Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

[Mark Thompson]

> 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.

 

[James Annan]

Mark Thompson wrote:

> ...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

 

[Paul - xxx]

Tilly composed the following;:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:26:57 -0000, "Paul - ***"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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 ****-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 ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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.

 

[Richard Goodman]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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.

 

[JohnB]

Tilly wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:54:30 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Where are you doing this? Lifecycle? CTUK?
>
> CTUK. The course is being run in a school in South East London. The
> participants are:

<snip>
>
> >Its excellent to see more people undertaking this training.
>
> >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

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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?

>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.

 

[David Martin]

On 25/1/05 10:49 am, in article [email protected],
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

 

[Richard]

David Hansen wrote:
>
>>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.

 

[JohnB]

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

> "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'.

> "cycle maintenance"
>
> At last, something useful.
>
> "and teaching techniques."
>
> Hopefully tailored to teaching cycling.

Of course.

> "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.

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

> 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.

> "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.

> >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

 

[James Annan]

Mike Causer wrote:

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

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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/

 

[David Hansen]

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

>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.

>Are you implying it is not useful?

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

>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.

>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?

>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.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Richard <[email protected]>typed


> David Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>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.

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

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

 

[Peter Fox]

Following on from James Annan's message. . .
>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 protected]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news[email protected],
Mike Causer <[email protected]> typed:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:46:51 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>> 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

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> typed:
> James Annan wrote:
>
>> 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.

A

 

[dkahn400]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> In news[email protected],
> Mike Causer <[email protected]> typed:
> >
> > [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...

 

[Pete Biggs]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> typed:
>> James Annan wrote:
>>
>>> 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

 

[JohnB]

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

> >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.

> >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.

> >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).

> >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