From: Steve Firth on 6 Jul 2008 08:09
Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:00:22 +0100, %firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Firth)
> >Perhaps they should
> >be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads?
> With a little modification, a great idea. One of Cycling England's
> objectives is that every primary child should have the opportunity to
> take Bikeability Levels 1 and 2.
Excellent. Let us hope that the selection of instructors is improved and
that individuals who perform careless overtaking manouevers and who
advocate passing red lights are are excluded from teaching.
From: Chris Bartram on 6 Jul 2008 08:15
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 08:08:33 GMT, Chris Bartram
> <news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 00:00:22 +0100, %email@example.com (Steve Firth)
>>>> Perhaps they should
>>>> be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads?
>>> With a little modification, a great idea. One of Cycling England's
>>> objectives is that every primary child should have the opportunity to
>>> take Bikeability Levels 1 and 2.
>>> Thanks to the local scheme I run, 285 children in Lewisham have passed
>>> Bikeability Levels 1 and 2 before their 11th birthday. Of the 7 who
>>> chose not to take the course I suspect most will never ride a bike.
>> Is the old cycling proficiency scheme still going? I did that aged 10-11
>> at primary school and IMHO it really made a difference.
> It has been greatly enhanced.
> Level 1 Bikeability - bicycle control skills in the school playground
> Level 2 Bikeability - on-road cycling skills using quieter roads
> Level 3 Bikeability - cycling using busier roads and complex junctions
> The age guidelines I use are:
> Level 1 - Age 6
> Level 2 - Age 8
> Level 3 - Age 10
> This is lower than Cycling England recommend - which is one year older
> for all levels.
> I am in the process of setting up a modular format course for Level 3
> Bikeability, with five 2 hour learning modules and four 2 or 3 hour
> modules and a two day cycle tour.
> LEARNING MODULES
> 1. using mini roundabouts
> 2. using traffic light junctions
> 3. cycling in slow moving traffic
> 4. using multi-lane roads
> 5. using major roundabouts
> EXPERIENCE MODULES
> 1. bikes security and repairs
> 2. route planning
> 3. using cycle facilities
> 4. cycling at night
> 5. cycle touring
> To pass Level 3 young cyclists will have to pass each of the learning
> modules, which can be re-taken, and have completed each of the
> experience modules. As well as this, they will be expected to keep a
> log of personal cycling experience.
Is this government sponsored? Who finances it? It sounds very complete-
is it part of a nationwide effort?
From: Rob Morley on 6 Jul 2008 08:22
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:15:50 GMT
Chris Bartram <news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
> Is this government sponsored? Who finances it? It sounds very
> complete- is it part of a nationwide effort?
What happens if you search Google for 'Bikeability'?
From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2008 08:36
Nick Finnigan wrote:
> Periander wrote:
>> %firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>> Perhaps getting a clue would help you. The prohibition in the HC is on
>>> opening the door and hitting someone or something with the door. If
>>> the door has been opened and someone rides or drives into it then they
>>> are in the wrong.
>>> The stupidity of cyclists seems to be without limit. Perhaps they
>>> should be made to sit a test before being allowed on the roads?
>> Actually much as I like to laugh when a cyclist gets taken out as the
>> result of his own folly (especially if there's blood, broken bones and a
>> wrecked cycle) there is actually an offence of "Opening a door to the
>> danger of road users". Don't ask me to quote act and section it's to
>> late and I can't be arsed but it's there none the less.
> Construction and Use regulations.
> A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a
> vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone.
> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would count.
"Count" as what?
It isn't an injury. It isn't an endangerment.
> Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous.
Only for a cyclist or driver who is blind, surely?
From: JNugent on 6 Jul 2008 08:38
Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 06/07/2008 10:46, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Construction and Use regulations.
>> A person shall not open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of
>> a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger anyone.
>> So you don't have to hit the cyclist, causing him to stop would
>> count. Still unclear as to whether a door left open would be dangerous.
> Thanks, Nick, for looking that up. It saves me trying to help Steve any
> further. I'm pretty sure now that he's beyond help, anyway - he
> certainly comes across as someone who is unfit to be in charge of any
> type of vehicle on the public highway.
What, even though the PP's post was a complete non-sequitur?
Having to stop is not an injury; neither is it dangerous. It happens to
me many times every day that I drive (or, for that matter, walk).