Edited to add:

Scott M’s original Saturday test topic is here:
Saturday test - NEW AND WANNABE DRIVERS (INTERACTIVE) - Trucknet UK

To save de-railing Scott M’s topic, I’ve spilit this discussion away from it as LGV test preparation and candidate readiness are separate topics. dd.

Are you going to consider a different career if you fail your 4th test? Some might say you’re not suited to driving a goods vehicle if you can’t get it together…Not trying to dent your hopes but i’ve always been of the opinion that there should be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence. Discuss, while I go and get my tin hat

MrHappy:
Are you going to consider a different career if you fail your 4th test? Some might say you’re not suited to driving a goods vehicle if you can’t get it together…Not trying to dent your hopes but i’ve always been of the opinion that there should be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence. Discuss, while I go and get my tin hat

What a load of cobblers !some people are just good at tests some arent, im excellant at passing tests, doesnt make me a good driver though, come on mate, he got enough pressure with his test, let alone for that type of comment…For my twopence worth, look at it from the examiners point of veiw, he knows you get better with experiance , his concern is that you dont have too many problems whist you gain that experiance, all he wants from you , is for you to show him that you can control that truck, and not be a danger to others, he wil be more intested with safety of you and others, so dont pamic if ya fluff a gearchamge or do a minor mistake, out it aside and move on. good luck. i have taught three men to drive so far, all passed some first some third, it really dont matter.

Mr Happy

No such thing as a wrong opinion. When I offer free advice about how to approach a LGV test please instead of saying ■■■■■■■■ offer a better alernative.

MrHappy:
if you have been trained properly you should be able to deal with any eventuality, any road conditions and any weather. Surely as a trainer you would not put somebody up for test who was a wobbler in school run traffic or someone who went to pieces in the rain?

As stated it is your opinion but can I ask what the hell do you know about when to put someone up for test. I know how to prepare someone, but many know better than me, but not you.

lets wish Scott M all the best

Regards

John Dawson
Flair Training

LGVTrainer:
Mr Happy

No such thing as a wrong opinion. When I offer free advice about how to approach a LGV test please instead of saying ■■■■■■■■ offer a better alernative.

I think if you read my post, there is no mention of me stating that any opinion is wrong. Any opinion that you or I may have, as you correctly point out, cannot be construed as wrong due to the definition of the word opinion. The use of the word ■■■■■■■■ is to point out that in my opinion those particular test failure excuses are wishy washy.

MrHappy:
if you have been trained properly you should be able to deal with any eventuality, any road conditions and any weather. Surely as a trainer you would not put somebody up for test who was a wobbler in school run traffic or someone who went to pieces in the rain?

As stated it is your opinion but can I ask what the hell do you know about when to put someone up for test. I know how to prepare someone, but many know better than me, but not you.

Again, yes, my opinion, although you do not answer the question do you? Would you, or indeed have you put somebody up for test who is not up to test standard? You’re making a big assumption about what I do or do not know, for someone that doesn’t know me, so let me ask you another question, what is your assumption based on? I might like to make certain assumptions about your own credibility as a trainer, God knows, there are enough people on here that would, although for now i’ll keep THOSE opinions to myself.
As a trainer then, do you not agree that all test candidates have to be equipped to deal with any kind of situation on the road? You are very quick to criticise my post, but I can’t help feeling that for some reason its touched a nerve judging by your reply.

So, as we stand, you have 3 questions to answer,
1) Would you/have you put a candidate up for test that you didn’t think was test standard?
2) What are your assumptions about me based on?
3) Do you agree that all test candidates should be trained to deal with all types of conditions ie, weather, other traffic etc. Surely an instructor’s role is to ensure that a potential vocational licence holder can display a level of skill in any given situation? I find it incredible that you have been so touchy about this particular point, I would have thought that any reputable instructor would fully agree.
Or is it better to just keep taking their money of course…

lets wish Scott M all the best

Regards

John Dawson
Flair Training

All the best Scott

MrHappy:
Are you going to consider a different career if you fail your 4th test? Some might say you’re not suited to driving a goods vehicle if you can’t get it together…Not trying to dent your hopes but i’ve always been of the opinion that there should be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence. Discuss, while I go and get my tin hat

Hi MrHappy,

I make absolutely no assumptions about you, but I’d like to ask you what process gets you to your opinion please?

