cycle training

Andy Key said:

Well, I did my cycle instructor's training with the local council last
night, so I'm now fully qualified to run children's cycling proficiency
courses (or at least, I will be when the CRB check comes through).

And I have to say, it was a scary evening. It was the questions that
came from some of the other would-be instructors that scared me -
especially during the discussion of the bike safety checks that begin
each course.

Presenter: ... Remember, if a child's bike has flat tyres, you can't
pump them up yourself - but you could show them how to do it for
themselves.
Trainee: Er - what if we don't know how to pump up our own tyres?

Presenter: ... You could get them to cycle round and show that they know
how to use their gears, though it's not vital.
Trainee: That's good, because I don't know how to use the gears on my bike.

Presenter: ... Take the opportunity to discuss with the children the
importance of reflective clothing; maybe ask them a few questions, like
what colour lights a bike should show front and rear.
Trainee: Um... What colour lights SHOULD a bike have front and rear?

It's what the presenter said that worries me. The training is clearly
not to national standards and therefore little if any better than
nothing. What council is it? Name and shame!

It's fundamental that the bikes are checked by the instructor, who has
to know enough to be able to clndemn unroadworthy bikes.

Are you taking them on road? If so they need basic control skills,
including use of gears if they have them, first. Otherwise they'll get
into a stupid gear.

Quoted message said:

I don't want to sound churlish. I think it's great that these people
nobly volunteered their services, presumably because nobody else at
their respective schools would do it. I also accept that it's quite
possible for someone to ride a bike without knowing the basics of
maintenance. But... I do find it frightening that someone who doesn't
know how to pump a tyre up will be carrying out a safety inspection on
children's bikes.

Most of them could probably be trained to deliver a course to national
standards if the attempt was made.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and in reference to a thread here a few weeks back: our council
insists on all children wearing helmets for the courses, regardless of
parents' wishes, because their insurers insist on it. Which tends to
show yet again that we can only avoid back-door helmet compulsion by
getting the facts across to insurance company risk assessors - something
I doubt is possible, as risk assessors usually seem to base their
judgements on information gathered from the Daily Mail. (Incidentally,
another trainee last night was convinced that bike helmets were already
mandatory in law.)

The insurance is clearly totally unsuitable. The council needs to
insist on a policy like Cycle Training UK has. This allows instructors
to adjust bikes AND leaves the helmet-wearing decision to parents.

Colin McKenzie

Andy Key said:

Well, I did my cycle instructor's training with the local council last
night, so I'm now fully qualified to run children's cycling proficiency
courses (or at least, I will be when the CRB check comes through).

And I have to say, it was a scary evening. It was the questions that
came from some of the other would-be instructors that scared me -
especially during the discussion of the bike safety checks that begin
each course.

Trainee: Er - what if we don't know how to pump up our own tyres?

Trainee: That's good, because I don't know how to use the gears on my
bike.

Quoted message said:

Trainee: Um... What colour lights SHOULD a bike have front and rear?

These were all from different people, and I swear they were all quite
serious.

This seems par for the course for many local authority schemes.
I once even came across an instructor who could not even ride a bike
themselves :-(

It is clear your LA does not provide training to the National Standard
for cycle Instruction and should be urged to do so. By using untrained
instructors they are providing a sub-standard service to children that
could even be dangerous.
You should ask them why.

Which LA is it?

John B

Colin McKenzie said:

Andy Key said:

Well, I did my cycle instructor's training with the local council last
night, so I'm now fully qualified to run children's cycling proficiency
courses (or at least, I will be when the CRB check comes through).

And I have to say, it was a scary evening.

It's what the presenter said that worries me. The training is clearly
not to national standards and therefore little if any better than
nothing. What council is it? Name and shame!

Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

Most of them could probably be trained to deliver a course to national
standards if the attempt was made.

I'm not too sure. To qualify you need to be a regular cyclist. I know of
cases where potential instructors nominated by their LA have failed
because they did not have enough cycling experience.

