Truck license Penrith

Considering a truck license Penrith?

Need a truck license Penrith?

ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING has been servicing customers from the Penrith area for many years. Our training facility is only a short drive from Penrith down the M4 motorway. A truck license Penrith is an achievable process, which starts with a visit to Service NSW Penrith to complete the driver knowledge test. From there, the customers from Penrith make their way to our facility for the truck license training and assessment.

A truck license in Penrith can cost as little as $590, for experienced applicants, yet ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING has offers to suit all levels of skill and experience. If you’re seeking a truck license job in Penrith, a truck license is obviously an important step. Let ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING lead the way to a career with a truck license Penrith.

If you want quality training and assessment for a truck license in Penrith, it is important to choose a reputable training provider. ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING has been in the truck license industry for nearly 40 years, and is the preferred provider to many of Australia’s largest companies.

The training program to achieve a truck license includes a range of performance criteria. Such as, but not limited to, pre operational checks, load security, reversing, and crash avoidance space management.

Our training plan starts with an informal chat with the student to establish any prior learning or experience, then we do a safety induction, before getting started with the training and assessment.

Let ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING show you why we’re Penrith’s number one provider of heavy vehicle competency based training and assessment and truck license Penrith. See our industry fleet of training vehicles. Also , if you want to know the other Sydney services than check our resources page.

Call us anytime, even weekends and after hours, on 1300521289 or email us at

Truck license Penrith
Truck license Penrith

Tips for passing truck licence assessment in a Medium Rigid, Heavy Rigid or Heavy Combination

Change of direction signals

In an HVCBA licence course for Medium Rigid, Heavy Rigid, or Heavy Combination, non-compliance with the rules requiring signalling/indicating are recorded as errors under section D of the HVCBA scoring provisions. Section D does not allow any errors; hence, knowledge of the rules is critical to candidates’ success in truck licence assessments. A non-exhaustive list of some of the rules are as follows:

‘The driver must give the change of direction signal for long enough to give sufficient warning to other drivers and pedestrians’: Road Rules 2014 (NSW) (‘Road Rule/s’) ss 46(2), 48(2).

‘If the driver is about to change direction by moving from a stationary position at the side of the road or in a median strip parking area, the driver must give the change of direction signal for at least 5 seconds before the driver changes direction’: Road Rules s 46(3).

‘The driver must stop giving the change of direction signal as soon as the driver completes the change of direction’: Road Rules s 46(4).

‘If practicable, a driver driving in a roundabout must give a left change of direction signal when leaving the roundabout’: Road Rules s 118(1).

Stop signs

Stop means stop! It means fully stop near, but before reaching, the line. A suggestion is that driver stops and counts to three, then proceeds if safe to do so. Another suggestion is that the primary focus on approach is stopping, rather than looking for a safe gap, as you’re required to stop anyway.

‘A driver at an intersection with a stop sign or stop line, but without traffic lights, must stop and give way in accordance with this rule’: Road Rules s 67(1).

Speed limits

This is an easy one; don’t exceed the speed limit. A couple of things to note: assessors do not rely on GPS for evidentiary purposes, and when looking at speedometers, they must allow for parallax error due to their seating position. Another rule is that they are not permitted to ask you what speed you are travelling at as to trap you into an admission of breach. The expectation is that you to drive to the conditions. One condition is that the context is an unlicensed driver driving under supervision, and thus, assessors tolerate, in some conditions, a slightly milder pace of drive. This said, assessors expect a confident drive that may reach the speed limit at times. Keep in mind that there are times where keeping up with the traffic is expected, for example some lane changes. Remember, the speed limit is a limit and not a challenge, so watch the lead footed driving. A fair allowance is that if you’re not sure of the speed zone you’re in, you are permitted to ask the assessor and he or she will answer. Speeding in a Medium Rigid, Heavy Rigid or Heavy Combination vehicle or any truck, especially around the business Sydney suburbs like Wetherill Park, Eastern Creek, Liverpool, Bankstown and Parramatta, is highly dangerous.

‘A driver must not drive at a speed over the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road where the driver is driving’: Road Rules s 20

For more tips or to book a Medium Rigid, Heavy Rigid, or Heavy Combination license course in Sydney, call our team today on 1300521289 or email us

Disclaimer: This article must not be relied upon for legal purposes.

Signalling left when leaving roundabouts


What is the statutory interpretation of the word ‘practicable’ in the context of Road Rules 2014 (NSW) (the ‘rules‘) s 118(1): ‘If practicable, a driver driving in a roundabout must give a left change of direction signal when leaving the roundabout’?

Hence, what defence can a driver argue to the charge of breach of s 118(1)?


In Potter v Neave (1944) SASR 19, 21 (‘Potter’), Mayo J held that ‘[p]racticable may be paraphrased as capable of being done or accomplished with the available resources whatever they may be’. Moreover, the Potter definition is consistently applied in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) s 18, with the words ‘reasonably able to be done’. However, in the NSW jurisdiction, the Potter definition may be persuasive, but not binding.

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 33 requires:

In the interpretation of a provision of an Act or statutory rule, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act or statutory rule (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or statutory rule or, in the case of a statutory rule, in the Act under which the rule was made) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.


The inclusion of the words ‘[i]f practicable’ in the regulation may infer that there are some contexts where the signal may not be required.

However, on the proposition in Potter, a reasonable person would expect that if a signal device is fitted to a vehicle, then a driver would be ‘capable’ of using it to ‘give a left change of direction signal when leaving the roundabout’.

Furthermore, in seeking the purpose of the statutory provision, no absurdity appears when using the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the context of the statutory provision; thus, further aids may not be required to arrive at the intention of the parliament and comply with the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 33.

