British Cycling Activities for Schools

[vernon]

My school is aiming to expand the range of physical activities offered to
pupils and I have been persuaded to investigate the opportunities that
cycling might offer. I've found the British Cycling web site and have found
two possible activities that could be introduced. They are outlined on the
web page:

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/clu/go_ride_for_schools.asp

Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?

Thanks

Vernon

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:16:52 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My school is aiming to expand the range of physical activities offered to
>pupils and I have been persuaded to investigate the opportunities that
>cycling might offer. I've found the British Cycling web site and have found
>two possible activities that could be introduced. They are outlined on the
>web page:
>
>http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BCGo/clu/go_ride_for_schools.asp
>
>Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
>activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?

A couple of pix of children involved in go-ride activities:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/training/control_skills_04.jpg
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/training/control_skills_05.jpg
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/training/control_skills_06.jpg

Go for it Vernon. Go-Ride is an excellent scheme run by the cycling
professionals. And you get loads of useful free equipment and
helmets.

 

[burtthebike]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Go for it Vernon. Go-Ride is an excellent scheme run by the cycling
> professionals. And you get loads of useful free equipment and
> helmets.

Free helmets. That'll be useful then, teaching kids that cycling is
dangerous. No matter how many times it's been said, it's worth repeating
again: cycling is safe, helmets provide no protection. Feel free to
disagree as much as you like, but please post some respected, peer-reviewed
evidence when you do.

Vernon, as I understand it, British Cycling is about competive cycling, so
if that's what you think will attract the kids, then fine.

 

[vernon]

"burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ho%[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Go for it Vernon. Go-Ride is an excellent scheme run by the cycling
>> professionals. And you get loads of useful free equipment and
>> helmets.
>
> Free helmets. That'll be useful then, teaching kids that cycling is
> dangerous. No matter how many times it's been said, it's worth repeating
> again: cycling is safe, helmets provide no protection. Feel free to
> disagree as much as you like, but please post some respected,
> peer-reviewed evidence when you do.
>
> Vernon, as I understand it, British Cycling is about competive cycling, so
> if that's what you think will attract the kids, then fine.
And the Army is about killing people and being killed - still attracts kids
to the Army cadets ;-)

In all seriousness though. I am aware that British Cycling is ultimately
about winning medals. Where else is it going to recruit new blood if not
through youth activities? Youngsters rarely spontaneously decide that they
are going to become top flight sportmen and sportswomen. I'm looking at
providing opportunities for kids to:
Get more out of cycling
Take some regular exercise
See cycling in a context other than a mode of transport
Be competitive
Possibly migrate to a local cycling club
Have fun

Discovering future cycling stars is not my primary aim, having fun is my
target. If the future British champion emerges then that would be nice.

As for helmets, if British Cycling insist on kids wearing them then the kids
will have to wear them. I will not be proffering an opinion on the worth of
wearing helmets as I am undecided on the issue. In competitive cycling,
helmet wearing tends to be compulsory - something that I can live with. Kids
at my school can infer what they like from my non-wearing of a helmet when
I'm on my bike. Another thing to consider is the risk assessments that have
to be carried out when taking kids off the school site. I'll be seeking
advice from the LEA on their stance on helmets because if some mishap
happens, LEAs tend to stand back, watch the feaces hit the fan, wring their
hands in contrition and watch the teacher in charge get charged with
whatever criminal charges the HSE can throw at him/her without offering a
crumb of support. I'm brave/mad enough to want to take kids out and about
but I also want to be protected by proxy by the kids wearing helmets if it
is decreed that that is the preferred state of affairs. Education is now a
very risk averse environment - ask the science teachers who can't do bangs
flashes and smells anymore. I gave up the teaching the subject because my
pyromaniacal urges would have curtailed my liberty or brought an early end
to my career a quite a while ago.

I really do miss the concussive blasts from igniting stoichometric mixes of
hydrogen and oxygen.....but there you go....

 

[Peter Fox]

vernon wrote:
> My school is aiming to expand the range of physical activities offered to
> pupils and I have been persuaded to investigate the opportunities that
> cycling might offer. I've found the British Cycling web site and have found
> two possible activities that could be introduced. They are outlined on the
> web page:
>
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/clu/go_ride_for_schools.asp
>
> Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
> activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?
This is all off-road stuff starting with games and getting to sport. ie. PE on bikes.
If you want cycling for everyday use, for example how to cycle to school and cycle skills
for life, then this will be utterly useless. The key words you need for that are
"National Standards" possibly branded as "Bikeability".

Tell us where you are located and you may get some live bod to show you how things are
done locally.

--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

 

[Don Whybrow]

vernon wrote:
>
> I really do miss the concussive blasts from igniting stoichometric mixes of
> hydrogen and oxygen.....but there you go....

My favorite one was mixing Chlorine & Hydrogen over a Platinum catalyst.
Of the 3 chemistry teachers we had, one refused to do it.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

The media finally figured out that their "paying customers"
(i.e. advertisers) don't WANT an intelligent, thoughtful
audience. And they no longer have one." (Rich Tietjens)

 

[vernon]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> vernon wrote:
>>
>> I really do miss the concussive blasts from igniting stoichometric mixes
>> of hydrogen and oxygen.....but there you go....
>
> My favorite one was mixing Chlorine & Hydrogen over a Platinum catalyst.
> Of the 3 chemistry teachers we had, one refused to do it.
>


<strokes chin>
mmmmmm........
</strokes chin>

 

[vernon]

"Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> vernon wrote:
>> My school is aiming to expand the range of physical activities offered to
>> pupils and I have been persuaded to investigate the opportunities that
>> cycling might offer. I've found the British Cycling web site and have
>> found two possible activities that could be introduced. They are
>> outlined on the web page:
>>
>> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/clu/go_ride_for_schools.asp
>>
>> Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
>> activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?
> This is all off-road stuff starting with games and getting to sport. ie.
> PE on bikes.
> If you want cycling for everyday use, for example how to cycle to school
> and cycle skills for life, then this will be utterly useless. The key
> words you need for that are "National Standards" possibly branded as
> "Bikeability".
>
> Tell us where you are located and you may get some live bod to show you
> how things are done locally.
>
I teach in Bradford. It's the sporting aspect that I'm interested in as the
overall aim is to increase the the range of opportunities for the kids in
the school to participate in a physical activity that they enjoy. I might
look at Bikeability later.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:54:21 GMT, "burtthebike"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Go for it Vernon. Go-Ride is an excellent scheme run by the cycling
>> professionals. And you get loads of useful free equipment and
>> helmets.
>
>Free helmets. That'll be useful then, teaching kids that cycling is
>dangerous. No matter how many times it's been said, it's worth repeating
>again: cycling is safe, helmets provide no protection. Feel free to
>disagree as much as you like, but please post some respected, peer-reviewed
>evidence when you do.

You didn't read what I said.

Here it is again.

"And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."

I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
"helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.

>Vernon, as I understand it, British Cycling is about competive cycling, so
>if that's what you think will attract the kids, then fine.

While it is true that BC received the funding for Go Ride! (partly) to
be able to identify possible competitors for the 2012 Olympics, an
offshoot of this is to train more children in cycling skills.
Currently the Go Ride! scheme is entirely off-road, but there are
plans to extend it and fully embrace Cycling England's Bikeability
Levels 1, 2 and 3.

The activities Go Ride! offers are huge fun for children, and will
certainly attract them.

