"illegal" to provide "rider training" to L and P riders (NSW) ...WTF?

ref ** Motorcycle Riders Handbook (NSW)** (page 20) states:-

"Anyone who provides rider training to learner or provisional riders
must hold a current NSW driving instructor licence for Class r.
Heavy penalties apply for providing unlicensed instruction."

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/downloads/motorcycle_riders_handbook.pdf

Any useful comments on just what this bizarre and unrealistic
statement means?

Does this mean that any learner that asks me to re-explain counter
steering...or to accompany them down to the local carpark to do some
cone weaves and U turns.

Or that anyone attending any of the popular "L and P" rides, that
dares to impart pearls of wisdom to an L or P rider, is subject to
heavy penalties?

Alternatively I will accept that the true intent (and the Handbook is
merely a readable representation of the relevant legislation and
regulatory framework, rather than "gospel")....the true intent is to
ensure only licensed instructors may be remunerated for their
services.

 

Naah Al you just have to put your car hat on and think like the
car-centric bods who wrote it.

In a car (or truck) the "instructor" sits in the passenger seat and can
be anyone with a full licence for that vehicle

So I'll bet 10 bucks if you pull out the car manual you'll find an
identically worded sentence with Class C substituted for Class R

Now of course the RTA rider's handbook isn't a legal document as you
mention in your "alternative" option so you need to look at the
legislation to be sure.

Without bothering to get check it I'll bet you 2 schooners of your
favourite beer that there is no proscription in the legislation against
the sort of activities you mention.

Oh sod it I hate guessing <brings up austlii>

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rtla1998340/
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rtlr2008431/index.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rtlr2008431/s17.html

So basically, no. Ignore it, along with everything else the RTA says...

Certified Riding instructors are required to provide the official
training at L and P's courses. Provision of formal training by someone
unqualified is illegal

Accepting payment for providing formal training whether as part of an
Ls/Ps course or as one on one training is also illegal under

DRIVING INSTRUCTORS ACT 1992
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/dia1992262/s4.html#driving_instructor
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/dia1992262/

On the other hand it's perfectly OK for a non compensated person to give
someone their two bobs worth

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/dir2003353/s5.html

JL

 

Thankyou Sir, I'll have that ten bucks in caffeine shots please.

The anomaly is that the learn-to-drive-a-car/truck regime requires
some level of supervision by an appropriately licensed "supervisor".
There is no similar warning in the Drivers Handbook re: illegality of
training a learner or provisional driver. In fact, example mentions a
"supervisor" and vehicle (truck) used for "tuition", which suggests/
mandates some measure of teaching/instructing.

Can't accept that wager as I accept your premise

woohoo! Spit Road speed cameras here I come!

Even that is no guarantee of quality.

Reliable hearsay evidence conveyed to me is of witnessing the U turn
component of the MOST being instructor-simplified to more of a C-
turn..ie just dipping in and out of the U turn box. A technique
rightly condemned by another onlooking instructor.

Must have needed their pass ratio quota improved for the month I
spose.

I'd rather not receive gratification from anyone called Bobs.


So...

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25325472-5001021,00.html

Well I trust the new digs....harbour views and a six hundred dollar
comfy chair...allows the editorial juices to flow and prevent such
utterly poorly researched and condensed crap finding its way into
official and officious handbooks again.

 

The quality does vary greatly! :-(

The various schools doing the L and P courses have some very good
instructors, but, <shrug> some, particularly some of the part timers,
aren't too flash.

Some expression relating to monkeys and peanuts, springs to mind as a
possible explanation.

I think you get more money per hour stacking stuff on shelves at a
supermarket.

AFAIK, some place in the small print, a licenced onlooking instructor is
legally obliged to report such activities to the RTA.

Aye, John, but it is very scary some of the rubbish that folk can try
and tell the inexperienced rider. :-(

Did Anna tell you about the "two glasses of wine" tip? ;-)

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Well that's a great way to get a nice loose, relaxed and comfortable
riding posture eheh.

I think my Dad did that in Melbourne many many decades ago...late one
night...then attempted a U turn in front of a patrolling constable.
Here's the other tip...don't forget the sidecar was detached the day
before.

 

Well if dollars per hour is what drives people's job choices, then may
I suggest they all become "security contractors" in Iraq?

[aside] Remember when they were called mercenaries and the world in
general outlawed the use of mercenaries back then? How things have
changed... Ah, the beauty of unfettered capitalism... "Drinkin' rum
and coca-a-a cola-a-a-a..."

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Baah humbug I'm not paying up until I've perused the book in question
- the RTA have never let my cynicism down before ! ;-P

Well sorta, there is no issue other then lack of understanding by some
twat in the RTA charged with writing up the manual. And lack of
understanding is most certainly not an anomaly in the RTA.. it's
definitely the norm !

I said ignore what they say, I didn't say ignore their actions...

Never said it was, or even implied it.

Highly improbable, luxury accommodation is hardly like to improve on
the base incompetence displayed. That would require re-education and
an IQ greater than a carrot...

 

Indeed both to car and bike novices. There are many semi-competents
who think they're Schumacher / Doohan.

Errr no, but I dread to think, I can probably guess in fact

JL
A couple of glasses of wine will relax you perchance ?

 

I can think of a number of ways to be better paid than that.

JL

 

I think the word "provides" is the key word there. They're talking
about service providers not well meaning associates... and speaking of
associates.. they're going to need to reword that because I think
driving instruction is one of the banned jobs on the "bikie" list.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

Correct!

regards,
CrazyCam

 

....and, there are likely only a handful of aus.moto folk with the
required experience, and I certainly ain't one of them. ;-)

Part time bike riding instructors basically operate as contractors, thus
shifting any potential onus of "blame" away from the school's operators.

Typically, they are expected to do two classes in two days of the
pre-learners course.

They (typically) have to check out the motorcycles for use before the
first students arrive, and sign them off as safe and in good condition.

They then have do do the paperwork processing of ID checks etc.

Then do the "half day" course, which, BTW, for those that haven't done
it is quite physically demanding, trying to supervise 5 (possibly
complete) learners.

The course is carefully scripted, and timed, so a learner who say has a
small gravity attack, basically stuffs up the timing for the rest of the
course, on account of the forms to be filled in. :-(

A very short lunch break (without even a beer!) and then another 5 folk
for the arvo's session.

Now, during the course of the course, the instructor is the legally
responsible adult, basically any shit that happens is his/her fault.

End of arvo's course, instructor has to put away the bikes and tidy up.

Same again the next day, with a typical day being about 10 hours of
fairly hard work.

For this you are likely to get about $14 per hour, plus, free lectures
from the school's management on professionalism, all sorts of strange
legal requirements to report "errant" behaviour you may see in other
instructors, oh, yes, and you get to do it at the times the full-time
instructors don't want to work.... weekends.

You also get the joy of doing this, rain hail or shine where ever the
school is situated.

Hint:-StayUpright is good at Clyde cause there is some shelter there.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Hi Nev.

Just for your info, to get a motorcycle instructor's licence, in NSW,
you have to have police clearance, so I'd imagine that those nasty bikie
types with long police records, wouldn't get the licence in the first place.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I believe it means under the LAMS system the pre-learner, post-learner
and testing must be done by a certified instructor. There's no law to
stop bikers riding together in there, nor any intent to stop a more
experienced rider offering advice.

In other words your mate can't do the letter you take to the RTA that
entitles you to get your bike learner's.

 

Mmm but same goes to be a mercenary sorry security contractor.

Which is exactly why when I was going to do it to "give back" to the
motorcycling community I decided it wasn't worth it - I was actually
better doing unpaid community work for a charity. The expectations they
attach to that $14 are off the planet, it staggers me that people do it.

JL

 

Given that the bikie fraternity couldn't care less about acquiring a
firearms licence (or even explosives ticket), gaining a rider licence
would not be high on their list of priorities.

 

Have you seen anything about the new proposed 'working with children' card?
One of it's more delightful pieces of insanity is that the card would be
required by anyone over the age of 15 who in the course of their employment
could be expected to be in contact with anyone under tha age of 18.

1) That includes pretty much most employed people.
2) Minors need to be protected from people _younger_ than themselves?

I guess real comment should wait until something more concrete is on the
table, but the cynic in me doesn't hold high hopes.

P

 

Would have been more informative to place that bit of info in the
Handbook, instead of the misleading crud that did get into its only
highlighted "look here" box.

 

No it doesn't. The vast majority of people will never be in contact
with children during the course of their employment. In most cases it
is only people who are 'in charge' of the children, have the children
put in their care or trust, or those who deal directly with them who
would be affected, so it's pretty much limited to kinder/school
teachers, people in places where school children go during school hours,
on excursions, camps etc.

Yes. The law applies to everyone equally. Do you have a better system
where the laws would apply non-uniformly?

What exactly do you think is wrong with the proposed laws? They seem to
be a formalisation of background checks which are already applied to
people working with children in most/all states already.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
'08 DL1000K8

 

That would be sensible, but that is _not_ what the publicity says.

Here quote:
"The card will apply to anyone over the age of 15 who it is reasonably
assumed could come into contact with anyone under the age of 18 during the
course of their employment/volunteering."

And

"At this stage the legislation reads that anyone over 15 working with anyone
under 18 needs the card, meaning everyone in a workplace that has an
employee under the age of 18 would need one. This has Massive implications
for workplaces like McDonalds, Woolworths or any business employing jnr
staff including apprentices."

How about 'Anyone 18 or over in charge of people younger than 18 having to
have a card'?

I have no issue with the formalisation, nor the increased reporting and
tracking capability. I have a problem with the wording of the publicity
documents, which state exacly what I said above , and not something more
sensible, which was your interpretation of the current law.

Many people age 15 and over are emplyed in shopping centres all over the
place, and anyone in any customer facing position could reasonably be
expected to have dealings with people under 18 on a regular basis,
including, in the case of said 15 year olds at K-mart, their peers and
superiors who are under 18.

Anyway, my real point was just another example like JL's of the Government
getting the publicity wrong.

P