How much dust comes off a chainsaw? its mostly chips isn't it?
Also, time exposure may mean that the actual exposure level is low.

Although, given the recent reduction in allowable exposure limits it may be required.

Wow, so they expect people to be able to work for 17 10-hour days in a row without suffering from fatigue?
Having worked something similar, at about 14 days you hit a low point. We were working 28 days on, 28 days off, and away from home so the dynamic was different - you were removed from home pressures, which alleviated it somewhat, but still that 14-day low was fairly common.

If you were conducting a multi-day trip with (potential) long driving days, then it might be a good idea to go over expected trip times, and alternates if there are major delays, but there comes a point where you need to let people self-manage.

What's the trigger for requiring this?
My immediate reaction is that its a bit over-the-top. Simply have a policy of how long it is acceptable for someone to be driving for, and ensuring that staff are able to have an unscheduled overnight if they feel they need to due to fatigue should be sufficient.

If you're able to regularly assess competence, then why do you need to do re-training?
Also, just because someone has attended a course of instruction, doesn't mean that they're competent, it just means that they sat in a classroom for the required time and passed any test that was part of it (which is usually ridiculously simple).

No commercial pilot ever has arbitrary re-training on how to fly an aircraft, but there are regular competency assessments.

Lots of fraud committed there... by both parties.
Duties work both ways, and the reporter did the work without a H&S induction he knew he needed.
IMO, they're both open for investigation?

Here's the CAA's example: https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/Advisory_Circulars/AC119_2.pdf
Single pilot, VFR operations are the closest to driving.
Ag industry would be an interesting one to work on, as you have you may be physically fatigued but not mentally, or vice-versa.

I'd love to grab a copy. Many of my clients are doing a certain amount of this work anyway, and it would be good to get some more info.

1. It's a FIRST aid kit. The levels of pain that Panadol is taken for is not 'First' Aid.
2. Having Panadol in the kits make them a source, so the first aid kits tend to be opened and contents disturbed. I'm talking more about vehicle kits here, not the ones in offices, etc. This opening/disturbing hte contents means that there is more chance of sterile, sealed packages being damaged. I've seen it a couple of times.

Every place that I've worked has had them accessible for staff, but they were never in a first aid kit, or given out: you had to go and get your own.

It really depends on what is in the first aid kit, and what drives the 'expiry' date.
Within the Aviation industry, they've got an annual inspection, with replacement of any items that are due to expire within that timeframe.
This seems like a pretty logical method - it doesn't take any special training to open it up, check expiry dates on items, and that everything is in there, and then close it back up again.

I had a H&S consultant challenge me on having a 'quality and safety' manual. He couldn't understand that there is a lot of overlap between the two systems.

I'm struggling to work out how Lime can influence how their contractor carries out the work.

My customers cannot effectively control what I do at my own work premises - they're not responsible for OOS injuries that I encounter.

I'm surprised that the companies featured in these reality shows are so keen, when they show these unsafe acts.
Displaying evidence of a company's unsafe culture is great fuel for a Worksafe prosecution in the event of an accident.

That's ta fundamental misunderstanding of the risk matrix. risks do not exist as a point on a 5 X 5 consequence/likelihood grid. At best they can be thought of as a line - high likelihood of a low consequence/low likelihood of a high consequence. Judgement needs to be used to select what a reasonable score is, and there should be some discussion with major risks. In the example you cited, it would require a series of events for a trip to result in death, but only one to result in minor injury. So stating that it is a 'catastrophic' risk is unreasonable.
Knowing which of these two factors is driving the risk value(s) is key to selecting an appropriate action.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Simon. It is in a sense the same as the myth-busting post Peter B started. We make up stuff to support our point-of-view … and call it ‘safety’ — Paul Reyneke

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" comes to mind there.

This outright lying (and that is what it is), along with unrealistic goals makes a mockery of Land Transport's methodology.

If you're going to use statistics, then they need to be unemotional, and undebateable.

I'm going to dissent here...
'Safety Culture' is simply part of the wider company culture. The problem comes when, like other safety aspects, you try to silo it out. Whatever words you use to describe it (or not) doesn't change the fact that all companies have an inherent attitude and approach to safety.
Attitude is in my opinion one of hte most important aspects to safety - if your staff and management have a poor attitude towards safety, then you'll never achieve a safe workplace.

Like most things, its a process, and its about building trust first. — Tony Watson

And that's the key.
I find these debates interesting, coming from the aviation industry, where voice recording/location monitoring is expected, and even wanted by staff, even when not legally required. I just cannot understand the resistance to things like video monitoring in trains, etc.

CAA have the following definition for 'serious incident' (which is one that needs reporting to CAA): Serious incident means an incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

So, anything that almost resulted in an accident is notifiable to CAA. In practice, it means that if any circumstance had been different, it could have resulted in an accident.

Doesn't the company have some level of responsibility for the vehicle usage, even if it is being used in a private capacity? In this case, I think that the privacy concerns are reasonably taken care of through a well-written policy (as long as it is practiced).
It is reasonable to have it in a work vehicle, but IMO it isn't reasonable to expect it to be turned off outside of work hours.

Perverse goals driving perverse behaviour.
ACC and Worksafe drive these behaviours, and as noted even facilitate them.