Although, as the rules are subordinate legislation, it may be reasonable to consider that the intention of the parliament is to delegate the drafting of the rules to the executive branch of government. This is especially the case with these rules, as this codified instrument has significant level of detail that the parliament may not be equipped to validate. Ironically, that would not be practicable for the parliament. Therefore, the executive agency who has been delegated responsibility may be able to provide extrinsic aid to assist in determining the mischief the regulation was introduced to suppress, or at least provide some clarity on the rules.

In December 2016, Transport for NSW Centre for Road Safety published a document titled: Top 10 misunderstood road rules in NSW. On the topic of ‘Exiting a roundabout’ they wrote:

Just like exiting any road, drivers must signal left when leaving a roundabout, if it is practical to do so, and stop indicating as soon as they have exited the roundabout. When travelling straight ahead on a small single lane roundabout, it may be impractical to indicate left when exiting.

The definition of the word ‘impractical’ may provide some guidance on this matter. The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary defines impractical as ‘not adopted for use or action; not sensible or realistic’.

A reasonable person may consider it not ‘sensible or realistic’ to indicate left when exiting in some roundabout contexts. For example, where the left signal is activated at a point in time where it does not provide any useable notice to surrounding road users. This example may arise due to the size of the roundabout, and thus, this is consistent with the context ‘small single lane roundabout’ prescribed in the publication.

However, the Centre for Road Safety provides this disclaimer:

This document does not constitute legal advice and is provided only as a guide to the Road Rules 2014. Road users must ensure they are familiar with the Road Rules and comply with the requirements prescribed in law.

On 14 November 2012, parliamentary debate occurred in the NSW Legislative Council concerning this matter, but no clarity can be taken from that. See page 16756.


Unless a driver can argue that he or she is not ‘capable’ of ‘[giving] a left change of direction signal when leaving the roundabout’, then a judge may hold that the signal is required.

However, consistent with the advice from the Centre for Road Safety, the regulation may not be applicable in certain roundabouts. Irrespective of the disclaimer, a judge may find it reasonable that a driver relies on the advice in the publication.

Want to learn more?

If you want to learn more about this topic, consider upgrading your driver licence to either Medium Rigid, Heavy Rigid, or Heavy Combination, or perhaps enrol in our Advanced Heavy Vehicle Driver Training course.

Call us on 1300 521 289 or email

Michael Sciberras

Michael is the Chief Executive Officer at ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING. He has 16 years of heavy vehicle training and assessment experience, and is currently studying law at the University of New England.

Disclaimer: This article must not be relied upon for legal purposes.

Attention employers and PCBU

Be warned

From businesses large and small, to government agencies and councils, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) (‘WHS Act’) requires that ‘workers’ (see meaning below), inter alia, be kept safe at work. In focus for this article is the requirement of ‘the provision of any information, training, instruction or supervision’.

Namely, the WHS Act s 19(3)(f) requires:

A person conducting a business or undertaking [PCBU] must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable [WHS Act s 18], the provision of any information, training, instruction or supervision that is necessary to protect all persons from risks to their health and safety arising from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking.

For instance, Auimatagi v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2018] FCAFC 191heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, provides guidance on the application of the WHS Act ss 7, 19. Specifically, Allsop CJ, Collier and Rangiah JJ held at para [3]:

It should be said at the outset that John Holland [the PCBU], as the entity in control of the site and conducting its business on the site, had important duties owed to all workers (not just its own) on the site over which it had control.

However, at para [4], it was said that ‘[w]orkers had their own duties in this regard. A self-employed person was obliged, by s 19(5) of the WHS Act, to ensure, as far as was reasonably practicable, his or her own health and safety while at work’.

Yet, the court’s statutory interpretation was manifestly clear:

By s 19(3)(f) of the WHS Act, John Holland was obliged (so far as was reasonably practicable) to provide “information, training, instruction or supervision to protect workers from risk to health and safety and by s 28(c) workers on site were obliged to comply with any reasonable instruction by John Holland to allow it to comply with the WHS Act. The word “instruction” in ss 19(3)(f) and 28(c) is to be understood as including directions to do something.

Moreover, the WHS Act ss 7(1)(a)-(i) states:

A person is a worker if the person carries out work in any capacity for a person conducting a business or undertaking, including work as: an employee, a contractor or subcontractor, an employee of a contractor or subcontractor, an employee of a labour hire company who has been assigned to work in the person’s business or undertaking, an outworker, an apprentice or trainee, a student gaining work experience, a volunteer, or a person of a prescribed class.

We can help

While we at ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING are not qualified to provide legal advice (yet), we do offer professional training and assessment solutions that may assist PCBUs to meet their WHS Act obligations.

We provide tailored programs, which are informed by your context and your worker’s individual needs. Services include, but may not be limited to, load security awarenessheavy vehicle driver licensing, new employee screening, remedial training and assessment, and verification of competency (VOC).

Training and assessment service options include, but may not be limited to, on or off-site programs, company vehicle or vehicle supplied, variable training or assessment ratio, contextualised content and criteria, and in-class or in-vehicle delivery.

For decades, ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING has been the preferred heavy vehicle driver training provider for many Sydney councils and some of Australia’s largest companies.

Contact us today on 1300521289 or to learn more about managing your obligations, and most importantly, ensuring your drivers are kept safe in the workplace.

Michael Sciberras

Michael is the Chief Executive Officer at ALLTRUCK DRIVER TRAINING. He has 16 years of heavy vehicle training and assessment experience, and is currently studying law at the University of New England.