SerialLadyKillr

I have volunteered to put on a safety/skills clinic before a kids (5-12 years old) Mountain Bike Race my club is putting on. The race is this weekend and I was hoping some of you can give me some advice as to some good topics and points to discuss. Thanks.

Helmet-Head

This is from John Forester's website.
This is a summary. For each age group (8, 10, 12) is a link to a whole separate page targeted for the respective level, including a list of references.

Hope it helps.

https://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ectraining.htm

Children's Effective Cycling:

Each Effective Cycling Course for Children concentrates only on traffic-safe cycling on roads and in traffic that are appropriate for the age of the child. There is insufficient time to learn other cycling subjects. The training is primarily on the road in traffic, but the training is carefully controlled so that the children do not have to work with situations for which they are not ready. There is very little lecturing instruction, practically all of it is done by showing how, telling why this works, and practice, practice, practice, under controlled conditions of traffic that gradually gets more difficult as each child's ability improves. The final examination is a bicycle driving test on roads and in traffic appropriate to the age of the child. On these tests, nearly all students pass, and the class average scores have been about 95% on a test where 70% is the minimum passing score, and on which the average untrained adults cycling in the same city earn flunking scores around 55% to 60%. In other words, the children, within their scope of qualification, ride far better than nearly all adults riding bicycles.

Each course takes about 15 class hours, with nearly all of that time being supervised and evaluated, repeated practice of proper cycling on the road, in traffic. Each course is designed to start with beginners who have had no real cycling training before. When a school system uses all three courses, it is very likely that the time for the later courses could be shortened, because the incoming students would have learned the skills when younger and need only to be refreshed on much of the material.

Age Eight:

Students of age eight learn the skills of using only the first three of the five basic traffic principles, which is sufficient for cycling on two-lane residential roads with moderate traffic. This enables them to travel about their neighborhoods. For an account of how this course works and the results that it achieves, see: Elementary-Level Cyclist Training Program: Objectives, Techniques & Results

Age Ten:

Students of age ten learn the skills of using all the five basic traffic principles in traffic up to that encountered on four-lane roads with traffic of moderate speed. This enables them to travel to and in the smaller commercial areas and neighborhood centers of interest that are suitable for their ages. For an account of how this course works and the results that it achieves, see: Elementary-Level Cyclist Training Program: Objectives, Techniques & Results

Age Twelve:

Students of age twelve and over learn the skills of using all the five basic traffic principles in all types of traffic.This enables them to travel to any part of town that is otherwise suitable for them. For an account of how this course works and the results that it achieves, see: Intermediate-Level Cyclist Proficiency Training: Objectives, Techniques, and Results

genec

Great, now get it into the public schools!

Helmet-Head

My plan is to take instructor training and become certified in June, and eventually bring courses to my daughter's elementary school (which she won't start until next September). I figure I have a few years... hopefully will get some instructor training experience in the interim...

lsits

Do a Google search on "Bike Rodeo". That should give you plenty of good ideas. You can enlist the LBS to conduct a safety inspection of all the bikes before hand.

I-Like-To-Bike

1. Anybody know if this course, as described, has been offered anywhere in the US in the last 20 years or so? I suspect the answer is Zero or pretty darn close.

2. The course material may or may not be useful to uninterested or distracted students, I have no comment.

3. The significance of the test numbers above; juggled, fabricated and extrapolated beyond all credible reason to arrive at the above conclusion are an example of Forester's habit of using outrageous statistical distortions in order to bamboozle the gullible about the effectiveness of his course. The evidence presented should not be taken seriously. Details of the statistical deceipt involved can be provided if requested.

Helmet-Head

Stanley (I-Like-To-Bike) has a personal beef with John Forester and anyone who supports Forester's approach.

Just something to take into account when you read his unsubstantiated criticisms...

Cycliste

I have the same plan (though my daughter is probably a couple of years younger than yours ). I will be training with LAB (BikeED ), the study material seems identical to the one JF refers to ? Are they the same courses ?

RocketsRedglare

its like communism, on paper it sounds pretty good. But try to make it work when the public doesn't care. Most parents are worthless as boobs on a boar-hog when teaching cycling skills (this probably accounts for so many people riding on the wrong side of the road)

Simply put, outside of a relatively small community of (relatively knowledgeble) adult cyclists and their kids, most people don't have the time, will not or don't care to take the time to bring their kids to a safe cycling class. All you have to do is look at the bike rodeos that local police and fire department offer. Its all fun and games, and the kids do learn something, but look at the actual turnout. Its kind of sad to see only 30 or 40 kids out of a community of 100,000 people. And most are there for the ice-cream and clowns.

The best approach to teaching young cyclists is for truly concerned (and knowledgeble) individuals or groups approach local school boards and/or PTAs and offer to give a seminar on Safe cycling.

