Cycling tests and obstacle courses

The BBC has an article about the return of the cycling test to schools:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6494309.stm

Nice to see they've rolled out the photo of a cyclist attempting to
negotiate an obstacle course again!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote on 26/03/2007 07:50 +0100:
The BBC has an article about the return of the cycling test to schools:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6494309.stm

Nice to see they've rolled out the photo of a cyclist attempting to
negotiate an obstacle course again!


Just sent another Howler to Breakfast TV. What did they do? First
complain that the reporter was not wearing a helmet and then spent the
rest of the time tut tutting about how dangerous it was and how they
would never let their kids do it. So much for all their hand wringing
about Global Warming and childhood obesity.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:23:16 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:


Just sent another Howler to Breakfast TV. What did they do? First
complain that the reporter was not wearing a helmet and then spent the
rest of the time tut tutting about how dangerous it was and how they
would never let their kids do it. So much for all their hand wringing
about Global Warming and childhood obesity.

But they'll be quite happy to let their children sit in front of a TV or
computer for hours a day and eat high fat food whilst their arteries slowly but
surely harden.

Tony Raven said the following on 26/03/2007 08:23:

Just sent another Howler to Breakfast TV. What did they do? First
complain that the reporter was not wearing a helmet and then spent the
rest of the time tut tutting about how dangerous it was and how they
would never let their kids do it. So much for all their hand wringing
about Global Warming and childhood obesity.

It's only "dangerous" because of the number of cars on the roads. In
any other aspects of life, if there is a danger then all possible steps
are taken to remove the danger itself. I've never watched morning telly
(how do you find the time or inclination???), but it seems to me an
ideal time to be telling people about to jump into their cars to go to
work to be aware of other road users, not to be making people think
"Gosh, it's dangerous to cycle to school - excuse me whilst I jump into
my bull-barred 4x4 to do the school run"

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tony Raven wrote:
Paul Boyd wrote on 26/03/2007 07:50 +0100:
The BBC has an article about the return of the cycling test to
schools:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6494309.stm

Nice to see they've rolled out the photo of a cyclist attempting to
negotiate an obstacle course again!


Just sent another Howler to Breakfast TV. What did they do? First
complain that the reporter was not wearing a helmet and then spent the
rest of the time tut tutting about how dangerous it was and how they
would never let their kids do it. So much for all their hand wringing
about Global Warming and childhood obesity.

Radio 4 Today Programme about as bad.

Some MP going on about how he used to ride a bike, but wouldn't now because
its too dangerous. Therefore wants tests for all cyclists, how they all jump
red lights, ride on pavements, can't be seen due to lack of lights, cause
accidents, roads have insufficient space for cyclists, etc. etc. . Very
occaisionally blamed taxi drivers, bus drivers, etc (though not cars). for
some accidents. The solution being compulsory tests for cyclists before
they shouldn't use the road because its too dangerous, particular risk being
head injuries. (yes, that sounds incoherent, but that's what I understood
him to say).

And a spokesman for the CTC trying hard to point out that more cyclists =
few accidents. This might be counter intuitive, we might not know why in
detail, but that's the fact. And he wanted to talk about improved cycle
training to get people riding and not sitting on their backsides.




- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet writes:

Tony Raven said the following on 26/03/2007 08:23:

Just sent another Howler to Breakfast TV. What did they do? First
complain that the reporter was not wearing a helmet and then spent
the rest of the time tut tutting about how dangerous it was and how
they would never let their kids do it. So much for all their hand
wringing about Global Warming and childhood obesity.

It's only "dangerous" because of the number of cars on the roads.

To the extent it is "dangerous", it's not the *number* of cars that's
the problem - but the way they're driven. As a thought experiment
consider heavily used roads where nobody ever exceeded 5mph...



In any other aspects of life, if there is a danger then all
possible steps are taken to remove the danger itself.

It's not that simple, for example we all know that tobacco represents
a real danger to health, but we don't take "all possible steps" to
remove it.


I've never watched morning telly (how do you find the time or
inclination???), but it seems to me an ideal time to be telling
people about to jump into their cars to go to work to be aware of
other road users, not to be making people think "Gosh, it's
dangerous to cycle to school - excuse me whilst I jump into my
bull-barred 4x4 to do the school run"

Well - those two as stated are not mutually exclusive, although I
agree with your underlying sentiment.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:20:18 +0100, Paul Rudin wrote:

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet writes:

Tony Raven said the following on 26/03/2007 08:23:

Just sent another Howler to Breakfast TV. What did they do? First
complain that the reporter was not wearing a helmet and then spent
the rest of the time tut tutting about how dangerous it was and how
they would never let their kids do it. So much for all their hand
wringing about Global Warming and childhood obesity.

It's only "dangerous" because of the number of cars on the roads.

To the extent it is "dangerous", it's not the *number* of cars that's
the problem - but the way they're driven. As a thought experiment
consider heavily used roads where nobody ever exceeded 5mph...

Or do another thought experiment where all car drivers drive with the same
consideration to cyclists that most do.

It really is a minority who cause most of the trouble.

On Mar 26, 10:37 am, del wrote:
On Monday 26 Mar 2007 10:11 Nigel Cliffe, wrote:

Radio 4 Today Programme about as bad.

The listen again to the article is available now.
URL:http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_cyclists_200...
--
del 8-)

And aprpos the BBC online article, Isn't Kevin Mayne in the CTC, not
Cycling England, or does he wear two hats?

...d

On Mar 26, 10:37 am, del wrote:
On Monday 26 Mar 2007 10:11 Nigel Cliffe, wrote:

Radio 4 Today Programme about as bad.

The listen again to the article is available now.
URL:http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_cyclists_200...

What a bumbling old fart.

Goes on at length tarring all with the same brush.

...d

Paul Rudin said the following on 26/03/2007 10:20:

To the extent it is "dangerous", it's not the *number* of cars that's
the problem - but the way they're driven.

This is why I put the word in quote marks...

It's not that simple, for example we all know that tobacco represents
a real danger to health, but we don't take "all possible steps" to
remove it.

I was simplifying :-) At work right now we are operating machinery that
gives off mildly dangerous fumes. We have extraction/filter systems to
remove those fumes.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/