Just failed the CA DMV motorcycle popsicle test (and I thought Ihad passed)

Took my R1200R on the California popsicle this week, and, I failed.

I was shocked, since I had rated myself pretty good in my practice runs
over the past few weeks.

I guess having someone else rate you is more accurate than rating
yourself.

Lesson learned for others.

I have two more shots at it though.

 

Sorry to hear that, but did you find out what did you in?

Ben

 

Now that's funny!

You must not know you are among the few not convinced they know
everything about operating every vehicle on the planet, based on
nothing. You're certainly the first with that perspective to hit
rec.autos.driving in forever that I can recall.

You have great chances of becoming an excellent cyclist... if you live
long enough.

 

My front tire strayed out of the circle on the fourth loop.

As an aside, who designed this circus act test anyway?

 

I don't think the DMV examiner was lying so I have to believe
that my front wheel strayed out of the circle on the fourth loop.

I did the first wave through the cones and two loops fine by
doing the unnatural act of holding the clutch in almost all the
way, and keeping an even RPM with my hand, and using my foot to
brake the rear along with the clutch for speed, and then simply
attempting to look ahead - although the circle is so small it
would fit in your driveway so "looking ahead" is an oxymoron.

The point is that I can't even see what the tire is doing on
the pavement so I have to take someone else's word for it.

The lesson I learned is that I need to enlist a friend to
grade me - because I was sure I could pass this test, albeit
every once in a while I dropped the bike while practicing.

Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
actually riding a bike though.

 

A good rider should be able to pass it.

As someone else pointed out, it seems to be a fairly obvious
strategy to encourage people to take the BRC instead. The BRC
doesn't guarantee you'll survive but it does give you a bit
more help than you'd get just from reading the rider's manual
the DMV puts out.

 

It's really just another way of making money by mandate.

California has more bikers than all other states combined.

If they make a test that literally funnels all those bikers AWAY
from the DMV and into the waiting arms of the BRC (who has a
totally different test!), everyone (from their perspective)
makes money.

The DMV has far far far fewer (free) tests to perform.
And the BRC class makes millions of dollars a year!

It's simply a money-making racket. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Otherwise, the tests and the grading would be similar in at least
one or two ways - yet they're not even close.

 

Depends on the definition of a "good rider."

The funny thing is that you'll never in your life perform "any"
of the feats of magic on the road, that you are expected to
perform flawlessly (stray out of the lines just once and you fail)
in the space of half a tennis court.

 

Yebbut it is far too easy to screw up, especially under pressure in a
pass/fail situation.

I've never done it for a license, but I've tried several times after hours
just for fun. AIR, I messed up every time, probably because I was trying
to watch and see if I was successful or not.

When I took my CA MC test in the early 70's, the tester said, "Ride to the
end of the parking lot, turn around and come back. Change gears at least
twice." It was that easy. ~10 years later, I took the MSF course. I think
the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make every rider take the MSF
course. Or change to a more realistic test that _really_ tests your skills.

 

The slower you can ride with control, the better rider you are.

It's counter intuitive, but slow riding will improve the novice's fast
riding faster than fast riding.

You see some guys sticking out their feet still going 20 mph. The
better riders come to a stop, then put down their feet. The best
riders can stop and not put down their feet in what bicyclists used to
call a "track stand".

Any nitwit who can keep a bicycle upright can twist a throttle.

 

Er, isn't that exactly what a rider *should* be tested for?
What could possibly be more "pass/fail" than getting squashed
by a semi because you screwed up under pressure?

Why? There are plenty of riders who pass the test on
the first try and who already know everything the MSF
teaches.

Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
aspiring riders want to pay for them.)

 

Well, for one, a close-quarter u-turn and the California popsicle
test have absolutely NOTHING in common. There are no u-turns in the
California test. Anyone who says so has never taken it.

The U-turns are ONLy in the BRC - and they give you a box that is
immense compared to what you work with on the popsicle
(plus the grading is such that you can totally flunk the u-turn
test and still pass the class with flying colors whereas on the
popsicle, you can't stray even once outside the line).

Second, I can't imagine doing a 3-point turn on a motorcycle.
I'm sure it can be done - but most of the time you can EASILY
perform a u-turn, so, it's really not a skill that is often needed
IMHO. However, YMMV.

The size & type of the bike makes an immense difference on passing the
California popsicle. I'm sure people pass it every day, but one must
realize that the entire purpose of the popsicle is to funnel people
to the BRC because MONEY rules everything and lots and lots of money
is being made since California has more motorcyclists than all the
other states combined.

 

You do realize that the two tests have absolutely nothing in
common, right?

Passing one proves absolutely nothing with respect to the other.

