Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

Quoted message said:

Honestly, what use is the rear brake if you're trying to stop as fast
as possible? There will be little to no weight on it making its
contribution relatively useless.[...]

....on a well maintained bike that has had the front brake properly
adjusted. They're not being pedantic, just realistic.

Mark Thompson said:

...on a well maintained bike that has had the front brake properly
adjusted. They're not being pedantic, just realistic.

Like several others, you give a plausible excuse as to why rear wheel
braking might sometimes be useful, but don't get close to justifying
the patently false assertion:

"The Instructor Trainers were
insistent that to stop a bike as fast as possible it was necessary to
use both brakes, not front brakes alone."

James

Tilly composed the following;:

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

Fastest way I've ever braked on a bike (MTB) is by pulling both
brakes to the point of lock-up, then throwing the body back hard,
over the rear wheel in a 'very large, very sudden drop-off stylee'
.. This effectively scrubs off a [censored]-load of speed in a short space
of time. It's a racing technique and must be learnt, it's not
something that many people do instinctively. I guess the sudden
weight transfer to the rear helps maintain traction to both braking
surfaces.

I don't know if it would work with a roadie, but it seems like it
might ... 😉

As well as braking, we were told to teach people to shift their weight
back by bracing their bodies.

It _does_ make a difference. 😉

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ... 😉
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

On 24 Jan 2005 22:23:25 -0800 someone who may be "James Annan"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Like several others, you give a plausible excuse as to why rear wheel
braking might sometimes be useful, but don't get close to justifying
the patently false assertion:

"The Instructor Trainers were
insistent that to stop a bike as fast as possible it was necessary to
use both brakes, not front brakes alone."

Those who claim the statement is patently false are making a number
of assumptions about the braking systems on children's bikes and
their ability to use the brake levers.

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

Quoted message said:

Those who claim the statement is patently false are making a number
of assumptions about the braking systems on children's bikes and
their ability to use the brake levers.

But CTUK doesn't only train children, they train adults as well on what
should be properly set up adult bikes. The statement as presented was an
absolute statement with no limitations or caveats as to time, place and
person and was arguably wrong. The only reason why I say 'arguably' is
because I remember reading an article of a study on motorcycle braking which
found that the most effective way to emergency brake was to apply the rear
slightly - as in nano-seconds - before the front and then the front hard. A
brief application of the rear helped stablise the bike for the braking force
at the front. But bicycles weigh a lot less and travel a lot less fast than
motorcycles and this may not apply to them at all.

Rich

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:17:49 -0000 someone who may be "Richard
Goodman" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The statement as presented was an
absolute statement with no limitations or caveats as to time, place and
person and was arguably wrong.

It is certainly possible to argue that the statement is wrong and
people are doing that.

However, it was a short statement and as such I'm happy with it.
"Cyclecraft" has two pages on braking in the "Basic Cycling Skills"
section which gives a more involved discussion and braking features
throughout the rest of the book.

--
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:

JohnB said:

Where are you doing this? Lifecycle? CTUK?

CTUK. The course is being run in a school in South East London. The
participants are:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Its excellent to see more people undertaking this training.

Quoted message said:

http://www.hampshirecycletraining.org.uk/

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

It was set up last year following the CTC 100 Instructors Scheme and is
growing steadily.

John B

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:54:30 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Its excellent to see more people undertaking this training.

It was an interesting report and it is indeed good to see this.

However at http://www.hampshirecycletraining.org.uk/ I noted the
following:

"As well as advanced cycle road safety this includes child
protection matters,"

So, if someone wants to just teach adults they have to go through
this pointless intrusion on their privacy. Meanwhile children are
far more likely to be abused by family and friends of the family
than a cycling instructor, but officials couldn't care less about
that.

"risk assessment,"

The last of these ridiculous things I had to do involved the
possibility of a printer falling off a table and onto someone's
toes. I had to outline the rubber feet attached to the bottom of the
printer and say what else I was going to do to reduce the "danger",
nothing at all was the answer. What is a valid thing if done
sensibly has been turned into a box ticking exercise to keep some
official happy.

