Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

[rooman[_84_]]

t'was coming back from Anzac Day in the city along Beach Road and saw a
nasty spill over on the path at Black Rock on the rise North of
Ricketts Point.

A lady in her mid 40s was following her hubby on their MTBs north along
the shared bike/ped path. After the crest above Rickets Point there is a
downhill run and near the bottom is a small bridge-like deviation of the
path towards the road in S shape that has been built to avoid removal of
a cliff toip tree on the beach side.

The lady was probably moving at a clip with the downhill, and had sun
in her eyes and didnt see the deviation. She hit the left timber rail,
bounced across the path, hit the right rail, bounced back to the left,
belted the left timber rail and an 8x8 upright with her left ankle and
hip, then bounced back to the right barrier, the bike stopped dead into
an upright 8x8 pole and she catapulted over the bars into the (egg
cutter) Wire Cables, hitting her head and neck hard into the cables and
landed flat on her back on the path with the bike landing on top of her.

People ran from everywhere and cars stopped.

She was alive, came to and couldnt move, had a suspected broken hip and
lots of bark off her ankle and arms and a nasty graze along the RHS of
her helmet .

She was also lucky, she could have gone over the cable guides and
landed in front of a passing car.

I stopped to render some First Aid, we had a nurse, a few other first
aid qual'd there and a few veterans all used to blood and sad sights.
We made her comfortable and shaded her from the sun and waited for the
Ambulance.

Paramedics came along and took her away to Sandy Hosp. with probable
internal injuries to her lower abdomen and pelvic area. Ouch...

Is this path safe? Is any path safe? Is it abused by riders? Is it over
used?

Bayside City Council has recently made some changes to the path to
remove the previous "bad law" interpretation they had, which gave cars
right of way crossing the path . They have changed this to ensure all
cars stopped before crossing the foot/bike path.

Many local comments from riders and pedestrians state in terms this
path has been one of their pet hates for its abuse by riders.

I am not saying this lady was abusing the path, just that she was
inexperienced and got out of control of her bike on a downhill and
didnt look ahead to see the deviation/obstruction on the path and ride
accordingly. We didnt test her brakes, so maybe an unkind thought if
they had not worked, but save for the scratches and twists from impact
it looked a well kept newish Mongoose MTB.

The path for its full length from near Beaumaris Motor Boat yacht Club
to St Kiilda has blind access points off the beach, often runs close to
the road, has deviations such as this for trees and some low overhanging
branches at points. It is very popular with morning walkers and people
with kids and dogs and trikes and little kids riding ahead of mum and
dad.

It is also used by many commuters, who IMO ride too fast (and
seriously)should be using the roadway.

I daily see commuters and some recreational riders fairly hammering
along this path. There are lots of prangs that could be avoided and
many more near misses.

The path is certainly a beautiful piece of viewing opportunity and is
along one of the most picturesque pieces of accessible coastline we
have. It is a path (again IMO) for taking it easy, for not pushing the
limits and one for sharing in the truest sense of the word.

I would hope that commuters reading this who are afraid or unwilling to
ride Beach Road and prefer to take this path consider a slower speed and
use the roadway more often and become confident ( and quicker) . Or
gather together and form a commuting bike bus to add presence to their
ride to and from work.

There are many paths around Melbourne (and Beach Road's path isnt the
only one) where riders do not do the right thing and either travel
fast, do not give way where necessary or fail to signal their presence.
This certainly has aggravated many non riding ( and riding) users of
the paths to write to Councils, the Press and spread the message that
bikes riders are inconsiderate and ignore the law, courtesy and common
sense.

Not all riders are like this, but you get the point, too many are.

I feel we should encourage as many poeple as possible who feel they can
only ride these paths (or are forced to by local conditions) to ride for
the conditions and keep a lookout, sharing the path and being
responsible.

I rarely ride bike paths, but now and then for a low key ride and at a
slow pace I do, and it is enjoyable, especially parts of the dedicated
bike path near St Kilda ( dangerous but enjoyable), so I do see that
many want to and will always ride bike paths. I just ask that we accept
they are not race-ways, they are to be shared with slower users and we
have to ride accordingly.


*When you ride - Be Visible, Predictable and Legal*


--
rooman

[EuanB[_28_]]

rooman Wrote:
> Is this path safe? Is any path safe? Is it abused by riders? Is it over
> used?
I don't know if this is news to you:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html and a lot more from
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html

IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
and with priority at junctions. Of, like you, just use the road.


--
EuanB

[rooman[_86_]]

EuanB Wrote:
> I don't know if this is news to you:
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html and a lot more from
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html
>
> IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
> and with priority at junctions. Of, like you, just use the road.
Hey Euan-yeah... I know of the cyclecraft research and reports on
studies, it is a good summary for all to read, lots of links, lots of
revelations.

I concurr...dedicated as stated or .....(preference), use the road...

Sadly, we have the intervening human elements....failure in keeping a
proper lookout, acting irresponsibly and being selfish ..... these are
prime causes of most ills in life and too often lead to outcomes that
result in death and injury and deferring blame to any innocents guilty
by association.


--
rooman

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:04:08 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
>
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html and a lot more from

Haven't digested much, but this caught my eye:

"More than one-half of accidents to cyclists occur at junctions. 80%
are related to turning against or crossing the path of other vehicles.
Where cycle paths are present, the most common collision type involves
motor vehicle turning right and cyclist going ahead. Often the motor
vehicle fails to cede right of way, but at traffic lights cyclists in
most cases passed at red."

which is presumably related to "Cycle track users most likely to run
red lights or cycle on pavements. "

although by "cycle track" I'm not sure if they mean off-road, on-road,
or both.

Presumably the problem boils down to intersection design - cycle paths
are an afterthought and the bikes aren't properly integrated into the
traffic flow.

Be interesting to see any stats on red light runners who are in the
traffic flow.

Zebee

[MikeyOz[_40_]]

Hope she recovers ok... the description you gave even read like it hurt
ALOT.

I know the bit you are talking about, surely this is just a case of
rider not taking into all the factors;
Sunlight/bikepath/concentration/skill level and suffered the
consequences ? Nothing is ever truely safe when humans are involved.

It is pretty bad that part though, cars going in and out, alot of
pedestrian use because of the beach/cafe, lots of cyclists, dogs,
runners and of course the extra speed coming down the hills. Nasty.


--
MikeyOz

[EuanB[_29_]]

MikeyOz Wrote:
> I know the bit you are talking about, surely this is just a case of
> rider not taking into all the factors;
> Sunlight/bikepath/concentration/skill level and suffered the
> consequences ? Nothing is ever truely safe when humans are involved.


OK, so we'll design roads so that they have 30km/h speed bumps but sign
them as 80km/h roads shall we? How about we make the road a pedestrian
zone while we're at it and keep the 80km/h limit? That's the road
equivilant of this bike path `design'.

Make no mistake, to the majority of people cyclist safety means
removing cars from the road so cars won't hit them. The utility of the
path is a very distant secondary consideration to these people as they
have no idea what bicycle safety entails.


--
EuanB

[cfsmtb[_145_]]

rooman Wrote:
>
>
> I concurr...dedicated as stated or .....(preference), use the road...
>
> Sadly, we have the intervening human elements....failure in keeping a
> proper lookout, acting irresponsibly and being selfish ..... these are
> prime causes of most ills in life and too often lead to outcomes that
> result in death and injury and deferring blame to any innocents guilty
> by association.

In all seriousness, the so-called alignment of pro or anti separate
bicycle facilities into a "argument" is a out of date furphy. The
discussion has moved on. Roads exist. Shared paths exist. Deal with it.
Decisions regarding planning for shared transport infrastructure should
be taken on a pragmatic needs basis, taking into consideration road
architecture, existing conditions and shared user requirements. Bad
design can occur regardless of whether it is or off road facilities. As
equally can good interpretations of adequate design and planning.

MikeyOz Wrote:
>
> I know the bit you are talking about, surely this is just a case of
> rider not taking into all the factors;
> Sunlight/bikepath/concentration/skill level and suffered the
> consequences ? Nothing is ever truely safe when humans are involved.

Yep, me too. Recalling something kinda similar, there's about 10
minutes of my life I'd like back from a month ago, ie: late afternoon,
travelling into the city via Burwood Rd with maximum sunglare, on the
road bike, in heavy traffic. So what do you do in such potentially
hairy situations? Simple, get off the bike and wait for the suns angle
to change. Sometimes a moments pause or paying attention is worth it;)


--
cfsmtb

[MikeyOz[_41_]]

EuanB Wrote:
> OK, so we'll design roads so that they have 30km/h speed bumps but sign
> them as 80km/h roads shall we? How about we make the road a pedestrian
> zone while we're at it and keep the 80km/h limit? That's the road
> equivilant of this bike path `design'.
>

I see your argument, not that I was trying to start one in the first
place, so you can back down a little bit if you want to.

So what do we do then, close all bicycle paths and get the government
and council to start them all from scratch ?? 30km/h per hour speed
bumps on 80km/h roads, I never even hinted to anything like that in the
first place. I simply stated that, that particular section is quite bad
and you need to be freakin careful when you ride down it, as 1 person as
found out.

Now, what will she do now ?
Go and sue the council which she might very well be entitled todo if
she has a good enough lawyer with mitigating circumstances and the
council will close the bike path so they don't get sue'd anymore.


--
MikeyOz

[EuanB[_30_]]

MikeyOz Wrote:
> I see your argument, not that I was trying to start one in the first
> place, so you can back down a little bit if you want to.

Back down from what particular position?


MikeyOz Wrote:
> So what do we do then, close all bicycle paths and get the government
> and council to start them all from scratch ??

In an ideal world that would be a good solution.


MikeyOz Wrote:
> 30km/h per hour speed bumps on 80km/h roads, I never even hinted to
> anything like that in the first place. I simply stated that, that
> particular section is quite bad and you need to be freakin careful when
> you ride down it, as 1 person as found out.

No, you didn't. I suggested it as an equivilant to rough as guts cycle
paths. You wouldn't have 30km/h speed bumps on 80km/h roads for obvious
reasons. Why do cyclists have obstacles which must be negotiated at low
speed and with care on paths which should be well surfaced? That's the
point I was trying to make.


MikeyOz Wrote:
> Now, what will she do now ?Go and sue the council which she might very
> well be entitled todo if she has a good enough lawyer with mitigating
> circumstances and the council will close the bike path so they don't
> get sue'd anymore.

On the other hand, they might just fix it which would be a good thing.


--
EuanB

[EuanB[_31_]]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> In all seriousness, the so-called alignment of pro or anti separate
> bicycle facilities into a "argument" is a out of date furphy.

That's not correct. A furphy a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable
story (Wikipedia). I've been learning these things see, in preperation
for becoming a citizen :-)

Stating that many examples of seperated facilities are detrimental to
the safety of cyclists is neither erroneous or improbable. It has been
demonstrated several times in several contries.


cfsmtb Wrote:
> The discussion has moved on. Roads exist. Shared paths exist. Deal with
> it. Decisions regarding planning for shared transport infrastructure
> should be taken on a pragmatic needs basis, taking into consideration
> road architecture, existing conditions and shared user requirements.
> Bad design can occur regardless of whether it is or off road
> facilities. As equally can good interpretations of adequate design and
> planning.

No arguement there.


--
EuanB

[cfsmtb[_146_]]

EuanB Wrote:
> That's not correct. A furphy a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable
> story (Wikipedia). I've been learning these things see, in preperation
> for becoming a citizen :-)
>
> Stating that many examples of seperated facilities are detrimental to
> the safety of cyclists is neither erroneous or improbable. It has been
> demonstrated several times in several contries.

In the context of providing bicycle facilities that people *want*, it
is a furphy. A furphy that keeps stymieing good debate and doesn't
allow for alternative solutions to develop. Shared paths may have a
higher probability of risk, and also contribute to some cyclists having
a lower skills base. Riding onroad is far better, where applicable, but
only if the rider has attained confidence and good skills base.
Continually quoting the risk percentage of offroad facilities isn't
going to solve anything, unless it's correctly utilised in context to
provide safer, adequate access for all users.

For instance, instead of quoting wiki, maybe you should try attending a
couple of transport-themed public consultations, such as local council,
bicycle advisory committees, local road safety councils or BUG meetings
and see what being said on many different levels. Put simply it doesn't
matter how damn good onroad facilities actually are, a high percentage
of potential bicycle riders *will not ever* ride on the road. And until
that utopian vision of peaceful shared road co-existance does develop,
the needs of these potential bicycle riders will have to be listened
to.


--
cfsmtb

[EuanB[_32_]]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> In the context of providing bicycle facilities that people *want*, it is
> a furphy.

I disagree. It's not a rumor that cyclepaths are in many cases riskier
and it's not inaccurate, therefore it's not a furphy. You used the
wrong word. That's OK, it happens to all of us.


cfsmtb Wrote:
> For instance, instead of quoting wiki, maybe you should try attending a
> couple of transport-themed public consultations, such as local council,
> bicycle advisory committees, local road safety councils or BUG meetings
> and see what being said on many different levels.

Yep, done all that.


cfsmtb Wrote:
> Put simply it doesn't matter how damn good onroad facilities actually
> are, a high percentage of potential bicycle riders *will not ever* ride
> on the road. And until that utopian vision of peaceful shared road
> co-existance does develop, the needs of these potential bicycle riders
> will have to be listened to.

Which is why I said ``No arguement there.'' I was agreeing with you,
well on that point anyway. I still disagree with your use of the word
furphy though.


--
EuanB

[rooman[_87_]]

MikeyOz Wrote:
>
>
> Now, what will she do now ?
> Go and sue the council which she might very well be entitled todo if
> she has a good enough lawyer with mitigating circumstances and the
> council will close the bike path so they don't get sue'd anymore.
she probably wont do anything, as she was pretty convinced ( in her
bruised and drowsey state) she didnt have enough skill, the sun was in
her eyes and she didnt slow or stop when that may have been the prudent
thing to do...

as for suing Council ( Ambulance chasers turn your heads away from
screen now) , she may have a case for misfeasance...ie the council
actively designed and built a section of the path and may have been
negligent in the design, material selection and construction standard
to minimise injury or damage to "the reasonable" man/woman expected to
use the path.

If council did nothing and left the path as it was she would have no
case as it cant be guilty of malfeasance ("not" doing anything) as
opposed to misfeasance ( a "wrong" doing)...when in the ordinary course
it owed no duty of care beyond what it had discharged in the orginal
design and construction of the path.


--
rooman

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
EuanB > wrote:

> IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
> and with priority at junctions.

Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
rooman > wrote:

> It is also used by many commuters, who IMO ride too fast (and
> seriously)should be using the roadway.

Not just commuters.
>
> I daily see commuters and some recreational riders fairly hammering
> along this path.

Yep. As it happens, I was riding along the path just the other side of
Ricketts Point on Anzac Day. It was only the second time I'd ridden
along it -- I ride Beach Road regularly, but I was with my wife, who
travels at a somewhat sedate pace.

I was actually thinking how most of the people seemed to be going much
more slowly than normal, or at least there were very few people going at
more than a very leisurely pace. There were lots of family groups with
young kids. Hardly what I'd call bumper to bumper, though.

But it is easy to get up a bit of speed down those dips, and quite a few
people don't seem to have complete control.

I'm very nervous about the exits from the carpark near Ricketts Point --
the bushes next to the path make it very hard for drivers leaving to see
even a slow cyclist coming.

Having said that, I find it hard to think anyone would label the path
unsafe. Yes, it could be safer, but short of ripping out the foreshore,
widening it massively and putting in overpasses and barriers, it's
always going to need some care, and there are always going to be mishaps.

But the one you saw sounds truly awful...

--
Shane Stanley

[Aeek]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:35:22 +1000, EuanB
> wrote:

>Make no mistake, to the majority of people cyclist safety means
>removing cars from the road so cars won't hit them.

I like the cars on the road, they discourage the pedestrians!

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> EuanB > wrote:
> > IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
> > and with priority at junctions.
>
> Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
> account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
> conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
> one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.


OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.

Exclusive to cyclists.

One way.

Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
pedestrians.

Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.

Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
--
Cheers,
Euan

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700
EuanB > wrote:
>
> Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> One way.
>
> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> pedestrians.
>
> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

Roads for cyclists.

Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered
vehicles, what makes unpowered different?

HAve to define bicycle though!

If a trike can use the path, then can a rollerblader who isn't that
much wider really?

Hand cranked? Rowbike?

What are the requirements in size and behaviour of vehicles that can
use the path?

Zebee

[TimC]

On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 13:24:03 -0700
> EuanB > wrote:
>>
>> Exclusive to cyclists.
>>
>> One way.
>>
>> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
>> pedestrians.
>>
>> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>>
>> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
>
> Roads for cyclists.
>
> Which makes sense - after all those are the requirements for powered
> vehicles, what makes unpowered different?
>
> HAve to define bicycle though!

Everything but bents.





:)

--
TimC
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:05:07 +1000
TimC > wrote:
> On 2007-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
>>
>> HAve to define bicycle though!
>
> Everything but bents.
>
>
>
>
>
>:)

You are Bicycle Victoria and I claim my five pounds!

Zebee

[Bleve]

On Apr 26, 4:57 pm, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> rooman > wrote:
> > It is also used by many commuters, who IMO ride too fast (and
> > seriously)should be using the roadway.
>
> Not just commuters.
>
>
>
> > I daily see commuters and some recreational riders fairly hammering
> > along this path.
>
> Yep. As it happens, I was riding along the path just the other side of
> Ricketts Point on Anzac Day. It was only the second time I'd ridden
> along it -- I ride Beach Road regularly, but I was with my wife, who
> travels at a somewhat sedate pace.
>
> I was actually thinking how most of the people seemed to be going much
> more slowly than normal, or at least there were very few people going at
> more than a very leisurely pace. There were lots of family groups with
> young kids. Hardly what I'd call bumper to bumper, though.
>
> But it is easy to get up a bit of speed down those dips, and quite a few
> people don't seem to have complete control.
>
> I'm very nervous about the exits from the carpark near Ricketts Point --
> the bushes next to the path make it very hard for drivers leaving to see
> even a slow cyclist coming.
>
> Having said that, I find it hard to think anyone would label the path
> unsafe. Yes, it could be safer, but short of ripping out the foreshore,
> widening it massively and putting in overpasses and barriers, it's
> always going to need some care, and there are always going to be mishaps.

It's a case of riding to the conditions. When riding on shared paths
(and all paths are shared, either by design or otherwise, there's
always going to be joggers, dogs, people who don't know/care etc) you
have to ride within your limits of vision and control.

> But the one you saw sounds truly awful...

Sure does, but also her fault. She went faster than she could safely
handle under the conditions. All she needed to do was use her brakes
on the descent to keep her speed down (assuming no brake failure
occurred)

Paths are only as safe as the people who choose to use them make them.
Same as the road, really....

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>
> Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> One way.
>
> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> pedestrians.
>
> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

What about another three meters for a passing lane? Why not just bitumenise
the planet?

Theo
Not sure the lanes on our local roads are three metres wide.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 15:13:33 -0700
Bleve > wrote:
>
> Sure does, but also her fault. She went faster than she could safely
> handle under the conditions. All she needed to do was use her brakes
> on the descent to keep her speed down (assuming no brake failure
> occurred)

The key seems to have been the sun in eyes. That should have been a
pointer to slow down.

But the idea that the road ahead is the same as the road right here is
a common cause of crashes. The idea of a bike path suddenly veering
because of an obstacle, or maybe worse not veering, is admittedly not
sensible and so perhaps not predictable to an inexperienced cyclist used
to car-based road design, but then as the "Cycling Facility of the Month"
pages show, it's distressingly common.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm


Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:07:30 +0800
Theo Bekkers > wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>>
>> Exclusive to cyclists.
>>
>> One way.
>>
>> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
>> pedestrians.
>>
>> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>>
>> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
>
> What about another three meters for a passing lane? Why not just bitumenise
> the planet?

Nah, just hand over the roads currently used by cars to bicycles.

OK, the city as we know it will disappear but on the other hand it will
stop those pesky mountain bikers playing silly buggers in areas they
can't ride to and completely remove questions about bike racks on cars,
so that's something.

Zebee

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 9:07 am, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>
> > Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> > One way.
>
> > Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> > pedestrians.
>
> > Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> > Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
>
> What about another three meters for a passing lane? Why not just bitumenise
> the planet?

Which is why good bike paths will not happen. Space is at a premium
in urban areas so for decent bike paths to happen antoher demographic
will have to lose out; that's unlikely to happen which is why learning
to share the road with other road users is the way to go (shared space
etc).

It may be feasible for inter-state roads however.

> Not sure the lanes on our local roads are three metres wide.

I very much doubt they are, they certainly aren't in Melbourne.
Please don't confuse what I consider to be a good bike path with what
I want or expect to happen.
--
Cheers
Euan

[AndrewJ]

On Apr 27, 9:21 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 15:13:33 -0700
>
> Bleve > wrote:
>
> > Sure does, but also her fault. She went faster than she could safely
> > handle under the conditions. All she needed to do was use her brakes
> > on the descent to keep her speed down (assuming no brake failure
> > occurred)
>
> The key seems to have been the sun in eyes. That should have been a
> pointer to slow down.
>
> But the idea that the road ahead is the same as the road right here is
> a common cause of crashes. The idea of a bike path suddenly veering
> because of an obstacle, or maybe worse not veering, is admittedly not
> sensible and so perhaps not predictable to an inexperienced cyclist used
> to car-based road design, but then as the "Cycling Facility of the Month"
> pages show, it's distressingly common.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index...
>
> Zebee


I only use bike paths when I'm in a mood to go slowly, smell the
roses, and take my time. Otherwise I ride on the road. If I'm in a
hurry I take a train, or very occasionally drive a car.

Many times I ride on bike paths I'm stunned by the speed at which
people ride on them. To me, they are going way too fast, leaving
absolutely no margin for error at all. Reminiscent of the way a lot of
car drivers drive their cars.

It seems to me that most bike paths are unsafe at greater than 20km/
hr.

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> But the idea that the road ahead is the same as the road right here is
> a common cause of crashes. The idea of a bike path suddenly veering
> because of an obstacle, or maybe worse not veering, is admittedly not
> sensible and so perhaps not predictable to an inexperienced cyclist
> used to car-based road design, but then as the "Cycling Facility of
> the Month" pages show, it's distressingly common.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

One for 'bents.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/May2003.htm

Theo

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 26 Apr 2007 16:38:11 -0700
AndrewJ > wrote:
>
> I only use bike paths when I'm in a mood to go slowly, smell the
> roses, and take my time. Otherwise I ride on the road. If I'm in a
> hurry I take a train, or very occasionally drive a car.

I use the Cooks River path to get to a shopping area I use, and
sometimes to get to work when I am heading to Alexandria.

When we move to North Ryde, I'll be using paths to get to work for about
75% of the trip. Cos they are flat and I'm a real wimp!

>
> It seems to me that most bike paths are unsafe at greater than 20km/
> hr.
>

I don't usually do much more than that on the path. 25 is about my usual
speed unless there's people about or it's horribly bumpy. If there's
lots of bodies such as a Saturday afternoon I'll slow down because that's
only sensible but if there's no one about I'll go as fast as I feel like
which usually isn't that fast.

With seriously shared areas like Pyrmont Bridge I tend to 15-20 and
figure that's fast enough to safely dodge peds who can't walk
straight[1] but I'm one of the slow cyclists there...


Zebee

[1] most people seem to have a buffer zone, they'll move until they
have lots of room around them. So they'll drift across as soon as
they can, then drift back if the space on one side is getting tight.
Judging a particular ped's personal space and tendency to do this can
get interesting.

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
EuanB > wrote:

> OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>
> Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> One way.
>
> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> pedestrians.
>
> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.

So if we banned cars tomorrow, and turned all the roads over to cyclists
only, most of them would be unsafe for cyclists. Interesting.

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
Bleve > wrote:

> It's a case of riding to the conditions.

For sure. But I think an argument can be made that bike paths like the
one along the foreshore, because they're used by so many inexperienced
and/or irregular cyclists, need more attention in terms of safe design.
That doesn't mean they can be made foolproof, it simply means designing
and maintaining them with typical users in mind.

--
Shane Stanley

[Plodder]

"EuanB" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley >
> wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> EuanB > wrote:
>> > IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
>> > and with priority at junctions.
>>
>> Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
>> account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
>> conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
>> one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.
>
>
> OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>
> Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> One way.
>
> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> pedestrians.
>
> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
> --
> Cheers,
> Euan

My idea of a safe bike path:
Not exclusive to cyclists - why create separation and the impression we're
somehow special?

Two ways - dumbing down facilities contributes nothing to evolving skills
and normalising bicycle use.

No special priority. Subject to normal vehicle rules - again, we're not
special.

I'll agree to the well surfaced part, but three to five meters? Isn't it
true that we expect people to drive to the conditions? Shouldn't it also be
true that cyclists should ride to the conditions? If the path or street is
narrow and/or has poor sight lines, slow down to a safe speed. We have
enough tarmac strips stuffing up the landscape.

The first three of your ideas seem to me to be creating the same sort of
bubble that motorists are accused of living in and removing the need for
working skills and human interaction. Personally, I don't accept that
cyclists should be separated from other people - commuters, walkers,
families out for a picnic, etc. The whole kit and caboodle should integrate.
To me, that's the utopian ideal, not segregation based on the convenience
determined by a mode of transport.

Yes, motor vehicles have their freeways and highways; their privileges and
priorities. Tough. I se no reason to replicate that for other ways people
use to move around. Why duplicate what's already seen as a mistake?

I also think that cyclists should have a certificate of competency (or
something like that) issued by schools for kids. Prospective drivers would
need to prove competency on a bicycle before they are permitted to apply for
a driver's license. There would, of course, be exceptions for those who are
unable to ride (disabled, etc) but they would be expected to submit to a
written or oral examination to show good knowledge of cycling.

Overall, I see the problem with the interactions between modes of transport
as being rooted in the idea that a chosen form of transport makes one person
somehow different to others. None of us is special or has some sort of
convenience priority over others; and that's what we're discussing -
convenience. It's more convenient for me to have a faster, uninterrupted
route. It's not a need. I see no need to pander to convenience by
segregating when, for me, the ideal is integration and human interaction
that's not goverened by one's chosen means of movement.

Nuff for now - maybe I'm just sensitive about being yelled at so much for
being on the road when ther's a bike path near by. Bike paths seem to
support the idea that I shouldn't be cycling on the road.

Frank

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 9:54 am, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> EuanB > wrote:
> > OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>
> > Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> > One way.
>
> > Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> > pedestrians.
>
> > Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> > Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
>
> So if we banned cars tomorrow, and turned all the roads over to cyclists
> only, most of them would be unsafe for cyclists. Interesting.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley

Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
wide.
--
Cheers,
Euan

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:54 am, Shane Stanley wrote:

>> So if we banned cars tomorrow, and turned all the roads over to
>> cyclists only, most of them would be unsafe for cyclists.
>> Interesting.

> Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
> wide.

One way? I doubt it. Most older roads don't meet the current minimum
standard of 3.5 m per lane plus 1 m of sealed shoulder.

Theo

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
EuanB > wrote:

> Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
> wide.

I was talking about banning cars, not pedestrians.

--
Shane Stanley

[EuanB[_33_]]

> My idea of a safe bike path:
> Not exclusive to cyclists - why create separation and the impression we're
> somehow special?

Bluntly, cycling is superior.

There is no more efficient method of transport, in terms of energy,
than the bicycle.

Countries which enjoy high rates of cycling have much lower rates of
road trauma and much lower health care costs.

Cycling is a benefit to society, not a detriment. In terms of road
trauma and health private motor cars are extremely detreimental to
society.

> Two ways - dumbing down facilities contributes nothing to evolving skills
> and normalising bicycle use.

Because two way bike paths have been proven to be the most dangerous
cycling construct for cyclists. That's why they don't exist in
Holland.

> No special priority. Subject to normal vehicle rules - again, we're not
> special.

If you want to encourage cycling, you have to make cycling special.

> I'll agree to the well surfaced part, but three to five meters? Isn't it
> true that we expect people to drive to the conditions? Shouldn't it also be
> true that cyclists should ride to the conditions? If the path or street is
> narrow and/or has poor sight lines, slow down to a safe speed. We have
> enough tarmac strips stuffing up the landscape.

Don't confuse what I think is a good bike lane with what I want or
expect to get.

> The first three of your ideas seem to me to be creating the same sort of
> bubble that motorists are accused of living in and removing the need for
> working skills and human interaction. Personally, I don't accept that
> cyclists should be separated from other people - commuters, walkers,
> families out for a picnic, etc. The whole kit and caboodle should integrate.

Nor do I, I'm much more in favor of shared space. I gave my opinion
on what would make a good bike path, not on what would make good
facilities for the common good.

Understanding the needs of all demographics allows us to compensate
when those needs can't be met. I allow a lot more room stepping out
in front of a truck than I do in front of a pedestrian, for example.

> Yes, motor vehicles have their freeways and highways; their privileges and
> priorities. Tough. I se no reason to replicate that for other ways people
> use to move around. Why duplicate what's already seen as a mistake?

Well, that's the point of shared space. Car drivers lose those
privliges and have to work with everyone else. Call it shared space,
unsafe safety, second generation traffic engineering and it all boils
down to the same thing, all road users working with each other to get
to where they need to go.

> I also think that cyclists should have a certificate of competency (or
> something like that) issued by schools for kids.

Why? It's arguable that there'd be a benefit to society in preventing
children from getting on bikes, they're less likely to be active and
more likely to suffer from obesity and its related problems.

> Prospective drivers would
> need to prove competency on a bicycle before they are permitted to apply for
> a driver's license. There would, of course, be exceptions for those who are
> unable to ride (disabled, etc) but they would be expected to submit to a
> written or oral examination to show good knowledge of cycling.

That would be nice.

> Overall, I see the problem with the interactions between modes of transport
> as being rooted in the idea that a chosen form of transport makes one person
> somehow different to others.

It's a fact that a cyclist is different to a driver. A cyclist is
much more vulnerable than a driver. A cyclist has a harder time
getting up hills than a driver. A driver is capable of much greater
speed with less effort than a cyclist. There's no beneift in
pretending otherwise, in fact it's dishonest.

> Nuff for now - maybe I'm just sensitive about being yelled at so much for
> being on the road when ther's a bike path near by. Bike paths seem to
> support the idea that I shouldn't be cycling on the road.

I have not, or ever have been, a fan of bike paths. The very things
that make a bike path safe are the things that make them impracticle.
That said as cfsmtb says they are a fact of life now because that's
what Joe Public wants. The best we can do is do our best to minimize
the bad things about them, such as Sydney's proposal of a two way bike
lane on one side of the road seperated from traffic by bollards, and
promote the good things such as green lanes as recently popularised by
the ACT ads.

[Bleve]

On Apr 27, 10:02 am, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> Bleve > wrote:
> > It's a case of riding to the conditions.
>
> For sure. But I think an argument can be made that bike paths like the
> one along the foreshore, because they're used by so many inexperienced
> and/or irregular cyclists, need more attention in terms of safe design.
> That doesn't mean they can be made foolproof, it simply means designing
> and maintaining them with typical users in mind.

Sure, you can improve them, but the responsibility for safety rests on
the shoulders of the users of the facility, IMO. If someone's unsafe
on a path, take them to a velodrome or a carpark or somewhere until
they're competent to habdle their bike. It's just like roads, sure,
we can clear every tree away, remove all the blind corners, turn
everything into a tunnel etc, but users of roads still have to use the
roads to how they are, and not drive or ride or whatever, beyond what
they can see and react to in time.
What's nice about that path is that it's meandering and twisty and
scenic. It's not for riding fast on, as everyone here knows, but it's
also not really suitable for absolute beginners. There's too much
random traffic on and about it, and too many interesting bits (which
is why it's nice in the first place!).

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 12:38 pm, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> EuanB > wrote:
> > Eh? How do you work that out? The roads around here are 6-10 meters
> > wide.
>
> I was talking about banning cars, not pedestrians.
>

Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
cross them, so what's your point?
--
Cheers
Euan

[Shane Stanley]

In article om>,
EuanB > wrote:

> Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
> cross them, so what's your point?

Your suggestion about right of way.

But really, I guess I find it hard to believe that bikes have
requirements so much higher than vehicles that are bigger, travel
faster, have poorer vision, etc.

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article om>,
Bleve > wrote:

> Sure, you can improve them

I don't mean that so much as maintain them. The sightlines as some of
the carpark entrances are a good example.

--
Shane Stanley

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
> cross them, so what's your point?

Only not allowed if a suitable path is provided for them alongside the
(paved) roadway, otherwise they are indeed allowed on the roads.

Theo

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 2:05 pm, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> EuanB > wrote:
> > Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
> > cross them, so what's your point?
>
> Your suggestion about right of way.
>
> But really, I guess I find it hard to believe that bikes have
> requirements so much higher than vehicles that are bigger, travel
> faster, have poorer vision, etc.

Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone. I'm not
asking for more than other vehicles, just hte same. Well I'm not even
asking for it as I'm more in favor of shared space.

Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.
That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.
--
Cheers
Euan

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 2:34 pm, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than to
> > cross them, so what's your point?
>
> Only not allowed if a suitable path is provided for them alongside the
> (paved) roadway, otherwise they are indeed allowed on the roads.
>
> Theo

Allowed on the side of the road, not where traffic travels. Big
difference.
--
Cheers
Euan

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Shane Stanley wrote:

>> But really, I guess I find it hard to believe that bikes have
>> requirements so much higher than vehicles that are bigger, travel
>> faster, have poorer vision, etc.

> Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone.

What? Obviously unsafe things, let's ban them.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> EuanB wrote:
>>> Last time I checked pedestrians are not allowed on roads other than
>>> to cross them, so what's your point?
>>
>> Only not allowed if a suitable path is provided for them alongside
>> the (paved) roadway, otherwise they are indeed allowed on the roads.

> Allowed on the side of the road, not where traffic travels. Big
> difference.

From a WA Gov't website
Where to walk when you're beside the road
Footpaths provide a safe place for you to walk and it is recommended you use
the paths for your safety.

When there is no footpath:

a.. Walk on the side of the road facing oncoming traffic except on curves,
where it is best to walk on the outside edge of the curve.
b.. If possible, walk off the road or as close to the edge of the road as
you can.
And for your safety at night, carry or wear one or all of these:

a.. Wear light-coloured clothing.
b.. Carry something white, eg a sheet of newspaper is better than nothing.
c.. Carry a torch.
d.. Wear reflective belt or arm band.
Note: These tips are not a statement of the "law" and should not be taken
as such. While sharing the road with motorists, you must share the
responsibilities.

Theo

[Shane Stanley]

In article . com>,
EuanB > wrote:

> Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone.

Nonetheless, you're suggesting standards for bike-only facilities that
are far higher than you accept for shared facilities (ie, existing
roads). Is lack of a crumple zone or inferior brakes more a problem on a
bike-only facility than when sharing with other large, fast moving and
heavy vehicles?

> I'm not asking for more than other vehicles, just hte same.

Actually, I think you were -- things like eliminating two-way
thoroughfares.
>
> Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.

You mean asking for more than other vehicles is not without precedent.
You can't have it both ways.

> That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
> lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.

And the Swiss keep guns by law and have a very low homicide rate. Maybe
there's a little bit more involved.

--
Shane Stanley

[TimC]

On 2007-04-27, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article . com>,
> EuanB > wrote:
>> That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
>> lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.
>
> And the Swiss keep guns by law and have a very low homicide rate. Maybe
> there's a little bit more involved.

They also have mandatory training in the form of mandatory military
service.

Hey wait, we can extend this analogy to cycling too!

--
TimC
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc
informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common
Lisp." -- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming

[TimC]

On 2007-04-27, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> From a WA Gov't website
> Where to walk when you're beside the road
> Footpaths provide a safe place for you to walk and it is recommended you use
> the paths for your safety.
....
> a.. Wear light-coloured clothing.
> b.. Carry something white, eg a sheet of newspaper is better than nothing.

Are you sure? Surely most anglo's wearing nothing have higher
reflectivity than your average sheet of newspaper?

Hence nothing is better than a newspaper?

> Note: These tips are not a statement of the "law" and should not be taken
> as such. While sharing the road with motorists, you must share the
> responsibilities.

Ie, if they hit you, you are allowed to then run into them and crush
their car.

--
TimC
Modus Ponens in action:
- Nothing is better than world peace.
- A turkey sandwich is better than nothing.
==> Ergo, a turkey sandwich is better than world peace. --unknown

[rooman[_88_]]

On Apr 27, 3:26 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2007-04-27, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > EuanB > wrote:
> >> That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
> >> lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.
>
> > And the Swiss keep guns by law and have a very low homicide rate. Maybe
> > there's a little bit more involved.
>
> They also have mandatory training in the form of mandatory military
> service.
>
> Hey wait, we can extend this analogy to cycling too!
>
> --
> TimC
> "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc
> informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common
> Lisp." -- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming


Now you ARE talking !!,

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 3:07 pm, Shane Stanley >
wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
> EuanB > wrote:
> > Bikes have to balance, have worse brakes and no crumple zone.
>
> Nonetheless, you're suggesting standards for bike-only facilities that
> are far higher than you accept for shared facilities (ie, existing
> roads). Is lack of a crumple zone or inferior brakes more a problem on a
> bike-only facility than when sharing with other large, fast moving and
> heavy vehicles?

I've a lot more faith in motorised traffic than I have in pedetrians.
We're all operating to a common set of rules and it's prdictable.

> > I'm not asking for more than other vehicles, just hte same.
>
> Actually, I think you were -- things like eliminating two-way
> thoroughfares.

Based on the demonstrated lethality of two way bike paths. If two way
bike paths were built to the same standard as two way roads for other
traffic, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

> > Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.
>
> You mean asking for more than other vehicles is not without precedent.
> You can't have it both ways.

Actually, I can. Cars have priority over all other vehicles most of
the time currently.

> > That's the case in the Netherlands. The Netherlands have one of the
> > lowest road trauma rates in the developed world.
>
> And the Swiss keep guns by law and have a very low homicide rate. Maybe
> there's a little bit more involved.

Duh. There's also the fact that they keep rifles, not ammo, and that
they're all trained to use them. You know that. No relevence to the
topic anyway.
--
Cheers
Euan

[EuanB[_33_]]

On Apr 27, 6:21 pm, rooman > wrote:

> Now you ARE talking !!,

Salesman: So sir, the $12,000 mega-carbon-extra-bling?

Punter: Yep, that's the one.

Salesman: Good, now if I can just see your cycling certificate

Punter: <shuffles feet>

Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
to applying for a car licence.
--
Cheers
Euan

[TimC]

On 2007-04-28, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
> nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
> to applying for a car licence.

Zactly.

"They also have mandatory training in the form of mandatory military
service."

Everyone gets it.

--
TimC
Quantum Mechanics is a lovely introduction to Hilbert Spaces! --unknown

[TimC]

On 2007-04-28, EuanB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Apr 27, 3:07 pm, Shane Stanley >
> wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> EuanB > wrote:
>> > Having priority over all other traffic is not without precedent.
>>
>> You mean asking for more than other vehicles is not without precedent.
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
> Actually, I can. Cars have priority over all other vehicles most of
> the time currently.

Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and never
rush when a car is waiting for me :)

--
TimC
Sorry if there are error (factual or otherwise) in transmission - I'm
sending this message by manually feeding signals down the gigabit
fiber link with a laser pointer.

[Shane Stanley]

In article om>,
EuanB > wrote:

> I've a lot more faith in motorised traffic than I have in pedetrians.

Fine, but last I looked more cyclists were being killed by cars than by
pedestrians.

> We're all operating to a common set of rules and it's prdictable.

Except, of course, for all the motorists (and cyclists) who think the
rules don't apply to them, or who don't actually know the rules.

> Based on the demonstrated lethality of two way bike paths.

"demonstrated lethality"?

> If two way bike paths were built to the same standard as two way roads for other
> traffic, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

You don't design roads for a type of vehicle by using the standards for
a totally different type of vehicle. There are plenty of two-way roads
where the made surface isn't wide enough for two cars, for example.
People have to drive/ride to the conditions.

> Duh. There's also the fact that they keep rifles, not ammo, and that
> they're all trained to use them. You know that. No relevence to the
> topic anyway.

The relevance is that your argument was suggesting a cause-and-effect
relationship that isn't justified; there are lots of factors that affect
a country's road trauma rate. The world's a more complicated place.

--
Shane Stanley

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:00:48 +1000
TimC > wrote:
> On 2007-04-28, EuanB (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
>> nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
>> to applying for a car licence.
>
> Zactly.
>
> "They also have mandatory training in the form of mandatory military
> service."
>

Everyone? Or only physically fit males?

Zebee

[me[_3_]]

On Apr 28, 4:03 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:

> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and never
> rush when a car is waiting for me :)

Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
aggressive tools etc) I *really* despise those situations when a
motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your
civil duty, and accidently on purpose, walk/cycle a bit slower so
others can walk without being unduly intimidated. ;)

[rooman[_88_]]

On Apr 28, 3:16 pm, EuanB > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:21 pm, rooman > wrote:
>
> > Now you ARE talking !!,
>
> Salesman: So sir, the $12,000 mega-carbon-extra-bling?
>
> Punter: Yep, that's the one.
>
> Salesman: Good, now if I can just see your cycling certificate
>
> Punter: <shuffles feet>
>
> Unless of course you mean MANDATORY cycle training for the entire
> nation. I'd certainly go for mandatory cycle training as a pre-cursor
> to applying for a car licence.
> --
> Cheers
> Euan

Have had that thought( mandatory cycle training as a precursor to
applying for a car licence) for a long time, and add to that make it
also mandatory for any driver who loses a lic. from an offence against
a cyclist , who then has to spend time under supervision in a mandated
cycling skill bicycle laws awareness and on road riding exposure to
traffic course before lic. is restored...

seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
shared path users) at high risk.

It is just one area that has been ignored over the years ( perhaps
rightly) but it has been ignored and is probably IMO one of the main
contributors to many accidents on the road ( low skill level and
competency).

I'm sure the bicycle manufacturers wouldn't go for it, as that would
certainly limit sales and perhaps put annual bike sales back behind
cars .

I am not talking registration, but a simple level of approved
competency and skill that wouldnt hurt everyone, before they can ride
on the road .

Extend it to producing that qualification when you buy or hire a
bicycle of a capability for road use.( shock horror you say, well why
not?).. It (courses) could be run at local councils or BUGs or bike
shops and cycling clubs, across the whole community and quickly build
a level of comeptence and skill that would put Australian bicycle
riders as best in class in the world IMO.

Cycling Australia has such a course and could put out many more new
coaches each year who can deliver this in the public domain ( for
reward or free) . That course also aligns with the ride to school
programmes and certainly is attractive to work place BUGs to utilise
to encourage more people to gain confidence , skill and competency for
bicycle riding as a transport option.

Worth a discussion and worth serious consideration....let us know,
over to you.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 27 Apr 2007 23:42:27 -0700
me > wrote:
>
> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> aggressive tools etc) I *really* despise those situations when a
> motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
> mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your

What bothers me is people who see me stopped and waiting and scurry.

I relax back off the bike if I can, I smile, I wait for them as the
extra minute won't kill me, but they scuttle across the road as if
they are scared.

That is sad. Hate to see it happen.

Zebee

[EuanB[_34_]]

rooman Wrote:
>
> Have had that thought( mandatory cycle training as a precursor to
> applying for a car licence) for a long time, and add to that make it
> also mandatory for any driver who loses a lic. from an offence against
> a cyclist , who then has to spend time under supervision in a mandated
> cycling skill bicycle laws awareness and on road riding exposure to
> traffic course before lic. is restored...
>
> seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
> competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
> bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
> best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
> has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
> rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
> shared path users) at high risk.I've thought about it and I'm sure many people smarter than me have
thought about it. Frankly it's not worth it.

Yes bicycles can approach the speeds of other vehicles, yes cyclists
can get themselves in to dangerous situations. The fact remains that
the bicycle is the most benign form of transport ever invented. Put
simply a cyclist killing another road user is a rare event, so rare
that it makes the front page of national news for the best part of a
week.

The benefits of riding a bicycle outweigh the risks to the cyclists by
20:1. Much better to have someone ride than not ride, both for that
someone and society.

Simply put just like MHL ensuring a level of competency amongst
cyclists will cost more lives in terms of people who do not take to the
bike becaue they're too lazy to get the accreditation than such
accreditation is likely to save. It's just not worth it.


--
EuanB

[EuanB[_35_]]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> In article om>,
> EuanB > wrote:
>
> > I've a lot more faith in motorised traffic than I have in
> pedetrians.
>
> Fine, but last I looked more cyclists were being killed by cars than
> by
> pedestrians.Last time I looked pavement cycling's far more dangerous than road
cycling.

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > We're all operating to a common set of rules and it's
> prdictable.
>
> Except, of course, for all the motorists (and cyclists) who think the
> rules don't apply to them, or who don't actually know the rules.Of course there are exceptions. What is it with you, do I have to spell
everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the
main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > Based on the demonstrated lethality of two way bike paths.
>
> "demonstrated lethality"?Put another way research has shown that two way cycling paths are the
most dangerous form of cycling infrastructure.

This is going around in circles and for one very simple reason. You're
confusing what I think would make a good bike path with what I want or
expect. As I've stated earlier in this thread don't confuse the two.

Over and out unless you've something relevent to say.


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:28:45 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
> everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the
> main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

Is that because they have passed a test, or because they are more
restricted by their mode of transport?

Zebee

[cfsmtb[_147_]]

rooman Wrote:
>
> seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
> competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
> bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
> best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
> has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
> rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
> shared path users) at high risk.

On 3AW (17/4) Flip Shelton mentioned that point regarding drivers
licences:
http://www.woj.com.au/audio/3YawN_nm_rego.mp3

Of course Neil Mitchell & his QC mate laugh off the suggestion, but all
probability, this has far more potential for implementation on
state/national level than pushing furphys like the bike rego debate.

(Warning: Listen in from the 3.42 minute mark. Plenty of subjective
comments and gaps of logic big enough to drive a b-double through,
although Flip does try to counter some of the worst of it.)

BTW I've just volunteered to assist in a course to teach adult
beginners, so at some point I'll let you know how that proceeds.


--
cfsmtb

[TimC]

On 2007-04-29, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> rooman Wrote:
>> seriously , we are required by law to have a level of skill,
>> competence and laws awareness, before we can ride a motorbike or car,
>> bus truck etc. on public roads( by driving tests- not the best but the
>> best we have at the moment), what makes a bicycle so different when it
>> has the potential to reach motorised vehicle speeds, to place its
>> rider in situations of high risk and to place other road users ( and
>> shared path users) at high risk.
>
> On 3AW (17/4) Flip Shelton mentioned that point regarding drivers
> licences:
> http://www.woj.com.au/audio/3YawN_nm_rego.mp3

I like this lawyer's view that license plates lead to identifiability,
but when was the last time anyone here managed to get the police off
their fat arses to investigate anything when they were given a license
plate to deal with.

--
TimC
Modus Ponens in action:
- Nothing is better than world peace.
- A turkey sandwich is better than nothing.
==> Ergo, a turkey sandwich is better than world peace. --unknown

[John Pitts[_2_]]

On 2007-04-28, me > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:03 pm, TimC -
> astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and never
>> rush when a car is waiting for me :)
>
> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> aggressive tools etc) I *really* despise those situations when a
> motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
> mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your
> civil duty, and accidently on purpose, walk/cycle a bit slower so
> others can walk without being unduly intimidated. ;)
>

Me too. I'm usually a fairly fast walker, but if I'm crossing the road
with kids or less mobile pedestrians, I'll hang back and make sure I'm
the last one to the kerb.

If the driver is behaving in an intimidating way, I favour them with
some one-on-one eye contact as I stroll by.

--
John
If you wanna end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud! - Arlo Guthrie

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
EuanB > wrote:

> What is it with you, do I have to spell everything out?

Funnily enough, debate can sometimes be a bit like that. Much more work
than simply being dogmatic.

--
Shane Stanley

[rooman[_90_]]

> *EuenB*
> I've thought about it and I'm sure many people smarter than me have
> thought about it. Frankly it's not worth it.
>
> Yes bicycles can approach the speeds of other vehicles, yes cyclists
> can get themselves in to dangerous situations. The fact remains that
> the bicycle is the most benign form of transport ever invented. Put
> simply a cyclist killing another road user is a rare event, so rare
> that it makes the front page of national news for the best part of a
> week.
>
> The benefits of riding a bicycle outweigh the risks to the cyclists by
> 20:1. Much better to have someone ride than not ride, both for that
> someone and society.
> it is fine to say that, and by the stats it seems to be the outcome
that society will deliver for some time to come...

I know that people very close to important decision makers in
Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its
benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the
economy. Part of thier concern and advice is what needs to be done to
improving cycling training. A vital aspect of the discussion has been
the likelihood of an implementing an accreditation scheme down the
track if riding numbers become huge compared to current figures...(for
commuting journeys especially as that is the stat. that is being
tracked at the moment).....so start to embrace the idea no matter how
beign it may seem at the moment....it may not be so remote in time for
us to be flippant about.

> *EuenB*
> Simply put just like MHL ensuring a level of competency amongst
> cyclists will cost more lives in terms of people who do not take to the
> bike becaue they're too lazy to get the accreditation than such
> accreditation is likely to save. It's just not worth it.
> those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get
accreditation will also probably be to lazy to actually seriously ride
a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
level of inertia...
IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build
confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more positive
that sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for.f$csk sake why
bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and so
wont ride...ever..."

I am not advertising here, but like others on this forum I have
(recently ) done one cycling coaching course with Cycling Australia and
in June will do another, so I take seriously what I say...and am willing
to seek out and actively particpate in such courses as are applicable
to riding safely.

If as many people as possible become accredited to teach these skills
courses, it will become more of an accepted community practice to
participate in them and the wider community benefits must be positive
ones.


--
rooman

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:59:27 +1000
rooman > wrote:
> accreditation will also probably be to lazy to actually seriously ride
> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
> level of inertia...

On the other hand... The more barriers there are, the fewer people
will climb them.

Riding to work is a fair old ask. Most people I talk to at work are
quite afraid of it even though they think it might be a good thing. I
am as upbeat and matter of fact about it as I can be, but it's pretty
clear people think it is a Big Thing.

It will be an even Bigger Thing if they are told "it is so difficult
and dangerous you have to be licenced".

Each of those people is a potential cyclist. To dismiss them as
losers is, I think, short sighted.

Better to look at everyone as a potential friend and fellow addict
than dismiss all but the most eager as wastes of space.

Zebee

[rooman[_92_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:59:27 +1000
> rooman > wrote:
> > accreditation will also probably be to lazy to actually seriously
> ride
> > a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
> > they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
> > really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
> > level of inertia...
>
> On the other hand... The more barriers there are, the fewer people
> will climb them.
>
> Riding to work is a fair old ask. Most people I talk to at work are
> quite afraid of it even though they think it might be a good thing. I
> am as upbeat and matter of fact about it as I can be, but it's pretty
> clear people think it is a Big Thing.
>
> It will be an even Bigger Thing if they are told "it is so difficult
> and dangerous you have to be licenced".
>
> Each of those people is a potential cyclist. To dismiss them as
> losers is, I think, short sighted.
>
> Better to look at everyone as a potential friend and fellow addict
> than dismiss all but the most eager as wastes of space.
>
> Zebeenot to your extreme Zeebee.

certainly not "licensed", this is a simple basic skills course and
assessment, pretty simple stuff really, and things that every one
should know before they head out, not a warning to put them off as you
say...that "the road is dangerous or riding is difficult".

To many potential bicycle riders it is, its a fact of life for them ,
and so to have access to such a course makes sense...obviously at this
point in time people can do it optionally if they wish, that is how it
is and has been for yonks...but it may not continue like that for long.
It may well become compulsory.

We are all responsible for the choices we each make in our life... the
choices of some not to ride will possibly be made if they feel they
have to be schooled and accredited to do it... granted....they are not
"losers" as you put it, they just miss out on the benefits. However
many buy bikes ( or want to) and are afraid to use them, and they
deserve better.....but in the meantime, is it not better they not ride
on the road than head out without skills and competence and injure or
kill themselves or someone else.

And that is why such matters are being discussed. Many new adult
bicycle riders will head out onto the streets in the not too distant
future, that is the trend, that is what we would like to encourage as
bicycle riders ( unless I am seriously mistaken or living in a parallel
universe.)
The current benign statistics as have been mentioned previously may
become serious ones that demand attention to redress should there be a
rapid increase in measurable incidence of injury, death or property
damage from bicycle related incidents.

The alternative to discussing and planning for such things is the
following situation -"OK lets not have any measures that would help
redress bicycle related incidents. Let's not seek to prepare riders
with a high level of skill and competence, or even discuss them because
we just dont want to hear about it! And it might offend someone, oh heck
yeah it's short sighted!-

- -No one is ever going to fall off their bicycle again, -
- -riding a bike is instinctive, -
- -we have the skills imparted to us in the womb, its even imprinted
in our DNA."-
If we encourage as many new riders as possible to seek to acquire proper
structured training we will be doing them and ourselves a favour.
I dont see it as short sighted or a negative.
Not doing it will have it forced upon us down the track...
Better to set out to self regulate and develope a culture of riding
skill and competence to overcome the perception amongst many
commentators that all bicycle riders are reduced to the lowest common
denominator in their view, (the redlight running law breaking ones).

To actually have recognition that bicycle riders are responsible road
users would reduce most of the angst , if not all of it we are
currently faced with on the road.

The primary aim at the Amy Gillett Foundation think tank I participated
in last year was to aim to improve relations between bicycle riders and
motorists. The outcome was certainly agreed to be more than calling for
shared respect.

All present ( from across, Cycling, Motoring, Government and Business
Groups and stakeholders in Cycling) agreed there were practical
obligations considered mandatory for all cyclists. These were:

- to be Visible,
- Predictable and
- Legal.
Two of these attributes when put in context of being a road user are not
instinctive, they require serious dedication to learning road and bike
handling skills.

A level of competence is a fact of life if we are to be considered
acceptable as road users and not a "nuisance or road obstruction" to
the wider public. Without a committment to that fact the situation of
abuse , angst and derision will continue and may be exacerbated when
more riders enter onto the roads in the near future because of the
bicycle explosion we all want and are encouraging.

If the Regiment isnt in step it will fall over itself.


--
rooman

[EuanB[_37_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:28:45 +1000
> EuanB > wrote:
> > everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in
> the
> > main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.
>
> Is that because they have passed a test, or because they are more
> restricted by their mode of transport?
> Probably a bit of both :-)
--
Cheers
Euan


--
EuanB

[EuanB[_38_]]

rooman Wrote:
> it is fine to say that, and by the stats it seems to be the outcome that
> society will deliver for some time to come...
>
> I know that people very close to important decision makers in
> Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its
> benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the
> economy. Part of their concern and advice is what needs to be done to
> improving cycling training. A vital aspect of the discussion has been
> the likelihood of implementing an accreditation scheme down the track
> if riding numbers become huge, compared to current figures...(for
> commuting journeys especially as that is the stat. that is being
> tracked at the moment).....so start to embrace the idea no matter how
> benign it may seem at the moment....it may not be so remote in time for
> us to be flippant about.
I would suggest that those decision makers look to cities which have
made cycling a popular choice and see if such training is either
warranted or needed. Unless of course those decision makers want
cycling to fail.

rooman Wrote:
> those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get
> accreditation will also probably be too lazy to actually seriously ride
> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
> level of inertia...

Just like a third of cyclists suddenly became too lazy when they had
to wear a helmet? I don't agree with your thinking.


rooman Wrote:
> IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build
> confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more positive
> than sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for f$csk sake why
> bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and so
> wont ride...ever..."
Please tell me you're not serious? You really want less people
cycling? That's the way to do it all right.

It's been proven that if you put up a minor obstacle to cycling such as
wearing a helmet then a significant poroportion of cyclists become
non-cyclists. To what benefit? Cycling safety hasn't improved, in
fact it's got worse for a long time as there were far fewer cyclists on
the road.

All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding. I
don't know of any other country where it's neccessary so why Australia?

rooman Wrote:
> If as many people as possible become accredited to teach these skills
> courses, it will become more of an accepted community practice to
> participate in them and the wider community benefits must be positive
> ones.
I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of
you training provider please? Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the
value of skills and training. I just believe that mandatory skills
would be detrimental to cycling at a population level.


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:03:02 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:28:45 +1000
>> EuanB > wrote:
>> > everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in
>> the
>> > main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.
>>
>> Is that because they have passed a test, or because they are more
>> restricted by their mode of transport?
>> Probably a bit of both :-)

I was thinking about this and wondered... and how much is role
modelling?

People learn about behaviour from those around them. They learn what
is acceptable and what is not both from what people do and their
reactions to what other people do.

Peds wander on footpaths and shared paths in a way I bet they don't
when driving cars. (because if they did, the roads would be utter
chaos instead of mild chaos.)

Some of that is going to be perceived danger - don't have to watch,
don't have to be careful. But some of it is also going to be role
modelling - see what others do - and societal pressue - see who gets
yelled at.

A ped wandering across Pyrmont Bridge never bothering to check what
might be near them is behaving like every other ped. A motorist being
careful about lane discipline is behaving like every other motorist.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

me wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
>> never rush when a car is waiting for me :)
>
> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> aggressive tools etc)

I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of courtesy is
too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer than necessary.

>I *really* despise those situations when a
> motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
> mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your
> civil duty, and accidently on purpose, walk/cycle a bit slower so
> others can walk without being unduly intimidated. ;)

Agreed.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the
> main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

And yet, most of those pedestrians have passed their driving licence test as
some point in their lives. Do we need a pedestrian licence?

Theo

[rooman[_94_]]

EuanB Wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of
> you training provider please?
Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the Australian
Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
Officiating Unit.
All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth and
state / territory governments.


Courses are available for :


-
- _CycleSkill,_ a course specifically targeted at the coach who
desires to assist novice cyclists in the areas of bicycle skills,
road worthiness, the correct choice and fitment of cycling equipment
and optimising bicycle set up using existing equipment. The course
duration is 1 day. Additional information maybe obtained from CA.
-
- _Level_1_, a course for the coach who assists club and state level
cyclists to develop their fitness and hone their racing skills. This
course addresses basic fitnessdevelopment, nutrition, strength and
conditioning, an understanding of Drugs in Sport. The course is 2
full days and is conducted by each state cycling federation.
- _Level_2_, an advanced coaching course aimed at the coach who works
with elite athletes competing in National Championships. In
particular, this course underpins an emerging elite junior athlete
who seeks to represent Australia at World Junior or Under 23 World
Championships. The course is conducted annually over 5 1/2 days and
provides in depth information on physiology and physiology
assessment, performance monitoring and assessment, sports psychology,
advanced racing skill and race preparation, recovery and crisis
management of the injured cyclist. Further details can be obtained
from Ron Bonham, National Coaching Director -
- _Level_3_, an advanced coaching course for the coach who seeks
coaching as a profession. Further information can be obtained by
emailing



In Vic its meant to be run by CSV, but they had hassles organising it
and CA assisted for the early 07 course. You have to register via CSV
web site , there is a fee and an element of hard copy course materials
completion and instruction at DISC.


--
rooman

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> me wrote:
>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
>>> never rush when a car is waiting for me :)
>>
>> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
>> aggressive tools etc)
>
> I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of courtesy is
> too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer than necessary.

There's a footpath. There's a carpark into a shopping centre, and
cars need to cross the footpath to get into it. It is required of
cars to give way to pedestrians when entering and leaving private
property (in fact, I believe the road regs say cars are required to
give way to peds crossing the road when the car is entering or leaving
a sidestreet too; but mum still tells me to hurry up and go through
the roundabout when I'm waving peds through the roundabout). I see so
many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
footpath.

But why?


I have no desire to put myself under undue stress by rushing
everywhere. What makes the car driver fundamentally more important
than me that requires them to be delayed the least amount of time
possible in any given situation? Why is my going about my business
less important than them going about their business, such that I need
to rush?

--
TimC
An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> A motorist being
> careful about lane discipline is behaving like every other motorist.

Hah! Things really do differ between the capital cities. Melbourne
drivers wouldn't have a clue what a lane is, other than it keeps the
trams from straying out from their tracks.

--
TimC
All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical
chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman

[AndrewJ]

On Apr 30, 12:44 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2007-04-30, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> > me wrote:
> >> TimC wrote:
>
> >>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
> >>> never rush when a car is waiting for me :)
>
> >> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> >> aggressive tools etc)
>
> > I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of courtesy is
> > too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer than necessary.
>
> There's a footpath. There's a carpark into a shopping centre, and
> cars need to cross the footpath to get into it. It is required of
> cars to give way to pedestrians when entering and leaving private
> property (in fact, I believe the road regs say cars are required to
> give way to peds crossing the road when the car is entering or leaving
> a sidestreet too; but mum still tells me to hurry up and go through
> the roundabout when I'm waving peds through the roundabout). I see so
> many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
> walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
> footpath.
>
> But why?
>
> I have no desire to put myself under undue stress by rushing
> everywhere. What makes the car driver fundamentally more important
> than me that requires them to be delayed the least amount of time
> possible in any given situation? Why is my going about my business
> less important than them going about their business, such that I need
> to rush?
>
> --
> TimC
> An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.


Why rush, rush, rush? Have you considered terminal incurable
stupidity ?

[cfsmtb[_151_]]

rooman Wrote:
>
> In Vic its meant to be run by CSV, but they had hassles organising it
> and CA assisted for the early 07 course. You have to register via CSV
> web site , there is a fee and an element of hard copy course materials
> completion and instruction at DISC.

Interesting by comparison to the Skills Cycle and Level 1 Coaching
Courses avaliable via Cycling NSW at Homebush, as apparently BUG
members are taking the opportunity to enroll in these courses. Pretty
sure that was that course (mentioned in passing), although feel free to
correct me. In Vic, there's Ted and Maree at Wilcare, I believe the
course I'll hopefully volunteering in, is accredited via them.


--
cfsmtb

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:47:13 +1000
TimC > wrote:
> On 2007-04-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> A motorist being
>> careful about lane discipline is behaving like every other motorist.
>
> Hah! Things really do differ between the capital cities. Melbourne
> drivers wouldn't have a clue what a lane is, other than it keeps the
> trams from straying out from their tracks.

They know. But they do as others do. Which is the point :)

(and they do stay in the lane when there aren't tram tracks in my
experience.)

Zebee

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
EuanB > wrote:

> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.

Hear, hear!

One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.

And the chance of the "get-them-out-of-the-way-for-their-own-safety"
types getting their mits on what's taught is even more frightening.

--
Shane Stanley

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article >,
> EuanB > wrote:
>
>> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
> to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
> riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.

I never said anything about stopping people from riding if they don't
have training. You're missing which sense I mean by "mandatory".

Not mandatory as in "you can't cycle if you don't have training".
Mandatory in the sense as in "you can't pass primary and high school
qualifications if you don't do the training".


No tests needed at all at the local LBS. No license required to be
presented to the shop owner upon buying a new bike.

Ain't going to happen, but a guy can dream.

--
TimC
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.

[Bleve]

On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> EuanB Wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of
> > you training provider please?
>
> Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the Australian
> Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> Officiating Unit.
> All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth and
> state / territory governments.
>
> Courses are available for :

[chomp]

The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
organisation ....

bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
(and the time to get the clue ... ).
Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
politically difficult .... at best.

[Theo Bekkers]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> EuanB wrote:

>> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.

> Hear, hear!
>
> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't
> ride to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping
> people from riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined
> training.

I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers if
they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you think
that's a whole different ballgame.

Theo

[rooman[_98_]]

Bleve Wrote:
> On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > EuanB Wrote:
> >
> > > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details
> of
> > > you training provider please?
> >
> > Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> > support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> > coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> > National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the
> Australian
> > Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> > Officiating Unit.
> > All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> > standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth
> and
> > state / territory governments.
> >
> > Courses are available for :
>
> [chomp]
>
> The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
> safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
> designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
> not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
> mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
> roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
> significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
> as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
> where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
> organisation ....
>
> bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
> (and the time to get the clue ... ).
> Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
> chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
> keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
> what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
> politically difficult .... at best.
Carl,

you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and correct its That
is aimed at performance etc...

CycleSkills is the course...we are talking about. run by CA as well and
was

Specifically developed for Road use, for articulation to community
instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits Coaches for
community intruction, not sports performance.


--
rooman

[rooman[_99_]]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> In article >,
> EuanB > wrote:
>
> > All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
> to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
> riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.
>
> And the chance of the "get-them-out-of-the-way-for-their-own-safety"
> types getting their mits on what's taught is even more frightening.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley
you are just talking about it, some whinging and whining, some actually
being constructive and offering positive comment....but stil not doing
much to encourage more people to ride safely...

what is positive is that there are now more and more people out there
with the skills, the determination and the committment to be available
and actually go into the community and run courses.

I dont want to see them mandatory either, but if we all dont act
pro-actively the nanny state will.


--
rooman

[Bleve]

On Apr 30, 2:52 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > > EuanB Wrote:
>
> > > > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details
> > of
> > > > you training provider please?
>
> > > Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> > > support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> > > coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> > > National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the
> > Australian
> > > Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> > > Officiating Unit.
> > > All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> > > standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth
> > and
> > > state / territory governments.
>
> > > Courses are available for :
>
> > [chomp]
>
> > The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
> > safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
> > designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
> > not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
> > mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
> > roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
> > significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
> > as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
> > where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
> > organisation ....
>
> > bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
> > (and the time to get the clue ... ).
> > Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
> > chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
> > keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
> > what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
> > politically difficult .... at best.
>
> Carl,
>
> you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and correct its That
> is aimed at performance etc...
>
> CycleSkills is the course...we are talking about. run by CA as well and
> was
>
> Specifically developed for Road use, for articulation to community
> instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits Coaches for
> community intruction, not sports performance.

Do you think it's sufficient to teach gumbies how to ride safely on
the road? CA is not the right organisation to do it. CA is *racing*

If you were going to do this licence & training properly, you'd need
an organisation the size of VicRoads to administer it.

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo wrote
>> me wrote:
>>> TimC wrote:
>>>
>>>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
>>>> never rush when a car is waiting for me :)
>>>
>>> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant
>>> of aggressive tools etc)
>>
>> I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of
>> courtesy is too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer
>> than necessary.
>
> There's a footpath. There's a carpark into a shopping centre, and
> cars need to cross the footpath to get into it. It is required of
> cars to give way to pedestrians when entering and leaving private
> property (in fact, I believe the road regs say cars are required to
> give way to peds crossing the road when the car is entering or leaving
> a sidestreet too; but mum still tells me to hurry up and go through
> the roundabout when I'm waving peds through the roundabout). I see so
> many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
> walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
> footpath.
>
> But why?

> I have no desire to put myself under undue stress by rushing
> everywhere. What makes the car driver fundamentally more important
> than me that requires them to be delayed the least amount of time
> possible in any given situation? Why is my going about my business
> less important than them going about their business, such that I need
> to rush?

No problem with that. I got the impression from your post that you
deliberately slowed down just to annoy the driver.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> Just like a third of cyclists suddenly became too lazy when they had
> to wear a helmet? I don't agree with your thinking.

Up to that point cycling was perceived as a safe thing for children and
people to do. Helmets gave people the perception that cycling was dangerous.

Theo

[warrwych[_37_]]

rooman Wrote:
> Carl,
>
> you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and its aimed at
> performance etc..., but CycleSkills is the course Now called Level 0 by
> CA...we are talking about. Specifically developed for instruction of the
> novice cyclist, for Road use, The course allows coaches to articulate to
> community instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits
> Coaches for community instruction, not sports performance coaching.
> Level 1 comes later now.
>
> Any one now wishing to do the L1 must do Cycleskills Coaching course as
> a prerequisite. (announced Sept 2005 by CSV)
>
> I included reference to other CA (L1 L2 L3) as they can be a
> progression for anyone with the inclination.
>
> CA has widened its focus to embrace community and CycleSkills is its
> initial Course in that direction.
> ::
>
>
>
>
> **::
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Bearing in mind it's still a CA/CSV program, which means, technically
those receiving instruction require some kind of affiliation with CA
for insurance purposes. So whilst your concept of articulating in to
community instruction is correct, the actuality is not. To run a Skill
Cycle program under the guise of such, that program needs ratification
with CSV prior to running it. And Carl is right - CSV is about racing,
so CSV assumes that any Skill Cycle course is leading novice riders
towards racing, and the bike handling skills required to compete safely
in a bunch. These skills readily translate to road riding in general,as
they do to offroad riding, but I do refute that the Skills Cycle
Coaching course is specifically to teach individuals how to teach
others the gentle art of road riding.


--
warrwych

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
"Theo Bekkers" > wrote:

> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers if
> they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you think
> that's a whole different ballgame.

Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
No, that is a whole different ballgame.

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
rooman > wrote:

> you are just talking about it, some whinging and whining, some actually
> being constructive and offering positive comment....but stil not doing
> much to encourage more people to ride safely...

Sorry, but doing nothing is better than doing something foolish. (And
I'm not sure you're in a position to make that judgment about what
people are or are not doing to encourage more people to ride safely;
some may just go about things in a different way.)
>
> what is positive is that there are now more and more people out there
> with the skills, the determination and the committment to be available
> and actually go into the community and run courses.

Fine -- but that's quite different from mandatory courses. Once you
start talking mandatory you're opening the door to mandated content and
input from all sorts of busy-bodies. As well as putting people off on a
grand scale, you run the risk of it being highjacked and ending up
counter productive anyway.

Comparatively, cycling isn't a particularly dangerous pastime, and such
risk as there is is outweighed by the advantages. Sure, there's room for
improvement, but there's no need to panic or be panicked, IMO.

And I question whether any course is going to change the behavior of
people who do things like ride without lights at night -- and that's the
sort of thing that accounts for a fair percentage of accidents.
>
> I dont want to see them mandatory either, but if we all dont act
> pro-actively the nanny state will.

If you could point me to other countries where this has happened, I'd be
more worried. And probably even less inclined to encourage it.

--
Shane Stanley

[TimC]

On 2007-04-29, rooman (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> certainly not "licensed", this is a simple basic skills course and
> assessment, pretty simple stuff really, and things that every one
> should know before they head out, not a warning to put them off as you
> say...that "the road is dangerous or riding is difficult".

I'm trying to teach (read, brainwash) mum how to effectively ride.

Got to start slowly though -- she's finding it hard to retain
everything -- spin (I still haven't gotten around to ordering her
cadence meter yet), don't ride in the gutter, don't cross that bridge
on the footpath -- cross it by going wide from the gutter and
remaining visible to the cars coming at the bridge from an angle, etc.
I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
than I set it for her. Oh, and don't ride through the grass -- I'm
not fixing your punctures.

Always uses her saturday morning working hours as an excuse not to go
for a group ride with the town's bug.

Gah, got to start somewhere. One day I'll win.

--
TimC
Brown's Theorem (Physics III student, Usyd):
"The only thing that behaves like a billiard
ball, is a billiard ball"

[rooman[_100_]]

warrwych Wrote:
> Bearing in mind it's still a CA/CSV program, which means, technically
> those receiving instruction require some kind of affiliation with CA
> for insurance purposes. So whilst your concept of articulating in to
> community instruction is correct, the actuality is not. To run a Skill
> Cycle program under the guise of such, that program needs ratification
> with CSV prior to running it. And Carl is right - CSV is about racing,
> so CSV assumes that any Skill Cycle course is leading novice riders
> towards racing, and the bike handling skills required to compete safely
> in a bunch. These skills readily translate to road riding in general,as
> they do to offroad riding, but I do refute that the Skills Cycle
> Coaching course is specifically to teach individuals how to teach
> others the gentle art of road riding.
Incorrect again,

all qualified Coaches of the CycleSkill programme may offer instruction
in the Public Domain. many already do that. others also act under the
auspices of a club prgramme. If they do it under the guise of a club
and require participants to join, then they get CA insurance protection
automatically, is that a problem?. They also have the right to take this
structured course into the wider community and arrange their own cover
as required.

You are too CSV centric in that interpretation, and whislt no doubt
they ( CSV etc)would like to see clubs follow this through and grow
memberships of fee paying people ( and thereby people covered by their
insurance which is hellish cheap).


--
rooman

[cfsmtb[_152_]]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
>
> Fine -- but that's quite different from mandatory courses. Once you
> start talking mandatory you're opening the door to mandated content
> and
> input from all sorts of busy-bodies. As well as putting people off on
> a
> grand scale, you run the risk of it being highjacked and ending up
> counter productive anyway.

Equally this line of logic could be easily turned around back onto the
endless h*lm*t debates since the 1990's.

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> Comparatively, cycling isn't a particularly dangerous pastime, and such
> risk as there is is outweighed by the advantages. Sure, there's room
> for improvement, but there's no need to panic or be panicked, IMO.

Comparatively, when quoting present statistics. With increasing
participation rates and increased distances, the probability factor
goes up. Adult cycling training courses *already* exist, so why not
allow opportunities for more people to participate? Bike handling
skills are similar to learning any other skill, if people are
interested in advancing their skills base or career opportunities, they
can do an apprenticeship, advanced education or learn on the job. Or not
at all. IMHO "mandatory" is a clumsy definition of what is actually
being discussed here and it does unneccessarily get ppls knick(ers) in
knots.


--
cfsmtb

[rooman[_101_]]

> Shane Stanley
> Sorry, but doing nothing is better than doing something foolish.
>
Is not doing nothing, keeping your head in the sand?

And foolish...tell that to those who made the prgramme, not
me..positive instruction to those who want to ride which is structured
and considered thought through by many experts in the field much more
qualified than you or me is certainly not foolish IMO.

As for overseas, sometimes it is applicable, sometimes not. IMO this is
not. Why do we have to look for other examples when our circumstances
may ( and probably arn't in the least bit comparable) especially places
like Holland and the Netherlands. They have a strong culture accepting
bicycle use as a viable and highly used alternative to ,otorised
transport, we and the USA have a strong culture reliant on personal
motorised transport and bicycle use is considered an obstruction, a
nuisance, and impediment. So maybe we have to take some different
approaches at times, and specifically educating novice riders could
well be one of those approaches.

We have got through so far without wide ranging courses, and maybe we
will continue to do so, but if you get great joy out of crucifying me
for telling you that it is on the cards in the minds of some who can
influence decisions about who does and doesnt get on our roads, I'm
tough, I can accept it, I'm happy to be your whipping boy, so go ahead
and shoot the messengers.

Would it not be better to have some contriubution to this either by
suggesting positive alternatives or positive amendments from which we
can achieve outcomes for all road users benefit.

Not many in this forum dont want more riders on the roads ( other than
lurkers from rec.auto etc. perhaps) so why enouragement to things
which enhance novice riders skills and confidence is not a positive
escapes me, you want to leave it to what it has been, Rafferty's rules,
learn the hard way, get out there, just do it...and wonder why some
sectors of the road users direct consternation at us all when things go
pear shaped.

That is cowardly , selfish and distancing, even a state of denial and
unfair to those who try, come unstuck and never ride again.


--
rooman

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
cfsmtb > wrote:

> Equally this line of logic could be easily turned around back onto the
> endless h*lm*t debates since the 1990's.

Right, so let's not go there again with some new compulsory safety
scheme.
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > Comparatively, cycling isn't a particularly dangerous pastime, and such
> > risk as there is is outweighed by the advantages. Sure, there's room
> > for improvement, but there's no need to panic or be panicked, IMO.
>
> Comparatively, when quoting present statistics. With increasing
> participation rates and increased distances, the probability factor
> goes up.

As I understand the statistics, the evidence is that as participation
rises, it gets safer -- the probability of injury actually drops. The
raw numbers increase, but that's pretty much inevitable.

> Adult cycling training courses *already* exist, so why not
> allow opportunities for more people to participate?

I don't know that anyone disagrees, although I'm still curious about
what, exactly, is being taught, and by whom.

> IMHO "mandatory" is a clumsy definition of what is actually
> being discussed here and it does unneccessarily get ppls knick(ers) in
> knots.

Something is either mandatory or it's not. Are people calling for
mandatory training or not? If not, why do they keep using the word?

You're right that it gets people going, but not "unnecessarily".

--
Shane Stanley

[cfsmtb[_153_]]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
>
> Right, so let's not go there again with some new compulsory safety
> scheme.

No you've missed the original point, you're simply making a spurious
assumption about some future scenario and playing the pedant police.

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> I don't know that anyone disagrees, although I'm still curious about
> what, exactly, is being taught, and by whom.

Here's an existing Victorian service provider, ask them:
http://www.wilcareservices.com.au/

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> Something is either mandatory or it's not. Are people calling for
> mandatory training or not? If not, why do they keep using the word?

Your concentration is lapsing, it seems you are having difficulty
realising you are responding to different individuals.


--
cfsmtb

[PeteSig]

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>
>> Just like a third of cyclists suddenly became too lazy when they had
>> to wear a helmet? I don't agree with your thinking.
>
> Up to that point cycling was perceived as a safe thing for children and
> people to do. Helmets gave people the perception that cycling was
> dangerous.

I was teaching secondary students at the time (still do). I talked to ids
about wearing helmets and attitudes, they had to wear them for school
cycling tours or racing for a number of years, but away from school the
helmet was seen as an option. Problems of peception included: costs too
much, too daggy (a biggy), messes up my hair, too hot and sweaty, heavy, a
nuisance to remember to wear, as well as the view that it indicated cycling
was dangerous (this was more a parental concern that grew over time)

All can be dismissed as rather spurious views, but taken in the light of the
many millions of people who cycle regularly across Europe without helmets
and with a somewhat lower death rate than here in Australia, they are really
legitimate arguments to be considered together with the safety benefits or
losses(on a population-wide level) that have come from helmets.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

[Paul Yates]

"EuanB" > wrote in message
...
>
<snip>
>>
>> I know that people very close to important decision makers in
>> Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its
>> benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the
>> economy. Part of their concern and advice is what needs to be done to
>> improving cycling training.
<snip>
> rooman Wrote:
>> those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get
>> accreditation will also probably be too lazy to actually seriously ride
>> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
>> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
>> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
>> level of inertia...
>
<snip>
> rooman Wrote:
>> IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build
>> confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more positive
>> than sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for f$csk sake why
>> bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and so
>> wont ride...ever..."
> Please tell me you're not serious? You really want less people
> cycling? That's the way to do it all right.
>
<snip>
> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding. I
> don't know of any other country where it's neccessary so why Australia?
>
<snip>>
Generic training? Bike specific? BMX, MTN, road, 8 speed, 30 speed,
dedcending at 70kph, track stands, foot brakes, hand brakes, shifters on
down tube, STI shifters, grip ****s, recumbents, single speeds, single
track, time trial style bikes, dragsters, city riding, night riding?

Assuming somone can ride in a straight line and avoid obstacles, stop
effectively, bunny hop, track stand at the lights and chide aberent
motorists, then what more is there to learn for your average cyclist??

Licencing of cyclists would imply registration and number plates...

I think to go down that path is political suicide based on bicycle sales
outstripping cage sales for the last x nuber of years.

P

[Paul Yates]

"Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers if
>> they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you
>> think
>> that's a whole different ballgame.
>
> Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
> bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
> piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
> No, that is a whole different ballgame.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley

It takes special training to sit 100cm off my car's rear bumper at 100kph
when driving a semi thinks me ;)

[Paul Yates]

"Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> cfsmtb > wrote:
>
<snip>
Stranger things have happened. Rather than the good old days when it was
'look left, look right, look left again' before crossing the road it is now
'drive 40kph past schools' and if you are lucky a kid will not run in front
of your car inside the distance that driving at 40kph allows for you to
stop. I'd imagine being hit by a car at 40kph has much the same effect as
at 60. 1 tone of metal vs 50kg of squishy human is even fatal in drive ways
these days at way under 5kph.

I could waffle on about the Darwin Awards, but that would be more borderline
trolly that this rant.

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
rooman > wrote:

> Is not doing nothing, keeping your head in the sand?

Not necessarily -- it can sometimes mean keeping your head out of a hole.
>
> And foolish...tell that to those who made the prgramme, not
> me..positive instruction to those who want to ride which is structured
> and considered thought through by many experts in the field much more
> qualified than you or me is certainly not foolish IMO.

I'm saying the idea of compulsion is foolish, in my opinion -- not you,
not those offering training. The "idea".

> We have got through so far without wide ranging courses, and maybe we
> will continue to do so, but if you get great joy out of crucifying me
> for telling you that it is on the cards in the minds of some who can
> influence decisions about who does and doesnt get on our roads, I'm
> tough, I can accept it, I'm happy to be your whipping boy, so go ahead
> and shoot the messengers.

Don't take it personally -- again, I said I thought the idea of
compulsion is foolish. No whipping boy needed, no fixie-riders need be
shot.
>
> Would it not be better to have some contriubution to this either by
> suggesting positive alternatives or positive amendments from which we
> can achieve outcomes for all road users benefit.

It would indeed. But sometimes rejecting a bad idea is a positive thing
to do.
>
> Not many in this forum dont want more riders on the roads ( other than
> lurkers from rec.auto etc. perhaps) so why enouragement to things
> which enhance novice riders skills and confidence is not a positive
> escapes me, you want to leave it to what it has been, Rafferty's rules,
> learn the hard way, get out there, just do it...and wonder why some
> sectors of the road users direct consternation at us all when things go
> pear shaped.

You're attacking a straw man. I see decent training as a good thing.
Hell, I make a good proportion of my living as a trainer. But this is
what you actually said:

"I am not talking registration, but a simple level of approved
competency and skill that wouldnt hurt everyone, before they can ride
on the road ."

That's "before they can ride on the road". Mandatory. And more:

"Extend it to producing that qualification when you buy or hire a
bicycle of a capability for road use." That's no certificate, no can
even buy a bike.

And those ideas, in my opinion, are foolish. Moreover, I haven't see any
great acclamation for them here from others.

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
cfsmtb > wrote:

> No you've missed the original point, you're simply making a spurious
> assumption about some future scenario and playing the pedant police.

No, I'm replying to what rooman wrote. There's no pedantry involved: his
original statement was unequivocal.
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > I don't know that anyone disagrees, although I'm still curious about
> > what, exactly, is being taught, and by whom.
>
> Here's an existing Victorian service provider, ask them:
> http://www.wilcareservices.com.au/

Thank you.

> Your concentration is lapsing, it seems you are having difficulty
> realising you are responding to different individuals.

Guilty as charged in this case.

--
Shane Stanley

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Paul Yates (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> cfsmtb > wrote:
>>
> <snip>
> Stranger things have happened. Rather than the good old days when it was
> 'look left, look right, look left again' before crossing the road it is now
> 'drive 40kph past schools' and if you are lucky a kid will not run in front
> of your car inside the distance that driving at 40kph allows for you to
> stop. I'd imagine being hit by a car at 40kph has much the same effect as
> at 60.

Well you'd be wrong then, wouldn't you?

The canonical figure I seem to recall reported, that I have run out of
evening to be able to cite, is that the mortality rate for pedestrian
vehicle collisions below 40km/h is 5% or so, and for above 40km/h, 80%
or more. My google fu isn't strong enough tonight.

You could probably integrate under the curve in figure 2 of below to
come up with a sensible answer yourself:
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=073

> 1 tone of metal vs 50kg of squishy human is even fatal in drive ways
> these days at way under 5kph.

If you manage to get under a wheel and the driver doesn't detect you
until too late.

We almost hit an echidna tonight. I'm going to spend the rest of the
week before going on nights, going home at in the early evening.
Always scares me on this road. Appanently the bus driver only just
missed an eagle feasting on a roo this morning, but I was too
engrossed in my book to notice.

--
TimC
ATC: Airliner 123, turn right 20 degrees for noise abatement.
A123: Noise abatement? We are at FL310.
ATC: Do you know how much noise it makes when two 737s collide?
A123: Airliner 123 is turning right 20 degrees. -- John Clear in ASR

[Terryc]

TimC wrote:

> I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
> than I set it for her.

Err, have you taught her how to stop properly.
No 1 reason for seat being too low.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 01 May 2007 01:40:08 +1000
Terryc > wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
>> than I set it for her.
>
> Err, have you taught her how to stop properly.
> No 1 reason for seat being too low.

Except peace of mind really. I can see how someone might want to feel
they can just put their feet down without having to lean over or get
off the saddle.

Sure - low seats are not good for pedalling, but how many prefer peace
of mind?

Zebee

[Bleve]

On May 1, 5:38 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 01 May 2007 01:40:08 +1000
>
> Terryc > wrote:
> > TimC wrote:
>
> >> I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
> >> than I set it for her.
>
> > Err, have you taught her how to stop properly.
> > No 1 reason for seat being too low.
>
> Except peace of mind really. I can see how someone might want to feel
> they can just put their feet down without having to lean over or get
> off the saddle.
>
> Sure - low seats are not good for pedalling, but how many prefer peace
> of mind?

and broken knee? :)

[Terryc]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> Sure - low seats are not good for pedalling, but how many prefer peace
> of mind?

Yawn.

[warrwych[_38_]]

rooman Wrote:
> Incorrect again,
>
> all qualified Coaches of the CycleSkill programme may offer instruction
> in the Public Domain. many already do that. others also act under the
> auspices of a club prgramme. If they do it under the guise of a club
> and require participants to join, then they get CA insurance protection
> automatically, is that a problem?. They also have the right to take this
> structured course into the wider community and arrange their own cover
> as required.
>
> You are too CSV centric in that interpretation, and whislt no doubt
> they ( CSV etc)would like to see clubs follow this through and grow
> memberships of fee paying people ( and thereby people covered by their
> insurance which is hellish cheap).

Not incorrect Rooman - you note yourself the bias in my reply,which was
totally correct for the context. Anyone, qualified or not, can coach in
the public domain. No need for a SkillCycle coach licence to do that.

Did Ron not teach you that when you run a SkillCycle program, there is
a fee involved for participants, that acts as temporary CA/CSV/NSWCA
(or whatever its called) etc membership and this allows insurance
coverage?

And yes, as the discussion was regarding CSV's coaching programs, then
naturally my response would be CSV focused. Is that a problem?????


