Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

Keith Willoughby said:

Do children have enough finger strength in one hand to lift the rear
wheel off the ground?

Cannondale seem to think that an adult MTBer will only apply a force of
about 22N to the lever:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/cannondale.html

However, the standard DIN test is 100N. With a very good braking system,
that will just about put a full-sized adult over the bars, so a child
would require less roughly in proportion to their weight. However, their
brakes are also unlikely to be such high quality. Regardless, the
training does not appear to be aimed solely at children, and if this
really was the reason for the advice, it would surely be sensible to
qualify it with the real reason.

It's curious how people seem to be so keen to find some excuse as to why
the advice might be right, rather than simply realising that the
instructors' belief is a commonly held (but wrong) one. My parents
taught me much the same when I was a child. Do you really think they
were considering my hand strength, or other more abstruse details? No,
they were worried about my going over the handlebars, like their parents
before them had been worried. Since they never did much more than some
trundling around as students (and in fact probably never had brakes that
were much good), they never learnt different.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Tilly said:

What would your recommendation be in teaching a young (7 - 10 year
old) inexperienced or new cyclist to brake.

Both together or front only.

I have been convinced by the instructor trainers' arguments that
teaching to use both together is simpler and therefore safer.

I'd generally go with the front. Children that age don't generally go
fast enough, nor have sufficient hand strength for front braking to
cause any problems.

Starting with good technique avoids needing to re-train later.

I would explain the occasional utility of the rear brake (slippery
surfaces, front punctures, front brake failure, etc.)

I generally advise against using both brakes simultaneously for bikes of
conventional geometry (tandems and LWB recumbents are a different story.)

Of course for bikes with inadequate front brakes, the rear can also
help, but it's better to keep the front brake in good working order.

http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn

Sheldon "Frein Avant" Brown
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| If one lets fear or hate or anger take possession |
| of the mind, they become self-forged chains. |
| --Helen Gahagan Douglas |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Sheldon Brown said:

Tilly said:

What would your recommendation be in teaching a young (7 - 10 year
old) inexperienced or new cyclist to brake.

Both together or front only.

I have been convinced by the instructor trainers' arguments that
teaching to use both together is simpler and therefore safer.

I'd generally go with the front. Children that age don't generally go
fast enough, nor have sufficient hand strength for front braking to
cause any problems.

Starting with good technique avoids needing to re-train later.

I would explain the occasional utility of the rear brake (slippery
surfaces, front punctures, front brake failure, etc.)

I generally advise against using both brakes simultaneously for bikes
of conventional geometry (tandems and LWB recumbents are a different
story.)

Of course for bikes with inadequate front brakes, the rear can also
help, but it's better to keep the front brake in good working order.

Brakes in good working order can still be inadequate on some bikes
operated by some people: not adequate enough to raise the rear wheel (or
nearly). It's unreasonable to expect every cyclist in this situation to
fit a better front brake. (Maybe they should, ideally, but it can be
impractical or unaffordable, or they just won't be bothered). It would
have to be some sort of super-duper disc brake in some cases anyway.

People need one-on-one training (or practice on their own on an empty
road/car park) to get the best out of their brakes. The "general" advice
might good to post on the internet but I hope real training can be more
individualised.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

People need one-on-one training (or practice on their own on an empty
road/car park) to get the best out of their brakes. The "general" advice
might good to post on the internet but I hope real training can be more
individualised.

CTUK recommend intensive (1:3) training for new cyclists over the age
of 13 or 14. For younger children 2:12 seems perfectly acceptable, so
long as the instructor can keep all children fully engaged.

James Annan said:

It's curious how people seem to be so keen to find some excuse as to
why
the advice might be right, rather than simply realising that the
instructors' belief is a commonly held (but wrong) one.

It's a wrong as general advice but it really is right for some.

I know that lots of people on average bikes simply don't have enough
strength to maximum-brake with the front brake alone: my mum, for example.
I've fitted a very good front brake to her bike and set it up well but
still she can't brake anywhere near forcefully enough to raise the rear
wheel. Fortunately the rear roller brake doesn't lock up even when I test
it so I advise her to use both brakes in emergency.

Also I remember from my youth what cheap crappy sidepulls are like. Some
bikes still have them today.

~PB

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Your side-step noted.

Nice try.

Having made one point I then made a second point. No side-step.

