Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

Pete Biggs said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Not only that; but there are bikes where the riding environment never or
almost never requires maximum braking. It's as daft as saying that my
car is defective because it doesn't have a rally roll cage; yes, I
*might* regret not having it but in its absence I temper my driving so
as hopefully not to require it, in the same way that anyone cycling in
the rain with steel rims and caliper brakes (should) temper their riding
style to accomodate their lack of braking power.

R.

Richard said:

there are bikes where the riding environment never
or almost never requires maximum braking.

I'm assuming the training is for cycling on the roads. You'd have to be a
perfectly-programmed robot or very lucky never to require maximum braking
in your life. Everyone should be practised at it. You may make an error
of judgement one day or a car could overtake and brake right in front of
you (happened to me), etc.

~PB

JohnB said:

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

It depends on the conviction. A forty year old should not be barred
from teaching children for a conviction for stealing a policeman's
helmet at a football match when they were at university.

A forty year old should be barred from teaching children if convicted
of sexual assault last year.

I seen to remember a statistic saying that 25% of men over 30 have a
criminal conviction. (I cannot recall the source, or find a cite so
this may be [censored].)

Tilly 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.

So if you're riding a fixie with one brake...? It would be interesting
to turn up to the course on one - the rules of the road may be the same,
but there are some subtle additions to learn, such as trying to stop
with the pedals at a quarter to three, pedalling round every corner, etc.

Pete Biggs said:

Richard said:

there are bikes where the riding environment never
or almost never requires maximum braking.

I'm assuming the training is for cycling on the roads. You'd have to be a
perfectly-programmed robot or very lucky never to require maximum braking
in your life. Everyone should be practised at it. You may make an error
of judgement one day or a car could overtake and brake right in front of
you (happened to me), etc.

The cycle training is from complete beginner to confident on road,
including roundabouts and multi lane junctions. Emergency stops are
taught in a large tarmaced flat area, such as school playground or
tennis court.

It is taught as a basic skill, before taking the cyclist on road.

9.00 - 10.30 Booking procedures
Initial risk assessment
Group Register
Individual Consent
Risk Assessment
Helmet use
10.45 - 12.15 Assessing Trainees
Assessing Groups
Setting Targets
Setting up trainees bikes
Basic trainee's bike checks
Making adjustments to trainee's bikes
Own maintenance skills
1.00 - 5.00 Using games to teach skills
Teaching methodology and games
Peer teaching
Effective working relationships

Comments: Much of the first session was irrelevant. The helmet
debate was interesting but I learnt nothing that I haven't heard here
first. The second session was far more productive, especially the
5-10 minute check an instructor should spend on each trainees bike
before they start anything! 10 trainees = up to 100 minutes of
checking. The third session was mixed. The games were fun and I
can't wait to teach the skills to Years 4, 5 and 6. Teaching
methodology was basic and unsophisticated - also the instructor
trainers seemed to lack experience of real children. 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...
Again, effective working relationships was a waste of time.

I guess already being an experienced primary teacher made much of
today's course irrelevant. To be taught basic teaching methodology
when I already teach 5 days a week (when not on a cycling course) is
laughable. But it's useful for some of the other trainees.
Similarly, I guess the risk assessments were a waste of time for the
policeman, school travel officer and community support officers, and
the basic maintenance a waste for the school caretaker (previously a
professional bike builder) and the go-kart track owner.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:35:17 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

As has already been pointed out it works two ways.

The only way for the instructor to avoid false accusations is not to
take any pupil anywhere.

Quoted message said:

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?

The system simply gives a false glow of comfort. Child molesters are
only "outsiders" in the mass media. In reality they are family and
friends, with the number convicted being very low.

Quoted message said:

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.

Your claim that we are talking about convictions is incorrect.

http://www.crb.gov.uk/Services_disclosure02.asp contains the
following:

"Standard and Enhanced Disclosures

"Both these levels of Disclosures contain details of all convictions
on the PNC (Police National Computer) – including ‘spent’
convictions. These ‘spent’ convictions are ones that happened some
time ago and normally do not need to be revealed as specified in the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

"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."

So, let's say someone was convicted of stealing a policeman's helmet
twenty years before. What useful things can the "provider" do with
this information? Why should the "provider" even know this?

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

As I said, a pointless intrusion on the privacy of people who could
teach children to ride but will not bother. An own goal, but one
which allows the politically correct to tick boxes.

Quoted message said:

And you have also ignored the situation when the parent needs to contact
the Instructor or their child.

Just the thing for the middle of a lesson, being telephoned by a
parent.

Quoted message said:

For too long cycle-training has been in the domain of well-meaning
untrained volunteers. That is changing.

But not in all respects for the better.

--
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.

Peter Fox said:

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.

No, the rear brake will be totally ineffective as soon as the rear wheel
is off the ground. That will happen *before* the front "locks", if it
does at all. More importantly, the rear brake will be /almost/
inneffective when there is little weight on the rear and any effect may be
detrimental if the rear tyre skids (which it's much more likely when the
front brake is applied hard in addition). Basics.

Quoted message said:

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.

That's silly. The force from a spinning wheel will have virtually no
effect when it returns to the ground with the rider's weight on it.

~PB

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:39:25 +0000 someone who may be Tilly
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

But it's useful for some of the other trainees.
Similarly, I guess the risk assessments were a waste of time for the
policeman, school travel officer and community support officers, and
the basic maintenance a waste for the school caretaker (previously a
professional bike builder) and the go-kart track owner.

Unless individual tailored training is provided there would seem to
be no way to avoid boring some people for some of the time.

--
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:

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

It depends on the conviction. A forty year old should not be barred
from teaching children for a conviction for stealing a policeman's
helmet at a football match when they were at university.

Of course not, but the decision rests 100% with the person/organisation
that requested the CRB.
However, such a conviction is likely to be considered 'spent' anyway,
unless the forty year old was thrown in jail for more than 2 and a half
years (probably a bit harsh for stealing a coppers hat).

Quoted message said:

A forty year old should be barred from teaching children if convicted
of sexual assault last year.

As well as being suspended from the painful parts and ...

Quoted message said:

I seen to remember a statistic saying that 25% of men over 30 have a
criminal conviction. (I cannot recall the source, or find a cite so
this may be [censored].)

I'm feeling deprived ;-)
Or does cycling past a No-Entry on a trike at 1am - and a £5 fine count?

John B

Peter Fox said:

Even under perfect laboratory conditions both brakes have to be more
effective than front only.

Actually that's not correct.

See: http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn for a detailed explanation of why
this is.

Quoted message said:

The only time a brake is ineffective is if
the wheel is locked and even then there is /some/ retardation in the skid.

Not if the wheel has lifted off the road.

A skidding rear wheel loses its ability to track the front wheel, and is
as liable to skid sideways as forward, causing what's called a "fishtail."

Quoted message said:

Even if there was no contact between rear wheel and the ground the rear
brake still extracts the rotational energy from the rear wheel

Actually, if the rear wheel is off the ground, applying the rear brake
will add its torsional momentum to that of the bike, tending to cause
the rear wheel to rise even higher.

I doubt that this is significant in practice, but if you're splitting
hairs, this is counterproductive.

Sheldon "Front Brake" Brown
+------------------------------------+
| Experience is a hard teacher, |
| because she gives the test first, |
| the lesson after. -- Vernon Law |
+------------------------------------+
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

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:35:17 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

As has already been pointed out it works two ways.

The only way for the instructor to avoid false accusations is not to
take any pupil anywhere.

Its not only to do with 'avoiding false accusations', but how to handle
them if they occur.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

The system simply gives a false glow of comfort. Child molesters are
only "outsiders" in the mass media. In reality they are family and
friends, with the number convicted being very low.

Your side-step noted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Your claim that we are talking about convictions is incorrect.

?
Well, blow me down.
I though we were discussing the relevance of a CRB check on potential
cycle Instructors.

Quoted message said:

http://www.crb.gov.uk/Services_disclosure02.asp contains the
following:

<snip>
I am fully aware of what is covered.
I have the CRB literature in front of me.

Quoted message said:

So, let's say someone was convicted of stealing a policeman's helmet
twenty years before. What useful things can the "provider" do with
this information? Why should the "provider" even know this?

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

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?

Quoted message said:

As I said, a pointless intrusion on the privacy of people who could
teach children to ride but will not bother. An own goal, but one
which allows the politically correct to tick boxes.

Luckily a lot of people disagree with you are are taking up the training
courses at teh accredited centres.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And you have also ignored the situation when the parent needs to contact
the Instructor or their child.

Just the thing for the middle of a lesson, being telephoned by a
parent.

Unfortunately it can happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For too long cycle-training has been in the domain of well-meaning
untrained volunteers. That is changing.

But not in all respects for the better.

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

John B

JohnB said:

Tilly said:

JohnB said:

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

It depends on the conviction. A forty year old should not be barred
from teaching children for a conviction for stealing a policeman's
helmet at a football match when they were at university.

Of course not, but the decision rests 100% with the person/organisation
that requested the CRB.
However, such a conviction is likely to be considered 'spent' anyway,
unless the forty year old was thrown in jail for more than 2 and a half
years (probably a bit harsh for stealing a coppers hat).

I don't think that spent convictions apply to people who work with
children. I may be mistaken, but I do know that as I teacher I have
had an enhanced check which brought up misdemeanours from my early
teenage years. The school considered them "ancient and irrelevant".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A forty year old should be barred from teaching children if convicted
of sexual assault last year.

As well as being suspended from the painful parts and ...

I'm not sure that would be an appropriate punishment for someone who
playfully slapped a woman in the pub on the bottom. But clearly he
would not be an appropriate person to be working with young children
for a year or two.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I seen to remember a statistic saying that 25% of men over 30 have a
criminal conviction. (I cannot recall the source, or find a cite so
this may be [censored].)

I'm feeling deprived ;-)
Or does cycling past a No-Entry on a trike at 1am - and a £5 fine count?

Is it a criminal or civil matter?

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:39:25 +0000 someone who may be Tilly
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

But it's useful for some of the other trainees.
Similarly, I guess the risk assessments were a waste of time for the
policeman, school travel officer and community support officers, and
the basic maintenance a waste for the school caretaker (previously a
professional bike builder) and the go-kart track owner.

Unless individual tailored training is provided there would seem to
be no way to avoid boring some people for some of the time.

Agreed. In fact, it's great to be on a course with people from
different professions, especially the community support officers.

in message <[email hidden]>, James Annan

(') said:

Mike Causer said:

James Annan said:

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.

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).

The instructors were not suggesting not using the front brake. They were
suggesting using the back brake as well. While I agree with you about
the physics (except on extremely low traction surfaces - I was riding
on ice this afternoon, which is always amusing) the fact is they are
teaching beginners, and many people - particularly at primary school
age - have great difficulty remembering left-right rules. What you
don't want in an emergency is the kid remembering to use only one brake
and then choosing the wrong one. So while you're right that the advice
given was (under most circumstances) technically wrong, it may
nonetheless be good advice.

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

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

Sheldon Brown said:

I doubt that this is significant in practice, but if you're splitting
hairs, this is counterproductive.

Thank you for dropping by.

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.

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?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

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?

John B

JohnB said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, JohnB

(') 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?

John B

Gear cable break?
:-)
--
Mark

1x1 wheel, 3x2 wheels & 1x3 wheels.

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?

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