RiderSite (The Archive Forum)

[tc]

If there was a riding qualification other than a RoSPA or IAM test.

The reason I ask is that a number of people have expressed an interest in doing advanced training and getting some sort of recognition but have no desire to join one of the big players namely RoSPA or the IAM.

So, at the moment I am currently looking to introduce a City and Guilds riding qualification and later add an instructional qualification as a stand alone professional NVQ rather than have to join one of the above.

One of the criteria for examiners will be that they do not have to hold a Police Class 1 although they must have a proven track record in riding ability, instructional and riding assessment technique, and although the test will be no easier than currently on offer, it will not be so formal so candidates will actually relax more thereby producing a more realistic ride.

The test will be available throughout the country, and a network of examiners will be appointed. There will be no requirement as to whom should do your training (which is still advisable), but obviously the trainer will have to be someone who is up to speed on current advanced practices.

Although Btec is a credible NVQ, many people have told me that they believe that City and Guilds holds more respect generally (I don't know to be honest), but the important thing is that riders have the opportunity to have their riding ability recognised without the need to join a club, association or other body.

Prices may be a fraction higher than current advanced tests, but hopefully not by much, and there will be an option of a re-test should the candidate so desire, but at the moment I am just looking for some feedback as other opinions I have canvassed have been very positive.

So, I would appreciate your thoughts!

[tigger]

I just know I am going to regret this, but have you spoken to your old colleague Graham Owen? I believe that he is trying to extend the reach of the NVQ that is presently run.

Are you looking at a specific motorcycle instructio C&G rather than the generic 7307?

[tc]

[Samray]

[yello]

I am always interested in further training tc. For me, IAM and RoSPA offer good training at negligable cost and, in my opinion, I think that's where your idea could struggle. Whilst IAM/RoSPA offer a recognised qualification for under roughly a £50 spend, then it's going to be difficult to compete with that. I think you'll have to find an attractive angle to differentiate yourself from them. Yes, some people don't like the image of those 2 but I think you'll need more.

I did consider doing the Bedford College college instructor BTEC, and have done the aforementioned Graham Owen's NVQ-type course (what exactly is it's status????). But I began to ask myself why. There seems to be many a (qualified) player out there offering training - and I like that, you pays your money you takes your choice - but I'm not sure what another qualification adds.

I didn't do IAM for the insurance discount (negligable really) the qualification brings. And I'm not doing RoSPA for any other reason than to make myself a safer rider. I can't do that without being observed and instructed. Yes I want to pass, and I like RoSPA's reassesment policy, but it's not really about a qualification for me. I did a BikeSafe day too, and The Edge. And I got a clean bill of health both times and certificates with my name on. But they're bits of cardboard - the best buzz was a copper complimenting my riding.

I think what I'm saying is that another riding qualification (whilst I'd probably take it myself, cost allowing) might just confuse. I agree, btw, that City & Guilds is better respected that NVQ but neither seem the right home for an advanced riding qualification in my honest opinion.

If you really want to make yourself appeal above and beyond RoSPA/IAM then I think you'll have to find some tangible advantage or angle to the qualification. Or forget the qualification side of things altogether and establish yourself (or your network) as an outfit respected by bikers and build up that way, a ground swell sort of thing. I know you have issues with Rapid Training, and I know you're not really thinking about a business primarily, but I thinks theirs is a business model worth looking at, they've gradually built up the client base over the years.

I think the advanced training market is a tough one, I wish you well, I really do - and please just treat what I'm saying as merely an honest and frank personal opinion. In short, I would be interested for the training aspect alone

[tc]

OK, a bit of history as to why I am looking at this. Firstly as many of you know I set up and ran the RoSPA diploma course until my resignation earlier this year.

Since I resigned I have been approached by various overseas agencies (Government and private) who want a recognised qualification in advanced instruction for their in house staff who train as part of their job and they actually recognise the City and Guilds Institute. What they have said is that they do not want to get involved with RoSPA or the IAM for various reasons, although I do know the reason why they won't talk to RoSPA!

Now Btec is all OK don't get me wrong, but they wan't something a little bit "Higher" if that is the right word as far as a qualification is concerned, and they want both a riding and instructional element.

Now the people I am working with are totally independant from any association such as RoSPA or the IAM so will be able to adjudicate fairly and have all the pieces in place to administer it properly, so the accreditation is going forward so that it is in place and will cover a lot more than just the riding and instruction. It will cover health and safety, law, risk assessment to name but three elements as well as the practical areas of riding, instructional technique, assessment, fault diagnosis and rectification and theoretical knowledge.

There will be a requirement from the instructional point of view for a minimum number of hours of pre course learning and practice (probably around 40 - 50 hours) and the riding standard will have to be at least of the same standard as a RoSPA gold but instead of gold, silver and bronze there will be award, distinction and honours.

The actual test will be about the same as RoSPA and IAM but there is a £26 admin charge to City and Guilds which is why there will be a slightly dearer cost.

People can get their training from whatever source they deem fit, whether it be through a RoSPA or IAM group, private individual, but unlike the two main tests, this will be a professional qualification, mainly aimed at those who ride for a living but also available to members of the public. As i say the main aim is to satisfy the overseas market where the demand is amazing as health and safety is starting to kick in big time.

There is a little more to it, but that is the shortened version, and already the telephone and e-mail is buzzing with people wanting to know more which is encouraging, and I have had about 200 e-mails over the past week from people who have stated that they would be interested in such a test which is encouraging, but I am just after a little more constructive feedback.

The scheme will be launched internationaly, it is a case of looking to see whether we offer it in the UK as well!

[yello]

Okay, I've got a better handle on what the idea is now. You're thinking of more than just a riding qualification, you're thinking of the professional rider and you're thinking international. There's the angles I was talking of. So, yes, I think it's a damned good idea and I think - at that price - there is a market for it in the UK. C&G seems more relevant now too, thinking of it as a qualification for the professional rider. It's not like there's many (any?) other homes for it, short of something completely new. Does C&G mean anything internationally?

Maybe a few of the big bike courier firms etc. might be interested in some sort of tie-in or something, dunno, just thinking aloud. Is there an overall assoc for them? I guess ambulance/paramedic riders are police trained.

If you've got strong international interest, then I'd say go for it. Once a UK market sees its success, then interest here should follow. I'm interested already!

[tigger]

Ok tc got you now. I agree with you in many ways that the Btec still does not seem to carry the same qudos that the C&G does.

The main question that remains is that how are you going to assess at a higher level than the Gold, when so much emphasis is placed on the progress element already.

To get Gold, or at least it was when I got mine, you were expected to make all reasonable progress within the bounds of road traffic law. Please don't think I'm having a dig, I'm not. Just curious that's all.

But for me the bottom lines are anything that promotes good riding and does not require you to ride like an anal retentive is ok by me. And to further weaken the strangle hold that the IAM and RoSPA have is IMHO also to be commended.

[tc]

[burty]

I was going to respond with the question "why do we need another training body"? My immediate response would be why not work with the existing bodies maybe IAM or RoSPA to improve what's already available. I think one of Yello's posts makes it clear how confusing it is already, with different bodies, different qualifications, low level stuff, high level stuff. But I guess TC, you have already tried the working with the existing bodies route and your have explained why neither RoSPA or the IAM will do. So I guess a new qualification is justified.

As for C&G versus BTEC, I guess it depends what circles you move in. In my industry BTEC is far better recognised. BTEC has always struck me as centred more on academic achievement based on a theoretical approach and C&G a bit more on the practical and the (dare I say it) lower level (we do it this way because it works) approach.

[tc]

[burty]

Ah, sorry, not a new training body but a new qualification. That sounds good, especially if it is a 'recognised' qualification (whatever that means) then it has to be good.

[go4it]

As my rider and instructor courses are being mentioned on here I thought I would pop in and explain them and what’s really behind them. I am not here to promote them simply to put the record straight.

I note that some here have completed the rider’s course and still wonder at its status. The suggestion is that I have linked the 2 qualifications to a B-Tec and that it is run through a number of outlets. This is wholly incorrect, the qualifications are accredited through the Open College Network to a level 3 qualification for the riders course (This is the equivalent to NVQ3, GNVQ Advanced, A&A/S level, access to HE) The Instructors course is to a level 4 qualification and offers over 100 hours of training development. (This is the equivalent to NVQ4, GNVQ4, and Degree)

Firstly, posttest training or advanced is working, currently, in an unregulated market and as such the standard varies greatly. The purpose behind developing these courses was to provide assurance for those seeking advanced training that we were offering a quality controlled training programme. The Instructors course was developed in the belief that the DSA would introduce a register of instructors and we didn’t want to be affiliated to any of the more recognised establishments.

As far as status goes it really is what the individual thinks they have from the course and no more, it also offers us credibility when negotiating with insurance companies and the like, but we wanted to remain independant adn have managed to do so.

We do not cover the whole spectrum but simply good riding skills or what is commonly termed as advanced riding standard, we do not cover CBT or DAS training. I am more than happy to answer questions and accept that as with any training we need to develop and improve the course and we do. I had no connection with the Bedford B-Tec course even though I do know the people that ran the course.

As for additional qualifications, they offer choice and competition and without them the market would be dominated by one or 2 larger players and that’s not such a good thing.

I hope this has clarified things a little

All the best

[tc]

As I said in an earlier post, I was happy to be corrected about Graham's course which he himself has rightly done, and I sincerly apologise for getting it wrong. I hope that no damage has been done. It was an assumption (I misread it) on my part that Graham was associated with Btec and I am more than happy to be corrected.

[yello]