Primary position and the law

[JohnB]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:15:36 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I doubt there is very much, if any, difference between a driver being
> >able to see a group of 4 (brightly attired) riders compared to a group
> >of 12.
>
> Probably true, the difference would be marginal.
>
> >Are you honestly putting forward the argument that the longer the line
> >the safer they are?
>
> That's not what I said. I said that a longer snake is more visible
> (OK I said 'visable').

I thought you were also saying that the more visible they were (as a
longer snake) the safer they would be. Apologies if I misunderstood.

> >> There
> >> are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied.

> >Oh don't I know it :-(

> The first group I worked with was four children, the second six, the
> third seven, fourth eight, fifth - currently - nine + one adult, sixth
> - currently - ten + one adult.

You work with much larger groups than we do, so I suppose control of the
youngsters between themselves could be more difficult. Most of our
groups are very easy. Just once or twice the law has had to be laid down.

> However, the first four courses lasted four weeks to Level 2. The
> current courses last ten weeks to Level 3. They feel much more
> relaxed.

Good luck. I think that keeping the youngsters interested for that
length of time would be quite a feat. I very much admire your bravery ;-)

John B

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:42:52 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>> That's not what I said. I said that a longer snake is more visible
>> (OK I said 'visable').
>
>I thought you were also saying that the more visible they were (as a
>longer snake) the safer they would be. Apologies if I misunderstood.

There is a greater likelihood that trainees will run into one another,
that a car will attempt to overtake and be forced to cut into the
snake, plus other difficulties. At busy junctions I have a signal for
the children to ride in pairs, side by side.

>> >> There
>> >> are issues when running drills in keeping everyone occupied.
>
>> >Oh don't I know it :-(
>
>> The first group I worked with was four children, the second six, the
>> third seven, fourth eight, fifth - currently - nine + one adult, sixth
>> - currently - ten + one adult.
>
>You work with much larger groups than we do, so I suppose control of the
>youngsters between themselves could be more difficult. Most of our
>groups are very easy. Just once or twice the law has had to be laid down.

I am a fully qualified and expereinced teacher. Many of these
children have known me since they were in the reception class. It
makes a difference.

>> However, the first four courses lasted four weeks to Level 2. The
>> current courses last ten weeks to Level 3. They feel much more
>> relaxed.
>
>Good luck. I think that keeping the youngsters interested for that
>length of time would be quite a feat. I very much admire your bravery ;-)

At the moment I'm working with Year 6 children (ages 10/11) who've had
no training.

2 weeks Level 1b - cycle control
2 weeks Level 2 - on road training
1 week - a fun ride
1 week - maintenance
2 weeks - Level 3 - advanced on road
1 week - night cycling
1 week - route planning

Next term I'll be offering Year 5 children a 6 week Level 1b/2 course.

In the summer term I'll be offering Year 4 children a 6 week Level
1b/2 course.

With 180 pupils in Years 4, 5 and 6, so far 50% take up the offer of
on-road training. Last year, of those who were trained about 50%
cycled regularly to school. My target of 40 - 50 children cycling
regularly to school by the end of the Summer Term is achiveable.

My end plan is this:

Year R+ - ages 4/5 - 1 lesson Level 1a - initial cycle training.
Year 2+ - ages 6/7 - 2 lessons Level 1b - cycle control skills
Year 4+ - ages 8/9 - 4 lessons Level 2 - on road training
Year 6+ - ages 10/11 - 4 lessons Level 3 - advanced on road

The above would include leisure rides at Level 2 and Level 3.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mike Hibbert
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> So it looks to me as if
>> you're still comprehensively wrong, and possibly should talk to your
>> fellows in the IAM about getting a refresher course and a new test.
>>
>
> Whatever. Do you have to get so personal about it?

No, you're right. That was unnecessary, provocative and trollish. I
apologise. It's been a bad week and as I can't shoot the customers I
have to take it out on someone.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

 

[Patrick Herring]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| p.k. wrote:
|
| > HC 136: Once moving you should
| > a.. keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
| > The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked
| > vehicles or pedestrians in the road
|
| I think this means on the left hand side of the road, not the left hand
| side of the left hand side of the road. If that were not the case then
| there would be no point in saying...
|
| > b.. keep well to the left on right-hand bends.
|
| since if it meant as far left as possible at all times that would
| already have been covered. David said "within a lane", not on the whole
| of the road.

I have to admit I've always read it as "keep to the leftmost part of the
road consistent with what you're doing" which means I agree with p.k.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

 

[dave]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Mike Hibbert
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So it looks to me as if
>>>you're still comprehensively wrong, and possibly should talk to your
>>>fellows in the IAM about getting a refresher course and a new test.
>>>
>>
>>Whatever. Do you have to get so personal about it?
>
>
> No, you're right. That was unnecessary, provocative and trollish. I
> apologise. It's been a bad week and as I can't shoot the customers I
> have to take it out on someone.
>

Very gracious

 

[Mike Hibbert]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Mike Hibbert
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So it looks to me as if
>>>you're still comprehensively wrong, and possibly should talk to your
>>>fellows in the IAM about getting a refresher course and a new test.
>>>
>>
>>Whatever. Do you have to get so personal about it?
>
>
> No, you're right. That was unnecessary, provocative and trollish. I
> apologise. It's been a bad week and as I can't shoot the customers I
> have to take it out on someone.
>

Yup. fair play, thanks Simon. Shame about not being able to shoot
customers though, sometimes that would just round off the week nicely!

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:12:07 +0000 (UTC), the
person known to the court as "p.k." <[email protected]> made
a statement (<[email protected]> in
Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

> a.. keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise.
>The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked
>vehicles or pedestrians in the road

Which is what David said. Keep to the left, "the rule of the road" as
my old Dad called it. It makes it much safer, since you are on the
opposite side of the carriageway from oncoming traffic.

Note that it doesn't say *how far* to the left; nor does it have
"Law:" under it.

Cyclecraft, from the same publisher, gives more explicit advice on how
far to the left to ride.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:58:22 +0100, the person
known to the court as Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in
Your Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>She thought I was obstructing her, obviously. My view was that it was
>not a safe and reasonable place for her to overtake, so I adopted the
>primary position to prevent her doing so. To ride on the left and allow
>her to squeeze through would have been much more dangerous.

The simple truth is, if it is not safe to overtake you in the primary
position, it is almost certainly not safe to overtake at all.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Peter James]

Mike Hibbert wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>
SNIPPED other stuff
>>
>> FWIW even if I am signalling left to go into a minor road, the little
>> old lady is fully entitled to cross the road. Hitting her would be
>> wrong irrespective of what signal I used.
>>
>
> But if you are signalling to turn left she is much less likely to cross
> the road, thus making it safer all round.

That seems kind of selfish. She is proceeding straight along a major
road, you are turning off. It's her right of way. The fact that so many
road-users attempt to intimidate pedestrians into stopping so that they
can turn without any delay is no excuse for cyclists to do so.

--
Peter James

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration