Cycle training (thread split)

Cookie_Monster

spend the money on buying people bikes and educating them that cycling on the road is:

a) safe
b) easy
c) quicker than the stupidly designed cycle path interactions at junctions
d) cheaper all round as money is not waste on separate facilities

would do so so much more than a couple of half baked cycle lanes that will invariably not be used, not be maintained, be badly designed and provoke backlash at money wasted in years to come.

galwaycyclist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

spend the money on buying people bikes and educating them that cycling on the road is:

In 2009, Cyclist.ie submitted a proposal under the Smarter Travel Projects Fund to set up a national cycling instructor network and supporting infrastructure. The objective was to train up 300 people as cycling instructors and support them with the necessary national training curriculum, procedures etc.

The estimated cost of the project was EU355K over three years. It would have put the national infrastructure in place to start offering widespread cycle training in schools etc.

The application was unsuccessful and is likely still sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere.

Cookie_Monster

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The objective was to train up 300 people as cycling instructors and support them with the necessary national training curriculum, procedures etc.

to what end would that be of any use, there's not much needed to teach cyclists beyond a leaflets worth (keep left, don't break lights, only two wide, watch for left turning vehicles; that kind of thing). What were those people supposed to do exactly?

I honestly don't see a need for that depth of training etc, cycling is hardly a difficult activity to master.

mgmt

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

to what end would that be of any use, there's not much needed to teach cyclists beyond a leaflets worth (keep left, don't break lights, only two wide, watch for left turning vehicles; that kind of thing). What were those people supposed to do exactly?

I honestly don't see a need for that dept of training etc, cycling is hardly a difficult activity to master.

Yeah, sounds like a nanny state proposal.

galwaycyclist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

to what end would that be of any use, there's not much needed to teach cyclists beyond a leaflets worth (keep left, don't break lights, only two wide, watch for left turning vehicles; that kind of thing). What were those people supposed to do exactly?

I honestly don't see a need for that depth of training etc, cycling is hardly a difficult activity to master.

While MGMT said

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, sounds like a nanny state proposal.

Hmm exactly the same observations apply to driving a car or a HGV. i.e once someone is physically capable of pressing a few pedals and changing gear all that is needed is hand them a leaflet and let them off. This might be a valid approach but may also be seen as somewhat on the extreme side of the Laissez Faire/Libertarian approach to using public roads or any potentially risky environment. I might be sympathetic to this view myself if the penalties for causing injury or damage were sufficently prohibitive - which they are not. Perhaps exploring your mutual positions might be best done in a new thread rather than this one?

veryangryman

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm exactly the same observations apply to driving a car or a HGV.

Bike is very unlikely to kill the occupant or anyone it hits if used unsafely - a car is

galwaycyclist

veryangryman wrote: »

Bike is very unlikely to kill the occupant or anyone it hits if used unsafely - a car is

A bicycle unlike a car also affords the user little protection. So therefore to avoid death or injury the cyclist has an even greater need of an in-depth understanding of how traffic works, what happens in various traffic situations, what motorists actually do rather than what the rules/leaflets say, and so on.

I am new around here. How do we get this split out into a new thread? "Driver training is a waste of time" seems like a good title.

mgmt

galwaycyclist wrote: »

A bicycle unlike a car also affords the user little protection. So therefore to avoid death or injury the cyclist has an even greater need of an in-depth understanding of how traffic works, what happens in various traffic situations, what motorists actually do rather than what the rules/leaflets say, and so on.

I am new around here. How do we get this split out into a new thread? "Driver training is a waste of time" seems like a good title.

Stop pushing strawman arguments.

galwaycyclist

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, sounds like a nanny state proposal.

This seems like a very clear equation of driver education with the "nanny state" e.g. unwarranted intrusion by the state in matters which should not be any of its business.

Where is the straw man?

Is it your position that driver education is unwarranted or that state involvement in driver education is unwarranted?

Carawaystick

Cookie_Monster wrote:

there's not much needed to teach cyclists beyond a leaflets worth (keep left, don't break lights, only two wide, watch for left turning vehicles; that kind of thing). What were those people supposed to do exactly?

I honestly don't see a need for that depth of training etc, cycling is hardly a difficult activity to master.

