Downward
Guru
- Location
- West Midlands
Arch said:
Yeah thats fine there are plenty of houses for sale and only a very very small number of cyclists so everyone is welcome to move here.
Worth a read
- Thread starter jimboalee
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yeah thats fine there are plenty of houses for sale and only a very very small number of cyclists so everyone is welcome to move here.
Looking at the contents page is enough to frighten beginners off. It makes cycling seem really difficult. I always thought cycling was quite easy, my Father and Mother taught me how to ride correctly.
I want to see a massive increase in cycling for transport and this book looks like it may put people off. It is foolish to think people are going jump on there bikes and hit the traffic at 20mph. The reality is people want separated cycle paths and the feeling of safety. Once people are riding bikes they can learn from other cyclists. Aren't books like this just counter productive?
As to the bell, I have one just like it, it is great and works well on the many pedestrians that litter the, (rubbish) shared use paths I ride on every day.
I want to see a massive increase in cycling for transport and this book looks like it may put people off. It is foolish to think people are going jump on there bikes and hit the traffic at 20mph. The reality is people want separated cycle paths and the feeling of safety. Once people are riding bikes they can learn from other cyclists. Aren't books like this just counter productive?
As to the bell, I have one just like it, it is great and works well on the many pedestrians that litter the, (rubbish) shared use paths I ride on every day.
Origamist
Legendary Member
Nipper said:
Nipper, I'd recommend reading the book in its entirety.
The short answer to your question is "No".
There needs to be a distinction between the skills/balance needed to ride a bike (steer, brake, change gear, signal etc) and an understanding of how best to translate these bike handling skills to the road (often in an environment not best suited for cyclists) in order to integrate with motorised traffic as safely as possible.
Most of us learn to ride a bike pretty quickly; learning how best to cope with traffic on the roads takes more time and thought - hence why Cyclecraft can seem a little intimidating at first, particularly if you don't drive a car, (or if you do drive, you can too easily dismiss it as a lot of "common sense"). Most people will benefit from reading the book - it will certainly make you think about how you ride and how you might be able to do things differently.
As for learning from other cyclists, poor cycling begets poor cycling and skillful cycling begets skillful cycling - more often though, it's a mixture of the two if you copy the behaviour of others.
Hi Origamist, I think you misunderstood my point. I was taught all aspects of cycling by my parents including all the cyclecraft/riding in traffic stuff. I have also helped out with the teaching of cycling on a local bikability scheme, so I know what vehicular cycling advocates think is good cycling. I think it is all a red herring designed to make people think that we are improving things for cyclists, whilst all the time actually over emphasising the 'dangers' and actually putting people off. It is time to stop promoting the lie that cycling for everyday transport will increase if we all just knew how to ride better.
What is needed is investment in infrastructure like that seen in Holland and Denmark. This makes people feel safer and increases the number of journeys made by bicycle. I cycle for transport and want to see an end to the tyranny of the motor car and a return to the common sense of riding a bicycle for short distance transport.
What is needed is investment in infrastructure like that seen in Holland and Denmark. This makes people feel safer and increases the number of journeys made by bicycle. I cycle for transport and want to see an end to the tyranny of the motor car and a return to the common sense of riding a bicycle for short distance transport.
Origamist
Legendary Member
Nipper said:
I have sympathy with a number of the points you make, Nipper - particularly your closing comments. However, as you yourself point out, cyclists have to negotiate autocentric infrastructure; coping strategies to deal with the reality on the ground will always play a role - particulalry when the cycling modal share in the UK hovers between 2-3%.
I am glad that you were taught cycle craft by your parents - not all of us were that lucky.
Driving a car is far likelier to put people off cycling - cycle training or best practice guides are going to have a negligible effect on cycling numbers. The subjective safety argument is well made, but is it not also a little disingenuous?
The Netherlands and Denmark have invested hugely in cycling infrastructure but also promote cycle training - the two can complement one another...
the problem, Nipper, is that many people returning to cycling, i.e. they last rode a bike when they were kids, have vague recollections of the Cycling Proficiency course in primary school and have fallen for the generally held viewpoint that cycling is, per se, dangerous.
Because of that, they ride in a manner which seems to them to be "common sense", e.g. close to the kerb, moving in and out when encountering parked cars and "keeping out of the way" of cars. This may be exacerbated by their sharing of the commonly held views of drivers that cyclists "don't belong on the road", etc.
Much of what is in Cyclecraft is, therefore, counter-intuitive to them. I've helped adults (as well as children) to learn to cope in traffic and quite often, I've had to persuade them that the above way of riding actually puts them at more risk than the Cyclecraft style.
I started the Kids Club partly because I discovered that many of today's parents didn't have a clue about how to mend a puncture, tell that the headset was loose, how to use modern gears, replace brake pads and even how to use QR levers.
You have been lucky, but I suspect that you may not realise how much information and skill you have internalised, which other people without your helpful family background, may not have the faintest idea about.
The advantage of this book is that it answers pretty much any query that newcomers/returners might have and gives very thorough and justified explanations of how riders should behave in various conditions. I still dip into it regularly, even tho' I've been on two wheels, either pedal or motor powered for far more years than I wish to think about - with only one collision in those too many years.
Because of that, they ride in a manner which seems to them to be "common sense", e.g. close to the kerb, moving in and out when encountering parked cars and "keeping out of the way" of cars. This may be exacerbated by their sharing of the commonly held views of drivers that cyclists "don't belong on the road", etc.
Much of what is in Cyclecraft is, therefore, counter-intuitive to them. I've helped adults (as well as children) to learn to cope in traffic and quite often, I've had to persuade them that the above way of riding actually puts them at more risk than the Cyclecraft style.
I started the Kids Club partly because I discovered that many of today's parents didn't have a clue about how to mend a puncture, tell that the headset was loose, how to use modern gears, replace brake pads and even how to use QR levers.
You have been lucky, but I suspect that you may not realise how much information and skill you have internalised, which other people without your helpful family background, may not have the faintest idea about.
The advantage of this book is that it answers pretty much any query that newcomers/returners might have and gives very thorough and justified explanations of how riders should behave in various conditions. I still dip into it regularly, even tho' I've been on two wheels, either pedal or motor powered for far more years than I wish to think about - with only one collision in those too many years.
Origamist, I agree that there is a technique for cycling in traffic; recommending the book to the already committed cyclists posting on a cycling forum is just about sharing good advice.
I agree with you that driving a car is what is putting most people off cycling, they are just lazy and think taking the car is the easy way. I find it hard to understand how otherwise intelligent people can't work out that the benefit to themselves and to society by not using their cars for short journeys; they are just being selfish idiots. I would like to see active discouragement of selfish driving both by societal pressure and by infrastruture and tax making driving much more difficult.
I would disagree that the subjective safety argument is disingenuous, it is the key to increasing modal share, Holland and Denmark demonstrate it by example. We need the cycle paths because there will always be motor vehicles and most people will, quite naturally be frightened by the large fast moving lumps of metal and want separation.
I was lucky to have great parents who taught me to cycle and we do need to educate children in the methods of safe cycling but I worry that government will use any schemes they have to justify not spending on proper cycle paths. I would like to see cycle training as a statutory requirement for primary schools, just as it is a requirement that every child should be taught to swim. However it is not going to be practical until we have separated cycle paths and REAL (20mph) traffic calming.
I agree with you that driving a car is what is putting most people off cycling, they are just lazy and think taking the car is the easy way. I find it hard to understand how otherwise intelligent people can't work out that the benefit to themselves and to society by not using their cars for short journeys; they are just being selfish idiots. I would like to see active discouragement of selfish driving both by societal pressure and by infrastruture and tax making driving much more difficult.
I would disagree that the subjective safety argument is disingenuous, it is the key to increasing modal share, Holland and Denmark demonstrate it by example. We need the cycle paths because there will always be motor vehicles and most people will, quite naturally be frightened by the large fast moving lumps of metal and want separation.
I was lucky to have great parents who taught me to cycle and we do need to educate children in the methods of safe cycling but I worry that government will use any schemes they have to justify not spending on proper cycle paths. I would like to see cycle training as a statutory requirement for primary schools, just as it is a requirement that every child should be taught to swim. However it is not going to be practical until we have separated cycle paths and REAL (20mph) traffic calming.
"Because of that, they ride in a manner which seems to them to be "common sense", e.g. close to the kerb, moving in and out when encountering parked cars and "keeping out of the way" of cars. This may be exacerbated by their sharing of the commonly held views of drivers that cyclists "don't belong on the road", etc."
ATBman I can understand what you are saying and it it is great you have a kids club but until we have proper infrastructure there are just not enough newcomers to make a difference. You talk about the ducking in and out of parked cars, surely the answer is ban on-road parking because it is too dangerous. I am not going to feel sorry for car drivers who say that it is impractical to ban on road parking because they have no where to park. To them I say use a car park and walk to your house or the shops you lazy ****. We seem to allow the H and S police to attempt to keep us safe in all aspects of our lives except for those that inconvenience car drivers; it is clearly madness!
ATBman I can understand what you are saying and it it is great you have a kids club but until we have proper infrastructure there are just not enough newcomers to make a difference. You talk about the ducking in and out of parked cars, surely the answer is ban on-road parking because it is too dangerous. I am not going to feel sorry for car drivers who say that it is impractical to ban on road parking because they have no where to park. To them I say use a car park and walk to your house or the shops you lazy ****. We seem to allow the H and S police to attempt to keep us safe in all aspects of our lives except for those that inconvenience car drivers; it is clearly madness!
Origamist
Legendary Member
Nipper said:
Nipper, this site and many others gets a good deal of traffic from non-members, lurkers, newbies etc. The constituency is still small I grant you, but that is hardly a compelling reason not to advocate best practice.
Nipper said:
What you need to remember about countries that have a high cycling modal share is that a whole raft of pro-cycling (and anti-car measures) were introduced. Cycle lanes are the most visible measure, but other factors are crucial and tend to get overlooked (i.e the removal of off-street parking).
Subjective safety is a double-edged sword in this country - if we encourage more people to use cycle facilities beacuse they believe it is safer than cycling on the road, we'd have to ignore/sugar-wrap the evidence that suggests cycle lanes can often be more dangerous.
What you could of course argue is that the safety in numbers phenomena might start to mitigate collision levels for all cyclists, but we would should be careful about blurring the lines between actual risk and subjective risk (even when factoring in the manifold health benefits associated with cycling).
Nice to chat with you nipper, but I've got a train to catch and a bike to ride. I hope you post here more often.
