All of the foregoing only serves to emphasise the differences in
focus that exist between the commuting community and the recreational/racing
fraternity. Even on what appears to be the ostensibly trivial notion of a
common shared interest, the discussion has become prolonged and somewhat
rancorous.
Where the common interest involves cars, bikes and pedestrians
sharing the same roadspace, the differences in focus become even more
extreme and the discussions even more prolonged and even more contentious,
if not rancorous.
This was probably at the root of what drove the separation of the
two groups. Those whose prime interest was out of town riding didn't want to
devote their time and effort into what is perceived to be an urban issue.
The club was indeed fortunate in having Bruce around, who had both the time
and inclination to get involved, but the Bruce's of this world are even
thinner on the ground, now that he is no longer with us.
I believe there is still a role for a club member who has the
knowledge, interest and time to become more involved in urban cycling
issues, especially as these now extend across the whole region. I just hope
that all this rancorous discussion doesn't deter the right person from
coming forward when the moment is ripe.
That moment is now !
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [obc] OBC Infiltrates CfSC
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Earlier in the year someone posted message on the OBC list about how he
> > was
> > going to help his sister out with a bike rodeo at her school and show
> > his OBC
> > colours. This is a wonderful thing to do except that bike rodeos don't
> > work. The
> > problem with this is that now the OBC looks like it is promoting
> > ineffective
> > cycling education.
>
> Look, I'm was pretty prepared to stop picking at this stuff, having
> contributed before with clarity and some humour, but now you are making
> some pretty strong and limiting statements, and it goes a long way
> toward explaining (again) why I don't think you should get broad and
> unlimited support from the OBC. You make some pretty firm value
> judgements and statements akin to "there are no choices here" (see
> below: "education is an issue not a fence side"). the following
> intentionally contains no humour at all.
>
> You are passing some pretty strong (and uninformed, since you pre-judged
> the course and lumped it in as a "rodeo") value judgements on the
> effectiveness of whatever rodeo this happened to be (in your example).
> You are also asking us to align with your opinions on what is effective
> and accurate, and to support that. The world doesn't work that way.
>
> >
> > Now here is just a suggestion of how OBC members could help out -- by
> > dissementing information to their neighbours and families about what
> > works and
> > what doesn't work and why only effective CAN-BIKE courses work. So wave
> > the OBC
> > colours, encourage the young ones to join the OBC --- all that I ask at
> > the very
> > least is that we have a responsibility as cyclists to pass on accurate
> > information.
>
> Wow. Now i have a bit of a problem with your implication that we should
> ONLY support CAN-bike type cycling education. OBC doesn't teach CAN-bike
> at the Learn to race. Is that inaccurate and ineffective information? I
> have no doubt you would be abhorred by some of the things we teach in
> the light of racing and even fast touring. Once again, the goals are
> quite different. Are you suggesting we change that curriculum so as not
> to be at odds with CAN-bike? Sorry, I doubt it would meet my goal to
> produce a competent racer or pack rider.
>
> Another prominent member of our cycling community did put on a
> four-weekend course for children in the past, it wasn't CAN-bike. Was
> that also ineffective and inaccurate? How do you know, either way, to
> pass off such a judgemental statement for the fine work he and his
> volunteers accomplished in getting kids on their bikes?
>
> From me, you have the moral support you request for your CAN-bike
> initiative for children.
>
> You do not have my support (nor agreement) at all for your statement:
> "only effective CAN-BIKE courses work". That is something I wouldn't
> even support "morally". You do not have my support for any of your other
> broad statements regarding effectiveness and accuracy. Here is a great
> example (one) of why you cannot get the broad-brush support you seek
> from this OBC member, and why I suggest the OBC should not be too
> forthcoming with any such unrestricted support. I can support some
> specific projects and statements, with some scope and limitations, not
> generalizations and black-and-white stances such as the ones that seems
> to pervade your requests for "support". We are slowly exposing the
> "lobby/political group" versus "activity-group" aspects of our
> differences, brought up in the election discussions.
>
> Furthermore, in the same way that I have seen certified coaches
> completely disregard the concepts or recommendations taught in "coaching
> course" curriculum, I have no doubt that CAN-bike certified instructors
> do the same.
>
> Certification does not guarantee quality, only that the certified person
> is officially expected to be aware of the generally accepted and
> approved methods, guidelines, expectations and responsibilities. There
> is no guarantee that they are applied. Ignorance of these methods has
> little effect, until disaster strikes and someone is looked-to for
> accountability. Certification brings a paper trail with which to
> determine whether negligence is a valid concern.
>
>
> >
> > Education is an issue not a fence side.
> >
>
> Well, I'm not on the side of the fence that says only CAN-BIKE is
> effective and accurate cycling education. Your statement above is akin
> to saying "you must agree with me, there are no sides to this fence".
> Forget it. I disagree with you.
>
> Smeulders
>
> ------
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064
> Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
> Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
>
------
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064
Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: [email protected]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
