Cycle Instructor Training - Day #1

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:36 +0000 someone who may be Danny Colyer
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Pot, meet kettle.

Nice try.


--
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]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:17:32 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>So how would you assess whether someone is suitable for a task,

I think you have been taken in by the deliberate distortions of
others about my views.

Are you talking in general, with regard to working with children in
general, or training people (who may or may not be children) to
cycle?

If you are talking about the latter (and with the trainees being
children) then the answer is the one I would have given before this
discussion. Ask the police if they have any concerns. If there are
problems with this approach, put them right.

The current mess is yet another example of party politicians wishing
to be seen to be doing something in response to mass media pressure,
without any deep thought about the consequences. This mass media
pressure was largely built on a distortion of the Soham murders.
What many don't know (and I suspect some who do know are not keen
for the public to know) is that Mr Huntley was not the caretaker of
the school the victims went to. They entered his house because they
wanted to see someone else who lived there. Unless this "checking"
is to be extended to family, friends and lovers of those working
with children it does not address the issue. All it has done is give
a bung to the PFI "partners" involved. Those PFI "partners" were
bailed out with my money when the chaos they caused meant employers
could not be forced to adopt the scheme, as was originally intended
and I assume is still intended.

There are perhaps two problems with this. Firstly, it reduces the
number of people prepared to work with children. There were several
newspaper articles here about this recently. It is also what people
tell me about elsewhere. Reducing the number of people working with
children is bad for their long term future.

Secondly, there is always a balance to be struck. Life is not risk
free. This box ticking exercise gives a dangerous glow of "safety".
We know that the records are highly inaccurate, with "convictions"
not recorded and also "convictions" recorded against people who have
not been convicted. Now add in tittle tattle, false accusations,
cases where the evidence was not strong enough to go to court, court
cases where people were found not guilty and so on; all of which is
revealed to "employers" in the "enhanced" check and it is dangerous.
One of the things that distinguishes adults from children are
secrets. Children tend to blurt everything out, adults know that
secrets are part of a functioning society.


--
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.

 

[James Annan]

Patrick Herring wrote:
> James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> | It's curious how people seem to be so keen to find some excuse as
to why
> | the advice might be right, rather than simply realising that the
> | instructors' belief is a commonly held (but wrong) one.
>
> Experience over theorizing.

IME it is generally the most inexperienced and unskilled riders who
have a fear of the front brake.

James

 

[David Martin]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:01:52 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>Show me where I made such a statement.
>>
>>This is no distortion and you know it.
>
>
> I note that you did not show where I made such a statement.
>
> Your "response" to the two real life examples has been most
> enlightening. I fail to see what relevance a "conviction" for
> sitting in the road or cutting a wire has to whether someone is a
> danger to children. You have failed to show that they are.


Oh, stop being obstinate.
John said (paraphrase) 'It is up to me what I do with the results of a
CRB I request on a person' in the context of deciding whether to take to
results into account when employing someone (not with respect to further
divulging such details.)

You said that he was incorrect and have failed to state why, except to
claim that it is obvious. Would you please indicate for those of lesser
intellect what the constraints are on interpretation of CRB searches
with respect to how the requester must treat them?

Or are you just blathering?

...d

Would you please point out where there are regulations

 

[David Martin]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:17:32 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>So how would you assess whether someone is suitable for a task,
>
>
> I think you have been taken in by the deliberate distortions of
> others about my views.

A quote comes to mind 'Despite his expertise in torturing the English
language, he has still not persuaded it to divulge his meaning'. I go on
what I see.


>
> Are you talking in general, with regard to working with children in
> general, or training people (who may or may not be children) to
> cycle?
>
Let's try in general.


> If you are talking about the latter (and with the trainees being
> children) then the answer is the one I would have given before this
> discussion.

Indeed. Who gives a toss if the trainee is a former mass-poisoner. That
has no bearing on whether they are fit to ride a bike. It is unlikely
that children would have spent convictions, or be availabel for such
training with non-spent convictions. Knowing something about the
childrens background can help in effective teaching, but that in no way
precludes them from participating.


