Cycle Right

Annie get your Run · 30-05-2017 09:13AM #1

Spotted this on FB this morning. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on these http://www.cycleright.ie/ training courses? Has anyone here done one? Would you do one? *Should* we all be doing this? (voluntarily of course!). Yay or nay!

Macy0161 · 30-05-2017 09:33AM

It really shouldn't be the focus of the Department - it's driver education/ enforcement that is the big issue. Without having time to look at it or hear from anyone who has done it, I'd have concerns that it would be an extension of the victim blaming message the RSA promotes.

Having said that, I did a RoSPA Cycling Proficiency course, and test, when I was in Primary School in the UK (out on the roads and everything - imagine the noise about that these days!) that I think started me off on the right (foot)path cycling wise.

Tenzor07 · 30-05-2017 09:45AM

Nahh, did my cycle/road training here: http://www.dublincity.ie/image/libraries/031-traffic-school

That's enough for me! :P

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 09:54AM

Weepsie wrote: »

14 hours, that's more time than they insist on new drivers doing. So long as it's not mandatory

Do some people , or is it all cyclists , have a problem with things that are mandatory?
It has been mentioned (voluntarily and not mandatory) in 2 posts already.

If it was mandatory , so what? It would give the motorists 1 less thing to throw at cyclists after a cyclist vents his anger after a close pass/pull out in front of .
(Cue all the "Why should we.." "Victim Blaming" .... "Responsibilty" posts....)

Personally , i think there are lots of cyclists and commuters that could do with some tuition, and a test.
But, i also think that its motorists that could do with the awareness course and tuition....

Let the posts begin .......

Cookie_Monster · 30-05-2017 10:01AM

More nanny state nonsense

of course highlighting the usual high vis and helmets to solve everything rubbish, even loose clothing is a no-no now apparently :eek: :rolleyes:
http://www.cycleright.ie/resources

cdaly_ · 30-05-2017 10:11AM

Hi-vis and helmets are first in the '10 golden rules' while there is no mention of lights at all...

magicbastarder · 30-05-2017 10:12AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Do some people , or is it all cyclists , have a problem with things that are mandatory?

you do understand the implications of the word 'mandatory'?
it means policing and removing cyclists from the road who have not taken the course. it means that anyone who might not be a regular cyclist will simply never start cycling in the first place.

seamus · 30-05-2017 10:18AM

Weepsie wrote: »

14 hours, that's more time than they insist on new drivers doing. So long as it's not mandatory

To be fair, after the first 8 hours, the curriculum deals with things that drivers never have to deal with - that is, cycling in formation and handling yourself around fast and/or busy traffic.

Because vehicles move in single-file within designated lanes, driving a car is practically less complicated than cycling (or motorcycling).

The actual "making the vehicle move" part is more complicated, but still piss easy. Proper roadcraft for a cycling involves all of the stuff that a driver needs, plus a few extra bits for cyclists.

greenspurs wrote: »

If it was mandatory , so what? It would give the motorists 1 less thing to throw at cyclists after a cyclist vents his anger after a close pass/pull out in front of .

I'm not all that interested in capitulating to some idiots irrational rant about cyclists. If it's not about training, it's about something else.

The reason there's strong opposition to mandatory measures is because it creates a barrier to cycling.

People cycle because it's easy. Leg over the bike and away you go. Make it difficult to start cycling and people won't do it.
This is known to occur, and it known to be a bad thing; it causes more cyclists to die and causes traffic and pollution to go through the roof.

If cycling has few barriers, then less cyclists die, traffic volumes reduce and public health improves.

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 10:29AM

seamus wrote: »

The reason there's strong opposition to mandatory measures is because it creates a barrier to cycling.

If cycling has few barriers, then less cyclists die, traffic volumes reduce and public health improves.

Okay, but does a driving test create a barrier to driving? Maybe so,
If you really want to cycle , you will. When you wanted to drive, you did your lessons, and then your test.
It seems mandatory is a big NO NO for some cyclists, no matter what it concerns.

Tenzor07 · 30-05-2017 10:47AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Do some people , or is it all cyclists , have a problem with things that are mandatory?

Newsflash: Cyclists are people! :pac:

Macy0161 · 30-05-2017 10:49AM

greenspurs wrote: »

If you really want to cycle , you will. When you wanted to drive, you did your lessons, and then your test.

Plenty of my peers just drove (and took tests) on a provisional after no instruction. But even today, given the number of single occupancy L plated cars on the road (including our motorways), I'd really question whether your comparison is really legitimate in practice, whatever about the theory.

But lets run with it - so would you expect a 6 or 7 year old to have done a course and passed a test?

What about a comparison of the consequences of a cyclist hitting someone compared to someone in a vehicle?

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 11:27AM

Macy0161 wrote: »

But lets run with it - so would you expect a 6 or 7 year old to have done a course and passed a test?

What about a comparison of the consequences of a cyclist hitting someone compared to someone in a vehicle?

Well , seeing that this Course, as well as the Sprocket Rocket , is being run in schools .....
Is there any harm in school kids being shown how to ride a bike? The rules of the road? How to handle a bike? What 'Taking a Lane' is ....
Anyone that cant see the benefit of that is very short sighted and blinkered..

And what/who/where was collisons/crash/hitting someone mentioned ??

magicbastarder · 30-05-2017 11:32AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Is there any harm in school kids being shown how to ride a bike? The rules of the road? How to handle a bike? What 'Taking a Lane' is ....

probably worth clarifying what you're talking about.
you mentioned 'mandatory' and 'tests' in your first post above.

i'd say few cyclists would have issues with lessons in schools. the issue arises when you say a cyclist of any age must undergo *mandatory* lessons. so what are we discussing?

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 11:34AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

probably worth clarifying what you're talking about.
you mentioned 'mandatory' and 'tests' in your first post above.

i'd say few cyclists would have issues with lessons in schools. the issue arises when you say a cyclist of any age must undergo *mandatory* lessons. so what are we discussing?

Ahhhh ....
So it is the word "Mandatory" then...
Thanks for answering it.

30-05-2017 11:34AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Do some people , or is it all cyclists , have a problem with things that are mandatory?
It has been mentioned (voluntarily and not mandatory) in 2 posts already.

If it was mandatory , so what? It would give the motorists 1 less thing to throw at cyclists after a cyclist vents his anger after a close pass/pull out in front of .
(Cue all the "Why should we.." "Victim Blaming" .... "Responsibilty" posts....)

Personally , i think there are lots of cyclists and commuters that could do with some tuition, and a test.
But, i also think that its motorists that could do with the awareness course and tuition....

Let the posts begin .......

Who is going to pay for 14 hours of cycling training if it is mandatory?

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 11:36AM

ronoc wrote: »

Who is going to pay for 14 hours of cycling training if it is mandatory?

Who pays for Driving lessons ? and Tests.... ?

They are mandatory, so the person taking them, pays for them ? :rolleyes:

magicbastarder · 30-05-2017 11:39AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Ahhhh ....
So it is the word "Mandatory" then...
Thanks for answering it.

you knew that already.
you are acting as if we are objecting to cycle lessons for kids, by drawing a false equivalence between advisory lessons in school and mandatory lessons for all cyclists.

tomasrojo · 30-05-2017 11:41AM

cdaly_ wrote: »

Hi-vis and helmets are first in the '10 golden rules' while there is no mention of lights at all...

No mention of functioning brakes, no mention of not going up the inside of large vehicles at junctions ...

The usual rubbish.

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 11:42AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you knew that already.
you are acting as if we are objecting to cycle lessons for kids, by drawing a false equivalence between advisory lessons in school and mandatory lessons for all cyclists.

No im not, and no i didnt....

Certain posters rolled out the "put people off cycling" if it was "mandatory" ( that word again...)
So i gave the example of promoting cycling in schools actually helping to get kids started cycling while in school...
Next ..?

30-05-2017 11:43AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Who pays for Driving lessons ? and Tests.... ? They are mandatory, so the person taking them, pays for them ? :rolleyes:

Do you want to stop people cycling? Because that's a great way to stop people cycling.

Macy0161 · 30-05-2017 11:45AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Well , seeing that this Course, as well as the Sprocket Rocket , is being run in schools .....
Is there any harm in school kids being shown how to ride a bike? The rules of the road? How to handle a bike? What 'Taking a Lane' is ....
Anyone that cant see the benefit of that is very short sighted and blinkered..

I refer to my first post. I did one in school and it was beneficial. But to ban children from the roads before they have passed a test? Nuts.

greenspurs wrote: »

And what/who/where was collisons/crash/hitting someone mentioned ??

You made the comparison to the theoretical training and testing regime that applies to people driving vehicles. There's a reason why it's different for different modes. Car more and harder than motorbike/ scooter, but not as hard as for a trucks licence.

magicbastarder · 30-05-2017 11:46AM

greenspurs wrote: »

No im not, and no i didnt....

please put down the goalposts. it's tiring me out watching you carry them.

greenspurs · 30-05-2017 11:49AM

ronoc wrote: »

Do you want to stop people cycling? Because that's a great way to stop people cycling.

