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

frisbeej

Really? Road cycling in lycra is a 'macho'?

Going to a gym is more enjoyable than going for a ride outdoors?

No one in Holland rides for sport/fitness? The best cyclist of the current generation, out of both male and female cyclists, is Dutch - Marianne Vos. The Tour de France is starting outside France again this year, in, yes you've guessed it, Holland.

[Deleted User]

There are too many cars on the road and not enough cyclists, so we don't really need more obstacles put in the way of cycling.

I've driven a total of 400,000 miles, and cycled 40,000, in all that time as a driver I haven't had my life endangered by a cyclist once, but as a cyclist I've had my life endangered by cars countless times.

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

I take a lot of flak on here because I am posting stuff on a cycling forum which cyclists simply don’t want to hear. But what would be the point of posting it on the motoring forum?

You get flak on here because a lot of what you say is wrong. Not because cyclists don't want to hear it. Its pointless disagreeing with you because you're only interested in your own opinion.

modsandmockers

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I took a cycling proficiency test and was delighted to pass.

I also qualified as a cycling proficiency trainer. Seeing the mindset of children in the way that they cycled before they were trained and the way they cycled after they were trained was amazing, we taught them to respect the road and what to watch out for, and everything else necessary. The funny thing was the girl that started off as the worst cyclist ended up as the best.

I would not have let my kids out on the road on their bikes without training, and find it rather strange when people think they can just let their kids out on the roads with no training whatsoever, but find those adults are poor cyclists themselves.

In short, training should be compulsory, if only to learn how to react to drivers that try to force you off the road.

It’s hard to tell how recently you were active as a child cycling instructor. I last did it in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Up until about three or four years ago, I used to see groups of 10-12-year-olds being shepherded around some of the quieter roundabouts by a pair of well-meaning wrinklies, but I haven’t seen them recently. They created an impressive display of high-visibility clothing and highly-exaggerated hand signals, and succeeded in presenting a serious threat to the well-being of any approaching motorist.

But if any one of those children had been given a certificate of cycling proficiency and then headed off alone into town, then he/she would have encountered a whole new world.

Given that schools have to obtain permission to help a child to blow it’s own nose, I don’t understand how they are allowed to encourage 10-12-year-old children to compete for space on the highway with trucks, buses, white van men, and car drivers using a hand-held phone.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

I used to see groups of 10-12-year-olds being shepherded around some of the quieter roundabouts... They created an impressive display of high-visibility clothing and highly-exaggerated hand signals, and succeeded in presenting a serious threat to the well-being of any approaching motorist.

Highly visible cyclists, indicating their intentions clearly, on "quieter" roads present a "serious threat to the well-being of any approaching motorist"?!

You couldn't make it up! :rotfl:

armyknife

esuhl wrote: »

Highly visible cyclists, indicating their intentions clearly, on "quieter" roads present a "serious threat to the well-being of any approaching motorist"?!

You couldn't make it up! :rotfl:

It's a stand-up act like The Landlord; maybe modsandcodswallop is going to contest the general election on a 'TopGear Free The One' platform?

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

Highly visible cyclists, indicating their intentions clearly, on "quieter" roads present a "serious threat to the well-being of any approaching motorist"?!

You couldn't make it up! :rotfl:

Here are a couple of quotes which I posted on a different thread in response to Brat’s demands for some supporting evidence for a statement which I had made earlier...

“It’s in CycleCraft, innit…
‘Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the road where there is risk to themselves’”

“It's called 'Inattentional Blindness' -
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/...onal_blindness
Evidence for inattentional blindness comes mostly from relatively simple laboratory tasks, but the phenomenon has many daily analogues. For example, automobile accident reports frequently report driver claims that they “looked but failed to see” the other vehicle. Many collisions between cars and motorcycles involve cars turning in front of an oncoming motorcycle, with the car driver not seeing the motorcyclist. Given that in many contexts, motorcycles are less common than cars, inattentional blindness is the likely cause.

Critically, the difficulty of the primary task increases the probability that people will miss the unexpected object. In practical terms, the more people focus on aspects of their visual world other than the detection of unexpected objects, the less likely they are to detect such objects.

Inattentional blindness illustrates a critical aspect of visual processing. Specifically, it reveals the role of selective attention in perception. Inattentional blindness allows us to remain focused on important aspects of our world without distraction from irrelevant objects and events. Only when those unselected aspects of our world are both unexpected and important does inattentional blindness have practical consequences.”

This is part of Brat’s reply - “Franklin makes an unsupported premise that drivers look in the area of greatest risk to them. This does seem reasonable on the face of it, but it doesn't support any suggestion that drivers will reduce their collision avoidance strategies in normal driving conditions if the risk is solely to a third party”

So even Franklin (the author of CycleCraft) is wrong, right? (There is no suggestion, either by me or by Franklin, that drivers will consciously reduce their collision avoidance strategies).

The primary riding position works by creating an obvious risk or threat to the overtaking driver. A bunch of highly visible child cyclists will have a similar effect, whereas a single 10-year-old in busy traffic is a likely victim of inattentional blindness.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

The primary riding position works by creating an obvious risk or threat to the overtaking driver.

Only as much as another vehicle... or the kerb... or a tree... or a lampost... or a dog... or a squirrel... or a bollard... or a pedestrian... or an aardvark... or...

Are you saying that drivers are able to drive quite happily without the existence of any other material objects in the universe... until they see highly-visible, slow-moving, predictable cyclists... and then all of a sudden OH MY GOD! I'M SO INCOMPETENT AT DRIVING, I'M GONNA CRASH! I'LL NEED PSYCHOTHERAPY!!! MY WELL-BEING IS IN DANGER!

I'm so glad you don't drive any more.

frisbeej

Are these children vampires or something? How the hell do they present a risk or threat to a car driver?

Johnmcl7

frisbeej wrote: »

Are these children vampires or something? How the hell do they present a risk or threat to a car driver?

I don't know what kids are like in your area but here they're out of control cycling around with their hi-vis jackets, helmets, rpg's and assault rifles..I blame Call of Duty, we never had this problem when I was a child.

John