Originally Posted by
John Forester
The program that wsbob thinks might be possible to create was created more than thirty years ago in the form of the Effective Cycling Program... .
Wsbob suggests that government should operate such a program; well, American governments don't want it. ... ... Raising the competence level of American cyclists has to be done by competent cyclists themselves, because nobody else wants competent cyclists.
As I noted in earlier posts, I haven't read Mr. Forrester's books or much about the Effective Cycling Program, but what I gather from comments on weblogs about their content, is that in contrast, what I would tend to have in mind would likely be something that's bike specific, effective, but simple as possible to understand, learn and use.
As to whether government would want such a program, it's just a sense I have, but in Oregon, I think government officials would at least be interested in proposals. Budgets are a big problem here as well as elsewhere; nobody wants any more big expensive bureaucracy. On the other hand, there does definitely seem to be growing interest in biking...not just in the Willamette Valley, but in Oregon's expanses outside of the metro areas as well. With more bikes on the road amongst motor vehicles, an interest in better, safe biking practices more consistently present amongst people biking, is something I tend to think is increasing. Seems very likely in Oregon, there would be plenty of competent cyclists to staff such a program.
Originally Posted by
mconlonx
State runs the scheme at State expense. ... snip.
Yes, the state, as in the 'Dept of Motor Vehicles' should, for the seriousness that association with that type department would give it, probably be the entity that would administer a program for educating and testing people for basic competence in traveling on a bike in traffic...at public expense; rather than individual expense to the person seeking certification, and possibly to people obliged to go through the procedure of learning the material and testing for it after having received a violation. Program's content and accessibility should be of a quality that it would be recognized by the public as sufficiently beneficial to road user safety that public expense of underwriting it would be justified. I believe it's a Portland Bureau of Transportation figure periodically used in local news referring to in-city traffic, estimating that of the total number of vehicles on the road, the percent that are bikes is eight to ten percent. A figure in that area would probably be a starting point for estimating costs of a program to provide bike specific knowledge to, and administer written and on the road tests.
Originally Posted by
atbman
Not entirely true John. The old Cycling Proficiency test used to take place in school playgrounds and would use cones and model road signs to teach year 5 and 6 kids what the rules were. There were a very few councils who added a road module to this.
Bikeability, its replacement, has level 1 which is off-road and is broadly equivalent to the old CP test, followed by small group teaching on the road. As for the "supposedly critical points", in Level 2, the instructors always ride round with them, stopping at junctions and other points to discuss them and observe them and get feedback to ensure understanding, repeating where necessary. Every single route at a new school is risk assessed, for what you describe as "supposedly critical points". These are still usually years 5 and 6.
Level 3 is for older children and adults, the former having to do levels 1 and 2, first and this time with groups of 3 maximum. To quote the website:
"During Bikeability Level 3 training you will learn the skills to tackle a wider variety of traffic conditions than on Level 2. When you reach Level 3 standard you will be able to deal with all types of road conditions and more challenging traffic situations. The course covers dealing with hazards, making ‘on-the-move’ risk assessments and planning routes for safer cycling. Normally you will do this once you have started secondary school. You will be trained in smaller groups of up to three cyclists, although individual training may also be available in your area.
Once you’ve completed your Bikeability Level 3 and been awarded your green badge, you’ll be able to cycle almost anywhere and:
Make a trip safely to school, work or elsewhere on any roads
Use complex junctions and road features such as roundabouts, multi-lane roads and traffic lights
‘Filter’, to keep moving through stationary traffic
Plan your route
Interpret road signs"
Since, in levels 2 & 3 the trainers accompany the trainees along every part of the chosen routes, your characterisation of them as "observers standing beside the road" understates their role more than somewhat. However, when you have groups of children taking the course, stationary observation is a necessary part of the programme, so that each participant's understanding of what they have been taught can be assessed and, if necessary, corrected.
As a former trainer on the old Cycling Proficiency programme (and critical of its shortcomings), and a cycling officer with my city's Highways dept. who, as part of my duties surveyed potential routes on the proposed strategic cycling network, I took it on myself to buy both EF and Bicycle Transportation and found them extremely useful, even where I came across views I didn't always agree with.
As for the Huckaby proposals which kicked this whole thread off, I remain convinced that enforcement of cycle training via a licence/certificate is an unenforceable solution in search of a problem. Amongst other things, it would require the creation of new offences, such as riding while unlicenced, points on such a licence and so forth.
atbman...I appreciate your description of Britain's cycling programs of past. Some of that could be a resource for consideration of ideas for new programs. Re; Huckaby and his proposals for cyclist licensing/bike registration in Oregon: That I know of from the news, he's
absolutely not yet got anything set in stone...no terms in formal proposals in writing. At any rate, Huckaby is not the only person in Portland allowed to conceive of ideas for raising the knowledge and skill level, through some form of program that would be commonly recognized and well known by the public...of people that must bike in traffic. Whatever may eventually be created, by whomever, does not necessarily have to carry with it an appreciable amount of enforcement over that which currently exists to achieve improvement in the use of better in-traffic.
Whatever may eventually be created, by whomever, shouldn't be something designed to rely heavily on an increase in law enforcement in order to get people to use it and support it. To the public, appealing to and offering relatively simple means to the safety of vulnerable road users, reduction of traffic mode conflicts, and improvement in the ability of roadways to work well, is a better way.