Advocacy & Safety - LAB courses.

What is the problem some people have with others taking the LAB courses. I have noticed a sense of contempt from certain people here about the LAB courses. I do not know if this contempt is directed at certain individuals who will be or have taken the courses or if it is a contempt about anyone taking the courses or the courses in general.

Will those individuals who have exhibited of the contempt please explain? Explain if your contempt or problem is directed at the courses in general, at certain individuals here in the forums who have advised they are going to or have taken the courses or what your contempt or problem is regarding this.

BTW this is not nor is meant as a troll post. I would like to know the problems others have with the LAB courses or the individuals who have or are going to take them.

Some folks believe that they know all there is about riding bikes from what they have learned since their youth.

Others believe that cyclist training is some ploy for money.

Others yet, like myself (having taken Road 1 and 2), believe that the LAB "tupper-party" training method is increadibly inefficient. By "tupper-party" I mean it is all geared to word of mouth and is taught by an instructor to a small group. At this rate, several generations of cyclists will be born and die before even a small population is ever reached.

I feel that the problems cyclists face on the road are not strictly theirs alone... as 45,000 annual automotive deaths attest. In my mind the whole education of road users problem should begin in schools and be taught just like any other class. Kids now get math, english, history all over several years... with later classes building on earlier teachings. Why not do the same thing for "road use?"

Start at about the 5th grade and teach basic cycling skills and basic traffic safety.

At about the 7th grade teach advanced cycling skills and "road 2" and encourage road cycling with clubs, bike racks and racing.

At about the 10th grade, teach a year long driving course... focus on ethics and responsibility (which is what seems to be missing these days) along with lots of simulator time and on road driving time.

This would build on traffic techniques and experiences from the students cycling days and would instill greater respect for all road users.

As it is... there is no way to reach cyclists that do not tend to go to bike shops or other places where information may be obtained regarding cyclist training... so how are cyclist instructors going to "herd these cats."

My plan teaches progressive traffic handling techniques.

I can speak only for myself. I have no contempt for you or anyone else, but I do see a growing problem here. That is, when some people who have taken a course and have some knowledge try to tell someone who has not taken a course, but who has many years of actual, practical experience, that they are wrong in the way they ride, and the way they think.

I can speak only for myself. I have no contempt for you or anyone else, but I do see a growing problem here. That is, when some people who have taken a course and have some knowledge try to tell someone who has not taken a course, but who has many years of actual, practical experience, that they are wrong in the way they ride, and the way they think.

What, you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

One of the biggest issues I have with some long experienced cyclists is running red lights. Yeah I know how to do it... and I see others doing it... but that does not make it right... and it gives bad examples to younger cyclists, and makes cyclists out to be "bandits" on the road. No amount of "reasoning" can make this right.

I can speak only for myself. I have no contempt for you or anyone else, but I do see a growing problem here. That is, when some people who have taken a course and have some knowledge try to tell someone who has not taken a course, but who has many years of actual, practical experience, that they are wrong in the way they ride, and the way they think.

I would not tell anyone they are wrong in the way they ride or think. If it works for them, great. I will offer to teach them the Road I course if they wish to learn. If they figure out by taking a course they are wrong or if they learn something they did not before hand then so be it. But if someone says they ride a certain way & they think they are right in what they do, then fine. Who am I to tell them they are wrong? I may not agree with their riding tactics or style but I I won't say their wrong, I'll just say I do not agree with it.

This next comment is better discussed in the P&R II forum, but the same could be said for religion too.

I'm aware of only one forum member who has expressed contempt for LAB courses specifically and bicyclist training in general, but his posts are almost exclusively full of contempt, regardless of what or whom is he writing about. Never-the-less, he does appear to like to bike...

This thread is not aimed at anyone person. Or trying to single anyone out. If others want to single people out or themselves that is up to those individuals, do so at your own peril.

IMO if you're going to show contempt, dislike or the fact you have a problem with something, whether you do so using subtley or make it very obvious you should explain when asked. I am asking all here who have a problem or contempt toward the LAB courses or the individuals who are gonig to or have taken them.

This thread is not aimed at anyone person. Or trying to single anyone out. If others want to single people out or themselves that is up to those individuals, do so at your own peril.

IMO if you're going to show contempt, dislike or the fact you have a problem with something, whether you do so using subtley or make it very obvious you should explain when asked. I am asking all here who have a problem or contempt toward the LAB courses or the individuals who are gonig to or have taken them.

I hadn't noticed any contempt for LAB courses anywhere on the forum. It seems to be a pretty limited problem if anything.

BTW, there is a typo in your sig.
131545181201519 should be 13154518120151819

I hadn't noticed any contempt for LAB courses anywhere on the forum. It seems to be a pretty limited problem if anything.

BTW, there is a typo in your sig.
131545181201519 should be 13154518120151819

Response number 22 in this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228410 is contempt toward either HH & I, or toward the LAB courses in general.

Response number 22 in this thread is contempt toward either HH & I, or toward the LAB courses in general.

Huh... this was at post 9... where is post 22?

BTW I mention in post 2 about "tupper-ware" like party training. Perhaps a better example is SCUBA training... which is done well in small groups.

However... the SCUBA industry fully supports this type of training... both by limiting access to some goods for those that are not certified, and by offering training at their facilities.

The bicycle industry does nothing of the kind. In fact I have asked a couple of LBSs if they know of or have any information on cycle training... only to be met with blank stares. (I later offered them literature on some local classes). But the Bicycle industry does not support training in any manner to the best of my knowledge.

Sadly cycling advocates can't seem to get together either... with the LAB and LAB reform as the two largest examples of advocacy not having a "unified voice."

Huh... this was at post 9... where is post 22?

I edited my response. It shows the link to the thread I am taling about

Huh... this was at post 9... where is post 22?

well, now we are at #13... only 8 more posts and then someone gets to insult HH, N_C, and LAB!

BTW I mention in post 2 about "tupper-ware" like party training. Perhaps a better example is SCUBA training... which is done well in small groups.

However... the SCUBA industry fully supports this type of training... both by limiting access to some goods for those that are not certified, and by offering training at their facilities.

The bicycle industry does nothing of the kind. In fact I have asked a couple of LBSs if they know of or have any information on cycle training... only to be met with blank stares. (I later offered them literature on some local classes). But the Bicycle industry does not support training in any manner to the best of my knowledge.

Sadly cycling advocates can't seem to get together either... with the LAB and LAB reform as the two largest examples of advocacy not having a "unified voice."

While you may not be comparing SCUBA training to cycling classes. You have to be certified to SCUBA dive, you don't to ride a bike. In a sense it is like comparing apples to oranges.

The class I am going to take on the 23rd is only going to have about 6 people in it.

N_C, my intent was not to single any one out. I was simply referring to your comment: "What is the problem some people have with others taking the LAB courses. I have noticed a sense of contempt from certain people here about the LAB courses."

You made it seem like there was more than one, when I only know of one. That was my point, and I think it's important to note that this is an issue of one person, not a reflection of a general view shared by anyone besides him. If you want to know more about him or why he has these views, PM me.

And I was careful not to identify specifically who it was, except in a subtle fashion to confirm about whom I was referring to to those who already suspected who it was.

By the way, the post you refer to is of course from that person.

well, now we are at #13... only 8 more posts and then someone gets to insult HH, N_C, and LAB!

We're at 16 but if you look IU edited my response. This is the thread I was talking about: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228410&page=2

We're at 16 but if you look IU edited my response. This is the thread I was talking about: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228410&page=2

Ah yes... like I said... some folks believe they learned all there is to know about cycling by simply doing it. Whether they really do "know it all" or not is of course debatable.

HH used to call himself an "expert," based on his training.

Inspite of my training and experience as a SCUBA instructor... I never called myself an "expert." I suppose some folks just like titles.

While you may not be comparing SCUBA training to cycling classes. You have to be certified to SCUBA dive, you don't to ride a bike. In a sense it is like comparing apples to oranges.

The class I am going to take on the 23rd is only going to have about 6 people in it.

Right... and how many cyclists do you expect to train in a year? In my area the most prolific trainer has trained less than 60 cyclists. The local advocacy group has a membership of about 900 cyclists... do you see a problem here?

Actually I AM comparing SCUBA training to cycle training... and how the industries are different. This is one reason why cycle training is so difficult to "get out to the masses." There is no industry control over cycle training, as there is with SCUBA training... nor does the bicycle industry (the makers of bikes) seem to have any interest in any relationship that deals with training cyclists.

And as you pointed out... there is no restriction to "uncertified cyclists." You can go to any toy store, X-mart or bike shop and buy any bike without anybody even asking if you know how to ride. SCUBA shops will sell you the gear, but you must be certified to get tanks filled. So there is control in that industry.

Imagine if you couldn't buy bike tires until you proved you were certified.

But that is not the case... so the current LAB training pratice of "tupperware like" parties or SCUBA like training is very limited in it's reach. There is no mechanism that encourages cycle training... anyone can buy and ride a bike without restriction or feedback.

If the industry alone started offering training associated with the LBS, that would be an improvement... but I suspect it will be a long time coming.

Edit: Don't get me wrong... I am not against training per se... but the method used by the LAB will never make a dent in the overall population of cyclists. So expecting "trained cyclists" to lead the way to a better relationship with other users of the road is impossible... as the majority of "other cyclists" will always prevail.

