Cycle Training

Good post.

This is something I notice people doing needlessly. Just because you can get to the front does not mean it's always the best thing to do, this is especially true on big fast flowing roads where people at the front race off.

Agree with Tommy, often it is a good idea to wait in the queue in the space of a car and move through the lights in the traffic stream (overtaking those riders stuck near the kerb in the wrong gear)

or to head toward the front overtaking the traffic queue then waiting behind the first driver pulling into the traffic stream as it moves off when the lights change.

(good post Katiep)

Positioning yourself in the queue also enables you to show that you are traffic much better. Drivers around you are more aware of you and you don't wait there as if you weren't really there (which can happen if you're just squashed down the side somewhere). Essentially, it's about developing judgement when to filter and when not.

have written elsewhere on here about the huge irony of the CTC implicated in our general national lack of cycle infrastructure,
funnily enough this popped up today for readers of this thread:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/bike-blog

have written elsewhere on here about the huge irony of the CTC implicated in our general national lack of cycle infrastructure,
funnily enough this popped up today for readers of this thread:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/bike-blog

What irony?

I don't think it's ironic that mass motorisation happened and that the CTC was relatively powerless to do much about that--cycle tracks wouldn't have made any difference to that whatsoever. They were built at the time to get cyclists off the road and to enable motorists to drive without looking out for cyclists. The thin veil of 'improving cyclists' safety' was then, as now, testament to a failure to tackle the root cause of the problem, which is the road danger created by mass motorisation.

NB roughly 75% of crashes occur at junctions, which is where the real improvements need to be made. Sidepaths show evidence of increasing the risk of crashes, cycle tracks considerably so. The track along the A40 also became disrupted at every side street/site entrance junction that inevitably appeared as the land alongside it became built up.

Quite an interesting read there, thought the following quote was a good 'un, especially as many people don't travel at a safe speed a lot of the time...

CTC believed that cars should at night be obliged to travel at a speed which would enable them to stop should they encounter another user in the road – it should be their responsibility to notice the unlit road user, not the responsibility of the cyclist or pedestrian to carry a light.

"The CTC eventually got its wish: the motorways were built and led to a flood of more cars"

I don't think motorways led to the rise in car ownership.

@Oliver,
I just meant that it seems ironic that the biggest cyclists organisation was asked and they mainly responded by saying they were road riders, no thanks to cycle lanes like Holland. But then they did have special lovely trains to all over the country for a sunday jaunt to 'the provinces' I wasnt alive then believe it or not, so dont know the full story, however they got sorted out on the continent-and they still dont suffer from the level of motor use that this country does.
@Tommy,
what it is then that causes car addiction do you reckon? I reckon it must be in car music.
CTC are still old duffers I reckon, struggling to change, with respect to all members here of course.

There is an interesting comment in the blog blog about historical content and the Nazi party.

There is no single car addiction cause it's progressive. People have more disposable income, car become more affordable, more people have cars, cars become cheaper to build, more people have cars people travel further to work, more people have cars and so on. Throw in some poor transport planning, poor press and polical coverage and bobs your uncle.

@Oliver,
I just meant that it seems ironic that the biggest cyclists organisation was asked and they mainly responded by saying they were road riders, no thanks to cycle lanes like Holland.

That's not really what happened. The CTC at the time were absolutely right in trying to resist the movement to shift the burden of responsibility onto cyclists (use red rear lights, 'be safe, be seen', etc.--neither were foregone conclusions at the time) and also onto the Government (build separate cycle infrastructure so that car drivers who kill cyclists are indirectly absolved of blame, etc.). Remember that at the time, motoring was relatively new.

But then they did have special lovely trains to all over the country for a sunday jaunt to 'the provinces' I wasnt alive then believe it or not, so dont know the full story, however they got sorted out on the continent-and they still dont suffer from the level of motor use that this country does.

Don't be too blue-eyed about provision on the Continent--there are much more significant factors in play for the higher level of cycling than the construction of cycle tracks. Just because that's what everybody who doesn't know much about this sees first and immediately associates it with the high level of cycling doesn't mean that it's the decisive factor.

The most important factor, by far, is planning--in the Netherlands, the average trip length is far, far shorter than over here--owing to better land use planning and a much juster society (relatively speaking) than here. The second factor is government support for cycling across all areas (e.g., strict liability). Also, the Netherlands have a very low modal share of public transport. Overall, the modal share of private motor traffic is 42% (last figures I saw, may have changed--the Dutch are expecting a considerable increase in car traffic owing to newly-developed, less well-planned modern developments, which would mean that the modal share of cycle traffic would fall--too early to call, that one) compared to the UK at 60%. Germany is 49%.

Also, a little-known fact is that in the Netherlands and Germany, cycle users are not allowed to ride in the carriageway if there is a sidepath alongside. I have friends who've been ordered off the road by police in the Netherlands. This is because these facilities were essentially conceived to get cyclists off the road and increase motor traffic capacity (thereby causing more motor traffic). That people nowadays think that such facilities are designed to make cycling safer just illustrates how much this thinking that cyclists should bear the responsibility for road danger, not motorists, has taken hold. (NB of course cyclists can cause road danger, too, they just cause disproportionately less than motorists.)

NB the CTC didn't cause or invent motorways--they were conceived much earlier. The CTC were merely arguing that motorways (which were coming, anyway) should be the only roads were cycling would not be permitted. They essentially benefited us today very much by preventing the passing of laws like those in Germany and the Netherlands. That we have that freedom today is a huge bonus. To suggest that they damaged cycling in this way is absurd. The other countries experienced a massive dip in cycling, too. It was only in the 1970s, during the oil crises, that the Netherlands had a huge change of government policy.

