Cycle Right

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

I think Bikeability was the replacement/ rebrandind of the Cycling Proficiency course I mentioned. Being in that boat (niether parent really cycled), definitely set me up right. With my own children, I'm already talking and explaining (and getting them limited road experience) at a younger age than I was when I did the course.

I would approve of this training becoming mandatory if it was mandatory for ALL road users.
It could greatly improve cycling safety for all - if motorists at least cycled a few kilometers in my shoes (well not my fancy carbon ones obviously)

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd disagree wholeheartedly.
it would still create a barrier to cycling. it's not levelling the playing field.

I would just like to see motorists having to do cycling training. Would be funny.

Maybe the police could mandate it as punishment for certain driving behaviour?

seamus wrote:

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.

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?

ronoc wrote:

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.

"Rules are great but WE should be exempt because...."

ronoc wrote:

The duty of care should be on the larger vehicle.

The duty of care should be on ALL road users

ronoc wrote:

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

How do you even get to this conclusion? Seriously?

Same old same old of wanting the rights but not the responsibilities. I mean, seriously, if you're going to ride on roads that are known to be dangerous to the more vulnerable amongst us why would you NOT want to do everything to make yourself safer?

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Please explain how cyclists die if they're not on the road? What am I missing?

Fatality rates go up. So 10,000 people cycle regularly and 10 die. Then you introduce mandatory training, the number of cyclists drops to 1,000 and ten still die.
More people cycling correlates with cycling becoming safer, and has done so in every country.

Despite the hysterics of some posters, nobody here is anti anything except imposing reactionary, populist and unenforceable rules.

Prove to me that mandatory cycling lessons will make the roads safer and will provide a net benefit to society and I'll be fully behind it.

Weepsie wrote: »

Great for kids

A national programme of this being done in all primary schools for kids aged 6-12, would be something I would be happy for the state to spend absolutely millions on.

Not only would it create a new generation of kids who are equipped to cycle confidently & safely, but it will also give their parents more confidence to let them commute by bike during school and beyond into adulthood.

30 mins a week during school time, instead of religion or something, and the long-term benefit to the state would be enormous.

Why do people on here feel so self righteous about everything , just because they have a few thousand posts?

My opinion is mine, no matter how many Boardsies try to berate it.....

magicbastarder wrote:

what he was saying was that if you change something - such as a mandatory helmet law as other jurisdictions have implemented - which has a negative impact on the number of people cycling, you actually make life *more* dangerous for the remaining cyclists. safety in numbers is one of the biggest factors regarding cyclist safety.

Genuine serious enquiry: How? I'm seriously not seeing the 'cause and effect' there. Why should mandatory helmet law have a negative impact on the number of cyclists on the road and how does it make it more dangerous for those that do still cycle?
(Ironically, as a biker amongst other modes of transport, I despise mandatory helmet laws, but that's for another forum!)

Weepsie wrote: »

You tried to claim that posters in here say All Cyclists are right,

Just the ones with a few thousand posts to there names!

seamus wrote:

Fatality rates go up. So 10,000 people cycle regularly and 10 die. Then you introduce mandatory training, the number of cyclists drops to 1,000 and ten still die. More people cycling correlates with cycling becoming safer, and has done so in every country.

I appreciate you're using a figure for illustrative purposes, are there any links to data or studies on this? Otherwise that's a drop in users of 90% or conversely an increase in accidents of 90%, I would genuinely appreciate any accurate figures.

Annie get your Run wrote: »

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!

Hi Anne, your thread seems to have got a bit derailed once some posters saw the references to helmets and high viz and others went off on a mandatory tangent, so not sure you got an answer to your question so here's my tuppence worth.

Cycle Right afaik is only currently being funded for schools. The students still have to pay a contribution. Schoolchildren in many other countries do cycling proficiency courses, so so far so normal.

A poster has mentioned that riding a bike is easy, you just throw your leg over and away you go. Of course it is but riding a bike in traffic isn't easy. Many people have learned to cycle as children but don't cycle in adult life until one day they decide to try it again. By now road conditions have change., There are more cars, higher speeds and cars are bigger. So some people are nervous and would really benefit from a course like Cycle Right. If you are a regular confident cyclist, then the course is not designed for you. But lots of people are nervous, don't have their bike properly configured, think the safest thing is to hug the kerb etc so would probably find Cycle Right helpful. I did 2 sections of the Bikeability course and the part I found most useful was about making eve-contact with drivers and ensuring yu knew their intentions and communicated yours clearly. Now, lots of people will say that yu don't need to do a course to learn that but I hadn't considered it enough before I did the course so some of us do.

Many Cycling Clubs also run Bike for Life courses. they also cover the specifics of riding in a group but also maintenance and fit.

The mandatory discussion is a complete red herring as the challenge is going ot be to fund training for those who want it, never mind impose it on those who don't.

I think the people who are against this on the basis that it's drivers who need the training are missing the point. It doesn't have to either/or. Yes I can do all the training in the world and still get hit but the same applies to other walks of life and we still try to increase competence or minimise risk.

So to answer your question, yes I would do one, no, we shouldn't all have to as not everybody needs it .

rubadub wrote: »

I know my friend with 5 kids would not be impressed having to pay for their lessons (I would not automatically presume it to be included in school hours).

If mandatory I would guess there would need to be a test to make sure people learn what was intended, otherwise people could just sleep through it. So if there was a test and little johnny failed he would be well upset about not being able to cycle his new bike bought just before this mandatory ruling came in, or if his parents could not afford his lessons/test..

Yeah it's much better if little Johnny is a danger to himself and others. We had those courses in school. Those younger than 14 (I think, could be 13) were not allowed to go on main roads by themselves without passing it. After that it didn't matter. They taught road rules, signaling and so on. It encourages independence and if parents have money for bikes they should have money for kids to learn basics. Or not but they won't have choice when paying for a graveyard plot.