MrHappy:
… that there should be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence.

You don’t seem to have considered for a moment that, quite apart from other variables already mentioned, people learn in different ways and at different speeds.

So why “should” there be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence please?

dieseldave:

MrHappy:
Are you going to consider a different career if you fail your 4th test? Some might say you’re not suited to driving a goods vehicle if you can’t get it together…Not trying to dent your hopes but i’ve always been of the opinion that there should be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence. Discuss, while I go and get my tin hat

Hi MrHappy,

I make absolutely no assumptions about you, but I’d like to ask you what process gets you to your opinion please?

MrHappy:
… that there should be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence.

You don’t seem to have considered for a moment that, quite apart from other variables already mentioned, people learn in different ways and at different speeds.

So why “should” there be a limit to the number of tests for gaining a vocational licence please?

Afternoon DD.

My opinions are based on no facts, it is purely opinion. I am of this opinion because I feel that as a potential vocational licence holder, one has to accept that before any training is undertaken, there will be a practical examination at the end of any course. An instructors resonsibility is to ensure that a candidate is suitably trained to take said examination. Anybody wishing to drive a heavy goods/public service vehicle should be aware that the risk to life, limb and property is far greater whilst in control of one of these vehicles and, as such needs to demonstrate a degree of skill to an examiner for only one hour. As a car and motorcycle user too, I realise that accident/mortality rates are no doubt higher in these vehicles, but that is surely due to the fact that as professionals we are aware of our greater responsibility.

I fully accept that people will learn at different speeds and some will suffer terribly from test nerves, however as I stated, its not as if the test on day 5 or whatever comes as a surprise, so having known from the outset that you will have to show that you can put into practice what you have learned, surely each candidate that takes a test is in a proper position to do so.

I’m by no means a newbie basher, but the amount of test failure excuses that you see and hear of is ridiculous. “I was going well until that stupid car driver pulled out on me.” Its our responsibility, is it not, to think for others as well as ourselves? “The weather was atrocious,” good luck finding a job that only requires you to drive in the sunshine. We all make mistakes as qualified drivers and i’m certainly no exception to that, however, my point remains that regardless of how quickly you’ve learned, if you’re taking a test, you only need to show for that one hour (is it still about an hour?) you can drive the vehicle in the manner prescribed by the DSA. Is that too much to expect?

As i said, I have based my opinions purely on my own thoughts, not facts and I certainly didn’t go through any process to arrive at them. I know many people will disagree, but then hey, it wouldn’t be such a good forum if we all agreed with each other.

By the way, i’m not anti training companies either, I think there are some around with questionable ethics as to putting unprepared candidates up for test and copping some re-training fees, but that was not the purpose of my OP and I hope nobody thinks for a minute that it is. The point of the post was to discuss whether a limit to the number of tests was practical.

Thanks
Craig

MrHappy:
While I agree that some find test situations easier than others, my point is that as a potential “professional driver” surely you need to have a mindset that enables you to deal with pressure situations.

Hi MrHappy,

I’m afraid that not everything is as logical as that, especially in a ‘test’ situation.

Not everybody is equipped to deal with pressure situations, but this ability can be learned automatically by practice and experience.
It’s a bit like reversing an artic… some people cotton on to the method quite quickly, whilst others seem to take forever before it clicks. Then, of course, there are random imponderables such as somebody had a bad day, and this happens sometimes even to the most experienced of us.

MrHappy:
Afternoon DD.

My opinions are based on no facts, it is purely opinion. I am of this opinion because I feel that as a potential vocational licence holder, one has to accept that before any training is undertaken, there will be a practical examination at the end of any course. An instructors resonsibility is to ensure that a candidate is suitably trained to take said examination. Anybody wishing to drive a heavy goods/public service vehicle should be aware that the risk to life, limb and property is far greater whilst in control of one of these vehicles and, as such needs to demonstrate a degree of skill to an examiner for only one hour. As a car and motorcycle user too, I realise that accident/mortality rates are no doubt higher in these vehicles, but that is surely due to the fact that as professionals we are aware of our greater responsibility.

I can’t argue with that.

MrHappy:
I fully accept that people will learn at different speeds and some will suffer terribly from test nerves, however as I stated, its not as if the test on day 5 or whatever comes as a surprise, so having known from the outset that you will have to show that you can put into practice what you have learned, surely each candidate that takes a test is in a proper position to do so.

As an ex-LGV instructor (I only did that for a couple of years though) I’ve seen candidates who were assessed as ‘ready for test’ go completely to pieces upon arrival at the test station on test day.

Yes, I agree that the test date is known in advance.
We would use various routes during training in order to get the candidate thoroughly familiar with the vehicle and traffic conditions. As part of familiarising the candidate with the situation they face, we’d even take them to the test station so they could see other candidates performing their off-road exercises. As much planning, preparation and practice as possible was utilised, but in spite of this, some candidates still failed. IMHO, this will continue to be the case due to the fact of randomness.
I’m afraid to say that learning, and the retention of learning, for practical subjects is not an exact science once the randomness of test conditions is taken into account.

MrHappy:
I’m by no means a newbie basher, but the amount of test failure excuses that you see and hear of is ridiculous. “I was going well until that stupid car driver pulled out on me.” Its our responsibility, is it not, to think for others as well as ourselves? “The weather was atrocious,” good luck finding a job that only requires you to drive in the sunshine. We all make mistakes as qualified drivers and i’m certainly no exception to that, however, my point remains that regardless of how quickly you’ve learned, if you’re taking a test, you only need to show for that one hour (is it still about an hour?) you can drive the vehicle in the manner prescribed by the DSA. Is that too much to expect?

I can agree that in extremely rare cases, there are some candidates who might not be suitable for passing a test for a vocational driving licence. Reasons for test failure can only be given on the form available to the driving test examiner, which means that mistakes/errors/inadequacies must be pigeon holed to fit the form. The real reason for a candidate’s inadequacy in a driving test might be due to a disability not yet identified in a candidate.
For example, a candidate might have minor sight defects, such as restricted peripheral vision, restricted depth of vision, poor 3D perception or simply poor coordination skills.
Then there are candidates who may not be aware that they might suffer from one of the many recognised learning difficulties.
IMHO, a one-size-fits-all approach such as limiting the number of driving test attempts would be discriminatory to those with disabilities which are insufficient to disqualify them from seeking an LGV licence.

MrHappy:
As i said, I have based my opinions purely on my own thoughts, not facts and I certainly didn’t go through any process to arrive at them. I know many people will disagree, but then hey, it wouldn’t be such a good forum if we all agreed with each other.

Of course you went through a process to arrive at an opinion, because to say otherwise would suggest that you made the whole lot up at random, which I doubt.
IMHO, you’ve put forward some great discussion points that got my attention!!

MrHappy:
By the way, i’m not anti training companies either, I think there are some around with questionable ethics as to putting unprepared candidates up for test and copping some re-training fees, but that was not the purpose of my OP and I hope nobody thinks for a minute that it is. The point of the post was to discuss whether a limit to the number of tests was practical.

Of course there are some training companies with questionable ethics, becase there are bad apples in every barrel. However, it’s fair to point out that (to most training companies) a day or two of retraining and a retest can be less profitable. I’ve never run a training company, so I’ll leave that question to those who could give you a better answer to it than any guess I could make.

dieseldave:
It’s a bit like reversing an artic… some people cotton on to the method quite quickly, whilst others seem to take forever before it clicks.

I can agree to that, i was one of the ones who for the first few days i couldnt fathom out how to reverse the trailer, but then suddenly on the 3rd day i think it was it just came to me and once you get it it’s easier from then on. On the other hand the guy i trained with was brilliant from the get go!!

On both my C and C+E tests the night before and on the day before test i was nervous as hell, my stomach was churning and i felt like i was going to throw up!! it was just that i hate tests and anything with test in the title gets me nervous.

But on both my C and C+E tests my nerves went away and settled as soon as i done my reverse exercises and got them both in the box without mistakes or shunts, it sort of put home to me that i have nothing to worry about and i can do this!!

And i dont think there should be a limit on the number of tests you can take at all, i read a thread on here not so long ago were the guy failed about 5 or 6 times but he stuck at it and passed just the other day, i say more power to him, he stuck it out were maybe others would have thrown in the towel!! just goes to show he really wanted it and it came good for him in the end. Now this guy who passed his test after the 6th time could turn out to be a better lorry driver than say a guy who passed his test on the very 1st try can he not? It doesent matter whether you passed on the 1st try or 6th try in the end you both pass and can drive that lorry to the required standard which is all that matters is it not?

P.S to people who are finding it hard trying to pass these tests, if you really really want it stick at it because one day you will hear those words “im pleased to tell you that you have passed” if it’s your dream just follow it through, it will come good if you are determined enough!

Some excellent retaliatory points there Dave, you’ve almost convinced me that your right! And to all you potential hgv drivers on here, don’t think for a minute that i’m perfect cos i’m not. I passed my car test first time, bike test first time, but failed my cat C test at the first attempt as I was a hugely cocky 7.5t driver who thought that driving an 18 tonner would be a doddle! I would agree with Brawn gp that after the manouevres in the test centre most of my nerves disappeared, although this is probably only the case if that part goes well. When I did my c+e test I had a better idea of what would be expected of me and while I suffered test day nerves I knew I had been trained well and knew that if I did what i’d been doing for the last few days i’d pass. I knew I only had to hold it together for an hour, I knew what the examiner wanted to see and I knew he was only a human being like me.

I know in the real world a limited number of tests isn’t really fair, but if DD says i’ve raised some interesting points, then it weren’t a bad old thread!

To John (Flair Training) you still have a couple of questions outstanding after your little outburst, i’m still interested in hearing your replies.

MrHappy:
Some excellent retaliatory points there Dave, you’ve almost convinced me that your right!

Hi MrHappy,

The thing about all of this is that it’s possible that neither of us are entirely right.

I think this topic has developed into a good one in that it has branched out and opened up a new area of discussion. IIRC, the subject of LGV test candidate preparedness hasn’t been covered in any great depth, so I’m hoping that some of the current LGV instructors and training school owners will contribute some ideas to this discussion.

I’ll give you this Mr H, your points have certainly made me think about a few things I’d not thought about in ages, and it can’t be a bad idea to get my two remaining brain cells to talk to each other once in a while.

dieseldave:

MrHappy:
Some excellent retaliatory points there Dave, you’ve almost convinced me that your right!

Hi MrHappy,

The thing about all of this is that it’s possible that neither of us are entirely right.

I think this topic has developed into a good one in that it has branched out and opened up a new area of discussion. IIRC, the subject of LGV test candidate preparedness hasn’t been covered in any great depth, so I’m hoping that some of the current LGV instructors and training school owners will contribute some ideas to this discussion.

I’ll give you this Mr H, your points have certainly made me think about a few things I’d not thought about in ages, and it can’t be a bad idea to get my two remaining brain cells to talk to each other once in a while.

Well i’m glad to be the one to put it out there and its been good to have a reasoned debate. Yes, lets hope for some input from some of the members of the training fraternity, although they’re probably in the Ale house until Monday

I’ve been watching this thread - - absolutely determined not to get embroiled but thought I’d stick in my two pennyworth before clearing off to the alehouse.

The whole driver training/testing system is inherrently flawed. I’ll start at the end - - the test. Most of us know that this is a simple reversing exercise followed by a 1 hour drive. How this represents truck driving is beyond me. The test should be scrapped and replaced by continuous assessment by QUALIFIED instructors. The system exists for CBT for motorbikes and for fork lift trucks. (I know it’s not the same but there are similarities).

As for candidates going for a test who have limited chances of passing - - yes, I’ve put them in. And the reason?? The system. When the course starts, it’s generally followed by a test on day 5. (I know it varies).Under DSA rules the test fee is forfeit unless 3 clear working days notice of cancellation is given. So unless you can decide on day 1 that by day 5 the candidate won’t be ready, you’re stuffed. Our policy is to be honest with the candidate. If at day 4 it is clear that they are not up to test standard we point this out. It is normally clear to the candidate anyway. Then, provided they continue training (and yes, pay for it) then we pay for the lost test. However, if they choose to take the test, that’s their choice. We will, however, stop them taking a test if we genuinely feel that our vehicle and other road users are at undue risk. We have to accept there is always an element of risk with any test. But I’d like to point out that this scenario comes up about once every year or two.

Another point is the general assumption that a candidate can actually learn to drive a truck efficiently in 4 days with test on day 5. The industry has squeezed itself into this unfortunate mould. I would love the norm to be nearer 20 days with training on different gearboxes, axle configurations etc. (Although the argument rages on about artic vs w+d no-one ever says anything about people passing tests on a 2 axle rigid and then getting an 8 wheel tipper to play with!). The DSA now accept Scania Opticruise as a manual gearbox. That makes life even easier for the candidate - - but does it prepare them for a life of trucking. Doubtfull.

The whole industry needs a complete rethink before major improvements will be made. It wont happen in my lifetime. Just look at the outcry about driver cpc! And that’s mild compared to the training I would like to instigate.

After all the years I’ve had in training, I’m capable of teaching most folk most things. But for as long as the norm is around £1000 and 5 days, there’s no hope of it getting noticably better.

To repeat, if I was in charge, I’d scrub the entire system and rethink it start to finish. But, for now, we’ll continue doing the very best we can, producing very high pass rates and all this in the time allotted.

Off to the alehouse, Have a great weekend. Pete.

A point I failed to make in my previous post is the responsibilty of the employer to provide specific job training to drivers. This includes the use of the vehicle provided together with any other relevant training so that the job can be done properly.

Let us all please accept that the most any trainer is likely to do is to get a candidate through their test. There will be, hopefully, some extra knowledge passed on, but this does not abdicate the responsibility of the employer. There is no way can we train a driver to drive every type of vehicle, with every type of transmission and load in a 5 day period.

Definitely going out now!

Some excellent points well made there Peter. Difficult to argue with some of them really, especially where a government “agency” has been left to decide on the rules. However, while I am in complete agreement with you that you will never ever be able to train or prepare a candidate to drive different types of vehicles with different transmissions, my point remains that whether or not the system is flawed, wrong or useless, we are only asking a candidate to prepare for a 1 hour drive in a vehicle that they have been familiarised with. I also agree that you begin to learn most of what you need to know after your test.

The flawed system is the same for everyone, like it or not. I understand the test booking system may not be the most helpful and it may well be the case that the whole 4 day course with a test on day 5 scenario needs a rethink. However, is it not the case that many training schools offer a free “assessment drive?” Now far be it from me to question the expertise of better men than me, but surely this is the point at which you really earn your money. How many punters taking the assessment drive have been told honestly, “You’re going to need 15 days training Sir.” They must be out there? While I accept your point that the pass rate is high, are training schools afraid that if they tell a potential customer he needs 15 days training he might go to someone who would be more willing to put him on the 5 day course regardless of his/her talent and just take their money? Lets face it, some candidates have an inflated idea of their own skill at the assessment stage and probably wouldn’t take too kindly to being told they need more training than the “average.”

Furthermore, I can’t really see an argument from “The System’s all wrong” angle, because as I said previously, we all know the system is the same for everyone and we all know the system before we take the course and consequently accept it for what it is.

Interestingly, still no reply from Mr. Angry of Flair Training

Oh, Peter I was also wondering why you were determined not to get embroiled in this by the way? Its only with the involvement of members like yourself that these sort of discussions get any kind of sensible input

Oh, Peter I was also wondering why you were determined not to get embroiled in this by the way? Its only with the involvement of members like yourself that these sort of discussions get any kind of sensible input

cos it’s bad for my blood pressure!! I feel so strongly about this topic that I get passionate in my arguments that are fruitless because the right people don’t listen.

I’d just like to clear up the assessment point you made. Where assessments are carried out these are of limited value. It can tell me if someone is extremely good or extremely poor. Sadly, everyone else falls in the middle. Then what to do about it? The very good ones are offered a reduced training duration. The very poor ones are simply refused. It’s a myth, in my case, to suggest that everyone with money will be taken on. I value my pass rate and reputation - and these people will do nothing for it. Those that are “not so clever” are offered an increased training duration. So I’m proud to say that, in my case, you’re assumptions are incorrect.

