Vehicular Cycling (VC) - what is an incompetent cyclist?

This term gets bandied about frequently in VC discussions...I'd like a definition of an "incompetent cyclist". thanks!

A person who is clipped in who falls over like the guy on Laugh-In...

:D that's pretty much my idea!

If you have to ask...

Like with just about anything, there are different levels of competence when it comes to riding a bike in traffic. If one is not high enough on that continuum, then he is incompetent.

In driving cars we have a driving test to determine competence: you have to achieve a certain score. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got. There are specialized tests for truck drivers, motorcyclists, etc.

For bicycling in traffic, John Forester has developed the Forester Cyclist Proficiency Score Sheet.

Competence is defined as being able to achieve 70% on that.

Here is a link (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/bikelane.htm) that tells you more about it. I copy/pasted the score sheet here so you can get an idea of what is being evaluated. This worksheet is intended to be used by instructors who are trained in how to use it.



GROUP # _________________ CYCLIST # __________________
NAME _______________________________ DATE _______________________

ADDRESS _______________________________ TEST PLACE _____________________________

_______________________________ EXAMINER _____________SCORER ___________


Total Possible _________ Total Lost _________ Score (100(P - L)/P ______________

TRAFFIC SIGNAL .........+5____________ BEING OVERTAKEN......... +10 ___________

Wrong Action........ -5____________ Too Far Left........... -8___________

STOP SIGN.............. +5____________ Too Far Right.......... -4___________

Too Fast ............-2____________ OVERTAKING ...............+10__________

Not Looking .........-4____________ Swerving ...............-4___________

Not Yielding ........-5____________ No Look B4 Swerve ......-8___________

EXIT DRIVEWAY ..........+5____________ Cut Off Slow Driver ....-5___________

Too Fast ............-4____________ RIGHT TURN ................+5___________

Not Looking .........-4____________ Wrong Lane .............-2___________

Not Yielding ........-4____________ Not Yielding ...........-5___________

RIGHT TURN ONLY .......+10___________ Not Looking Left .......-4___________

Straight from RTOL ..-8____________ LEFT TURN ................+15___________

Swerving Out ........-8____________ Wrong Start Posit .....-12___________

INTERSECTION APPR'CH ..+10___________ Not Looking ...........-10___________

R-Side R-Turn Car ...-8____________ Not Yielding ..........-15___________

R-Side Moving Car ...-4____________ No Stop in Ped Turn ...-15___________

Too Far Right .......-4____________ End in Wrong Lane ......-5___________

Too Far Left ........-4____________ MULTIPLE L-TURN LANES ....+10___________

PARKED CAR ............+10___________ Wrong Lane Choice .......-7___________

Swerving ............-8___________ Wrong Side Of Lane ......-4___________

Too Far Out .........-2___________ CHANGING LANES ............+15___________

Too Close ...........-4___________ Not Looking .............-8___________

No Return When Req ..-2___________ Not Yielding ...........-12___________

Return When Not Req .-4___________ Too Many Lanes ..........-5___________ GROUP # __________________ CYCLIST # _________________

MERGE .................+15___________ PEDALLING ................+5___________

Incorrect Path ......-8___________ Slow Cadence ..........-2___________

Not Yielding .......-12___________ Stiff Ankling .........-2___________

DIVERGE ...............+15___________ SHIFTING .................+5___________

Incorrect Path ......-8___________ Too Slow on Hills .....-2___________

Not Looking .........-8___________ Too Slow in Traffic ...-2___________

Not Yielding .......-12___________ PANIC STOP ..............+20___________

GROUP RIDING ..........+15___________ Rear Wheel Skid .......-5___________

Overlap .............-5___________ Lift Rear Wheel .......-15___________

Too Far Behind ......-2___________ Skid & Fall ...........-15___________

Not Indicating Rock .-2___________ INSTANT TURN .............+20___________

Not Indicating Slow .-5___________ Too Wide ...............-5___________

Swerving ............-8___________ Too Slow ..............-10___________

WIDE TO NARROW .........+5___________ ROAD DEFECT ..............+20___________

Swerving ............-6___________ Incorrect Action ......-10___________

No Look or Yield ....-4___________ WIND BLAST ...............+20___________

OFF-ON ROADWAY ........+15___________ Too Much Wobble .......-10___________

Bad Choice of Place .-2___________ AVOID MOT. @ STOP SIGN ...+20___________

Too Fast Return .....-8____________ Incorrect .............-10___________

Not Looking .........-8___________ AVOID MOTORIST MERGE .....+20___________

Not Yielding ........-8___________ Incorrect ................-10___________

Not Perpendicular ...-8___________ AVOID MOT. RIGHT TURN ....+20___________

DIAGONAL RR TRACKS ....+15___________ Incorrect .............-10___________

Not Looking ........-12___________ AVOID MOT. LEFT TURN .....+20___________

Not Yielding .......-12___________ Incorrect Action ......-10___________

Not Perpendicular ..-10___________

POSTURE ................+5___________

Incorrect Saddle Ht .-2___________

Incorrect Foot Pos ..-2___________

mkay, so in the extreme VC world it has to do with passing this test given by a lisenced instructor?

Also, please note, that any factor in the list above that is accompanied by the word "too" requires subjectivity in grading. Unless, or course, there are very specific metrics that graders must use (for example, cadence becomes "too slow" at 30rps - I couldn't think of a similar example for ankling stiffness).

Other metrics that are either/or are much clearer, IMHO. The cyclist either looked or didn't, either lifted the rear wheel in a stop, or didn't either fell or didn't.

Slow Cadence ..........-2___________

Not Yielding .......-12___________ Stiff Ankling .........-2___________

DIVERGE ...............+15___________ SHIFTING .................+5___________

Incorrect Path ......-8___________ Too Slow on Hills


So if i am out of shape and have trouble making it up hills, I am not "competent?" Most people would define "too slow on hills" as the inability to make it too the top.

If I am out for a ride with my family or just "smelling the flowers" and have a "slow cadence" that means I am incompetent?

What exactly is a "slow cadence" anyways. What is a "normal cadence." Is "normal" the mean or median cadence used by the cyling public, or is it based on the cadence of uberjock weekend warrior power rangers?


Apparently, I lose five points automatically for riding fixed, seeing as i can't demonstrate my "shifting" competence.

So if i am out of shape and have trouble making it up hills, I am not "competent?" Most people would define "too slow on hills" as the inability to make it too the top.

If I am out for a ride with my family or just "smelling the flowers" and have a "slow cadence" that means I am incompetent?

What exactly is a "slow cadence" anyways. What is a "normal cadence." Is "normal" the mean or median cadence used by the cyling public, or is it based on the cadence of uberjock weekend warrior power rangers?


Apparently, I lose five points automatically for riding fixed, seeing as i can't demonstrate my "shifting" competence.
As I read it, too slow on hills refers to shifting - either it means to slow to shift when needed or too slow a cadence on hill. I'd guess it means too slow to shift to maintain steady cadence.
No one item makes a cyclist incompetent - but instead a total number of misses vs. total number of plusses with a can add up to below the competent level for this particular evaluation.
Al

to me, an incompetent cyclist might have a lot of accidents because they didn't know what they were doing?

to me, an incompetent cyclist might have a lot of accidents because they didn't know what they were doing?
Thats one measure, the results.
I'd want a more proactive measure though.

Many potential accidents are avoided thru luck or the attentivess/skill of other potential parties. Some folks can get away with years of accident free driving because of this, while being a poor driver by any measure.

Al

mkay, so in the extreme VC world it has to do with passing this test given by a lisenced instructor?
It's the only definition I know of that attempts to define incompetent in some kind of objective fashion.

There are still subjective factors, of factors, just as there are in determining competence in driving, flying, judo, painting, even computer programming...

So if i am out of shape and have trouble making it up hills, I am not "competent?" Most people would define "too slow on hills" as the inability to make it too the top.

If I am out for a ride with my family or just "smelling the flowers" and have a "slow cadence" that means I am incompetent?

What exactly is a "slow cadence" anyways. What is a "normal cadence." Is "normal" the mean or median cadence used by the cyling public, or is it based on the cadence of uberjock weekend warrior power rangers?


