have you seen this??

Patrick Herring said:

Anyway, this - http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclingbadges/ - is what I meant
by reinventions of the old badge. 'Fraid those are very clumsy mock-ups
but they give the gist. I've little idea if this is worth the capital
outlay to set up.

They remind me very much of my cub scout badges (the few I could be
bothered to achieve).

...d

In article <[email hidden]>,
Don Whybrow <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > |> Is the official line is to use psycle paths in preference to roads? That
|> > |> is not how I read it at all, Level 3 is about using busy roads. If you
|> > |> are right, I will have to remember to tell my kids to ignore that bit then.
|> >
|> > God help me, YES.
|>
|> So perhaps you could direct me to the part of the training curriculum
|> that is about using psycle paths in preference to roads.

Where it says "Do what the Highway Code tells you to?"

|> > Never mind how you are I see it - it is how THEY see it that matters!
|> > And that will depend on how it is taught.
|>
|> .. and by other factors, including, but not limited to, peer pressure
|> and parental guidance. You seem to have a very dim view of the youth of
|> today. Sure, there are a few trouble makers with too much time on their
|> hands, but on the whole they are no different to the last batch, or the
|> ones before them ...

Precisely.

Good luck, anyway. You may do better than the previous times when this
failed so spectacularly.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Patrick Herring said:

[email hidden] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
...
| Anyway, this is getting ridiculous. I wish you luck with your endeavour,
| and I am predicting that it will be almost totally ineffective on a
| national scale and be largely forgotten by 2015.

People still remember their Cycling Proficiency test, even those who
never go near a bike now, and that goes back many more than 10 years.

Anyway, this - http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclingbadges/ - is what I meant
by reinventions of the old badge. 'Fraid those are very clumsy mock-ups
but they give the gist. I've little idea if this is worth the capital
outlay to set up.

I quite like the retro-feel these have and the link back to the old CP badge,
which is remembered with affection by so many parents.

However, any such badge really does need to have national acceptance.
Have you contacted Cycling England?

John B

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeremy Parker said:

The increase in cycling has been pretty much confined to central
London. I don't think there are any statistics, but it seems
pretty
much an adult phenomenon. Transport for London had a mass purchase
of bike sheds for schools, but don't seem to have done any kind of
survey of the results.

All those Central London Cyclists have come from somewhere, a few
may
live in Central London, a few may bring their bikes in by train,
but
the vast majority have cycled in.

Surveys of school cycle shed are usually a condition for them being
installed.

Quoted message said:

The doubling of cycling refers to cycling as measured on London's
trunk roads ("the TLRN network"😉. Trunk roads are less motorway
like
in the middle of London than they are in outer London, but still,
that's not where one thinks of children cycling

TfL have three measures of cyclists.

1. A Thames crossings' count
2. An inner cordon count
3. An outer cordon count

Counts of cyclists are usually an underestimate because they sneak
through the cordon by devious routes, but the bridge/crossing count
is
quite accurate, but as you point out, children are less likely to
cross the bridges.

A full outer cordon count is rarely carried out. It used to be
every
five years but I think it's more frequent now. By comparing a full
outer cordon with an inner cordon or Thames crossing count they can
make a good estimate of any rise or fall in cycling overall without
conducting a full count.

[snip]

The figures in press releases refer to the TLRN, and are plotted on
graphs at four week intervals, so you get thirteen periods a year.
See, for example, TfL's press release of 14 feb this year about the
Tour de France. I have a handout from the 8 Dec 2005 Steering
Committee Meeting of the London Cycle Network confirming this.

TfL also has bike counters along bus priority routes, but for some
reason counts from these are not used for public announcements. Nor
do I know what the results from them are.

After the 7/7 bombings, a Times reporter, Ben Webster, I think,
phoned up the London Cycling Campaign office and got Tom Bogdanowicz.
Tom commutes by bike from his home in Islington to the LCC office in
Southwark. Every day he counts the total number of bikes in all the
bike racks that he passes, and uses that as his proxy for the state
of cycling. Webster asked how much cycling had increased because of
the bombings. Tom knew how much it had increased at his bike racks,
and had the number for the total daily commutes in London Figuring
out that Tom's route was reasonably representative, they multiplied
the two numbers together, and that was the figure that went out to
the nation as London's cycling increase.

One of London's TLRN routes, the A 41, here in Barnet, is now being
examined to see what can be done to help cyclists on it. The
preliminary report ("pre CRIM"😉 included bike counts at fourteen
locations along the road - 12 hour counts, from 7am to 7pm, on Fri
9th July this year (does anyone know what the weather was like
then?). The counts were done using data from the traffic cameras,
though whether manually, or automatically, I don't know.
Unfortunately, the counts do not tell us whether they counted bikes
on the pavement, and if so, what fraction of bikes used the pavement.
Pavement riding is legal at five of the fourteen sites.

Jeremy Parker

Nick Maclaren said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Don Whybrow <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> So perhaps you could direct me to the part of the training curriculum
|> that is about using psycle paths in preference to roads.

Where it says "Do what the Highway Code tells you to?"

Rule 48 covers cycle tracks. This does not require you to use a cycle
track, but governs your behaviour if on one.

Rule 49 covers cycle lanes. It just advises you to stay in one if
possible. Hardly telling you.

Rule 54 covers pavements and where you should park your bike.

So, remind me, where is it saying that one should use a pcycle facility
in preference to a road.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then
there was still nothing. But you could see it.

in message <[email hidden]>, Don Whybrow

(') said:

Nick Maclaren said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Don Whybrow <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> So perhaps you could direct me to the part of the training curriculum
|> that is about using psycle paths in preference to roads.

Where it says "Do what the Highway Code tells you to?"

Rule 48 covers cycle tracks. This does not require you to use a cycle
track, but governs your behaviour if on one.