Quoted message said:

Because *some* things may be relevant.
What would your alternative be?

Not rely on box ticking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also this "disclosure" will involve any amount of unsubstantiated
tittle tattle, false (possibly malicious) accusations and so on.

it will, will it?
You know this for a fact?

"Both levels also contain details of any police cautions, reprimands
or warnings. Also for posts involving contact with children they
contain any relevant information contained on the government
department lists held by the Department of Health and the Department
for Education and Skills."

In other words, any amount of unsubstantiated tittle tattle, false
(possibly malicious) accusations and so on.

Quoted message said:

So you've had your knock of cycle-training, now let's hear how you think
it should be developed.

That is fairly easy to deduce from what I have written.

I criticised the so-called child protection claptrap. Get rid of
that and it will be a good start. The same for any helmet claptrap.

Criticising some aspects of something does not mean criticising the
whole thing, except in the minds of the politically correct. If the
rest of the course is based on "Cyclecraft" then it should be ideal.

Read the thread and note what I have criticised and what I have not.
Then you might be able to build your arguments on more than sand.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:03 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

However, such a conviction is likely to be considered 'spent' anyway,

http://www.crb.gov.uk/Services_disclosure02.asp refers.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Tilly said:

Quoted message said:

People need one-on-one training (or practice on their own on an empty
road/car park) to get the best out of their brakes. The "general"
advice might good to post on the internet but I hope real training
can be more individualised.

CTUK recommend intensive (1:3) training for new cyclists over the age
of 13 or 14. For younger children 2:12 seems perfectly acceptable, so
long as the instructor can keep all children fully engaged.

Would you be able to give each cyclist a few minutes of individual
attention?

I would want to give each bike a look-over and squeeze the brake levers to
test, watch the person riding and get them to demonstrate their braking,
then give whatever advice would best suit *them*, but in any case explain
the principles of front-braking to the group so they appreciate the
importance of the front brake to enable them to use their own judgement as
well.

I appreciate that might cause difficulty (different people within the same
group having different advice, and the advice perhaps not being
appropriate as they get different bikes or grow stronger), but slamming
into the back of a bus because you can't stop quickly enough also causes
difficulty.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>, JohnB ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, JohnB ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Are you implying it is not useful?
Should any training provider use Instructors who may have criminal
convictions? I don't think so.

I have a criminal conviction for cutting one strand of the wire
surrounding a USAF air base. Does that disqualify me from teaching
people to ride bikes?

It would be up to whoever required the CRB.

But my wording was a little harsh.
I plead debating with Mr Hansen as an excuse ;-)

Anyway - why only one wire?

Symbolic action. I told the policeman standing by the fence that I was
going to cut it, I cut it, he arrested me. It seemed like a good idea
at the time.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

in message <[email hidden]>, James Annan

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

The instructors were not suggesting not using the front brake. They
were suggesting using the back brake as well.

Actually they were "insistent that to stop a bike as fast as possible
it was necessary to use both brakes, not front brakes alone" (assuming
that was correctly reported). This is rather more than just a
suggestion to use the back brake as well.

Quoted message said:

What you
don't want in an emergency is the kid remembering to use only one
brake and then choosing the wrong one.

Huh? So you think that telling them that the back brake is essential
WON'T cause them to use the back (=wrong) brake if they happen to
"remember to use only one brake"? How does that work out then?

If they've been told always to use both brakes, and they do always use
both brakes, then they will always use the correct brake. But if
they're told to use only one, and they do use only one, some of the
time they may use the wrong one.

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with you about the physics - I agree
utterly. But that doesn't mean that the advice is necessarily bad
advice.

It _may_ be bad advice, of course...

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:44:06 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have a criminal conviction for cutting one strand of the wire
surrounding a USAF air base. Does that disqualify me from teaching
people to ride bikes?

It would be up to whoever required the CRB.

Is the wrong answer.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:32:53 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

If they've been told always to use both brakes, and they do always use
both brakes, then they will always use the correct brake. But if
they're told to use only one, and they do use only one, some of the
time they may use the wrong one.

I think "Cyclecraft" expresses things well. An extract from the
"braking" section:

"By far the greatest amount of stopping power comes from the front
brake, but if this is used too violently, the cycle will pivot on
the front wheel and you will be thrown over the handlebars. The rear
brake is most useful to fine-tune your speed on gradual descents and
in traffic.

