it is important to see riders interacting with drivers a lot during L2 training, however teaching people to give way means that they understand that they do not need to stop if there is no one on the main road. Even if there is not a driver you can assess whether or not a trainee is prepared to stop and is checking the road. Stopping behind the give way line may not be the best place to observe the main road

The difference between training being on the school curriculum and mandatory training is that people should be able to ride without any training or fewer people will ride if the have to get training.

Now making it mandatory to get training before learning to drive, that i would support

http://www.lfgss.com/thread130491.html
https://www.facebook.com/events/305781252916828/?ref=2&ref_dashboard_filter=upcoming&source=1

Summer social in London's Famous London,
a low key meeting for Cycle Trainers from all over U.K
Location- Kensington Palace Gardens Bandstand

Come down and meet up with colleagues, bring a cleansing ale or two to enjoy, meet fellow trainers from different areas and connect with the national scene.
Share on your Social Networks, bring your bikes and a smile.

Here are my notes which I plan to forward to TfL in response to their Cycle Safety Action Plan https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-safety-action-plan

CASP 2 draft feedback

General points additions and amendments:

p1
Cycling promotion:
While safety is and should be at the heart, cycling promotion should also be explictly stated from the outset. Promotion of Active travel needs to be stated and included in the 6 road safety commitments to include a target for increasing trips by bike. While this may not seem a pure road safety commitment more people cycling (and walking) and the effect of this in getting drivers used to sharing the road with cyclists helps greatly to improve road safety.

(front cover)
With a view to promoting cycling and taking into account the current lack of any legislation regarding the wearing of helmets we think that the images on the front showing every person on a bike wearing a helmet isn't balanced or realistic. Change the front cover to show a mixture of helmeted and helmetless cyclists. (images throughout the rst of the doc are more balanced

p4
Vulnerable road users (VRUs). While it is easy to categorise people out of cars as VRUs and to focus the CSAP (and MCSAP/PSAP) on VRUs we think a better focus and more in line with a general harm reduction focus is to prioritise actions around the groups which CAUSE the most harm rather than the current focus on people who get harmed. This would create a significantly stronger document and send the message that people liable to cause harm need to be managed and therefore there needs to be a stronger emphasis on driving skills and enforcement of bad driver behavior. This point doesn't negate the need to up-skill cyclists at all but recognises that a mistake by a cyclist or pedestrian is much less likely to harm other people whereas a mistake (or recklessness by) a driver is more likely to harm others.

p6
So based on the above comment we believe that this document should start with a focus on the people who cause the harm rather than the victims. On p13 there is an analysis of who kills or seriously injures cyclists which is good. On page 16 there is an analysis based on evidence as to what drivers do that kill or seriously injure cyclists This analysis is good and actions in the CSAP need to focus much more on what to do to minmisie the source of the KSIs whic are mainly driver behaviours.

For example 10% of KSIs are caused by drivers opening their car door in the path of cyclists -while clearly cyclists should be and are taught to ride away from car doors (and may get beeped and scared back into the car door zone by drivers who don't understand why the rider is in the middle of a lane), focusing on drivers teaching them to check before opening their doors AND helping them understand why riders ride away from car doors, is a much better evidence based action likely to lead to fewer incidences of car-dooring.

p9
The comparison of fatalities per million population doesn't take into account of the number of miles traveled by bike so having fewer absolute fatalities compared with Amsterdam is pointless. This could lead to a conclusion that in order to have fewer fatalities we need to have fewer people riding! This is why a cycling promotion target is important.

p10
As per above the link between more cyclists and fewer casualties must be made and prioritising the reduction of harm would inevitably lead to improved safety. It is important to know who is being injured but even more important to know who is doing the injuring, where when and how, in order to mitigate it happening.

p13
In the spirit of the comments above who causes the harm should be the main focus. It would also be useful to include cycles in that table to be able to assess to what extent cyclists are the cause of injury to others and the ratio of cycles involvement as a ratio of modal share. (I suspect cyclists harming other cyclists (KSI) would be pretty low which would therefore lead to more focus on groups with a high ratio of involvement. (The ratio for cabbies (4) is astounding and should lead to TfL prioritising actions to mitigate harm this group causes.)

p14
Junctions- how useful is the fact that 84% of casualties are within 20m of a junction. In London you are always within this distance from a junction.

p16
Referring to action 23 in chapter 4. There is no action here about driver skills and checking before opening doors.

p17
Good point about driver inexperience but not followed through to actions on this point. Action 13 is about technology and action 19, while better and about vru awareness in HC revisions and driver training there needs to be a TfL action about driver skills.

p20
The note about contributory factors shares responsibility equally between drivers and cyclists. A much better moral position should be to apportion more responsibility to those able to cause more harm as in many European countries.

p21
Is TfL proposing therefore to gather evidence as to what experience cyclists require to build up skills for riding on urban roads. What about evidence looking at whether drivers who are cyclists are better drivers

p22/23
Regarding operation Safeway and exchanging places. There needs to be more emphasis on the balance here. Some in the cycle community see this as targeting cyclists and some officers offering their personal opinion regarding PPE. So for example a rider is pulled over while a driver on their mobile passes by unchallenged. The SUD element of any exchanging places should be extended to taxis and other vehicles and priorites over getting cyclists in the cab of a lorry.

There is a strong case for a driver safety (harm reduction) action plan DASP

David

TABS has been asked to feedback to TfL about the Cycle Safety Action Plan
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-safety-action-plan

Please comment here and I will collate TABS response

David

• 2 Fixed-term annualised hours (224h) contracts till end September 2014 in North/Central London. You will work 1 weekend day and a weekday or two other ½ days each week. (There may be a possibility to extend the contract if there is enough work after 1st October)
• 2 Annualised hours (1078h) contracts in West London (Ealing). You will work 3 days a week: 2 fixed weekdays and 1 weekend day

Your salary will be £24,969 Pro Rata

CTUK is a not-for-profit workers' co-operative that promotes cycling as a means of transport, chiefly by providing Bikeability/National Standard Cycle Training and bike maintenance training. We are an experienced Instructor Training Provider and this is a great opportunity for any instructor to benefit from CTUK’s professional development. Provisional instructors may be able to become fully accredited in the course of their work with us. We may also be prepared to train new instructors. We welcome applications from all parts of the diverse communities we work with.

Visit our website for more information

Closing date for applications is Monday June 16th 2014. Interviews will take place on June 18th, 19th & 20th

Me neither apart from mandating schools to offer bikeability as part if the schools curriculum

Any feedback much appreciated

On going discussion from Bikeability conference work shop. Post your views here.

Paul wrote

I understand that the current position is that a pca can be conducted delivering an adult one to one, if that is primarily the type of work the candidate does. There, the outcome of controlling groups cannot be achieved. I think there should be an additional wording, saying something like. If (the above) is the case then an ITO can exercise their discretion.

Greg wrote

In my understanding the original decision was that we cannot distinguish between instructor who only want to train adults and those who wish to train all levels. As training children is harder than training adults, then the PCA should be done on children. I have done this a number of times, i.e. forced people who state that they only wish to train adults to do at least one PCA with children at Level 2. What happens if the person decides in a year or so that they want to train children.

Phillippa wrote

Interesting debate. Perhaps training individual adults is easier than training groups of children, Greg, but the industry is growing and is now much wider than delivering Bikeability to groups of Years 5 & 6 as its mainstay. What about lorry driver training where instructors are working with 20 grown ups, for instance? Group management skills are critical there. I increasingly get trainee NSIs who aren't interested in working with children at all - and infact, I had one who only wanted to do his NSI so that he could deliver his company's bus driver cycle training. Now that there are openings emerging with, for instance, Safe Urban Driving in London, do we want to be so exclusive in how we conduct PCAs? I do think an element of flexibility is key to growth - and flexibility needn't mean diluting quality

I think Paul is right and this is what we had originally agreed. PCAs can be done on 1:1 sessions if that is all the instructor will be doing. It was a bit of a fudge but now less so since all schemes should have internal QA/mentoring which gives an added level of support should that person begin to deliver schools training through such a scheme. The logistics of forcing someone who isn't involved in group training to find a group for the PCA may well prevent someone from bothering to get any PCA which is the worst outcome.

Is there is a difference in the current level of funding for cycle training outside of London?

Is this a normal set up / pay conditions for councils / instructors outside of London?

Am I being unrealistic / naive in my expectations?

1. Yes funding in London by TfL/Boroughs is significantly higher than out of London
   
2. The set up varies from authority to authority. The rate you quote seems terribly low for such a complex professional job.
   
3. It's good you are explaining to them why you won't work at that rate.
   (London instructors are talking about Unionisation on a facebook group)
   

Stop 'U' turns

Stopping all the time a Give Way lines

Putting out warning cycle training signs

Promoting signalling every time regardless of whether there is anyone else around

The updated National Standard is much better at informing manages exactly what is NS practice. These examples (which all ITOs will have seen when observing on PCAs) are vestiges from cycling proficiency .

Also the cover note to the NS guidance covers the spirit of NS training and clearly suggest that signs do not make for realistic a training environment

I recently did a Post course assessment for someone who combines Cycle Training with sports coaching. Both trainers and trainees were wearing racing lycra and using an outdoor track for level 1.

Youth Sports Trust do deliver training and wonder whether such links between racing and everyday riding are good or not.

(Would it be good if Formula 1 drivers got involved in training car drivers?)

@IsobelS How did the Minister's session go at the Camden school?

The policy does seem odd to me when all other aspects of Bikeability
are strongly outcome based?

Giving a certificate for taking part doesn't contradict outcomes in any way

Are council road safety depts (who fund Bikeability across the
country) aware that we should be giving L2 certs to children
describing they CAN do all the listed outcomes, when actually they
cannot.

(Local authorities do not fund Bikeability but claim funding from t he DfT)
The certificates state 'have taken part in' not completed, and the level reached can be ticked on the front of the certificate so parents know where their child has reached and can continue from where they left off should the young person get further training.

The advantage of this system is that at least the person will receive something for taking part and should be able to learn what the need to do next to get a badge

Yes that was one of the reasons.
Another was that since this is a consensus based system rather than a legal framework. It's crucial that schemes interact with QA and feel that is is to their advantage and important for their development, (rather than the punitive like OFSTED). So not making the outcome public is a way to minimise potential fear of engaging.

Currently TfL are doing a consultation 'brainstorm' looking at Usability, things to change and to add. There isn't yet an agreement with DfT to begin wider consultation though with TfLs pressure one would like to think they well begin the process to revise it. I suppose that the legal points in it are based on case law covered in the reference source section of the HC which are noted in a number of sources.

Here are some general principles about the HC we plan to incude in our paper. Any though/feedback would be great

General principles:

3.1 The introduction to the HC highlights its importance to all road users suggesting that all are considerate to each other and that it
‘applies to pedestrians as much as drivers and riders. The
introduction goes on to outline the legal status of the HC guidance
explain that rules identified by MUST/MUST NOT are legal requirements.
The introduction concludes that knowledge and application of the HC
‘could significantly reduce road casualties.

3.2 There ought to be a stronger statement regarding the status and aims of the HC in the introduction. A mission statement which
establishes some key principles which will inform the tone of
subsequent guidance. So while it is important that all road users be
considerate to each other, there needs to be a principle that road
users capable of causing more harm to others have more responsibility.
People in motorised vehicles should be responsible for looking out for
people on bicycles and on foot, people on bicycles should watch out
for people on foot.

3.3 A second guiding principle should be to encourage people to use benign means of travel where possible. This in light of issues around
public health, pollution and how we would like the places we live and
work to feel like. The HC should suggest that people could consider
walking or cycling for short trips. This second principle would mean
the removal of terms like ‘vulnerable road user’ which generally
refers to people out of cars. That term itself may actually discourage
people from walking and cycling because by being called vulnerable
they may perceive the way they move around is more risky than driving.

3.4 Throughout the HC the term ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ are used, particular infrastructure is described as hazardous. The word
‘traffic’ is used throughout often referring to drivers/road users yet
dehumanising them . (Rule 19: “Give traffic plenty of time to see
you”. Rule 74 about turning right states “...check the traffic to
ensure it is safe … wait for a safe gap...”. Rule 76: “Roundabouts are
hazardous and should be approached with care” etc). The use of such
terminology should be avoided. Not only because these terms are vague
and don’t offer any clear guidance, they also create a sense of
danger, again to people not in cars, so do not help encourage use of
benign modes.

3.5 The status of cyclists need to be clarified. Bicycles are vehicles capable of speed, and in urban spaces can often equal or exceed the
speed of motor vehicles which often makes it easier for cyclists to
share roads with people in cars than to share footways with
pedestrians. Drivers need to be made aware of this and perhaps to be
guided that it is not always necessary to overtake a cyclists. Further
clarification needs to made in the section for all vehicles if all the
rules should apply to cyclists (such as rule 163 ‘only overtake on the
left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right’.) In
addition any guidance for cyclists must adhere to guidance in the
National Standard for cycle training (Bikeability) and drivers must be
made aware of such guidance which would significantly minimise
conflict.

3.6 A final general principle is that there needs to be much more clarity as what is law and what is advice or suggestions. Perhaps by
separating the MUST/MUST NOT laws from the ‘shoulds’. There should
also be more clarity as to who in law is responsible in different
situations. So while a pedestrian should ‘look out for traffic’ at
junctions (Rule 8), drivers should give way to pedestrians crossing
at junction (Rule 170). Who has more responsibility? (Point 3.2 above)

Yes @delboy I will post here probably by end of tomorrow and then forward to TfL early next week.

Application forms and further background about the conference are now available for download at: tabs-uk.org.uk/events/

Any thoughts/feedback welcome!

When did you last read The Highway Code?

Transport for London are currently consulting on this with a view to pressing the DfT to review the Highway Code in light of new infrastructure being trialed in London (and elsewhere)

TABS will be putting together a paper on this and we would appreciate your views.
It would be helpful of you could comment in these 3 areas:
Usability
Things to add
Things to change

(I plan to get something back to TfL by mid March)

it is indeed
and in Birmingham
Details amended

I prefer the metal badges though seems the young people like the new rubber ones (so they can flick things with them according to an SDG insider ;)

The booklet content is much better apart from there being too many helmets

What do you think?