mmmm - risk assessments may be box ticking, but they do show that someone has actually thought of the problems that may be encountered....
That is not what risk assesement is about, it is about identifying risks and putting measures in place. Merely thinking about them and documenting them is box ticking, @rse covering but not true risk assessing.
Where do you think the true bona fide risk assessment is done in this example of a bus? It is done at the design stage of the bus by other people not teachers. People falling on / off / during bus transportation is prevented by several design features. Floor not slippy, toe bars on edges of steps, steps not to steep or shallow and are elongated enough. The bus has adequate light (either artificial or enough surface area of windows). There are handrails to hold onto when getting off and on and travelling through the bus / coach. There is signage telling people to sit while the bus is moving etc..etc..etc.
All of these features make the overall risk of falling extreemly small hence no need to risk assess formally. How do we know its small? Well only a fraction of a % of people making a journey end up with an injury. Bus / coach companies dont winch people off and place special padded mats down for people getting off the bus, do they?
In this example where the teacher in question took the kids to a theatre on a coach and didnt even have to cross a road a formal risk assessmet is a waste of time. It is perfectly adequate for the teacher (within health and safety law **) to dynamically and non formally assess it at the time and put in the only control measure required which is to tell the kids to alight in an orderly fashion and hold the rail. You dont need to document that nor do you need a RA to identify the risk. To document this in some 15 - 20 page epic is as stupid as using the PUWER regs to identify that a teacher must be trained to use a pen before marking kids books with it and that the act of using a pen needs to be risk assessed. (though strictly true)
** The only bit Im unsure about this comment is if there are additions to regulations when groups of kids are involved
We had one (I was a parent helper) where a Y1 child fell down the steps to the coach toilet - while just getting off the bus, walking down the main aisle, turned to his mate, fell - and broke his arm
So what? Accidents happen. There are millions of coach journeys where this does not happen. Millions of people get off and on busses without falling. Those that do fall more often than not do not get hurt. It is an unbelievably small amount that do hence a risk assessment (formal documented one) is simply not required-
you can bet that was "risk assessed" properly for every subsequent trip and no further accidents of that nature have happened since - so they can be useful....
Exceptionally naive way of looking at it and almost certainly a view of someone who doesnt know an awefull lot about risk assesement. (no offence, you simply may never do them a lot) Look at it a different way, the journey was probably made many many times without incident WITHOUT as risk assessment. It is quite possible and even probable that the new risk assessment has achieved nothing and has nothing to do with the fact that there is no incidents recently.
Yes they are "silly things that could happen anywhere", but when my kids go on a trip, I'm glad someone has actually taken the time and thought of the risks and ticked the boxes... Kids are careless, accidents happen, but some can be protected against.
Tessa
If that rests your mind then so be it but sorry to burst your bubble it will have no actual effect unless there is some "meat" in the assessement. Things like getting off and on a bus do not require it. If the kids were going white water rafting or on some over night expedition then you would expect a significant risk assesement will all kinds of plans, preparation, contingencies etc..
We didn't even realise Dh employer did this until last year!
- but I think that discussion, which would get quite invovled, would require another thread. I suspect a discussion on actual government regulations vs perceived ones which are quoted as gospel by the majority of people (who have been given information selectively in such a way as to change the story entirely) may not be appropriate for this forum. Interesting, yes .... 
