If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

It’s interesting that those of us who care all feel as if we are qualified to teach our young to ride bikes on the highway.

We are qualified. We are parents.

modsandmockers wrote: »

But when the young require a driving licence we all seem to be resigned to the fact that we will have to pay a professional instructor.

For my part I hope to instruct my kids for a significant majority of their driving tuition.

The difference is that in order to get a driving licence you have to pass a test, and although we all regard ourselves as competent drivers, we all know that we would almost certainly not know how to teach our young to pass the test, even if we were allowed to try.

You certainly do need some up to date input on test requirements and technique, but why would you not be allowed to try?

But the deeper truth is that, as in all other aspects of life, we start to teach roadcraft from the very first time we strap them into their safety seats. By the time they begin driving lessons, most teenagers will already have ‘learned’ how to drive, either from their parents or from their peers. The driving lessons will only teach them how to pass the test, after which they are very likely to revert to what they already knew.

That's not at all true for probably the vast majority of youngsters. Maybe for you, and a few others. But your habit of generalising, touting your own skewed opinion as fact is not easy to tolerate.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Today, my grandson and I brought his bike by train from his place to mine. We enjoyed a late breakfast, I dusted off my bike, and we biked back to his place along the canal towpath. It was his first real bike ride, and we thoroughly enjoyed it, including the lockside pubstop. But why on earth would I start teaching him he could also start riding his bike on the roads?

Given that their only organised training for cycling on the road is likely to be 5 or 6 hours at school if at all, I think it's the parental duty of a capable adult to teach their child to cycle properly. Perhaps it's the 'capable' bit you're lacking...

If I were you, I'd leave the teaching of your grandchildren to someone more competent.

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

Our cycling proficiency is 5 x 90 minute sessions the last three of which are on the road. We teach positioning for junctions and encourage the use of a safe secondary position. A primary position in traffic requires more assertiveness, speed and awareness, which is not usually present at that early age.

That isn't the "cycling proficiency" that Mods was lamenting though, is it? It's the recently-introduced 'bikeability' training (which he was also critical of - go figure)

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

That isn't the "cycling proficiency" that Mods was lamenting though, is it? It's the recently-introduced 'bikeability' training (which he was also critical of - go figure)

It is actually still the old school cycling proficiency test. My wife (and I) have run it for years at her school and it closely follows the local government cycling proficiency scheme programme. We haven't as yet been able to benefit from the bikeability programme due to over subscription, but that may change soon.

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

It is actually still the old school cycling proficiency test. My wife (and I) have run it for years at her school and it closely follows the local government cycling proficiency scheme programme. We haven't as yet been able to benefit from the bikeability programme due to over subscription, but that may change soon.

I assume the syllabus has changed significantly over the years though?

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

I assume the syllabus has changed significantly over the years though?

I don't know if it has. I remember doing Cycling Proficiency in the late sixties and we used the road, albeit a quietish residential road. We've been doing the same for the 10 years that my wife has been at this school. Our training seems to tie in with Level One and Level Two Bikeability.

Cycle Proficiency is being phased out, but we've kept it going because Bikeability hasn't yet been available to the school.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

We are qualified. We are parents.

What?


For my part I hope to instruct my kids for a significant majority of their driving tuition.

Please don't teach them to cross over to the wrong side of the road in order to get a few more mph around a left-hand bend.


You certainly do need some up to date input on test requirements and technique, but why would you not be allowed to try?

As you say, you can only do so much of your kids' tuition - and if your children have taken on board your own stroppy attitude towards people like me, then you will probably end up having to pay for enough extra lessons so that the instructor has a better chance of correcting their attitude.


That's not at all true for probably the vast majority of youngsters. Maybe for you, and a few others. But your habit of generalising, touting your own skewed opinion as fact is not easy to tolerate.

You seem to have forgotten that I was an ADI for a short time during the 1990s (I gave it up because there was more money to be made driving trucks). Most teenagers come with a whole lot of ‘attitude’ and both they and their parents frequently regard driving lessons as an expensive interruption in the ‘real’ process of learning to drive. Very few test candidates actually understand why they fail the test - they mostly regard it as a game of chance. Once they get lucky enough to pass, they will begin to build their own set of rules and, because they will never again have to take a test, they will never have to justify their opinions to anybody except themselves. Young adult cyclists with no family or childhood experience or training (‘newly-born’?) are also likely to operate to their own individual set of rules, and will be reluctant to listen to anyone else’s ideas.



Given that their only organised training for cycling on the road is likely to be 5 or 6 hours at school if at all, I think it's the parental duty of a capable adult to teach their child to cycle properly. Perhaps it's the 'capable' bit you're lacking...

If I were you, I'd leave the teaching of your grandchildren to someone more competent.

I’m ignoring the final bits of your post because, as usual, they are loaded with abusive nonsense (except to say that a large number of capable adults would share my view that the best parental advice would be to say that cycling is a brilliant leisure pursuit, but it no longer has any place on the highway).

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

brat wrote:

We are qualified. We are parents.

What?

We are primarily charged with the care of our children. That means teaching them skills for life. A parent who cycles should teach his or her child to cycle.

modsandmockers wrote: »

brat wrote:

For my part I hope to instruct my kids for a significant majority of their driving tuition.

Please don't teach them to cross over to the wrong side of the road in order to get a few more mph around a left-hand bend.

I'll show them the benefits of taking the smoothest line through a bend. I told you about those benefits, and how any experienced driver should straighten bends when safe, but that input sailed silently over your head.

brat wrote:

You certainly do need some up to date input on test requirements and technique, but why would you not be allowed to try?

As you say, you can only do so much of your kids' tuition - and if your children have taken on board your own stroppy attitude towards people like me, then you will probably end up having to pay for enough extra lessons so that the instructor has a better chance of correcting their attitude.

I am stroppy towards you, because I and all others on this forum think you're a weapons grade tool. You're a pointless brainless irritant who needs to be told. All you need to do is go away, or stop trolling.

modsandmockers wrote: »

brat wrote:

That's not at all true for probably the vast majority of youngsters. Maybe for you, and a few others. But your habit of generalising, touting your own skewed opinion as fact is not easy to tolerate.

You seem to have forgotten that I was an ADI for a short time during the 1990s

I don't believe you. It's not possible for any ADI to have such an anti cycling, anti learning attitude. If you were a driving instructor, doing a paper round would be a better option - it would pay more, because I can't imagine that anyone would wish to be taught by you.

modsandmockers wrote: »

...a large number of capable adults would share my view that the best parental advice would be to say that cycling is a brilliant leisure pursuit, but it no longer has any place on the highway.

They and you are wrong. I've ridden for 80 beautiful miles on my bike today, 20 with the girls, all on rural roads.

You really don't get it, do you?

armyknife

modsandmockers wrote: »

I’m ignoring the final bits of your post because, as usual, they are loaded with abusive nonsense (except to say that a large number of capable adults would share my view that the best parental advice would be to say that cycling is a brilliant leisure pursuit, but it no longer has any place on the highway).

You're aware that the broken clock theorem doesn't apply to your posts, right?

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

...a large number of capable adults would share my view that the best parental advice would be to say that cycling is a brilliant leisure pursuit, but it no longer has any place on the highway.

And a large number of capable parents would share the view that cycling is a brilliant way to travel on the highway.

There's only one way to solve this... FIIIIIGHT!!!

Tilt

Even "professional" cyclists need re-TRAINing it seems!

http://www.evadeaza.ro/video-blog/train-interfeers-with-bike-race-almost-a-disaster