Cycle Right

Bushmanpm

seamus wrote:

Fatality rates go up. So 10,000 people cycle regularly and 10 die. Then you introduce mandatory training, the number of cyclists drops to 1,000 and ten still die. More people cycling correlates with cycling becoming safer, and has done so in every country.

I appreciate you're using a figure for illustrative purposes, are there any links to data or studies on this? Otherwise that's a drop in users of 90% or conversely an increase in accidents of 90%, I would genuinely appreciate any accurate figures.

CramCycle

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Just in case anyone wants to accuse me of trolling,

MOD VOICE: It certainly comes across that way, whether intentional or not. If you cannot understand what is coming across as trolling in your posts, please drop me a PM and we can go through them one by one. Until that time, please read through the forum for related subjects, to get a more over riding view of the general view of cyclists and see do they tally with your preconceptions. If you are not sure if your posts could be misinterpreted as trolling, probably best not to post them until you have had a deep think about them.

Corca Baiscinn

Annie get your Run wrote: »

Spotted this on FB this morning. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on these http://www.cycleright.ie/ training courses? Has anyone here done one? Would you do one? *Should* we all be doing this? (voluntarily of course!). Yay or nay!

Hi Anne, your thread seems to have got a bit derailed once some posters saw the references to helmets and high viz and others went off on a mandatory tangent, so not sure you got an answer to your question so here's my tuppence worth.

Cycle Right afaik is only currently being funded for schools. The students still have to pay a contribution. Schoolchildren in many other countries do cycling proficiency courses, so so far so normal.

A poster has mentioned that riding a bike is easy, you just throw your leg over and away you go. Of course it is but riding a bike in traffic isn't easy. Many people have learned to cycle as children but don't cycle in adult life until one day they decide to try it again. By now road conditions have change., There are more cars, higher speeds and cars are bigger. So some people are nervous and would really benefit from a course like Cycle Right. If you are a regular confident cyclist, then the course is not designed for you. But lots of people are nervous, don't have their bike properly configured, think the safest thing is to hug the kerb etc so would probably find Cycle Right helpful. I did 2 sections of the Bikeability course and the part I found most useful was about making eve-contact with drivers and ensuring yu knew their intentions and communicated yours clearly. Now, lots of people will say that yu don't need to do a course to learn that but I hadn't considered it enough before I did the course so some of us do.

Many Cycling Clubs also run Bike for Life courses. they also cover the specifics of riding in a group but also maintenance and fit.

The mandatory discussion is a complete red herring as the challenge is going ot be to fund training for those who want it, never mind impose it on those who don't.

I think the people who are against this on the basis that it's drivers who need the training are missing the point. It doesn't have to either/or. Yes I can do all the training in the world and still get hit but the same applies to other walks of life and we still try to increase competence or minimise risk.

So to answer your question, yes I would do one, no, we shouldn't all have to as not everybody needs it .

Roadhawk

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Genuine serious enquiry: How? I'm seriously not seeing the 'cause and effect' there. Why should mandatory helmet law have a negative impact on the number of cyclists on the road and how does it make it more dangerous for those that do still cycle?
(Ironically, as a biker amongst other modes of transport, I despise mandatory helmet laws, but that's for another forum!)

Oh i can answer this one... so far i have heard 2 reasons, the first being that helmet are not fashionable while cycling (plain and simple). The other being, apparently people who wear helmets feel safer and will take greater risks, thus causing more injuries...slightly confusing but an analogy in a previous thread had made the comparison between rugby players and american football players were rugby players tend back away from a lot of tackles and protect their head and an american football player will try accelerate into a tackle and will usually use the helmet to make contact in the tackle.

meeeeh

rubadub wrote: »

I know my friend with 5 kids would not be impressed having to pay for their lessons (I would not automatically presume it to be included in school hours).

If mandatory I would guess there would need to be a test to make sure people learn what was intended, otherwise people could just sleep through it. So if there was a test and little johnny failed he would be well upset about not being able to cycle his new bike bought just before this mandatory ruling came in, or if his parents could not afford his lessons/test..

Yeah it's much better if little Johnny is a danger to himself and others. We had those courses in school. Those younger than 14 (I think, could be 13) were not allowed to go on main roads by themselves without passing it. After that it didn't matter. They taught road rules, signaling and so on. It encourages independence and if parents have money for bikes they should have money for kids to learn basics. Or not but they won't have choice when paying for a graveyard plot.

tomasrojo

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Just in case anyone wants to accuse me of trolling, I'm not going with the
"CYCLING CURES CANCER SHOCKER!" but what I WOULD say is that's very hypothetical, or call it 'ifs and buts' as for example, the actual riding itself could be stressful and breathing in all that pollution has its own dangers. Obesity isn't just down to exersize, there's a variety of factors at play there.

At this stage, the vast health benefits are as obvious as anything in epidemiology can be. Any remaining doubt is just the doubt inherent in all epidemiological studies.

Beasty

If anyone wishes to discuss helmets please do so in the Helmet Megathread (linked in the Charter/FAQs thread) (same applies re Hi Viz)

Any questions PM me

Thanks

Annie get your Run

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Hi Anne, your thread seems to have got a bit derailed once some posters saw the references to helmets and high viz and others went off on a mandatory tangent, so not sure you got an answer to your question so here's my tuppence worth.

Cycle Right afaik is only currently being funded for schools. The students still have to pay a contribution. Schoolchildren in many other countries do cycling proficiency courses, so so far so normal.

A poster has mentioned that riding a bike is easy, you just throw your leg over and away you go. Of course it is but riding a bike in traffic isn't easy. Many people have learned to cycle as children but don't cycle in adult life until one day they decide to try it again. By now road conditions have change., There are more cars, higher speeds and cars are bigger. So some people are nervous and would really benefit from a course like Cycle Right. If you are a regular confident cyclist, then the course is not designed for you. But lots of people are nervous, don't have their bike properly configured, think the safest thing is to hug the kerb etc so would probably find Cycle Right helpful. I did 2 sections of the Bikeability course and the part I found most useful was about making eve-contact with drivers and ensuring yu knew their intentions and communicated yours clearly. Now, lots of people will say that yu don't need to do a course to learn that but I hadn't considered it enough before I did the course so some of us do.

Many Cycling Clubs also run Bike for Life courses. they also cover the specifics of riding in a group but also maintenance and fit.

The mandatory discussion is a complete red herring as the challenge is going ot be to fund training for those who want it, never mind impose it on those who don't.

I think the people who are against this on the basis that it's drivers who need the training are missing the point. It doesn't have to either/or. Yes I can do all the training in the world and still get hit but the same applies to other walks of life and we still try to increase competence or minimise risk.

So to answer your question, yes I would do one, no, we shouldn't all have to as not everybody needs it .

Actually I've looked to do one of these myself, haven't had any luck finding one but I liked the idea when I got back on the bike last year. In general I think a cycling safety / maintenance type course is a good idea but what I particularly liked about the Bike for Life courses was that they were run by clubs.

While I'm not entirely against the Cycle Right course I linked originally I do think it has some flaws, possibly the main one being it's funded by a department that doesn't support the idea of increasing funding for an improved cycling infrastructure. Ideally I'd love to see the whole department, and following from that the local councils attitude change towards cycling in general. It's been done so well in other countries there is no reason we can't do it here if we tried hard enough.

rubadub

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah it's much better if little Johnny is a danger to himself and others.

He is not necessarily a danger because he failed an exam on the likes of this.

CYCLE RIGHT Stage Three Delivery

At Stage Three trainees take the lead role on the journey, planning the route and making active decisions with regard to positioning and interaction with traffic, in a complex environment with the trainer in an accompanying role.
Planning a journey and what to consider:
Maps, GPS
Local knowledge
The best route to cycle
Journeys in challenging environments:
High traffic volumes.
Moving through stopped and slow moving traffic.
Complex junctions including complex, multi-laned roundabouts.
Defensive positioning for cyclists.
Cycling in a group in a complex traffic environment.
Large vehicles and how to cycle near them.
Anticipating hazards and other problems on the road and taking appropriate action.

The weekly cycle for a 5 year old could be round the corner, possibly cycling illegally on the footpath on his bike with stabilizers, or on a quiet road in a cul de sac which his parents do not allow him leave. Yet he might fail the exam on road signs and theory on approaching junctions.

meeeeh

rubadub wrote: »

He is not necessarily a danger because he failed an exam on the likes of this.



The weekly cycle for a 5 year old could be round the corner, possibly cycling illegally on the footpath on his bike with stabilizers, or on a quiet road in a cul de sac which his parents do not allow him leave. Yet he might fail the exam on road signs and theory on approaching junctions.

You are right there is only one type of education module possible. Let's do nothing.

Bushmanpm

CramCycle wrote:

MOD VOICE: It certainly comes across that way, whether intentional or not. If you cannot understand what is coming across as trolling in your posts, please drop me a PM and we can go through them one by one. Until that time, please read through the forum for related subjects, to get a more over riding view of the general view of cyclists and see do they tally with your preconceptions. If you are not sure if your posts could be misinterpreted as trolling, probably best not to post them until you have had a deep think about them.

"It certainly comes across that way"
Really? How many more times can I insert 'genuine' or 'serious' in a post? Or are some people really THAT touchy?

"If you cannot understand.....Please drop me a PM and we'll go through them one by one" Wow! patronising much? I DO understand what I'm posting and hopefully we're all adult enough not to spit out our dummy's.

plodder

It looks like a good thing for complete novices and for children, but 14 hours seems on the long side, to expect experienced but otherwise un-certified cyclists to invest. If you could distill it into a series of videos, a lot of people would watch them I think.

As for making it mandatory, wouldn't agree with that at all. Think all the consequences through. Eg. tourists renting a bike on a greenway: sorry you have to do this 14 hour course first.

rubadub

meeeeh wrote: »

You are right there is only one type of education module possible. Let's do nothing.

I am not saying teach kids nothing, I am just bothering to think of the implications of it being mandatory which in effect should make it comparable to car driving tests & licencing.

There would presumably be tests and the 5 year old would presumably have to carry a licence with photo ID. So yeah we could have different modules, making it even more complicated and costly, just like a licence for a car or driving a bus would have different courses and permissions. So the 5 year old might only have a permit to cycle in housing estates, he is currently legally required to cycle on the road, and would be carrying a licence with photo ID to prove he has passed his test.

I guess his licence would be about €55 as it should have the same admin involved as a car one. As kids facial features change more it would not have the same 10 year term though, maybe a new licence every 2-3years until the age of 12, then every 4 years.

tomasrojo

There are two possible meanings to this being "mandatory".
1) You have to do the training if you have a bike.
2) You have to do the training before you can ride a bike in a public space.

Both ideas are ridiculous.

The idea of training in and of itself is not ridiculous, and schools in the Netherlands have some cycle training, as far as I know.

Corca Baiscinn

Think I'm going to unfollow this one there seems to be so much wilful misunderstanding. Whoever said anything re a 5 year old doing a part 3 test? I think the focus would be on older primary age for starters and I'd guess that part 3 might be aimed at 12 years or older. The 14 hours would be over a lengthy period, not all in one go. Parents pay for courses for kids all the time and ferry them hither and thither. I think that Cycle Right takes place in the course of the school day so there wouldn't be any extra ferrying involved and the fee since subsidised is reasonable. I doubt that kids would fail at all since they are dab hands at manoeuvring bikes and are quick learners. One of the cycling threads had a post recently re the reason people were such poor drivers around cyclists is because they move from being ferried everywhere by parents until they are 17 and then start driving themselves, without ever going through the intermediate stage of using a bike and so they have zero cop on .

Bushmanpm

Roadhawk wrote:

Oh i can answer this one... so far i have heard 2 reasons, the first being that helmet are not fashionable while cycling (plain and simple). The other being, apparently people who wear helmets feel safer and will take greater risks, thus causing more injuries...slightly confusing but an analogy in a previous thread had made the comparison between rugby players and american football players were rugby players tend back away from a lot of tackles and protect their head and an american football player will try accelerate into a tackle and will usually use the helmet to make contact in the tackle.

I'm not going to comment on the fashionable aspect but on the Rugby/American football this is what's known as 'Risk Compensation Theory' and is well known and widely acknowledged as being true.

meeeeh

rubadub wrote: »

I am not saying teach kids nothing, I am just bothering to think of the implications of it being mandatory which in effect should make it comparable to car driving tests & licencing.

There would presumably be tests and the 5 year old would presumably have to carry a licence with photo ID. So yeah we could have different modules, making it even more complicated and costly, just like a licence for a car or driving a bus would have different courses and permissions. So the 5 year old might only have a permit to cycle in housing estates, he is currently legally required to cycle on the road, and would be carrying a licence with photo ID to prove he has passed his test.

I guess his licence would be about €55 as it should have the same admin involved as a car one. As kids facial features change more it would not have the same 10 year term though, maybe a new licence every 2-3years until the age of 12, then every 4 years.

The magic word is unaccompanied kids. And yes you can kick systems other countries have in place but my two nieces independently and safely walk or cycle to school. Kids here don't even where they could and they are among the fattest in Europe.

Corca Baiscinn

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are two possible meanings to this being "mandatory".
1) You have to do the training if you have a bike.
2) You have to do the training before you can ride a bike in a public space.

Both ideas are ridiculous.

The idea of training in and of itself is not ridiculous, and schools in the Netherlands have some cycle training, as far as I know.

And in Germany and UK but why are we even discussing mandatory training when it's not an issue? Now mandatory cycle lanes, different topic but unlike mandatory Cycle Right it is a live issue

Annie, have you checked with Cycling Ireland re anyone doing Bike for Life in your location ?

tomasrojo

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

And in Germany and UK but why are we even discussing mandatory training when it's not an issue?

God knows. The OP specifically said training shouldn't be mandatory, and some posters decided that aspect would become the subject of the thread. I probably shouldn't have said anything, as it was an almighty diversion already.

I love Sean nos

Roadhawk wrote: »

not fashionable while cycling

You spelled unnecessary incorrectly.

rubadub

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

Think I'm going to unfollow this one there seems to be so much wilful misunderstanding. Whoever said anything re a 5 year old doing a part 3 test?

I did, and the poster suggesting mandatory testing for cyclists indirectly was saying so too -that is my point, they put no thought into the implications. It is ludicrous to think of having to spend 55euro on a licence for a kid, or a tourist, or foreign competitive cyclist taking part in a race here.

meeeeh wrote: »

The magic word is unaccompanied kids.

not sure what you mean there. Are you in support of the idea of mandatory training, and accompanied kids are exempt. Up to what age? can adults accompanied by others with a cycling licence be allowed cycle. I'd be interested in the legal aspects, how far apart they can be etc.

meeeeh

rubadub wrote: »

not sure what you mean there. Are you in support of the idea of mandatory training, and accompanied kids are exempt. Up to what age? can adults accompanied by others with a cycling licence be allowed cycle. I'd be interested in the legal aspects, how far apart they can be etc.

I think I was clear enough. Needing to have training for kids or if they don't be accompanied by adults on the public roads up to the age of fourteen. If someone still wants to cycle around wIth their parents then fine.

CramCycle

meeeeh wrote: »

I think I was clear enough. Needing to have training for kids or if they don't be accompanied by adults on the public roads up to the age of fourteen. If someone still wants to cycle around wIth their parents then fine.

I have found children to generally be the most sensible and forward thinking on the road.

magicbastarder

i guess one of the main benefits from cycling lessons in schools is that it can help to normalise cycling, but that comes with obvious caveats about what is taught as normal cycling.

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

We had those courses in school. Those younger than 14 (I think, could be 13) were not allowed to go on main roads by themselves without passing it.

just searching for the context here - where was this? just wondering who enforced the rule re not being allowed cycle without passing the course?