Changes to the driving test?

NEW AND WANNABE DRIVERS (INTERACTIVE)
41

Years ago HGV drivers were taught with a straight 6 box and a flatbed trailer/vehicle but then had to get used to different when starting a job

they already had experience of 4 or 5 speed gear boxes but not crash boxes or any other type but they seemed to manage with a little help from employers or other drivers

I can see no logical reason why a driver who can handle a manual 5/6 speed gearbox in a vehicle up to 3.5 tonnes cannot then pass in a LGV auto and be faced with a LGV manual gearbox they have never seen before and not get to grips with it in a short time just as any other who had passed LGV in a straight 6 with splitter would do

42

I would be interested to know what else us trainers should be doing a part from training the candidate up to test standard with the tools available?

43

I can agree with most of what most trainers on this thread have said to a point.

Paul makes a fair point

Are job as trainers is primarily to get the student up to test standard using the tools that the DSA allow us and it’s down to to the examiners to judge if they meet the required standard to have the appropriate licence.

Personally, I’ve always tried to go well beyond that “minimum” though I agree with much of the above.

Rog’s point

Years ago HGV drivers were taught with a straight 6 box and a flatbed trailer/vehicle but then had to get used to different when starting a job

is also valid. I can’t really argue against that as it is true. (■■■■, that’s annoying!!)

John’s comment

There is a big difference between changing gears manually and relying on the vehicle to make the decision for you- I agree with the straight six to other gearboxes, as a driver you will read the vehicle and change accordingly, wether you have six or sixteen gears - but auto to manual is miles apart

also makes a great deal of sense. I have yet to drive a relatively small auto truck but my limited experience with auto artics leads me to agree with John.

My leaning is possibly towards a straight 6.

Easy to drive
Teaches approaches to hazards
Refines clutch control

I think a series of links to good explanations of different gearchanges should also be on offer to the candidate for their further education.

It will be interesting to see what actually happens.

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

IMO the culture within operators will need to change to make inductions much more of a routine than the exception that it sometimes is now. Either that or they’ll have no clutches left in a short space of time!

44

elmet training:
I would be interested to know what else us trainers should be doing a part from training the candidate up to test standard with the tools available?

Nothing else.

If I thought for one minute that the only reason I was having training was to reach the bare minimum standard to pass the test, I’d go elsewhere.

But as a lot of trainers integrate real world scenarios and experience into their training schedule then it is not an issue as they have nothing to change.

45

Dar1976
Don’t get me wrong i am a experienced wagon driver of 22 years working in different industries within the haulage industry. Of course I would offer advice on any question asked in training, but you must understand the industry is so diverse in every aspect so can’t advise on everything.

I now run my own successful training company in Sherburn in Elmet Yorkshire which I am sure other members on here will confirm who have passed with me. The comments I posted is the way I see things as what we can do as trainers.

I’m sorry you see it the way you do.

Paul

46

blimey! I opened a can of worms with this one!

I was just checking what had changed since I did my cat c test so I knew what to expect.

seeing as we are having this discussion… if I were to choose a gearbox for my ce training I would not choose an auto because I find them sluggish and awkward.

do I think it is acceptable to test in an auto and get a manual license?

no at cat c. the truck gearbox is more complex than a car gearbox. cat c should be strictly manual only. cat ce? given that the candidate has done cat c on a manual and in most cases has done some wheel time then yes, I don’t see a problem with upgrading on an auto. the irony is that an auto box will probably make life more difficult on a test scenario.

just my opinion, not to be confused with fact :slight_smile: tin hat on!

I think the whole system of driving tests could be improved. assessment of someone’s driving ability over a ~hour or so would be much better carried out over a longer period of days. sometimes trivial errors which were fatal on a test are out of character and sometimes a bloody awful driver who is borderline dangerous will get a lucky run on the test. I’ve seen it happen!

I would like to see a test where driver competence and safety were assessed properly and small errors of proceedure which are NOT dangerous (such as taking the wrong lane for a turn and correcting it SAFELY) cause for failure. after all, in reality when you are backing up to a wall, how many times do you get out and look? as long as you get close and don’t hit it, it is a success. make no mistake, the examiners KNOW we are using cheat marks to line up. common sense and the element of reality if applied to the test would result in much higher standard of drivers. one of my favorite bugbears is “inconveniencing other road users” it is a fact of life that sometimes you will cause another road user to slow down when pulling out. the questions should be was it dangerous? (not could it possibly be dangerous if the situation was different) in that situation, at that time was it unreasonable or dangerous? for example, if someone is flying around a blind corner on a mobile phone and you could not have seen him, causing him to slow down, this in my opinion should not count against you, the driver has done all he could in the situation.

rant over, tin hat firmly on! :slight_smile:

one thing I will mention, my dad is 75, on the day he passed his car test he went to work and with no experience or training, the boss sent him out in an artic “just up the road” 50 miles! I know things were very different back then. when they invented the hgv test, they asked him what licence he wanted, he chose class 3, for whatever reason he had? but he worked his whole life as a hgv driver with not a test in sight. he was one of the safest drivers I ever met.

47

elmet training:
Dar1976
Don’t get me wrong i am a experienced wagon driver of 22 years working in different industries within the haulage industry. Of course I would offer advice on any question asked in training, but you must understand the industry is so diverse in every aspect so can’t advise on everything.

I now run my own successful training company in Sherburn in Elmet Yorkshire which I am sure other members on here will confirm who have passed with me. The comments I posted is the way I see things as what we can do as trainers.

I’m sorry you see it the way you do.

Paul

Paul

I am sure that those who have taken courses and passed with your school are very happy with the service and would recommend you to others. (Note there is no 'but…).

You have said that you go above and beyond the bare minimum to pass and therefore tick the boxes I was referring to.

I don’t see why you think I have a differing opinion■■?

So as not to derail the thread I will leave it there.

Dean

48

dar1976:

elmet training:
I would be interested to know what else us trainers should be doing a part from training the candidate up to test standard with the tools available?

Nothing else.

If I thought for one minute that the only reason I was having training was to reach the bare minimum standard to pass the test, I’d go elsewhere.

But as a lot of trainers integrate real world scenarios and experience into their training schedule then it is not an issue as they have nothing to change.

I would hope that the only reason I was having training was to reach the minimum standard (which is pretty high ) and nothing else, I want to spend my money wisely and have come to train to pass a test nothing else. Don’t need teaching stuff that isn’t to do with the test.
What are these real world scenarios you speak of? All my training was in the real world and so was my test, apart from the hazard perception :smiley: :smiley:

49

jbaz73:
at cat c. the truck gearbox is more complex than a car gearbox.

Not by much if using the straight 6 with splitter !!

50

I think the whole system of driving tests could be improved. assessment of someone’s driving ability over a ~hour or so would be much better carried out over a longer period of days.

+1

I would like to see a test where driver competence and safety were assessed properly and small errors of proceedure which are NOT dangerous (such as taking the wrong lane for a turn and correcting it SAFELY) cause for failure.

It’s not a fail.

in reality when you are backing up to a wall, how many times do you get out and look? as long as you get close and don’t hit it, it is a success.

I get out and check on a regular basis. Being close but not hitting is what is required on a test - so where’s the problem?

if someone is flying around a blind corner on a mobile phone and you could not have seen him, causing him to slow down, this in my opinion should not count against you, the driver has done all he could in the situation.

Again, this is a common misconception. If it’s exactly how you describe, it’s not going to be marked at all - let alone a fail.

Hope this helps,

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

51

I think the whole system of driving tests could be improved. assessment of someone’s driving ability over a ~hour or so would be much better carried out over a longer period of days.

Peter Smythe:
+1

Students during the school year are marked on what they do during the year and on the exam so why not driving students/trainees ?

52

Students during the school year are marked on what they do during the year and on the exam so why not driving students/trainees ?

This is clearly how it should be done. A one hour “party piece” drive proves very little IMO. But it cannot possibly happen for as long as the vast majority of instructors are neither qualified or registered. Who, exactly, would be carrying out the ongoing assessments? It would surely have to be a qualified person - and there’s not that many of us!

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

53

And if you think that you can get an examiner to sit with you all week for 115 quid… :slight_smile:

54

Peter Smythe:

Students during the school year are marked on what they do during the year and on the exam so why not driving students/trainees ?

