Opnavinst 5100.12j

[RJ2112]

The rules for operating a motorcycle on board naval installations are changing once again.

Going from the previous rendition (5100.12H) to the newest release, issued in June '12, there is no longer a requirement to wear reflective gear to ride on base. It's recommended, but not required.

Further, contractors are no longer required to show proof of attendance of any sort of training. If you have an endorsement (as a contractor) you are fit to ride on base.

Active duty personnel are the only parties not released from the training requirement.

 

[Nelly]

The rules for operating a motorcycle on board naval installations are changing once again.

Going from the previous rendition (5100.12H) to the newest release, issued in June '12, there is no longer a requirement to wear reflective gear to ride on base. It's recommended, but not required.

Further, contractors are no longer required to show proof of attendance of any sort of training. If you have an endorsement (as a contractor) you are fit to ride on base.

Active duty personnel are the only parties not released from the training requirement.

What changed this?

Neil

 

[RJ2112]

What changed this?

Neil

I have to think it's based on economic factors, Neil. Short sighted ones, at that.

The policy under OPNAVINST 51002.12 has been that DoD civilians are given paid time to attend training. (Active duty are still in this category.)

A one day course with 8-12 participants racks up quite a few man hours of 'lost' productivity. If those folks are earning wages considerably higher than our uniformed learners, the costs are probable significant. Not to mention the ~$150 USD per student, per course.

Dropping the reflective requirement? I am not convinced either way as to the utility of the gear -- if you think it makes you more visible, you make rash assumptions about other operator's behavior.:spank:

KNOWING you are nearly naked, and totally invisible keeps typical riders from having delusions of grandeur. :thumbup:

 

[Bill]

I have to think it's based on economic factors, Neil. Short sighted ones, at that.

The policy under OPNAVINST 51002.12 has been that DoD civilians are given paid time to attend training. (Active duty are still in this category.)

A one day course with 8-12 participants racks up quite a few man hours of 'lost' productivity. If those folks are earning wages considerably higher than our uniformed learners, the costs are probable significant. Not to mention the ~$150 USD per student, per course.

Dropping the reflective requirement? I am not convinced either way as to the utility of the gear -- if you think it makes you more visible, you make rash assumptions about other operator's behavior.:spank:

KNOWING you are nearly naked, and totally invisible keeps typical riders from having delusions of grandeur. :thumbup:

I have to agree with RJ. It's about $$$

I work at NSA Bethesda and work a lot with base police. I spoke to one of the civilian and MA cops. They stated that active duty military will continue to doing what they do, but civilians do not... HOWEVER, if, lets say, a short term contractor is being a pain in the arse while on base, the officer may bust them for improper safety equipment in addition to the initial violation. As with any opnav it is up to interpretation. One last "HOWEVER". The base CO may add to opnavinst 5100.12j at his discretion. So, if your a civilian and have the privilege of riding on base be cool and appreciate not having to do the ESAMS training and classwork. :thumbup: