Search found 2 matches

by vanorak
14 Apr 2013, 1:38am
Forum: National Standard Cycle Training
Topic: At the risk of sounding controversial....
Replies: 7
Views: 115176

At the risk of sounding controversial....

I've lost track of how many dinnerhours I've missed fixing Giros (detanglers) on cheap BMXs, or have had to tell an otherwise excellent trainee that they cannot continue because their brakes are defective (or missing). While most instructors will endeavour to accommodate the trainee if they turn up the following week with a roadworthy bike, at the end of the day, they are going to ride whether their brakes work properly or not. I'm well aware of the Law in terms of knowingly permitting a bike with defective brakes to be ridden on the road, but putting the legalities aside for a moment, if one considers that this may be the only realistic opportunity for a child to undertake road training, if he/she can demonstrate sufficient control, and stop safely when required, surely it's in their interests to participate?

Level 1 requires that trainees stop quickly with control....if they can do this with only one brake then why not allow them to benefit from Level 2 training?
Please don't respond by quoting the Law http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/05/04/the-rules-of-bike-brakes/;
by vanorak
14 Apr 2013, 12:34am
Forum: National Standard Cycle Training
Topic: Bikeability training
Replies: 18
Views: 148882

Re: Bikeability training

First and foremost, I'm sorry to hear of your son's disappointment. Having worked full-time as a Bikeability instructor for over 6 years, I can honestly say that an instructor will do his/her utmost to ensure participants undergo the road-based element of the training, provided they have demonstrated the necessary skills during the Level 1 assessment.This aspect of the course is as much to do with establishing ground rules and building rapport, as it is an assessment of the trainee's cycling skills. Contrary to popular belief, Bikeability is not a pass or fail process, so for an instructor to "fail" a trainee following completion of all the outcomes is perhaps a little harsh. However, if a participant consistently fails to demonstrate sufficient concentration, is consistently disruptive, or behaves in such a way as to endanger themselves or others at any time during the training, a reprimand at the time would be a more appropriate response, with a warning that continued misbehaviour will result in the trainee in question being taken back to school. Such a threat is often all that is required to bring an errant trainee into line. As any parent knows, failure to stand by your promise, following repeated warnings, is counter-productive, despite the fact that this impacts upon the rest of the group temporarily.
I have faced this situation on many occasions...the bottom line is that an instructor is in Loco Parentis; you have a duty of care for all participants in a dynamic, and potentially harmful, environment. Your son's lack of concentration is not a reason to "fail" the training, but must be considered in light of his safety, and whether it will compromise the experience of others in the group. Personally, assuming he had completed all the outcomes in line with the National Standard, I would award him a Level 2 but would also take time to discuss the issue with him, with his teacher or headmaster/mistress present to emphasize the gravitas of the situation.

As a post script, supposing your son came home sporting his Level 2 badge, proudly waving his certificate in the air, you may presume he has the necessary skills, knowledge and awareness to undertake road journeys unaccompanied, as attested to by an accredited cycling instructor. If said instructor has witnessed evidence to the contrary, wouldn't you want to know?