Apparently, I lose five points automatically for riding fixed, seeing as i can't demonstrate my "shifting" competence.
I think "too slow on hills" is referring to DOWNhills. You know, the bicyclist riding their brakes because they're too scared to go above 20 or 25 mph or whatever.

I was in a racing clinic once and the trainer told me my cadence was too slow. How did he know? Answer: experience.

In my day you were tested for shifting in the driver's test. Of course, this section did not apply if your car had an automatic transmission.

It's the only definition I know of that attempts to define incompetent in some kind of objective fashion.

There are still subjective factors, of factors, just as there are in determining competence in driving, flying, judo, painting, even computer programming...
What is meant by "ankling" on the test, HH?

I was in a racing clinic once and the trainer told me my cadence was too slow. How did he know? Answer: experience.
argumentum ad verecundiam

I figure not getting killed is a good sign of basic competence, no tests required.

Anyone here think passing a driving test makes one a 'competent' driver?

I figure not getting killed is a good sign of basic competence, no tests required.

Anyone here think passing a driving test makes one a 'competent' driver?
Not in an absolute sense, of course, but I do think it's a pretty good indicator.

argumentum ad verecundiam
It's not an argument. It's an attempt to illustrate that appropriate cadence can be estimated by a trained eye.

What is meant by "ankling" on the test, HH?
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/ankling.html

Edit: "Ankling" refers to how much your ankle adjusts the angle between your foot and lower leg during pedaling. "Stiff ankling" is when the angle does not change throughout the stroke.

It's not an argument. It's an attempt to illustrate that appropriate cadence can be estimated by a trained eye.
The question was, what exactly is a "slow cadence".

Do you have an answer for that?

I must have misunderstood your responding to that post by saying that an experienced trainer can judge the appropriate cadence. I think skanking biker is asking for something specific and measurable, so that he doesn't have to defer to the experience of an authority figure.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/ankling.html


Ankling, a topic of much discussion, has been claimed to improve performance in bicycling, although not by racers and coaches. It has been touted as one of the techniques for excellence that appeals to bicyclists mainly because it requires no additional effort. That there are different ankle motions while pedaling is apparent, although most of these are not by choice nor do they effect efficiency. Because so much attention was given the subject in the 1960's, it prompted a study in Italy, in which some leading racers noted for their abilities as well as a distinct pedaling style were fit with instrumentation to numerically capture the stroke. Among them was Jacques Anquetil who had a noticeably different ankle motion. The study determined that there was no consistency among those tested and that ankling, much like people's walking gait, is caused by physical individuality rather than any advantage. Typically, some walking gaits are so pronounced that a person can be recognized by it at a distance. Some people raise their heel before stepping off on the next stride while others "peel" the foot from the floor in a continuous motion. To artificially emulate someone's ankle motion or lack thereof, while pedaling, is as useless as emulating a walking gait. The study laid ankling to rest for a while, but because urban legends have a life of their own, rising again at the slightest opportunity, ankling, with its lore, is assured a long life.


Also from Sheldon's website:


Some older cycling books and articles recommend the practice of "ankling." This refers to changing the angle of the foot fairly drastically during the course of the pedal stroke, so that the toe is pointed upward at the top of the stroke, and downward at the bottom. The idea is to make more use of the muscles of the lower leg, and to permit "pedaling in circles", i.e., applying more force to the cranks at top and bottom dead center.
This practice is pretty much discredited these days. If carried to an extreme, it can cause injury. This happened to me when I was a teen-ager; I had read about ankling, and had just acquired my first pair of toe clips, just before setting out on my first overnight tour. I ankled for about the first 30-40 miles, when there was a sudden sharp pain in one of my Achilles tendons. I had to lower the saddle, remove the toe clips, and finish out the 4 day tour pedaling on my arches, because I couldn't bear the slightest load on the front of my foot, pulling on the Achilles tendons. For about a month thereafter, I would need to massage my Achilles tendons for about 5 minutes each morning before I would be able to walk. 40 years later, I've still not completely recovered from this injury.
So why is ankling still on the test?
Do you agree with it's presence on the test?

The question was, what exactly is a "slow cadence".

Do you have an answer for that?

I must have misunderstood your responding to that post by saying that an experienced trainer can judge the appropriate cadence. I think skanking biker is asking for something specific and measurable, so that he doesn't have to defer to the experience of an authority figure.
Oh. Sure, on flats normal cadence is around 80 rpm or higher. I used to count the number of times my right knee came up in 10 seconds and multiply by 6, but now I just use a cyclo-computer. Personally, I like to spin in the 90-105 range. Like anything else, it takes getting used to. 60 is a good starting point, then work up to 70, 80 and 90.

On hills it can be much slower (see Jan Ullrich, not Lance Armstrong, for an example!)

So why is ankling still on the test?
Do you agree with it's presence on the test?
Ankling is not on the test.
"Stiff ankling" is on the test.
I agree with it, because there should be some change in angle during the stroke.
That usage has nothing to do with the extreme practice known as "ankling".

Oh. Sure, on flats normal cadence is around 80 rpm or higher. I used to count the number of times my right knee came up in 10 seconds and multiply by 6, but now I just use a cyclo-computer. Personally, I like to spin in the 90-105 range. Like anything else, it takes getting used to. 60 is a good starting point, then work up to 70, 80 and 90.

On hills it can be much slower (see Jan Ullrich, not Lance Armstrong, for an example!)
Much better, thank you.

So a trained instructor will only mark someone down for "slow cadence" when 1) on flats, 2)their cadence is below 80, and 3)not coasting (my assumption) or 4)slowing down (also my assumption) or 5)starting off the line (also also my assumption)

Also, is this based on a percentage of the time spent below 80, or is it more of a sudden death?

That usage has nothing to do with the extreme practice known as "ankling".
I'm sorry. I confused the two, when I asked you about "ankling on the test" and you sent me to a link that spoke about the extreme practice known as "ankling"


I agree with it, because there should be some change in angle during the stroke.
Ok. Do you have a reason to believe that there is a link between stiff ankles and cycling competence?

Also, how much angle change is required to pass that portion of the test? Is there a cut-off point, or is an absolute (some angle change vs none), or is it subjective based on the trainer?

I figure not getting killed is a good sign of basic competence, no tests required.

Anyone here think passing a driving test makes one a 'competent' driver?

There's a difference between "competence" and "proficiency" or "mastery". People who have passed a driving test are competent drivers, although they're usuall not masterful drives. Mastery would require the attainment of additional skills or knowledge beyond the level of competence. I think Forester's test is a test of mastery, and too difficult to be a test of mere competence. Competence usually refers to the minimum level of skills required to adequately perform a task or skill.

An authority of some sort is required to determine competency, chipcom, and that's not a bad thing either. If you ever had surgery, I hope that some authority had determined that your surgeon was competent before you had the operation, not by turning him loose to see if anybody dies. I doubt if you'd turn a 12 year old child loose on a bike in heavy traffic to determine his competency either.

(Nevertheless, the 12 year old would probably become competent pretty quickly if he didn't die first, proving that bike riding ain't brain surgery.)

Anyhoo, I don't know if I could pass Forester's test, but I'd be proud if I did.

I'm sorry. I confused the two, when I asked you about "ankling on the test" and you sent me to a link that spoke about the extreme practice known as "ankling"


Ok. Do you have a reason to believe that there is a link between stiff ankles and cycling competence?

Also, how much angle change is required to pass that portion of the test? Is there a cut-off point, or is an absolute (some angle change vs none), or is it subjective based on the trainer?

So far as I know, there is no known causal relationship between cadence, for example, and the rate of car-bike collisions. There may well be a correlation, however, because skill in cycling does seem to improve in several aspects concurrently.

To get to the point, in all of the discussions under Vehicular Cycling, the only aspects of competence that are relevant are the traffic aspects. Vehicular Cycling is riding according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the traffic test observations on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet are all directed at evaluating that competence. And I have set the points earned for each maneuver and the points lost for each defect such that 70% is what I consider to be the minimum acceptable level of competence.

Using the same scoring system, the scores of the adult cycling populations of several cities that have reputations as being centers of cycling activity run about 55%.

