Franklin's Cyclecraft - not fit for purpose?

[pedals2slowly]

Does anyone else think that 'Cyclecraft' is now a bit outdated and plain wrong in many places?
Does anyone know of any better reference publications for teaching more advanced Bikeability?

[mjr]

Do you have particular bits you suggest are outdated?

Most of it still seems OK as survival tactics for a hostile environment, but the advice on cycleways is just wrong and will get you shouted at in places like Cambridge or MK. That is not outdated because things like hogging the middle were always wrong. There are a few notorious bits which could be seen as ableist today.

As far as I know, its only serious competition is another later book by the same author, IAM Advanced Cycling.

[pedals2slowly]

I don't have the book to hand at the moment but simple things like no mention of disc brakes clearly date it.
Also the need to have a 'sprint' and being able to accelerate out of situations is not compatible with encouraging the less physically fit to participate.
It is also way too wordy.
As for recommending 'ankling' as being the best pedalling method, well ....
I might have a go at writing something better myself.

[wjhall]

...
Also the need to have a 'sprint' and being able to accelerate out of situations ...

I picked up a copy in a library once and it fell open at that page. I shut it at once; just not my sort of cycling, and I am not unfit. The whole point of cycling skills is to avoid getting into situations where you need to sprint, or accelerate out of situations. Road design should also aim to avoid that kind of thing.

[pjclinch]

I don't have the book to hand at the moment but simple things like no mention of disc brakes clearly date it.

C-C is primarily about what to do, rather than stuff. Given recent developments, particularly e-bikes, it probably wouldn't hurt to prune out the stuff-oriented bits, but the main point is cycling in weapons-grade traffic, and whether or not you have/like disc brakes isn't really something that affects that.

Also the need to have a 'sprint' and being able to accelerate out of situations is not compatible with encouraging the less physically fit to participate.

For some values of "need". If you think having a sprint isn't advantageous at times in mixed traffic then we'll have to disagree, but that's not the same as needing to do it, and having just looked through my copy I can't see it suggested as a requirement. When I'm on the Moulton I will negotiate traffic more easily than if I'm on the cargo bike with a heavy load, but I can still do it with the cargo bike.

It is also way too wordy.

This is very subjective, and there's really not a Correct Answer for the best level.

As for recommending 'ankling' as being the best pedalling method, well ....

Again, this is rather peripheral to the main point of the thing for, I'd guess, what most people buy it for. You'll note if you look at the Bikeability 1 syllabus (which is basic "how to ride a bike") that there is no mention of ankling. It's pretty much unimportant for most people, most of the time, though having said that I like to do it more on long rides in winter as it helps circulation to keep my feet a little warmer, someone I know who prefers a higher-than-usual seat uses it to enable that, and that Annamiek van Vleuten seems to ankle a fair bit and AIUI she's pretty good at this pedalling thing... but while it's effectively irrelevant it won't do anyone much harm to fiddle a bit with it.

I might have a go at writing something better myself.

and thanks to the Web it would be effectively free to publish experimental drafts.
As mjr notes there's non-road stuff that needs work, and as you've noted some of the technical basics on current bikes could (if you're looking at that, as I suggest here I'm not sure it's worth doing either in C-C or an alternative).

Pete.

[pedals2slowly]

I generally agree with your points and that the actual meat of the book is fairly good. (I have it in front of me - the 2014 edition)

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. 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' 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.

I'm sure there is a string somewhere on the forum about ankling

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.

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 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.

[Wilhelmus]

.

[thirdcrank]

The huge advantage of social media - already pointed out - is that experts can publish their own work at little cost. (If you can attract enough interest to be considered an "influencer" then you may attract income.) It doesn't need to be encyclopaedic - small chunks of expertise can be published individually, eventually building up into something more comprehensive. Youtube seems particularly effective in this regard because seeing something demonstrated with a coherent commentary is often much more effective than reading about it.

FWIW, it must be about 25(ish) years since I first read Cyclecraft and I reviewed it for the Leeds Cycling Action Group newsletter. What struck me then was that most of it was what I already did. IIRC, I recommended it wholeheartedly with a caveat about ankling which seems to me to be something you either do naturally or don't do. Back to written instructions, I remember one of Leeds City Council's cycling people saying it sounded a bit like explaining how to pat your head while rubbing your tummy in a circle.

[DaveReading]

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.

From a conservation of energy point of view, both of those are sound advice. Applies to motor vehicles too, come to that.

[LancsGirl]

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.

[Wilhelmus]

.

[thirdcrank]

Probably fair to say that most people who buy books go for those that interest them.

(I suppose anybody with a Capstick view of pricing finds twelve quid for a book pricey. )

[pedals2slowly]

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.......

[pedals2slowly]

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.

From a conservation of energy point of view, both of those are sound advice. Applies to motor vehicles too, come to that.

Except on the slightest of downhill incline ( so perhaps 30% of the time) you have to use the brakes to stop.
Simply using that phrase 'you should use your brakes as little as possible' may encourage people to not use their brakes when they should be IMHO. I can hear it now (as the ambulance goes off in the distance) ' But he told me I should stop without using brakes'

[Mike Sales]

What struck me then was that most of it was what I already did.

I had the same thought when I read it.

My copy of the 1997 edition was £9.99.