 

[Tony Raven]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:54:21 GMT, "burtthebike"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> You didn't read what I said.
>
> Here it is again.
>
> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>
> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>

You need to modify your grammar then to say "loads of free useful equipment
and helmets" because as I read what you have written the adjective useful
also modifies 'helemts'"


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:18:41 -0500, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:54:21 GMT, "burtthebike"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You didn't read what I said.
>>
>> Here it is again.
>>
>> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>>
>> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
>> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>>
>
>You need to modify your grammar then to say "loads of free useful equipment
>and helmets" because as I read what you have written the adjective useful
>also modifies 'helemts'"

"loads of giant anthills and ants" does not state that the ants are
giant. However, I admit that I was being deliberately and trollishly
provocative in my implication.

 

[Tony Raven]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:18:41 -0500, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>You need to modify your grammar then to say "loads of free useful
>>equipment and helmets" because as I read what you have written the
>>adjective useful also modifies 'helemts'"
>
> "loads of giant anthills and ants" does not state that the ants are
> giant.

Absolutely but it does imply loads of ants because, like "useful", the
modifier "loads of" implicitly applies to both ants and anthills in that
location in the sentence.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in
>
>> You didn't read what I said.
>> Here it is again.
>> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>>
>> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
>> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>
>You need to modify your grammar then to say "loads of free useful equipment
>and helmets" because as I read what you have written the adjective useful
>also modifies 'helemts'"

It might or might not. "loads of helmets and useful free equipment" would
be less ambiguous, "loads of free helmets and loads of useful free equipment"
even less so, while still using the same grammar.

http://xkcd.com/191/

 

[wafflycat]

See also

http://www.bsca.org.uk/

British Schools Cycling Association

 

[David Martin]

On Sep 4, 12:28 am, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
> vernon wrote:
> > My school is aiming to expand the range of physical activities offered to
> > pupils and I have been persuaded to investigate the opportunities that
> > cycling might offer. I've found the British Cycling web site and have found
> > two possible activities that could be introduced. They are outlined on the
> > web page:
>
> >http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/clu/go_ride_for_schools.asp
>
> > Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
> > activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?
>
> This is all off-road stuff starting with games and getting to sport. ie. PE on bikes.
> If you want cycling for everyday use, for example how to cycle to school and cycle skills
> for life, then this will be utterly useless. The key words you need for that are
> "National Standards" possibly branded as "Bikeability".
>
> Tell us where you are located and you may get some live bod to show you how things are
> done locally.


I'm going to disagree with you here. It is not utterly useless. It is
based around games. It is based around fun, but it is also very
serious about teaching core bike handling skills. I don't know what
age group Vernon is working with, but we do a lot of Go-Ride stuff at
my local club and it is a) popular (so kids actually ride their bikes)
and b) effective in teaching them bike handling (so when they start to
do proper road training they are not worried about losing control but
are focussed on the traffic, not on the bike.)

I definitely agree that it is not a substitute for Bikeability, but it
is an excellent precursor. Even for our more skilled riders
(nationally competetive MTBers), a ten minute slot doing the box game
or similar is a load of fun at the end of a session. And for those who
want some real fun, try doing limbo on a track bike.

What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.

What do you need to teach kids to ride safely in traffic?
Kids (check) who are confident on their bike (check) and know how to
interact with traffic (thats where Bikeability comes in).

SO, unless your kids are already so skilful that they can do almost
anything, Go-Ride is an excellent starting point. It also encourages
kids to better themselves and as such has a degree of attitude
transferrance to their other school activities.

So don't dismiss Go-Ride just because it is ultimately aimed at
identifying the next cycling stars. It is a grassroots program that
benefits people across the board.

...d

 

[Peter Fox]

David Martin wrote:
> I'm going to disagree with you here. It is not utterly useless. It is
> based around games. It is based around fun, but it is also very
> serious about teaching core bike handling skills. I don't know what
> age group Vernon is working with, but we do a lot of Go-Ride stuff at
> my local club and it is a) popular (so kids actually ride their bikes)
> and b) effective in teaching them bike handling (so when they start to
> do proper road training they are not worried about losing control but
> are focussed on the traffic, not on the bike.)
Of course they are different things and if PE on bikes is what the OP wants then fine.
However I stand by my "utterly useless" WRT on-road cycling because although it does
encourage kids to ride their bikes (as if they need the encouragement - it's the parents)
that means they're now invincible road warriors and pavement sprinters. A dangerous
combination of being able to ride and knowing how useful a bike is for covering ground
quickly with lack of road sense (and I'm a danger to others sense).