--
warrwych

[warrwych[_39_]]

Paul Yates Wrote:
> "EuanB" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> <snip>
> >>
> >> I know that people very close to important decision makers in
> >> Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its
> >> benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the
> >> economy. Part of their concern and advice is what needs to be done
> to
> >> improving cycling training.
> <snip>
> > rooman Wrote:
> >> those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get
> >> accreditation will also probably be too lazy to actually seriously
> ride
> >> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get
> accreditation...
> >> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling
> numbers
> >> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
> >> level of inertia...
> >
> <snip>
> > rooman Wrote:
> >> IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build
> >> confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more
> positive
> >> than sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for f$csk sake
> why
> >> bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and
> so
> >> wont ride...ever..."
> > Please tell me you're not serious? You really want less people
> > cycling? That's the way to do it all right.
> >
> <snip>
> > All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding. I
> > don't know of any other country where it's neccessary so why
> Australia?
> >
> <snip>>
> Generic training? Bike specific? BMX, MTN, road, 8 speed, 30 speed,
> dedcending at 70kph, track stands, foot brakes, hand brakes, shifters
> on
> down tube, STI shifters, grip ****s, recumbents, single speeds, single
> track, time trial style bikes, dragsters, city riding, night riding?
>
> Assuming somone can ride in a straight line and avoid obstacles, stop
> effectively, bunny hop, track stand at the lights and chide aberent
> motorists, then what more is there to learn for your average cyclist??
>
> Licencing of cyclists would imply registration and number plates...
>
> I think to go down that path is political suicide based on bicycle
> sales
> outstripping cage sales for the last x nuber of years.
>
> P

turn left, turn right (cornering) turning your head to look behind you
both sides, riding one handed, riding one handed and turning your head
to look behind both left and right, riding one handed and
indicating/signalling, riding one handed to take a drink, adjust
clothing etc. Stay on upright and continue to ride ahead in a straight
line when bumped or leant upon.. o.. and how to dress properly :p

I am looking forward to Rooman's School of Bicycling, where he provides
free bicycling education for the masses. Wonder which insurance company
will cover him on his SkillCycle licence??


--
warrwych

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 30 Apr 2007 14:56:59 -0700
Bleve > wrote:
> On May 1, 5:38 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 01 May 2007 01:40:08 +1000
>>
>> Sure - low seats are not good for pedalling, but how many prefer peace
>> of mind?
>
> and broken knee? :)
>

So you tell them... do they believe?

short term comfort against possible (but doubted) long term damage...
ask any smoker.

Zebee

[cfsmtb[_155_]]

Terryc Wrote:
>
>
> Yawn.

x 2


--
cfsmtb

[Plodder]

"EuanB" > wrote in message
...
>
> rooman Wrote:
>> it is fine to say that, and by the stats it seems to be the outcome that
>> society will deliver for some time to come...
>>
>> I know that people very close to important decision makers in
>> Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its
>> benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the
>> economy. Part of their concern and advice is what needs to be done to
>> improving cycling training. A vital aspect of the discussion has been
>> the likelihood of implementing an accreditation scheme down the track
>> if riding numbers become huge, compared to current figures...(for
>> commuting journeys especially as that is the stat. that is being
>> tracked at the moment).....so start to embrace the idea no matter how
>> benign it may seem at the moment....it may not be so remote in time for
>> us to be flippant about.
> I would suggest that those decision makers look to cities which have
> made cycling a popular choice and see if such training is either
> warranted or needed. Unless of course those decision makers want
> cycling to fail.
>
> rooman Wrote:
>> those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get
>> accreditation will also probably be too lazy to actually seriously ride
>> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
>> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
>> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
>> level of inertia...
>
> Just like a third of cyclists suddenly became too lazy when they had
> to wear a helmet? I don't agree with your thinking.
>
>
> rooman Wrote:
>> IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build
>> confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more positive
>> than sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for f$csk sake why
>> bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and so
>> wont ride...ever..."
> Please tell me you're not serious? You really want less people
> cycling? That's the way to do it all right.
>
> It's been proven that if you put up a minor obstacle to cycling such as
> wearing a helmet then a significant poroportion of cyclists become
> non-cyclists. To what benefit? Cycling safety hasn't improved, in
> fact it's got worse for a long time as there were far fewer cyclists on
> the road.
>
> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding. I
> don't know of any other country where it's neccessary so why Australia?
>
> rooman Wrote:
>> If as many people as possible become accredited to teach these skills
>> courses, it will become more of an accepted community practice to
>> participate in them and the wider community benefits must be positive
>> ones.
> I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of
> you training provider please? Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the
> value of skills and training. I just believe that mandatory skills
> would be detrimental to cycling at a population level.
>
>
> --
> EuanB

Perhaps there are two types of mandatory training. One which says "Before
you can ride a bicycle you must complete this training". The other says
"This is a part of your schooling/driving training - you must do it". That
doesn't mean you have to ride a bike - you do the training regardless.

Yes, it wouldn't apply to current drivers, etc. They already have their
licences and there's something unfair about retrospective law-making. The
mandatory training would apply to current schoolkids and people applying for
their learner driver permits.

I can see how the first type of mandatory training could put some people
off, but the second wouldn't...

Cheers,

Frank

[Plodder]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Apr 30, 2:52 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Bleve Wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
>> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> > > EuanB Wrote:
>>
>> > > > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details
>> > of
>> > > > you training provider please?
>>
>> > > Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
>> > > support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
>> > > coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
>> > > National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the
>> > Australian
>> > > Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
>> > > Officiating Unit.
>> > > All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
>> > > standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth
>> > and
>> > > state / territory governments.
>>
>> > > Courses are available for :
>>
>> > [chomp]
>>
>> > The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
>> > safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
>> > designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
>> > not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
>> > mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
>> > roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
>> > significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
>> > as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
>> > where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
>> > organisation ....
>>
>> > bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
>> > (and the time to get the clue ... ).
>> > Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
>> > chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
>> > keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
>> > what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
>> > politically difficult .... at best.
>>
>> Carl,
>>
>> you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and correct its That
>> is aimed at performance etc...
>>
>> CycleSkills is the course...we are talking about. run by CA as well and
>> was
>>
>> Specifically developed for Road use, for articulation to community
>> instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits Coaches for
>> community intruction, not sports performance.
>
> Do you think it's sufficient to teach gumbies how to ride safely on
> the road? CA is not the right organisation to do it. CA is *racing*
>
> If you were going to do this licence & training properly, you'd need
> an organisation the size of VicRoads to administer it.

Yep - VicRoads (or whatever it is in the other states - there are other
states, you know!) would administer it as part of the application for a
leaner's permit. Where's the problem?

me

[Plodder]

"Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> EuanB > wrote:
>
>> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
> to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
> riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.
>
> And the chance of the "get-them-out-of-the-way-for-their-own-safety"
> types getting their mits on what's taught is even more frightening.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley

I posted above...

If the programme was introduced as a required part of driver training it
might actually discourage some from driving...

me

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> Bluntly, cycling is superior.

> Don't confuse what I think is a good bike lane with what I want or
> expect to get.

> Nor do I, I'm much more in favor of shared space. I gave my opinion
> on what would make a good bike path, not on what would make good
> facilities for the common good.

Well, if we can specify what we want, rather than what we expect to get, I
want a cycle path that goes in a direct line from where I am, to where I
want to go, sheltered from the weather, with no other users, and down-hill.
Oh, and piped music, something from Roger Waters. What I expect is a 2
metre, two way, shared path, with elderly people walking their dog, and a
mother with a pram and two toddlers in tow. What I do not expect is to be
able to hammer down said path at 40, 30, or even 20 km/h. That is not
sharing in my book. For that I would use the road.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive
>> semi-trailers if they only didn't have to pass the licence test.
>> Though I'm certain you think that's a whole different ballgame.

> Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
> bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
> piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
> No, that is a whole different ballgame.

Agreed. Now how do you get the 'trained' road users to cope with and allow
for the 'untrained' ones?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> rooman wrote:

>> I dont want to see them mandatory either, but if we all dont act
>> pro-actively the nanny state will.

> If you could point me to other countries where this has happened, I'd
> be more worried. And probably even less inclined to encourage it.

Australia appears to be the most nanny-minded-to-cyclists State in the
world. And, as they aren't getting the results they want, they will keep on
making more of the same regulations that failed to get the results.

Theo

[Plodder]

"Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers if
>> they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you
>> think
>> that's a whole different ballgame.
>
> Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
> bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
> piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
> No, that is a whole different ballgame.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley

And lots of people are riding bikes without passing a test but in the
presence of drivers who have a clue and have SOME cycling awareness as part
of their driver training (Germany, for example). Lots of people are also
riding in places where the law defaults to faulting (not blaming - there's a
difference) the driver in the event of a collision. Lots of people also ride
where the culture is one where legal rights are balanced by social
responsibilities: "I have a legal right to ride on a major highway, but I
have a social responsibility not to exercise that right - I can choose
courtesy and take a route that doesn't slow other traffic" (it's called
courtesy - it's not mandatory!).

There are a lot more factors than can be addressed by a training course, but
a suitable course can help - not necessarily solve - some problems.
"Suitable" should, I think, have a component of social change. It's not
sufficient to teach people how to ride defensively and keep out of the way,
for instance. Better to teach people how to integrate into the traffic flow.
I suspect too many riders think of themselves as second-class road users who
should creep along the gutter in case they intefere with traffic (especially
new riders) instead of thinking of themselves as part of the traffic. A
suitable training course would clarify that position.

me

[Plodder]

"rooman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
>> In article >,
>> EuanB > wrote:
>>
>> > All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.
>>
>> Hear, hear!
>>
>> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
>> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
>> to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
>> riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.
>>
>> And the chance of the "get-them-out-of-the-way-for-their-own-safety"
>> types getting their mits on what's taught is even more frightening.
>>
>> --
>> Shane Stanley
> you are just talking about it, some whinging and whining, some actually
> being constructive and offering positive comment....but stil not doing
> much to encourage more people to ride safely...
>
> what is positive is that there are now more and more people out there
> with the skills, the determination and the committment to be available
> and actually go into the community and run courses.
>
> I dont want to see them mandatory either, but if we all dont act
> pro-actively the nanny state will.
>
>
> --
> rooman

Unfortunately, there's an element of preaching-to-the-converted if we rely
on people doing courses voluntarily. It does nothing to educate other road
users other than there being more riders on the road obeying the road rules,
and, let's face it, someone doing nothing wrong is practically invisible -
we all take more note of exceptions (like a rider shooting a red light) than
we do of the normal behaviour which is just part of the background.

A mandatory course as myself and others have described (you can't pass
school/get a learner's permit, etc without it) ensures the new crop of road
users have a more rounded knowledge.

me

[Plodder]

"TimC" > wrote in message
...
CHOPPED OUT BIT

> There's a footpath. There's a carpark into a shopping centre, and
> cars need to cross the footpath to get into it. It is required of
> cars to give way to pedestrians when entering and leaving private
> property (in fact, I believe the road regs say cars are required to
> give way to peds crossing the road when the car is entering or leaving
> a sidestreet too; but mum still tells me to hurry up and go through
> the roundabout when I'm waving peds through the roundabout). I see so
> many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
> walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
> footpath.
>
> But why?
>
>
MORE CHOP...

"I see so many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
footpath.

But why?"

Sometimes courtesy (why hold someone else up unnecessarily?), sometimes that
they have the same level of knowledge as other drivers, sometimes
uncertainty and sometimes a combination of the above.

How a person behaves when they walk/cycle/drive is often an indication of
how they behave when using any of the modes of transport. For instance,
someone who stops walking and lets a car drive up a driveway MIGHT
("indication" - no more) be as thoughtful when driving and will stop to let
pedestrians cross a driveway. They MIGHT also stop because thay are aware of
the law and blindly abide by it. The MIGHT also stop because they think
pedestrians have no right of way and they (the now-driver) thinks he/she is
being nice by stopping. In all cases, the driver has stopped to let
pedestrians through, but is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons
valid? What happens when the driver is in a bad mood and doesn't stop,
thinking he/she has right of way and isn't going to be nice today?

The point is that, in every event, it's the human element that is at the
root. That's the part that needs to be at least predictable and consistent.
One way (not perfect, but what is?) to produce that predictability is to
have everyone trained the same and with the same starting knowledge (which
is then built upon differently by individual experience). At least then the
motive matters less and actions are more consistent. If NOBODY stopped their
car at driveway crossings, at least I can, when walking, predict a driver's
action and act accordingly. It's when some do and some don't that accidents
occur.

me

me

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Shane Stanley wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive
>>> semi-trailers if they only didn't have to pass the licence test.
>>> Though I'm certain you think that's a whole different ballgame.
>
>> Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
>> bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
>> piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
>> No, that is a whole different ballgame.
>
> Agreed. Now how do you get the 'trained' road users to cope with and allow
> for the 'untrained' ones?
>
> Theo

Time - it won't happen by tomorrow...

me

[Bleve]

On May 1, 9:40 am, "Plodder" > wrote:
> "Bleve" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 2:52 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> >> Bleve Wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
> >> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> >> > > EuanB Wrote:
>
> >> > > > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details
> >> > of
> >> > > > you training provider please?
>
> >> > > Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> >> > > support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> >> > > coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> >> > > National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the
> >> > Australian
> >> > > Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> >> > > Officiating Unit.
> >> > > All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> >> > > standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth
> >> > and
> >> > > state / territory governments.
>
> >> > > Courses are available for :
>
> >> > [chomp]
>
> >> > The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
> >> > safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
> >> > designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
> >> > not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
> >> > mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
> >> > roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
> >> > significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
> >> > as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
> >> > where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
> >> > organisation ....
>
> >> > bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
> >> > (and the time to get the clue ... ).
> >> > Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
> >> > chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
> >> > keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
> >> > what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
> >> > politically difficult .... at best.
>
> >> Carl,
>
> >> you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and correct its That
> >> is aimed at performance etc...
>
> >> CycleSkills is the course...we are talking about. run by CA as well and
> >> was
>
> >> Specifically developed for Road use, for articulation to community
> >> instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits Coaches for
> >> community intruction, not sports performance.
>
> > Do you think it's sufficient to teach gumbies how to ride safely on
> > the road? CA is not the right organisation to do it. CA is *racing*
>
> > If you were going to do this licence & training properly, you'd need
> > an organisation the size of VicRoads to administer it.
>
> Yep - VicRoads (or whatever it is in the other states - there are other
> states, you know!) would administer it as part of the application for a
> leaner's permit. Where's the problem?

It's done and dusted then? :)

Well done. No-one even noticed!

I was merely raising the point that CA was not the right organisation
to run such a thing *IF* such a thing was appropriate (compulsory
licence/training for cyclists that is, and I don't think it is at this
time, but that's another argument, and one that I'm not fixed on).
That you'd need a large state or federal government department to run
such a thing seems obvious to all but rooman, who appears to think
that CA (a racing peak body which runs coaching courses fas a
sideline) has or could easily have, the appropriate infrastructure to
handle large scale road safety training for ordinary cyclists. There's
millions of people with bicycles in Australia.

Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?

[Bleve]

On May 1, 9:54 am, "Plodder" > wrote:
> "Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >,
> > "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
>
> >> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers if
> >> they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you
> >> think
> >> that's a whole different ballgame.
>
> > Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
> > bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
> > piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
> > No, that is a whole different ballgame.
>
> > --
> > Shane Stanley
>
> And lots of people are riding bikes without passing a test but in the
> presence of drivers who have a clue and have SOME cycling awareness as part
> of their driver training (Germany, for example). Lots of people are also
> riding in places where the law defaults to faulting (not blaming - there's a
> difference) the driver in the event of a collision. Lots of people also ride
> where the culture is one where legal rights are balanced by social
> responsibilities: "I have a legal right to ride on a major highway, but I
> have a social responsibility not to exercise that right - I can choose
> courtesy and take a route that doesn't slow other traffic" (it's called
> courtesy - it's not mandatory!).
>
> There are a lot more factors than can be addressed by a training course, but
> a suitable course can help - not necessarily solve - some problems.
> "Suitable" should, I think, have a component of social change. It's not
> sufficient to teach people how to ride defensively and keep out of the way,

Riding defensively is *not* keeping out of the way, it's being visible
(which often means being *in* the way) and predictable and observing
and predicting the behaviour of other road users. I think that's what
you meant, but I wanted to pull you up on what looks misleading (I
know it's not your intent).


> for instance. Better to teach people how to integrate into the traffic flow.
> I suspect too many riders think of themselves as second-class road users who
> should creep along the gutter in case they intefere with traffic (especially
> new riders) instead of thinking of themselves as part of the traffic. A
> suitable training course would clarify that position.

And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
(ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
what we would call defensive road riding.

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> Agreed. Now how do you get the 'trained' road users to cope with and
>> allow for the 'untrained' ones?

> Time - it won't happen by tomorrow...

Time has worked against it. Fifty years ago the road was shared by all
users, local roads were shared by cars, bikes and kids playing cricket.
Everybody coped and allowed. Now the cars don't want to share with anyone.
How do we reverse this trend?

Theo

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
"Theo Bekkers" > wrote:

> Now how do you get the 'trained' road users to cope with and allow
> for the 'untrained' ones?

You mean they're not trained to do that already?

--
Shane Stanley

[Shane Stanley]

In article om>,
Bleve > wrote:

> If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
> influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
> what we would call defensive road riding.

Spot on.

--
Shane Stanley

[EuanB[_39_]]

Bleve Wrote:
> And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
> run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
> (ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
> the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
> influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
> what we would call defensive road riding.

You may not be aware, Cyclecraft by Franklin(?) has been adopted by the
UK government as best practice for cycling. Hopefully the lawmakers etc
will take note of that.


--
EuanB

[Terryc]

Bleve wrote:

> and broken knee? :)

I'm curious on this one. Surely it is best to keep the seat to the
correct height to minimise the forces on the bent knee when pedalling.

[Bleve]

On May 1, 12:51 pm, EuanB <EuanB.2pv...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
>
> > And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
> > run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
> > (ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
> > the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
> > influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
> > what we would call defensive road riding.
>
> You may not be aware, Cyclecraft by Franklin(?) has been adopted by the
> UK government as best practice for cycling. Hopefully the lawmakers etc
> will take note of that.

I wasn't aware, no. That's amazingly good news.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 1 May 2007 09:27:04 +0800
Theo Bekkers > wrote:
>
> Time has worked against it. Fifty years ago the road was shared by all
> users, local roads were shared by cars, bikes and kids playing cricket.
> Everybody coped and allowed. Now the cars don't want to share with anyone.
> How do we reverse this trend?
>

Fewer cars for a start. IN the 50s cars were quite expensive.

Say cut the car fleet to a quarter of the current size, and no new car
to cost less than say a year's average wage.

Then cut the speeds down heaps. Top speed of the usual car say 60mph,
most of them really only happy at 50mph.

Also, make the roads worse. Rural roads gravel, city roads have
bitumen but probably 1/4 still gravel.

Keep the number of buses the same, so that most people have to walk or
cycle. No b doubles, no semi trailers.

That should help a fair bit.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Time has worked against it. Fifty years ago the road was shared by
>> all users, local roads were shared by cars, bikes and kids playing
>> cricket. Everybody coped and allowed. Now the cars don't want to
>> share with anyone. How do we reverse this trend?

> Fewer cars for a start. IN the 50s cars were quite expensive.
>
> Say cut the car fleet to a quarter of the current size, and no new car
> to cost less than say a year's average wage.
>
> Then cut the speeds down heaps. Top speed of the usual car say 60mph,
> most of them really only happy at 50mph.
>
> Also, make the roads worse. Rural roads gravel, city roads have
> bitumen but probably 1/4 still gravel.
>
> Keep the number of buses the same, so that most people have to walk or
> cycle. No b doubles, no semi trailers.
>
> That should help a fair bit.

LOL, sounds good, but who are you going to sell that to?

Theo

[TimC]

On 2007-05-01, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On May 1, 9:54 am, "Plodder" > wrote:
>> for instance. Better to teach people how to integrate into the traffic flow.
>> I suspect too many riders think of themselves as second-class road users who
>> should creep along the gutter in case they intefere with traffic (especially
>> new riders) instead of thinking of themselves as part of the traffic. A
>> suitable training course would clarify that position.
>
> And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
> run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
> (ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
> the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
> influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
> what we would call defensive road riding.

Not necessarily, I would think. Helmet laws (sorry, got to mention
them for the sake of my argument) were introduced based on medical
research, as flawed as it was (the medical fraternity only saw half
the story). And they probably used finacial arguments in there
somewhere (you'll have to pay less to us to treat cyclists less
because they'll be so safe with 2cm of helmet between them and a
car!). Not based on motoring lobbying groups with some conspiracy to
stamp out the evil practice of cycling.

If we could come up with citations to convincing research (scientific
research, not John Forrester or Alan Parker quotes) showing decreased
mortality/casualty rates of cyclists, and no adverse effects to
drivers[1], resulting from vehicular cycling, perhaps we'd stand half
a chance (although, watching the documentary on how Brian Burke
lobbied WA parliament lastnight... I have some lingering doubts).


[1] eg, set up an experiment (getting it past the ethics commitee)
where automobile trip times on a busy cycling routes are compared,
with large numbers of cyclists riding predominantly both fully legally
and in a vehicular fashion on days x, riding in the gutter on days y,
and no cyclists at all on days z (the latter as a control). With no
differences in motorised traffic between days x, y, and z, ie, an
extremely difficult set of experimental conditions to set up. If the
automobile trip times and numbers are the same between the cases, then
obviously cyclists should ride the way that is best for them. If the
government care about safety, they ought to then encourage the safest
way to ride via public (re)education campaigns. Which will naturally
be vehicular cycling. This is only an example. Maybe someone could
come up with a workable experiment if one hasn't already been
performed :)

--
TimC
You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable
proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.

