This under taking thing .....

[BentMikey]

I thought that would bring Origamist out of the woodwork...

Regardless of what you think of JF, it's probably not ridiculously far wrong.

 

[MacB]

I thought that would bring Origamist out of the woodwork...

Regardless of what you think of JF, it's probably not ridiculously far wrong.

I'm sorry BM but 10-20 years and 50k miles to learn traffic safe cycling, not ridiculously far wrong? Unless there's some evidence that, even remotely, supports that, I'm calling BS on that claim. The 5k miles over two years to learn via club riding is a bit of a stretch on its own.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

50000 miles and 10-20 years is bollocks, I'm afraid. I'm quite happy (and safe) in traffic - including riding in primary and all the other things we're supposed to do - and have been for years. It certainly didn't take me 10-20 years to get to that point.

 

[BentMikey]

Did either of you do cycling proficiency and/or ride with a club?

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.

 

[MacB]

Did either of you do cycling proficiency and/or ride with a club?

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.

People do stupid things on bikes, motorbikes, in cars, lorries and as pedestrians, and will continue to do so despite any training. It's not our doubts that are in a poor light but rather dubious statistics with no backup other than anecdotal. People will also cycle in ways that may not be by your book but suit their ability and style and are perfectly safe.

Yes we can all continue to grow and learn but cycling isn't an infinite subject. Attributing the quote 'I know enough to know how little I know' to cycling just doesn't wash. Now if you were to attribute that to bike know how and maitenance you might be on to something

 

[BentMikey]

So you're saying your opinion is more valid and more likely to be true than an acknowledged expert? LOLOL!

 

[MacB]

So you're saying your opinion is more valid and more likely to be true than an acknowledged expert? LOLOL!

Nope, I'm calling BS on statistics plucked out of thin air, I would do so with regard to any statistics of this nature. Even if you observe X number of cyclists, then do the woolly extrapolating out bit, this takes no account of their cycling knowledge. When and how they choose to employ this knowledge is another thing entirely.

So I'm saying your acknowledged expert knows dick about stats and has plucked No's out of the air for dramatic, and possibly business enhancing, purposes..........prove me wrong.

 

[shunter]

True MacB. These sort of statistics need to come from a carefully constructed case control survey that has actually been published and peer reviewed in a respectable journal. Otherwise it's just pure speculation based on one persons anecdotal observations.

 

[Greenbank]

I'm still learning and I've probably got 30,000 miles of cycling in my legs.

"Only a fool claims they have learnt everything."

While the exact figures may be debatable, especially as they're a generalisation, I can see what he's getting at and would have to agree.

Luckily Southwark council will give me subsidised cycle training (as I work in the borough) so when the weather warms up a bit I'll take them up on their offer.

 

[BentMikey]

While the exact figures may be debatable, especially as they're a generalisation, I can see what he's getting at and would have to agree.

Exactly. What's important to me is the overall point that learning on your own takes much longer than learning with other cyclists which takes longer than learning in formal lessons.

MacB, why don't you make your own guess as to the ratios between the categories given in Origamist's post and post them here?

 

[Origamist]

Nope, I'm calling BS on statistics plucked out of thin air, I would do so with regard to any statistics of this nature. Even if you observe X number of cyclists, then do the woolly extrapolating out bit, this takes no account of their cycling knowledge. When and how they choose to employ this knowledge is another thing entirely.

So I'm saying your acknowledged expert knows dick about stats and has plucked No's out of the air for dramatic, and possibly business enhancing, purposes..........prove me wrong.

You may/may not be aware that JF's lack of metrics, limited interest in exposure, sophomoric analyses etc are discredited now (Stanley Batt has done much of the demolition work). JF himself as admitted that his data is often flawed. I suspect this why Franklin (wisely) did not bother with the spurious supporting stats angle in Cyclecraft.

 

[MacB]

Exactly. What's important to me is the overall point that learning on your own takes much longer than learning with other cyclists which takes longer than learning in formal lessons.

MacB, why don't you make your own guess as to the ratios between the categories given in Origamist's post and post them here?

Why on earth would I do that, the point was yours not mine, you provide supportable stats. No one disputes that it's quicker to be trained at something than to read a book, nor that both are quicker than by guesswork. You chose to tell me that it would take me 10-20 years, and 50k miles, to learn what you could teach me in 3 months. I still say that's balderdash of the highest order.

The additional point made, by yourself and Greenbank, is that, despite your vast experience you're both still learning. Following that logic then you couldn't fully train me in 3 months. Or did you mean that you could instill the rudiments of a learning framework within 3 months? How long/how many miles after those 3 months before I became proficient?

You both make too much of this, it isn't a mystical martial art, don't get all Kung Fu Panda about it.

 

[MacB]

You may/may not be aware that JF's lack of metrics, limited interest in exposure, sophomoric analyses etc are discredited now (Stanley Batt has done much of the demolition work). JF himself as admitted that his data is often flawed. I suspect this why Franklin (wisely) did not bother with the spurious supporting stats angle in Cyclecraft.

of course I'm unaware i wasn't even going to begin chasing down that sort of garbage for BM

 

[BentMikey]

That implies you do agree with the general principle that formal lessons will give you more knowledge much more quickly, and that you'll take longest learning traffic skills on your own. Which was my point in the post I made.

The rest of it just seems to be you being argumentative, and unwilling to accept that you have anything new to learn in traffic skills.

 

[MacB]

That implies you do agree with the general principle that formal lessons will give you more knowledge much more quickly, and that you'll take longest learning traffic skills on your own. Which was my point in the post I made.

The rest of it just seems to be you being argumentative, and unwilling to accept that you have anything new to learn in traffic skills.

Right BM, you can stop that twaddle right now, don't try and twist this around to me being unreasonable and unreceptive. Nobody, myself included, has contended that you can't learn something faster via specific training. That was not what you posted and was not what I was responding to.

It's you that's being argumentative, either backup your original assertion or accept that it was unfounded poppycock. Stop trying to extrapolate an image of me to try and suit a new slant on your, unsupportable, original point.