Ahh come on now....

The petty arguments on anything Mandatory on these threads is very tiresome....
If it helps instill better road control , and an understanding of cycling to schoolkids , im for it.... And being against everything, doesnt make you a better cyclist
If it becomes Mandatory for ALL cyclists to do it, i will...
If you wont, and it puts off a few people from cycling, thats your decision, So what.... Just means less cyclists to "clog up the roads" at the weekend.

Right the People that are against people that say anything against cycling are out in force...
Allowing an argument for the sake of an argument get in the way of common sense ... Unfollow.

tomasrojo · 30-05-2017 11:51AM

greenspurs wrote: »

If it becomes Mandatory for ALL cyclists to do it, i will...
If you wont, and it puts off a few people from cycling, thats your decision, So what.... Just means less cyclists to "clog up the roads" at the weekend.

We will have fewer but better Russians.

magicbastarder · 30-05-2017 11:53AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Right the People that are against people that say anything against cycling are out in force...

you're one of those 'people that are against People that are against people that say anything against cycling', ain't you?

30-05-2017 11:57AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Ahh come on now....

The petty arguments on anything Mandatory on these threads is very tiresome....
If it helps instill better road control , and an understanding of cycling to schoolkids , im for it.... And being against everything, doesnt make you a better cyclist
If it becomes Mandatory for ALL cyclists to do it, i will...
If you wont, and it puts off a few people from cycling, thats your decision, So what.... Just means less cyclists to "clog up the roads" at the weekend.

How about we spend the money instead on updating the driving test and better enforcement.
While we are at it even look at strict liability and a minimum passing law.

The duty of care should be on the larger vehicle.

The notion that untrained cyclists are somehow the problem is a red herring.

OleRodrigo · 30-05-2017 11:58AM

In principle I think its a good idea. However it depends on how its presented. I agree making this mandatory will be a waste of time ( how would you enforce non participation and would that be a waste of resources? ) and also, as already mentioned, counter productive as it would act as a barrier.

That said, there is useful information that come cyclists would do well to absorb. If its presented in a similar manner as the staying alive at 1.5 it could work as an educational tool without being alienating.

I've been coming down the Quays recently during morning rush hour and the quality of cycling is terrible - just flinging themselves down the road and hoping for the best, essentially. If it weren't for the careful skills of bus and coach drivers there would be collisions.

A campaign like this will encourage cyclists to make better decisions and to consider other road users, if its handled properly. If its executed along with enforcing speed limits in the context of a broader strategy to reduce private motor traffic between the canals, it will be better still.

Nisio · 30-05-2017 12:01PM

I do driver training every few years for work driving, it has a big focus on observation and anticipation that's benefited my cycling as much as my driving. If you've the opportunity to go on a course like that I'd recommend it

Annie get your Run · 30-05-2017 12:02PM

greenspurs wrote: »

No im not, and no i didnt....

Certain posters rolled out the "put people off cycling" if it was "mandatory" ( that word again...)
So i gave the example of promoting cycling in schools actually helping to get kids started cycling while in school...
Next ..?

Promoting cycling in school is not the same as bringing in mandatory courses for all cyclists.

For what it's worth, in my opening post I used the words 'voluntarily of course'. I did not mean for this to turn into a row, I was hoping for a discussion amomgst the cyclists here about whether they would consider doing something like this or not. There was no question in my OP that it should be mandatory.

ford2600 · 30-05-2017 12:05PM

OleRodrigo wrote: »

just flinging themselves down the road and hoping for the best, essentially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYDlX49yUSI

"Throwing themselves into the road "

tomasrojo · 30-05-2017 12:18PM

There is a model for bicycle training in the UK, the Bikeability course. It's generally well thought of, from what I can tell, and I certainly do like Cyclecraft, which is (or was anyway) one of its reference texts.

You can just as easily get the book and learn yourself. If my kids are interested in cycling much, I'll teach them what I know myself, I think.

I do concede that it would have been handy to have had a course like Bikeability when I was a kid, as my parents didn't cycle, and I could have learnt a few of the less obvious things from a well-designed course. However, I'd be afraid that most of the courses now are really just helmet-hiviz-and-keep-out-of-the-way campaigns, with no worthwhile roadcraft or maintenance content.

Cycle Right

Comments