NEWS

A Change to Driver Training?
R.S.A. to Introduce the Essential Driver Training ( EDT) Programme on April 4th 2011.

Following on from the previous changes to driver training regulations, i.e. regulated driving instruction by Approved Driving Instructors, (ADI’s), changes to the issue of learner permits (provisional licenses) and changes to the law regarding unaccompanied learner driver, the RSA now propose to make further changes before learner drivers will be permitted to undergo a driving test.
As and from April 4th 2011 any new permit holder will be required to undergo a minimum of twelve (12) “lessons” with an ADI and have a log book stamped by the ADI for presentation to the driver examiner before a driving test can proceed.
Following information briefings to the ADI’s it appears there are many aspects of the proposals that require clarification, if not retraction, if this proposed change is to be a success.
It goes without saying that any positive change to driver training that makes the roads safer for all is welcomed - however the changes must be positive for all stakeholders, they must be fair, they must be clear, there must be procedures in place for resolution of issues that arise and they must not impose responsibilities on anyone that rightly belong elsewhere.
From the point of view of the ADI’s it appears there are issues arising from the system as proposed, specifically:
1. The structure of the system,
2. The problems envisaged from actual practicalities involved in the system as proposed
3. The input and responsibilities of other stakeholders,
4. Administration issues that need to be addressed.
It should also be noted that the “baby should not be thrown out with the bath water” – this proposed change has some merit- if the problem issues are addressed.

1: The Structure of the System. The RSA advise that the proposed changes are modelled on “best practice” and their own research. Ireland is currently in fifth place in the World driver safety table (Survey published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the RSA argue logically that improvement in the training of learner drivers is another step forward in our quest to be the best.
It is their thesis that the best training is a structured system whereby the training provided by the trained and certified ADI is complimented with “mentored” practice by the trainee.
Presumably this hypothesis is based on the psychology of learning where it has been scientifically demonstrated that learning occurs most efficiently when information is presented in a clear understandable form, the information is revisited on a regular basis (practice/revision) and the pupil/trainee is receptive and motivated.
It is clear that those students who are taught by good teachers, who study and revise and who have additional tuition from mentors (teachers delivering grinds/qualified parents/supervised study groups etc) generally perform well in examinations. However, and this is the issue – whether these conditions and facilities exist for those learning to drive, is questionable to say the least.
The RSA propose that the trainee will be obliged to take a minimum of twelve (12) lessons covering specific driver skills; these lessons will follow a preset sequence up to lesson nine (9) with the remaining three (3) in any sequence that suits the trainee and trainer. The lessons are set out with a specific syllabus and a specific expected outcome – and the ADI is responsible for assessing as to whether this outcome has been achieved and only stamp the logbook when they are satisfied that this is in fact the case.
A cursory examination of the syllabus immediately raises concerns.

Lesson 2- copied directly from the RSA documentation
Objective
To make sure that the Learner Driver can position the car correctly on the road for actions they are about to take. Actions include on the straight, cornering, negotiating bends and junctions, changing lanes, entering and exiting from slip roads and entering and exiting junctions and roundabouts as well as correct positioning within traffic lanes.

Obviously this level of competence is impossible to achieve on the second lesson. However the RSA point out that the learner driver will already have undertaken many hours of supervised mentored practice with the sponsor and will already be reasonably competent to this level!.
This is not at all a remarkable assumption for the RSA to arrive at, providing the Sponsor has the skills and competency that the RSA seem to believe they have.
Looking at the definition of a sponsor as per the RSA documentation, it is clear that the learner is in good hands- however if this standard of coaching ability is available to the learner from a family member or friend and free of charge– why bother with the ADI at all.
The qualities that the RSA seem to believe the sponsor possess are remarkably like those of a good ADI, the same ADI that had to demonstrate these abilities through expensive training, examination and licensing, and interestingly, it is the RSA who benefit financially from the examination and ongoing license fee, (approx €1.0 million in examination fees and €250K annually in license fees).

