Are LGV tests outdated?

I feel the whole system needs a shake up. I feel your trainer is the person best placed to determine whether or not you are fit for purpose. How many times do you here trainees being told they have the skillset to pass and fail due to nerves or vice versa. Training is very expensive and loaded against the trainee. Introducing a new system would be open to abuse but if the trainee is given a year on a temporary license for a year, any accidents/issues could be investigated and numerous issue would expose the cheats leading to losing their trainer license. There should be a bare minimum of training before issue of said license followed by maybe two more trips out with the trainer during the first year to iron out any creases.

Are you describing something like a graduated licence system?

For LGVs that would really require a return to the apprenticeship system but who would pay for it - the employers will not unless a driver shortage occurs - it would be too expensive for newbies and the Govt will certainly not pay

The only difference with what I have suggested is maybe going out twice with the trainer in the first year at the trainees expense . Not affecting the employer financially as it could be taken as annual leave and saving the expense of examiners instead they could investigate incidents etc. I cant see how that relates to an apprenticeship as you describe, not necessary. I cannot see how it would be more expensive than failing your test due to nerves and retesting ad nauseam.

Also it could be made part of driver initial driver cpc so the government lose no examining revenue/examiners.

The current system may not be perfect but what you’re suggesting would be a conflict of interests for trainers.

It’s all very well saying “any accidents/issues could be investigated and numerous issue would expose the cheats leading to losing their trainer license”, but how much carnage would there be on the roads before the unscrupulous trainers were caught.

What do you mean when you say training is loaded against the trainee ? :confused:

What i mean by loaded is that the trainers and government gain financially when you fail. How can saying someone is safe/ready to operate be a conflict of interest ?.Are examiners held to account when somebody flukes there test and has accidents? no differance in my eyes. Dont forget trainees already hold a “driving” license, lgv “training” should be exactly that.

Warm weebottle:
What i mean by loaded is that the trainers and government gain financially when you fail.

That’s not strictly true is it, ask any trainer if he wants trainees to pass or fail and they will all say “pass”, apart from anything else it promotes their business and encourages potential customers to choose them for the training.

A high fail rate for a trainer is like a ticket to the dole queue, trainers will quite rightly brag about anything close to a 100% pass rate,

Warm weebottle:
How can saying someone is safe/ready to operate be a conflict of interest ?

Because trainers have a vested interest in trainees passing the test, therefore they cannot be relied on to be impartial as examiners of their own trainees.

Warm weebottle:
Are examiners held to account when somebody flukes there test and has accidents?

No, but examiners are impartial in as much as they have nothing to gain or lose by passing or failing the trainee, the same cannot be said about trainers who’s business relies on people passing the test.

Passing the BASIC DSA test whether for LGV or any other is the START

After passing there is currently no compulsory assessment for any sort of DSA gained driving licence

Many companies employing LGV drivers do an assessment drive before allowing the driver to go it alone but again that is not a compulsory requirement but may be a requirement of the company insurer

If you want compulsory assessments post test then that would take considerable political will power to do so and would likely lose votes for any govt that introduced it

With that in mind where do you want to go with this?

Warm weebottle:
I feel the whole system needs a shake up. I feel your trainer is the person best placed to determine whether or not you are fit for purpose. How many times do you here trainees being told they have the skillset to pass and fail due to nerves or vice versa. Training is very expensive and loaded against the trainee. Introducing a new system would be open to abuse but if the trainee is given a year on a temporary license for a year, any accidents/issues could be investigated and numerous issue would expose the cheats leading to losing their trainer license. There should be a bare minimum of training before issue of said license followed by maybe two more trips out with the trainer during the first year to iron out any creases.

If you apply that thinking to LGV training, would you also apply it to doctors, surgeons, nurses? Let them have a go to see if they can do the job?
I failed a test mainly due to my nervousness but so what? I either did reach the standard or didn’t - in my case I didn’t on that day but did next time.

The main change I would like to see is a standard qualification for all LGV trainers.

As the present system is; anyone could pass a LGV test, never drive (or even sit in) a LGV for three years and then set up a ‘LGV training school’. No doubt they could also tell their (failed) trainees it was down to their own ‘nerves’.

We need legislation that ALL LGV trainers must have achieved a certain standard before they can train people and should have periodic tests to prove that. I know some trainers do this voluntarily through the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) but it is not a legal requirement.

I trained with Peter Smythe (like others on here) and my training included how to overcome nervousness on the test - but there again,Peter and all his trainers are DSA approved and must take the regular tests, etc.

The main thing I would change with the LGV test is to split the off road reversing / uncoupling and the actual drive into 2 parts. There is no reason the off road part could not be tested by a DSA qualified trainer, much like the CBT part of the motorcycle test system.

It doesnt seem right that a candidate fails just on reversing or uncoupling and passes everything else but has to take the entire test again.

In this way the DSA could save a fortune by closing down every test centre as they would no longer need the reversing area. The examiner could meet the candidate at a truckstop or lorry park and conduct the main test from there.

I agree with John.

But, in my more radical moments, I also agree with Only Alan that all trainers should hold a recognised qualification. I would then (if I were the DSA) offer further training to qualified trainers so that they could assess candidates. This is no more flawed than the CBT, fork lift, MoT or many other systems. Current examiners would carry out spot checks. There would also be “mystery candidates” exactly the same as Mot;s etc. None of this will ever happen - mainly because it makes too much sense IMO!!

I must comment on the statement

What i mean by loaded is that the trainers and government gain financially when you fail

. Some better trainers have schemes in place so that they make no more money from candidates under these circumstances. Yes, the DSA gain. When folk visit me and ask about the cost of retests, my answer is along the lines of “I’m happy to take the first lot of cash from you and make a small profit - that’s how we stay in business. But I’m not interested in making any more from you if it goes wrong.”

I guess there might just be a possibility of John’s plan being taken up and I fully support anything that will smooth the process without compromising standards.

But I’m not holding my breath and, certainly, my idea will be considered an absolute non-starter for reasons best known to themselves and those in the industry who doubt the integrity of professionally qualified trainers.

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

Thank you for your responses. I think that is a great idea splitting the test and feel the same logic could be applied to the rest of the process with your instructor.Saying someone is competent to drive an lgv would be a serious responsibility for a instructor and i would like to think within thier skillset as an instructor. Trainers would have to be fully qualified for the task.Initial thorough driving assessment and planned training would make the whole process far less daunting and maybe more relaxed, which i feel would lead to more effective training.Remove the pressure of a test surely its about competance.

Planned training, fully documented, has to be produced to DSA by accredited training centres. This is one of the major differences between trainers. I’m not suggesting that this is the only way to get planned training, but it is the only way it’s monitored directly by DSA. Each year, to maintain accreditation, there is a check on records and systems to ensure that everything is done correctly.

There are those people who consider this is worth paying for and there are those who dont. And that argument will rumble on until legislation eventually dictates otherwise.

Pete :laughing: :laughing: