I would appreciate it if you would answer.
Quick question(s) Pete, how many years did you undertake Training on a 2-1 basis?
And for all those years (I presume) did you think that the 2-1 method was wrong?
Also genuinely I would like to think that the Trainer is more than capable of adapting to both Trainees when conducting Training on a 2-1 basis!
While I do agree that there is no definite right or wrong I think that 2-1 is more right than wrong and has been accepted industry standard since the inception of HGV Driver Training.
On a 2-1 ratio in my opinion the objectivity that the “non driver” is opened up to is without question the biggest benefit but there are many more benefits that this ratio brings.
Historically the only Driving Schools that offered 1-1 Training had either bought the wrong kind of Truck for Driver Training or did not have enough Trainees to operate on a 2-1 basis.
Ok, here goes!
I worked as an instructor for other trainers from 1974 to 1985 mainly on trucks but with a smattering of coach and bus training. And, for 3 years before that, instructing on bus and coach. Most of this was 2:1, some 1:1 and anything up to 6 at a time on a bus. More than capable of teaching within any of these disciplines but my experience leads me towards favouring 1:1. I have never said that 2:1 is wrong and, as you point out, it is the traditional method of training. In fact, some of my peers took the Mick when I set up on my own offering only 1:1 forecasting that it would never take off and would certainly not be financially viable. They were a bit wrong on both counts. You may recall that, in 1985, 1:1 training was virtually unheard of.
I agree that there have probably been cases where a school vehicle has not been suitable for 2:1 and this has forced the trainer’s hand into 1:1. The majority of PSTT vehicles are equipped for 2:1 which is easy when they are replaced with brand new vehicles on a regular basis. I’ve never been in the “did not enough Trainees to operate on a 2-1 basis” camp. Thankfully.
Occasionally, I have done 2:1. But I prefer this to be when the costs are being met from a single source eg a company has 2 drivers. My thinking is that if driver 1 is not so clever as driver 2, it’s fine for driver 1 to have a little more than 50% of the allotted time as this will enhance the chances of both passing. I’ve had the same with married couples and also with siblings or best mates. But it’s not fair to do this Iwhen the individuals are footing their own bill. So the instructor’s choice is to either be slightly unfair or reduce the chances for one of the candidates. An invidious situation.
I also have experience of a trainee really struggling with the reverse whilst his partner has cracked it no problem. So you either deprive the first one of reversing practice he needs or keep the more competent one hanging around in the hope the other driver sorts out the reverse. Not a happy situation. I accept this isn’t common - but it happens. And the number of folks that have come through my door for 1:1 because they have not had a good experience with 2:1 demonstrates that this is a valid argument. BUT, if the candidates are reasonably evenly matched, then of course it can work extremely well - possibly better than 1:1.
But we agree that there is no right or wrong. It’s up to the candidate to decide how they wish to spend their time and money.
Time for me to take my tablets!!
Pete S 