Definition.
SPONSOR: A sponsor is someone who helps and supports a Learner Driver through the learning to drive process, for example, by being an accompanying driver during practice drives. They need to accept the responsibility of taking part in the learning process and be able to devote considerable time and effort to the task without any financial reward. A sponsor may be a family member, such s a parent, aunt or uncle. Sponsors should be experienced drivers and must hold a full driving licence in the relevant category.
A Sponsor•
Holds the relevant license category for a minimum period of two years.
Has the ability to explain/teach the skills of driving and to coach the learner as skills are practiced.
Has an understanding of the difficulties that the Learner Driver has to face.
Can remain calm and patient under pressure.

There is no doubt that such a sponsor may exist – and we must be supportive of them and assist them is our quest for safer drivers, in fact responsible ADI’s invite parents and those who may be helping with the training to sit in on lessons on a regular basis, however it would not be unreasonable to argue that these qualities are a rarity and in the majority of cases parents willingly hand this responsibility over to the ADI and pay for the privilege. In addition, in many cases there is not even a car available for practice, let alone a gifted sponsor
It has still not been established where this specific model, or one similar, is in operation.

2. Problems Envisaged: It is perhaps clear from the above that this system is dependent on a substantial input from the sponsor.
Whether or not the ADI agrees that the sponsor has the ability, knowledge or expertise to support the training, he/she is faced with a dilemma. Does he/she stamp the log book?
Looking back at “lesson 2” it is clear that unless the sponsor has ADI like abilities and has done a good job, the objectives of “lesson 2” will not be met. What then?
It must be understood that the trainee has expectations. He/she believes that in order to undergo a driving test – the logbook must be stamped. He/she believes that the RSA has put in place a system that does not disadvantage them, they have arrived for “lesson 2”, paid their money and now expect a stamp in the book.
Is the ADI expected to stamp the book regardless? Is he/she expected to utilise the tried and tested Irish solution to an Irish problem and assume that it really doesn’t matter – that no one is going to worry about it anyway or does the ADI take his/her responsibilities seriously and refuse?.
Who arbitrates? Is there a system in place to deal with such probabilities? – it seems not.
Assuming the above scenario does not arise, assuming all goes according to plan, is the ADI now acting as a driving tester?
The trainee now has in his/her possession a stamped log book advising that a level of competency has been achieved. This is entirely reasonable. What happens if the trainee then fails the driving test? – Who is right- who is wrong? – has the ADI been irresponsible in stamping the book?
It is certain that questions will be asked – and the only ones who answer questions are the ADI’s- the RSA testers with the blessing of the RSA take the Fifth Amendment and just ignore your question or concerns.
Clearly the logbook will be used for statistic gathering- which instructors are achieving the best results? Is a system that dictates a number of lessons that are unlikely to be exceed in the majority of cases a fair system of statistic gathering? Which trainees are achieving best results – is it the ones with the well filled out log book?
Regardless of claims by the RSA that the information written in the logbook will be irrelevant with regard to testing, the questions will be asked? If as the RSA suggest that this information is in fact irrelevant – why pass it to the examiner at all?
The RSA have set out the syllabus – they have produced the documentation. They use the term “lesson” to describe what in fact should be referred to as a “module” or series of lessons. It is not too late to change this – any suggestion that the learner will adapt his/her understanding of the terminology is wrong and will cause conflict.
In addition, there is the obvious problem of language and literacy skills. Is the logbook to be available in different languages? Without doubt there is a legal requirement for it to be in Irish, but what about Polish, Russian and Chinese to mention just some? What of the non Irish national who can speak some English but cannot read a word? What about the ADI with poor literacy skills, what about the dyslexic ADI? Have these issues been considered and what solutions are being offered? It was not a condition of licensing that the ADI be literate; this condition cannot be imposed now.

Responsibilities of other Stakeholders: Apart from the issues already raised with regard to the stamping or not stamping the logbook, other responsibilities appear to be placed upon the ADI; responsibilities which it seems the RSA are not prepared to place on themselves or their own employees.
It needs to be emphasised that the relationship between the RSA and ADI is one of license issuer and licensee and not one of employer/employee. The RSA may not have the power it appears to believe it has to impose duties with rightly they are responsible for and in addition expect the ADI to carry out legal checks which they themselves do not.
• Under the EDT proposal where the learner intends to use a car which they themselves provide for the training it is now incumbent on the ADI to examine insurance documents and establish to his/her satisfaction that the learner driver is in fact insured to drive the car. While this seems a sensible precaution, up to now providing there was a valid insurance disk displayed on the car, this issue was taken in good faith and the word of the trainee was satisfactory.
If this is to change it would seem reasonable that the RSA testers would exercise the same level of care- however they do not- the test candidate simply signs a document to state they are in fact insured? Is this to change from April 4th?
• It is proposed in the supplied document that additional responsibility is to be placed on the ADI with regard to identity satisfaction. Currently the trainee supplies a learner’s permit and the ADI checks the expiry date and perhaps notes the driver number, in essence the ADI accepts the word of the trainee.
Now however it appears the ADI MUST be satisfied that the photograph on the document is an accurate representation of the trainee. What is the ADI to do if there is a doubt- what procedures have the RSA put in place to resolve this? What of the situation when the dress code, culture or religion of the trainee makes identification impossible.
What is the RSA proposing, what do their employees do in this situation? The RSA should outline clearly what their directive to their employees is and ask no more of the ADI. In addition, where a situation arises where there is doubt, a procedure for resolution must be put in place which involves the RSA taking responsibility for it.
• The ability to drive a night is obviously an essential skill. The RSA recognise this and have allocated a “lesson” accordingly. The ADI must now plan a lesson which must take place at night. Reasonable, except that between the months of April and September unless the ADI is prepared to carry out a lesson between the hours of 9.00 pm, earliest and 6.00 am, latest, this lesson will have to wait.
This may or may not be feasible, it may or may not be practical, however given its level of importance, surely the RSA must be proposing to carry out a random number of driving tests after dark! – Not so it seems.
• The RSA propose that the ADI will be responsible for the purchase and distribution of the logbook. They proudly announced that only the ADI can do this – the book will not be available in “Eason’s” (Why not?)
It is not the responsibility of the ADI to carry out administration functions on behalf of the RSA. The logbook will be the joint property of the RSA and the trainee; it will be a document with some legal standing.
The ADI has no role with regard to the logbook other than to fill it out as required. It appears that this suggestion is an attempt by the RSA to put distance between themselves and the trainee. If they are not involved in its issue – they will not be queried or quizzed.
The provision of the logbook is the responsibility of the trainee and or the RSA – the most obvious place to do this is at the theory test venue when the trainee receives the good news that he/she has passed the theory test – however, the RSA know the theory test function is carried out on their behalf by outside contract, and perhaps they know they may be asked for payment to administer this requirement. Better perhaps to get the ADI to do it for free.

Administration Issues: The procurement of the logbook by the ADI has already been discussed. This function is nothing to do with the ADI, and even if by some interpretation of the law this role is imposed, what of the ADI who does not have the facilities or resources to administer this requirement.
How are these books ordered, what payment methods are required, how many books must be ordered as a minimum. These are issues which should be of no concern to the ADI, his/her role in this proposed procedure should be to continue to give the high level of professional training they currently do, fill out the book to the best of his/her ability and stamp it, nothing more.
What legal standing the logbook has is yet to be established – however it appears that it may the same standing as a driver’s license or learners permit.
Given that this in fact the case, the retention and storage of this document, or a portion of it, cannot be imposed on the ADI. The RSA must be responsible for this function. They must take ownership of this issue. A simple solution is for the trainee on presentation for his or her driving test to pass the book or whatever section of it is required over to the RSA examiner for filing and storage.

