mileburner  posted
>
>"Big Les Wade"  wrote in message
>news:iriijzBcvF8KFwF7@obviously.invalid...
>> mileburner  posted
>>>
>>>I can't really see what the big deal is. Compulsory training is surely a
>>>good thing.
>>
>> Whenever you see the word "surely" in a Usenet post you know the author
>> means "Here I am stating something that, if true, supports my argument,
>> but in fact I've got no evidence for it other than bare assertion."
>
>Of course we could have it that cyclists don't have training whatsoever and
>see if they do any better.

But "seeing if they do better" is not the only outcome you'd have to 
look at when deciding whether compulsory training is a "good thing". 
You'd also have to take into account all the other effects, not least 
the money-costs of delivering, administering and enforcing the scheme. 
And, of course, the social cost, including the number of people who 
stopped cycling.

>I'd put my money on the ones who are clued up to
>ride more safely. Looking at the volumes of pavement cyclists, there seems
>to be a problem in this respect.

Pavement cycling isn't a matter of being trained or not. It's a matter 
of selfishness and aggression. Putting people on a training course 
wouldn't make any difference to that, any more than it does for selfish 
and aggressive car drivers.

The only thing that will stop pavement cyclists is punishment. You don't 
need registration plates; you just need police officers with 
instructions to arrest aggressive pavement cyclists on the spot, a CPS 
with instructions to charge them, and courts with instructions to punish 
them sufficiently severely.

>> Why would compulsory training be a good thing? We have a rigorous scheme
>> of compulsory training for car drivers and yet every minute of every day I
>> see drivers behaving like complete cretins.
>
>Maybe so, but I imagine they would be a lot worse driver if there was no
>training at all. Just give a 17 yo a car and say "off you go sonny, the
>middle pedal stops the car, good luck".

Car drivers need more training than that (though not nearly as much as 
the current elaborate regime, which IMO actually hinders people from 
learning, which is probably what it is really intended to do).

Cyclists don't, because riding a bike is technically easy, and even when 
it is done carelessly it is not nearly as dangerous to others as driving 
a car.

>> It'd deliver next to no benefits and would be a bloody nuisance into the
>> bargain.
>
>Like all forms of education?
>
>>>All cyclists *should* be fairly competent and understand how
>>>road systems and rights of way work before getting on the road (unless
>>>under
>>>direct supervision).
>>
>> I am and I do, thanks, as do my entire family and every other cyclist that
>> I know.
>
>Did you just work it all out for yourself or did you get some kind of
>instruction?

Some through Informal non-compulsory instruction, some we worked out 
ourselves through experience, some we learned as a side-effect of 
learning to drive a car. Whichever it is, it means we never needed any 
compulsory instruction then and don't need it now.

-- 
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.

mileburner wrote:
>
>I had figured that a lot of pavement cycling was due to cyclists not having 
>the knowledge and confidence to tackle the roads and fear of mingling with 
>traffic. I do not think that it has much to do with selfishness and 
>aggression, they fear the roads because a lot of the time they do not 
>understand traffic.

Some cyclists use the pavements because they're scared of traffic,
others, which I see often, use the pavement when it's convenient to get
round queues of traffic on the road, and you can often tell the
difference because one stays on the pavement and the other hops on and
off as they reach obstacles.  The latter is definitely selfishness - and
they seem more likely to be cycling quickly and with less thought for
pedestrians sharing the path.

-- 
eleanor@the-blairs.co.uk                          http://lnr.livejournal.com/

Eleanor Blair wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> I had figured that a lot of pavement cycling was due to cyclists not having 
>> the knowledge and confidence to tackle the roads and fear of mingling with 
>> traffic. I do not think that it has much to do with selfishness and 
>> aggression, they fear the roads because a lot of the time they do not 
>> understand traffic.
> 
> Some cyclists use the pavements because they're scared of traffic,
> others, which I see often, use the pavement when it's convenient to get
> round queues of traffic on the road, and you can often tell the
> difference because one stays on the pavement and the other hops on and
> off as they reach obstacles.  The latter is definitely selfishness - and
> they seem more likely to be cycling quickly and with less thought for
> pedestrians sharing the path.
> 

I know far too many adults who are only too happy to use the pavement as 
they feel scared to use the roads all the time.
They refuse to take advantage of local free cycle training as they are 
'experienced' cyclists - for 'experienced' read 'had a bike for many 
years and even done cycle holidays'

They seem to think that to use the road all the time requires some form 
of aggression, something to counter what they see is deliberate 
aggression from just about every driver while forgetting that many are 
also drivers - some are shit drivers as well.
They are deaf to being informed that there is generally no need to see 
road cycling as some form of contact sport.

There are also adult cyclists who, culturally, are habitual pavement 
cyclists and naturally ride on the pavements in Blighty.



-- 
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle