here' and he
didn't. The examiner said it again and he didn't, but pulled up a bit
further on.

The examiner asked why he hadn't pulled up when first asked and my
mate said that he, the driver, didn't feel it was safe to do so. The
examiner accepted his answer but just countered that he considered it
safe but wasn't the one driving the vehicle at that time (so had
something bad happened, it would have been my mate, not him who might
have been in trouble).

A trick some say you can / should do on bike tests (where the examiner
follows you on another bike or sometimes a car) is to not filter past
stationary traffic, even though you might normally as that opens up
more opportunities for things to go wrong and more time to do more
stuff with the same risk). ;-)


I'm glad I don't have to take a test today. I'd be fine with the actual
driving, but the hazard-perception tests might be a problem - not because I
can't identify hazards but because the image on the screen is very small and
you are expected to see things in the video earlier than they are visible.
In real life, the problem probably wouldn't apply. That's when I tried the
test on a PC at the Birmingham Motor Show once - technology and screen sizes
have probably improved a lot, but I've heard that they still penalise you if
you identify a potential hazard which the designers of the software hadn't
included.


I like being able to use my local knowledge in a test. When I took my IAM
test, I was asked to take a certain road and I chuckled. The examiner asked
me why, so I said that I knew all about the awkward oblique junction up
ahead where you have to look right back on yourself to check for traffic.
"Can't fool you, can I?" he joked.

On 07/04/2021 14:25, NY wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

The only person I know who
passed was my next door neighbour who was in her 70s when she had to
learn
(or re-learn) to drive after her husband became too ill to drive. Mr
H said
"I am very sorry to have to tell you that I cannot find sufficient
grounds
to fail you, so I obliged against my better judgement to pass you."

;-)

Exactly. Talk about grudging praise. I'd forgotten one thing. When he
did the eyesight test, he asked me to read the number of my own car! I
said "well, it's ABC 123A but I know it very well because it's my car -
maybe you should ask me another one". "Don't you get smart with my, lad"
he snapped. He really did have an obnoxious and poisonous personality.
There was evidently no pleasing him.

Apparently he was moved every few years from one test centre to
another in
the Home Counties because he kept failing far more than the normal
quota and
was obnoxious to "the public". I imagine if he kept that up, he would
have
been disciplined at an "examiner's examination". On my test he gave
me an
ambiguous instruction which I asked him to clarify "do you mean turn
left
into X street or Y street" and he accused me of showing off my local
knowledge of street names,

He he. My Mrs did similar on her bike test when the examiner (over the
intercom) told her to turn second left whilst counting a shop access
road (that led back onto the road). He couldn't fail her on that as it
wasn't a fault as such.

and on another occasion when I asked him whether
he would want me to turn left or go straight on at a junction some
distance
ahead, so I could get into the correct lane in plenty of time, he
blew his
top.

Oh!

When he did eventually tell me, I had to indicate far too late and got
hooted at for pushing in, so I explained *that* was why I'd asked
several
hundred yards further back. So that wasn't a realistic fair test.

A mate taking his HGV test was asked to 'pull over here' and he
didn't. The examiner said it again and he didn't, but pulled up a bit
further on.

The examiner asked why he hadn't pulled up when first asked and my
mate said that he, the driver, didn't feel it was safe to do so. The
examiner accepted his answer but just countered that he considered it
safe but wasn't the one driving the vehicle at that time (so had
something bad happened, it would have been my mate, not him who might
have been in trouble).

A trick some say you can / should do on bike tests (where the examiner
follows you on another bike or sometimes a car) is to not filter past
stationary traffic, even though you might normally as that opens up
more opportunities for things to go wrong and more time to do more
stuff with the same risk). ;-)


I'm glad I don't have to take a test today. I'd be fine with the actual
driving, but the hazard-perception tests might be a problem - not
because I can't identify hazards but because the image on the screen is
very small and you are expected to see things in the video earlier than
they are visible.

I have done the hazard perception test for real. Although I passed my
test in 1984, I actually trained as an instructor in 2009 - although I
never took it up, as the Engineering market picked up again and I got a
job a few days before I was due to start teaching.

I found the problem to be that I had to be careful not to identify some
hazards that they had not identified as such and not to identify the
required ones too early.

The allowed band may be fine for learners, but it is way too late for
experienced drivers.

I know that when driving normally, I often point out a car to my
passenger(s) and say that I think that they are about to do something
stupid - and invariably they do. I don't know exactly what is triggering
me, but I have clearly learned through experience to identify some
subtle cues that I cannot even consciously identify.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:07:17 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:49:20 -0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 11:37:06 +0100, T i m wrote:


I remember riding a friend's bicycle which was the only one which I've
ever encountered with the front and rear brake levers the opposite way
round. Maybe it was originally for the LHD market where the back brake
is placed so the opposite arm is free when signalling to turn (left)
across traffic.

I'd always imagined the brakes would be the same way round whatever
country you live in?

Many bicycles with cable brakes can be swapped front/rear right/left in
a matter of a minute or so - it's a simple case of unhooking and
swapping.

Sure.

The issue though is *are they* other way round (to what is 'std' here)
in other countries? I don't believe they would be.

Cheers, T i m

Our hired bikes in Turkey were the wrong way round and they seemed to
think it was normal. I made 'em change it, I would have been over the
handlebars within a couple of hundred yards otherwise!

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:25:00 +0100, NY wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...

A trick some say you can / should do on bike tests (where the examiner
follows you on another bike or sometimes a car) is to not filter past
stationary traffic, even though you might normally as that opens up
more opportunities for things to go wrong and more time to do more
stuff with the same risk). ;-)

I got a positive comment for filtering past a right-turning car on my
test. That was filtering on the left, of course, and only one vehicle.
Bombing down the RHS of a long queue is more likely to be frowned upon.


I'm glad I don't have to take a test today. I'd be fine with the actual
driving, but the hazard-perception tests might be a problem - not
because I can't identify hazards but because the image on the screen is
very small and you are expected to see things in the video earlier than
they are visible. In real life, the problem probably wouldn't apply.
That's when I tried the test on a PC at the Birmingham Motor Show once -
technology and screen sizes have probably improved a lot, but I've heard
that they still penalise you if you identify a potential hazard which
the designers of the software hadn't included.

The hazard perception test changed about 5 years ago. They binned the
camera-shot video and it's all computer generated now. I did both tests
and found the video one impossible. Too much driving experience already -
almost everything that moves, and some things that don't, are hazards.

The computer generated one makes it obvious what the intended hazards are.
I scored exactly twice as much on the CG test as I did on the video one.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:49:46 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

I'm glad I don't have to take a test today. I'd be fine with the actual
driving, but the hazard-perception tests might be a problem - not
because I can't identify hazards but because the image on the screen is
very small and you are expected to see things in the video earlier than
they are visible.

I have done the hazard perception test for real. Although I passed my
test in 1984, I actually trained as an instructor in 2009 - although I
never took it up, as the Engineering market picked up again and I got a
job a few days before I was due to start teaching.

I found the problem to be that I had to be careful not to identify some
hazards that they had not identified as such and not to identify the
required ones too early.

I think you will find most 'experienced drivers' find the same and
most trainers admit there is a 'technique' in doing what they want for
the test.

The allowed band may be fine for learners, but it is way too late for
experienced drivers.

Yeah.

I know that when driving normally, I often point out a car to my
passenger(s) and say that I think that they are about to do something
stupid - and invariably they do. I don't know exactly what is triggering
me, but I have clearly learned through experience to identify some
subtle cues that I cannot even consciously identify.

Same here ... and spotting cars with partly open doors, partly
deflated (rear typically) tyres and rear shocks that were defective
(wheel rebound after a bump).

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:17:12 -0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 14:25:00 +0100, NY wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...

A trick some say you can / should do on bike tests (where the examiner
follows you on another bike or sometimes a car) is to not filter past
stationary traffic, even though you might normally as that opens up
more opportunities for things to go wrong and more time to do more
stuff with the same risk). ;-)

I got a positive comment for filtering past a right-turning car on my
test. That was filtering on the left, of course, and only one vehicle.
Bombing down the RHS of a long queue is more likely to be frowned upon.

Sure, I think they like to see you 'making good progress' and
hesitation can be held against you, as can traveling too slowly of
course.


I'm glad I don't have to take a test today. I'd be fine with the actual
driving, but the hazard-perception tests might be a problem - not
because I can't identify hazards but because the image on the screen is
very small and you are expected to see things in the video earlier than
they are visible. In real life, the problem probably wouldn't apply.
That's when I tried the test on a PC at the Birmingham Motor Show once -
technology and screen sizes have probably improved a lot, but I've heard
that they still penalise you if you identify a potential hazard which
the designers of the software hadn't included.

The hazard perception test changed about 5 years ago.

Oh, interesting. I'm not sure if I've seen one of the latest ones
then.

They binned the
camera-shot video and it's all computer generated now. I did both tests
and found the video one impossible. Too much driving experience already -
almost everything that moves, and some things that don't, are hazards.

Quite.

The computer generated one makes it obvious what the intended hazards are.

I'm not sure that's the point ... other than to get people though the
test of course. ;-)

I scored exactly twice as much on the CG test as I did on the video one.

Given how poor the std level of observation / consideration for other
road users is on the roads sometimes I'm sure if they made it too
realistic, very few would pass.

I know we all have to start somewhere but some never seem to improve
their skills past just enough to pass the test. ;-(

What going to motorcycle rallies they often put on all sorts of
challenge or riding skill tests. One simple one was to sit on your
bike and set the width of a gap as seen from a reasonable distance
that you think you can *just* get though (there would be a guy moving
a stick with a weight on the end in and out as you instructed. Then
you had to ride down and stop with the widest part of your bike
(typically the handlebars or mirrors) in the gap and the closest of
the day wins). ;-)


Cheers, T i m

NY wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
NY wrote:
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
A Nissan Leaf allows one pedal to act as 'go' and 'stop' doesn't it ?.
This means you can hold the car on a slope without the handbrake.

Not sure if you put you foot under it and attempt to lift it that
the car goes backwards :-)

Having learned to drive on a car with at least two and preferably three
pedals, I would find it very difficult to get used to a single-pedal
car,
where releasing the pedal completely applies the brakes.

Do let us know when you find one. As far as Im aware they dont exist.

So the reference to the Nissan Leaf was incorrect?

No, you read that it could be driven in €œone pedal€� mode and made in
incorrect extrapolation. It still has a brake pedal that you use in the
normal way if and when you want to.

So you can turn off brake-when-lifting-off-accelerator mode if you choose,
while still retaining regenerative braking in addition to friction braking
but controlled by the separate brake pedal?

As far as I am aware, its a user selectable mode, not a default mode.
Its not useful when your out on the open road cruising.

I got the impression that
regenerative braking was often only available when lifting off the power,
and that the separate brake pedal only controlled friction braking. I may
well be wrong ;-)

Once again, you are. The brake pedal will in the first instance use
regeneration to slow the car in most EVs.
Under heavier braking the brake pads come into play.

Not all EVs will come to a complete standstill when you just lift off the
throttle but some have this as a selectable mode. It can be very handy in
stop/start traffic in towns as you dont have to keep switching between
accelerator and brake.

As long as you have got used to the extra retardation caused by lifting off
the accelerator completely, compared with that for a mechanical/automatic
gearbox and an IC engine.


Once again youre over-simplifying and imaging problems where they simply
dont exist. My experience of difference EVs is limited but by default,
lifting off produces a similar deceleration to being in top gear. Most EVs
though allow you to adjust the amount of lift-off deceleration. If you
live in hilly rolling countryside say you may opt for a higher level of
regenerative braking to reduce dancing between accelerator and brake.

Some have €œadaptive€� regenerative braking that uses forward facing radar
and will modify the automatic regenerative braking on the fly to slow you
down automatically in queueing traffic say.