"If you need to brake at all quickly, you need to apply both brakes.
For maximum efficiency and safety, 75% of the braking power should
be applied to the front brake and 25% to the rear on a firm,dry
road. In the wet, it is important to modify this to 50:50."

Theoretical physics is all very well. However, this simplifies
things to something that is easy to study.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:44:06 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have a criminal conviction for cutting one strand of the wire
surrounding a USAF air base. Does that disqualify me from teaching
people to ride bikes?

It would be up to whoever required the CRB.

Is the wrong answer.

If *I* require a CRB for someone to work with me *I* then decide whether
or not to take any notice of what it contains.

Now what do you think is the correct answer?

John B

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:03 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

However, such a conviction is likely to be considered 'spent' anyway,

http://www.crb.gov.uk/Services_disclosure02.asp refers.

No. couldn't find anything about knocking a police man's helmet off that
would change my interpretation of the published guidelines.

John B

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

So you've had your knock of cycle-training, now let's hear how you think
it should be developed.

That is fairly easy to deduce from what I have written.

What has been easyto deduce is that you have an aversion to various
aspects of authority.

Quoted message said:

I criticised the so-called child protection claptrap. Get rid of
that and it will be a good start. The same for any helmet claptrap.

Quoted message said:

Criticising some aspects of something does not mean criticising the
whole thing, except in the minds of the politically correct. If the
rest of the course is based on "Cyclecraft" then it should be ideal.

Read the thread and note what I have criticised and what I have not.
Then you might be able to build your arguments on more than sand.

Its not an argument and I've certainly noted what you have criticised.
I was interested in your views on the new developments in cycle training
but you have chosen to focus on some of your pet anti-authority themes.

As you would retort, its been enlightening.

Unfortunately while I may agree with some of them and recognise the
problems they may cause, we do have to live in the real world and if we
are to encourage more people onto bikes at times we have to work within
the system, as I suspect you do much of the time.

John B

Simon Brooke said:

Symbolic action. I told the policeman standing by the fence that I was
going to cut it, I cut it, he arrested me. It seemed like a good idea
at the time.

Things often do :-(

John B

Quoted message said:

Peer teaching
was an absolute nightmare: how do you teach an experienced cyclist how
to get on and off their bike. I know it's role play, but even so...

Was this "how to teach without being patronising" or was there more to it?

Quoted message said:

Again, effective working relationships was a waste of time.

What on earth is this?

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:27:48 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

What has been easyto deduce is that you have an aversion to various
aspects of authority.

Ah, someone else who thinks they are a mind reader.

Quoted message said:

we do have to live in the real world

Ah, "the real world".

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:10:04 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I have a criminal conviction for cutting one strand of the wire
> surrounding a USAF air base. Does that disqualify me from teaching
> people to ride bikes?

It would be up to whoever required the CRB.

Is the wrong answer.

If *I* require a CRB for someone to work with me *I* then decide whether
or not to take any notice of what it contains.

Ah, nosey parker syndrome.

Quoted message said:

Now what do you think is the correct answer?

The correct answer is obvious. It is nothing to do with you because
it makes no difference to the fitness of someone to undertake the
task.

Perhaps you are a party politician?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:10:04 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I have a criminal conviction for cutting one strand of the wire
>> surrounding a USAF air base. Does that disqualify me from teaching
>> people to ride bikes?
>
>It would be up to whoever required the CRB.

Is the wrong answer.

If *I* require a CRB for someone to work with me *I* then decide whether
or not to take any notice of what it contains.

Ah, nosey parker syndrome.

Nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now what do you think is the correct answer?

The correct answer is obvious. It is nothing to do with you because
it makes no difference to the fitness of someone to undertake the
task.

I consider it _absolutely_ something to do with me.
If I were to receive a CRB that said someone was convicted of violence
towards children, or on the sex-offenders list, I would certainly
consider it of importance with regard to their fitness to work with children.
That you clearly think such information would be irrelevant is disturbing.

I repeat, it is up to whoever requested the CRB to decide how they use it.
If *I* request a CRB *I* decide whether to take note of the content or
not.
No-one else.

I believe it correct that the National Standard requires cycle
instructors to have a CRB check.
You have failed to convince me otherwise; in fact you have re-inforced
my view.

John B