Response number 22 in this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228410 is contempt toward either HH & I, or toward the LAB courses in general.
The former, and the claims of an alleged "proven" record of reducing cycling risk through Effective Cycling branded education/training.Teach it if it makes you feel good, just lay off the WAG's about results.

...

Edit: Don't get me wrong... I am not against training per se... but the method used by the LAB will never make a dent in the overall population of cyclists. So expecting "trained cyclists" to lead the way to a better relationship with other users of the road is impossible... as the majority of "other cyclists" will always prevail.
I don't get you wrong at all. What you have wrong, or at least, not right, is your assumption that LAB training, whether offered by them or anyone else, serves any useful purpose besides making the instructors feel good about themselves. I know all about inflated/unverified claims of risk reduction originating from Forester but otherwise nada as far as any positive results after 20 some years of training. I am sure there are satisfied students but is that the bottom line - make a few relatively experienced/knowlegeable road cyclists feel good about themselves?

I don't get you wrong at all. What you have wrong, or at least, not right, is your assumption that LAB training, whether offered by them or anyone else, serves any useful purpose besides making the instructors feel good about themselves. I know all about inflated/unverified claims of risk reduction originating from Forester but otherwise nada as far as any positive results after 20 some years of training. I am sure there are satisfied students but is that the bottom line - make a few relatively experienced/knowlegeable road cyclists feel good about themselves?

Since you have never been to an LAB training class (I assume) then you hardly have any reference for opinion. While Forester et al have not exactly swept cycling with their concepts... the concepts are basically sound.

What I have seen at the LAB classes in my area were folks that had a very rudimentary understanding of how to ride a bike... and very little understanding of how to do so in traffic... they just did not know what was right or wrong.

Basic training for these folks included how to signal, where and how to look, how to do basic maintenance, how to change a flat.

There was no "Skull session" indoctrinating cyclists into a "secret society" of VC heads. There was some pretty basic stuff with a suble emphasis on cyclists rights to use the road much like a motorist. This included how to merge, change lanes and make turns on roads with speeds up to about 40 MPH. Pretty typical around here.

If you had seen these riders... you too would agree that some "would be" cyclists do need some form of training. So to say that this is Forester "brainwashing" or "hyperinflated hogwash" is pure BS.

Perhaps you should drop in on a class and take a look a some of the "potential cyclists" that do need training before shooting off your ILTB opinion.

No, clearly I would have to say you have it wrong. I've been there and done that... have you?

Since you have never been to an LAB training class (I assume) then you hardly have any reference for opinion. While Forester et al have not exactly swept cycling with their concepts... the concepts are basically sound.
I am posting about results and lack of same from the LAB promoters. I don't need to take a course to ask "What Results?" What can the students or sponsors of such a program expect from taking the course? What has happened for the last 20 years? Why should the public be interested in LAB courses?

Opinions and concepts are NOT results. The Forester clan promoting Forester derived LAB classes with fabricated claims of risk reduction results for their trained students are NOT results but rather a line of B.S.

Right... and how many cyclists do you expect to train in a year? In my area the most prolific trainer has trained less than 60 cyclists. The local advocacy group has a membership of about 900 cyclists... do you see a problem here?

I do. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying if a LCI does not train enough students for what ever reason, lack of interest, etc, he may forget what to teach unless he take refresher courses. Also you're saying there is a lot of cyclists & not enough of an interest amongst those cyclists to take the LAB courses. I do not know how many I expdct to train each year, yet. I have to get my training under my belt first. Then I'll go from there. What I do know is myself & others who will become LCI's with me have a 3 state area to cover, maybe 4. I will offer the courses I am able to teach for those that want to take it.



Actually I AM comparing SCUBA training to cycle training... and how the industries are different. This is one reason why cycle training is so difficult to "get out to the masses." There is no industry control over cycle training, as there is with SCUBA training... nor does the bicycle industry (the makers of bikes) seem to have any interest in any relationship that deals with training cyclists.

And as you pointed out... there is no restriction to "uncertified cyclists." You can go to any toy store, X-mart or bike shop and buy any bike without anybody even asking if you know how to ride. SCUBA shops will sell you the gear, but you must be certified to get tanks filled. So there is control in that industry.

Imagine if you couldn't buy bike tires until you proved you were certified.

But that is not the case... so the current LAB training pratice of "tupperware like" parties or SCUBA like training is very limited in it's reach. There is no mechanism that encourages cycle training... anyone can buy and ride a bike without restriction or feedback.

If the industry alone started offering training associated with the LBS, that would be an improvement... but I suspect it will be a long time coming.

Edit: Don't get me wrong... I am not against training per se... but the method used by the LAB will never make a dent in the overall population of cyclists. So expecting "trained cyclists" to lead the way to a better relationship with other users of the road is impossible... as the majority of "other cyclists" will always prevail.[/QUOTE]

But should there be industry control over cycling as there is in the SCUBA industry? Should people who want to ride be certified to do so? Better yet, is it possible? I think if there were there would be a lot less cyclists on the roadways. If that happens the price of bicycles & other gear could sky rocket.