It sounds as if many of the 'instructors' don't know one end of a bike
from the other.
Would you be happy with a non-driver teaching driving?
Are the parents made aware of the standards of these instructors?

Quoted message said:

The insurance is clearly totally unsuitable. The council needs to
insist on a policy like Cycle Training UK has. This allows instructors
to adjust bikes AND leaves the helmet-wearing decision to parents.

Quite. And the premiums are quite reasonable.

John B

In message <[email hidden]>, JohnB <[email hidden]> writes
[...]

Quoted message said:

Which LA is it?

Since I work for them (in an unrelated but fairly public capacity) I
can't really say. Let's just say they're well known in this newsgroup
for selling remarkably good value cycle helmets online.

If you can assure me that they're any worse than other LAs I'll try
taking it up with them. Also details of the insurer CTUK uses would be
helpful - perhaps by email to me (take out the bits that need taking out
from the email address).

--

Andy Key said:

In message <[email hidden]>, JohnB <[email hidden]> writes
[...]

Quoted message said:

Which LA is it?

Since I work for them (in an unrelated but fairly public capacity) I
can't really say. Let's just say they're well known in this newsgroup
for selling remarkably good value cycle helmets online.

Ah ha.

Quoted message said:

If you can assure me that they're any worse than other LAs I'll try
taking it up with them. Also details of the insurer CTUK uses would be
helpful - perhaps by email to me (take out the bits that need taking out
from the email address).

Colin McKenzie said:

It's what the presenter said that worries me. The training is clearly
not to national standards and therefore little if any better than
nothing. What council is it? Name and shame!

Cycling proficiency does not comply with the National Standards. The
National Standards are not mandatory.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To qualify you need to be a regular cyclist. I know of cases where

potential instructors nominated by their LA have failed because they
did not have enough cycling experience.

My children attended a cycling proficiency at their school. The trainer
is a teacher in her 50s who cycles to and from school every day
herself. My kids were all sent in with properly adjusted bikes, and
she promptly failed their safety check, saying they must be able to get
both feet flat on the floor while sitting on the saddle. We tried to
diplomatically say that she may have misunderstood, but she insisted
that she'd been teaching the course for years and was correct. These
are not non-cyclists, they were 11 at the time and competent.

And yes, when she cycles to school, she has her knees up at her chest.

Following on from Andy Key's message. . .

[Sorry tale of Cycling Deficiency snipped]

Write to the _chief executive_ of the council and ask for an explanation
for why precious children were being shown things to do without any
competency testing of the trainers whatsoever.

Ask to see (FOI act is easy) their safety case/risk assessment that was
used to inform their cycle training policy [They won't have one but it
will be a bummer for them]

Ask if CE is aware that (I'm guessing but is almost certainly true)
Cycling Deficiency taught in this way will be teaching dangerous things.
(eg ride in the gutter) Ie. the council is actively encouraging bad
cycling. That is CD is WORSE than nothing.

Ask if they make it clear that training is not to National Standards.

Then go to the press.

For people at this level use the 20-second test at
<http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk/qctest.htm>[1]
The 4 questions are easy enough to memorise and explain.

[1] This URL is out of context as it is really meant to be an offshoot
from
<http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk/training.htm> which softens the dogmatic
nature of this particular page by leading to the quiz for experienced
cyclists[2] and the helmet facts.

[2] Which has been moved and re-programmed (Thanks to feedback from
u.r.c) to <http://www.mopoc.com/m3/v1/cycling/qstart.php>

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

Andy Key said:

Well, I did my cycle instructor's training with the local council
last night, so I'm now fully qualified to run children's cycling
proficiency courses (or at least, I will be when the CRB check comes
through).

Apart from the other sorry details, do I understand that you and the
others qualified as instructors (zero to hero) in a single session?

--
Dave...

iakobski said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To qualify you need to be a regular cyclist. I know of cases where

potential instructors nominated by their LA have failed because they
did not have enough cycling experience.

My children attended a cycling proficiency at their school. The trainer
is a teacher in her 50s who cycles to and from school every day
herself. My kids were all sent in with properly adjusted bikes, and
she promptly failed their safety check, saying they must be able to get
both feet flat on the floor while sitting on the saddle. We tried to
diplomatically say that she may have misunderstood, but she insisted
that she'd been teaching the course for years and was correct. These
are not non-cyclists, they were 11 at the time and competent.

And yes, when she cycles to school, she has her knees up at her chest.

I think she's quite correct to insist that children can get both feet on the
ground when sitting on the saddle.

Children, generally, have far less coordination than adults (many of whom also
prefer this posture), and may get themselves into difficulties if they cannot
quickly and easily stablise themselves whilst in any position on the bike.

You cannot expect her to be able to determine which children have the necessary
coordination and experience to allow them to ride a bike where they may not be
able to immediately stablise themselves from any riding posture.

It's hardly a big deal to lower the saddle for the test and raise it again if
you are *sure* your children are good enough cyclists to handle it.

Andy Key <[email hidden]> wrote:

: If you can assure me that they're any worse than other LAs I'll try
: taking it up with them.

That seems noticably worse than York council. You could have a quiet word with
the cycling officer there - might be informative and low-key.

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

Paul D said:

iakobski said:

My children attended a cycling proficiency at their school. The trainer
is a teacher in her 50s who cycles to and from school every day
herself. My kids were all sent in with properly adjusted bikes, and
she promptly failed their safety check, saying they must be able to get
both feet flat on the floor while sitting on the saddle. We tried to
diplomatically say that she may have misunderstood, but she insisted
that she'd been teaching the course for years and was correct. These
are not non-cyclists, they were 11 at the time and competent.

And yes, when she cycles to school, she has her knees up at her chest.

Bet she doesn't cycle far.

Quoted message said:

I think she's quite correct to insist that children can get both feet on the
ground when sitting on the saddle.

Both feet should both be able to touch at once - but both flat is at
least 10cm lower, which is a major reduction in pedalling efficiency.

Quoted message said:

Children, generally, have far less coordination than adults (many of whom also
prefer this posture), and may get themselves into difficulties if they cannot
quickly and easily stablise themselves whilst in any position on the bike.

Small children maybe, but at 11 the age is far less important than the
individual's inherent coordination.

Quoted message said:

You cannot expect her to be able to determine which children have the necessary
coordination and experience to allow them to ride a bike where they may not be
able to immediately stablise themselves from any riding posture.

Watching them for a very short time will show this. I have allowed a
child to train who can't touch the ground when on the saddle, as she
was good at coming off the saddle to stop. Another child in the same
situation had to get a smaller bike. Both were around 11.

In Sri Lanka, boys of 8 or so learn to ride adult bikes by straddling
the bike under the crossbar.

Quoted message said:

It's hardly a big deal to lower the saddle for the test and raise it again if
you are *sure* your children are good enough cyclists to handle it.

Bad for knees, noticeably reduces speed and range. It might work on
the playground, but it's avery bad idea on the road, even while
training. And those who don't know any better should not be taught to
do something wrong.

Colin McKenzie

In article said:

Well, I did my cycle instructor's training with the local council last
night, so I'm now fully qualified to run children's cycling proficiency
courses (or at least, I will be when the CRB check comes through).

And I have to say, it was a scary evening. It was the questions that
came from some of the other would-be instructors that scared me -
especially during the discussion of the bike safety checks that begin
each course.

[Example scary questions given.]

Quoted message said:

I don't want to sound churlish. I think it's great that these people
nobly volunteered their services, presumably because nobody else at
their respective schools would do it. I also accept that it's quite
possible for someone to ride a bike without knowing the basics of
maintenance. But... I do find it frightening that someone who doesn't
know how to pump a tyre up will be carrying out a safety inspection on
children's bikes.

If they still didn't know by the end of the cycle instructors' training,
that's scary, but if the cycle instructor's training can take in people
who know that little at the start and turn out competent instructors,
that's impressive and reassuring.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think she's quite correct to insist that children can get both

feet on the ground when sitting on the saddle.

If that's what she'd said, I'd agree with you. But she didn't - she
insisted both feet should be flat. This is not teaching children how to
balance - they are expected to be able to ride, balance while
signalling, etc.

Here is stock advice on fitting a bike for a FIVE-year old:

Bike Fit: Sitting on the seat with hands on the handlebar, your child
must be able to place the balls of both feet on the ground. Also,
standing over the centre bar, your child should be able to keep both
feet flat on the ground with about a 1-inch clearance between the
crotch and the bar.

That's /balls/ not /heels/

I know it's not a big deal moving the saddle for the course,the point I
was making is that even "regular cyclist" trainers give out
misinformation when not properly trained themselves. I've met many
adults who believe the "feet flat sitting on saddle" is the correct
position because that's what they were taught at SD. They've
consequently found cycling harder than it should be ever since!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think she's quite correct to insist that children can get both

feet on the ground when sitting on the saddle.

If that's what she said, then I'd agree with you. What she in fact said
was that they should have both feet /flat/ on the ground.

This is some stock advice on fitting a bike for a FIVE-year old:

Bike Fit: Sitting on the seat with hands on the handlebar, your child
must be able to place the balls of both feet on the ground. Also,
standing over the centre bar, your child should be able to keep both
feet flat on the ground with about a 1-inch clearance between the
crotch and the bar.

That's the /balls/ not the /heels/.

No, it's not a big deal, but it indicates that even so-called "regular
cyclists" trainers are giving out misinformation. I've met many adults
who think the "both feet flat, sitting in saddle" is correct because
that's what they were taught in CD.

dkahn400 said:

Apart from the other sorry details, do I understand that you and the
others qualified as instructors (zero to hero) in a single session?

"Two days ago I couldn't even spell cycling proficiency instructor, now
I are one."

There's a hell of a lot of this sort of thing around, especially since
Thatcher got rid of proper apprenticeships in the early 1980s. Now
anyone needing some particular skill is usually sent on the shortest
cheapest course that claims to address that need.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

(Paul D) said:

I think she's quite correct to insist that children can get both feet on the
ground when sitting on the saddle.

FSVO children. Mine can ride, now, so don't need to.

To be fair this would be less of an issue if manufacturers didn't fit
175mm cranks to kids' bikes.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Andy Key said:

In message <[email hidden]>, JohnB <[email hidden]> writes
[...]

Quoted message said:

Which LA is it?

Since I work for them (in an unrelated but fairly public capacity) I
can't really say. Let's just say they're well known in this newsgroup
for selling remarkably good value cycle helmets online.

Understood.

Quoted message said:

If you can assure me that they're any worse than other LAs I'll try
taking it up with them. Also details of the insurer CTUK uses would be
helpful - perhaps by email to me (take out the bits that need taking out
from the email address).

I don't know who CTUK uses, but I understand that Butterworth's are the
leading insurers for most matters cycling.
Butterworth Spengler Insurance Group
180-182 Garston Old Road, Garston, Liverpool, L19 1QL
Tel: 0151 494 4400

John B

Not Responding said:

Andy Key said:

In message <[email hidden]>, JohnB <[email hidden]> writes
[...]

Quoted message said:

Which LA is it?

Since I work for them (in an unrelated but fairly public capacity) I
can't really say. Let's just say they're well known in this newsgroup
for selling remarkably good value cycle helmets online.

Ah ha.

Ssh.

An opportune time for a plug for an alternative provider though ;-)
http://www.hampshirecycletraining.org.uk/

Of course it may not be in the same area.

John B