Cycling at schools - bike size/saddle height

[Don Whybrow]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> I haven't evaluated the use of feet as brakes, but I assume that
> they are rather less efficient than the brakes fitted to bikes even
> if your daughter is unable to lock the wheels with them.

My youngest has one of these ...

<http://www.tredz.co.uk/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=13447>

The return springs are too strong for her to squeeze against and she is
unable to apply the brakes with any force.

On the flat, at the speeds she can get up to, feet often do a better job.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:42:47 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:55:18 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>This seemed a pretty good guide...
>>www.ehow.com/how_14103_determine-correct-saddle.html
>>...until I read the final item on the tips and advice section.
>
>I also thought step 1 a bit strange. While some people go for
>expensive cycling shoes many manage perfectly well with normal shoes
>for the journeys they are making.

I read step 1 to mean 'the shoes you normally cycle in' which may or
may not mean 'cycling shoes'

 

[Mark T]

Tom Crispin writtificated

> This seemed a pretty good guide...
> www.ehow.com/how_14103_determine-correct-saddle.html
> ...until I read the final item on the tips and advice section.

Just left the following in the comment section:

"In the UK cycling has a similar safety record to walking, so why the
warning to 'always wear a helmet'?"

Might do some good.

 

[Josey]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote

> My youngest has one of these ...
>
> <http://www.tredz.co.uk/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=13447>
>
> The return springs are too strong for her to squeeze against and she is
> unable to apply the brakes with any force.

Does it have reach limiting screws? I find they help.

Jc.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Don Whybrow wrote:

> My youngest has one of these ...
>
> <http://www.tredz.co.uk/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=13447>
>
> The return springs are too strong for her to squeeze against and she is
> unable to apply the brakes with any force.

That is why things like Islabikes and Puky are probably a better bet for
starting. The designers consider things about the cycling aspects
rather than "how much more pink can we get".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mark]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:39:41 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:06:56 +0100 someone who may be Mark
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>They were not expecting her to use her feet for brakes but, for some
>>reason, they thought that not being able to put both feet on the
>>ground (whilst still on the saddle) would mean that she could not stop
>>safely.
>
>Does not compute.
>
>If they mean that after stopping she could not remain stationary
>safely with only one foot on the ground then that is another
>discussion. In other words she might topple over sideways when
>stopped, though in that case the foot not on the ground would soon
>make contact with the ground unless she had folded her leg up.

I had assumed that "two feet on the ground" was an arbitrary rule they
used, rather than any observation of her stopping. They had let her
do all the training apart from the part on a real road (in previous
sessions) and hadn't mentioned to me any issues with riding.

All the feedback I had had before was a cryptic note saying "Saddle:
Lowered" which I had interpreted to mean they had lowered the saddle,
so I checked it again. However, during the phonecall, they told me
the note meant that they wanted me to lower the saddle further.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
(")_(") I am blocking most articles posted from there.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:28:13 +0100 someone who may be Mark
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I had assumed that "two feet on the ground" was an arbitrary rule they
>used, rather than any observation of her stopping. They had let her
>do all the training apart from the part on a real road (in previous
>sessions) and hadn't mentioned to me any issues with riding.

It certainly sounds like an arbitrary rule. Presumably during the
previous sessions they had observed her stopping and she was able to
do so without problems.

>All the feedback I had had before was a cryptic note saying "Saddle:
>Lowered" which I had interpreted to mean they had lowered the saddle,
>so I checked it again. However, during the phonecall, they told me
>the note meant that they wanted me to lower the saddle further.

So, as well as not being too hot on cycling they are also not too
hot on English. Are these council employees or contractors?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Mark]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:34:24 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:28:13 +0100 someone who may be Mark
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I had assumed that "two feet on the ground" was an arbitrary rule they
>>used, rather than any observation of her stopping. They had let her
>>do all the training apart from the part on a real road (in previous
>>sessions) and hadn't mentioned to me any issues with riding.
>
>It certainly sounds like an arbitrary rule. Presumably during the
>previous sessions they had observed her stopping and she was able to
>do so without problems.
>
>>All the feedback I had had before was a cryptic note saying "Saddle:
>>Lowered" which I had interpreted to mean they had lowered the saddle,
>>so I checked it again. However, during the phonecall, they told me
>>the note meant that they wanted me to lower the saddle further.
>
>So, as well as not being too hot on cycling they are also not too
>hot on English. Are these council employees or contractors?

My thoughts exactly. I don't know whether they are contractors or
not.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
(")_(") I am blocking most articles posted from there.

 

[Mark]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:08:51 +0100, Mark
<[email protected]> wrote:

In case anyone is interested this is the outcome of this issue:

There was a slight miscommunication (a la Chinese Whispers) somewhere
along the line, although it makes no difference to the outcome. I
spoke to the head honcho at the council today. Apparently on the first
session one of the trainers thought that my daughter was not safe when
doing an emergency stop. Unfortunately the exact reason has not been
fed back to me; various reasons have been mentioned but I have no idea
of their authenticity. Someone suggested that a smaller bike might be
easier. However this was mangled by the time it got to me into "the
bike is too big".

I wrote a letter which was sent to the LEA via the school quoting
cyclecraft. However they are still keeping to their position, albeit
slightly watered down. Now they "prefer" for them to come to a stop
and still be on the saddle. When I mentioned the cyclecraft
guidelines they said it is different for children. (BTW It is a
bikeability course).

Anyway it's all academic now since they are saying that, because she
missed the first session, she cannot rejoin the course part way so
apparently there was no chance of doing anything about it!

GRRR :-(

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Clive George]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Anyway it's all academic now since they are saying that, because she
> missed the first session, she cannot rejoin the course part way so
> apparently there was no chance of doing anything about it!
>
> GRRR :-(

Deeply ****. OTOH take heart that if you've got any nous, you'll be able to
teach her all that was covered in the course yourself.

(of course, if you've already done that, the opportunity where she got to
feel superior to her mates during the course coz she already knew it all has
now been missed. Which is sad.)

cheers,
clive

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 11:42:48 +0100 someone who may be Mark
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I
>spoke to the head honcho at the council today. Apparently on the first
>session one of the trainers thought that my daughter was not safe when
>doing an emergency stop. Unfortunately the exact reason has not been
>fed back to me; various reasons have been mentioned but I have no idea
>of their authenticity. Someone suggested that a smaller bike might be
>easier. However this was mangled by the time it got to me into "the
>bike is too big".

What are they going to do to try and prevent such mangling in
future?

>I wrote a letter which was sent to the LEA via the school quoting
>cyclecraft. However they are still keeping to their position, albeit
>slightly watered down.

Council officials would generally rather die than admit they got
something wrong.

>Anyway it's all academic now since they are saying that, because she
>missed the first session, she cannot rejoin the course part way so
>apparently there was no chance of doing anything about it!

She only missed it because of them. What are they going to do to put
right the problem they caused? Don't get mad, get even.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:18:37 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Deeply ****. OTOH take heart that if you've got any nous, you'll be able to
>teach her all that was covered in the course yourself.

That does not help fix things for others. Unless these things are
fixed the same mistakes continue to be made and more people go
through the hassle.

Does this <http://www.ctsb.org.uk> thingy have a way of checking up
on the competence of instructors and dealing with complaints that
they have done something wrong?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Mark]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:18:37 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Anyway it's all academic now since they are saying that, because she
>> missed the first session, she cannot rejoin the course part way so
>> apparently there was no chance of doing anything about it!
>>
>> GRRR :-(
>
>Deeply ****. OTOH take heart that if you've got any nous, you'll be able to
>teach her all that was covered in the course yourself.

Agreed, but in today's "box ticking" world it's official documents
that count :-(

>(of course, if you've already done that, the opportunity where she got to
>feel superior to her mates during the course coz she already knew it all has
>now been missed. Which is sad.)

I had hoped that the official training would offer her something
better that I could deliver. I'm not a teacher.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Mark]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:40:11 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 May 2008 11:42:48 +0100 someone who may be Mark
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I
>>spoke to the head honcho at the council today. Apparently on the first
>>session one of the trainers thought that my daughter was not safe when
>>doing an emergency stop. Unfortunately the exact reason has not been
>>fed back to me; various reasons have been mentioned but I have no idea
>>of their authenticity. Someone suggested that a smaller bike might be
>>easier. However this was mangled by the time it got to me into "the
>>bike is too big".
>
>What are they going to do to try and prevent such mangling in
>future?

No one seems particularly interested in learning from this AFAICT.
From my perspective it's not certain who was at fault. I have had at
least three versions of what happened, all contradicting each other.

>>I wrote a letter which was sent to the LEA via the school quoting
>>cyclecraft. However they are still keeping to their position, albeit
>>slightly watered down.
>
>Council officials would generally rather die than admit they got
>something wrong.
>
>>Anyway it's all academic now since they are saying that, because she
>>missed the first session, she cannot rejoin the course part way so
>>apparently there was no chance of doing anything about it!
>
>She only missed it because of them. What are they going to do to put
>right the problem they caused? Don't get mad, get even.

I agree. However my main aim was for her to be included in this
session with her friends. This is now impossible because this course
has finished and the training staff are moving on somewhere else.

I can complain (and I have not ruled out this option) but I am not
sure to whom and about which part of it.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 13:55:10 +0100, Mark
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree. However my main aim was for her to be included in this
>session with her friends. This is now impossible because this course
>has finished and the training staff are moving on somewhere else.
>
>I can complain (and I have not ruled out this option) but I am not
>sure to whom and about which part of it.

I think you should complain.

Make sure that you are very clear why you think they were wrong, back
this up with quotes from Cyclecraft. Provide documentary evidence of
the information you are given from the training provider. Clearly
state what you think the outcome should be.

They should be perfectly capable of providing 1-1 tuition to your
daughter at no cost to you.