Re: Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:59:27 +1000
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
> accreditation will also probably be to lazy to actually seriously ride
> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
> level of inertia...

On the other hand... The more barriers there are, the fewer people
will climb them.

Riding to work is a fair old ask. Most people I talk to at work are
quite afraid of it even though they think it might be a good thing. I
am as upbeat and matter of fact about it as I can be, but it's pretty
clear people think it is a Big Thing.

It will be an even Bigger Thing if they are told "it is so difficult
and dangerous you have to be licenced".

Each of those people is a potential cyclist. To dismiss them as
losers is, I think, short sighted.

Better to look at everyone as a potential friend and fellow addict
than dismiss all but the most eager as wastes of space.

Zebee

 

[rooman]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:59:27 +1000
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
> accreditation will also probably be to lazy to actually seriously ride
> a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation...
> they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers
> really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own
> level of inertia...

On the other hand... The more barriers there are, the fewer people
will climb them.

Riding to work is a fair old ask. Most people I talk to at work are
quite afraid of it even though they think it might be a good thing. I
am as upbeat and matter of fact about it as I can be, but it's pretty
clear people think it is a Big Thing.

It will be an even Bigger Thing if they are told "it is so difficult
and dangerous you have to be licenced".

Each of those people is a potential cyclist. To dismiss them as
losers is, I think, short sighted.

Better to look at everyone as a potential friend and fellow addict
than dismiss all but the most eager as wastes of space.

Zebee

not to your extreme Zeebee.

certainly not "licensed", this is a simple basic skills course and assessment, pretty simple stuff really, and things that every one should know before they head out, not a warning to put them off as you say...that "the road is dangerous or riding is difficult".

To many potential bicycle riders it is, its a fact of life for them , and so to have access to such a course makes sense...obviously at this point in time people can do it optionally if they wish, that is how it is and has been for yonks...but it may not continue like that for long. It may well become compulsory.

We are all responsible for the choices we each make in our life... the choices of some not to ride will possibly be made if they feel they have to be schooled and accredited to do it... granted....they are not "losers" as you put it, they just miss out on the benefits. However many buy bikes ( or want to) and are afraid to use them, and they deserve better.....but in the meantime, is it not better they not ride on the road than head out without skills and competence and injure or kill themselves or someone else.

And that is why such matters are being discussed. Many new adult bicycle riders will head out onto the streets in the not too distant future, that is the trend, that is what we would like to encourage as bicycle riders ( unless I am seriously mistaken or living in a parallel universe.)
The current benign statistics as have been mentioned previously may become serious ones that demand attention to redress should there be a rapid increase in measurable incidence of injury, death or property damage from bicycle related incidents.

The alternative to discussing and planning for such things is the following situation "OK lets not have any measures that would help redress bicycle related incidents. Let's not seek to prepare riders with a high level of skill and competence, or even discuss them because we just dont want to hear about it! And it might offend someone, oh heck yeah it's short sighted!

• No one is ever going to fall off their bicycle again,
• riding a bike is instinctive,
• we have the skills imparted to us in the womb, its even imprinted in our DNA."

If we encourage as many new riders as possible to seek to acquire proper structured training we will be doing them and ourselves a favour.
I dont see it as short sighted or a negative.
Not doing it will have it forced upon us down the track...
Better to set out to self regulate and develope a culture of riding skill and competence to overcome the perception amongst many commentators that all bicycle riders are reduced to the lowest common denominator in their view, (the redlight running law breaking ones).

To actually have recognition that bicycle riders are responsible road users would reduce most of the angst , if not all of it we are currently faced with on the road.

The primary aim at the Amy Gillett Foundation think tank I participated in last year was to aim to improve relations between bicycle riders and motorists. The outcome was certainly agreed to be more than calling for shared respect.

All present ( from across, Cycling, Motoring, Government and Business Groups and stakeholders in Cycling) agreed there were practical obligations considered mandatory for all cyclists. These were:

• to be Visible,
• Predictable and
• Legal.

Two of these attributes when put in context of being a road user are not instinctive, they require serious dedication to learning road and bike handling skills.

A level of competence is a fact of life if we are to be considered acceptable as road users and not a "nuisance or road obstruction" to the wider public. Without a committment to that fact the situation of abuse , angst and derision will continue and may be exacerbated when more riders enter onto the roads in the near future because of the bicycle explosion we all want and are encouraging.

If the Regiment isnt in step it will fall over itself.

 

[EuanB]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:28:45 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the
> main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

Is that because they have passed a test, or because they are more
restricted by their mode of transport?

Probably a bit of both
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[EuanB]

it is fine to say that, and by the stats it seems to be the outcome that society will deliver for some time to come...

I know that people very close to important decision makers in Government are seriously looking at many aspects of cycling, its benefits, limitations and effects across society, industry and the economy. Part of their concern and advice is what needs to be done to improving cycling training. A vital aspect of the discussion has been the likelihood of implementing an accreditation scheme down the track if riding numbers become huge, compared to current figures...(for commuting journeys especially as that is the stat. that is being tracked at the moment).....so start to embrace the idea no matter how benign it may seem at the moment....it may not be so remote in time for us to be flippant about.

I would suggest that those decision makers look to cities which have made cycling a popular choice and see if such training is either warranted or needed. Unless of course those decision makers want cycling to fail.

those who are too lazy to take to the bike if they have to get accreditation will also probably be too lazy to actually seriously ride a bike after they got one if they didnt have to get accreditation... they will be obese unfit souls anyway, no loss to the cycling numbers really, just a loss to their families and friends due to their own level of inertia...

Just like a third of cyclists suddenly became too lazy when they had to wear a helmet? I don't agree with your thinking.

IMO it is worth it... offering skills and competence to build confidence and awareness and encourage riders to ride is more positive than sticking ones head in the sand and saying "oh for f$csk sake why bother- we might get a few fat ar$e$ who refuse to do the course and so wont ride...ever..."

Please tell me you're not serious? You really want less people cycling? That's the way to do it all right.

It's been proven that if you put up a minor obstacle to cycling such as wearing a helmet then a significant poroportion of cyclists become non-cyclists. To what benefit? Cycling safety hasn't improved, in fact it's got worse for a long time as there were far fewer cyclists on the road.

All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding. I don't know of any other country where it's neccessary so why Australia?

If as many people as possible become accredited to teach these skills courses, it will become more of an accepted community practice to participate in them and the wider community benefits must be positive ones.

I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of you training provider please? Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the value of skills and training. I just believe that mandatory skills would be detrimental to cycling at a population level.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:03:02 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:28:45 +1000
>> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > everything out? Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in
>> the
>> > main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.
>>
>> Is that because they have passed a test, or because they are more
>> restricted by their mode of transport?
>> Probably a bit of both

I was thinking about this and wondered... and how much is role
modelling?

People learn about behaviour from those around them. They learn what
is acceptable and what is not both from what people do and their
reactions to what other people do.

Peds wander on footpaths and shared paths in a way I bet they don't
when driving cars. (because if they did, the roads would be utter
chaos instead of mild chaos.)

Some of that is going to be perceived danger - don't have to watch,
don't have to be careful. But some of it is also going to be role
modelling - see what others do - and societal pressue - see who gets
yelled at.

A ped wandering across Pyrmont Bridge never bothering to check what
might be near them is behaving like every other ped. A motorist being
careful about lane discipline is behaving like every other motorist.

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

me wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
>> never rush when a car is waiting for me
>
> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> aggressive tools etc)

I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of courtesy is
too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer than necessary.

>I *really* despise those situations when a
> motorist attempts to put the frighteners on less mobile peds, like
> mums with prams and the less fleet of foot. So where possible, do your
> civil duty, and accidently on purpose, walk/cycle a bit slower so
> others can walk without being unduly intimidated.

Agreed.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> Fact is that motorists have passed a test and, in the
> main, I find that they're much easier to work with than pedestrians.

And yet, most of those pedestrians have passed their driving licence test as
some point in their lives. Do we need a pedestrian licence?

Theo

 

[rooman]

I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of you training provider please?

Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching & Officiating Unit.
All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth and state / territory governments.


Courses are available for :

2. CycleSkill, a course specifically targeted at the coach who desires to assist novice cyclists in the areas of bicycle skills, road worthiness, the correct choice and fitment of cycling equipment and optimising bicycle set up using existing equipment. The course duration is 1 day. Additional information maybe obtained from CA.
4. Level 1, a course for the coach who assists club and state level cyclists to develop their fitness and hone their racing skills. This course addresses basic fitnessdevelopment, nutrition, strength and conditioning, an understanding of Drugs in Sport. The course is 2 full days and is conducted by each state cycling federation.
5. Level 2, an advanced coaching course aimed at the coach who works with elite athletes competing in National Championships. In particular, this course underpins an emerging elite junior athlete who seeks to represent Australia at World Junior or Under 23 World Championships. The course is conducted annually over 5 1/2 days and provides in depth information on physiology and physiology assessment, performance monitoring and assessment, sports psychology, advanced racing skill and race preparation, recovery and crisis management of the injured cyclist. Further details can be obtained from Ron Bonham, National Coaching Director -
6. Level 3, an advanced coaching course for the coach who seeks coaching as a profession. Further information can be obtained by emailing

In Vic its meant to be run by CSV, but they had hassles organising it and CA assisted for the early 07 course. You have to register via CSV web site , there is a fee and an element of hard copy course materials completion and instruction at DISC.

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> me wrote:
>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
>>> never rush when a car is waiting for me
>>
>> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
>> aggressive tools etc)
>
> I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of courtesy is
> too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer than necessary.

There's a footpath. There's a carpark into a shopping centre, and
cars need to cross the footpath to get into it. It is required of
cars to give way to pedestrians when entering and leaving private
property (in fact, I believe the road regs say cars are required to
give way to peds crossing the road when the car is entering or leaving
a sidestreet too; but mum still tells me to hurry up and go through
the roundabout when I'm waving peds through the roundabout). I see so
many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
footpath.

But why?


I have no desire to put myself under undue stress by rushing
everywhere. What makes the car driver fundamentally more important
than me that requires them to be delayed the least amount of time
possible in any given situation? Why is my going about my business
less important than them going about their business, such that I need
to rush?

--
TimC
An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> A motorist being
> careful about lane discipline is behaving like every other motorist.

Hah! Things really do differ between the capital cities. Melbourne
drivers wouldn't have a clue what a lane is, other than it keeps the
trams from straying out from their tracks.

--
TimC
All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical
chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman

 

[AndrewJ]

On Apr 30, 12:44 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2007-04-30, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> > me wrote:
> >> TimC wrote:
>
> >>> Heh. I take it as my civil duty to walk slowly across roads and
> >>> never rush when a car is waiting for me
>
> >> Huzzah! I do a fair bit of this behaviour (although being observant of
> >> aggressive tools etc)
>
> > I hope you guys feel really good about that. I suppose a bit of courtesy is
> > too much to ask. I try not to hold anyone up any longer than necessary.
>
> There's a footpath. There's a carpark into a shopping centre, and
> cars need to cross the footpath to get into it. It is required of
> cars to give way to pedestrians when entering and leaving private
> property (in fact, I believe the road regs say cars are required to
> give way to peds crossing the road when the car is entering or leaving
> a sidestreet too; but mum still tells me to hurry up and go through
> the roundabout when I'm waving peds through the roundabout). I see so
> many peds realise that a driver is waiting for them while they are
> walking along a footpath with right of way, and so they rush along the
> footpath.
>
> But why?
>
> I have no desire to put myself under undue stress by rushing
> everywhere. What makes the car driver fundamentally more important
> than me that requires them to be delayed the least amount of time
> possible in any given situation? Why is my going about my business
> less important than them going about their business, such that I need
> to rush?
>
> --
> TimC
> An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.


Why rush, rush, rush? Have you considered terminal incurable
stupidity ?

 

[cfsmtb]

In Vic its meant to be run by CSV, but they had hassles organising it and CA assisted for the early 07 course. You have to register via CSV web site , there is a fee and an element of hard copy course materials completion and instruction at DISC.

Interesting by comparison to the Skills Cycle and Level 1 Coaching Courses avaliable via Cycling NSW at Homebush, as apparently BUG members are taking the opportunity to enroll in these courses. Pretty sure that was that course (mentioned in passing), although feel free to correct me. In Vic, there's Ted and Maree at Wilcare, I believe the course I'll hopefully volunteering in, is accredited via them.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:47:13 +1000
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-04-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> A motorist being
>> careful about lane discipline is behaving like every other motorist.
>
> Hah! Things really do differ between the capital cities. Melbourne
> drivers wouldn't have a clue what a lane is, other than it keeps the
> trams from straying out from their tracks.

They know. But they do as others do. Which is the point

(and they do stay in the lane when there aren't tram tracks in my
experience.)

Zebee

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.

Hear, hear!

One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.

And the chance of the "get-them-out-of-the-way-for-their-own-safety"
types getting their mits on what's taught is even more frightening.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[TimC]

On 2007-04-30, Shane Stanley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
> to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
> riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.

I never said anything about stopping people from riding if they don't
have training. You're missing which sense I mean by "mandatory".

Not mandatory as in "you can't cycle if you don't have training".
Mandatory in the sense as in "you can't pass primary and high school
qualifications if you don't do the training".


No tests needed at all at the local LBS. No license required to be
presented to the shop owner upon buying a new bike.

Ain't going to happen, but a guy can dream.

--
TimC
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.

 

[Bleve]

On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> EuanB Wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of
> > you training provider please?
>
> Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the Australian
> Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> Officiating Unit.
> All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth and
> state / territory governments.
>
> Courses are available for :

[chomp]

The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
organisation ....

bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
(and the time to get the clue ... ).
Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
politically difficult .... at best.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> EuanB wrote:

>> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.

> Hear, hear!
>
> One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
> responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't
> ride to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping
> people from riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined
> training.

I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers if
they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you think
that's a whole different ballgame.

Theo

 

[rooman]

On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> EuanB Wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details of
> > you training provider please?
>
> Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the Australian
> Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> Officiating Unit.
> All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth and
> state / territory governments.
>
> Courses are available for :

[chomp]

The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
organisation ....

bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
(and the time to get the clue ... ).
Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
politically difficult .... at best.

Carl,

you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and its aimed at performance etc..., but CycleSkills is the course Now called Level 0 by CA...we are talking about. Specifically developed for instruction of the novice cyclist, for Road use, The course allows coaches to articulate to community instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits Coaches for community instruction, not sports performance coaching. Level 1 comes later now.

Any one now wishing to do the L1 must do Cycleskills Coaching course as a prerequisite. (announced Sept 2005 by CSV)

I included reference to other CA (L1 L2 L3) as they can be a progression for anyone with the inclination.

CA has widened its focus to embrace community and CycleSkills is its initial Course in that direction.

​

​

​

​

 

[rooman]

In article <[email protected]>,
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:

> All mandatory training will do is discourage people from riding.

Hear, hear!

One minute we're lamenting the nanny state, people's inability to take
responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that kids don't ride
to school any more, next thing we're talking about stopping people from
riding if they don't do some still-vaguely-defined training.

And the chance of the "get-them-out-of-the-way-for-their-own-safety"
types getting their mits on what's taught is even more frightening.

--
Shane Stanley

you are just talking about it, some whinging and whining, some actually being constructive and offering positive comment....but stil not doing much to encourage more people to ride safely...

what is positive is that there are now more and more people out there with the skills, the determination and the committment to be available and actually go into the community and run courses.

I dont want to see them mandatory either, but if we all dont act pro-actively the nanny state will.

 

[Bleve]

On Apr 30, 2:52 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 12:26 pm, rooman <rooman.2pu...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > > EuanB Wrote:
>
> > > > I'm interested in the accreditation, could you provide the details
> > of
> > > > you training provider please?
>
> > > Cycling Australia: CA conducts 4 levels of Coach Education, to fully
> > > support the nurturing and development of cycling athletes. These
> > > coaching courses are delivered under the strict guidelines of the
> > > National Coach Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) a program of the
> > Australian
> > > Sports Commission (ASC) and is managed by the ASC's Coaching &
> > > Officiating Unit.
> > > All accredited Cycling Coaches are recognised as having met the
> > > standards under the NCAS, which are recognised by the Commonwealth
> > and
> > > state / territory governments.
>
> > > Courses are available for :
>
> > [chomp]
>
> > The CA coaching qualifications are entirely inappropriate for road
> > safety/road riding instruction. That's not what they're for. They're
> > designed to teach prospective coaches about performance improvement,
> > not how to use the road safely. When I did the L1 course, there was no
> > mention of road safety that I can recall. There's nothing about
> > roadcraft in my coaching manual etc. The courses would need
> > significant overhaul to cover any such material and to qualify coaches
> > as examiners for some legal registration-licence scheme, to the point
> > where they would have no relevance to coaching racing cyclists. Wrong
> > organisation ....
>
> > bike-ed at schools can work, if it's taught by teachers with a clue
> > (and the time to get the clue ... ).
> > Shane hints at the real problem, if such a scheme was introduced,
> > chances are it would be hijacked by the 'well meaning' and designed to
> > keep pesky cyclists off the road. Teaching what works, as opposed to
> > what suits the powerful lobby groups (RACV etc), would be ....
> > politically difficult .... at best.
>
> Carl,
>
> you got that one wrong...you are talking about L1 and correct its That
> is aimed at performance etc...
>
> CycleSkills is the course...we are talking about. run by CA as well and
> was
>
> Specifically developed for Road use, for articulation to community
> instruction and as a pre-curser to riding, it accredits Coaches for
> community intruction, not sports performance.

Do you think it's sufficient to teach gumbies how to ride safely on
the road? CA is not the right organisation to do it. CA is *racing*

If you were going to do this licence & training properly, you'd need
an organisation the size of VicRoads to administer it.