Mr Burdett's quote bears no significance to this discussion. What you are trying to do is say "even your president agrees with this view, he wrote the following:". It is a poor attempt at trying to turn someone's words upon them, but you fail completely by drawing conclusions from it which do not follow. You made a similar mistake in a previous private e-mail, to which I did not respond.
He is simply stating the curriculum content of a Can-bike course. He MAY also be claiming, and I don't disagree, that there is value in the Can-Bike education. He is certainly claiming that anybody can complete the course, and implies the skills are easily learned. He is NOT going so far as to claim that it is the only form of valuable cycling instruction, which is stated in your posting. You encourage OBC'rs to exclusively support that view, publicly. I also have nothing specific to say against the CAN-bike program. It does not, however, logically follow that ALL other programs are suspect, and I am not about to go around slamming them, or NOT supporting them just because they are NOT CAN-bike. You suggest that I do so. You suggest that the OBC as a group, does so. I steadfastly refuse. You say you've done the research. Good for you. I know a thing or two, as well, about research. No number of studies of failed attempts at bicycle instruction would convince me that: a) every scheme has been studied, and b) even if so, that somebody couldn't POSSIBLY, EVER, ever, develop an equally good or (shock) better program than Can-bike. You ask me to shut out that possibility, and to accept your compilation of papers supporting your view. Your request that I support CAN-bike exclusively, appears to me like religious zealotry. I ain't buying it. You can't sell it to me. The national coaching certification program is also nationally sanctioned and you can easily be insured through the OCA. A successful participant in this program is not necessarily a good coach, and a similar argument holds equally for a CAN-bike instructor. The reason it is insurable, I will again suggest, is that there is more clearly recognizable liability, expectation of standards, and a definition of negligence. No insurance company could believe that high quality will always result. An engineer who graduates from a good school is not necessarily a good engineer. What are the next-step implications to doing as you appear to propose, that the OBC comes out with a position that Can-Bike instruction is the ONLY form of valid cycling instruction worth supporting? Let's suppose that the OBC does as you request and says "We only support the principles of CAN-Bike." The next reasonable expectation is that we ABIDE by its principles in our events and activities. At a minimum, we would certainly HAVE to change all of our instruction courses to be CAN-bike courses, since everything else is invalid. Oh, and that would suit you. Not me. We MAY have to re-write aspects of our group riding instructions to ensure that none of the teachings and principles of Can-bike sanctioned safety advice are followed. I don't know if this has great impact, but I suspect Can-bike has an opinion on two-abreast riding, town-sign sprinting, racing events on non-closed roads, and echelons. Oh yeah, and helmuts too, I suppose. If a group ride violated an aspect of the Can-bike bible, so publicly adopted, and some disaster occured, would our insurance coverage become a problem? We would certainly have to revise many aspects of Learn to race clinic, since we certainly teach about staggered echelons, and double rotating pacelines, and even more-than two abreast cycling. Maybe I couldn't teach use of the brakes wherein the front is applied harder than the rear. I don't know. Could I teach turning without signalling? Would we have to revise it also so that it is "enough for a child"? Anyway, why worry, I'd be wasting my time with this, since the CAN-bike course is the only worthwhile one offered. Ultimately, you are pursuing the same old thing, and I will reply to you with the same old response, in as few words as I can, so that it makes it clear to you: Our clubs have different goals and interests. These are equally noble pursuits. These goals and interests lay at the bottom of why the two orgs are separate. Since wholesale integration of these interests does not suit the majority of OBC member's wishes, you are simply looking for another way to influence the obc's activities and eventually access the resources presently held in the OBC's bank account, to fund the projects which can't be supported by the CfSC, or everyone else you've managed to annoy. It is transparent, and you'll need to be much more clever. As far as I know, the OBC has not said "we shall never fund nor cooperate with the CfSC". It has said it may do so from time to time on specific projects, and if the goals align. Lately, so far, no go. There is nothing wrong with asking for support for Can-bike education. You will get (easily) the moral support to do so. Moral support doesn't cost a cent. Hey, you may even succeed in the odd initiative. Good luck to you. I think there is something very wrong in your desire to have us adopt CAN-bike as the only acceptable form of cycling education. By asking me or any member to not wear an OBC jersey to a kid's bicycle rodeo is asking me to participate in your little political cause. I'm not a member for political causes. I shall not co-operate with that request. My only political cause, lately, is to make sure everyone is aware when we go down the road of political causes, and to personally oppose being taken for that ride. Yours is another vain attempt to mobilize the OBC into a political organization that I think the members at the AGM came out generally against. The request, if fulfilled, MAY open the door to changing vastly how OBC programs are run and offered. That may or may-not happen, but so it begins. Our rides may eventually look like a CfSC group-commute. In bike lanes.....with orange vests.....and helmuts. Now, again, you shouldn't feel like I disagree with you because you belong to a different group. You shouldn't feel like I disagree with you because your vision to teach children to ride bikes safely lacks merit. All very admirable. I'm disagreeable toward you because you continually fail to see the point. I tire of your transparent games and continuing annoyances attempting to deflect OBC vision and some of their finances in your direction. Wow, had you just asked for some bucks for a can-bike course, and that were the end of it, you MIGHT have stood a chance. But asking us to take a stand on the canbike gospel? For heaven's sake. So now, from my point of view, you have been so annoying and non-sensical on this mailing list that I don't expect anything you say will have immediate acceptance among reasonable people. Your nonsense, poorly constructed arguments, transparently-hidden agenda, and expressions of hurt feelings combine to really harm your credibility. From my point of view, it diminishes the esteem of the organization which you now vice-lead. I've said before that I'm no admirer of the behaviour of some of that organization's principles. I still ain't. None of that is meant to be hurtful. I'm sharing "my feelings". I don't like to be terse, or to lack humour, but for this independent spirit, you really crossed the line, and continued to damage your organization (further) in so doing, if only in my own eyes. I've said enough. well, way too much actually. Geez, somebody give me something funny to write about. I'm looking around for my sense of humour. Let me know if it turns up somewhere. I don't even LIKE having opinions. Smeulders out. PS. Further to this, please, no more private e-mail, Ms. Kayde. Anything we have to discuss should be done in an open forum. I have never responded privately on-purpose. -----Original Message----- From: mark smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:42 PM Subject: Re: OBC Infiltrates CfSC >"Anyone can acquire the road cycling skills in a few evenings >of training through nationally sanctioned CAN-BIKE courses. The only >prerequisite is the ability to ride a bicycle. >For children, instruction covers basic bicycle handling skills, safety, >maintenance, and equipment. For older children, >instruction includes correct positioning among traffic, how to make >vehicular-style left turns, and how to anticipate >and avoid risky situations." > >quote from Avery Burdett http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ > > >CAN-BIKE is nationally sanctioned therefore more easily covered by insurance >provided for by OCA. However, there are obviously some other uniformed >insurance companies. The Bike Rodeo was at a school not under the OBC. And >if you want to see all the researched studies, I have accumulated you will >quickly notice that Learn to Ride would not be enough for a child. It is >great for adults. > >Lynda > ------ 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 ==^================================================================
