Cycling specialist urges ‘consensus through consultation’

Ken Spence, a member of the English Regions Cycling Development Team, has challenged the ‘unrepresentative’ tone of last week's report covering his presentation at the recent LARSOA AGM.

Ken Spence, who is specialist area manager, road safety and cyclist training and Philip Darnton, acting chairman of the National Cycling Strategy Board, addressed the meeting about development of the National Cycle Training Standard.

In the interests of fairness, we invited Ken Spence to put across his point of view and say why he thought the report was not balanced. He accepted the invitation and his response follows.

Consensus through consultation
The report of the discussion of the National Cycle Training Standard at the LARSOA AGM, carried on last week's website news ‘National Cycle Training Standards - RSOs remain unconvinced’ was, I feel, rather unrepresentative of the real views of those present. The headline ‘RSOs remain unconvinced’ - repeated in the body of the report - could give the impression that the whole meeting felt this way. This does not accurately reflect the very positive comments and input of RSOs throughout the development of the Standard, or of many privately in the meeting and most importantly of those who actually spoke in the discussion.

From the beginning of the process LARSOA has been actively represented in the group developing the National Standard and Guidelines. Indeed, on two occasions, drafts of the Standard and Guidelines document have been circulated to all RSOs through the LARSOA email cascade. This has generated some very useful and positive comments, many of which have then been incorporated in future drafts. The process began over two years ago, initially in developing the CTC's Adult and Teenage Training Standards. This work, fully supported by LARSOA, forms the basis for the Child Training Standard. Indeed any continuing debate is not so much about the Standard but rather about the guidelines on how to meet it.
The discussion in the AGM was largely on two issues. The first was whether there was any real proof that training works, particularly in reducing casualties. This is certainly not a comment about the Standard and Guidelines but rather on the efficacy of cyclist training in general.

The second issue was that the guidelines for on-road primary school training recommend a maximum pupil/instructor ratio of 6 to 1 rather than 8 to 1 as in RoSPA guidelines. Those who raised this matter prefaced their comments by saying they were fully in support of the Standard. They were particularly concerned that a reduction in the ratio would introduce a financial constraint that would result in fewer children being trained. The day following the AGM a rewording of the paragraph on ratios, intended to allay these concerns, was circulated on the LARSOA email cascade. The responses to this are currently being considered and a final rewording will result. This is representative of the process by which the Standard and Guidelines have been developed - consensus through consultation.

But does training work? A road safety officer recently said to me: "Is there anything we do in education, training and publicity that we can prove reduces casualties? I think not."

I don't believe it is possible to isolate cyclist training and conclusively prove that it reduces casualties. This is not because I don't believe it does, but rather that in statistical terms we are dealing with data sets (child cyclist casualties) so small that it is not possible to attach statistical significance to any changes. The accuracy of cyclist casualty statistics is also very poor.

But what we do know quite categorically is that ‘best practice’ practical training in road user skills works to create more competent and by definition safer road users. This is true of all detailed research into cyclist training and of that on pedestrian, rider and driver training, all of which is fully transferable. We also know that having more cyclists reduces casualties. As training is an important component in achieving this aim we can claim an indirect contribution to casualty reduction ... if we can achieve an increase in cycling.

For many road safety officers questions of whether training works are not an issue - not because they ignore them but because they don't doubt the answer. They are fully committed to offering a quality product that delivers competent cyclists and they have welcomed the emerging Standard and Guidelines.

What’s your view?
If you would like to comment on this subject – whether or not you were at the LARSOA AGM – please email newsfeed editor Nick Rawlings, nrawlings@stennik.com. Copy deadline is close of business Wednesday 7 April (a little earlier than normal because of the Easter holiday period). If there is significant interest in this topic we will publish responses on Tuesday 13 April.