@Tommy,
what it is then that causes car addiction do you reckon? I reckon it must be in car music.

Many factors, of course. Modernity, industry interests, social aspiration (everybody wants to own a carriage and move around in it, something that only 'the rich' used to be able to do--that must mean more justice and democracy, Shirley?

CTC are still old duffers I reckon, struggling to change, with respect to all members here of course.

The average age of CTC members is quite high, but a lot of people in the CTC do excellent work. Their staff are top-notch. 'Old duffers' is really unfair and inaccurate.

thanks for those points Oliver, we can always expect the voice of reason from you, I consider myself told!.obviously from a trainers perspective each individual bit of infrastructure needs considering on its own merits, but it seems that my view of the wider picture there was a bit one-dimensional, perhaps because of the daily fatigue I experience from hearing repeatedly 'I would cycle but theres no cycle lanes' whilst at work..
The strict liability issue adopted in Holland is one thing worth noting-significant difference there.
On a trip there 2 years ago I found staying on the cycle lanes odd to say the least, and probably did plenty unwitting lawbreaking roadriding where it seemed like a better idea!
The most interesting point you make is that of freedom granted us by laws then passed to only prohibit riders off m-ways.
Looking at the U.K situation from that angle never occurred to me before, and it also raised this idea of freedom. here I think we too often confuse freedom with licencetiousness, meaning with
freedom comes with responsibility, and not just doing exactly what we please when it suits us.if you apply this to the roads-then yes we have relative freedom compared to many places in Europe, however there arent many people using that freedom well, perhaps that’s why cyclists get such a bad name for going-riding anywhere-anyhow..just a thought.

I think licentiousness has generally come to be associated specifically with sexual morality. License is probably the better term. And anyway, as we know, cyclists have no sex life.

speak for yourself brother ;-)

perhaps because of the daily fatigue I experience from hearing repeatedly 'I would cycle but theres no cycle lanes' whilst at work..
People invent excuses for not cycling. That's fine for some. If they don't want to cycle, they shouldn't. However, there are some people who really would like to cycle and genuinely believe this is holding them back. The skill lies in sniffing out what someone really feels about cycling.
The most interesting point you make is that of freedom granted us by laws then passed to only prohibit riders off m-ways. Looking at the U.K situation from that angle never occurred to me before, and it also raised this idea of freedom. here I think we too often confuse freedom with licencetiousness, meaning with freedom comes with responsibility, and not just doing exactly what we please when it suits us.if you apply this to the roads-then yes we have relative freedom compared to many places in Europe, however there arent many people using that freedom well, perhaps that’s why cyclists get such a bad name for going-riding anywhere-anyhow..just a thought.
It's just a different political environment here. What is often behind people hankering for the European situation is the more or less dim awareness that societies there have recently been much juster than society over here, and a longing for society here to become juster. People transfer that feeling to cycling and there the same pattern analogy doesn't quite work.

....obviously from a trainers perspective each individual bit of infrastructure needs considering on its own merits, but it seems that my view of the wider picture there was a bit one-dimensional, perhaps because of the daily fatigue I experience from hearing repeatedly 'I would cycle but theres no cycle lanes' whilst at work...

What is also interesting about how infrastructure is viewed within the framework of National Standard cycle training is that there is an inbuilt (and perverse) recognition by the government that there are many parts of cycle infrastructure that would put a rider at higher risk were she to use them so one outcome for trainees is to consider is "whether a cycle lane would help them with their journey or not".

This discussion takes place towards the end of level 2 after trainees are clear about riding position so should be able to agree witht he instructor that riding in cycle lanes passing close to parked cars (Such as the lane on Highbury New Park) or using feeder lanes to ASLs is riskier than not using them.

More here...
http://www.lcc.org.uk/documents/Bike%20lanes%201.pdf

totally^^

Hm, skydancer, it looks as if something may be wrong with your forum access--it shouldn't normally let you post the same post three times.

apologies all for 3 posts... something about database access denied
...can I delete them?

apologies all for 3 posts... something about database access denied
...can I delete them?

I'd suggest only deleting two of them. ;P

Yes, if you go to 'edit' and then choose 'delete'. You have to confirm deletion--if you don't, nothing happens.

EDIT: Already done.

Patrick Field, the grandfather of London cycle training through the London School of Cycling, stands up to a panel of drivers arguing for the luxury of riding a bike and the madness of driving. He's funny too...
'How's my driving' BBC R4 earlier today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p93sw

Ooh, I heard that. It was good. I liked him. Though the analogy with slavery was a bit crass :-/

doesn't work for me :(

The programme was much too short and superficial for Patrick to really develop a thought properly. He's very good on traffic psychology, but it needs some more time to really make something stick.

Thanks to this thread for bringing cycle training to my attention!
Just got the mrs signed up for the free cycle training scheme Southwark offer, hopefully it will help build her confidence on the road up some more.

I think i'm going to sign myself up to the Lewisham training too.

^ let us know how you both get on. My God, a thread started by Dancing James that people actually like :)

I think licentiousness has generally come to be associated specifically with sexual morality. License is probably the better term. And anyway, as we know, cyclists have no sex life.

speak for yourself brother ;-)

Yeah! (Yeh!) speak for yourself, or get get yourself: