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

U supporting kiddie fiddlers?

 

No different to any other industry I've seen in that respect -
unfortunately.

Myself and a few of the part-timers I worked with back in the day would take
exception to that Cam

Jeez, now you're getting really rough! No self respecting monkey would
become a riding instructor

Probably. And it would come with a whole lot less grief.

As an accredited MOST Testing Officer you *must* run the test in accordance
with the RTA defined process - to not do so and be caught out risked your
accreditation. I didn't see anyone fudge it in my time (but then we didn't
watch each other much at all) but then I've been out of the game for 5 years
too.

Depends on the circumstances I believe. At one stage myself and a few of the
other ex Rightstart and Hart guys you have met along the way were doing some
training at ride days as volunteers. We stopped doing it when it was
suggested to us by a lawyer we asked that if someone followed advice
provided by us and crashed, and that advice could be proven to be erroneous
or a contributing factir to the crash in court that we may face some
liability for the injuries/damage resulting from the crash.

I don't know that a chat amongst a group where someone passes on a few tips
could fall into this category, but if I was an organiser of a L and P plate
ride that had a stated aim of passing on information on riding skills and
techniques I would be careful how I phrased the discussion.

Chris

 

More shifting any liability for sick leave, super and annual leave away is
the motivation as I unserstood it.

Or a single pre-P course and MOST each day.

Aye, though it's a pretty cursory inspection as I'm sure you saw.

And then there's the time lost referring them to remedial training, or
dealing with the tears/anger/resentment because they 'failed'. Then there
were the threats of physical harm and occasional attempted bribes.

A lunch break where students from the morning want to talk and those for the
afternoon one are turning up and need to be signed in.

Yeah, hence the level of caution shown in stopping someone who is not making
competencies *before* they make an error that will get them hurt. The number
of people who complained to me when I stopped their training by saying "but
I haven't fallen off yet".

Indeed. There is lots of running around after bikes which wears thing -
especially on a near 40 deg day.

You need what I had at the time. A wife who worked every saturday and every
second sunday. That and a masochistic streak

Ahh, the joys of uninsulated demountables in summer and winter!

HART St Ives is better!

Jeez Cam, you almost had me pining for those days. Almost

Chris

 

Despite that John for the nearly 9 years I worked as a part time trainer I
took some immense satisfaction from seeing the improvements in those who
really wanted to engage with the training and learn. There were also plenty
of moments that had me wondering what the hell I was doing when my Mon-Fri
job at the time paid well over 2 times as much.

However after 5 years away would I go back - no!

It is ridiculously underpaid for the demands of the work. No coincidence
that as far as I know most of the guys who worked part time with me 5 years
or more ago no longer do it. It can really burn you out.

Chris

 

The only thing wrong with them is that they duplicate the checks already
being made in various industries from the same information sources.

Well that's ok I can hear people saying, a national system makes the
checks standard (and that's a good thing too).

But in a lot of cases the existing checks are remaining in place which
creates a duplication of effort, double costs and zero increased benefit.

Is it really necessary to have 2 separate reguarly scheduled police
checks for bus drivers as an example?


G-S

 

I think I'm quoting CrazyCam's below..

The student's contract is with the School, not the Instructor. The
contractor relationship is more to do with simplifying the School's
employment and service arrangements.

This verification is still undertaken on behalf of the School. Can't
sign away risk.

The bikes are still the Schools..ultimate liability still resides with
the School, covered by suitable insurance.

And if a student books out a bike for a test...liability still resides
with the School. The contractor checking the bike is a process
undertaken on behalf of the school, not to shift risk to the
contractor for any deficiencies in inspection.

How? The instructor is on School owned or leased property, using
School equipment and School processes and procedures, overseen by
School Chief Instructors. Or otherwise undertaking courses on behalf
of the School offsite, and likely on a School-owned bike.

 

Peter Wyzl wrote:

No, I haven't, but AFAIK there is already a system in NSW for some kind
of "clearance" for working with children.

I'm vague about details, because I think it's something that an employer
has to apply for, rather than the actual person involved.

I remember HART making mention of it that it was a condition of working
there that you had to be "cleared" for working with children.

I also heard that the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, which used to
have a cadet arrangement for under 18s, basically junked the cadet
system because the required "working with children" business made it
just too hard for a volunteer organisation. <shrug>

regards,
CrazyCam

 

ChrisR1 wrote:

Fair goes, Chris, I did say some.

There are, and were, excellent part time instructors, highly committed
and really good at what they did.

But they weren't all like that.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

ChrisR1 wrote:

But you still had your own professional indemnity insurance cover didn't
you?

There is still a bit of paper that proves who checked the bike.

Aye, the "people handling" skills are harder to teach than the bike
riding skills.

That might have made it a bit more likely.

What? You _liked_ the snakes?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Shhhhhh!

My S.O. did her HART at St Ives. What she doesn't know won't hurt me

N/

 

There's no law anywhere that says laws have to be well worded..

 

Yes, paid for by a salary deduction that the Labour Hire company we worked
for made on our behalf from memory.

Err, well no, but the lovely airconditioned building was kinda nice! That
and the occasional play on the close circuit on the site!

Chris

 

Yeah, I know hence the smiley!

Sadly that is very true.

Chris

 

u got a guilty conc?

 

HELL YEAH; whoop whoop whoop!!
Yeah baaaaby yeah; that's what we're talkin' ABOUUUUUT!!
err...
.....oops sorry, I thought you said "boobs"....

 

No, I manage a bus company

And I get complaints from the drivers about the paperwork.


G-S

 

So did N x SO's. None of them got bitten.

JL
HART is nearby OK

 

So they are suss? Ore u don't think it important to protect kiddies?

 

<applause>

 

They aren't suss (to the best of my knowledge as the checks aren't done
by us but by the government) and yes I do think it's important.

I also think that 2 systems doing the same check is a waste of resources
that could be used elsewhere for better protection and that duplicate
systems doing the same thing decrease resources that could be available
to increase protection.


G-S