Prev: Car detailed with Zaino
Next: Stitched up by a talivan
From: Tom Crispin on 6 Jul 2008 09:50 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 6 Jul 2008 10:00 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 6 Jul 2008 10:08 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 6 Jul 2008 10:18 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 6 Jul 2008 10:41
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? |