> What do you get from Go-Ride (I should say Sponsored by TESCO)?
> Kids who enjoy themselves and are confident on a bike.
Kids enjoy their bikes anyway. Since most don't live in a park they need to use the roads
outside their homes and so that's where they'll be back and forth to the shops and their
mates. I'd rather not meet rocket-boy back-sliding round a blind corner thank you.

>
> What do you need to teach kids to ride safely in traffic?
> Kids (check) who are confident on their bike (check) and know how to
> interact with traffic (thats where Bikeability comes in).
It isn't the _emotion of confidence_ that's needed it's the _skill of control_. These are
rather different things. Cycling on the road or estate paths is not a game but a means to
an end. These differences are why the two schemes always will be at least mildly
antagonistic.


--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

 

[bookieb]

On Sep 4, 1:01 pm, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > I'm going to disagree with you here. It is not utterly useless. It is
> > based around games. It is based around fun, but it is also very
> > serious about teaching core bike handling skills. I don't know what
<snip>

> It isn't the _emotion of confidence_ that's needed it's the _skill of control_. These are
> rather different things. Cycling on the road or estate paths is not a game but a means to
> an end. These differences are why the two schemes always will be at least mildly
> antagonistic.
>
> --
> Peter Fox
> Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more atwww.eminent.demon.co.uk

Shirley both are required?

Skill of control is one thing, but the best bike handler (in an
abstract sense) will be a liability on a road if they don't have
enough "confidence" to cycle in a sensible, decisive manner.

Bike control skills are one of the things that contributes to
confidence and road safety.

I think that you're both right. It's my fence, and I'll sit on it as
long as I want ;-)

bookieb

 

[Eatmorepies]

"vernon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My school is aiming to expand the range of physical activities offered to
> pupils and I have been persuaded to investigate the opportunities that
> cycling might offer. I've found the British Cycling web site and have
> found two possible activities that could be introduced. They are outlined
> on the web page:
>
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/clu/go_ride_for_schools.asp
>
> Does anyone in this newsgroup have any experience of British Cycling's
> activities in schools? Any opinions on the merits of getting involved?
>

Where I worked I was able to take a group of 6 to 8 kids out mountain biking
each Monday afternoon for a term (we had a little slack in staffing). This
turned a fair number of them on to mountain biking. We ran out of staffing
after 3 years but about 60 kids got to ride some of my favourite trails
around here (Builth Wells).

John

 

[vernon]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
>
> See also
> http://www.bsca.org.uk/
>
> British Schools Cycling Association

Thanks for that link. One of the reps is literally on my school's doorstep.

Since the announcement of my potential role with cycling activities in a
staff meeting, I have had three offers of help from colleagues with whatever
activities that I organise.

I'll be contacting BSCA this week and I'm waiting for a response from
British Cycling so thinks are getting underway.....

 

[burtthebike]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:54:21 GMT, "burtthebike"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Go for it Vernon. Go-Ride is an excellent scheme run by the cycling
>>> professionals. And you get loads of useful free equipment and
>>> helmets.
>>
>>Free helmets. That'll be useful then, teaching kids that cycling is
>>dangerous. No matter how many times it's been said, it's worth repeating
>>again: cycling is safe, helmets provide no protection. Feel free to
>>disagree as much as you like, but please post some respected,
>>peer-reviewed
>>evidence when you do.
>
> You didn't read what I said.
>
> Here it is again.
>
> "And you'll get loads of useful free equipment and helemts."
>
> I deliberately distinguished between "useful free equipment" and
> "helmets", making no judgement on their usefullness or otherwise.
>
Apologies Tom, and you are absolutely right not to list helmets as "useful"