UK and Europe · Public discussion

Bikeability Accreditation

Started by Tom Crispin · · Last activity · 12 posts · 452 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
30 March 2007
Last activity
1 April 2007
Original author
Tom Crispin
Posts
12
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
452
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–12 of 12
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I received by email today my provisional accreditation as a
    'Bikeability' training provider, that is delivery of cycle training to
    the National Standard Levels 1, 2 and 3.

    In my application I made a number of points about what I felt were
    flaws with the assessment process, in particular, I wrote the word
    *nonsense* next to the stipulation that all Level 3 pratical
    activities are undertaken on-road.

    I also defied the stipulation that a maximum pupil to instructor ratio
    of 2:1 be used for Level 3 training, arguing successfully that 4:1 was
    quite adequate, only that 1:1 or 2:1 were required for certain
    manoeuvres.

    However, they thought that my risk assessments were [censored].

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

    BIKEABILITY

    Provisional Bikeability Accreditation
    John Ball Cycle Training

    Summary of Provisional Accreditation Submission

    The submission for provisional accreditation from John Ball Cycle
    Training is of a consistently high standard and demonstrates an
    excellent alternative model for the delivery of cycle training that
    was not fully anticipated in the development of this assessment
    process.

    The covering letter with the submission detailed a number of issues
    that were felt to be onerous and unnecessary however it must be noted
    that all applications for accreditation have been required to produce
    the same level of documentation and it would not be possible to have a
    different accreditation process for every model of training. In a
    number of cases local authorities have failed to provide sufficient
    Child Protection and Health and Safety Policies when it may have been
    assumed that they too would have appropriate policies in place.

    The only area where the submission was felt to be slightly weak was
    that of risk assessments although those provided were sufficient to
    gain accreditation. To this end it is recommended that you visit
    http://www.bikeability.org.uk/professionals/health_and_safety.php
    for examples of risk assessments that you may wish to consider
    adapting for your own purposes.

    I am however pleased to inform you that John Ball Cycle Training has
    met all of the required criteria and will be recommended for
    Provisional Accreditation to the Cycle Standards Training Board who
    will contact you in due course with further details of how to access
    the full range of Bikeability materials.

    The school should be congratulated on their obvious commitment to
    cycling and cycle training and will undoubtedly attract much interest
    as an example of good practise.

  2. Tom Crispin said:

    I received by email today my provisional accreditation as a
    'Bikeability' training provider, that is delivery of cycle training to
    the National Standard Levels 1, 2 and 3.

    Congratulations, I think ;-) Nothing about you, but is this a "real"
    accreditation or another govermint quango (like Prescott's Part P
    building reg's) with their own political hoops that you have to jump
    through to get the paperwork?

    I must admit to being a little put-off after the BBC 5 Live "featured
    guest", who supported this scheme, prattled on about their opinion
    that helmets should be compulsory for safety reasons and wanted a law
    to enforce it.

    This was in the midst of the usual mix of "inconsiderate drivers" vs
    "inconsiderate cyclists" stuff. I consider myself to be both ;-)

    I know this is a somewhat inflammatory subject here, but IMO any
    scheme like this should be about teaching basic skills (which I admit
    I need now that I've forgotten them[1]) rather than preaching a
    political "safety policy" with little firm medical evidence to support
    it.

    Quoted message said:

    In my application I made a number of points about what I felt were
    flaws with the assessment process, in particular, I wrote the word
    *nonsense* next to the stipulation that all Level 3 pratical
    activities are undertaken on-road.

    The fact that they were willing to accept different opinions is, at
    least, encouraging.

    Quoted message said:

    The only area where the submission was felt to be slightly weak was
    that of risk assessments although those provided were sufficient to
    gain accreditation. To this end it is recommended that you visit
    http://www.bikeability.org.uk/professionals/health_and_safety.php
    for examples of risk assessments that you may wish to consider
    adapting for your own purposes.

    Unless Bikeability is exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act
    1995, they appear to be breaking the law and ought to provide those
    documents in something other than MS Word format. PDF, RTF, plain
    text, HTML, etc. It should be trivial for a competent organisation.

    [1] I did my cycling proficiency back in the days when you got a
    shinny metal disk to mount on the handlebars. IIRC a couple of years
    later "they" decided that head butting the same "shinny metal disk" in
    an accident was safety risk and stopped them for something else. I
    can't remember what though :-(

  3. Stuart Millington said:

    I must admit to being a little put-off after the BBC 5 Live "featured
    guest", who supported this scheme, prattled on about their opinion
    that helmets should be compulsory for safety reasons and wanted a law
    to enforce it.

    Take a look at CTUK's risk assessment, particularly section 7 - Use of
    safety equipment.

    http://tinyurl.com/2xpbux from
    http://www.bikeability.org.uk/downloads/4.4%20CTUK%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Cycle%20Training%20Activities.doc

    Compare with Herts CC cycle training health and safety policy.

    http://tinyurl.com/2bp8nv from
    http://www.bikeability.org.uk/downloads/4.1%20Health%20and%20Safety%20Herts%20CC%20Policy.doc

    Policy among cycle training providers is as diverse as opinion among
    cyclists.

  4. Tom Crispin said:

    Take a look at CTUK's risk assessment, particularly section 7 - Use of
    safety equipment.

    I don't have a ".doc" reader on this machine at the moment :-(

    Quoted message said:

    Policy among cycle training providers is as diverse as opinion among
    cyclists.

    Somehow, that doesn't surprise me ;-)

  5. Stuart Millington said:
    Tom Crispin said:

    Take a look at CTUK's risk assessment, particularly section 7 - Use of
    safety equipment.

    I don't have a ".doc" reader on this machine at the moment :-(

    I'll summarise.

    CTUK - Helmets a matter of personal choice.
    Will check children's helmets for fit. If they don't fit helmet will
    be removed and child will take part in training helmetless.
    Instructors will wear hi-viz tabards; children won't as it may affect
    motorists' behaviour and children won't experience normal driving
    conditions.

    Herts CC - Helmets and hi-vis must be worn at all times by instructors
    and trainees.

  6. Tom Crispin said:

    On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:09:30 +0100, Stuart Millington
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't have a ".doc" reader on this machine at the moment :-(

    I'll summarise.

    CTUK - Helmets a matter of personal choice.
    Will check children's helmets for fit. If they don't fit helmet will
    be removed and child will take part in training helmetless.
    Instructors will wear hi-viz tabards; children won't as it may affect
    motorists' behaviour and children won't experience normal driving
    conditions.

    Herts CC - Helmets and hi-vis must be worn at all times by instructors
    and trainees.

    Thank you. An interesting comparison of approaches. I prefer the
    former. The later seems to be a simple jobs worth enforcement of a
    bureaucratic rule.

  7. in message <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin

    (') said:
    Stuart Millington said:

    I must admit to being a little put-off after the BBC 5 Live "featured
    guest", who supported this scheme, prattled on about their opinion
    that helmets should be compulsory for safety reasons and wanted a law
    to enforce it.

    Take a look at CTUK's risk assessment, particularly section 7 - Use of
    safety equipment.

    http://tinyurl.com/2xpbux from


    http://www.bikeability.org.uk/downloads/4.4%20CTUK%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Cycle%20Training%20Activities.doc

    Quoted message said:


    Compare with Herts CC cycle training health and safety policy.

    That's an excellent statement - clear, concise and balanced.
    Congratulations to them!

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
    of copper roove nails.

  8. Stuart Millington said:

    On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:15:12 +0100, Tom Crispin

    Quoted message said:

    Take a look at CTUK's risk assessment, particularly section 7 - Use of
    safety equipment.

    I don't have a ".doc" reader on this machine at the moment :-(

    I must say that .doc requirement lost me right there. If Bikeability
    cannot be bothered to have their documents in something like PDF ...

    John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

  9. Quoted message said:

    I must say that .doc requirement lost me right there. If Bikeability
    cannot be bothered to have their documents in something like PDF ...

    Google for Openoffice.

  10. On Mar 31, 3:58 pm, Mark Thompson

    pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:
    Quoted message said:

    I must say that .doc requirement lost me right there. If Bikeability
    cannot be bothered to have their documents in something like PDF ...

    Google for Openoffice.

    Thanks, but already I'm using OOo 2.1 🙂 And I do have Word on this
    machine (meal culpa).
    .. My comment was more of a political statement. Documents like that
    should be in PDF or similar open format.

  11. in message <[email hidden]>, John

    Kane (') said:

    On Mar 31, 3:58 pm, Mark Thompson

    pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:
    Quoted message said:

    I must say that .doc requirement lost me right there. If Bikeability
    cannot be bothered to have their documents in something like PDF ...

    Google for Openoffice.

    Thanks, but already I'm using OOo 2.1 🙂 And I do have Word on this
    machine (meal culpa).
    . My comment was more of a political statement. Documents like that
    should be in PDF or similar open format.

    I contest that PDF really counts as an open format. Yes, I know Adobe have
    submitted it as a standard, and I know there are open source converters
    and renderers, but Adobe continue to 'innovate' (translation: add
    non-standard features). And it's a really bad format for text - makes it
    hard to edit or reformat and even hard to search. I've got lazy myself and
    now use it for some things, but there are many formats (I'd particularly
    point to ODF) which are better.

    In the meantime, although politically I agree with you, I just opened the
    DOC file in OOo.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
    careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
    economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
    forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
    free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

  12. Stuart Millington said:
    Tom Crispin said:

    I received by email today my provisional accreditation as a
    'Bikeability' training provider, that is delivery of cycle training to
    the National Standard Levels 1, 2 and 3.

    Congratulations, I think ;-) Nothing about you, but is this a "real"
    accreditation or another govermint quango (like Prescott's Part P
    building reg's) with their own political hoops that you have to jump
    through to get the paperwork?

    Its looking very much like the latter as it seems to heve been moved from
    CTC to a PR company working on behalf of Cycling England civil servants,
    and therefore probably more interested in justifying their fat cheques.

    At least we now know where much of the funding is going :-(

    John B

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.