Summary: As already stated everyone, and particularly the ADI’s are fully committed to better road safety, professional training and a team like relationship between the RSA, the trainee and themselves.
However it is clear that currently the ADI’s feel that this EDT programme has far too many issues where all the responsibilities have been imposed on them. The ADI’s know from experience that the RSA will attempt to proceed with this programme regardless of the problems it will impose.
The ADI’s do not feel they are part of a team, they feel they are being used as a tool by the RSA to implement a flowery theoretical document dreamt up without regard to the practicalities.
If this system is in place somewhere else and it is working then let us see where. If there are skilled sponsors who can fulfil the role of experienced, qualified driving instructors, again we need to know where and have the obvious questions that arise from this answered.
If the RSA are attempting to impose responsibilities that are outside their power to impose – then let them say so.
The ADI has been examined and tested and has been issued a licence. He/she is required to undergo rechecks to maintain a right to that licences. If the level of training being provided by the ADI is not meeting the required standard – the RSA can withhold the licences, in effect they can fire the ADI. What other profession has this level of control held over them?
The RSA need to step out to this side of the looking glass. They need to examine themselves and correct the issues that are within their gift to change before trying to change everyone else.
Thankfully road safety statistics have improved steadily over the recent years. Car technology improvements, better roads, stricter law enforcement, lowering of permitted alcohol levels, lowering of speed limits have no doubt all contributed to this.
Remarkably in spite of these improvements and in spite of the introduction of tested and licensed driving instructors – the driving test success rate has not improved!
Serious questions need to be answered. The RSA cannot continue to ignore this fact.
It is time the RSA accepted that they are not infallible. They need to come out of their ivory towers and get into the real world. They cannot continue to support a system which allows their examiners to ignore all questions put to them regarding the outcome of a driving test.
It is perhaps the only examination in existence where the result cannot be realistically challenged or questioned. There is absolutely no evidence available as to what exactly has gone on during the test – any suggestion by the test candidate that the examiner was unfair is dismissed. It is nonsense to suggest that an outcome can be appealed- the reality is that the examination situation can never be replicated.
Every ADI will have a story of safe competent drivers who fail the driving test and of bad dangerous drivers who pass. Every ADI will have stories of test result sheets which report issues that the ADI has not encountered.
Let us be part of the team. Let us and our clients’ feel they are being treated fairly. The driving test fee has increased by over 100% in the last two years (from €38 to €85), surely the RSA are open to accusations that test failures are in many cases nothing more that revenue gathering exercises.
Urgently the RSA need to introduce a system which allows the ADI to sit in on a post test summary. They need to introduce a system which allows the ADI to go on the test and most importantly they need to appoint an agreed and independent body to arbitrate when dispute issues arise – perhaps then we will fell that we a dealing with real people who are interested in playing their part on the team.
When the RSA look inwards and puts their own house in order perhaps other stake holders will be more receptive to change.

Return To Top

Questions Submitted to The RSA.

I attended a briefing on the “proposed” EDT programme. I am afraid it seemed to me there was more heat than light generated and I left with many of my concerns un-addressed – in fact I had more issues on the way out than on the way in.
Although the speakers were at pains to point out that the trained, qualified, experienced ADI was part of the team – I am afraid it did not appear so – many of the questions appeared to be dismissed in an almost patronising manner. It appeared that this EDT programme is a done deal and regardless of the concerns of those charged with the responsibility for implementing it- it will go ahead- regardless.
I hope it goes without saying that all ADI’s are absolutely committed to safe driving and betterment of the skills of all road users- but it seemed obvious that in the opinion of many at the meeting that the proposed system in the presented format may not be the best way of achieving this.
In the interest of clarity I would appreciate a response to the following questions:
1. It appears that the “mentor” input is desirable – however not compulsory- given that there is no way to evaluate the skill levels of the “mentor” – would it not be better to leave this aspect out altogether?
2. In the RSA documentation – the qualities of the mentor sound suspiciously like a good ADI? – do the RSA honestly believe the non trained mentor has this level of competency – if so why was it necessary for ADI’s to undergo testing and training to establish this?.
3. As I understand the proposed system – the skill levels appear to be achieved with a combined input from the trained, skilled, tested and experienced ADI and the “mentor”- is the RSA now endorsing a system which in the opinion of many ADI’s,(and the insurance industry) is potentially unsafe- ie, lessons from whoever in a car which may or may not be suitable to the task?
4. When trainee X arrives for lesson 2 (or whatever) and the hoped for skill levels have not been achieved – what does the ADI do – does he refuse to stamp the book? – does trainee then feel he is being “ripped off” does he look for his money back? – If trainee X challenges this – who evaluates it? How does the RSA propose to deal with these issues or will they just wash their hands of it and say it is nothing to do with them.
5. If the “mentor” input is optional – why does that section remain in the log book for presentation to the tester- does this not raise the issue of “preferential” treatment for those privileged to have a car and/or a mentor available to them? If the test statistics support this allegation – how will it be dealt with?
6. Are the log books to be available in different languages?
7. How will the dyslexic driving instructor or the instructor who may have poor literacy skills cope with the requirement of filling out the book?
8. Why is the ADI responsible for the supply of the log book?
9. Why is the logbook not supplied as part of the theory test application? It appears this is another attempt by the RSA to place the trainee’s responsibilities or their own on the ADI.
10. Given that the speakers suggested that the trainee on formal lesson 1 will “ideally “already have had an input from the “mentor”- surely the book must be in the trainees’ possession in order for this to be so.
11. The speakers were at pains to point out that this proposed system is based on research and best practice, however when asked where this system is already in place or what system it mirrors or is based on, there was no clear reply – perhaps you can clarify this for me?
12. What is the cost of the log book?
13. What is the delivery time from order?
14. Is there a minimum order quantity or can they be ordered as required?
15. Given that the speakers were at pains to point out that the ADI’s were already doing what appears to be proposed – why reinvent the wheel? – why not impose a system with a minimum number of ADI training hours with the required skills boxed and ticked – stamped in a simple log book for presentation to the examiner – a simple system equal for all?
16. Of course we would all like an input from a calm, patient, informed, skilled mentor in a suitable vehicle-however in my experience – parents believe that is why they are paying me!!

Back To Top

 

Following Legal Advise the following Additional Question was Submitted.

Good Afternoon Mr. Naughton
Further to my previous mail requesting clarification of EDT issues arising from the information meeting I attended, I have sought and received advise regarding the suggestion that the ADI will be responsible for the procurement and distribution of the proposed trainee logbooks. The issue of storage and retention is also to be examined.
Following a cursory examination of the relevant legislation I am advised by my council that this proposed imposition of responsibility on the ADI is outside the power bestowed on the RSA by the provisions of the legislation. It appears that this function is one of administration only and nothing to do with driver training or ADI licensing.
As the relationship between the RSA and the ADI is not one of "employer/employee" the RSA may not have the power to enforce this proposal, nor may the ADI have the facilities or resources to administer a function which is rightly the responsibility of the RSA or their contracted agent.
Accordingly I request direction the specific section of the legislation that is being relied upon to introduce this provision.
As with my previous request and in the interest of communication- this and your reply will be posted on my website.
Thank You

Back to Top.

A Reply From RSA

Thank you for your email and for taking time to consider the EDT programme and setting out the concerns you have. I have set out responses to issues you raise below. Some issues will be responded to by the FAQ issuing Friday by email to ADI’s

You classify your concerns under a number of headings-

1. EDT Structure
Central to your concern is whether conditions exist to support the model of instruction coupled with good quality opportunity for practice. It was acknowledged in our briefings that some learners have better resources than others that is undoubted. This happens in all walks of life some parents actively support their children’s education, by helping them with homework, motivating them to study and providing grinds if needed. Other parents play little part in their children’s education. For learning to drive there is good research saying that building on good instruction/coaching with practice is the best way to learn. The journey to embedding that culture is what we are embarking on. We want to promote this aspect of learner driving. Essentially, what is expected is that the ADI delivers good quality instruction/coaching and the Sponsor provides supportive opportunities for the learner to reinforce what has been learned and to put that into practice.

2. Problems Envisaged
We are building on a situation where some learners take no lessons and where many learners just take a run around the test route. This is not a good approach to learning and we are with other Stakeholders attempting to change this. One of the challenges involved is to clearly send out a message that a complex task like learning to drive takes effort and time to do well. We are not naive to believe that this will happen simply or easily-like any change there will be teething problems and we have consistently said that it will take 18-24 months to bed in fully. In the meantime learners will benefit from hours of instruction and practice that they do not have now.

To be clear the Task of the ADI is that s/he devises a lesson plan for the particular EDT lesson to meet the minimum contents to cover the lesson objectives. As in any learning environment, while the ADI has a role in delivering the instruction/coaching, s/he alone has not the responsibility to ensure that the learning outcomes are achieved. This only happens through the combination of factors including the ability of the learner to take the information on board, the quality of preparation and practice taken by the learner and the support s/he gets from a supportive Sponsor. Where the objectives are not met the responsibility of the ADI is to give clear feedback to the learner about the shortfall and advice as to what next steps should be taken. This will clearly place the responsibility where it belongs- on the learner.

Any use of statistics to reach conclusions about an ADIs level of competence without factoring in the environment the ADI operates will not be valid. In many walks of life statistics are viewed as a flag that raises a concern, however, on their own statistics should only ground further investigation and not lead a person to make a finding on some aspect on their own.

We do not plan to have the learner show the logbook to the driver tester one day longer than necessary. When the EDT IT system is up and running (in the autumn) this will be discontinued. It is solely been used as a short term enforcement measure.

While I appreciate the difference between lessons and modules I do not accept that in the context used here that it makes any significant difference. Logbooks will be produced in Irish and English- the contents of the Logbook are straightforward and the format should be capable of being used by those either with literacy difficulties or those with other first languages. ADI’s presumably meet challenges currently from learners with language and other difficulties that are dealt with in the normal course of their work- EDT does not change the business tools required of an ADI to conduct their profession.

3 Responsibilities of Other Stakeholders

Driver testers currently look for and examine documentation relating to -insurance, motor tax, NCT and learner permit for test candidates. Its assumed that ADI’s check for a learner permit; ADIs are not expected to carry out a detailed analysis of the permit or question the learner in detail-the test as always is reasonableness. Does the person in front to you look like the person in the photograph.

As part of our consultation process we asked a question about night driving- and no insurmountable concerns were raised. The flexibility with the last four lessons should give the necessary flexibility to deliver these. Night-time driving was reported as a high risk activity and those skills are seen as being so important, that they are included in EDT.

The logbook is critical in the relationship between the learner and the ADI. We are directing the Logbook to the ADI solely for one reason – as a measure to help guard against fraud. By using ADI it will provide a measure of security against rogue instructors and fraudulent use of Logbooks. If this were not a concern there would be no obstacle to selling Logbooks in bookstores. Certainly, the RSA is conscious not to impose an administrative burden on ADIs- we know the State already impose a significant burden on small businesses and we do not want to add to this, if its avoidable.

4. Administration Issues

Logbook procurement is being assigned to ADIs for the reasons outlined above. The provision of a central provider will ensure that we get Logbooks at the lowest possible cost. In most cases the end user (learner in this case) will bear the cost and it’s important that we do not make that any greater than absolutely necessary. The Department of Transport will be bringing forward the necessary regulations to cover EDT generally.In your summary you raise a number of points. I would argue that through the consultation and briefing and forthcoming promotion process the RSA has taken reasonable steps to engage with ADIs on this work. I believe we have taken an approach that has a good methodology behind it. Critically, we are committed to evaluating it and open to changing what does not work.

The regulatory control that the RSA exercises is similar to other professions; as is proper we cannot take any action to debar an ADI without good cause.

