N_C

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.

genec

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.

tomcryar

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.

genec

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.

N_C

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.

Helmet Head

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...

N_C

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.

recursive

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

N_C

Response number 22 in this thread: https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/228410-i-may-have-been-wrong-about-bike-paths-but-s-not-what-you-think.html is contempt toward either HH & I, or toward the LAB courses in general.

genec

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

genec

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."

N_C

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

Extort

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

N_C

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.

Helmet Head

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.

N_C

We're at 16 but if you look IU edited my response. This is the thread I was talking about: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=228410&page=2

genec

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.

genec

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.

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

I-Like-To-Bike

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?

genec

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?

I-Like-To-Bike

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.

N_C

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.


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.

genec

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).

Helmet Head

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>