Most recent activity
-
The forum is a good thing.
It will evolve as more people use it. Even though not many comments are made, people are stiil reading it. -
As a scheme provider outside of London we pay our self employed instructors £80 per day as an NSIQ. NSIP's are paid £60 per day.
With a normal start time of 0830/0845 and a finish at 2.30 most days, this equates to an hourly rate of approx £13.33 including a paid lunch break. Take out a 30 min lunch break and the hourly rate is £14.54.
We value all our instructors giving them the best uniform we could find, including a waterproof jacket to 20,000 NM. We offer CPD, mentoring and a friendly enviroment to work in for all staff and have no issues with retaining them.
I saw on another thread of a pay rate £ 7ish for instructors. This is far to low for people who have such a responsible job.
I know there will be some schemes out there that may pay more or less than we do, but people are free to work for whoever they wish. The good schemes will have happy, reliable and positive staff. The schemes paying peanuts will probably not !!
No real concerns over a guild/union. Schemes will still pay what they want even if an instructor was in a union. With tenders being so competitive, one of the only ways to get the price per head down low, is to pay less, not provide decent uniform etc.
Maybe if all the schemes had to submit the same price per head for a tender, then instructors would have a better if idea if they were getting ripped off on pay. -
Hi Phil,
We advise our instructors when a rider is having their first go at riding a turn to stop at the correct position, be it a left in, out or right turns even if their is not another vehicle passing.
We beleive by doing this for the first turn the rider then knows exactly were they need to stop if a vehicle was passing. This also ensures the instructor knows, that the rider has taken in the explanation and demo and understands the correct stopping position.
For future turns we then ask the rider to treat the junction as live and only give way if needed to.
We were picked up on this during our QA visit and told we must not simulate. But we would rather be safe and have the knowledge that both rider and instructor know what to do and expect. If ever there was a case when a cyclist was hit after not being shown were to stop and was injured during a Bikeability session, I would not like to be the instructor/scheme involved in this.
Good question though and I bet differing opions will now come forward. Remember though, once the instructor is happy the rider knows the correct stopping position, we then treat the junction as live. You could possibly use other riders to simulate traffic if really quiet. -
Hi,
I guess everyone has received the same email as i had yesterday, telling us how to give out the new badges and certs?
In keeping with the National consistant approach that SDG want us all to follow, can some one please put together a National statement that explains to a child they have not actually completed all the outcomes listed on the front, even though it says they can. Can it also explain to parents the actual level of ability of their child, explain to secondary schools who insist that students have L2 before they ride to school that the badge is for acheivement and not the cert.
Word all this in a statement that does not upset, offend or give false information. I am a Bikeability instructor not an expert in writing statements like this.
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. If a child is killed or seriously injured after being given a L2 cert, when they could not acheive the outcomes, who is taking responsibility for this?
This new approach is barking mad. Why can we not give L1 badges and certs to riders who acheive L1 outcomes and give L2 badges and certs to those who acheive L2 outcomes? This way there is no grey area of ability, parents should know what their child can acheive and schools can know for sure that they are letting suitably competent riders bring their bikes to school.
What about L3, is this an attendance course as well??
If you disagree with this rather long post, then please suggest a better way.
Thanks, -
Should the QA score following a visit (not full details) be made public, so that parents, schools, local authorities etc, at a glance can see to what standard/risk a scheme is providing?
Schools publish OFSTED reports, so why shouldn't we? -
We also only give out a cert and badge to a rider on succesful completion of a level.
If they take part in the L2 and did not achieve all the outcomes, we give them the L1 badge and cert, explaining why they didn't get L2 and also explain on back of cert what area/s they need to improve on.
Both the new and old certs do nothing to promote the L3 course either.
Not sure why you would not mandatory training. UKIP may not have called it Bikeability, but they mean this. If we had this as mandatory in the curriculm like swimming is currently, is that not a good thing??