This is clearly how it should be done. A one hour “party piece” drive proves very little IMO. But it cannot possibly happen for as long as the vast majority of instructors are neither qualified or registered. Who, exactly, would be carrying out the ongoing assessments? It would surely have to be a qualified person - and there’s not that many of us!

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

A simple driving assessor qualification needed

55

absolutely agreed pete and rog.

pete, i bow to your experience and wisdom! i think that my experience may still have left a sour taste in my mouth. when i started LGV training it was not necessary to do cat C/class 2 (its that long ago i cant remember which one it was) back in the days of DDC it was ok to go straight from a car to an artic. on my first test in leicester i was nervous and totted up too many minors, in fact only one minor less and i would have passed :frowning: bill my driving instructor said to me that i had been driving great and couldn’t understand what happened. (if this had been continually assessed i would very likely have passed) but in the exam situation nerves had got the better of me. one of the minors i got was for going into the wrong lane and correcting it, although i did it safely and without slowing anyone else down. if i had got one minor less for anything i would have got through. that was why i made that point.

i had to wait 2 months before i got a second test. at a t-junction with a long sweeping bend i was turning left. there was only about 100 yards of visibility, which was plenty. i started the manoeuvre and because it was tight i was on the opposite side of the road. it was clear at this point and i was fully committed, when a XR3I came barrelling around the corner at warp speed (road was a national speed limit) slamming his brakes on, skidding with clouds of rubber smoke. i guess you get the picture. that was marked as a major and i failed that one.

leicester has got a bad rep for taking driving tests, and i agree that my first test i was nervous, but i did feel cheated on my second test because i was failed for something out of my control. that’s why i used those 2 examples. sadly i couldn’t get another test in before the rule was passed that class 2 had to be done before class 1. bill tried for me but i gave up in the end and took the class 2 test instead.

if the truth were told, i would say that 95% of people who fail the driving test do so through nerves. many a good driver goes to pieces under examination conditions. an ongoing assessment throughout the duration of the course would be a much fairer and safer way to do it.

56

which is exactly my point! the system of using an examiner would have to change. but then if you allowed the trainer to issue the licence, that is open to abuse… can you imagine the brokers? “first time pass guaranteed only £££££”.

i was only pointing out that the current system is flawed, how the DSA would sort it out is their problem. they would need more examiners who carried out periodic assessments.

lol, i just created a few new jobs! good for the economy too :laughing:

57

In my ideal plan, examiners would check test to make sure things were being done correctly. Yes, it’s open to corruption, but so are CBT’s, fork lifts, car mot’s etc etc. And anyone found to be breaking the rules should be removed from the register for ever. End of. And most of the time, we haven’t got a clue who our candidate is. So more fool them that broke the rules.

It needs someone in authority to call a halt to the current system and give it a total re-think. We get the rules tampered with on quite a regular basis. But, IMO, time to scrub the lot and start again.

But this wont happen, certainly in my life-time. So carry on dreaming!

Pete :laughing: :laughing:

58

Will never happen, but it would seem sensible to me to introduce some sort of equivilent to ‘flying hours’ . The air industry has worked out that the most important things is practise and experience.
A lot of LGV training providers are just a roller mill offering 5 day course on a 2 to 1 basis including a test. Most people will be attempting their first test after about 20 hours driving which doesn’t sound much! In my case I needed a retest and clocked up about 35 hours and really felt ready and easily passed.
If you had to do e.g. 40 hours driving with continuous assesment from an instructor who had the final say to sign you off or not, I think the majority of people would be up to the standard. Anyone not up to the standard after effectively a weeks solid driving probably shouldn’t be doing it. it would put the price of learning up, but I wouldn’t have minded paying the extra to avoid the stressful tests! just an idea…!
I’d be interested how long Peter finds people need when doing 1-1 training. Or at least what the fastest people need, and what the average person needs.

59

I could be a bit off the mark here but I reckon most do a course over 5 days with test on day 5 with a first time pass rate around 50% ?

60

ROG:
I could be a bit off the mark here but I reckon most do a course over 5 days with test on day 5 with a first time pass rate around 50% ?

Is that 1-1 or 2-1 ?