I'm sorry. I confused the two, when I asked you about "ankling on the test" and you sent me to a link that spoke about the extreme practice known as "ankling"


Ok. Do you have a reason to believe that there is a link between stiff ankles and cycling competence?

Also, how much angle change is required to pass that portion of the test? Is there a cut-off point, or is an absolute (some angle change vs none), or is it subjective based on the trainer?

Do you have a reason to believe that a trained instructor is unable to make an educated judgment of cadence and ankling without resorting to protractor and stopwatch? Are you personally unable to look at another cyclist and make informed judgments about his/her form? Do you have a substantive problem with the test, or do you just enjoy yapping about trivial details?

I think too low a cadence can be best judged not by the actual cadence, but by how the cyclist body is responding to the cadence. There is a point when a low cadence appears to be a jerky struggle vs. a smooth efficient movement.

Al

So far as I know, there is no known causal relationship between cadence, for example, and the rate of car-bike collisions. There may well be a correlation, however, because skill in cycling does seem to improve in several aspects concurrently.

To get to the point, in all of the discussions under Vehicular Cycling, the only aspects of competence that are relevant are the traffic aspects. Vehicular Cycling is riding according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the traffic test observations on the Forester Cycling Proficiency Score Sheet are all directed at evaluating that competence. And I have set the points earned for each maneuver and the points lost for each defect such that 70% is what I consider to be the minimum acceptable level of competence.

Using the same scoring system, the scores of the adult cycling populations of several cities that have reputations as being centers of cycling activity run about 55%.
Then your test is a measure of higher order skills, not mere competence.

Then your test is a measure of higher order skills, not mere competence.

No. Emphatically no. The road system is operated under the principle that those who drive on it are competent to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. All that my test measures is the competence to obey those rules when actually driving a bicycle in real traffic. That is the socially accepted, and, we hope, socially required degree of competence.

The fact that America has always had a policy of incompetent cycling, meaning cycling that did not comport with the rules of the road, on the assumption that cyclists were too dumb to be able to obey those rules, makes no difference at all to what the traffic situation actually requires.

Much better, thank you.

So a trained instructor will only mark someone down for "slow cadence" when 1) on flats, 2)their cadence is below 80, and 3)not coasting (my assumption) or 4)slowing down (also my assumption) or 5)starting off the line (also also my assumption)
Yes, except I don't think it's as cut and dried as (2). I mean, if someone is riding with a constant rpm of 75, they probably won't get docked. In the gray areas it becomes a subjective matter. Maybe you'll get docked 1 point for 70 and 2 points for 55 or below? I don't know whether Forester gives more detailed criteria in the manual or just leaves it up to the instructor.


Also, is this based on a percentage of the time spent below 80, or is it more of a sudden death?
Neither. I suspect what actually happens is if a cyclist looks like he's pedaling too slowly, then the instructor will watch him for a while. If it's a persistent thing, he might actually measure. Otherwise, he gets no penalties. That's how I would do it anyway. Mr. Forester can provide a better answer, I'm sure, if he hasn't already (I noticed he posted below, but have not yet read his posts).

No. Emphatically no. The road system is operated under the principle that those who drive on it are competent to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. All that my test measures is the competence to obey those rules when actually driving a bicycle in real traffic. That is the socially accepted, and, we hope, socially required degree of competence.

The fact that America has always had a policy of incompetent cycling, meaning cycling that did not comport with the rules of the road, on the assumption that cyclists were too dumb to be able to obey those rules, makes no difference at all to what the traffic situation actually requires.
It is hard (and unfair) to judge the test without the manual, let alone without the training that the examiners get.

I wonder how your test compares in difficulty with the driving test (road, written, signage and visual) that's administered before a 16 year old gets a license. Do you feel that driving tests are adequate measures of competence for new drivers? To what degree do you feel that knowledge of driving prepares someone for vehicular cycling?

I hope I'm not asking too many questions, but maybe one more. Do you believe that one can become a competent vehicular cyclist without taking a course and passing a test?

And I have set the points earned for each maneuver and the points lost for each defect such that 70% is what I consider to be the minimum acceptable level of competence.

So... is there any other definition? Or are we stuck with this silly subjective Forester test?

The thread was about competent cyclist - not competent "vehicular cyclist"

Do you have a reason to believe that a trained instructor is unable to make an educated judgment of cadence and ankling without resorting to protractor and stopwatch? Are you personally unable to look at another cyclist and make informed judgments about his/her form? Do you have a substantive problem with the test, or do you just enjoy yapping about trivial details?
I think anyone can estimate cadence. Did I ever say otherwise?

My substantive problem with the test was that it a good portion of it is subjective, and that a few things seem to me irrelevant as a tool for determining "competence". (JF, this is not a dig at your test, or your response above, but rather a comment on HHs using the test to define competence.)

Why do you think this is yapping or trivial?

Much better, thank you.

So a trained instructor will only mark someone down for "slow cadence" when 1) on flats, 2)their cadence is below 80, and 3)not coasting (my assumption) or 4)slowing down (also my assumption) or 5)starting off the line (also also my assumption)

Also, is this based on a percentage of the time spent below 80, or is it more of a sudden death?

The problem with the "80" cadence is that cadence is an individual thing, and what others believe is correct for many may not be correct for an individual. Easy paced riding on the flats at 55-65 rpm with minimal effort is not a sign of incompetence, is a sign of being relaxed.

Slow Cadence ..........-2___________

Not Yielding .......-12___________ Stiff Ankling .........-2___________

DIVERGE ...............+15___________ SHIFTING .................+5___________

Incorrect Path ......-8___________ Too Slow on Hills


Maybe if you are talking about cycling as a sport, but as basic transportation, this is a ridiculous list of requirements.

I dare you to find some little old Brittish lady wearing a skirt, sensible shoes, riding a 3-speed with a violin in her pannier bag and tell her she's an incompetent cyclist.

It is hard (and unfair) to judge the test without the manual, let alone without the training that the examiners get.

I wonder how your test compares in difficulty with the driving test (road, written, signage and visual) that's administered before a 16 year old gets a license. Do you feel that driving tests are adequate measures of competence for new drivers? To what degree do you feel that knowledge of driving prepares someone for vehicular cycling?

I hope I'm not asking too many questions, but maybe one more. Do you believe that one can become a competent vehicular cyclist without taking a course and passing a test?

Last first. Of course one can become a competent vehicular cyclist without taking a course and passing a test. After all, I never took a course or passed a test. [Grin] When I measured the performance of the group of Western Wheelers who took Thursday lunch rides, and whose average score was 98%, I was viewing a group of people, none of whom had taken a course or passed a test before. Vehicular cycling skills were quite common among club cyclists in those years. Experience and camaraderie had taught them what they needed to know.

I intended my Cycling Proficiency Test to be approximately equal to the motor-vehicle driving test as far as traffic performance is concerned. As far as cyclists are concerned, there is little formal written knowledge necessary that would not be tested in practice during the test. For example, knowing about yellow-painted curbs is irrelevant to cyclists. As for visual, I ignored that, though I suspect that someone who was so visually impaired as to be a danger as a cyclist would be immediately obvious, more likely through wheel damage or falls than danger to others. Our society accepts that the standard tests (in those states that give them) qualifies a driver as at least minimally acceptably competent. However, we know that accident rates fall with experience after that qualification.

I do not accept that knowledge of motoring prepares one for vehicular cycling. There are exceptions. One of those whom I recognized knew it all from the beginning told me that he had decided to take up cycling after he broke his elbow during his third Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Race (one of the premier races for motorcycles, you know). The reason that typical American motoring does not prepare one for cycling is that our society insists that these are two different activities with different skills and abilities. Typically, at the opening of a class or lecture for adults, I ask for a show of hands for those in possession of motoring licenses, at which almost all raise a hand. So I look at them and say, "I don't know why you are all here, because you know most of what I am going to teach you about traffic cycling. The problem is, that you don't recognize that yourselves."

I think too low a cadence can be best judged not by the actual cadence, but by how the cyclist body is responding to the cadence. There is a point when a low cadence appears to be a jerky struggle vs. a smooth efficient movement.

