Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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