Apart from keeping left in an urban lane is considerably more dangerous than cycling in the middle of the lane as it will encourage vehicles to overtake with insufficient space and leaves little escape room for a cyclist

Cookie_Monster

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from keeping left in an urban lane is considerably more dangerous than cycling in the middle of the lane as it will encourage vehicles to overtake with insufficient space and leaves little escape room for a cyclist

try cycling in the middle of the lane down the rock road (etc), see how far you get. Keep left doesn't mean 2 inches from the kerb, just stay to the left hand side for the lane. This of course will vary from 6 inches to a couple of feet depending on the situation, but generally there is little reason to be right in the middle of the lane

galwaycyclist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

try cycling in the middle of the lane down the rock road (etc), see how far you get. Keep left doesn't mean 2 inches from the kerb, just stay to the left hand side for the lane. This of course will vary from 6 inches to a couple of feet depending on the situation, but generally there is little reason to be right in the middle of the lane

With regret I am afraid that you appear to have little understanding of cycling in urban traffic. If you PM me contact details I can post you out a leaflet/poster on basic cycling skills for adults. The default road position for any cyclist is in the centre of the leftmost lane. In the UK National Standard Cycling Curriculum, this is referred to as the "Primary" cycling position.

From here, if you have determined that it will not result in any danger to yourself, you may choose to move to the left to the "secondary" position so as to allow following traffic to overtake. However the secondary position is still usually at least a metre out from the kerb.

BostonB

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

to what end would that be of any use, there's not much needed to teach cyclists beyond a leaflets worth (keep left, don't break lights, only two wide, watch for left turning vehicles; that kind of thing). What were those people supposed to do exactly?

I honestly don't see a need for that depth of training etc, cycling is hardly a difficult activity to master.

Actually there's a lot of tricks/cycling that make cycling in traffic much easier and safer. Which lane, and where to be in it, is probably one of the most important, regardless of the cycle lanes which seem to be designed by someone who's never been on a bike in their life.

For example if a roads too busy for comfort, perhaps theres an alternative route thats better. One that you might avoid in a car but is fine on the bike. An example of this for me is the Grand Canal which I avoid in a car because of the traffic. But on the bicycle its much better than going through town.

galwaycyclist

BostonB wrote: »

Actually there's a lot of tricks/cycling that make cycling in traffic much easier and safer. Which lane, and where to be in it, is probably one of the most important, regardless of the cycle lanes which seem to be designed by someone who's never been on a bike in their life.

This is one of the things that is taught under the UK National Standard Curriculumm which includes a specific module on how to decide if a particular cycle facility is likely to be an aid to your journey.

Cookie_Monster

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret I am afraid that you appear to have little understanding of cycling in urban traffic.

I don't think so. While your theory sounds nice and flowery and safe, I think I'll stick to the left of the left of the lane and not block hundreds of cars and be run over by frustrated drivers...

BostonB

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't think so. While your theory sounds nice and flowery and safe, I think I'll stick to the left of the left of the lane and not block hundreds of cars and be run over by frustrated drivers...

Ironically most people get killed because they they stay on the left of left turning traffic. Moving out and defending your space, is safer. Its not theory, its experience. You don't have to hold hundreds of cars up if you do it properly.

Which I guess proves the point that there's a valid case for more training. Not just blindly following officialdom.

Cookie_Monster

BostonB wrote: »

Its not theory, its experience.

ok so, my experience (4,300km biking on the road this year alone) says it's safer to stay to the left edge as much as possible, but that's just my experience...

I'll stick to what I know though

mgmt

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ok so, my experience (4,300km biking on the road this year alone) says it's safer to stay to the left edge as much as possible, but that's just my experience...

I'll stick to what I know though

I move out off the edge when I'm coming up to junction, therefore blocking cars turning left from mowing you out of it. Just a quick look over your shoulder, signal if necessary and then move out, you'd be crazy not to do this.

BostonB

The point is training would be useful to the inexperienced to know when not to stay left.

Talking about cycling down the middle of the rock road, or blocking hundreds of cars is being ridiculous for no good reason.

BostonB

mgmt wrote: »

I move out off the edge when I'm coming up to junction, therefore blocking cars turning left from mowing you out of it. Just a quick look over your shoulder, signal if necessary and then move out, you'd be crazy not to do this.

Some junctions are very bad for last minute left turns across cyclists.

I match the speed of the cars, catch the drivers eye them move in line with the cars until past the turn, then move back in.

Sometimes if there's a left filter lane, you need to move to the next lane, cross the junction then back in.

galwaycyclist

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ok so, my experience (4,300km biking on the road this year alone) says it's safer to stay to the left edge as much as possible, but that's just my experience...

Yep cycling is very safe. It is statistically possible to cycle for many lifetimes and never have an accident (I don't have the numbers to hand). At least 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury and 22000 years for one death.

So the fact that you haven't had an accident yet does not mean you are not still doing things that may inadvertantly increase your risk.

Would you not rather know what those things might be and why?

Perhaps more importantly, would you not prefer to be sharing the roads with a population of motorists who were taught an understanding of cycling in traffic while they were teenagers? Even if they no longer cycle themselves?