I started the school in 1984 having worked elsewhere for 13 years. I started with a model of 2 hours per week per candidate. The beauty of this was that the test could be booked for exactly the correct time. I recall a wannabee bus driver asking “when will I be ready?”. He was nowhere near so the answer was “when you can pick up my kids and take them out for a day on your coach, then you’re ready”. That system worked perfectly until the standard 5 day (or 10 days as it normally was then) course raised it’s ugly head. I still take people on a weekly basis who are unsure of their abilities/speed of learning and this also can spread the cost.

Market forces have determined that the normal course will run for 5 days. As a professional trainer, I’ve had to condense my training into that period wherever possible - - and it generally can be done. As mentioned in an earlier post, it’s tragic that a lot of extra training and experience is not now being passed on.

I’ve considered, more than once, going the other way completely. Howabout a course of 10 days with a cost around £2200 but with the certain knowledge that you’ll know a hell of a lot more than most other new drivers. Sadly I think the general reaction would be against this on grounds of money and time. (If anyone wants this, I’d happily do it BTW).

Given the system that’s in place, I believe that I (and many other very good trainers) are doing the best possible job.

Discuss

Ok Peter, reading your previous post, it seems as though you might be under the impression that i’m digging training companies out here. I’m not, I wasn’t suggesting that any training companies are at fault here, the question, my initial points were and are, Do you think its too much to ask, for a potential vocational licence holder to be able to drive in the manner prescribed by the DSA for an hour? And should there be a limit to the number of attempts allowed?

Forget “the system” forget your own companies procedures or success rate. All I want to know is if i’m being unreasonable in expecting a candidate to show the level of skill required, that we’ve all had to show at some point, for an hour. I fully accept that that one hour has no bearing on what you do after your test. But the test must be passed nonetheless.

Although your company is regarded as one of the reputable outfits, I have to admit I found one of your remarks a bit strange. You say that “The very poor ones are refused” when answering my assessment drive point. I think it was because of your pass rate and reputation you said. I find that a very strange attitude for a trainer to have, why would you not want to take on a punter that will require a lot of training, surely the whole point of running a training school is that you will train people, regardless of their ability to the required standard? if you don’t mind me saying so, it would also appear that you’re being discriminatory against people of a lower standard purely to protect your own success rate?

Apologies in advance if i’ve misunderstood your meaning, but it comes across like that quite clearly.

Thanks

Craig

In the case of most tests there is not a lot in it as far as passing and failing goes. Driver 1 the type that some instructors would consider a “natural” fails the test one “serious” soft fault, misses a mirror in the wrong circumstance a potential danger but in reality no real danger.

Driver 2, minor faults here, there and everywhere, 11 in total but a pass.

One passes the other a fail, sitting in on driver 1 anyone would know who the “real” driver was, and it wasn’t 2.

Driver 2 was crap and wasn’t particularly nervous in fact like most of these types actually thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Driver 1 was a natural a very conscientious and responsible person and as such suffered badly from nerves.

A pass is a pass and tells you very little about the driver. How many would pass if they were not shown all the little tricked up places on the test route, probably very few. The same places that on any other day in the job are measured in, nothing hit then nothing wrong, a very different matter to an examiner sat next to you pen in hand.

You say that “The very poor ones are refused” when answering my assessment drive point. I think it was because of your pass rate and reputation you said. I find that a very strange attitude for a trainer to have, why would you not want to take on a punter that will require a lot of training, surely the whole point of running a training school is that you will train people, regardless of their ability to the required standard? if you don’t mind me saying so, it would also appear that you’re being discriminatory against people of a lower standard purely to protect your own success rate?

There are some people that, IMO regardless of the amount of training given and money paid, will not pass a test - let alone survive as a driver. It is only this tiny number to which I refer in the post. Maybe I didn’t make that as clear as I should have done- apologies.

I agree that it’s not asking the world to drive for an hour in a safe and progressive manner (ie test standard). But I’m just about to start on how wrong the system is … and I musn’t do that!