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

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 8 May 2007 17:35:41 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is crucial
> in understanding how to co-exist with them.

training about limitations of cyclists? OK.

requiring that to be some period of on-road cycling? I don't agree.

How do you enforce it? Require logbooks? If it's only a few minutes then
it's useless, if it's some kind of "must do 100 hours on a bicycle" it's
equally useless as there's no quality control at all, let alone any way
to enforce. (Logbooks in use by learners in NSW are routinely falsified.)

What I'd like to see is that every learner driver must do at least 5 hours
of professional training, and that training has to include the instructor
talking about bicycles and showing the learner how to properly interact
with other road users. Add that to required classroom training as is
already done with motorcyclists.

Pretty much require a weekend of professional quality-controlled
instruction as is required of motorcyclists, with a pass mark so that
anyone who still doesn't get it has to do it again. No professional
training, no driver's licence. (And for real pie-in-the-sky, require
it to be done every 10 years...)

I note that over 20 years ago the professional instructor I went to told
me about bicycles and how to interact with them. He went out of his way
to ask me about what I thought I needed to do, and to propose scenarios
as to what the cyclist we saw might do and what I should do in response.
(he also did similar things when he saw pedestrians and motorcyclists.
And cars with drivers who wore hats...)

Zebee

 

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Plodder wrote:
>
>> Better to put pre-drivers on the road on a bike. First, it exposes
>> them to the road in such a way that they are vulnerable and need to
>> develop road craft to look after themselves. Second, it gets more
>> people on bikes, making it safer for all of us. Third, it produces
>> drivers who are aware of the role, rights and duties of shared road
>> use. Fourth, it means we're reading from the same rulebooks, both
>> legal and social. I think that's worth having.
>
> Again, I agree with you. But where do these pre-drivers get their
> knowledge of the "role, rights and duties of shared road use" from, if not
> their parents, their peers, and their observation of other road-users? I
> don't think a compulsory course sold with every 10" two-wheeler, fitted
> from the shop with trainer wheels, is gonna fly.
>
> Theo

I think there's some confusion here. I don't remember advocating compulsory
training before you can ride a bike. I do advocate bicycle training before
you can drive a car. As Euan wrote, any benefit of compulsory bike training
before riding a bike would be outweighed by the amount of people who didn't
take up cycling. Perhaps I've been unclear (or I've been swallowing your
hook!)

To clarify where I stand:
(1) I think anyone who wants to learn to drive a car should pass bicycle
training. No pass, not allowed to apply for a learner's permit. The course
should include riding a bike and a competency test. Medical exemptions could
apply to the riding part but not to the requirement to do the course.

(2) I think road craft should be taught in schools, to a set standard and
shouldn't be left to the vagaries of parents. Parents, friends, other road
users, etc. help develop skills but standards vary too much to ensure we're
all playing by the same set of basic rules. An ideal way to teach road craft
is by riding a bike in a controlled environment.

(3) I don't think it should be mandatory to do a course before you are
allowed to ride a bike; only if you want to drive motorised transport
(including a scooter or moped).

Is that more clear?

Cheers,

Frank

 

[EuanB]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 8 May 2007 17:35:41 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is crucial
> in understanding how to co-exist with them.

training about limitations of cyclists? OK.

requiring that to be some period of on-road cycling? I don't agree.

How do you enforce it? Require logbooks? If it's only a few minutes then
it's useless, if it's some kind of "must do 100 hours on a bicycle" it's
equally useless as there's no quality control at all, let alone any way
to enforce. (Logbooks in use by learners in NSW are routinely falsified.)

How does the motorcycle test in this country work? In the UK it's a pursuit test, that is to say that the rider being tested rides in front of the examiner and reacts to instructions given over a vox headset (one way). No reason the same method couldn't be applied to cyclists, heck the examiner doesn't even need to be on a bicycle!

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 May 2007 01:41:25 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> How does the motorcycle test in this country work? In the UK it's a
> pursuit test, that is to say that the rider being tested rides in front
> of the examiner and reacts to instructions given over a vox headset (one
> way). No reason the same method couldn't be applied to cyclists, heck
> the examiner doesn't even need to be on a bicycle!

In Oz it depends where you live, each state is different. In NSW and
I think SA there are 2 stages.

There's the pre-licence training, before you can get your L plates you
have to attend a training centre where you get a day of training. Mix
of classroom sessions about road safety and motorcycle smarts and
skills training on a large bitumen area. The skills training starts
from "never touched a motorcycle before" and ends with the riders
doing U turns and weaving between cones and doing emergency stops.

Then they get 3-9 months (I think) on L plates riding about
unaccompanied. THen they book and do the P Plate training. That's a
similar format, more classroom, plus a test of the skills they
learned at the L training, plus on road. Not sure of the on-road
format, I don't think we have headsets I think they get stopped every
few minutes and get told to do more things.

I'd like to see that sort of instruction required of car drivers,
although they should still need to be accompanied on L plates. Let
the other road user awareness be part of the classroom training, add
something about safe passing distance be part of the off road
training, and part of the on road test.


Zebee

 

[EuanB]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 May 2007 01:41:25 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> How does the motorcycle test in this country work? In the UK it's a
> pursuit test, that is to say that the rider being tested rides in front
> of the examiner and reacts to instructions given over a vox headset (one
> way). No reason the same method couldn't be applied to cyclists, heck
> the examiner doesn't even need to be on a bicycle!

In Oz it depends where you live, each state is different. In NSW and
I think SA there are 2 stages.

There's the pre-licence training, before you can get your L plates you
have to attend a training centre where you get a day of training. Mix
of classroom sessions about road safety and motorcycle smarts and
skills training on a large bitumen area. The skills training starts
from "never touched a motorcycle before" and ends with the riders
doing U turns and weaving between cones and doing emergency stops.

Then they get 3-9 months (I think) on L plates riding about
unaccompanied. THen they book and do the P Plate training. That's a
similar format, more classroom, plus a test of the skills they
learned at the L training, plus on road. Not sure of the on-road
format, I don't think we have headsets I think they get stopped every
few minutes and get told to do more things.

I'd like to see that sort of instruction required of car drivers,
although they should still need to be accompanied on L plates. Let
the other road user awareness be part of the classroom training, add
something about safe passing distance be part of the off road
training, and part of the on road test.

What a stunning though, learn car control safely away from the dangers of the open road. It'll never catch on!

UK, used to be you paid for your provisional license and could jump straight on a sub 125 bike (250 if you had a sideiwinder) and you had 2 years to pass your test. I guess it was a rather darwinian approach.

The test itself was a joke, ride around the block 2 or 3 times with the examiner standing on the pavement. Result was that the examiner only saw you for one bit of the block. The entire test seemed to revolve around whether you could do an emergency stop.

That changed to a two part similar to the one here. Compulsary Basic Training which culminated in an escorted ride on the road, normally done in groups, and a pursuit test as described in the last post. My understanding is that the more rigorous training and testing resulted a marked reduction of motoryclist fatalities.

There was an urban rumor that the reason for the more stringent requirements was an explosion in born again bikers, people in their forties recapturing their youth by jumping on a motorcycle after a break of 20 years with predictable results given the massive performance of today's motoricycles compared to those of 20 years ago. Dunno if that's true though.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 9 May 2007 08:25:04 +1000
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> UK, used to be you paid for your provisional license and could jump
> straight on a sub 125 bike (250 if you had a sideiwinder) and you had 2
> years to pass your test. I guess it was a rather darwinian approach.

When I did mine it was "got a car licence? Here's your L plate, if
you survive for at least 3 months come back for the P test, else take
this multiple choice questionnaire before we give you the L plate."
The P test was being followed by someone for about 10 mins, do a
couple of right turns and an emergency stop from 30kmh. They just
wanted to see you use both brakes.


>
> That changed to a two part similar to the one here. Compulsary Basic
> Training which culminated in an escorted ride on the road, normally
> done in groups, and a pursuit test as described in the last post. My
> understanding is that the more rigorous training and testing resulted a
> marked reduction of motoryclist fatalities.

That's what I thought happened here. but the figures tell a different
story.

Yes, crashes dropped when this training was introduced. But that
was because fewer people were riding, there were fewer applicants for
L plates.

It isn't clear if that's because the tests (and associated time and costs)
stopped them or it was demographics (fewer young people who are the main
applicants for training), or because cars got even more cheaper as Korean
ones came in and so fewer people saw bikes as a means of transport.

What is clear is that the training wasn't the cause of fewer crashes.

The scooter boom is going to be an interesting test. More riders, but
most already have car licences and on-road experience. The MCC of NSW
is trying to get bike model info for crashes to see what sort of
crashes scooter riders are having. (Note that in NSW you have to have
a licence to ride any powered 2 wheeler over 200 watts, some states
let you ride a 50cc on a car licence.)

I have no idea what the bicycle crash stats are. There's probably no
way to tell how many years a given cyclist has been riding, or why
they are riding, and there's probably no record kept of type of bike
either.

Be interesting to know if there are more commuter crashes and if so
who is having them - if type of bike or years riding make the
difference the way I'd intuitively expect, if years of driving a car
make a difference, if lanes or paths have an impact, and who is using
them.

>
> There was an urban rumor that the reason for the more stringent
> requirements was an explosion in born again bikers, people in their
> forties recapturing their youth by jumping on a motorcycle after a
> break of 20 years with predictable results given the massive
> performance of today's motoricycles compared to those of 20 years ago.
> Dunno if that's true though.
>

Not true in NSW. Here, the number of crashes has increased but that
appears to be because the number of riders over 40 has increased.
Welcome to the baby boom... While it isn't possible to tell how many
licence holders are actually riding, if you take the number of holders
of a motorcycle licence who own a motorcycle as the number of riders,
then over-40s are under-represented in crashes. There's just more of
them then there were 10 years ago.

They have different crashes to younger riders, fewer traffic incidents,
more single rider, but those single rider aren't mostly "overcooked the
corner" a lot of them seem to be fatigue related.

I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related? Are cyclists
more likely to realise they are tired enough to impair judgement and
so stop and rest, or is judgement less of an issue at cycle speeds?
Does physical knackering for a cyclist happen earlier than mental fatigue,
so of course they stop?

Zebee

 

[Bleve]

On May 9, 9:10 am, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related?

One of mine was (impaired judgement).

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 8 May 2007 16:31:44 -0700
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:10 am, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related?
>
> One of mine was (impaired judgement).

Was it a distance race or audax event?

I suspect the long distance audax types are fit enough that the mental
judgement goes before the physical body does, else they ignore the
body more than others might.

I've been mentally tired before physically tired because of a long day
and little sleep, as long as the road was flat I was able to keep
pedalling but noticed I was not really with it.

As soon as the hill came I could pedal up it but had to rest after. I
dunno my mental abilities improved with 5 mins rest though.

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

I wonder how many cycle crashes are fatigue related? Are cyclists
more likely to realise they are tired enough to impair judgement and
so stop and rest, or is judgement less of an issue at cycle speeds?
Does physical knackering for a cyclist happen earlier than mental fatigue,
so of course they stop?

Well I didn't crash but after working 22 hours I rode the thirty kms home and was aware of making silly errors. Fatigue's a big factor IMO, next time I worked that long I got a cab and had work pay for it.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:

> You're mixing up two arguments.
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because
> the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a
> whole.
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is
> crucial in understanding how to co-exist with them.

I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not
necessary and should not be a requirement for road use, but bicycle training
should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car? That was my
initial understanding of your position.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>> Again, I agree with you. But where do these pre-drivers get their
>> knowledge of the "role, rights and duties of shared road use" from,
>> if not their parents, their peers, and their observation of other
>> road-users? I don't think a compulsory course sold with every 10"
>> two-wheeler, fitted from the shop with trainer wheels, is gonna fly.

> I think there's some confusion here. I don't remember advocating
> compulsory training before you can ride a bike. I do advocate bicycle
> training before you can drive a car. As Euan wrote, any benefit of
> compulsory bike training before riding a bike would be outweighed by
> the amount of people who didn't take up cycling. Perhaps I've been
> unclear (or I've been swallowing your hook!)

> To clarify where I stand:
> (1) I think anyone who wants to learn to drive a car should pass
> bicycle training. No pass, not allowed to apply for a learner's
> permit. The course should include riding a bike and a competency
> test. Medical exemptions could apply to the riding part but not to
> the requirement to do the course.
> (2) I think road craft should be taught in schools, to a set standard
> and shouldn't be left to the vagaries of parents. Parents, friends,
> other road users, etc. help develop skills but standards vary too
> much to ensure we're all playing by the same set of basic rules. An
> ideal way to teach road craft is by riding a bike in a controlled
> environment.
> (3) I don't think it should be mandatory to do a course before you are
> allowed to ride a bike; only if you want to drive motorised transport
> (including a scooter or moped).
>
> Is that more clear?

That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position.

1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without training.
2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a
compulsory part of obtaining a licence.

So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to ride a
bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom would ever ride a
bicycle.

Yeah, it suppose that makes sense, ........... to somebody, but not me.

Theo

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 May 2007 14:40:05 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position.
>
> 1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without training.
> 2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a
> compulsory part of obtaining a licence.
>
> So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to ride a
> bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom would ever ride a
> bicycle.

And what is this training about? Is it in bicycle mechanics like
starting and stopping and such, which either all need or none do, or
is it roadcraft?

And if it is roadcraft, is that how to read others, or is that how to
behave?

If it is how to behave, then will your trained riders know what the
untrained ones are going to do? Considering that the problem is to
solve drivers not knowing what cyclists are going to do, why train
people who are not going to cycle, but not train those who are?

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 10 May 2007 14:40:05 +0800
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That is,a nd was, my understanding of your, an Euan's, position.
>>
>> 1. You think anyone should be allowed to ride a bike without
>> training.
>> 2. Anyone wanting to drive a car should have bicycle training as a
>> compulsory part of obtaining a licence.
>>
>> So it follows that the only people properly, or formally, trained to
>> ride a bicycle will be the people driving cars, very few of whom
>> would ever ride a bicycle.
>
> And what is this training about? Is it in bicycle mechanics like
> starting and stopping and such, which either all need or none do, or
> is it roadcraft?
>
> And if it is roadcraft, is that how to read others, or is that how to
> behave?
>
> If it is how to behave, then will your trained riders know what the
> untrained ones are going to do? Considering that the problem is to
> solve drivers not knowing what cyclists are going to do, why train
> people who are not going to cycle, but not train those who are?

Exactly. Would make more sense to insist bicycle riders have a driver's
licence. At least that way they would get the bicycle training.

theo

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:

> You're mixing up two arguments.
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because
> the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a
> whole.
>
> Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a
> car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is
> crucial in understanding how to co-exist with them.

I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is not
necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,

Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking, driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are safer on the road than pedestrians.

Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically.

but bicycle training
should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car?

Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike. The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is
>> not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,

> Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking,
> driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially
> greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are
> safer on the road than pedestrians.

Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in Australia
last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians
destroyed cars, cyclists?

> Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than
> here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the
> road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the
> benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to
> require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically.

Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles!

>> but bicycle training
>> should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car?

> Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide
> with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this
> is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike.
> The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal
> with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but
> cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of
> transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers.

You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your
reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take
pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians.

Theo

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> I'm getting confused. Are you saying that training for cyclists is
>> not necessary and should not be a requirement for road use,

> Correct. Cycling is the most benign form of transport ou of walking,
> driving or cycling. Even untrained, cyclists are not at substantially
> greater risk of dying on the roads than trained drivers; they are
> safer on the road than pedestrians.

Cycling is more bening than walking? How many deaths occurred in Australia
last year of pedestrian to pedestrian impacts? How many pedestrians
destroyed cars, cyclists?

How many muggings, murders commited by people riding bicycles? Not many. How many committed by people walking? A large number.

> Even in the UK where cycling is substanitially more dangerous than
> here in Australia, you're between 10-14 times as likely to die on the
> road in the UK as opposed to 4 times as likely in Australia, the
> benefits outweigh the risks by 20:1. There is no good reason to
> require formal training of cyclists, looked at holistically.

Cycle training is only required for people who don't ride bicycles!

How is that a coherent response to the above?

>> but bicycle training
>> should be compulsory for non-riders who want to drive a car?

> Correct. The leading cause of death for cyclists is when they collide
> with cars (or cars collide with them, to cover all angles.) Often this
> is becasue drivers don't understand what it's like to be on a bike.
> The same could be said of cyclists, that they don't know how to deal
> with lorries because they've never driven one, for example, but
> cyclists aren't making the choice of using a non-benign mode of
> transport. That puts more responsibility on drivers.

You're mad! Cycling's gone to your head. Take some pills mate. By your
reasoning anyone wanting to ride a bicycle should be required to take
pedestrian training, something not needed for actual pedestrians.

Incorrect. Cyclists don't pose a large threat to pedestrians, pedestrians pose a much larger threat to other pedestrians than other cyclists do.