Most recent activity
-
Regarding the 'more trips, more safely' mantra - though I take Skydancer's point about 'safe' not being a good word because it implies that there is 'danger', my own point about using 'low risk' rather than 'safe' with trainees was prompted much more by wanting to use relative rather than absolute terms.
Telling trainees that something will 'make them safe' is just misleading. Saying that something (like staying out of the doorzone) will make them safer or 'more safe' isn't so problematic to me, though overall the terminology of 'low risk' is better.
So more trips MORE safely more often I don't think is so problematic - whereas telling people to, for example, 'only make safe trips' (I made that up, but some road safety pamphlet may well advocate such a 'strategy') is to use just the kind of language I think should be avoided.
-
Not going to make it - 2 lots of 2 hours rest is not enough for the rest of today. Gutted to miss it. Enjoy. Definitely next year.
-
Wish i'd got home earlier and more tired, but I've had no drink and plenty to sleep yesterday so I will be there. Look forward to it.
-
One correction to my own post, #38.
Where I said 'i tell trainees... to consider what makes them safe first and foremost' this is broadly correct. I do tend to fall into the trap of using the language 'think about what makes you safe'. But actually, what I try to drill myself to say to adults in particular (and children as they become more mature) is that they should think about what behaviour minimises risk most effectively. Conceptualising road use in terms of minimising risk makes much more sense of the reality of the situation than 'being safe'. Indeed, in the case of this particular discussion, I think the notion of minimising risk rather than 'keeping safe' is crucial.
When local authorities were charged, some years back, with reducing absolute numbers of accidents involving cyclists, the reponse in some cases was to keep people 'safe' by keeping them from cycling (no cyclists = no accidents involving cyclists).
So I'll be more careful with my language in future, with trainees and in my posts.
-
One quick thought: regarding speaking to trainees, I was recently thinking that a good way to approach the issue of 'poor manners' and worse from other road users in response to assertive riding might be to make an analogy to driving (especially if the trainee drives). If you are driving the speed limit in, for example, a 20 or 30 zone and a driver behind you becomes agitated or abusive, this is not an indication that you should have increased your level of risk or the risk to other road users (or broken the law, indeed) and the best response as a driver is to ignore the abusive driver, in my view. Interested to hear others' thoughts - and yes, sometimes I do drive! :)
Since assertive riding is a legal way to use a bike as a road vehicle, I feel analogies to how one would use another vehicle (car, scooter, motorcycle) are well worth exploring and often, in my experience, make a positive impression on trainees (especially if they take to roads in a vehicle other than a bike).
-
I am very much in the keep calm and be polite boat - ignoring people is often a good option. As others have noted, people who are driving poorly/acting aggressively or shouting are not being reasonable and I don't find sinking to their confrontational level is effective - nor do I think it improves the situation overall.
In the past I gave made wanker gestures and been abusive. In one case this prompted a driver to stop suddenly in a line of traffic ahead and then drive alongside me asking me to pull over so we could fight. When I refused and apologised for being rude (explaining that his too-close overtake had been what had provoked me) he somewhat ran out of steam and recommended I not do it in the future as 'someone might stab you'. Reflecting on the experience, I didn't feel that my retaliatory behavior had helped the situation so resolved to not lower myself in the future.
Nowadays I point at parked cars or other hazards I might be avoiding, smile at people if I can make eye contact and as often just do not react when someone wrong-headedly honks or abuses me for my choice of position. I find it a better policy than getting dragged into being abusive.
-
The article below has some interesting observations from paragraph 10 on which relate a little to this discussion - though they primarily concern riding in new York. Maybe the writer is over-optimistic about the current level of the critical mass effect in London? The grass always looks greener - especially from the other side of the pond.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/24/newyork-cycling-bike
-
Just posting this up here having not read all the other posts: this is my reply to David's original message, as sent to other CTUK instructors on Monday night.
Look forward to catching up on the rest of this thread and perhaps adding some more comments later this week.
I do not discuss the specific possibility of drivers physically threatening a cyclist as a 'punishment' for riding assertively with trainees at present, though I have noted it happening more often to me in its 'light' variety - people deliberately passing close or swerving near me - of late.
What I do discuss with trainees is honking or verbal abuse: i tell trainees not to be discouraged by drivers' perceptions of their assertive riding and to consider what makes them safe first and foremost, making their own judgements as any other road user should.
I do think it is a difficult subject to broach and although I obviously have no figures to back up this perspective I would judge that the chances of it happening are low and that the risk mitigation benefits of assertive riding thus outweigh it significantly overall.
I might discuss with a trainee how to mitigate the possibility of such a situation developing in the first place by always being a polite and not provocative/aggressive road user - in the way someone might suggest someone driving mitigate the possibility that a physical confrontation erupt from their interaction with another driver (so-called 'road rage' incidents) or someone drinking mitigate the possibilty of dragging their friends into a fight over a spilled pint. :)
As when young trainees mention 'the mad person' or 'the fleeing criminal' on the road as a reason not to ride assertively, I would definitely emphasise that such incidents are very much the exception rather than the rule, and thus should not be the examples which guide one's overall riding style
As with the criticism sometimes levelled by other road users at assertive riders, I would emphasise that a trainee's decision to minimise risk to themselves by riding assertively is not a provocative act in itself, and that they should not feel responsible for the unreasonable actions of others.
-
Interested in those Electron Terra 2s - £100 a lot for lights but they sound worth it, and I'm currently just running a visibility and no 'vision' light on front. No chance of doing towpaths and parks at night, which can be fun.
It is worth -threatening- to take legal action - even perhaps going as far as to get a solicitors firm to send them a letter, or fake one on letterheaded paper, maybe make it more fun by making up a slightly unbelievable firm name, like gateyurs honeydack and whiteface for example. The fact they have the sign doesn't mean they've checked it covers them. If you have the time, I'd love to hear how you get on, but I would agree it's not worth pursuing legally in order to get much money out of them - no likely settlement would even come close to making up for the time, effort and money you'd put in, and you are unlikely to be successful in any case.
Remember though, it's a mistake to assume that people know they're not liable just because they refer to their sign. Lots of signs don't make any legal difference or have any legal standing, but they shut most people up so they do their job...