For normal driving, is it necessary to keep your foot on the accelerator all
the time that you don't want more-than-air-resistance retardation?

I dont know of any car that moves without some application of the throttle
(excepting downhill of course). Once youre cruising it feels no different
from being in top gear in any car.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

T i m wrote:

Initially it was the interest of getting powered transport (I bought
the Honda P50 off my English teacher at Secondary school (for £5) with
a stripped plug thread) repaired it then rode it from my 16th birthday
till being given and collecting the NSU Quicky as a wheelbarrow full
of parts, put it together, got that road legal and carried on on that
... because it was Quicker than the P50. ;-)

I did spend time on rusty bits of the Quickly, which had been my
dad's. Its demise was rear wheel failure. The drum brake was only
half the width of the hub, so the housing was stepped. It failed
with a complete circumferential crack at the change of section.
Luckily I wasn't moving too fast at the moment the back end began
to feel very sloppy indeed.

A Honda 50 kept me mobile through my student years. Towards the
end it had a few problems - the timing seemed to need almost
weekly adjustment, the oil drain plug thread was worn, and needed
a cereal packet packing washer to seal properly.

There was an occasion, whilst plodding along the East Lancs Road,
when the slightly oscillating engine sound that I now know to be
the sign of a worn/ stretched chain was followed by the noise of
the chain wrapping itself around the sprocket.

I hitched into Warrington, bought a new chain and chain wheel (no
sprocket in stock), removed flash from the sprocket using the
kerbstone, and continued on my journey.

Eventually I upgraded to a Honda 175, but was no longer doing
long runs. Sadly, I managed to collide with a car when I was
turning right. Luckily it was the bike that went down, whilst I
ended up on the car bonnet. I mended, the bike didn't, so it was
back to a Honda 70, which lasted me until my first car.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:41:05 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

snip

I did spend time on rusty bits of the Quickly, which had been my
dad's. Its demise was rear wheel failure. The drum brake was only
half the width of the hub, so the housing was stepped. It failed
with a complete circumferential crack at the change of section.
Luckily I wasn't moving too fast at the moment the back end began
to feel very sloppy indeed.

I bet. ;-)

A Honda 50 kept me mobile through my student years.

So that was yer classic main tube + pressed frame step through with 3
speed crash (auto clutch) gearbox and leading link front suspension?

Towards the
end it had a few problems - the timing seemed to need almost
weekly adjustment,

Strange?

I was in the bike shop the other day and I think they suggested the
retail price for genuine Honda Honda 50 points were 50 quid!

the oil drain plug thread was worn, and needed
a cereal packet packing washer to seal properly.

;-)

There was an occasion, whilst plodding along the East Lancs Road,
when the slightly oscillating engine sound that I now know to be
the sign of a worn/ stretched chain was followed by the noise of
the chain wrapping itself around the sprocket.

Ooops. Didn't the 50/70/90 have full metal chain guards?

I hitched into Warrington, bought a new chain and chain wheel (no
sprocket in stock), removed flash from the sprocket using the
kerbstone, and continued on my journey.

That was the way in those days. I used a flat bladed screwdriver to
work a slot in the solder on the condenser and then a rock on the
screwdriver to peen the solder back over the points wire (on the Nth
Circ near the Chiswick roundabout on the way back from my girlfriends
late one Sunday night).

Eventually I upgraded to a Honda 175, but was no longer doing
long runs. Sadly, I managed to collide with a car when I was
turning right. Luckily it was the bike that went down, whilst I
ended up on the car bonnet. I mended, the bike didn't, so it was
back to a Honda 70, which lasted me until my first car.

I fancied a Honda 90 at the time (nearly a real motorbike) but the
nearest I got was a Yamaha Townmate (an 80cc shaft drive step though)
but it wasn't what I thought it was going to be. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:41:05 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

snip

I did spend time on rusty bits of the Quickly, which had been my
dad's. Its demise was rear wheel failure. The drum brake was only
half the width of the hub, so the housing was stepped. It failed
with a complete circumferential crack at the change of section.
Luckily I wasn't moving too fast at the moment the back end began
to feel very sloppy indeed.

I bet. ;-)

A Honda 50 kept me mobile through my student years.

So that was yer classic main tube + pressed frame step through with 3
speed crash (auto clutch) gearbox and leading link front suspension?

Towards the
end it had a few problems - the timing seemed to need almost
weekly adjustment,

Strange?

Indeed. They were pretty bullet proof engines that needed next to no
maintenance I thought. Cant see how the timing would keep changing.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 14:25:00 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

Exactly. Talk about grudging praise. I'd forgotten one thing. When he did
the eyesight test, he asked me to read the number of my own car! I said
"well, it's ABC 123A but I know it very well because it's my car - maybe you
should ask me another one". "Don't you get smart with my, lad" he snapped.

Well the laugh was on him.

He really did have an obnoxious and poisonous personality. There was
evidently no pleasing 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'm glad I don't have to take a test today. I'd be fine with the actual
driving, but the hazard-perception tests might be a problem - not because I
can't identify hazards but because the image on the screen is very small and
you are expected to see things in the video earlier than they are visible.

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

In real life, the problem probably wouldn't apply. That's when I tried the
test on a PC at the Birmingham Motor Show once - technology and screen sizes
have probably improved a lot, but I've heard that they still penalise you if
you identify a potential hazard which the designers of the software hadn't
included.

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

I like being able to use my local knowledge in a test. When I took my IAM
test, I was asked to take a certain road and I chuckled. The examiner asked
me why, so I said that I knew all about the awkward oblique junction up
ahead where you have to look right back on yourself to check for traffic.
"Can't fool you, can I?" he joked.

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

T i m wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:41:05 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

A Honda 50 kept me mobile through my student years.

So that was yer classic main tube + pressed frame step through with 3
speed crash (auto clutch) gearbox and leading link front suspension?

That's the one

Towards the
end it had a few problems - the timing seemed to need almost
weekly adjustment,

Strange?

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

There was an occasion, whilst plodding along the East Lancs Road,
when the slightly oscillating engine sound that I now know to be
the sign of a worn/ stretched chain was followed by the noise of
the chain wrapping itself around the sprocket.

Ooops. Didn't the 50/70/90 have full metal chain guards?

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
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:16:27 +0100, T i m wrote:

snip

The computer generated one makes it obvious what the intended hazards
are.

I'm not sure that's the point ... other than to get people though the
test of course. ;-)

I scored exactly twice as much on the CG test as I did on the video one.

Given how poor the std level of observation / consideration for other
road users is on the roads sometimes I'm sure if they made it too
realistic, very few would pass.

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.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
He really did have an obnoxious and poisonous personality. There was
evidently no pleasing 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.

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIgskqk5PB4 (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 https://youtu.be/YIgskqk5PB4?t=70. 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!

"Scion" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 08:34:12 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

snip

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:22:34 -0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

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

I got the correct hazard but I wasn't
supposed to have realised by then.

Quite.

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.

Yup.

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.

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). ;-)

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.

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.

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

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

Cheers, T i m

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 10:57:25 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:22:34 -0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

snip

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

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

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

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

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".

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

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:37:01 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

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".

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

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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."

On 08/04/2021 12:37, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

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".

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

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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.

On 08/04/2021 12:57, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:37:01 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

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".

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

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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."

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.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
Or the numpties that look at a theory test question of:

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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.

"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.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:09:15 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 08/04/2021 12:57, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:37:01 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

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".

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

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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."

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.

Would "a" not also suffice?

On 08/04/2021 15:10, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:09:15 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 08/04/2021 12:57, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:37:01 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

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".

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

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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."

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.

Would "a" not also suffice?

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

On 08/04/2021 13:24, NY wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
Or the numpties that look at a theory test question of:

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

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

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.

"A" may additionally be the right answer (as well as "C") if you
yourself are also driving a high vehicle ;-)Â* 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.

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