Rule 49 covers cycle lanes. It just advises you to stay in one if
possible. Hardly telling you.

Rule 54 covers pavements and where you should park your bike.

So, remind me, where is it saying that one should use a pcycle facility
in preference to a road.

It's in the new proposed draft (but there's been a great deal of feedback
on it, so it may not stay in that draft to publication). It's not in the
current published edition.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
;; in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle.
;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| Patrick Herring wrote:
| > Anyway, this - http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclingbadges/ - is what I meant
| > by reinventions of the old badge. 'Fraid those are very clumsy mock-ups
| > but they give the gist. I've little idea if this is worth the capital
| > outlay to set up.
|
| They remind me very much of my cub scout badges (the few I could be
| bothered to achieve).

Hadn't thought of that - ah, shades of Empire an' all. The original CP
design seems to be based on the warning triangle, oddly.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
Cycle helmets - for & against: http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html

In article <[email hidden]>,
Don Whybrow <[email hidden]> writes:
|> > |>
|> > |> So perhaps you could direct me to the part of the training curriculum
|> > |> that is about using psycle paths in preference to roads.
|> >
|> > Where it says "Do what the Highway Code tells you to?"
|>
|> Rule 48 covers cycle tracks. This does not require you to use a cycle
|> track, but governs your behaviour if on one.
|>
|> Rule 49 covers cycle lanes. It just advises you to stay in one if
|> possible. Hardly telling you.
|>
|> Rule 54 covers pavements and where you should park your bike.
|>
|> So, remind me, where is it saying that one should use a pcycle facility
|> in preference to a road.

Oh, for heaven's sake!

Rule 47 says "Use cycle routes when practicable." In English, that is
an INSTRUCTION, and not merely ADVICE.

Rule 49 says "Keep within the lane wherever possible." Another clear
INSTRUCTION.

YOU may claim that the above is purely advice, but that is not what
the English says and not what the courts agree it says. While I agree
that there has been no binding precedent, there is masses of evidence
to show that magistrates' courts and the police interpret it in the
way that the English reads, and not the way that YOU interpret it.

Also, until 1968 at least, the instructions were to use an ADEQUATE
cycle facility; in 1977, it was a SUITABLE one; in both cases, you
could have claimed that it didn't apply because it was too narrow,
contorted, detritus-filled or obstructed for the cyclist to use
SAFELY. It is now qualified only by either PRACTICABLE or POSSIBLE,
which does not allow the same objection to that rule.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

John B <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| Patrick Herring wrote:
....
| > Anyway, this - http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclingbadges/ - is what I meant
| > by reinventions of the old badge. 'Fraid those are very clumsy mock-ups
| > but they give the gist. I've little idea if this is worth the capital
| > outlay to set up.
|
| I quite like the retro-feel these have and the link back to the old CP badge,

Good. I'm aiming at an updated-retro look.

| which is remembered with affection by so many parents.

Yes, which is probably my main sales pitch. I haven't seen any evidence
of adults taking up the new training levels, but that probably will
happen. The Bikeability badges certainly aren't adult-friendly with
their go-faster graphics and kidz-rool colours.

| However, any such badge really does need to have national acceptance.

Or at least a lack of objection. I'm not loking for "official badge
status" but I suppose it wouldn't hurt...

| Have you contacted Cycling England?

Not yet, I need to [censored] up the designs first (which the page shows some
progress on). But the CE site says the CTC has the job of promoting the
new standards even though CE owns Bikeability, so maybe I'll have to
contact both. Also I assume RoSPA owns the copyright on the old design
so I ought to ask them too.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
Cycle helmets - for & against: http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Nick Maclaren) writes:
|>
|> YOU may claim that the above is purely advice, but that is not what
|> the English says and not what the courts agree it says. While I agree
|> that there has been no binding precedent, there is masses of evidence
|> to show that magistrates' courts and the police interpret it in the
|> way that the English reads, and not the way that YOU interpret it.

Oh, and the courts in civil cases. Still no BINDING precedent, but
several very clear examples (including one where the judge agreed that
the psychle farcility was unusable due to broken glass, but cut damages
anyway).

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Jeremy Parker said:

One of London's TLRN routes, the A 41, here in Barnet, is now being
examined to see what can be done to help cyclists on it. The preliminary
report ("pre CRIM"😉 included bike counts at fourteen locations along the
road - 12 hour counts, from 7am to 7pm, on Fri 9th July this year (does
anyone know what the weather was like then?).

Cool, overcast & damp in the morning: dry, broken cloud, warm in the
afternoon. That's for Boreham Wood anyway, which is closest I can find.

http://www.weatherunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=IBOREHAM1&month=7&day=9&year=2006

Mike

Jeremy Parker said:

Transport for London had a mass purchase
of bike sheds for schools, but don't seem to have done any kind of
survey of the results.

By complete coincidence, I have just recieved the working draft of
"Children and Cycling" which includes a survey of TfL's cycle parking
programme for schools. The draft conculusions are noted below.

Physical activity- Likely to be highly significant in increasing
levels of physical activity because of the numbers of school across
London in receipt of Cycle Parking.

Mental health- Enjoyment of cycling through provision of Cycle Parking
is likely to contribute to improved mental health because of the 'fun
and freedom' derived.

Air pollution- Overall impact is likely to be limited

Road traffic casualties- Overall impact is likely to be limited

Access and social inclusion- The introduction of Cycle Parking is
likely to have led to a significant increase in access options for
pupils at benefiting schools.

Attendance and academic attainment at school- Overall impact is likely
to be limited but more pupils may at least be more alert and ready to
learn as a result of cycling sessions especially if this had led to an
overall increase in physical activity.

I have been invited to join a small group of stakeholders to discuss
the working draft on 19 October.