This under taking thing .....

[Greenbank]

What I love about the Internet is that you can post a message saying "The average age of people on this forum is 33" and everyone who isn't 33 will respond and say "that's wrong! I'm blah years old."

Would you agree that you'll learn faster with hands-on cycling lessons from a qualified instructor than you would reading advice in a book, and both of those methods would be faster than working it all out for yourself on the road?

 

[BentMikey]

The funny thing is I'm not arguing about the figures either - only that in my opinion they're not ridiculously wrong. What I don't understand is why MacB has gotten so angry about the 50,000 figure and is so determined to win a point that has no effect on what I'm debating about. *chuckle*.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Would you agree that you'll learn faster with hands-on cycling lessons from a qualified instructor than you would reading advice in a book, and both of those methods would be faster than working it all out for yourself on the road?

It may be faster (or it may not), but I'd argue that it's more likely to be forgotten than if you've worked it out for yourself and learned experientially.

 

[BentMikey]

It may be faster (or it may not), but I'd argue that it's more likely to be forgotten than if you've worked it out for yourself and learned experientially.

Good instructors will address how different people learn - the doers, the thinkers, the watchers, and the feelers. Sounds like you are stronger in the doing aspect of learning, a wild guess from your post.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Good instructors will address how different people learn - the doers, the thinkers, the watchers, and the feelers. Sounds like you are stronger in the doing aspect of learning, a wild guess from your post.

True enough. I think that part of the problem with the original JF "statistic" is that it took absolutely no account of the different ways in which people learn, and the different ways people learn things.

 

[BentMikey]

I think you're talking about different people having different rates of learning. First off, see Greenbank's point on averages above.

Talking from my own skating instruction experience, it's not the way people learn that most affects their rate of learning. Instead that seems more connected with things such as innate physical skills, motivation, the amount of practice they put in, and prior experience. That last I think will considerably affect your and Lee's opinions of this, given your HGV licenses and probable large mileages.

 

[Origamist]

No one's arguing with the general principle of what you've posted, just the frankly ridiculous figures that Franklin appears to have plucked out of thin air and which you've quoted in hushed tones as though they were some kind of gospel truth.

It was Forester - Franklin is canny enough not to litter his texts with pseudo stats.

 

[Alien8]

I think it was John Forrester who estimated it'll take 500 miles to gain vehicular cycling confidence with lessons, 5,000 miles from a book, and 50,000 miles riding on your own.

If it takes someone 50,000 miles of on-your-own riding to get to the point of gaining vehicular cycling confidence perhaps they should take the bus instead - they ain't cut-out to be a cyclist.

 

[GrasB]

The number of obviously experienced cyclists we see every day riding in the gutter, not looking back, and filtering to the left of big vehicles rather throws your doubts in a poor light. As does the fact that we're all still learning and improving, even as experienced cyclists. I know enough to know how little I know.

Thing is thought how many of these experienced riders would do this despite of tuition to contrary? I know that I'm reverting back into bad/lazy habits in my driving when it comes to my RoSPA refreshers.

So why are you cycling if you're still learning? or do you believe that you have actually learnt enough to be sdafe to cycle

Personally I'd turn this on it's head. Why are you still cycling if you've stopped learning? Every day you're coming up against different conditions which you have to make judgment calls on & you will get some wrong, if you don't learn from those you really should stop cycling because you can no longer adapt to changing road conditions properly.

 

[MacB]

The funny thing is I'm not arguing about the figures either - only that in my opinion they're not ridiculously wrong. What I don't understand is why MacB has gotten so angry about the 50,000 figure and is so determined to win a point that has no effect on what I'm debating about. *chuckle*.

This is another example of posting a read on a situation to try and suit your argument rather than reality.

I'm not getting angry I requested some support for a spurious stat

If you feel the stats not ridiculously wrong(just can't bring yourself to say it's wrong in plain language!) then feel free to post up an accurate one, stop asking others to do this for you.

Stop with the 'look we all know what I meant, and I'm right, and this guys just getting in a tizz, but look I'm big enough to laugh it off' type posts.

The point has a very big impact on what you're debating about because it goes to the heart of your self justification. The more powerful, and 'mysterious', you make people think cycle training is, then the better for those involved in supply of said training. You even employ the classic sales tactic of throwing it back at the audience/potential customer. Don't need cycle training, think you're perfect do you? I know enough to know how little I know, how about you? Wouldn't you like to be safer on the roads?.....and so on.

RT makes a very valid point around how we learn things via experience. Three months cycle training compared to 10 or 20 years on road experience, they're not even on the same planet let alone the same ballpark. So, yes, your quoted stat are ridiculously wrong.

 

[BentMikey]

I think there's no point in picking on obvious typos. I've nearly typed Franklin a couple of times when I meant Forester, or misspelt it.

 

[MacB]

Thing is thought how many of these experienced riders would do this despite of tuition to contrary? I know that I'm reverting back into bad/lazy habits in my driving when it comes to my RoSPA refreshers.


Personally I'd turn this on it's head. Why are you still cycling if you've stopped learning? Every day you're coming up against different conditions which you have to make judgment calls on & you will get some wrong, if you don't learn from those you really should stop cycling because you can no longer adapt to changing road conditions properly.

Agree with your first point, second point, isn't turning it on it's head it's, again, making up something I've not indicated, none of us ever stop learning. My choice of phrasing to Greenbank was to try and indicate that he obviously feels safe enough to carry on cycling and therefore has learnt enough to do so.

 

[jimboalee]

"The average IQ of the members on this chatboard is 75".

I found that statistic hanging on a 'sky hook', measured it with a swarf gauge and passed it to the Apprentice Tea Stirrer's Mate for verification.

He tucked it in his back pocket and rode twice round the globe ( 50,000 miles ) before returning to say it was "a load of bollocks".

We held a meeting to discuss the alternatives and came to the conclusion "If there is no definite answer, any figure will be as valid as any other", so the 75 IQ figure STANDS.

 

[BentMikey]

The point has a very big impact on what you're debating about because it goes to the heart of your self justification. The more powerful, and 'mysterious', you make people think cycle training is, then the better for those involved in supply of said training. You even employ the classic sales tactic of throwing it back at the audience/potential customer. Don't need cycle training, think you're perfect do you? I know enough to know how little I know, how about you? Wouldn't you like to be safer on the roads?.....and so on.

Ah, I thought it was something like this. I'm sorry you got this impression, but it's no more than an inferiority complex on your part. I'm not involved in said training, and although I did do an instructor course I never went on to teaching cycling.

My motivation is quite different and altruistic - cycle instruction is free or heavily subsidised in most London boroughs. It's something anyone can do and benefit from, and is probably the most effective way to improve safety. I do like campaigning for improved safety for all, and it's largely the same reason I video and shop bad drivers in company vehicles.

 

[MacB]

Ah, I thought it was something like this. I'm sorry you got this impression, but it's no more than an inferiority complex on your part.

What??????????????????????????? come on I'd love to see you try and justify that one