> Ask the police if they have any concerns. If there are
> problems with this approach, put them right.

And the police use the CRB as a repository for their concerns, providing
a mechanism by which those concerns can be communicated.

Your comments about the implementation of the system, whilst jaundiced,
are something I am quite sympathetic to.

Unfortunately in society we end up with functions having to be carried
out by people who are unable to work out how to do them themselves, so
we are left with two choices, 1) the task does not get performed at all
or is inconsistently incomplete or 2) the task gets performed without
understanding and has consistent flaws (the cargo-cult approach[1]).

I'll reserve comments about database curation for another time.

...d

>
> The current mess is yet another example of party politicians wishing
> to be seen to be doing something in response to mass media pressure,
> without any deep thought about the consequences. This mass media
> pressure was largely built on a distortion of the Soham murders.
> What many don't know (and I suspect some who do know are not keen
> for the public to know) is that Mr Huntley was not the caretaker of
> the school the victims went to. They entered his house because they
> wanted to see someone else who lived there. Unless this "checking"
> is to be extended to family, friends and lovers of those working
> with children it does not address the issue. All it has done is give
> a bung to the PFI "partners" involved. Those PFI "partners" were
> bailed out with my money when the chaos they caused meant employers
> could not be forced to adopt the scheme, as was originally intended
> and I assume is still intended.
>
> There are perhaps two problems with this. Firstly, it reduces the
> number of people prepared to work with children. There were several
> newspaper articles here about this recently. It is also what people
> tell me about elsewhere. Reducing the number of people working with
> children is bad for their long term future.
>
> Secondly, there is always a balance to be struck. Life is not risk
> free. This box ticking exercise gives a dangerous glow of "safety".
> We know that the records are highly inaccurate, with "convictions"
> not recorded and also "convictions" recorded against people who have
> not been convicted. Now add in tittle tattle, false accusations,
> cases where the evidence was not strong enough to go to court, court
> cases where people were found not guilty and so on; all of which is
> revealed to "employers" in the "enhanced" check and it is dangerous.
> One of the things that distinguishes adults from children are
> secrets. Children tend to blurt everything out, adults know that
> secrets are part of a functioning society.

[1] see Feynman.

 

[Tony Raven]

Patrick Herring wrote:
> James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | Patrick Herring wrote:
> |
> | > Does using the rear brake when the rear wheel is hardly touching the
> | > road actually cause a problem?
> |
> | Yes, it causes a rear wheel skid. I'm puzzled as to how any remotely
> | experiencd cyclist could not know this.
>
> It doesn't with my bike, unless I try really hard e.g. by turning at the
> same time. It helps if I put the front on a fraction before the rear.

In which case you are not braking hard enough on the front to take
weight off the rear wheel i.e. you are not braking anywhere near as hard
as you could.

>
> Perhaps there's case for deliberately lower power rear brakes so they
> can be used safely in emergencies.

A virtually powerless rear brake will still skid the rear wheel if you
are braking hard enough on the front.

Tony


>
> I don't think my caliper brakes are too feeble, I think people have got
> too used to mega-grabby V-brake technology.
>

That's an issue with many rim brakes, especially in the wet when there
is a film of water to be cleared. People apply them too hard because
nothing happens to start with and then suddenly the water clears and
they grab.

Tony

 

[JohnB]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:01:52 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> Show me where I made such a statement.
> >
> >This is no distortion and you know it.
>
> I note that you did not show where I made such a statement.
>
> Your "response" to the two real life examples has been most
> enlightening. I fail to see what relevance a "conviction" for
> sitting in the road or cutting a wire has to whether someone is a
> danger to children. You have failed to show that they are.

Oh for heavens sake David.
I don't need to show whether they are or not.
The point is that if I had requested a CRB that showed such convictions
it would be up to *me* to decide whether to take account of them or not.
You said that was wrong.

You have consistently failed to say why that would be the case.
You have failed to show why I should not know, of previous convictions
in making a decision to employ someone.

> >Now if you wish to go into pantomime mode do so.
>
> Excellent, more abuse.

Excellent ;-)

> You may have the last word. I doubt if it will be more convincing
> than your previous ones though.

it is your perogative to be suspicious of the availability of
information.
In some cases I am sure you may have a point.
But you have convinced me that such attitudes do make me suspicious.
If I were in the position, I would not offer employment to someone who
refused to agree to criminal information being available.
As a parent I would not let my children be instructed by someone who had
refused to provide such information.
From both 'employer' and 'client' the question will inevitably be raised
- 'what is there to hide'.

I would not take the risk, particularly where children were involved.

John B

 

[David Hansen]

On 26 Jan 2005 18:05:43 -0800 someone who may be "James Annan"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>IME it is generally the most inexperienced and unskilled riders who
>have a fear of the front brake.

Just the people who are being instructed.

Now when they gain experience they may decide to do things
differently, but they need experience to do so.

Thank you for clearing up the fact that the instructors are right.


--
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]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:39:54 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>>So how would you assess whether someone is suitable for a task,
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Are you talking in general, with regard to working with children in
>> general, or training people (who may or may not be children) to
>> cycle?
>>
>Let's try in general.

In general is a big discussion. Another time perhaps.

>And the police use the CRB as a repository for their concerns, providing
>a mechanism by which those concerns can be communicated.

Only because the system has been set up this way recently at the
behest of party politicians [1] who wanted to be seen to be doing
something. This has all the hallmarks of such a system, like the
Chancellor Support Agency. What I outlined is a system that worked
reasonably well for some time. It was a long way from perfection of
course.

>Unfortunately in society we end up with functions having to be carried
>out by people who are unable to work out how to do them themselves, so
>we are left with two choices, 1) the task does not get performed at all
>or is inconsistently incomplete or 2) the task gets performed without
>understanding and has consistent flaws (the cargo-cult approach[1]).

These problems can be minimised by good leadership. It is also
possible to raise the standard of those carrying out the functions.
The armed forces are an example of this, at least in some parts.

[1] there is a separate system in Scotland. However it is pretty
much the same thing, though the PFI cowboy is a different company.


--
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.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 25 Jan, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

As, indeed, are those that insist it is patently not false. All sorts
of assumptions have to be made to make any conclusions. In some
(admittedly slightly difficult to arrange) circumstances, it may be
better to use neither brake.

However, on a properly configured, properly maintained bike on a
properly maintained road, to stop as fast as possible, it is not
necesary to use teh back brake. If you're going to commence by
assuming that the bike is improperly configured or mainbtained, you
can conclude anything you like (eg, bike without brake cables fitted,
to stop as fast as possible it is necessary to apply shoe leather to
teh road surface and/or tyre surface, tehn when you reach a critical
speed, lean forward and grab teh front tyre).

Actually, on my 'bike' to stop as fast as possible, it is neccesary to
use both front brakes, but not the back, despite the fact that it
never fully unloads. If an alternate actuator were fitted so teh back
could be applied without taking ones hands off teh brake levers, then
all three would be necessary, but I'm fairly sure that the reduction
in braking while moving the hand from grip to handbrake lever and back
to grip would outweigh the benefit of having all three wheels braked
once you get your hand back to the front brake lever.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Richard]

Ian Smith wrote:

> However, on a properly configured, properly maintained bike on a
> properly maintained road, to stop as fast as possible, it is not
> necesary to use teh back brake.

That assumes that one can move from (no brakes) to (back wheel just
lifting) in zero time. I'm idly wondering just how long it really
takes, and if that is a significant portion of the total braking time.

R.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Ian Smith wrote:

>>> "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.
>
> As, indeed, are those that insist it is patently not false. All sorts
> of assumptions have to be made to make any conclusions. In some
> (admittedly slightly difficult to arrange) circumstances, it may be
> better to use neither brake.
>
> However, on a properly configured, properly maintained bike on a
> properly maintained road, to stop as fast as possible, it is not
> necesary to use teh back brake.

Only if "configured" includes having a front brake that is effective
enough with the rider's hand strength.

> If you're going to commence by
> assuming that the bike is improperly configured or mainbtained, you
> can conclude anything you like (eg, bike without brake cables fitted,
> to stop as fast as possible it is necessary to apply shoe leather to
> teh road surface and/or tyre surface, tehn when you reach a critical
> speed, lean forward and grab teh front tyre).

I agree, but/and the instructor shouldn't assume anything.

~PB

 

[James Annan]

David Hansen wrote:

> On 26 Jan 2005 18:05:43 -0800 someone who may be "James Annan"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>IME it is generally the most inexperienced and unskilled riders who
>>have a fear of the front brake.
>
>
> Just the people who are being instructed.
>
> Now when they gain experience they may decide to do things
> differently, but they need experience to do so.

Wouldn't it be sensible to teach them honestly and accurately, rather
than lying to them and reinforcing their ignorant myths? How are they
supposed to work out that they should do really things differently, when
these supposed authority figures have already (in no uncertain terms)
insisted on the "correct" way to brake?

>
> Thank you for clearing up the fact that the instructors are right.
>

Not sure how you work that one out.

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

 

[Pete Biggs]

Richard wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
>> However, on a properly configured, properly maintained bike on a
>> properly maintained road, to stop as fast as possible, it is not
>> necesary to use teh back brake.
>
> That assumes that one can move from (no brakes) to (back wheel just
> lifting) in zero time. I'm idly wondering just how long it really
> takes,

It can happen in less than two seconds even at high speed, perhaps less
than one: not enough time to get use from the rear brake, assuming you
could release it in time and bearing in mind that you may be better off
concentrating on other things.

> and if that is a significant portion of the total braking time.

Depends on a whole load of factors.

~PB

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:25:06 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Wouldn't it be sensible to teach them honestly and accurately, rather
>than lying to them and reinforcing their ignorant myths?

Do you think the Bohr model of the atom is a lie and an ignorant
myth? Or do you think it is a stage towards a deeper understanding?

I can still remember my first A Level chemistry lesson, where the
teacher said that what we had done at O Level was simplified in
order to fit our level of understanding.

>How are they
>supposed to work out that they should do really things differently, when
>these supposed authority figures have already (in no uncertain terms)
>insisted on the "correct" way to brake?

It is called developing one's skills.


--
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]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:27:42 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Oh, stop being obstinate.

Excellent, another mind reader. Don't give up the day job.

>John said (paraphrase) 'It is up to me what I do with the results of a
>CRB I request on a person'

As I have said several times, such a system fails to strike the
right balance between the competing interests.



--
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 27/1/05 8:58 pm, in article [email protected],
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:27:42 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> Oh, stop being obstinate.
>
> Excellent, another mind reader. Don't give up the day job.
>
>> John said (paraphrase) 'It is up to me what I do with the results of a
>> CRB I request on a person'
>
> As I have said several times, such a system fails to strike the
> right balance between the competing interests.

Which is arguing a different point. John was correct. You claimed he wasn't.
You were wrong.

Fine, now lets move on and argue whether the CRB is a paragon of virtue, but
don't mix the rights and wrongs of what he can do with whether he can
legitimately do it.

Arguing orthogonal to the point is a clever sophistry technique but it
doesn't answer the questions.

...d

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:05:15 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Which is arguing a different point. John was correct. You claimed he wasn't.
>You were wrong.

Nice try.


--
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 27/1/05 9:28 pm, in article [email protected],
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:05:15 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> Which is arguing a different point. John was correct. You claimed he wasn't.
>> You were wrong.
>
> Nice try.

I've finally worked out Hansenspeak. "Nice try" == "Alright guv'nor you've
got me bang to rights."

It is the phrase used when there is no argument left.

...d

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:39:03 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I've finally worked out Hansenspeak. "Nice try" == "Alright guv'nor you've
>got me bang to rights."

Nice try. It is also slightly amusing, in what it tells us about
you.

Don't give up the day job though and take up mind reading. You will
find you are very bad at it.


--
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.