Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

For discussions within the Cycle Training profession.
LancsGirl
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Jun 2021, 9:57pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by LancsGirl »

pedals2slowly wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 4:27pm
LancsGirl wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 3:30pm
pedals2slowly wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 11:54am I work with adults as well as school children, I haven't met anyone keen enough to purchase and read such a lengthy and expensive book.
Expensive?! Mine cost me £11.99.
The 2014 edition is priced at £16.99 - its printed on the cover.......
Yes, it says "£16.99" on the cover of my 2014 copy.

But I paid £11.99 for it via Amazon, delivered.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 4288
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by pjclinch »

pedals2slowly wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 11:54am The Triangular warning sign on page 74 with the statement 'Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety' and ' a sprint speed of 32kph (20mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease'. As commented that is how to put the less able (and able probably) off.
Though it is worth bearing in mind that Bikeability, which doesn't have the above about sprint speed, has a proven track record of doing nothing to encourage people to cycle (it does give a useful leg-up to those who would cycle anyway, but it hasn't been shown to generate new cyclists). It isn't Cyclecraft (or Bikeability) putting people off, it is the UK's hostile road environment, and if you have decided you're going to go head to head with multi-tonne fast metal boxes then it is actually useful to be able to get out of their way when they're driven by folks that aren't looking out for you. That shouldn't be the reality, but it is. Vehicular cycling is a proven dead-end in generating modal share, but without a benign cycling environment it's all we've got.
pedals2slowly wrote:What needs to be said is something along the lines of 'the slower you go the more l you will need to check you have sufficient time and space to complete your manoeuvre, conversely the faster you go the easier you will find moving in traffic'
I think that is better than the implication that you need a sprint, yes.
pedals2slowly wrote:Sections further on seem to be putting people off using separate cycle facilities because the may be more dangerous than the road, whereas I'm sure slow cyclists find them a lot safer.
Franklin is not keen on facilities, because he's familiar with the reality of a lot of the trash that exists in the UK. There is now rather more that warrants use by anyone, slow or not, but the fact is that there is a lot of bilge in the UK that makes cycling less convenient and more dangerous. Again the problem is with the environment, and while Cyclecraft does over-egg the pudding on the rubbish that can be found as these days there is some going in backed by Actual Clue, it's not fundamentally wrong.
pedals2slowly wrote:There are other odd pieces of advice -P91 'you should usually aim to stop without using your brakes', P93 'you should use your brakes as little as possible' and there are more.
As stated elsewhere, this applies to motoring too and is about efficiency. The above doesn't say don't use your brakes. What it's about is that given a choice of letting the terrain slow you down where you know you'll need to slow down, and using the brakes instead, you're better letting the terrain do the work. You still have the brakes as an option, you're using less energy and there's less wear on the bike.
pedals2slowly wrote:One of the interesting ones I'm not sure about is P104 appears to assume primary as the normal riding position. In my opinion we should ride in secondary and move to primary when a hazard means we do not wish to be overtaken. I'm sure there's a lengthy debate to be had on that one.
I have the 2020 (given away the previous one) so I can't comment on the particular diagram, but I can't see one in the current edition that suggests Primary is a default riding position. Nothing obvious in the text either.
pedals2slowly wrote:I work with adults as well as school children, I haven't met anyone keen enough to purchase and read such a lengthy and expensive book. The Bikeability booklets are very simplistic and below the level of older primary school children. Something in between would be very useful.
There are, of course, libraries!

In summary, I'm not saying there's no room for improvement or that additional sources wouldn't be good, but I think the suggestion that C-C isn't fit for purpose is wide of the mark. If you're going to put yourself up against 40 tonne trucks and SUVs driven by eejits on their phones it still stands up pretty well, and those are the things putting people off rather than the techniques to ride alongside them

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Wilhelmus
Posts: 124
Joined: 19 Oct 2021, 4:35pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by Wilhelmus »

.
Last edited by Wilhelmus on 25 Nov 2021, 2:15pm, edited 1 time in total.
LancsGirl
Posts: 32
Joined: 5 Jun 2021, 9:57pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by LancsGirl »

Wilhelmus wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 11:04pm There are some books for which I would willingly pay £11.99, and a few for which I would pay considerably more. Not, however, a book purporting to teach me how to ride a bicycle which contains as much dubious information as this one seems to do, from what I'm reading here. My point in mentioning the Highway Code was that a book of this type, designed to encourage safe road usage among predominantly young people, should surely be available either free or heavily subsidised, as I assume the Highway Code was. Even so long ago, I doubt that such a book could be produced on a profit-making basis for 6d, the equivalent of two and a half pence.
£11.99 isn't the sort of sum I'm going to spend too long thinking about, one way or the other, to be honest. My hourly charging rate is several times that. Still, I suppose we're all in different situations.

I've found some of the advice in CycleCraft useful, some not so much. I don't wait until I'm absolutely sure that a book is perfect before I buy it. Or anything else for that matter. I've had meals out I didn't really like, and bought clothes which didn't really work. I'm certainly not going to waste any time making sure that something costing such a trivial amount is exactly what I need before I buy it. After all, how would I know that, until I read it?
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 19428
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by Vorpal »

I think that CycleCraft is a good book for some things. Many have been pointed out on this thread.

The methods for cycling in a hostile environment are good. The bias against alternatives is not.

However, I think that the biggest value in CycleCraft is how it presents the idea of risk, and the thinking about risk reduction for the cyclist.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Wilhelmus
Posts: 124
Joined: 19 Oct 2021, 4:35pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by Wilhelmus »

.
Last edited by Wilhelmus on 2 Nov 2021, 3:12pm, edited 2 times in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 33286
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by thirdcrank »

Any non-fiction/ reference work which is a one-person enterprise is likely to suffer from things like keeping it updated. There's also the question of one person's opinion when it's more than a collection of factual references.

On top of that, Cyclecraft is presented as a manual of guidance for cycling on the road, which causes some tensions, perhaps because it's seen to encourage people to be the wrong sort of cyclists and so undermine segregation. Added to that, there's the quasi-official air of the book: IIRC, it was originally published by HMSO and the title alludes to the old training manual for police drivers

https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/rare ... 20Campaign

I thought that Bikeability was concerned with teaching people how to ride in traffic.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 17891
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by mjr »

thirdcrank wrote: 31 Oct 2021, 9:57am I thought that Bikeability was concerned with teaching people how to ride in traffic.
If it had kept itself to that, many would be less unhappy with it... but it probably wouldn't have been published by HMSO, who I suspect were wanting to publish a complete guide.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
thirdcrank
Posts: 33286
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by thirdcrank »

I may be missing the point. I thought Cyclecraft preceded Bikeability by quite some time, but that may be only my imagination.

========================================================================

Found this:-
.... Bikeability, brought in from 2007, goes beyond the playground, teaching children to cycle safely on modern roads. ....
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/18-m ... r-families
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 17891
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by mjr »

No, I just misread your previous post. Apologies. Lots going on here at the moment.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
thirdcrank
Posts: 33286
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by thirdcrank »

OK, but no need to apologise: as I'm always posting, comprehension depends on the sender. :D
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 4288
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by pjclinch »

Cyclecraft is published by TSO, "The Stationary Office", which is what used to be HMSO but is now a private company which does more than publish for the government.

Bikeability comes in 3 distinct levels, Level 1 is purely about controlling a bike and is taught in traffic-free locations. Level 2 is what a lot of people think of as "Bikeability", and it's the basics of sharing roads. It's taught on road, but in a limited subset of roads and doesn't feature e.g. (non-mini) roundabouts, traffic lights, multi-lane carriageways and the like. Level 3 takes you up to Weapons Grade traffic.
L1 should ideally be taught in full before L2, but in practice it's quite often straight to L2 with a session or so in a playground to make sure there's enough Applied Clue to let the participants out on to the streets.
L3 should really be taught before you say "I've done Bikeability!", but as you need more highly qualified instructors and at a 6:2 minimum ratio (24:2 for L2 and 15:1 for L1 IIRC) in practice it gets little delivery. It comes down to time and money (and in turn political will).

Cyclecraft preceeded Bikeability, but I'm fairly certain it's the case that when the DfT drafted the first National Standards for Cycle Training that Bikeabilty was based on, everyone concerned had read Cyclecraft and based the standards on it. Consequently it was named as a resource book for the scheme. The NSCT were revised a couple of years ago and have a less obvious 3-level structure now, but the fundamental content is still very much based on the book. You can see the current NSCT here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... cument.pdf
When I've been inputting to the training materials process for Bikeability Scotland (similar but not the same as south of the border) it is quite clear everyone involved is working to a significant degree from Cyclecraft as soon as you get past L1. It's not a Sacred Cow, but it's recognised amongst trainers as something which broadly works and is the basis for the NSCT which is what we are aiming to teach.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
thirdcrank
Posts: 33286
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by thirdcrank »

pjclinch wrote: 2 Nov 2021, 12:20pm Cyclecraft is published by TSO, "The Stationary Office", which is what used to be HMSO but is now a private company which does more than publish for the government. ....
Thanks for correcting me here. I'm aware the book is publicised on the Cyclecraft website and jumped to the conclusion that it was now published there. Had I bothered to look, I'd have seen
Cyclecraft, published by The Stationery Office, ... (etc) .
and an explanation of how it relates to Bikeability
http://cyclecraft.co.uk/book.html
mattsccm
Posts: 4141
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by mattsccm »

12 quid. Fair enough but honestly, unless you had to, who would spend that a book about cycling? As a child . if I had been bought that I would ask Santa to take it back.
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5521
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

Post by RickH »

pedals2slowly wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 4:27pm
LancsGirl wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 3:30pm
pedals2slowly wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 11:54am I work with adults as well as school children, I haven't met anyone keen enough to purchase and read such a lengthy and expensive book.
Expensive?! Mine cost me £11.99.
The 2014 edition is priced at £16.99 - its printed on the cover.......
VGC used paperback copies going via Amazon from £2.83. :D

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-com ... 0117037400
Post Reply