Al

This is not an appropriate observation. The importance of cadence is that with too low a cadence the cyclist tires quickly for the effort expended, and therefore is unable to enjoy longer rides, which may well unduly limit his use of bicycle transportation. This is explained in the chapter in Effective Cycling on the Physiology of Hard Riding.

how about this, the unable to hold a line, unable to brake to a stop within a certain distance from a certain speed, unable to ride one handed to facilitate turn signals, unable to "drope the hammer"?

Slow Cadence ..........-2___________

Not Yielding .......-12___________ Stiff Ankling .........-2___________

DIVERGE ...............+15___________ SHIFTING .................+5___________

Incorrect Path ......-8___________ Too Slow on Hills


Maybe if you are talking about cycling as a sport, but as basic transportation, this is a ridiculous list of requirements.

I dare you to find some little old Brittish lady wearing a skirt, sensible shoes, riding a 3-speed with a violin in her pannier bag and tell her she's an incompetent cyclist.



Maybe if you are talking about cycling as a sport, but as basic transportation, this is a ridiculous list of requirements.

I dare you to find some little old Brittish lady wearing a skirt, sensible shoes, riding a 3-speed with a violin in her pannier bag and tell her she's an incompetent cyclist.

Diane, do you really want to continue demonstrating to us your inability to understand safe cycling, or your inordinate hatred for vehicular cycling?

Failing to yield, mishandling a diverge, and taking the wrong path through an intersection are all errors that cause collisions. Those errors are not made safer by carrying a violin.

This term gets bandied about frequently in VC discussions...I'd like a definition of an "incompetent cyclist". thanks!
I think it's strange that we cannot swallow the idea of an "incompetant cyclist," but we quite frequently refer to motorists synonymously.

There's a difference between "competence" and "proficiency" or "mastery". People who have passed a driving test are competent drivers, although they're usuall not masterful drives. Mastery would require the attainment of additional skills or knowledge beyond the level of competence. I think Forester's test is a test of mastery, and too difficult to be a test of mere competence. Competence usually refers to the minimum level of skills required to adequately perform a task or skill.

An authority of some sort is required to determine competency, chipcom, and that's not a bad thing either. If you ever had surgery, I hope that some authority had determined that your surgeon was competent before you had the operation, not by turning him loose to see if anybody dies. I doubt if you'd turn a 12 year old child loose on a bike in heavy traffic to determine his competency either.

(Nevertheless, the 12 year old would probably become competent pretty quickly if he didn't die first, proving that bike riding ain't brain surgery.)

Anyhoo, I don't know if I could pass Forester's test, but I'd be proud if I did.


The above is a reasonable discussion that I had not read when making earlier posts. It presents a reasonable discussion of the difference between competence and mastery. However, I disagree with the conclusion that achieving 70% on the Cycling Proficiency Test (or just on the traffic-cycling portion) represents more than basic competence. All of the traffic situations considered are those that one should be able to handle just in order to ride to any destination in any typical city. If you find that your trips are limited because you don't have the skill to handle typical situations, I could not consider you to be competent.

I think "too slow on hills" is referring to DOWNhills. You know, the bicyclist riding their brakes because they're too scared to go above 20 or 25 mph or whatever.

I was in a racing clinic once and the trainer told me my cadence was too slow. How did he know? Answer: experience.

In my day you were tested for shifting in the driver's test. Of course, this section did not apply if your car had an automatic transmission.

Way back when, I was in conversation with the driver of an MG TC who had flunked his driving test for overreving his engine in the standard way appropriate for those engines but was unknown to the driving tester.

Last first. Of course one can become a competent vehicular cyclist without taking a course and passing a test. After all, I never took a course or passed a test. [Grin] When I measured the performance of the group of Western Wheelers who took Thursday lunch rides, and whose average score was 98%, I was viewing a group of people, none of whom had taken a course or passed a test before. Vehicular cycling skills were quite common among club cyclists in those years. Experience and camaraderie had taught them what they needed to know.

