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



TimC wrote:
> Theo wrote
>> 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?


No problem with that. I got the impression from your post that you
deliberately slowed down just to annoy the driver.

Theo
 
EuanB wrote:

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


Up to that point cycling was perceived as a safe thing for children and
people to do. Helmets gave people the perception that cycling was dangerous.

Theo
 
rooman said:
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.

















Bearing in mind it's still a CA/CSV program, which means, technically those receiving instruction require some kind of affiliation with CA for insurance purposes. So whilst your concept of articulating in to community instruction is correct, the actuality is not. To run a Skill Cycle program under the guise of such, that program needs ratification with CSV prior to running it. And Carl is right - CSV is about racing, so CSV assumes that any Skill Cycle course is leading novice riders towards racing, and the bike handling skills required to compete safely in a bunch. These skills readily translate to road riding in general,as they do to offroad riding, but I do refute that the Skills Cycle Coaching course is specifically to teach individuals how to teach others the gentle art of road riding.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
No, that is a whole different ballgame.

--
Shane Stanley
 
In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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...


Sorry, but doing nothing is better than doing something foolish. (And
I'm not sure you're in a position to make that judgment about what
people are or are not doing to encourage more people to ride safely;
some may just go about things in a different way.)
>
> 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.


Fine -- but that's quite different from mandatory courses. Once you
start talking mandatory you're opening the door to mandated content and
input from all sorts of busy-bodies. As well as putting people off on a
grand scale, you run the risk of it being highjacked and ending up
counter productive anyway.

Comparatively, cycling isn't a particularly dangerous pastime, and such
risk as there is is outweighed by the advantages. Sure, there's room for
improvement, but there's no need to panic or be panicked, IMO.

And I question whether any course is going to change the behavior of
people who do things like ride without lights at night -- and that's the
sort of thing that accounts for a fair percentage of accidents.
>
> I dont want to see them mandatory either, but if we all dont act
> pro-actively the nanny state will.


If you could point me to other countries where this has happened, I'd be
more worried. And probably even less inclined to encourage it.

--
Shane Stanley
 
On 2007-04-29, rooman (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> 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".


I'm trying to teach (read, brainwash) mum how to effectively ride.

Got to start slowly though -- she's finding it hard to retain
everything -- spin (I still haven't gotten around to ordering her
cadence meter yet), don't ride in the gutter, don't cross that bridge
on the footpath -- cross it by going wide from the gutter and
remaining visible to the cars coming at the bridge from an angle, etc.
I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
than I set it for her. Oh, and don't ride through the grass -- I'm
not fixing your punctures.

Always uses her saturday morning working hours as an excuse not to go
for a group ride with the town's bug.

Gah, got to start somewhere. One day I'll win.

--
TimC
Brown's Theorem (Physics III student, Usyd):
"The only thing that behaves like a billiard
ball, is a billiard ball"
 
warrwych said:
Bearing in mind it's still a CA/CSV program, which means, technically those receiving instruction require some kind of affiliation with CA for insurance purposes. So whilst your concept of articulating in to community instruction is correct, the actuality is not. To run a Skill Cycle program under the guise of such, that program needs ratification with CSV prior to running it. And Carl is right - CSV is about racing, so CSV assumes that any Skill Cycle course is leading novice riders towards racing, and the bike handling skills required to compete safely in a bunch. These skills readily translate to road riding in general,as they do to offroad riding, but I do refute that the Skills Cycle Coaching course is specifically to teach individuals how to teach others the gentle art of road riding.
Incorrect again,

all qualified Coaches of the CycleSkill programme may offer instruction in the Public Domain. many already do that. others also act under the auspices of a club prgramme. If they do it under the guise of a club and require participants to join, then they get CA insurance protection automatically, is that a problem?. They also have the right to take this structured course into the wider community and arrange their own cover as required.

You are too CSV centric in that interpretation, and whislt no doubt they ( CSV etc)would like to see clubs follow this through and grow memberships of fee paying people ( and thereby people covered by their insurance which is hellish cheap).
 
Shane Stanley said:
Fine -- but that's quite different from mandatory courses. Once you
start talking mandatory you're opening the door to mandated content and
input from all sorts of busy-bodies. As well as putting people off on a
grand scale, you run the risk of it being highjacked and ending up
counter productive anyway.

Equally this line of logic could be easily turned around back onto the endless h*lm*t debates since the 1990's.

Shane Stanley said:
Comparatively, cycling isn't a particularly dangerous pastime, and such risk as there is is outweighed by the advantages. Sure, there's room for improvement, but there's no need to panic or be panicked, IMO.

Comparatively, when quoting present statistics. With increasing participation rates and increased distances, the probability factor goes up. Adult cycling training courses *already* exist, so why not allow opportunities for more people to participate? Bike handling skills are similar to learning any other skill, if people are interested in advancing their skills base or career opportunities, they can do an apprenticeship, advanced education or learn on the job. Or not at all. IMHO "mandatory" is a clumsy definition of what is actually being discussed here and it does unneccessarily get ppls knick(ers) in knots.
 
Shane Stanley
Sorry, but doing nothing is better than doing something foolish.
Is not doing nothing, keeping your head in the sand?

And foolish...tell that to those who made the prgramme, not me..positive instruction to those who want to ride which is structured and considered thought through by many experts in the field much more qualified than you or me is certainly not foolish IMO.

As for overseas, sometimes it is applicable, sometimes not. IMO this is not. Why do we have to look for other examples when our circumstances may ( and probably arn't in the least bit comparable) especially places like Holland and the Netherlands. They have a strong culture accepting bicycle use as a viable and highly used alternative to ,otorised transport, we and the USA have a strong culture reliant on personal motorised transport and bicycle use is considered an obstruction, a nuisance, and impediment. So maybe we have to take some different approaches at times, and specifically educating novice riders could well be one of those approaches.

We have got through so far without wide ranging courses, and maybe we will continue to do so, but if you get great joy out of crucifying me for telling you that it is on the cards in the minds of some who can influence decisions about who does and doesnt get on our roads, I'm tough, I can accept it, I'm happy to be your whipping boy, so go ahead and shoot the messengers.

Would it not be better to have some contriubution to this either by suggesting positive alternatives or positive amendments from which we can achieve outcomes for all road users benefit.

Not many in this forum dont want more riders on the roads ( other than lurkers from rec.auto etc. perhaps) so why enouragement to things which enhance novice riders skills and confidence is not a positive escapes me, you want to leave it to what it has been, Rafferty's rules, learn the hard way, get out there, just do it...and wonder why some sectors of the road users direct consternation at us all when things go pear shaped.

That is cowardly , selfish and distancing, even a state of denial and unfair to those who try, come unstuck and never ride again.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:

> Equally this line of logic could be easily turned around back onto the
> endless h*lm*t debates since the 1990's.


Right, so let's not go there again with some new compulsory safety
scheme.
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > Comparatively, cycling isn't a particularly dangerous pastime, and such
> > risk as there is is outweighed by the advantages. Sure, there's room
> > for improvement, but there's no need to panic or be panicked, IMO.

>
> Comparatively, when quoting present statistics. With increasing
> participation rates and increased distances, the probability factor
> goes up.


As I understand the statistics, the evidence is that as participation
rises, it gets safer -- the probability of injury actually drops. The
raw numbers increase, but that's pretty much inevitable.

> Adult cycling training courses *already* exist, so why not
> allow opportunities for more people to participate?


I don't know that anyone disagrees, although I'm still curious about
what, exactly, is being taught, and by whom.

> IMHO "mandatory" is a clumsy definition of what is actually
> being discussed here and it does unneccessarily get ppls knick(ers) in
> knots.


Something is either mandatory or it's not. Are people calling for
mandatory training or not? If not, why do they keep using the word?

You're right that it gets people going, but not "unnecessarily".

--
Shane Stanley
 
Shane Stanley said:
Right, so let's not go there again with some new compulsory safety
scheme.

No you've missed the original point, you're simply making a spurious assumption about some future scenario and playing the pedant police.

Shane Stanley said:
I don't know that anyone disagrees, although I'm still curious about what, exactly, is being taught, and by whom.

Here's an existing Victorian service provider, ask them:
http://www.wilcareservices.com.au/

Shane Stanley said:
Something is either mandatory or it's not. Are people calling for mandatory training or not? If not, why do they keep using the word?

Your concentration is lapsing, it seems you are having difficulty realising you are responding to different individuals.
 
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:
> EuanB wrote:
>
>> Just like a third of cyclists suddenly became too lazy when they had
>> to wear a helmet? I don't agree with your thinking.

>
> Up to that point cycling was perceived as a safe thing for children and
> people to do. Helmets gave people the perception that cycling was
> dangerous.


I was teaching secondary students at the time (still do). I talked to ids
about wearing helmets and attitudes, they had to wear them for school
cycling tours or racing for a number of years, but away from school the
helmet was seen as an option. Problems of peception included: costs too
much, too daggy (a biggy), messes up my hair, too hot and sweaty, heavy, a
nuisance to remember to wear, as well as the view that it indicated cycling
was dangerous (this was more a parental concern that grew over time)

All can be dismissed as rather spurious views, but taken in the light of the
many millions of people who cycle regularly across Europe without helmets
and with a somewhat lower death rate than here in Australia, they are really
legitimate arguments to be considered together with the safety benefits or
losses(on a population-wide level) that have come from helmets.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

<snip>
>>
>> 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.

<snip>
> rooman Wrote:
>> 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...

>

<snip>
> rooman Wrote:
>> 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.
>

<snip>
> 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?
>

<snip>>
Generic training? Bike specific? BMX, MTN, road, 8 speed, 30 speed,
dedcending at 70kph, track stands, foot brakes, hand brakes, shifters on
down tube, STI shifters, grip *****, recumbents, single speeds, single
track, time trial style bikes, dragsters, city riding, night riding?

Assuming somone can ride in a straight line and avoid obstacles, stop
effectively, bunny hop, track stand at the lights and chide aberent
motorists, then what more is there to learn for your average cyclist??

Licencing of cyclists would imply registration and number plates...

I think to go down that path is political suicide based on bicycle sales
outstripping cage sales for the last x nuber of years.

P
 
"Shane Stanley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
> bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
> piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
> No, that is a whole different ballgame.
>
> --
> Shane Stanley


It takes special training to sit 100cm off my car's rear bumper at 100kph
when driving a semi thinks me ;)
 
"Shane Stanley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>

<snip>
Stranger things have happened. Rather than the good old days when it was
'look left, look right, look left again' before crossing the road it is now
'drive 40kph past schools' and if you are lucky a kid will not run in front
of your car inside the distance that driving at 40kph allows for you to
stop. I'd imagine being hit by a car at 40kph has much the same effect as
at 60. 1 tone of metal vs 50kg of squishy human is even fatal in drive ways
these days at way under 5kph.

I could waffle on about the Darwin Awards, but that would be more borderline
trolly that this rant.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is not doing nothing, keeping your head in the sand?


Not necessarily -- it can sometimes mean keeping your head out of a hole.
>
> And foolish...tell that to those who made the prgramme, not
> me..positive instruction to those who want to ride which is structured
> and considered thought through by many experts in the field much more
> qualified than you or me is certainly not foolish IMO.


I'm saying the idea of compulsion is foolish, in my opinion -- not you,
not those offering training. The "idea".

> We have got through so far without wide ranging courses, and maybe we
> will continue to do so, but if you get great joy out of crucifying me
> for telling you that it is on the cards in the minds of some who can
> influence decisions about who does and doesnt get on our roads, I'm
> tough, I can accept it, I'm happy to be your whipping boy, so go ahead
> and shoot the messengers.


Don't take it personally -- again, I said I thought the idea of
compulsion is foolish. No whipping boy needed, no fixie-riders need be
shot.
>
> Would it not be better to have some contriubution to this either by
> suggesting positive alternatives or positive amendments from which we
> can achieve outcomes for all road users benefit.


It would indeed. But sometimes rejecting a bad idea is a positive thing
to do.
>
> Not many in this forum dont want more riders on the roads ( other than
> lurkers from rec.auto etc. perhaps) so why enouragement to things
> which enhance novice riders skills and confidence is not a positive
> escapes me, you want to leave it to what it has been, Rafferty's rules,
> learn the hard way, get out there, just do it...and wonder why some
> sectors of the road users direct consternation at us all when things go
> pear shaped.


You're attacking a straw man. I see decent training as a good thing.
Hell, I make a good proportion of my living as a trainer. But this is
what you actually said:

"I am not talking registration, but a simple level of approved
competency and skill that wouldnt hurt everyone, before they can ride
on the road ."

That's "before they can ride on the road". Mandatory. And more:

"Extend it to producing that qualification when you buy or hire a
bicycle of a capability for road use." That's no certificate, no can
even buy a bike.

And those ideas, in my opinion, are foolish. Moreover, I haven't see any
great acclamation for them here from others.

--
Shane Stanley
 
In article <[email protected]>,
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:

> No you've missed the original point, you're simply making a spurious
> assumption about some future scenario and playing the pedant police.


No, I'm replying to what rooman wrote. There's no pedantry involved: his
original statement was unequivocal.
>
> Shane Stanley Wrote:
> > I don't know that anyone disagrees, although I'm still curious about
> > what, exactly, is being taught, and by whom.

>
> Here's an existing Victorian service provider, ask them:
> http://www.wilcareservices.com.au/


Thank you.

> Your concentration is lapsing, it seems you are having difficulty
> realising you are responding to different individuals.


Guilty as charged in this case.

--
Shane Stanley
 
On 2007-04-30, Paul Yates (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "Shane Stanley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>

> <snip>
> Stranger things have happened. Rather than the good old days when it was
> 'look left, look right, look left again' before crossing the road it is now
> 'drive 40kph past schools' and if you are lucky a kid will not run in front
> of your car inside the distance that driving at 40kph allows for you to
> stop. I'd imagine being hit by a car at 40kph has much the same effect as
> at 60.


Well you'd be wrong then, wouldn't you?

The canonical figure I seem to recall reported, that I have run out of
evening to be able to cite, is that the mortality rate for pedestrian
vehicle collisions below 40km/h is 5% or so, and for above 40km/h, 80%
or more. My google fu isn't strong enough tonight.

You could probably integrate under the curve in figure 2 of below to
come up with a sensible answer yourself:
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=073

> 1 tone of metal vs 50kg of squishy human is even fatal in drive ways
> these days at way under 5kph.


If you manage to get under a wheel and the driver doesn't detect you
until too late.

We almost hit an echidna tonight. I'm going to spend the rest of the
week before going on nights, going home at in the early evening.
Always scares me on this road. Appanently the bus driver only just
missed an eagle feasting on a roo this morning, but I was too
engrossed in my book to notice.

--
TimC
ATC: Airliner 123, turn right 20 degrees for noise abatement.
A123: Noise abatement? We are at FL310.
ATC: Do you know how much noise it makes when two 737s collide?
A123: Airliner 123 is turning right 20 degrees. -- John Clear in ASR
 
TimC wrote:

> I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
> than I set it for her.


Err, have you taught her how to stop properly.
No 1 reason for seat being too low.
 
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 01 May 2007 01:40:08 +1000
Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> I could swear last time I saw her, her seat height was further down
>> than I set it for her.

>
> Err, have you taught her how to stop properly.
> No 1 reason for seat being too low.


Except peace of mind really. I can see how someone might want to feel
they can just put their feet down without having to lean over or get
off the saddle.

Sure - low seats are not good for pedalling, but how many prefer peace
of mind?

Zebee