I am posting about results and lack of same from the LAB promoters. I don't need to take a course to ask "What Results?" What can the students or sponsors of such a program expect from taking the course? What has happened for the last 20 years? Why should the public be interested in LAB courses?

Opinions and concepts are NOT results. The Forester clan promoting Forester derived LAB classes with fabricated claims of risk reduction results for their trained students are NOT results but rather a line of B.S.


Oh you want statictics eh... well it ain't gonna happen... 'cause there are far too many cyclists out there doing it on their own... whether right or wrong. (and a lot of it IS wrong)

But as far as results... all you have to do is go to a class... look at the riders as they come in and see what they can do after they complete the class.

Not all cyclists have the skills of ILTB or even HH or me. Some folks do need help with the basics and that is exactly what the classes teach. Frankly, I learned little when I took the classes... but my 30+ years of riding and touring (and three accidents) had taught me a lot the hard way... but this is NOT the case for every would be cyclist.

Get the Forester imagery out of your head... none of that is being crammed into the heads of folks taking the LAB classes.

The same lessons can and should be taught at elemetary schools. Just like I learned in the '60s.

The method of the LAB, to teach in these word of mouth small groups, is what limits the overall uptake of the knowledge... not the information offered.

The LAB method of spreading the word is ridiculous... more potential cyclists are born each week than a typical class can ever hope to train... meaning statistically there will always be more "untrained" cyclists than trained cyclists... thus potentially more "poor examples" than good (alluding to things like red light runners and curb huggers).

N_C, I know what Gene is trying to say since he's said it many times before, but I can see why you're having trouble discerning it from what he has posted here.

Gene's basic point about LAB training ineffectivity is not a criticism of the training itself, but it's inabiility (for whatever reason) to reach very many cyclists.

What he's saying is we need to get it into the schools, and/or make it part of driver training, etc. I think we can all agree that that would be nice. The political realitics, however, make it challenging. It's a chicken-egg problem. I think we need the culture to accept the value of cyclist training first. And I think the only way to reach the necessary threshold of acceptance required to support broader programs like those we can only dream about for now, is to continue with the grass roots program. I know in San Diego, for example, we're looking at another relatively big year of training next year. I also know of efforts to get into training law enforcements, and efforts to get into the schools. But it's difficult and challenging. Gene, get your LCI and help us out!

<sarcasm on>
By the way, where are the studies that show SCUBA TRAINING is effective? I am posting about results and lack of same from the SCUBA TRAINING promoters. I don't need to take a course to ask "What Results?" What can the students or sponsors of such a program expect from taking the course? What has happened for the last 20 years? Why should the public be interested in SCUBA TRAINING courses? It's not like strapping on a mask and an air tank and swimming and BREATHING is rocket science.

Opinions and concepts are NOT results. The clan promoting SCUBA TRAINING classes with fabricated claims of risk reduction results for their trained students are NOT results but rather a line of B.S.
<sarcasm off>

I do. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying if a LCI does not train enough students for what ever reason, lack of interest, etc, he may forget what to teach unless he take refresher courses. Also you're saying there is a lot of cyclists & not enough of an interest amongst those cyclists to take the LAB courses. I do not know how many I expdct to train each year, yet. I have to get my training under my belt first. Then I'll go from there. What I do know is myself & others who will become LCI's with me have a 3 state area to cover, maybe 4. I will offer the courses I am able to teach for those that want to take it.

What I am saying is that without some driving force, cyclists are not prone to seek training. Period. There is no incentive.

The other thing I am saying is that due to the method of training... Trained cyclists will never be in the majority... so expecting a "critical mass" of cyclists to "lead" motorists et. al. into a "more co-operative road sharing world" just is not going to happen.

I am not saying the training shouldn't be done... but it should be done on a far grander scale... and as ILTB points out... there sure hasn't been much progress with LAB type education over the last 20 years. Even Forester (through a different message board) has admitted that.

I also find Forester rather tedious and poor reading... which may be part of the slow uptake for his stuff. Hurst reads far easier, and therefore is more likely to be comprehended.

Get your LCI training... offer the classes... but understand that you are barely scratching the surface of all cyclists in the people you reach. And sadly, those that need training the most, are the least likely to be aware that such training even exists.

Hey...Whatever makes you happy I am all for !
To each his own...If you want to ride a tricycle you
should do it without worrying what anyone thinks.
That being said.....I would never take any class on bicycling.
I wouldnt take one on tying my shoelaces either.
But if someone else does, great !
I am aware of cycling 'experts' both internet and IRL and believe the
'expertise'/overcomplication they assault one with to be turnoff to a
lot of cyclists.