[Plodder]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
BIG CHOMP

>> Yep - VicRoads (or whatever it is in the other states - there are other
>> states, you know!) would administer it as part of the application for a
>> leaner's permit. Where's the problem?
>
> It's done and dusted then? :)
>
> Well done. No-one even noticed!
>
> I was merely raising the point that CA was not the right organisation
> to run such a thing *IF* such a thing was appropriate (compulsory
> licence/training for cyclists that is, and I don't think it is at this
> time, but that's another argument, and one that I'm not fixed on).
> That you'd need a large state or federal government department to run
> such a thing seems obvious to all but rooman, who appears to think
> that CA (a racing peak body which runs coaching courses fas a
> sideline) has or could easily have, the appropriate infrastructure to
> handle large scale road safety training for ordinary cyclists. There's
> millions of people with bicycles in Australia.
>
> Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
> that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
> and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?

Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I am in
favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of driver
training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is their choice,
but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they must learn about riding
a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help make the upcoming crop of
drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I think it would be relatively simple
for the state road licencing people to administer.

The questin of CA doing the training is another matter - perhaps it would be
a good sideline for them to be accredited trainers (but not THE accredited
trainers)...

Frank

[Plodder]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 1, 9:54 am, "Plodder" > wrote:
>> "Shane Stanley" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers
>> >> if
>> >> they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you
>> >> think
>> >> that's a whole different ballgame.
>>
>> > Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
>> > bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
>> > piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
>> > No, that is a whole different ballgame.
>>
>> > --
>> > Shane Stanley
>>
>> And lots of people are riding bikes without passing a test but in the
>> presence of drivers who have a clue and have SOME cycling awareness as
>> part
>> of their driver training (Germany, for example). Lots of people are also
>> riding in places where the law defaults to faulting (not blaming -
>> there's a
>> difference) the driver in the event of a collision. Lots of people also
>> ride
>> where the culture is one where legal rights are balanced by social
>> responsibilities: "I have a legal right to ride on a major highway, but I
>> have a social responsibility not to exercise that right - I can choose
>> courtesy and take a route that doesn't slow other traffic" (it's called
>> courtesy - it's not mandatory!).
>>
>> There are a lot more factors than can be addressed by a training course,
>> but
>> a suitable course can help - not necessarily solve - some problems.
>> "Suitable" should, I think, have a component of social change. It's not
>> sufficient to teach people how to ride defensively and keep out of the
>> way,
>
> Riding defensively is *not* keeping out of the way, it's being visible
> (which often means being *in* the way) and predictable and observing
> and predicting the behaviour of other road users. I think that's what
> you meant, but I wanted to pull you up on what looks misleading (I
> know it's not your intent).

My bad - you picked up my intent and clarified the articulation. Ta muchly
:)


>> for instance. Better to teach people how to integrate into the traffic
>> flow.
>> I suspect too many riders think of themselves as second-class road users
>> who
>> should creep along the gutter in case they intefere with traffic
>> (especially
>> new riders) instead of thinking of themselves as part of the traffic. A
>> suitable training course would clarify that position.
>
> And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
> run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
> (ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
> the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
> influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
> what we would call defensive road riding.

That's why I think "suitable" needs to be very carefully defined...

me

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Bleve" wrote

>> Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
>> that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
>> and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?

> Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
> necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
> am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
> driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
> their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
> must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
> make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
> think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
> people to administer.

Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians as
well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach them
to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because oriented is
the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus have
the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things that would be
nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.

Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their children some
roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.

Theo

[EuanB[_41_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> Plodder wrote:
> > "Bleve" wrote
>
> >> Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
> >> that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
> >> and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?
>
> > Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
> > necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
> > am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
> > driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
> > their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
> > must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
> > make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
> > think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
> > people to administer.
>
> Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians
> as
> well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach
> them
> to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because
> oriented is
> the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus
> have
> the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things that
> would be
> nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.

I don't agree.

Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill or
maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a motor
car on the road.


--
EuanB

[PiledHigher]

On May 2, 10:16 am, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
> Plodder wrote:
> > "Bleve" wrote
> >> Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
> >> that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
> >> and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?
> > Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
> > necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
> > am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
> > driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
> > their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
> > must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
> > make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
> > think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
> > people to administer.
>
> Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians as
> well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach them
> to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because oriented is
> the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus have
> the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things that would be
> nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their children some
> roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.
>
> Theo

Theo, I know its a bloody long time ago but you were probably taught
about being a pedestrian at school, remember look right then left the
right again stuff?

It's not that far a stretch, lots of schools do road safety training
on bikes on courses like this, the problem is usually the limited
amount of time spent on it.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~lionsbc/KewTraffic.jpg

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> <stuff>

> I don't agree.

Of course you don't . :-)

> Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill
> or maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a
> motor car on the road.

So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be issued
with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram, you will
progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades, wheelchair, bicycle,
scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before progressing to a 4 cyl Getz.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

PiledHigher wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their
>> children some roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.

> Theo, I know its a bloody long time ago but you were probably taught
> about being a pedestrian at school, remember look right then left the
> right again stuff?

Sure is a while ago. I was riding my bicycle to kindy 60 years ago. :-)

> It's not that far a stretch, lots of schools do road safety training
> on bikes on courses like this, the problem is usually the limited
> amount of time spent on it.
>
> http://home.vicnet.net.au/~lionsbc/KewTraffic.jpg

Looks like a very good layout. How exactly does that mean that a bicycle is
a mandatory prerequisite for a driver's licence. Note that I'm not
suggesting that riding a bicycle does not teach you roadcraft. It is the
mandatory thing I have a problem with. Why not a mandatory electric
wheelchair? One of those Gopher things. I have owned one for ten years but
my mother-in-law rides it.

Theo

[TimC]

On 2007-05-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> EuanB wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >> <stuff>
>
>> I don't agree.
>
> Of course you don't . :-)
>
>> Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill
>> or maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a
>> motor car on the road.
>
> So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be issued
> with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram, you will
> progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades, wheelchair, bicycle,
> scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before progressing to a 4 cyl Getz.

The way I learnt to drive was by tractor first, when I was 10 or so.
Mum was amazed when she couldn't work out how to back the trailer full
of oranges back around the corner from the edge of rows of oranges,
into one row, and I did it with ease. She reckons I did it with ease
because of all the technical lego I played with.

In a study released recently, according to JJJ news this morning, they
indeed found that on average, women drive better, but men can park
better :) On the gravel road we were living on at the time, she spun
the car out (180 degree turn) going slowly around a corner one non
frosty morning. I have yet to do that, too -- so she can't park, nor
can she drive :)

--
TimC
"The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already." -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing
the praises of 8mm Exabytes

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> The way I learnt to drive was by tractor first, when I was 10 or so.
> Mum was amazed when she couldn't work out how to back the trailer full
> of oranges back around the corner from the edge of rows of oranges,
> into one row, and I did it with ease. She reckons I did it with ease
> because of all the technical lego I played with.

Lego hadn't been invented when I was a kid. Being in Holland, the bicycle
was the obvious vehicle for me. I rode at age four (training wheels had also
not been invented) and rode to my (Montessori) pre-school that same year.

> In a study released recently, according to JJJ news this morning,

You listen to JJJ? Aaaarghh!

Theo

[EuanB[_42_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >> <stuff>
>
> > I don't agree.
>
> Of course you don't . :-)
>
> > Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill
> > or maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a
> > motor car on the road.
>
> So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be
> issued
> with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram, you will
> progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades, wheelchair, bicycle,
> scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before progressing to a 4 cyl
> Getz.
Did I say that? Don't think I did. What I said was that it would be a
good idea to learn your road craft on a bicycle. If you stuff up you're
much less likely to harm others and you learn how to operate a bicycle
in traffic, a useful skill.

Once copentance on a bicycle is demonstrated, then go for your car
license. What do you find so difficult to understand about that Theo?


--
EuanB

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> Did I say that? Don't think I did. What I said was that it would be
> a good idea to learn your road craft on a bicycle. If you stuff up
> you're much less likely to harm others and you learn how to operate a
> bicycle in traffic, a useful skill.
>
> Once copentance on a bicycle is demonstrated, then go for your car
> license. What do you find so difficult to understand about that Theo?

Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a bicycle to
obtain a driver's licence. To me, it makes less sense than having competence
riding a horse to get a licence to drive a horse and buggy.

Theo

[TimC]

On 2007-05-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> EuanB wrote:
>> Once copentance on a bicycle is demonstrated, then go for your car
>> license. What do you find so difficult to understand about that Theo?
>
> Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
> certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
> difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a bicycle to
> obtain a driver's licence. To me, it makes less sense than having competence
> riding a horse to get a licence to drive a horse and buggy.

Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that
which about 80% of current drivers do not currently have -- ie, the
dangerous idiots who feel it justified to overtake on double white
lines around a blind corner -- higher proportions in Greensborough).
You'll do much less damage to other people, being incompetant at the
former rather than the latter.

--
TimC
Sorry if there are error (factual or otherwise) in transmission - I'm
sending this message by manually feeding signals down the gigabit
fiber link with a laser pointer.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 May 2007 16:37:29 +1000
TimC > wrote:
> Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
> ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
> competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that

Pity someone with poor balance. Or with a leg injury eh?

Zebee

[TimC]

On 2007-05-02, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 May 2007 16:37:29 +1000
> TimC > wrote:
>> Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
>> ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
>> competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that
>
> Pity someone with poor balance. Or with a leg injury eh?

We already mentioned that they're be medical exceptions at the top of
this thread.

--
TimC
A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the
conditions that make it fail. -- Jerry Ogdin

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 May 2007 18:27:00 +1000
TimC > wrote:
> On 2007-05-02, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 May 2007 16:37:29 +1000
>> TimC > wrote:
>>> Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
>>> ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
>>> competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that
>>
>> Pity someone with poor balance. Or with a leg injury eh?
>
> We already mentioned that they're be medical exceptions at the top of
> this thread.

If you are going to make major blanket statements, might be an idea to
make your own exceptions...

Because without that, your statement is nonsense. Riding a bicycle is
a physical skill not a mental one. You can see kids perfectly able to
ride bicycles who have no traffic sense at all.

Having driven a car for some years does not, it seems, give someone
more than minimal competence in traffic riding a motorcycle. They can
read the traffic at traffic speeds better than a complete novice but
there are other variables they don't quite manage.

I find that riding a bicycle doesn't seem to be the same as driving a
car. Speeds are different, what I'm looking for is different, the
decisions I take are different. I think the best bet is to train
people for what they are doing, not something a bit like it if you
squint.

Zebee

[Dave]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:32:45 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Why not a mandatory electric wheelchair? One of those Gopher things. I
> have owned one for ten years but my mother-in-law rides it.

Theo, why do your family's vehicles always pop up in these threads?
--
Dave Hughes |
I think it's a beautiful day to go to the zoo and feed the ducks.
To the lions. -- Brian Kantor

[TimC]

On 2007-05-02, Dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 12:32:45 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> Why not a mandatory electric wheelchair? One of those Gopher things. I
>> have owned one for ten years but my mother-in-law rides it.
>
> Theo, why do your family's vehicles always pop up in these threads?

Was this one made by Mercedes?

--
TimC
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
-- Ernest Rutherford

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Plodder wrote:
>> "Bleve" wrote
>
>>> Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
>>> that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
>>> and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?
>
>> Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
>> necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
>> am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
>> driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
>> their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
>> must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
>> make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
>> think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
>> people to administer.
>
> Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians as
> well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach
> them to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because
> oriented is the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the
> missus have the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things
> that would be nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car
> on the road.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their children some
> roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.
>
> Theo

And why not have bogan dad teach little mullet-boy to drive too, and do away
with those pesky tests? I know, I know; you learned to drive your uncle's
ute on the farm when you were three months old and only had to drive around
the block from the cop shop to the pub to get your licence. Times have moved
on.

I've never felt threatened while riding my bike by someone driving a car who
sneezed without covering their mouth. I have felt endangered by people
driving as though they have no idea about how to treat other road users.

I agree that, ideally, road sharing is a social game. However, we all need
to share an understanding of the game rules. The best way to acheive that
understanding is to all be taught pretty well the same set of rules.

We unleash kids on bicycles without road rule training - remember, they are
not taught road rules until they apply for a driving licence. Why not start
road rule training on the transport available to them (bicycles) at school
and ensure their knowledge is reasonable (weasel word!) when they apply for
permission to drive a motor vehicle?

I'm trying to work out how "...a lot of other social things that would be
nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road." is
the same as teaching people bicycle skills and road use. Doesn't knowing how
to respond to other traffic (including bicyles) have some relation to
driving a motor car on the road? Perhaps you're confusing the idea of
driving a motor vehicle (making it go/stop/turn, etc) with shared road use.
There's a world of difference.

me

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> EuanB wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >> <stuff>
>
>> I don't agree.
>
> Of course you don't . :-)
>
>> Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill
>> or maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a
>> motor car on the road.
>
> So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be issued
> with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram, you will
> progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades, wheelchair, bicycle,
> scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before progressing to a 4 cyl Getz.
>
> Theo

That, although not formalised, is roughly a process most people go through -
it's called walking before running...

me

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> EuanB wrote:
>
>> Did I say that? Don't think I did. What I said was that it would be
>> a good idea to learn your road craft on a bicycle. If you stuff up
>> you're much less likely to harm others and you learn how to operate a
>> bicycle in traffic, a useful skill.
>>
>> Once copentance on a bicycle is demonstrated, then go for your car
>> license. What do you find so difficult to understand about that Theo?
>
> Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
> certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
> difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a bicycle
> to obtain a driver's licence. To me, it makes less sense than having
> competence riding a horse to get a licence to drive a horse and buggy.
>
> Theo

Theo, you MUST be playing devil's advocate here. It seems pretty obvious
that all road users should have a clue about how other road users should
behave. The more everyone thinks of themselves as a road user instead of
'car driver', 'pedestrian', 'cyclist' etc., the better integrated traffic
will be. I'm pretty sure someone who can competently ride a horse will make
a better horse and buggy driver than someone who is not familiar with the
vagaries of horses but is able to hold the reins. That doesn't mean you
can't drive a horse and buggy without horse knowledge. It means you won't be
as good. Similarly, you won't be as good a road user without knowledge of
how other road users should behave.

Doesn't sound like a hard concept to me...

me

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Dave wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>>> Why not a mandatory electric wheelchair? One of those Gopher
>>> things. I have owned one for ten years but my mother-in-law rides
>>> it.
>>
>> Theo, why do your family's vehicles always pop up in these threads?
>
> Was this one made by Mercedes?

Good lord no. It's a cheapish 3 wheeler bought at the time she had her first
knee replacement.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Dave wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>> Why not a mandatory electric wheelchair? One of those Gopher things.
>> I have owned one for ten years but my mother-in-law rides it.
>
> Theo, why do your family's vehicles always pop up in these threads?

I just love it when people run off at a tangent and manage to not address
any points in my posts at all.

Cheers Dave

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be
>> issued with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram,
>> you will progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades,
>> wheelchair, bicycle, scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before
>> progressing to a 4 cyl Getz.

> That, although not formalised, is roughly a process most people go
> through - it's called walking before running...

Aha, you may nearly be seeing my point. Now tell me why you think the pram
or the 2CV experience should be mandatory/compulsory for everyone, rather
than, or as well as, the the bicycle experience. Note that with
motorcycling, sub-250cc experience is mandated before a larger engine
capacity is allowed. OTOH, in some States, including WA, no previous two
wheeled experience is required to ride a (speed limited to 60 km/h)
restricted scooter.

Theo

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 May 2007 23:21:02 GMT
Plodder > wrote:
> a better horse and buggy driver than someone who is not familiar with the
> vagaries of horses but is able to hold the reins. That doesn't mean you
> can't drive a horse and buggy without horse knowledge. It means you won't be
> as good. Similarly, you won't be as good a road user without knowledge of
> how other road users should behave.

Well... you can't ride a horse without horse knowledge as well.

But you can get horse knowledge from driving a buggy. Or just being
around horses.

When Mum drove trotters for the first time, she found very little of
the horse *riding* knowledge worked for *driving* and some of it was
actively bad because she couldn't work out how to use the reins for
things she used bodyweight and legs for before, and so had to re-learn
the reins. She was probably a bit better than someone who had never
held reins before, but most of the skill she already had that she used
was skills that a non-riding person who had been around horses a lot
would have had.

Not sure if this means cycling training first is a bad idea or if the
loud sound you just heard was an analogy breaking under the strain.

Zebee

[Plodder]

"Zebee Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 May 2007 23:21:02 GMT
> Plodder > wrote:
>> a better horse and buggy driver than someone who is not familiar with the
>> vagaries of horses but is able to hold the reins. That doesn't mean you
>> can't drive a horse and buggy without horse knowledge. It means you won't
>> be
>> as good. Similarly, you won't be as good a road user without knowledge of
>> how other road users should behave.
>
> Well... you can't ride a horse without horse knowledge as well.
>
> But you can get horse knowledge from driving a buggy. Or just being
> around horses.
>
> When Mum drove trotters for the first time, she found very little of
> the horse *riding* knowledge worked for *driving* and some of it was
> actively bad because she couldn't work out how to use the reins for
> things she used bodyweight and legs for before, and so had to re-learn
> the reins. She was probably a bit better than someone who had never
> held reins before, but most of the skill she already had that she used
> was skills that a non-riding person who had been around horses a lot
> would have had.
>
> Not sure if this means cycling training first is a bad idea or if the
> loud sound you just heard was an analogy breaking under the strain.
>
> Zebee

Yep it bends a bit before breaking. That's why I wrote "better"; I didn't
specify how much better :-) She'd be a lot better than me, for example, coz
I have no idea about horses. The only horses I encounter come in cans and
have names like "Pal" and "Chum". I'd make mistakes that someone familiar
with horse behaviour wouldn't make.

Toodles,

Frank

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers (wrote

>> Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
>> certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
>> difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a
>> bicycle to obtain a driver's licence. To me, it makes less sense
>> than having competence riding a horse to get a licence to drive a
>> horse and buggy.

> Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
> ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
> competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that
> which about 80% of current drivers do not currently have -- ie, the
> dangerous idiots who feel it justified to overtake on double white
> lines around a blind corner -- higher proportions in Greensborough).
> You'll do much less damage to other people, being incompetant at the
> former rather than the latter.

Tim, I'm not really trying to be difficult, but I really can't see that the
roadcraft you will learn on a bicycle, and only on a bicycle, is so critical
that it should be compulsory to have that experience before you are allowed
to operate any other vehicle. I just can't.

I can tell you the roadcraft that I can learn from observing cyclists on the
road is not something I would like to see car drivers practice. Running red
lights, even after stopping and looking both ways. Riding around in bunches
inches away from each other is another. I used to work with a guy who is
from England and worked for some time also in Ireland and he tells me that,
back then, it was illegal to race on the public road. Racing being defined
as traveling in a bunch or peloton. Their solution was to time-trial.

My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is already
illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and crosswalks), and
can injure people other than the participants. I personally don't give a
**** if the willing participants hurt themselves.

I think even a casual observation of cyclist behaviour show that they are
not the best role-model for safe use of roads, and I do not think that
teaching people that those behaviours are a mandatory model for drivers is a
good idea.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good
>> pedestrians as well. And, whilst we have them confined to the
>> classroom, we can teach them to say please and thank you, not use
>> the word orientated because oriented is the correct usage, cover
>> their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus have the remote control
>> sometimes, and a lot of other social things that would be nice but
>> have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.
>>
>> Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their
>> children some roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.

> And why not have bogan dad teach little mullet-boy to drive too, and
> do away with those pesky tests? I know, I know; you learned to drive
> your uncle's ute on the farm when you were three months old and only
> had to drive around the block from the cop shop to the pub to get
> your licence. Times have moved on.

You know, I actually got my dirvers licence that way. Never even had to put
it in reverse. Only mullets hadn't been invented then, nor bogans.

> I've never felt threatened while riding my bike by someone driving a
> car who sneezed without covering their mouth. I have felt endangered
> by people driving as though they have no idea about how to treat
> other road users.
> I agree that, ideally, road sharing is a social game. However, we all
> need to share an understanding of the game rules. The best way to
> acheive that understanding is to all be taught pretty well the same
> set of rules.
> We unleash kids on bicycles without road rule training - remember,
> they are not taught road rules until they apply for a driving
> licence.

What? When you learnt to ride nobody pointed out to you which side of the
road you had to be on? Or what to do when you got to an intersection? I
don't believe you.

> Why not start road rule training on the transport available
> to them (bicycles) at school and ensure their knowledge is reasonable
> (weasel word!) when they apply for permission to drive a motor
> vehicle?

I don't have a problem with that at all.

> I'm trying to work out how "...a lot of other social things that
> would be nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car
> on the road." is the same as teaching people bicycle skills and road
> use. Doesn't knowing how to respond to other traffic (including
> bicyles) have some relation to driving a motor car on the road?
> Perhaps you're confusing the idea of driving a motor vehicle (making
> it go/stop/turn, etc) with shared road use. There's a world of
> difference.

Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
>> certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
>> difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a
>> bicycle to obtain a driver's licence.

> Theo, you MUST be playing devil's advocate here. It seems pretty
> obvious that all road users should have a clue about how other road
> users should behave. The more everyone thinks of themselves as a road
> user instead of 'car driver', 'pedestrian', 'cyclist' etc., the
> better integrated traffic will be. I'm pretty sure someone who can
> competently ride a horse will make a better horse and buggy driver
> than someone who is not familiar with the vagaries of horses but is
> able to hold the reins. That doesn't mean you can't drive a horse and
> buggy without horse knowledge. It means you won't be as good.
> Similarly, you won't be as good a road user without knowledge of how
> other road users should behave.
> Doesn't sound like a hard concept to me...

Please read my post above again. I don't have a problem with your concept
at all. (And you can probaly learn more about horses by leading them than by
riding them.)

Theo
Led horses, ridden them, driven a pair, and been in a trotting sulky.

[EuanB[_45_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> I can tell you the roadcraft that I can learn from observing cyclists on
> the
> road is not something I would like to see car drivers practice.
All cyclists?

> Running red
> lights, even after stopping and looking both ways. Riding around in
> bunches
> inches away from each other is another.
I haven't seen that promoted as good roadcraft on a bicycle. You're
characterising these behavours as good cycling road craft. I don't
believe that's the case. Your first example is explicity against the
law for a start.

> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
> already
> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
> crosswalks), and
> can injure people other than the participants.
What particular law makes bunch riding illegal Theo?


> I think even a casual observation of cyclist behaviour show that they
> are
> not the best role-model for safe use of roads, and I do not think that
> teaching people that those behaviours are a mandatory model for
> drivers is a
> good idea.
I think even a casual observer of motorist behaviour shows that they
are not very good drivers and not the best role model for safe use of
our roads.


--
EuanB

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> I can tell you the roadcraft that I can learn from observing
>> cyclists on the
>> road is not something I would like to see car drivers practice.

> All cyclists?

Certainly not, most cyclists, like most motorists, are courteous law-abing
citizens.

>> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
>> already
>> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
>> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
>> crosswalks), and
>> can injure people other than the participants.

> What particular law makes bunch riding illegal Theo?

Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you think
that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

> I think even a casual observer of motorist behaviour shows that they
> are not very good drivers and not the best role model for safe use of
> our roads.

Did I say they were?

Theo

[TimC]

On 2007-05-04, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is already
> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and crosswalks)

eh? Other than the hell ride, bunches I see are *far* more likely to
stop for red lights than individuals.

In fact, I've never seen a bunch other than the hell ride run a red.
Seen thousands of individuals though -- probably about a third the
cyclists I've noticed.

--
TimC
>Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function.
You're saying cats are the opposite of bijectiveness? -- ST in RHOD

[rdk[_15_]]

Plodder Wrote:
> . Why not start road rule training on the transport available to them
> (bicycles) at school
> Beyond the sort of superficial stuff that's done in primary school
now,you're kidding, right.
The last thing schools want is another social problem lumped on them.
You'd also need to advise what to stop teaching as there is not enough
time to cover what they're meant to cover already. And how would it
work? Classroom lessons on how to be a good rider? Here are the road
rules, please be good kids and follow them? That'd work.

If not classroom lessons, then what? Schools buying fleets of bikes, or
making it compulsory to buy a bike and bring it to school? Plus any
teacher would have to be deranged to take on the responsibility and
financial liability of taking goups of by definition "untrained" riders
out on the road. Who would take the bottom stream - ie the "veggie bike
class" or "foundation riding", or those kids that won't follow any
instructions ever. What about if they fail - no drivers' license?

On the other hand, those kids that have never passed a school test in
their life do manage to study and get their Ls and Ps.

Yes, I do have a close personal relationship with a teacher!


--
rdk

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers (wrote
>
>>> Whilst I agree with what you say above, that competence on a bicycle
>>> certainly is desirable and a good way to learn roadcraft, I find it
>>> difficult to understand why a person _must_ have competence on a
>>> bicycle to obtain a driver's licence. To me, it makes less sense
>>> than having competence riding a horse to get a licence to drive a
>>> horse and buggy.
>
>> Here's a good justification: if you can't aquire the competantency to
>> ride a bike, then you probably will never be able to aquire the
>> competancy to drive a car (where I define competancy as being that
>> which about 80% of current drivers do not currently have -- ie, the
>> dangerous idiots who feel it justified to overtake on double white
>> lines around a blind corner -- higher proportions in Greensborough).
>> You'll do much less damage to other people, being incompetant at the
>> former rather than the latter.
>
> Tim, I'm not really trying to be difficult, but I really can't see that
> the roadcraft you will learn on a bicycle, and only on a bicycle, is so
> critical that it should be compulsory to have that experience before you
> are allowed to operate any other vehicle. I just can't.
>
> I can tell you the roadcraft that I can learn from observing cyclists on
> the road is not something I would like to see car drivers practice.
> Running red lights, even after stopping and looking both ways. Riding
> around in bunches inches away from each other is another. I used to work
> with a guy who is from England and worked for some time also in Ireland
> and he tells me that, back then, it was illegal to race on the public
> road. Racing being defined as traveling in a bunch or peloton. Their
> solution was to time-trial.
>
> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is already
> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and crosswalks),
> and can injure people other than the participants. I personally don't give
> a **** if the willing participants hurt themselves.
>
> I think even a casual observation of cyclist behaviour show that they are
> not the best role-model for safe use of roads, and I do not think that
> teaching people that those behaviours are a mandatory model for drivers is
> a good idea.
>
> Theo

It seems pretty obvious, then, by using your observations, that there IS a
case for formal cycling training. The unsafe behaviours you observe in
cyclists indicate that at least there is insufficient training and
insufficient policing. Imagine if motor vehicle drivers were not formally
trained and tested - their behaviours would probably be similar to the
cyclists you observe.

The other side of formal training is that the "I didn't know the rules"
excuse is removed. That means that illegal behaviours can be better policed.
The cops wouldn't have to contend with the "I was untrained - it's society's
fault" defense and could get on with the job of enforcing the law.

I doubt that formal training would eliminate the behaviours you describe,
but it would certainly go a long way toward getting people to think of a
bicycle as more than a toy or a hobby. If all road users considered bicycles
as a legitimate vehicle, not just a hobby, then the expectation of proper
behaviour is raised. Poor behaviour is more frowned upon and overall
behaviours improve. Think of the drink driving campaign. I remember way back
when driving with a few under the belt was considered a minor peccadillo - a
little 'tut-tut' was about it.

Now it's considered very differently and social pressure has reduced the
incidence of drunk driving. People don't want to be considered a dickhead
for driving drunk. The social pressure has done more to modify behaviour
than the policing and that social pressure was brought to bear by the
'dickheaqd' campaign. That campaign also made it easier for the cops to
prosecute because drink driving became a thing for which it is considered
that punishment is fair.

Similarly, now there's a degree to which the police think they have better
things to do than prosecute cyclists and drivers don't consider bikes to be
legitimate largely because of the lack of rule enforcement; that lack
promotes the idea that cyclists are not worth the effort to punish. Rather
patronising, I think.

Cheers,

Frank

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Plodder wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>
>>> Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good
>>> pedestrians as well. And, whilst we have them confined to the
>>> classroom, we can teach them to say please and thank you, not use
>>> the word orientated because oriented is the correct usage, cover
>>> their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus have the remote control
>>> sometimes, and a lot of other social things that would be nice but
>>> have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.
>>>
>>> Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their
>>> children some roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.
>
>> And why not have bogan dad teach little mullet-boy to drive too, and
>> do away with those pesky tests? I know, I know; you learned to drive
>> your uncle's ute on the farm when you were three months old and only
>> had to drive around the block from the cop shop to the pub to get
>> your licence. Times have moved on.
>
> You know, I actually got my dirvers licence that way. Never even had to
> put it in reverse. Only mullets hadn't been invented then, nor bogans.
>
>> I've never felt threatened while riding my bike by someone driving a
>> car who sneezed without covering their mouth. I have felt endangered
>> by people driving as though they have no idea about how to treat
>> other road users.
>> I agree that, ideally, road sharing is a social game. However, we all
>> need to share an understanding of the game rules. The best way to
>> acheive that understanding is to all be taught pretty well the same
>> set of rules.
>> We unleash kids on bicycles without road rule training - remember,
>> they are not taught road rules until they apply for a driving
>> licence.
>
> What? When you learnt to ride nobody pointed out to you which side of the
> road you had to be on? Or what to do when you got to an intersection? I
> don't believe you.
>
>> Why not start road rule training on the transport available
>> to them (bicycles) at school and ensure their knowledge is reasonable
>> (weasel word!) when they apply for permission to drive a motor
>> vehicle?
>
> I don't have a problem with that at all.
>
>> I'm trying to work out how "...a lot of other social things that
>> would be nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car
>> on the road." is the same as teaching people bicycle skills and road
>> use. Doesn't knowing how to respond to other traffic (including
>> bicyles) have some relation to driving a motor car on the road?
>> Perhaps you're confusing the idea of driving a motor vehicle (making
>> it go/stop/turn, etc) with shared road use. There's a world of
>> difference.
>
> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.
>
> Theo

I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a controlled
environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I think experience on
the road would be ideal but I have trouble with the idea of forcing people
to actually ride a bike (or drive a car, ride a horse, whatever). The idea
is to promote and ensure (by training and testing) a higher degree of
awareness of the rights, responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of
different road users.

Cheers,

me

[Plodder]

"rdk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
>> . Why not start road rule training on the transport available to them
>> (bicycles) at school
>> Beyond the sort of superficial stuff that's done in primary school
> now,you're kidding, right.
> The last thing schools want is another social problem lumped on them.
> You'd also need to advise what to stop teaching as there is not enough
> time to cover what they're meant to cover already. And how would it
> work? Classroom lessons on how to be a good rider? Here are the road
> rules, please be good kids and follow them? That'd work.
>
> If not classroom lessons, then what? Schools buying fleets of bikes, or
> making it compulsory to buy a bike and bring it to school? Plus any
> teacher would have to be deranged to take on the responsibility and
> financial liability of taking goups of by definition "untrained" riders
> out on the road. Who would take the bottom stream - ie the "veggie bike
> class" or "foundation riding", or those kids that won't follow any
> instructions ever. What about if they fail - no drivers' license?
>
> On the other hand, those kids that have never passed a school test in
> their life do manage to study and get their Ls and Ps.
>
> Yes, I do have a close personal relationship with a teacher!
>
>
> --
> rdk

Yes - if they fail, no driver's licence. If they can't (or won't) follow
instructions, or they don't have the wherewithall to understand the
training, why should they be allowed the privilege of a driver's licence? A
licence confers the rights AND responsibilities of driving - if people are
incapable or unwilling to take on the responsibilities, why should they have
the rights?

As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock intersections,
traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary group that
goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages involves
setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go 'brrrmmm'
and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some ride
bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and we've
had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour change
observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard! Kids are
smarter than we give them credit for.

Me

[TimC]

On 2007-05-05, Plodder (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock intersections,
> traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary group that
> goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages involves
> setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go 'brrrmmm'
> and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some ride
> bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and we've
> had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour change
> observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard! Kids are
> smarter than we give them credit for.

He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.

A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.

Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
anyone think of the kids" lobbists.

--
TimC
CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85
Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. -- unk

[rdk[_16_]]

Plodder Wrote:
>
> As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock
> intersections,
> traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary
> group that
> goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages
> involves
> setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go
> 'brrrmmm'
> and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some
> ride
> bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and
> we've
> had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour
> change
> observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard!
> Kids are
> smarter than we give them credit for.
> MeI might be wrong, but you're probably talking about primary school level
stuff, which is good for that age group, and I wish my kids had it at
their school.

When you go for your licence, though, I don't think "I passed cycling
safety in grade four" will really make much difference. The talk about
mandatory training has the goal of changing attitudes and behaviours,
which can't be done in two or three lessons at school, and schools are
not going to take it on.


--
rdk

[Plodder]

"rdk" > wrote in message
...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
>>
>> As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock
>> intersections,
>> traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary
>> group that
>> goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages
>> involves
>> setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go
>> 'brrrmmm'
>> and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some
>> ride
>> bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and
>> we've
>> had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour
>> change
>> observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard!
>> Kids are
>> smarter than we give them credit for.
>> MeI might be wrong, but you're probably talking about primary school
>> level
> stuff, which is good for that age group, and I wish my kids had it at
> their school.
>
> When you go for your licence, though, I don't think "I passed cycling
> safety in grade four" will really make much difference. The talk about
> mandatory training has the goal of changing attitudes and behaviours,
> which can't be done in two or three lessons at school, and schools are
> not going to take it on.
>
>
> --
> rdk

You'd be silly to stop the training in grade four (or any other grade). I
see no mention of stopping then. In fact I've been advocating the idea that
one needs to pass bicycle training before applying for a learner's permit.
That tends to happen some time after grade four.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids road craft early and building
on that training as they grow up; it sort of increases their chances OF
growing up. Starting in scholl is just that - starting. Not finishing...

me

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.
>
> A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.
>
> Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
> anyone think of the kids" lobbists.

The best thing the Oz Gov't ever did was lower the voting age to 18. It's
the only time in your life that you know absobloodylutely everything.

I was personally stunned at how much knowledge, experience, and wisdom my
father gained between the time I turned 18 and the time I turned 21. I think
I was nearly 24 before I figured out what had happened. :-)

Theo
PS- if you don't understand the previous paragraph you're probably 18.

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.

> I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
> training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
> controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
> think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
> the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
> ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
> training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
> responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
> users.

Then we're nearly in agreement. :-)
And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you grow
up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a driver's
licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public service ads as
I've seen in England and Europe.

Theo

[EuanB[_46_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
> >> already
> >> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
> >> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
> >> crosswalks), and
> >> can injure people other than the participants.
>
> > What particular law makes bunch riding illegal Theo?
>
> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
> think
> that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?
From VicRoads, rule 255

RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]

*THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
*PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
SAFETY ACT 1986.

[b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*


--
EuanB

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
>> already illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous
>> practice, encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
>> crosswalks)
>
> eh? Other than the hell ride, bunches I see are *far* more likely to
> stop for red lights than individuals.
>
> In fact, I've never seen a bunch other than the hell ride run a red.
> Seen thousands of individuals though -- probably about a third the
> cyclists I've noticed.

And making riding a compulsory requisite for driving will thus make for
better drivers?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
>> think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

> From VicRoads, rule 255
>
> RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]
>
> *THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
> MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
> *PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
> SAFETY ACT 1986.
>
> [b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
> there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*

How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you run
up the back of someone.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers wrote

>> I think even a casual observation of cyclist behaviour show that
>> they are not the best role-model for safe use of roads, and I do not
>> think that teaching people that those behaviours are a mandatory
>> model for drivers is a good idea.

> It seems pretty obvious, then, by using your observations, that there
> IS a case for formal cycling training. The unsafe behaviours you
> observe in cyclists indicate that at least there is insufficient
> training and insufficient policing. Imagine if motor vehicle drivers
> were not formally trained and tested - their behaviours would
> probably be similar to the cyclists you observe.

I'm agreed with that. All road-users should know the rules and have some
road-craft before becoming part of the traffic. What I've been objecting to
in this thread is the statement that bicycle training and experience should
be _mandatory for car drivers_. People who have no intention of riding a
bicycle have no need of bicycle training. And I have also pointed out that
bicycle riders are not necessarily the best role models for good social road
behaviour, as even many people here have observed, many riders are what the
Yanks term "scoff-laws", a good description for too large a number of
cyclists' behaviour. This decreases their road cred in the eyes of drivers

> The other side of formal training is that the "I didn't know the
> rules" excuse is removed. That means that illegal behaviours can be
> better policed. The cops wouldn't have to contend with the "I was
> untrained - it's society's fault" defense and could get on with the
> job of enforcing the law.

Thhat sounds like an argument for rider licensing. I think rider licensing
would be counterproductive.

> I doubt that formal training would eliminate the behaviours you
> describe, but it would certainly go a long way toward getting people
> to think of a bicycle as more than a toy or a hobby. If all road
> users considered bicycles as a legitimate vehicle, not just a hobby,
> then the expectation of proper behaviour is raised. Poor behaviour is
> more frowned upon and overall behaviours improve.

Agreed. How do we formally train cyclists then without licensing? Note that
I think a requirement of being able to produce a piece of paper stating that
you have done a training course is, in my eyes, a licence.

<snip, drink driving analogy with which I am in agreeance>
> Similarly, now there's a degree to which the police think they have
> better things to do than prosecute cyclists and drivers don't
> consider bikes to be legitimate largely because of the lack of rule
> enforcement; that lack promotes the idea that cyclists are not worth
> the effort to punish. Rather patronising, I think.

We are becoming so legalistic that it has become too much trouble to
prosecute/punish people for subjective misdeeds. It's easy to take someone
to court if you have concrete evidence such as a black eye, several dead
bodies, or a computer print-out that says that vehicle ABC123 was recorded
at 61.5 in a 60 zone. Much more difficult for the prosecution to say "You
honor, this moron was behaving like a dick-head". Hence most morons can act
like dick-heads with impunity.

Cheers
Theo

[rooman[_125_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>
> >> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
> >> think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?
>
> > From VicRoads, rule 255
> >
> > RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]
> >
> > *THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF
> A
> > MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
> > *PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
> > SAFETY ACT 1986.
> >
> > [b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
> > there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*
>
> How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
> courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you
> run
> up the back of someone.
>
> Theo
you mean bikes behind bikes?...

they are not required to ride a prescribed distance from each
other...its just MOTOR vehicles....

seems a certain maturer lady TT'er breaks that one each time (often)
she motorpaces on Beach Rd ..

don't know of a case where a bicycle rider has been found guilty of
negligent riding for running up the back of another bicycle...

experienced bunch riders can "hold a wheel" of another bicycle by a few
cms...that is normal for many, scary for others, and avoided by some...
it comes with learning...and training...(seems that word that has
appeared here a bit lately).
Holding a wheel is necessary on the track, expected in road races and
practiced in training, and then applied in most social rides with a lot
more room between bikes than cms ( half a meter plus is comfortable)
for most riders who ride in a group.

In any event, on the road, all riders have to keep a proper lookout.
And amongst experienced responsible riders this is how they expect you
to ride. The most difficult aspect for many riders when training or
riding socially is the unpredictability of the unkown rider.
If you are known to a group and practiced with the them, in the normal
course a cohesive ride will follow.
If you are unknown, they will not be able to predict what you will do
in the event of an incident, nor you them. You may be the best rider
and very skilled, but to them you are another (major) unpredictable
element and to you so are they, thus a greater need to show more care,
back off, slow down, chose another route, whatever is reasonable to
ensure a margin to deal with it.


--
rooman

[beerwolf[_2_]]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

snip

> We are becoming so legalistic that it has become too much trouble to
> prosecute/punish people for subjective misdeeds. It's easy to take
> someone to court if you have concrete evidence such as a black eye,
> several dead bodies, or a computer print-out that says that vehicle
> ABC123 was recorded at 61.5 in a 60 zone. Much more difficult for the
> prosecution to say "You honor, this moron was behaving like a
> dick-head". Hence most morons can act like dick-heads with impunity.

Amen**(8*i)

--
beerwolf

[TimC]

On 2007-05-07, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.
>>
>> A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.
>>
>> Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
>> anyone think of the kids" lobbists.
>
> The best thing the Oz Gov't ever did was lower the voting age to 18. It's
> the only time in your life that you know absobloodylutely everything.
>
> I was personally stunned at how much knowledge, experience, and wisdom my
> father gained between the time I turned 18 and the time I turned 21. I think
> I was nearly 24 before I figured out what had happened. :-)

I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
out.

I wouldn't have the foggiest about it anymore.

QED, I really was smarter back then.

--
TimC
We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
what we were doing

[cfsmtb[_166_]]

TimC Wrote:
>
> I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
> systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
> out.
>
>

Shroedinger? Sp?

BTW, cat ok?


--
cfsmtb

[TimC]

On 2007-05-07, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC Wrote:
>>
>> I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
>> systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
>> out.
>
> Shroedinger? Sp?

Correct, I can't even spell his name anymore. "Sch".

> BTW, cat ok?

Currently lost in a box. Not known if dead or alive.

--
TimC
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.

[EuanB[_48_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>
> >> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
> >> think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?
>
> > From VicRoads, rule 255
> >
> > RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]
> >
> > *THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF
> A
> > MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
> > *PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
> > SAFETY ACT 1986.
> >
> > [b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
> > there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*
>
> How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
> courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you
> run
> up the back of someone.

Of course, no different from a car there. All I have to do is maintain
a gap with sufficient stopping distance. I'm not an experienced bunch
rider but even I can do that, just because you're drafting someone
doesn't mean that your bike has to be directly behind so in an
emergency I can brake alongside the rider in front.

Bunch riding is not illegal Theo, you may wish it to be but it's not so
don't go around saying it is.


--
EuanB

[EuanB[_49_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> Plodder wrote:
> > "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>
> >> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling
> experience.
>
> > I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
> > training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
> > controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
> > think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
> > the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
> > ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
> > training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
> > responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
> > users.
>
> Then we're nearly in agreement. :-)
> And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you
> grow
> up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a driver's
> licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public service
> ads as
> I've seen in England and Europe.

That might work in Europe where bicycles are part of the furniture but
not here in Australia. A casual pootle along your local bike track
should be enough to persuade you that a significant number of
occaisional cyclists haven't a clue what they're doing.


--
EuanB

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Plodder wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>
>>> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.
>
>> I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
>> training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
>> controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
>> think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
>> the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
>> ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
>> training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
>> responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
>> users.
>
> Then we're nearly in agreement. :-)
> And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you
> grow up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a
> driver's licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public
> service ads as I've seen in England and Europe.
>
> Theo

The bit that makes me uncomfortable is 'parents'. As recent studies have
found, one reason it takes so long to book in for a driving test is that so
many people fail after being taught by parents, friends, etc. and need to
re-book. The system's clagged up with people who learned from people who
can't drive properly.

People pass on their bad habits. For example, the L plater I saw driving
along the bus/bike lane on South Street yesterday evening. She squeezed past
a cyclist in the lane, forcing him into the gutter. I know that if I was to
teach someone to drive (and it's coming up soon - partner's 16 year-old)
I'll pass on some of the habits I've developed and normalised to the point
where I'm not conscious of those habits (good and bad). I'll try and be
aware but I'll still be imperfect. How many people teach their kids and
aren't even aware, let alone care?

Ideally, I'd love to think that parents are all ideal role models and are
able to teach their kids the life skills they need. Unfortunately, almost
all the parents I know think their job is to have kids. I think a parent's
job is to produce adults - aprt of that is an effective childhood (and all
the mistakes and fun that that brings). In reality, Johnny Bogan produces
little Harley Bogan. Johnny teaches Harley that the main thing to watch out
for when driving is cops - don't get caught. That might only apply to one in
five hundred drivers, but, given I'll be passed by, say, 5000 cars in an
hour, that's 10 people driving past me who are not looking out for my
safety. That's scary...

Better to put pre-drivers on the road on a bike. First, it exposes them to
the road in such a way that they are vulnerable and need to develop road
craft to look after themselves. Second, it gets more people on bikes, making
it safer for all of us. Third, it produces drivers who are aware of the
role, rights and duties of shared road use. Fourth, it means we're reading
from the same rulebooks, both legal and social. I think that's worth having.

Cheers,

Frank

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
> systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
> out.
>
> I wouldn't have the foggiest about it anymore.
>
> QED, I really was smarter back then.

I think you're confusing knowledge with wisdom. I'm sure you have more
wisdom now.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Then we're nearly in agreement. :-)
>> And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as
>> you grow
>> up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a
>> driver's licence, and continuing education by means of short TV
>> public service ads as
>> I've seen in England and Europe.

> That might work in Europe where bicycles are part of the furniture but
> not here in Australia. A casual pootle along your local bike track
> should be enough to persuade you that a significant number of
> occaisional cyclists haven't a clue what they're doing.

You have no disagreement from me on that, and you can probably add the
Sunday morning club rider in lycra to that as well. I went for a couple of
Sunday rides with a (non-racing) club a long time ago. Probably the most
dangerous time I've ever spent on the road. I agree that any road user
should have training including cyclists. Whether you can give 'formal'
training to all children with their first bike is dubious and mandation
would probably result in the kid not getting a bike at all. So tell me
again why bicycle training should be mandatory before getting a driver's
licence, for those people who have no wish to cycle.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:

> Better to put pre-drivers on the road on a bike. First, it exposes
> them to the road in such a way that they are vulnerable and need to
> develop road craft to look after themselves. Second, it gets more
> people on bikes, making it safer for all of us. Third, it produces
> drivers who are aware of the role, rights and duties of shared road
> use. Fourth, it means we're reading from the same rulebooks, both
> legal and social. I think that's worth having.

Again, I agree with you. But where do these pre-drivers get their knowledge
of the "role, rights and duties of shared road use" from, if not their
parents, their peers, and their observation of other road-users? I don't
think a compulsory course sold with every 10" two-wheeler, fitted from the
shop with trainer wheels, is gonna fly.

Theo

[EuanB[_52_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> Whether you can give 'formal'
> training to all children with their first bike is dubious and mandation
> would probably result in the kid not getting a bike at all. So tell me
> again why bicycle training should be mandatory before getting a
> driver's
> licence, for those people who have no wish to cycle.

You're mixing up two arguments.

Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because
the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a
whole.

Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is crucial
in understanding how to co-exist with them.


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 8 May 2007 17:35:41 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is crucial
> in understanding how to co-exist with them.

training about limitations of cyclists? OK.

requiring that to be some period of on-road cycling? I don't agree.

How do you enforce it? Require logbooks? If it's only a few minutes then
it's useless, if it's some kind of "must do 100 hours on a bicycle" it's
equally useless as there's no quality control at all, let alone any way
to enforce. (Logbooks in use by learners in NSW are routinely falsified.)

What I'd like to see is that every learner driver must do at least 5 hours
of professional training, and that training has to include the instructor
talking about bicycles and showing the learner how to properly interact
with other road users. Add that to required classroom training as is
already done with motorcyclists.

Pretty much require a weekend of professional quality-controlled
instruction as is required of motorcyclists, with a pass mark so that
anyone who still doesn't get it has to do it again. No professional
training, no driver's licence. (And for real pie-in-the-sky, require
it to be done every 10 years...)

I note that over 20 years ago the professional instructor I went to told
me about bicycles and how to interact with them. He went out of his way
to ask me about what I thought I needed to do, and to propose scenarios
as to what the cyclist we saw might do and what I should do in response.
(he also did similar things when he saw pedestrians and motorcyclists.
And cars with drivers who wore hats...)

Zebee

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message
...
> Plodder wrote:
>
>> Better to put pre-drivers on the road on a bike. First, it exposes
>> them to the road in such a way that they are vulnerable and need to
>> develop road craft to look after themselves. Second, it gets more
>> people on bikes, making it safer for all of us. Third, it produces
>> drivers who are aware of the role, rights and duties of shared road
>> use. Fourth, it means we're reading from the same rulebooks, both
>> legal and social. I think that's worth having.
>
> Again, I agree with you. But where do these pre-drivers get their
> knowledge of the "role, rights and duties of shared road use" from, if not
> their parents, their peers, and their observation of other road-users? I
> don't think a compulsory course sold with every 10" two-wheeler, fitted
> from the shop with trainer wheels, is gonna fly.
>
> Theo

I think there's some confusion here. I don't remember advocating compulsory
training before you can ride a bike. I do advocate bicycle training before
you can drive a car. As Euan wrote, any benefit of compulsory bike training
before riding a bike would be outweighed by the amount of people who didn't
take up cycling. Perhaps I've been unclear (or I've been swallowing your
hook!)

To clarify where I stand:
(1) I think anyone who wants to learn to drive a car should pass bicycle
training. No pass, not allowed to apply for a learner's permit. The course
should include riding a bike and a competency test. Medical exemptions could
apply to the riding part but not to the requirement to do the course.

(2) I think road craft should be taught in schools, to a set standard and
shouldn't be left to the vagaries of parents. Parents, friends, other road
users, etc. help develop skills but standards vary too much to ensure we're
all playing by the same set of basic rules. An ideal way to teach road craft
is by riding a bike in a controlled environment.

(3) I don't think it should be mandatory to do a course before you are
allowed to ride a bike; only if you want to drive motorised transport
(including a scooter or moped).

Is that more clear?

Cheers,

Frank

[EuanB[_55_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 8 May 2007 17:35:41 +1000
> EuanB > wrote:
> >
> > Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> > car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is
> crucial
> > in understanding how to co-exist with them.
>
> training about limitations of cyclists? OK.
>
> requiring that to be some period of on-road cycling? I don't agree.
>
> How do you enforce it? Require logbooks? If it's only a few minutes
> then
> it's useless, if it's some kind of "must do 100 hours on a bicycle"
> it's
> equally useless as there's no quality control at all, let alone any
> way
> to enforce. (Logbooks in use by learners in NSW are routinely
> falsified.)
How does the motorcycle test in this country work? In the UK it's a
pursuit test, that is to say that the rider being tested rides in front
of the examiner and reacts to instructions given over a vox headset (one
way). No reason the same method couldn't be applied to cyclists, heck
the examiner doesn't even need to be on a bicycle!


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 May 2007 01:41:25 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
> How does the motorcycle test in this country work? In the UK it's a
> pursuit test, that is to say that the rider being tested rides in front
> of the examiner and reacts to instructions given over a vox headset (one
> way). No reason the same method couldn't be applied to cyclists, heck
> the examiner doesn't even need to be on a bicycle!

In Oz it depends where you live, each state is different. In NSW and
I think SA there are 2 stages.

There's the pre-licence training, before you can get your L plates you
have to attend a training centre where you get a day of training. Mix
of classroom sessions about road safety and motorcycle smarts and
skills training on a large bitumen area. The skills training starts
from "never touched a motorcycle before" and ends with the riders
doing U turns and weaving between cones and doing emergency stops.

Then they get 3-9 months (I think) on L plates riding about
unaccompanied. THen they book and do the P Plate training. That's a
similar format, more classroom, plus a test of the skills they
learned at the L training, plus on road. Not sure of the on-road
format, I don't think we have headsets I think they get stopped every
few minutes and get told to do more things.

I'd like to see that sort of instruction required of car drivers,
although they should still need to be accompanied on L plates. Let
the other road user awareness be part of the classroom training, add
something about safe passing distance be part of the off road
training, and part of the on road test.


Zebee

[EuanB[_56_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 May 2007 01:41:25 +1000
> EuanB > wrote:
> > How does the motorcycle test in this country work? In the UK it's a
> > pursuit test, that is to say that the rider being tested rides in
> front
> > of the examiner and reacts to instructions given over a vox headset
> (one
> > way). No reason the same method couldn't be applied to cyclists, heck
> > the examiner doesn't even need to be on a bicycle!
>
> In Oz it depends where you live, each state is different. In NSW and
> I think SA there are 2 stages.
>
> There's the pre-licence training, before you can get your L plates you
> have to attend a training centre where you get a day of training. Mix
> of classroom sessions about road safety and motorcycle smarts and
> skills training on a large bitumen area. The skills training starts
> from "never touched a motorcycle before" and ends with the riders
> doing U turns and weaving between cones and doing emergency stops.
>
> Then they get 3-9 months (I think) on L plates riding about
> unaccompanied. THen they book and do the P Plate training. That's a
> similar format, more classroom, plus a test of the skills they
> learned at the L training, plus on road. Not sure of the on-road
> format, I don't think we have headsets I think they get stopped every
> few minutes and get told to do more things.
>
> I'd like to see that sort of instruction required of car drivers,
> although they should still need to be accompanied on L plates. Let
> the other road user awareness be part of the classroom training, add
> something about safe passing distance be part of the off road
> training, and part of the on road test.

What a stunning though, learn car control safely away from the dangers
of the open road. It'll never catch on!

UK, used to be you paid for your provisional license and could jump
straight on a sub 125 bike (250 if you had a sideiwinder) and you had 2
years to pass your test. I guess it was a rather darwinian approach.

The test itself was a joke, ride around the block 2 or 3 times with the
examiner standing on the pavement. Result was that the examiner only
saw you for one bit of the block. The entire test seemed to revolve
around whether you could do an emergency stop.

That changed to a two part similar to the one here. Compulsary Basic
Training which culminated in an escorted ride on the road, normally
done in groups, and a pursuit test as described in the last post. My
understanding is that the more rigorous training and testing resulted a
marked reduction of motoryclist fatalities.

There was an urban rumor that the reason for the more stringent
requirements was an explosion in born again bikers, people in their
forties recapturing their youth by jumping on a motorcycle after a
break of 20 years with predictable results given the massive
performance of today's motoricycles compared to those of 20 years ago.
Dunno if that's true though.


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 May 2007 08:25:04 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
>
> UK, used to be you paid for your provisional license and could jump
> straight on a sub 125 bike (250 if you had a sideiwinder) and you had 2
> years to pass your test. I guess it was a rather darwinian approach.

When I did mine it was "got a car licence? Here's your L plate, if
you survive for at least 3 months come back for the P test, else take
this multiple choice questionnaire before we give you the L plate."
The P test was being followed by someone for about 10 mins, do a
couple of right turns and an emergency stop from 30kmh. They just
wanted to see you use both brakes.


>
> That changed to a two part similar to the one here. Compulsary Basic
> Training which culminated in an escorted ride on the road, normally
> done in groups, and a pursuit test as described in the last post. My
> understanding is that the more rigorous training and testing resulted a
> marked reduction of motoryclist fatalities.

That's what I thought happened here. but the figures tell a different
story.

Yes, crashes dropped when this training was introduced. But that
was because fewer people were riding, there were fewer applicants for
L plates.

It isn't clear if that's because the tests (and associated time and costs)
stopped them or it was demographics (fewer young people who are the main
applicants for training), or because cars got even more cheaper as Korean
ones came in and so fewer people saw bikes as a means of transport.

What is clear is that the training wasn't the cause of fewer crashes.

The scooter boom is going to be an interesting test. More riders, but
most already have car licences and on-road experience. The MCC of NSW
is trying to get bike model info for crashes to see what sort of
crashes scooter riders are having. (Note that in NSW you have to have
a licence to ride any powered 2 wheeler over 200 watts, some states
let you ride a 50cc on a car licence.)

I have no idea what the bicycle crash stats are. There's probably no
way to tell how many years a given cyclist has been riding, or why
they are riding, and there's probably no record kept of type of bike
either.

Be interesting to know if there are more commuter crashes and if so
who is having them - if type of bike or years riding make the
difference the way I'd intuitively expect, if years of driving a car
make a difference, if lanes or paths have an impact, and who is using
them.

>
> There was an urban rumor that the reason for the more stringent
> requirements was an explosion in born again bikers, people in their
> forties recapturing their youth by jumping on a motorcycle after a
> break of 20 years with predictable results given the massive
> performance of today's motoricycles compared to those of 20 years ago.
> Dunno if that's true though.
>

Not true in NSW. Here, the number of crashes has increased but that
appears to be because the number of riders over 40 has increased.
Welcome to the baby boom... While it isn't possible to tell how many
licence holders are actually riding, if you take the number of holders
of a motorcycle licence who own a motorcycle as the number of riders,
then over-40s are under-represented in crashes. There's just more of
them then there were 10 years ago.

They have different crashes to younger riders, fewer traffic incidents,
more single rider, but those single rider aren't mostly "overcooked the
corner" a lot of them seem to be fatigue related.

I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related? Are cyclists
more likely to realise they are tired enough to impair judgement and
so stop and rest, or is judgement less of an issue at cycle speeds?
Does physical knackering for a cyclist happen earlier than mental fatigue,
so of course they stop?

Zebee

[Bleve]

On May 9, 9:10 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:

> I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related?

One of mine was (impaired judgement).

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 8 May 2007 16:31:44 -0700
Bleve > wrote:
> On May 9, 9:10 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related?
>
> One of mine was (impaired judgement).

Was it a distance race or audax event?

I suspect the long distance audax types are fit enough that the mental
judgement goes before the physical body does, else they ignore the
body more than others might.

I've been mentally tired before physically tired because of a long day
and little sleep, as long as the road was flat I was able to keep
pedalling but noticed I was not really with it.

As soon as the hill came I could pedal up it but had to rest after. I
dunno my mental abilities improved with 5 mins rest though.

Zebee

[EuanB[_57_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related? Are cyclists
> more likely to realise they are tired enough to impair judgement and
> so stop and rest, or is judgement less of an issue at cycle speeds?
> Does physical knackering for a cyclist happen earlier than mental
> fatigue,
> so of course they stop?

Well I didn't crash but after working 22 hours I rode the thirty kms
home and was aware of making silly errors. Fatigue's a big factor IMO,
next time I worked that long I got a cab and had work pay for it.


--
EuanB

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> You're mixing up two arguments.
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because
> the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a
> whole.
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is
> crucial in understanding how to co-exist with them.

I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not
necessary and should not be a requirement for road use, but bicycle training
should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car? That was my
initial understanding of your position.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>> Again, I agree with you. But where do these pre-drivers get their
>> knowledge of the "role, rights and duties of shared road use" from,
>> if not their parents, their peers, and their observation of other
>> road-users? I don't think a compulsory course sold with every 10"
>> two-wheeler, fitted from the shop with trainer wheels, is gonna fly.

> I think there's some confusion here. I don't remember advocating
> compulsory training before you can ride a bike. I do advocate bicycle
> training before you can drive a car. As Euan wrote, any benefit of
> compulsory bike training before riding a bike would be outweighed by
> the amount of people who didn't take up cycling. Perhaps I've been
> unclear (or I've been swallowing your hook!)

> To clarify where I stand:
> (1) I think anyone who wants to learn to drive a car should pass
> bicycle training. No pass, not allowed to apply for a learner's
> permit. The course should include riding a bike and a competency
> test. Medical exemptions could apply to the riding part but not to
> the requirement to do the course.
> (2) I think road craft should be taught in schools, to a set standard
> and shouldn't be left to the vagaries of parents. Parents, friends,
> other road users, etc. help develop skills but standards vary too
> much to ensure we're all playing by the same set of basic rules. An
> ideal way to teach road craft is by riding a bike in a controlled
> environment.
> (3) I don't think it should be mandatory to do a course before you are
> allowed to ride a bike; only if you want to drive motorised transport
> (including a scooter or moped).
>
> Is that more clear?

That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position.

1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without training.
2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a
compulsory part of obtaining a licence.

So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to ride a
bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom would ever ride a
bicycle.

Yeah, it suppose that makes sense, ........... to somebody, but not me.

Theo

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 May 2007 14:40:05 +0800
Theo Bekkers > wrote:
>
> That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position.
>
> 1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without training.
> 2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a
> compulsory part of obtaining a licence.
>
> So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to ride a
> bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom would ever ride a
> bicycle.

And what is this training about? Is it in bicycle mechanics like
starting and stopping and such, which either all need or none do, or
is it roadcraft?

And if it is roadcraft, is that how to read others, or is that how to
behave?

If it is how to behave, then will your trained riders know what the
untrained ones are going to do? Considering that the problem is to
solve drivers not knowing what cyclists are going to do, why train
people who are not going to cycle, but not train those who are?

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 May 2007 14:40:05 +0800
> Theo Bekkers > wrote:
>>
>> That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position.
>>
>> 1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without
>> training.
>> 2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a
>> compulsory part of obtaining a licence.
>>
>> So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to
>> ride a bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom
>> would ever ride a bicycle.
>
> And what is this training about? Is it in bicycle mechanics like
> starting and stopping and such, which either all need or none do, or
> is it roadcraft?
>
> And if it is roadcraft, is that how to read others, or is that how to
> behave?
>
> If it is how to behave, then will your trained riders know what the
> untrained ones are going to do? Considering that the problem is to
> solve drivers not knowing what cyclists are going to do, why train
> people who are not going to cycle, but not train those who are?

Exactly. Would make more sense to insist bicycle riders have a driver's
licence. At least that way they would get the bicycle training. :-)

theo

[EuanB[_62_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>
> > You're mixing up two arguments.
> >
> > Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because
> > the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a
> > whole.
> >
> > Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> > car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is
> > crucial in understanding how to co-exist with them.
>
> I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not
> necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,
Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking,
driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially
greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are safer
on the road than pedestrians.

Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than here
in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the road in
the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the benefits
outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to require formal
training of cyclists, looked at holistically.


> but bicycle training
> should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car?
Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide
with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this
is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike. The
same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal with
lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but cyclists
aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of transport. That
puts more responsibility on drivers.


--
EuanB

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is
>> not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,

> Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking,
> driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially
> greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are
> safer on the road than pedestrians.

Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in Australia
last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians
destroyed cars, cyclists?

> Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than
> here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the
> road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the
> benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to
> require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically.

Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles!

>> but bicycle training
>> should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car?

> Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide
> with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this
> is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike.
> The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal
> with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but
> cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of
> transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers.

You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your
reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take
pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians.

Theo

[EuanB[_66_]]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>
> >> I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is
> >> not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,
>
> > Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking,
> > driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially
> > greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are
> > safer on the road than pedestrians.
>
> Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in
> Australia
> last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians
> destroyed cars, cyclists?

How many muggings, murders commited by people riding bicycles? Not
many. How many committed by people walking? A large number.



> > Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than
> > here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the
> > road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the
> > benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to
> > require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically.
>
> Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles!

How is that a coherent response to the above?



> >> but bicycle training
> >> should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a
> car?
>
> > Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide
> > with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often
> this
> > is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike.
> > The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal
> > with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but
> > cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of
> > transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers.
>
> You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your
> reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take
> pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians.

Incorrect. Cyclists don't pose a large threat to pedestrians,
pedestrians pose a much larger threat to other pedestrians than other
cyclists do.


--
EuanB

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
rooman > wrote:

> t'was coming back from Anzac Day in the city along Beach Road and saw a
> nasty spill over on the path at Black Rock on the rise North of
> Ricketts Point.

rooman: Was that the women who wrote the letter in this week's 'Bayside
Leader'?

--
Shane Stanley

[rooman[_164_]]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> In article >,
> rooman > wrote:
>
> > t'was coming back from Anzac Day in the city along Beach Road and saw
> a
> > nasty spill over on the path at Black Rock on the rise North of
> > Ricketts Point.
>
> rooman: Was that the women who wrote the letter in this week's 'Bayside
> Leader'?
>
> --
> Shane Stanley
yep,

Suzy... she wasnt well, but kept up good spirits in spite of her
pain...good to see she is up and about.... and she is keen to get back
on her bike..that's great.

I was her 6'+ sunshade as she lay on the path... good to know I have
some practical purposes left...

what do you think of the other comment in Opinon from "Marcus" of
Brighton? ...I felt when I read it, maybe _he_ should choose to go on
the Nepean if he wants a less interrupted high speed run to the CBD,
over Beach Rd...he reckons the path should be used by commuters as
their only peak hour route along Beach Rd and let him "flow" in his
cage ( till the next set of lights).


--
rooman

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
rooman > wrote:

> Suzy... she wasnt well, but kept up good spirits in spite of her
> pain...good to see she is up and about.... and she is keen to get back
> on her bike..that's great.

Yep. It's hard to regard a broken femur as anything other than bad news,
but it sounds like she was lucky not to do a lot worse.
>
> I was her 6'+ sunshade as she lay on the path... good to know I have
> some practical purposes left...

It seems you were appreciated. (And I have an opening for a large
windshade on wheels, if you're offering...)
>
> what do you think of the other comment in Opinon from "Marcus" of
> Brighton? ...I felt when I read it, maybe _he_ should choose to go on
> the Nepean if he wants a less interrupted high speed run to the CBD,
> over Beach Rd...he reckons the path should be used by commuters as
> their only peak hour route along Beach Rd and let him "flow" in his
> cage ( till the next set of lights).

Didn't you know? Remove the bikes from Beach Road in peak hour and "a
steady stream of traffic" will flow right into the CBD. And pollution is
the cyclists' fault. Talk about delusional.

Still, in one letter we're accused of bleating, malignant narcissism,
failing to recognise responsibilities, and being kamikaze zealots, naive
sacrificial pawns, luvvies (!), and of course red-light runners. I can
almost handle that, but I think being compared to a parked car was below
the belt.

--
Shane Stanley