National Cycle Training Standard – the debate continues

Last week we published an article by Ken Spence, a member of the English Regions Cycling Development Team, putting across his point of view and saying why he thought our earlier report on RSO reaction to the proposed National Cycle Training Standard was 'unrepresentative'.

To read Ken’s article click here.

We invited you to comment on this issue and received the following two responses.

Don Martin, Senior Safety Education Officer, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
"I think one of the reasons for concern regarding a national standard is that it appears to have been researched from the starting point of CTC's own experiences in training teenagers - rather than in examining, at the beginning, the excellent work that is already taking place in many local authority schools' courses across the country.

"Standards for these courses are often decided locally and can be based on political influence and budget constraints. For example, one authority may decide to provide super courses to a relatively small number of riders, when a neighbouring authority may decide (for the same outlay) to provide a lesser course, but insist that all pupils are able to participate.

"The danger of imposing a national standard is that many pupils may be denied training if budget restraints only allow for relatively few pupils to be trained at that standard.

"Guidelines on the other hand are to be applauded in that they offer a level of aspiration to those course providers that are at present not yet able to meet the national guidelines.

"I cannot recall being consulted about the quality of courses we provide in our authority before the national guidelines were produced."

Mark Jessop, Hull Road Safety
"I think most of us would agree with Ken that we need a nationally agreed (and supported) outline for cyclist training, but like many colleagues I think that a prescriptive methodology is both unnecessary and counter productive.

"We have provided on-road training, pretty much as described in the standard, for nearly 20 years...using volunteers.

"Now I know some authorities find it easier to use paid instructors and someday we may have to switch but we prefer the 'school community' based approach. We think this gives some sense of ownership of the training and adds to its value (although our training is free!).

"I think Ken's standard implicitly discriminates against the use of volunteers. We have discussed this and Ken disagrees.

"Of greater concern to me is the increasing pressure on schools to restrict all forms of 'off-site' activity due to the risk of litigation. An over prescriptive standard increases pressure on our teaching colleagues to ‘just say no’ to training.

"Maybe our collective energies might be better directed at defending the principle of on-road safety training rather than providing ammunition for lazy lawyers."

Thanks to Mark and Don for their thought-provoking contributions to this debate. Please feel free to continue discussing this issue on the messageboard in the members’ section of this website.