So, for example, if you can pass the popsicle test on a decent-sized
bike, all it proves is that you can do double loops in both directions
with great accuracy at extremely slow clutch-slipping high-revving
constant-braking a-baby-could-crawl-faster speeds.

Yet, any moron can pass the MSF test because all you're really doing
is paying a few hundred dollars for your license. You buy your license
in one, and you earn the license in the other.

At least the MSF riding test has a reasonable grading system (as opposed
to the one-strike-you're-out grading system of the DMV test), yet, you
perform the MSF class on toy bikes.

In summary, neither test is realistic. One is designed to be so onerous
that you won't take it - while the other is designed to pass everyone
by giving them a toy bike and allowing dozens of mistakes in the process.

 

I think every rider should take the MSF course WITH THEIR OWN BIKE!

 

I think they should allow an experienced rider (say from another state)
to take the advanced MSF class.

But they don't.

I'm not sure why. It's probably that they need the money so they
want the experienced riders to take the basic class plus the advanced
class.

However, if you know WHY they won't allow an experienced rider to
simply take the advanced class in lieu of the basic class, let me know.

 

The key point of riding is that two wheels are not in any way
equivalent to four wheels. We're taught never to ride the brakes
or clutch in a (manual transmission) car. Those are precisely
the skills needed to control a motorcycle in tight going.

And, in fact, riding the brakes and throttle can be useful in
an automatic transmission automobile if the situation is sufficiently
difficult.

bob prohaska

 

Sure.

I also realise that that makes no difference.

 

Easy: the advanced class is based on your having mastered the
skills taught in the first class, and the folks in charge have no of
knowing whether or not you have those skills.

Letting people in because they *claim* to have 'em isn't going to
work because -as we all know- there is no such thing as a biker
who doesn't already know it all.

 

Except that the lollipop is a lousy test for that. It only judges your
ability to stay between 2 lines at a very low speed. It doesn't test your
judgment, your reaction time, or many of the other skills required in an
emergency.

Plenty? Really? How did they learn the curriculum if not through the MSF?
I'd been riding for more than 10 years before I took the MSF and I learned
a lot in it. I'll bet a high percentage of those who pass only the
lollipop would be much better riders if they did the MSF too.

Yet the state makes every cage driver do far more, driving a convoluted
trip on city streets in real traffic.

Driving/riding is a skill that improves with study and practice, yet most
people only learn enough to pass the DMV exam. Imagine how much safer our
roads would be if people were actually encouraged to improve their skills.

 

That testing includes demonstrating knowledge of traffic code, which
cyclists are presumed to know... but the last time in their life a
cager performs a "special stop" before crossing a sidewalk is leaving
the exam station.

And virtually everyone assumes experience = practice, and that they
can neglect traffic code for years or decades and suddenly revert to
legal operation whenever they perceive nothing else will do.

Then the city puts up speed and /or red light cameras and they
discover, no, they can't, and rationalize it's the cameras' fault, and/
or traffic code is irrelevant, and/or speed or running red lights is
not a safety concern because their visual perception and snap
judgments are infallible... and often that that car/truck/bus/ped/
cyclist "came out of nowhere".

It's a multiple-edged sword.

You can't convince those who know everything their 15 minutes of
education and training combined with their "experience" have not
rendered them the best operator to ever take the controls. Add some
"skill improvement" to that and overconfidence tends to go off the
fucking charts.

People quickly reach the point where operation becomes autonomous,
they don't really have to think about it much, so they stop thinking
about it much, which leaves the mind free to distract itself, which is
why virtually all motorists are distracted, no electronic device
necessary. An unfocused mind is free to wander, and will; "the brain
never rests".

Concentration is hard. Prolonged concentration is harder, which is
why so few motorists do it, and one reason why I think if you're
riding any bike in traffic you haven't realistically evaluated the
environment in which you must operate.

People perceive that their visual perception is perfect, despite the
universal experiences of having searched for something for 5 minutes
before finding it in front of their nose where it could not have been
missed, and having a motorist apparently look right at them, then pull
right out in front of them anyway.

It's almost impossible to get a person to consider they possess the
identical human limitations, or that it has happened to them, they
just didn't notice. Motorists don't know what-all they've missed
because they can't; they missed it!

Physical skills are imperative, but mental skills more so, which is
why professional sports coaches tend to be bald, from ripping their
hair out at funda-mental mistake after mistake after mistake one would
think professionals would rarely commit.

Virtually everyone grossly overestimates their motoring skills because
they never consider themselves capable of making a mistake, or
rationalize that their mistake is a rare occurrence, or that since a
crash was avoided it wasn't that serious of a mistake... ad infinitum.

The most highly "skilled" motorists remain filled with caution and
doubt, and few things are more rarely exhibited on our roadways.