I intended my Cycling Proficiency Test to be approximately equal to the motor-vehicle driving test as far as traffic performance is concerned. As far as cyclists are concerned, there is little formal written knowledge necessary that would not be tested in practice during the test. For example, knowing about yellow-painted curbs is irrelevant to cyclists. As for visual, I ignored that, though I suspect that someone who was so visually impaired as to be a danger as a cyclist would be immediately obvious, more likely through wheel damage or falls than danger to others. Our society accepts that the standard tests (in those states that give them) qualifies a driver as at least minimally acceptably competent. However, we know that accident rates fall with experience after that qualification.

I do not accept that knowledge of motoring prepares one for vehicular cycling. There are exceptions. One of those whom I recognized knew it all from the beginning told me that he had decided to take up cycling after he broke his elbow during his third Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Race (one of the premier races for motorcycles, you know). The reason that typical American motoring does not prepare one for cycling is that our society insists that these are two different activities with different skills and abilities. Typically, at the opening of a class or lecture for adults, I ask for a show of hands for those in possession of motoring licenses, at which almost all raise a hand. So I look at them and say, "I don't know why you are all here, because you know most of what I am going to teach you about traffic cycling. The problem is, that you don't recognize that yourselves."

Thanks for the info! It's very interesting to me. :)

This mirrors the way I learned about vehicular cycling. I got a rusty old Walmart bike 6 or 7 years ago, intending to ride it instead of a car in the city. I must have heard somewhere that "cyclists have the rights and responsibilities of motorists," as that went through my head like a mantra. I did ride in the street from the start, but hugged the gutter and felt insecure about many situations, especially left turns, although I did make them from the proper lane. I felt like I should operate my bike like a car, except farther to the right. of course I now know that there's a lot more to it than that, but this was a good place to start.

Instead of the "Experience and camaraderie" of a club, I had Bikeforums on the internet, and especially Helmet Head to guide me. And your great book of course! I picked up competence gradually, and luckily didn't kill myself, although I came close a couple times. A vehicular cycling course would have been a godsend, but I couldn't find one in my area. I believe I'm a competent VC rider by now, but I'd love to be able to take your test to confirm that. And a class would be great too, if I could find one.

I think I'm going to hurl.

I think I'm going to hurl.
That must mean an intelligent discussion is occurring in this thread!:)

incompetency is failing a "Forester branded competancy score sheet"?

PLUEAZE.....

quick, I need a bucket.

I think I'm going to hurl.
Go for it!

But make sure i'm not riding behind you, eh?

PANIC STOP ..............+20___________

GROUP RIDING ..........+15___________ Rear Wheel Skid .......-5___________

Overlap .............-5___________ Lift Rear Wheel .......-15___________

Too Far Behind ......-2___________ Skid & Fall ...........-15___________


It is a natural outcome of a properly executed maximum stop that the rear wheel skids or even comes off the ground a bit. There is a lot of leeway between the time the rear wheel starts to skid and the time it comes off the ground; there is a lot of leeway between the time the rear wheel first comes off the ground and the time the rider goes over the bars. It is a good thing for bicyclists to familiarize themselves with these zones of control and the type of deceleration that begins to bring the rear wheel off the ground, and , most importantly, with the type of body movement that is necessary to properly execute a stop near the maximum possible deceleration. A stop that doesn't even result in a rear wheel skid is nowhere near a maximum controlled stop. I mean, not even close.

Robert

It is a natural outcome of a properly executed maximum stop that the rear wheel skids or even comes off the ground a bit. There is a lot of leeway between the time the rear wheel starts to skid and the time it comes off the ground; there is a lot of leeway between the time the rear wheel first comes off the ground and the time the rider goes over the bars. It is a good thing for bicyclists to familiarize themselves with these zones of control and the type of deceleration that begins to bring the rear wheel off the ground, and , most importantly, with the type of body movement that is necessary to properly execute a stop near the maximum deceleration possible. A stop that doesn't even result in a rear wheel skid is nowhere near a maximum controlled stop. I mean, not even close.

Robert
But when should the skid happen? Seems like it's best to skid just before you stop, as you put your foot down. That way you can maintain control by swinging the back of the bike a bit in your hands, like a counterweight to your body's momentum, so you don't fall on your ass at the end of the stop. If you skid too early, I think you wipe out.