N_C, I know what Gene is trying to say since he's said it many times before, but I can see why you're having trouble discerning it from what he has posted here.

Gene's basic point about LAB training ineffectivity is not a criticism of the training itself, but it's inabiility (for whatever reason) to reach very many cyclists.

What he's saying is we need to get it into the schools, and/or make it part of driver training, etc. I think we can all agree that that would be nice. The political realitics, however, make it challenging. It's a chicken-egg problem. I think we need the culture to accept the value of cyclist training first. And I think the only way to reach the necessary threshold of acceptance required to support broader programs like those we can only dream about for now, is to continue with the grass roots program. I know in San Diego, for example, we're looking at another relatively big year of training next year. I also know of efforts to get into training law enforcements, and efforts to get into the schools. But it's difficult and challenging. Gene, get your LCI and help us out!

This pretty well covers it... and yeah perhaps I did not put my comments into the simplist terms.

As far as me getting an LCI... not likely. My weekends are already pretty unavailable. I race sailboats on weekends... :D It was hard enough timewise just taking the LAB classes.

I'll do my bit for advocacy by showing up at the town council meetings....

What determines that the instructor of these courses is competent to teach them? Just because you take a bunch of these courses in a row? Obviously for people new to cycling on the road these courses may offer a good starting point, but for someone like myself who has been riding on heavily trafficked (sp?) roads for close to 17 years, I don't see much value in them.

I also suspect these courses will be heavy on the liability avoidance side, i.e. teaching one to obey all the rules of the road, regardless of whether the law was contrived with motorists in mind, which in my experience is bunk. They wouldn't be able to teach skills which might contravene laws because of a threat of a lawsuit.

All that being said, if it makes you feel better on the bike, or if it gets more people riding then its a good thing.

BTW - I have never been hit or hit anything on my bicycle and the reason is because I use common sense, observation and have a healthy survival instinct.

I am posting about results and lack of same from the LAB promoters. I don't need to take a course to ask "What Results?" What can the students or sponsors of such a program expect from taking the course? What has happened for the last 20 years? Why should the public be interested in LAB courses?

Opinions and concepts are NOT results. The Forester clan promoting Forester derived LAB classes with fabricated claims of risk reduction results for their trained students are NOT results but rather a line of B.S.

What is your idea of an LAB promoter? An LAB member, a member who takes a LAB course, an LCI, or the LAB officers & employees?

Opinions & concepts may not be YOUR idea of a result. But if someone came up to me & siad they took the Road I course. They recommend I join the LAB & take the course myself. I would consider that opinion from that person a successful result that the course is a good thing to take & the LAB is a good organization to join. And that the person got very good results from the course. and I would join the LAB & take the course myself.

Results by word of mouth opinion or not are the best form of advertisment & promotion & are very valuable. Soem of us do not need hard core facts to believe something, or believe in something,. It is called faith. If we find out faith is unfounded then so be it, let that be out mistake. But let us figure it out with out trying to cram your opinions down our throats by telling us we are wrong because we believe in what John Forrester teaches &/or promotes.

Please do not assume your ideas of a result are the same as others, they're not, they won't be. Get used to it &/or get over it.

What determines that the instructor of these courses is competent to teach them?
What determines a SCUBA, driver, or parenting instructor is competent?

Proven and time-tested instructor certification programs.

The EC-based systems, including CANBIKE, have been around for a few decades. It's all we've got. That, and our own judgment when we take the courses.

Finally, this stuff is not rocket science. But some of it is contrary to many "common sense" notions about how cycling should done in traffic in our culture.

N_C, I know what Gene is trying to say since he's said it many times before, but I can see why you're having trouble discerning it from what he has posted here.

Gene's basic point about LAB training ineffectivity is not a criticism of the training itself, but it's inabiility (for whatever reason) to reach very many cyclists.

What he's saying is we need to get it into the schools, and/or make it part of driver training, etc. I think we can all agree that that would be nice. The political realitics, however, make it challenging. It's a chicken-egg problem. I think we need the culture to accept the value of cyclist training first. And I think the only way to reach the necessary threshold of acceptance required to support broader programs like those we can only dream about for now, is to continue with the grass roots program. I know in San Diego, for example, we're looking at another relatively big year of training next year. I also know of efforts to get into training law enforcements, and efforts to get into the schools. But it's difficult and challenging. Gene, get your LCI and help us out!

<sarcasm on>
By the way, where are the studies that show SCUBA TRAINING is effective? I am posting about results and lack of same from the SCUBA TRAINING promoters. I don't need to take a course to ask "What Results?" What can the students or sponsors of such a program expect from taking the course? What has happened for the last 20 years? Why should the public be interested in SCUBA TRAINING courses? It's not like strapping on a mask and an air tank and swimming and BREATHING is rocket science.

Opinions and concepts are NOT results. The clan promoting SCUBA TRAINING classes with fabricated claims of risk reduction results for their trained students are NOT results but rather a line of B.S.
<sarcasm off>

I did not take genes response to be criticism. Thank you for clarifying. I think part of the reason for the inability is the lack of instructors. Most areas have one 1 or 2 LCI's. These are areas with a population of 500,000 or more. My area, if you combine all of the blanket communities, is only 103,000 people. Of those there are about 100 to 300 cyclists. When all is said & done with the LAB courses we hope to have at least 3 or 4 LCI's.

What determines that the instructor of these courses is competent to teach them? Just because you take a bunch of these courses in a row? Obviously for people new to cycling on the road these courses may offer a good starting point, but for someone like myself who has been riding on heavily trafficked (sp?) roads for close to 17 years, I don't see much value in them.

I also suspect these courses will be heavy on the liability avoidance side, i.e. teaching one to obey all the rules of the road, regardless of whether the law was contrived with motorists in mind, which in my experience is bunk. They wouldn't be able to teach skills which might contravene laws because of a threat of a lawsuit.

All that being said, if it makes you feel better on the bike, or if it gets more people riding then its a good thing.

BTW - I have never been hit or hit anything on my bicycle and the reason is because I use common sense, observation and have a healthy survival instinct.

I believe the LCI course involves peer evaluation... But I am not sure.

I know in the SCUBA community the final test was evaluation by other instructors who used the standard "could I trust this potential instructor to teach a loved one." Some instructors failed... and this was a costly program. You don't just buy your way in.

As far as what is taught... it is really quite common sense... not liability motivated. There is a subtle lesson that prevails that encourages you as a cyclist to realize you have rights to the road... that you are not just some second class "bastard step child."

The class focuses on improving rider ability and confidence... using discussion and on road riding with other cyclists as examples. Cyclists are pushed a bit to do things they might have otherwise have shyed away from... such as merging with traffic... makeing proper left turns and how to avoid conflicts.

It is about legal cycling... it is NOT about "taking the lane" or being militant in any way. But the course does teach "fast turns" and emergency braking... It also teaches flat fixing, and other simple mechanical things that frankly bike shops do not bother with.

I was lucky that when I decided to really persue cycling beyond high school, I fell in with a crowd that was willing to teach me some of these things... the rest I learned the hard way.

In taking a class (out of a desire to improve and couriosity) I saw folks that really knew very little of the basics... had a difficult time changing gears, did not know how to fix flats. Tended to avoid all traffic situations and did not know if what they were doing was right or wrong (including how to wear a helmet).

A lot of folks here on BF are experienced cyclists... so it may be difficult to imagine that there are folks out there that do not have basic cycling skills or understand their rights to the road.

The classes did not "dismiss" bike lanes, nor did it focus on "VC correctness." This was straight forward, common sense, smart cycling. But compressed... so several years of "learning by the school of hard knocks" is compressed to 4 weeks. It gets folks off on the right foot.

As far as "dealing with laws contrived with motorists in mind..." well, "red light running" was not taught... If that is what you mean.

What determines a SCUBA, driver, or parenting instructor is competent?



In the case of SCUBA... you are evaluated by a team of at least 3 experienced instructors that test you in everything from "class room" presentation to "water skills," including emergency situations. They use the standard of "would I trust this potential instructor to teach a loved one."

If you don't win the confidence of the evaluation team, you don't teach.

One thing I have not pointed out is another reason for LCI's. One of the things that helps a community obtain the very important status of being a Bicycle Friendly Community by the LAB is if there is an LCI or those educated in the Road I in the community. Or someone who is a bicycle safety advocate or coordinator. They prefere an LCI, but will accept an advocate/coordinator.

The city of South Sioux City recently was awarded the Bronze Level by the LAB as a Bicycle Friendly Community. Part of the reason is because I am the bicycle safety coordinator for that community. In part because I agreed to do that they were awarded the bronze level as a BFC. Had I been an LCI they may have been awarded a higher level, I don't know. Part of doing this does serve an ulterior &/or an alternative motive. I have no problem with that. Plus it will help the other communities in this area become BFC's as well. I am proud to be a part of & help with that. I love helping my community in this manner.

Genec, if all that you can contribute to bicyclists rights and safety is going to city council meetings, then I say THANK YOU! :D We need you there because some of us would rather be working with the people that do not know how to deal with traffic while riding. We all have our own parts to play.

Most of what you described about the LAB classes are correct and even during the LCI class, people were discussing methods to get proper bicycle training into schools and driver's education programs to make everyone play nice out there.

One path to increasing the visibility of these instructional programs was missed in the discussion above. The charity bike rides. In three months I was able to be in front of over 100 cyclists to teach them some additional cycling skills. Over the next few years, the MS Society is looking to institute a nationwide safety training program to try and reduce the number of incidences during the events. While this is not a complete Road 1 class (3 hours, not 20 hours), we are able to inform people about the laws governing their travel, some general guidelines on handling yourself on a bike, and other basic information that some of the students did not know about.

And to every experienced cyclist that says 'I don't need to take that class, I already know this stuff' really needs to have their head examined. They might not learn as much as a newbie, but the classes are not geared towards morons and I'll bet that everyone learns at least one thing during the day. Yes, even people that have been riding for 30 years with no problems.

**edit** I cannot believe that people passed up the perfect opportunity to pick on HH and N_C. They get enough grief in every other thread that I assumed that people would be lining up to write post #22!

My understanding is that the LAB has advanced courses that are required to be a certified LCI, so you have to take a course and pass the test.

-=&#163;em in Pa=-, if you had to tie your shoelaces in the middle of an intersection, would you consider a course on it then? (Probably not, huh...) ;)

I think the LAB courses are useful. I took Road I in June. In my case, I have to admit I didn't find it all that useful in the area of safety, but only because I already knew most of it from these forums! Had I not known any of that, it would have been extremely useful. Even so, I picked up a few less major things that I hadn't known before, like the names of all the parts of the bike, and the idea to train your kids to not just shoot out of the driveway by actually putting a small stop sign at the end of it. :)

Genec, if all that you can contribute to bicyclists rights and safety is going to city council meetings, then I say THANK YOU! :D We need you there because some of us would rather be working with the people that do not know how to deal with traffic while riding. We all have our own parts to play.
Thanks... it ain't much... but it is a voice.



And to every experienced cyclist that says 'I don't need to take that class, I already know this stuff' really needs to have their head examined. They might not learn as much as a newbie, but the classes are not geared towards morons and I'll bet that everyone learns at least one thing during the day. Yes, even people that have been riding for 30 years with no problems.


I did learn something every day... since I went as a very experienced cyclist... I was able to pick up on some very subtle small things. The biggest lesson for me... how to keep those little bottles of "tube glue" from drying out. ;)

Actually some of the more advanced mechanical stuff was pretty good. And honestly, I still have a hard time with high speed turns.

From Extort: **edit** I cannot believe that people passed up the perfect opportunity to pick on HH and N_C. They get enough grief in every other thread that I assumed that people would be lining up to write post #22!

For me, it's because they try to hammer their views (the same ones over and over and over) into every single thread, and I just don't see the point in arguing with them. I barely read anything they write anymore.

For me, it's because they try to hammer their views (the same ones over and over and over) into every single thread, and I just don't see the point in arguing with them. I barely read anything they write anymore.
But wouldn't you just love to pay $50 or $60 to sit in a classroom for hours listening to certified smart guys just like 'em jabber about the only right way to ride a bicycle?:rolleyes:

From Extort: **edit** I cannot believe that people passed up the perfect opportunity to pick on HH and N_C. They get enough grief in every other thread that I assumed that people would be lining up to write post #22!


The funny thing is ILTB got post 22 and bypassed his opportunity... :eek:

Hay-zoos! riding ain't rocket science. some people act like you shouldn't even be on the road unless you've been branded/certified/brainwashed by your local LAB/VC nazi. I had to tell a guy the other day that he didn't need to buy the jersey, the shorts, the special shoes, and the other crap just to ride his bike. people think it's complicated, it's not. in fact, many VC/LAB/bike nazi folks are creating obstacles to the very thing they *say* they desire, getting more butts on bikes on the road, by making it seem like a daunting task fraught with certification, rules and theories, not to mention the special "gear" and he "right" bike. you guys are your own worst enemas.

Hay-zoos! riding ain't rocket science. some people act like you shouldn't even be on the road unless you've been branded/certified/brainwashed by your local LAB/VC nazi. I had to tell a guy the other day that he didn't need to buy the jersey, the shorts, the special shoes, and the other crap just to ride his bike. people think it's complicated, it's not. in fact, many VC/LAB/bike nazi folks are creating obstacles to the very thing they *say* they desire, getting more butts on bikes on the road, by making it seem like a daunting task fraught with certification, rules and theories, not to mention the special "gear" and he "right" bike. you guys are your own worst enemas.

Special gear? Right bike? Gee, I took my two road classes using my two old bikes. I wore a jersey in the first class and got called on it by everybody including the instructor. In Road 2, the Bikes were all old and worn... Although I was the only one still using friction shifters.

Special gear... a helmet was the only required gear... oh and a bike. Hardly "special."

Sorry folks, but someone is painting a pretty polluted picture that just ain't right.

You're right, it's not rocket science... It's pretty common sense stuff... but if nobody showes it to you, then I guess it's not all that common, eh?

