From: Tom Crispin on
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:42:20 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)NPPTG.com> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Chris Bartram <news(a)delete-me.piglet-net.net> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
>>>>> 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.
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/logbook
>
>Are they taught about road traffic law as it applies to cycling?
>
>No, it isn't mentioned above.

It's an ongoing theme. Though apart from an aside, I don't think that
I have specifically mentioned the law on 'cycling furiously'.
From: Brimstone on
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:52:55 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>> situation.
>>>
>>> Really? How, exactly?
>>
>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>
> I see... You can't answer the question.

You're confusing "can't" and "won't".


From: Tom Crispin on
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:00:15 +0100, "Brimstone"
<brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:52:55 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> Really? How, exactly?
>>>
>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>
>> I see... You can't answer the question.
>
>You're confusing "can't" and "won't".

So you won't answer the question because you can't?
From: Brimstone on
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:00:15 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 12:52:55 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>> <brimstone520-ng03(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> A competent driving instructor would not put himself in that
>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? How, exactly?
>>>>
>>>> You're the instructor. Work it out.
>>>
>>> I see... You can't answer the question.
>>
>> You're confusing "can't" and "won't".
>
> So you won't answer the question because you can't?

As I said, you're confusing willingness and ability. What someone is willing
to do and what they're able to do are two different things.


From: Nick Finnigan on
JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> Periander wrote:
>>
>>> 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?

Count as an a contravention of the regulation.

> It isn't an injury. It isn't an endangerment.

Why else would a cyclist stop, other than being endangered?