• Today the Bikeability Trust published the new Bikeability Delivery Guide

    Which together with the updated National Standard for Cycle Training shows what good cycling looks like and how to teach it.

    The National Standard is now published on the DVSA website together with the driving standard

  • Good to see the ratio lowered for level 1 from 15 to 12 in the bikeability delivery guide. Does this make the level 1/off road ratio for "bikeability" and "national standard cycle training" different or has the national standard ratio also changed?

    Old national standard documents.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio­ns/national-standard-for-cycle-training-­outcomes
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk­/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac­hment_data/file/9188/nsct-course-ratios-­times.pdf

  • Does this make the level 1/off road ratio for "bikeability" and "national standard cycle training" different or has the national standard ratio also changed?

    Good question. The ratio is relevant to for Bikeability delivery and mentioned in the Bikeability delivery guidance. The (new) NS doesn't mention ratios but references 'delivery guidance'. Different courses that base content on the NS (such as SUD) may opt to deliver with different ratios to Bikeability

  • Why insist on puncture repair as a skill?

    I can imagine the hassle of showing and watching someone trying to repair a puncture on a dutch bike, which could take an inordinate amount of time.

  • Good question. The ratio is relevant to for Bikeability delivery and mentioned in the Bikeability delivery guidance. The (new) NS doesn't mention ratios but references 'delivery guidance'. Different courses that base content on the NS (such as SUD) may opt to deliver with different ratios to Bikeability

    I've always considered the SUD training a driver training course as there is no explicit expectation for instructors to teach or observe national standard outcomes beyond using them as a tool to gague safe participation by delegates, while the skills we have as instructors overlap in areas the level 3 elements/expectations are ignored allowing for 2:12 "level 2 ratios" despite level 3 situations being discussed/taught and at times where possible cycled/experienced by delegates.

  • Why insist on puncture repair as a skill?

    It's in line with what they teach driving, doing your test now you need to show basic maintenance skills topping up oil and such.

    I can imagine the hassle of showing and watching someone trying to repair a puncture on a dutch bike, which could take an inordinate amount of time.

    Unsure why you as an instructor would opt to use a style of bike that makes it more difficult, even with a "dutch bike" you can teach them to replace/repair the front tube and observe the outcome without doing the rear and also teaching them how to adjust hub gears. How useful that skill is to trainees is another thing.

  • Why insist on puncture repair as a skill?

    It's not in core bikeability though is in the NS. The NS is greater than bikeability. Punctures is in B+

  • Are we meant to submit questions before the webinar on delivery?

    I keep seeing instructors who do not think it necessary to signal the intention to stop, perhaps this should be added to 2.1b

  • It's in 4.1(4.1.1).

    edit - is also "cooperate and communicate with others" at 2.2.1 but as riding with one hand and looking behind isn't until 2.2.2 it's vague as to what that means in practice.

  • that was my thinking on the matter, it comes up later but should be there from the get go!

  • I'm not so sure, my understanding of highway code instructions and whatnot is that other roadusers(cyclists included) should give space to cyclists as they could stop/slow/turn without warning, some riders may not have the skill to signal or the surface they are riding on prevents them from doing so as they normally would. Similar to driving really if you tailgate someone and they stop it's the driver behinds fault. It's still more courteous to signal but it's DfT documents so everything has to fit in with everything so can't suddenly make it compulsory, even in 4.1.1 they mention "the risks associated with giving arm signals, such as reduced stability".

  • I'd have thought that stopping is a manoeuvre, it's effectively turning out of the stream of moving traffic.

    "signal my intentions before •performing a manoeuvre (if necessary)"

    So signal if required.

    Elsewhere signalling is classified as a must

    "Following a brief introduction by the instructor (and demonstration if necessary), riders must

    communicate their intentions to other road users (where present)

    before turning at junctions  
    

    communicate their intentions using riding position, eye contact and arm signals
    follow a systematic routine when communicating their intentions."

  • I'd have thought that stopping is a manoeuvre, it's effectively turning out of the stream of moving traffic.

    If moving clearly/cleanly out of the stream of traffic it can often be said the rider is not in conflict with anyone so while it's necessary to look and establish who they may need to communicate with it's then not always necessary to hand signal those continuing in the stream of traffic.

  • It’s not always clean though, is it? Eg when some commuter racer nobber is draughting you, it is best to signal intention to stop or they are likely to plough into the back of you. As I mentioned already communicate when necessary.

  • It's mentioned at each step of the on road parts. Not about to browbeat someone as they have just learned to pedal for the first time in a controlled off road environment as some commuter racer nobber or audi driver or commuter racer nobber in his audi may or may not be behind them at some point in the future.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

The Revised National Standard and Bikeability Delivery Guide

Posted by Avatar for skydancer @skydancer

Actions