"cycle maintenance"

At last, something useful.

"and teaching techniques."

Hopefully tailored to teaching cycling.

"Our instructors are fully CRB checked (Criminal Record Bureau) to
the Enhanced Level,"

I note the way this is put first, ahead of useful things like:

"hold an approved (St John Ambulance) First Aid qualification,"

Good. I hope Red Cross courses are just as valid?

"and are fully insured for Public Liability."

That strikes me as essential and something normal policies would not
cover. How is it arranged? Via the Council?

Quoted message said:

They will always carry a mobile phone.

Possibly useful in the countryside. Probably not useful in town.

--
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 25/1/05 10:49 am, in article [email hidden],

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:54:30 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Its excellent to see more people undertaking this training.

It was an interesting report and it is indeed good to see this.

However at http://www.hampshirecycletraining.org.uk/ I noted the
following:

"As well as advanced cycle road safety this includes child
protection matters,"

So, if someone wants to just teach adults they have to go through
this pointless intrusion on their privacy. Meanwhile children are
far more likely to be abused by family and friends of the family
than a cycling instructor, but officials couldn't care less about
that.

Having an awareness of child protection matters is not the same as a CRB
check. The child protection training my wife did was very useful in several
ways. If you are going to be involved with children, a well run child
protection element is recommended.

(it covers not only protecting children but also protecting adults from
children)

There is no intrusion of privacy to do the training. Being accepted as an
instructor to work with children will probably require a CRB check.

...d

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

They will always carry a mobile phone.

Possibly useful in the countryside. Probably not useful in town.

Why not? I can easily see a situation where a single instructor may be
riding with a single student, and there is a need to call for help.
Does he/she a) leave the scene and go in search of a phone box, or b)
stay on-scene and call from his/her mobile? There are areas of many
town where public phoneboxes and handy pedestrians are absent. And we
all know how many car drivers bother to stop to offer assistance at
minor incidents.

R.

David Hansen said:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:54:30 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Its excellent to see more people undertaking this training.

It was an interesting report and it is indeed good to see this.

However at http://www.hampshirecycletraining.org.uk/ I noted the
following:

"As well as advanced cycle road safety this includes child
protection matters,"

So, if someone wants to just teach adults they have to go through
this pointless intrusion on their privacy.

To learn about child protection and potential risks is considered
necessary if working with children.
I fail to see how this can be a 'pointless intrusion'.

Quoted message said:

"risk assessment,"

What is a valid thing if done
sensibly has been turned into a box ticking exercise to keep some
official happy.

Its pretty essential for an instructor to be able to assess risks. I
wouldn't be happy for an Instructor to take a group of nine-year olds
out onto a multi-lane roundabout at peak traffic time.
It is _not_ about 'box-ticking'.

Quoted message said:

"cycle maintenance"

At last, something useful.

"and teaching techniques."

Hopefully tailored to teaching cycling.

Of course.

Quoted message said:

"Our instructors are fully CRB checked (Criminal Record Bureau) to
the Enhanced Level,"
I note the way this is put first, ahead of useful things like:

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

Quoted message said:

"hold an approved (St John Ambulance) First Aid qualification,"

Quoted message said:

Good. I hope Red Cross courses are just as valid?

Yes, but it is up to the training provider.
HCT requires a valid Appointed Persons Qualification.

Quoted message said:

"and are fully insured for Public Liability."

That strikes me as essential and something normal policies would not
cover. How is it arranged? Via the Council?

Specialist insurers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They will always carry a mobile phone.

Possibly useful in the countryside. Probably not useful in town.

An instructor should always be able to contact emergency services, and,
where children are being trained, the parent/guardian.

Of course it is up to provider whether this is considered necessary.
With Hampshire Cycle Training it is deemed to be an essential.

Hope this helps.

John B

Mike Causer said:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:34:39 +0900, James Annan wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this statement in the original message is simply wrong:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Instructor Trainers were insistent that to stop a bike as fast as
possible it was necessary to use both brakes, not front brakes alone.

Except under conditions of high coefficient of friction or very high
centre of gravity, the Trainers are right.

No, they are wrong. It is little more than simple geometry. You could
try Sheldon Brown's website for starters. Learning to use the front
brake effectively is well worthwhile as it is the only way you are going
to stop quickly (short of falling off).

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

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:29:35 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Its pretty essential for an instructor to be able to assess risks.

Yes, but that is not what "risk assessment" is about as put into
practice by organisations like councils. Rather it is about box
ticking.

Quoted message said:

Are you implying it is not useful?

In protecting children? No it is not particularly helpful for the
reasons I gave earlier.

Quoted message said:

Should any training provider use Instructors who may have criminal convictions?
I don't think so.

Really. That is simply political correctness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4189919.stm outlines someone
with a "criminal conviction". Her "crime" was AFAIR to sit in a road
and fail to move when an official told her to move. I suspect she is
no particular danger to children.

Quoted message said:

An instructor should always be able to contact emergency services, and,
where children are being trained, the parent/guardian.

"Always"? Who checks the coverage of such telephones and that all
networks have the same coverage?

Quoted message said:

Of course it is up to provider whether this is considered necessary.
With Hampshire Cycle Training it is deemed to be an essential.

I would have thought that in a town there are things called houses
and telephone boxes should contacting either group be necessary.

--
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.

Richard <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

They will always carry a mobile phone.

Possibly useful in the countryside. Probably not useful in town.

Quoted message said:

Why not? I can easily see a situation where a single instructor may be
riding with a single student, and there is a need to call for help.
Does he/she a) leave the scene and go in search of a phone box, or b)
stay on-scene and call from his/her mobile? There are areas of many
town where public phoneboxes and handy pedestrians are absent. And we
all know how many car drivers bother to stop to offer assistance at
minor incidents.

A mobile may be *less* useful in the countryside if there is little/no
signal...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Following on from James Annan's message. . .

Quoted message said:

No, they are wrong. It is little more than simple geometry. You could

I think you meant /simplistic/.
Will all of you who think that schoolboy physics rules go and shove your
geometry up your stupid arses.

In practical conditions two are always better than one.

Even under perfect laboratory conditions both brakes have to be more
effective than front only. The only time a brake is ineffective is if
the wheel is locked and even then there is /some/ retardation in the
skid.

Even if there was no contact between rear wheel and the ground the rear
brake still extracts the rotational energy from the rear wheel which
would otherwise have to be extracted when the wheel returns to the
ground from the moving system by the front brake which we are assuming
is working at it's maximum already and therefore takes longer to stop.
QED.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the borehole business dried up
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

In news:[email hidden],
Mike Causer <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

This is true, but misses the point. Proper riding technique should
avoid the need to stop the bike as fast as possible in most
circumstances.

How so? At maximum braking there is no weight on the back wheel so
it doesn't contribute anything except if the surface is so loose or
slippery the front wheel looses traction before the back lifts.

Depends on the height of the CoG and the friction coefficient of
tyres & road. You'd be correct for an "ordinary" on dry road,
giving up some braking power on an "upright" (or "safety" if you
prefer) on a dry [1] or wet road and throwing away useful barking (!
oops ;-) effect on a recumbent or a tandem under any circumstances
bar sheet ice.

[1] Be honest. Have you ever pulled a stoppie on a bicycle? If you
haven't [2] then you still are getting some effect from the back
brake.

Eh? My back wheel's slightly lifted nearly every time I come to a rest at
traffic lights. It's just the way I brake, I guess.

A

In news:[email hidden],
Keith Willoughby <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

But on any decent surface - ie the vast majority of all cycling -
this statement in the original message is simply wrong:

Quoted message said:

The Instructor Trainers were
insistent that to stop a bike as fast as possible it was necessary
to use both brakes, not front brakes alone.

Do children have enough finger strength in one hand to lift the rear
wheel off the ground? If not, then the advice seems to me to be
correct.

If they don't then the braking system is defective. Period.

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

In news:[email hidden],
Mike Causer <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

[1] Be honest. Have you ever pulled a stoppie on a bicycle?
If you haven't [2] then you still are getting some effect from
the back brake.

Eh? My back wheel's slightly lifted nearly every time I come to a
rest at traffic lights. It's just the way I brake, I guess.

On my racer, which is light and has Shimano Ultegra dual pivot brakes,
it is extremely easy to lift the rear wheel. On my Super Galaxy, which
weighs a ton and has Shimano LX cantis, it's almost impossible. Riding
the racer after being on the Galaxy for a few weeks I find the rear
wheel lifting almost every time I stop until I get re-accustomed to the
lighter force needed at the lever.

--
Dave...

Ambrose Nankivell said:

In news:[email hidden],
Keith Willoughby <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

James Annan said:

But on any decent surface - ie the vast majority of all cycling -
this statement in the original message is simply wrong:

> The Instructor Trainers were
> insistent that to stop a bike as fast as possible it was necessary
> to use both brakes, not front brakes alone.

Do children have enough finger strength in one hand to lift the rear
wheel off the ground? If not, then the advice seems to me to be
correct.

If they don't then the braking system is defective. Period.

Not period because many average brakes on average bikes are "defective" or
not powerful enough to raise the rear wheel when operated by anything less
than a very strong adult hand. The instructors have to cope with this
reality, and can't be expected to overhaul every bike or refuse everyone
with average brakes.

It depends on the bike as much as the brake, re weighting and wheel base,
etc. There can be very different results even with the same model of
brake, even when well setup.

The advice should be on an idividual basis: obviously difficult when
teaching a large group. I do think there are cases where best advice is
to use both brakes equally: particularly when hand strength is limited and
the rear brake isn't grabby enough to lock-up easily.

~PB

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:29:35 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Its pretty essential for an instructor to be able to assess risks.

Yes, but that is not what "risk assessment" is about as put into
practice by organisations like councils. Rather it is about box
ticking.

But we are not talking about councils are we.
If you wish to have a Council bashing thread start it elsewhere.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you implying it is not useful?

In protecting children? No it is not particularly helpful for the
reasons I gave earlier.

I can assure you for a Cycle Instructor who has to deal with children,
it is.
As has already been pointed out it works two ways.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should any training provider use Instructors who may have criminal convictions?
I don't think so.

Really. That is simply political correctness.

I am surprised at you.
A CRB can show up just what kind of convictions a person may have.
It is up to an 'employer' to decide whether or not to give any weight to
the results.
Are you really saying that if a CRB showed that a potential Instructor
had a history of child-molesting that it would be 'political
correctness' to take account of it?
Of course there may be certain convictions that a provider may choose to
ignore, but they would need to do so knowing any risks that might be involved.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An instructor should always be able to contact emergency services, and,
where children are being trained, the parent/guardian.

"Always"? Who checks the coverage of such telephones and that all
networks have the same coverage?

I think you are clutching at straws.
A mobile is a very useful addition.
Anything that may assist in improving response times in case of an
emergency should be given consideration. With HCT, all instructors must
carry one.
Not to do so could lead to increasing risks should a serious situation
ever develop (back to risk assessment).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course it is up to provider whether this is considered necessary.
With Hampshire Cycle Training it is deemed to be an essential.

I would have thought that in a town there are things called houses
and telephone boxes should contacting either group be necessary.

A responsible organisation should not put *all* its reliance on having
access to someone elses property (assuming of course they are at home)
or to a call box (assuming it is working) in the case of an emergency.
IMO to do so would be irresponsible.
And you have also ignored the situation when the parent needs to contact
the Instructor or their child.

For too long cycle-training has been in the domain of well-meaning
untrained volunteers. That is changing. The new National Standards and a
greater recogniton that cycle-training will lead to an increase in
cycling and a safer road environment is something that has my
wholehearted support.
I hope it has yours too.

John B