Helmet-Head

Yes, the LAB BikeED program is heavily based on Forester's Effective Cycling material.
Forester and LAB had a disagreement a few years back with respect to how the material could or should be divided. LAB ended up dividing the EC course into two parts (Road 1 and Road 2), with many students taking only Road 1, and having much less on-the-road teaching than prescribed originally by Forester. He didn't want his name (or EC) assocated with a program that short-circuited the teaching material like that - feeling that students wouldn't learn how to be safe in that short of a course. LAB seemed to think they're better off teaching something than nothing, as nothing was mostly what they were teaching given the small number of students willing to commit to a 10 week (I believe that's right) course.

Cycliste

Road1 is 1.5 days and aimed at making people feel more confident riding in trafic by teaching them basics of safety and bicycling, which is the main problem for most people. Ten weeks sounds to me like taking people for a ride, if you excuse the pun. Carmichael could get them ready for the TdeF in less time!

genec

Leave all the statistical mumble jumble out... we're taking kids here... almost anything positive that can be taught to kids RE bicycle riding is better than nothing.

I remember bicycle rodeos when I was growing up. My son got nothing, except from me. And sadly it was too "uncool" for him to ride to school when he became old enough to negotiate the 35MPH multilane boulevards he would have to use. He even got rides with friends' parents to avoid riding a bike. (has a darn good bike too... He rides it, but NOT to school)

powers2b

Serch for LCI (Legue of cycling instructors) courses.
There are several in Cleveland and they will start training courses next month.

Enjoy

I-Like-To-Bike

So has the course been taught anywhere in 20 years?

No? Why does NO educational, safety or government organization endorse or sponser it? Why would that be if it is as alleged, so dang useful and effective in improving safety for children?

Helmet-Head

I never said that your specific questioning of whether the course has been taught in 20 years was unsubstantiated. I don't know whether it's true or not. I know I will try my best to get my daughter and her schoolmates to learn it.

An example of your unsubstantiated criticism is this: "juggled, fabricated and extrapolated beyond all credible reason" and "an example of Forester's habit of using outrageous statistical distortions in order to bamboozle the gullible about the effectiveness of his course."

As to why (if true) "NO educational, safety or government organization endorse(s) or sponsor(s) it", I think the bigger question is why there is NO educational, safety or government organization endorsing or sponsoring ANY decent cycling education program for children. I hasten to add, that if they did, they probably would adopt Forester's program, or something like it.

By the way, the EC for adults program IS of course endorsed and sponsored by a "educational, safety or government organization": the LAB (bikeleague.org), and many cycling advocacy organizations (like sdcbc.org).

Serge

I-Like-To-Bike

Serge quoted Forester, "The final examination is a bicycle driving test on roads and in traffic appropriate to the age of the child. On these tests, nearly all students pass, and the class average scores have been about 95% on a test where 70% is the minimum passing score, and on which the average untrained adults cycling in the same city earn flunking scores around 55% to 60%. In other words, the children, within their scope of qualification, ride far better than nearly all adults riding bicycles."

Then states that criticism of the such statistical stuff must be personal. Hardly.

The following is for anyone who cares to know why there is significant reason to doubt Forester claims for the effectiveness of his Effective Cycling™ program for children. Or if there is a good reason to doubt the credibility of the promoter(s) of this thoroughly rejected curriculum for educating children.

1. The "test" is a Forester construct and scores achieved by students have NO (AKA ZERO) correlation with students actual cycling behavior when not being tested and ZERO correlation with any measure of safety results for the students after training/testing. That means the students' score, whether 20 or 100, doesn't mean a dang thing in regard to non classroom behavior and even less for predicting future safety results for the students.

The "test" ( AKA The Forester Cycling Proficiency Test) (https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...s/bikelane.htm )was given to the classroom students after 10-15 hours of training; the students knew they were being graded and were presumably motivated to meet the grader's standards which had been taught for so many hours. In comparison the group that Forester describes as the "average untrained adults cycling in the same city" were specifically selected by Forester to document his preconceptions, and were unaware that Forester was following them around. The subjects were unaware that they were being graded on how well they met Forester's arbitrary standards of performance. They were unaware they were being graded for meeting his expectations for posture, cadence, shifting, cycling too far right IAW Forester standards, too far left. IAW Forester standards, etc., etc. They were unaware that they were being graded for "not looking" as determined by a bicyclist 50 or more feet behind them. Anyone who would compare test scores between groups tested in this way or draw a conclusion other than about the tester's credibility needs lessons in logic.

The method employed is the same as comparing performance of driving students while getting road tested by the State for their first driving license, with the average motorist on the highway unaware of an instructor grading them for compliance with arbitrary standards. And then drawing conclusions about how much better the student drivers are in comparison.

Guaranteed - the student being observed by the inspector will meticulously obey the speed limit, will always use turn signals, quite visibly look in all directions at every intersection; the student who knows he is being tested and is motivated to pass the test will not use a cell phone, will not chat with friends in the back seat, will not smoke a cigarette, adjust the radio, or eat a Big Mac while driving for a grade. After the license is obtained, all bets and predictions are off as far as future behavior, no matter what the score on the test. Doubt it? All the idiot drivers on the road once were good little students taking and passing the same driving test and doing all the right things for at least one day when motivated to do so.

Guaranteed - if the instructor grader went unannounced following typical adult motorists on any highway in the US he would flunk almost everybody in short order for speeding, following too closely, not visibly looking in all directions at intersections, improper stopping and all the other techniques that have to be done correctly at the time of the test.

These testing/comparison techniques may seem perfectly sensible in a World that is clouded with ideology and wishful thinking; rational thought should clear things up.

Helmet-Head

By 1.5 days you mean 3 half days, taught over 3 weeks (typically three Saturdays in a row, for example).
This gives students time to practice during the week.

I think the original EC class was 10 weeks, but don't quote me on that. But it's really 10 half-days, or 5 days of actual instructions, rather than 1.5.

But maybe it was only 6 weeks (3 days). I'm not sure.

But it's not 1.5 days vs. 10 weeks.

It's 1.5 days/3 weeks vs. 3 days/6 weeks, or 5 days/10 weeks, or something like that.

Helmet-Head

Stanley, you seem to expect more of Forester and his education and training than does anyone else expect of any kind of broad-based education or training that I can think of. Why? People are given license to drive deadly motor vehicles with less training and testing than you're criticizing here. Consider swimming lessons and swimming proficiency testing. Or wilderness survival training. Rock climbing. Scuba diving. Etc. etc. About most if not all of these you could also say stuff like:


So what?

I don't know about you, but when I got my driver's license I drove differently because I knew the instructor was watching me. So what?

It's all about your personal beef. Let it go.

I-Like-To-Bike

I agree let's leave out statistical mumbo jumbo. Why not define the problem you want to fix? Presumably it is not something that will be solved by teaching children anything that comes to mind to a self proclaimed cycling prophet.

Gene, would you want YOUR youngster(s) taught by unsupervised ideologes with unique versions of the law and other unique theories of driver behavior?

Would you be happy with the thought of your local school board or government assuming the liabilility for the repurcussions if untested, unapproved theories of cycling are taught as if they were the law or the only right way, by obsessive pedants to impressionable and trusting children who may not have the experience or knowledge to sort out fact from dogma? Do you really think that is better than nothing? I don't.

I-Like-To-Bike

I suppose that's the bottom line of your rationale for repeating statistical distortions and perverted risk analysis to promote your favorite program. Fine. You can have the final word.

I will wait to hear a report of how your teaching methods are evaluated by the other parents of children subjected to your theories and ideology (as promulagated endlessly on the Internet) in the guise of cycling safety instruction.

Helmet-Head

Stanley,

Give Forester a break. So he's crotchety. He has lived a full life and accomplished much more than most people have. And I can't think of anyone who has accomplished more for cycling than he has. His work and expertise has educated and trained many, many cyclists, and influenced many more. He has written books, and designed training courses. Are they perfect? Of course not. What books and/or training programs are perfect? Why do you hold his work up to such an absurd standard? Give him a break. He deserves respect and admiration for his contributions, if not agreement. He certainly does not deserve your vile contempt. Hardly anyone deserves that.

I-Like-To-Bike

I don't hold that statistical honesty and integrity are an absurd standard for those making safety claims for a product.

vincenzosi

I'm sorry but why do you blindly accept crap like this:

Of course they performed better. Anyone with an education above third grade or not a VC ideologue can see that someone who knows an instructor is watching will perform better than someone who doesn't know they're watching.

Jesus, why not 100% I mean, they know he's watching. They know the program. It supposedly works for everyone who tries it (just ask any VC ideologue, they're more than willing to tell you what you're doing wrong and how VC does it better), and yet 5% of the people doing it can't get it right knowing they're being observed.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear here. Serge, you have a real dogma problem. It's one thing to argue a point. You dismiss every single point against VC as irrelevant. Apparently in your world, there is zero legitimate criticism of Forester's work. Some people, and rightfully so from what I've gleaned, don't buy into his theory hook line and sinker. Some (you and a few others) do.

But it doesn't make you a better person, a better cyclist, a smarter person, or qualified to discuss safety issues with others unless you're a paid instructor. The standard that I-Like-To-Bike holds Forester up to is one that you should consider. It's called healthy skepticism. After you wipe the Kool-Aid off your mouth, you may wanna try some.

The way you talk down to every person who disagrees with you just flat out sucks. Your dismissal of every criticism as either a personal attack or irrelevant just flat out sucks. And your condescending BS calling I-Like-To-Bike by his real name is just flat out disrespectful for an internet forum.

Learn some etiquette related to the 'net. Maybe you can become an expert on that like you are on everything else.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ettiquette, respect for opposing views and empathy for other cyclists' concerns/priorities are not subjects that can be learned studying Forester's Tablets.

powers2b

Woohoo, someone made a left on Ettiquette avenue...

Enjoy