In relation to test fees-yes they increased significantly but had not increased over a period of 17 years. We are making progress in providing feedback for driving test candidates and every candidate gets a marking sheet that shows the test faults upon which s/he failed. The conduct of the test by the Driver Tester can be challenged in the District Court and the Courts are independent in their work.In relation to the work of the RSA let me assure you that we are self-critical; and yes sadly like all organisations we are fallible. The key is if one gets something wrong is to recognise it and do better next time. We don’t have endless resources but we do have committed staff who will continue to work with stakeholders like ADI to deliver a better outcome for all road users. As part of the ADI briefings Driving Test Supervisors were available to answer questions and their mobile numbers are available to all ADI’s. I avail of many State services but my local school. Gardai, Town Council or Hospital have not offered to come before me in a public forum to respond to my questions and I certainly don’t have their mobile numbers if I want to raise an issue with them.

This is not to pretend we have all the answers; I see ADIs not alone as Stakeholders but as partners and we will work with them as our resources allow, to make EDT a success and our roads safer.

Declan Naughton
Director

Back to Top.

Latest Developments Regarding the ETD Programme.

Following the postings relating to the EDT issues, it was brought to my notice that the RSA will be requiring that I sign an indemnity form in order to participate in the EDT programme.
It has also been advised to me that I had a choice as to whether I would “opt in or opt out” of the training.
Given that in time all learners will be required to undergo EDT, opting out is in effect constructive dismissal.
Up to the time I left the briefing meeting I attended, to my almost certain knowledge, both these issues were not mentioned. I left approximately one hour after the advised meeting end time.
Further to an additional question to the RSA regarding the storage of the logbooks, I was advised that the book was “just a form, a record similar to the records I already retain”.
However on further probing regarding the legal status of the document, this “form” status is very questionable to say the least (see below) - I have as yet to receive a response, satisfactory or otherwise.
It is clear to me that if the book is liable to fraudulent use, as the RSA suggest, there are implications and questions, questions that must be clearly answered to the satisfaction of all interested parties.
With regard to the waiver form, it is essential that I am absolutely clear as to what it is I am signing. At the very least I am being asked to enter into a contract without knowing the terms, I am sure the RSA understand that any such contract is void in law.
It is clear to me that the RSA intend to proceed with this programme regardless of my concerns. I believe they are abusing a position of power, I also believe they are attempting to invoke powers they do not in fact possess.
In the interest of fairness I feel it is imperative that an independent body arbitrates on this issue.
To this end I have written to the Minister for Transport requesting a deferral of the introduction of this programme until all the issues have been addressed and clarified to the satisfaction of the independent bodies.
I have also written to the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation.
Further I have written to the Health and Safety Authority to advise that there may be workplace safety issue. The responsibility of the HSA is to investigate matters of safety in the workplace relating to employer/employee issues, however given that it could be construed that the RSA are attempting to impose themselves as an employer might, I feel a report to them was appropriate. ©

Copies of Additional Queries and Response:

Response from RSA regarding the indemnity form and the status of the logbook.

1. When this form is issuing I will ask that clarity is given on the nature of the indemnity being given.

2. The form being retained is a copy of that which you give the feedback to the learner. It would be helpful if you would clarify what you mean by ‘legal status’ so we have a shared understanding of the phrase and I can give you a clear answer.

Additional query submitted and clarification as requested regarding the legal status of the logbook.

Good Morning Mr. Naughton
I am confused even further now. I understood from your previous mail that this waiver was already in operation!, Surely if this is the case the nature of the indemnity is already clearly and legally defined!. Is this not the case? Am I to understand from this that a waiver form is being issued and signed without both parties having full clarity as to what exactly the nature of the indemnity is?
From the RSA- The waiver and insurance declaration is a feature of the Initial Basic Training programme also and its purpose is understood by the trainers and has caused no difficulty to those engaging in that programme.

With regard to the "legal status , of the logbook or the section of it that is to be retained, - has it the same status in law ( excluding photograph identification)as a drivers license, learners permit, passport?. Has it's loss, theft, destruction etc to be reported to the authorities. Is the presentation of a photocopy of the document to the authorities, RSA , Gardai etc, acceptable or MUST the original be presented?.
Thank You - (no response at time of posting).

Back to Top