Where did you learn how to fix a flat?

Hay-zoos! riding ain't rocket science. some people act like you shouldn't even be on the road unless you've been branded/certified/brainwashed by your local LAB/VC nazi. I had to tell a guy the other day that he didn't need to buy the jersey, the shorts, the special shoes, and the other crap just to ride his bike. people think it's complicated, it's not. in fact, many VC/LAB/bike nazi folks are creating obstacles to the very thing they *say* they desire, getting more butts on bikes on the road, by making it seem like a daunting task fraught with certification, rules and theories, not to mention the special "gear" and he "right" bike. you guys are your own worst enemas.
If you think that's what LAB courses are about, you have no idea what you're talking about.

What Gene said.

Personally, I found it amazing that after moving to SoCal from Colorado (where I grew up) I found that many people have never even been on a bicycle. They have no idea how to balance on two wheels, so the finer points of cycling like 'How to cross railroad tracks and not fall on your face' were completely lost on them.

Back to the original question..... I saw elitism, an deficient method for obtaining large number of students, and cost as being the issues that people are bringing to the table.

Any other issues with LAB/VC/HH :D ? (I know that it is a loaded question, but I believe that N_C's intent was to learn from this thread)

If you think that's what LAB courses are about, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, they teach you things that WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE! Like how to keep your glue from drying out.:rolleyes:

I don't have a problem with the classes, if you think you need them, great. I've never seen any information about these classes, are they teaching how to actually ride the bike, or ideas on how to do it safely? If they are just learning how to ride, they should find a parking lot and just learn to use the bike, instead of riding on the roads with their new "training". Most of the stuff that is apparently being taught does seem like common sense, maybe the riders just don't have it.

Maybe it should be more about how to think on your feet too, it isn't worth being "right" when you're smashed under a car. I understand the things in the class are meant to keep you alive and safe, but things change quick on the street, or trail, that you have to react to without time to think about what to do.

While I agree that a long time rider shouldn't act like they know everything, though something kept them alive all of this time besides just luck, a new rider can't think that the best training can make up for lack of real world experience.

Special gear? Right bike? Gee, I took my two road classes using my two old bikes. I wore a jersey in the first class and got called on it by everybody including the instructor. In Road 2, the Bikes were all old and worn... Although I was the only one still using friction shifters.

Special gear... a helmet was the only required gear... oh and a bike. Hardly "special."

Sorry folks, but someone is painting a pretty polluted picture that just ain't right.

You're right, it's not rocket science... It's pretty common sense stuff... but if nobody showes it to you, then I guess it's not all that common, eh?

Where did you learn how to fix a flat?

oops. this was two separate rants. sorry I combined them. I was talking about the general attitudes of many so-called bike advocates. It seemed that this sub-topic was being explored, so I put my 2 cents in. Sorry I didn't color inside the lines! so.... yeah, yeah, bike classes are great. everyone should take them. I'm sorry to malign the bike classes, golly gee, they are the best!:rolleyes:

But wouldn't you just love to pay $50 or $60 to sit in a classroom for hours listening to certified smart guys just like 'em jabber about the only right way to ride a bicycle?:rolleyes:


I doubt the instruction in the Road I course says their way is the ONLY right way to ride a bicycle. Besides how would you know if you've never taken the course?

Personally, I found it amazing that after moving to SoCal from Colorado (where I grew up) I found that many people have never even been on a bicycle. They have no idea how to balance on two wheels, so the finer points of cycling like 'How to cross railroad tracks and not fall on your face' were completely lost on them.

Back to the original question..... I saw elitism, an deficient method for obtaining large number of students, and cost as being the issues that people are bringing to the table.

Any other issues with LAB/VC/HH :D ? (I know that it is a loaded question, but I believe that N_C's intent was to learn from this thread)

Well, just to set the record straight... HH is not VC nor LAB. He is well beyond those. He has in fact taken VC to a whole new level. He is not alone... I know of others like him. Frankly, they have been refered to as "Fosterites" by some.

So while HH does recommend the LAB courses, what the LAB offers is hardly what HH "preaches."

For example, I on the other hand like bike lanes, but then I know how to use them and how to judge when their use may not suit me.

I know other folks in the area that are even more "preachy" than HH... They get downright militant at the discussion of "bike lanes" and "cyclist's rights." (I try not to discuss it with them... :rolleyes: )

Anyway... The LAB classes do have merit, and are not some VC indoctrination ritual or anything like that. So folks that dismiss the LAB classes based on what they feel they know, due to their conversations with HH, are off base.

I doubt the instruction in the Road I course says their way is the ONLY right way to ride a bicycle. Besides how would you know if you've never taken the course?


N_C, have you taken a course? That really is one of the requirements for LCI... plus you never know what you might learn.