albion1971:
Regarding cyclists yes they may be stupid if they ride up the inside of you but almost everyday I see truck drivers doing far more stupid things.
.
Maybe you have seen lorry drivers doing what you reckon is more stupid, but the HGV driver is cocooned in a steel shell about six foot up in the air, feeling relatively safe and out of harm’s way. The cyclist is virtually copying the man standing underneath a load suspended from a crane, ie doing the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette.
LandyLad:
So cyclists, use a bit of common sense and STOP PUTTING YOURSELVES in stupid places - PLEASE!
^^^^ that would solve the majority of the problems
So can we take it that there is a serious disagreement even between those with an LGV training background as to the best way of dealing with the problem.We’ve got one who thinks that many Army drivers don’t have a clue in their use of mirrors when it’s obvious that the average tank transporter will need some serious use of the mirrors if it’s not going to be allowed to wipe out a lot more on it’s route than a few cyclists.
Or could it be that Albion has never actually trained anyone to actually drive,or who’s actually driven,a tank transporter in which case maybe his view has been distorted by only being involved with the training of class 3 army drivers who’ve never driven anything much bigger than a Land Rover and a four wheeler Bedford before.
As I remember it the class 2 and class 1 training and driving test certainly wasn’t something that the average village idiot would be able to pass easily.Maybe it’s just that those older generation of trainers and examiners were a bit more ‘demanding’ in what they expected at that time.
So now you resort to saying you do not believe me.
Unfortunately there are some army drivers that do not have a clue just the same as some truck drivers do not have a clue and some cyclists do not have a clue.
Remember all army recruits take an LGV test whether their trade is a driver or not so it is possible that the ones that are not drivers may lack interest.I can also tell you I have trained many a village idiot and that was not just in the forces training but in civilian training as well.
No I didn’t say I don’t believe you’ve ever been involved with training of army drivers.The bit that I can’t believe is that you’ve ever had any dealings with any ‘suitable’ or ‘qualified’ army drivers who’ve driven the top level of army equipment like tank transporters and then found ‘those’ drivers being sub standard in use of mirrors.Simply because those two criterea would be totally inconsistent with each other.
In other words there’s no way that any driver would/should ever get into the position of being behind the wheel of an HGV,let alone a tank transporter,assuming that driver is sub standard in the use of mirrors and assuming that the basic training and examination system is working as it should be.In just the same way that,as I’ve said,they probably don’t allow idiots to drive tank transporters.I also think that it’s your comment concerning the ‘trade’ of being a truck driver v the idea of ‘all’ army recruits taking ‘an LGV test’ which provides a clue for the reasons of your flawed view of the situation.It’s obvious that a ‘driver’ is either a driver by ‘trade’ or not and everything else is going to be a compromise.
Which then obviously leads on to the issue of training and test standards and the possibility that those standards and the job are being dumbed down in order to de value the ‘trade’ of being a driver.
So my question is are you saying that every army recruit is trained to tank transporter driving standards or not .If not why not or if so there’s no way that such standards could possibly include the posibility of sub standard use of mirrors. However if it’s the former of those which applies then it’s obvious that there’d be a two tier standard of driver training within the army according to the job of driver by trade and/or just the licence holders (probably more like class 3 level at best ?) in which a lesser standard is accepted just to keep the numbers up .If so then it is therefore possible that such an issue ‘could’ be applied in the case of civvy training and examination standards .
If that is really the case then I can understand the issue.Which would go along the lines of a demand from employers for greater numbers of potential ‘drivers’ and it doesn’t matter wether they’re ‘drivers’ by trade or not just so long as they have a licence with training and examination standards reduced to reflect that fact. Which just leaves the question of wether you were able to wash out those sub standard drivers who you say didn’t seem to understand the importance of the use of mirrors or not which either a driver has and understands from day 1 or not .
If so then there’s no problem if not then that would explain at least some of the problem when combined with the issue of bicycles being used in the high risk environment of sharing the road with trucks,with riders who may or may not give a zb concerning their own safety,and the possibility that there are drivers out there with the view that mirrors and their use are an optional extra.
I know for a fact that,at least in the case of where I did my training,the instructors would have given up on,and advised any driver,that the job of a driver wasn’t for them in that case.
Basilbrush:
It’s a shame that a thread on such a serious subject should turn into almost a slanging match.
I watched the programme on TV the other night and I believe it might just still be available on BBCiPlayer. It was called “War on Britains roads”. It certainly demonstrated without doubt that fault does lay with both sides but, cyclists are being killed & something needs to be done about it.
There’s nothing wrong with having a good argument on the topic if it identifies at least some of the problems which could actually contribute to ‘doing something’ about the issue of saving lives.
albion1971:
I think you would be amazed how much you can actually do wrong without failing.Obviously anything dangerous or potentially dangerous and that’s it but with a little luck I doubt there are very few who could not pass it.
I have read some rubbish on this forum, but that takes the biscuit!!
It’s t’other way around. You would get failed for ■■■■■■■ in the yard at Atherton test centre!
Anyway, my tuppence worth on cyclists.
If a cyclist rides up the inside of any large vehicle, then they are just plain stupid. Like lots of people have already said, all cyclists can see the large vehicle, but not all large vehicle drivers can see the cyclist. Be in that stupid position and its only a matter of time before a mistake is made and you are seriously hurt. All the compensation in the world and all of the “I’m within my rights” attitude won’t bring back your life or smashed limbs. No LGV driver ever deliberately hurts a cyclist. No LGV driver ever deliberately forgets to look out for them but accidents DO happen. So cyclists, use a bit of common sense and STOP PUTTING YOURSELVES in stupid places - PLEASE!
Sorry to disappoint you but what I say is not rubbish.I have been involved in various types of training and know exactly what an examiner is looking for.
A good LGV Insructor should try to attain a 90% standard of driving where as an examiner is only looking for about 40% and they are mostly very lenient.
Regarding cyclists yes they may be stupid if they ride up the inside of you but almost everyday I see truck drivers doing far more stupid things.
As a professional driver you should accept people make mistakes and allow for it.Maybe some of the cyclists are not as intelligent as you so as a driver that never does anything wrong.
Since when were LGV examiners more lenient than LGV instructors. It would be interesting to find out if any of the examiners are still alive from the old Yeading test centre where I did my tests during the 1980’s.They’d be able to put you right on that issue.
Carryfast it seems you know absolutely nothing about LGV Instructing and Testing.
Examiners have always been far more lenient than any instructor would and that is how it has always been.
Please back up your theories with evidence instead of coming out with hot air excuses.
I can back up and prove what I have said is correct.Can you?
albion1971:
Carryfast it seems you know absolutely nothing about LGV Instructing and Testing.
Examiners have always been far more lenient than any instructor would and that is how it has always been.
Please back up your theories with evidence instead of coming out with hot air excuses.
I can back up and prove what I have said is correct.Can you?
Firstly you didn’t answer that issue concerning the standards of those army drivers who you had dealings with.Unfortunately most of the ‘evidence’ which I could provide you with is probably now buried with those old instructors and examiners who trained and tested at least me amongst others during the early-mid 1980’s unless by some chance they’re still around.Needless to say I don’t think that I would have lasted long without flattening more than a few cyclists and cars etc etc without having been ‘trained’ (actually told in no uncertain terms ) to use the mirrors properly (which didn’t take long to sort out having known all that before that point anyway) before those ‘lenient’ examiners ‘gave’ me my licences.
Truckulent:
If you’re a cyclist you WILL see the truck. (if you don’t you should be in a dark room asleep and not bothering the rest of us…).
If you’re a truck driver you MAY see the cyclist. Fact
So, who is in the best position to maintain vehicle separation? If you ride a bicycle and ride up the inside of a truck I’m sorry but you are an utter nob head and will almost certainly get squashed at some stage. And it will be mostly your own fault because you have made assumptions that aren’t necessarily correct.
The fact is that whatever the rights and wrongs, push bikes do not mix with powered vehicles on today’s roads and never will again, without a high risk of confrontation. If you choose to cycle you risk getting squashed. You cannot expect in every case to blame the driver as, in a truck, visibility is impaired… On a bike it isn’t impaired at all so who is in the best position to avoid accidents?
I wouldn’t cycle simply because it is slow and (where I live) bloody hard work due to an excessive amount of hills. But if I did, I’d have the sense to keep away from large vehicles. If you play with fire you will eventually get burned!
This is exactly why these accidents happen because of drivers wanting to put the blame on the other party and not being interested in their responsibility towards the safety of all other road users including cyclists and pedestrians.
Do lorry drivers never make mistakes?Do they never cause accidents and fatalities?
We all make mistakes at times but as so called professional drivers we should be aware of the most vulnerable road users and take that extra bit of care and attention whether they are in the right or wrong.
Someone said about all drivers having to cycle for a period.Great idea although it would never happen.
With all the impatient drivers we have on our roads these days I wonder how long they would be sitting behind every queuing vehicle?
I have cycled thanks. I used to cycle a lot and no longer do so as there are better ways to get from A-B in my view. It isn’t a question of blame either. Honest answer now. Do you believe all cyclists ride correctly and within the law?
No?
Car drivers don’t either, but they have a metal box around them…doesn’t make it right but means that in an accident their chances are greatly increased. All road users make mistakes. But if you’re on a bike it’s likely to hurt more when it goes wrong. There are mistakes then blatant stupidity. And many cyclists tend to specialise in the latter.
I agree we are all responsible. I merely point out the fact that as most cyclists act irresponsibly most of the time, other drivers will have a lower tolerance and be quick to point the finger. It may not be right or ideal but that is how people are!
Personally I always give as much room as I can to cyclists as they are as predictable as moorland sheep.
I notice you may no attempt to explain why cyclists, despite their obvious vulnerability often ride with utter disregard for the highway code, the law and their own safety… I think most drivers agree that care should be taken in the pursuit of cyclists’ safety. Most posters here are merely asking the cyclist to have a similar amount of concern for themselves!
Truckulent:
Do you believe all cyclists ride correctly and within the law?
I believe that most do. In any case, the fact that cyclists may break the law is irrelevant, we could just as easily point out that ALL road users break the law. There are so many and there are one or two we all disregard occasionally. I’m not sure that crossing a junction just before the lights turn green is a worse crime than the 38 tonne artic I followed into York this lunch time who decided to show his frustration to the car driver doing a mere 50 in slippy conditions by tailgating him. We probably see both occur often.
Personally, like most cyclists, I do obey all the traffic rules, use lights, wear Hi Viz and even occasionally wear a helmet. I do however get treated to regular displays of disapproval by motorists. Often they express their frustration in a similar way that the artic did - by getting close. It’s one thing to risk a bit of metal bending, but another thing entirely to risk killing someone to show that anger - but believe me, it happens.
Of interest to this debate, I continued into York and encountered many cyclists. I had to wait for space to get by only one out of at least 12. Even this didn’t hold me up as the next lights were on red. What did hold me up, was getting around all the parked cars.
Despite HGV drivers being in fewer accidents, unfortunately when cyclists are involved it means that they cause a high proportion of fatalities. Yes, cyclists should be trained and not do the stupid things we all see them do, and honestly, when I cycle in London, cyclists scare me more than other vehicles.
Everyone I’ve spoken to who has watched the War on Britain’s Roads film (including cyclists) has commented that the most reasonable person in it was the Cemex driver. That is all I want, to share the roads with reasonable people no matter what my form of transport is.
The DCPC module is not designed to make us love cycling (or cyclists), just to appreciate the issues.
Training hasn’t stopped car or truck drivers doing stupid things. The problem is convincing the average human that they should look out for their own safety and not rely on others as that other persons interest may not be in ensuring your survival.
Carryfast you completely misunderstand me.First of all I take it your ex Army seeing your so concerned about Army drivers.
Every recruit that joins the armed forces these days is put through an LGV cat C (not all C+E) driving test.The ones that eventually become tank transporter drivers are ones that are drivers by trade and they are picked out to be above average.
I totally agree that a tank transporter driver needs to be very aware when driving and most are but what I am saying is that some drivers no matter what they drive become complacent and do not realise they are missing mirror checks.As I said earlier I have come across many a driver(military and civilan) who think they are ok with their mirrors when in actual fact they are pretty poor.
The only way that can be addressed is for current drivers to be assessed because once they pass that basic test most develop bad driving habits without even realising.
Truckulent:
Do you believe all cyclists ride correctly and within the law?
I believe that most do. In any case, the fact that cyclists may break the law is irrelevant, we could just as easily point out that ALL road users break the law. There are so many and there are one or two we all disregard occasionally. I’m not sure that crossing a junction just before the lights turn green is a worse crime than the 38 tonne artic I followed into York this lunch time who decided to show his frustration to the car driver doing a mere 50 in slippy conditions by tailgating him. We probably see both occur often.
Personally, like most cyclists, I do obey all the traffic rules, use lights, wear Hi Viz and even occasionally wear a helmet. I do however get treated to regular displays of disapproval by motorists. Often they express their frustration in a similar way that the artic did - by getting close. It’s one thing to risk a bit of metal bending, but another thing entirely to risk killing someone to show that anger - but believe me, it happens.
Of interest to this debate, I continued into York and encountered many cyclists. I had to wait for space to get by only one out of at least 12. Even this didn’t hold me up as the next lights were on red. What did hold me up, was getting around all the parked cars.
Despite HGV drivers being in fewer accidents, unfortunately when cyclists are involved it means that they cause a high proportion of fatalities. Yes, cyclists should be trained and not do the stupid things we all see them do, and honestly, when I cycle in London, cyclists scare me more than other vehicles.
Everyone I’ve spoken to who has watched the War on Britain’s Roads film (including cyclists) has commented that the most reasonable person in it was the Cemex driver. That is all I want, to share the roads with reasonable people no matter what my form of transport is.
The DCPC module is not designed to make us love cycling (or cyclists), just to appreciate the issues.
I’m not sure where you are looking, but if you genuinely believe that most cyclists obey the law and ride sensibly, you obviously spend your time riding the cycle paths of York and rarely ride in places such as Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, London, Newcastle, Birmingham etc. etc. (all places full of suicidal cyclists). I think you’re right that in places like York and Cambridge cyclists are slightly above average in their obedience to the law. But the majority of cities and towns that just doesn’t happen.
As I said before, if you don’t ride defensively on a bicycle you’ll get squashed eventually! And so many cyclists ride as if they have nine lives not one…
Truckulent:
you obviously spend your time riding the cycle paths of York and rarely ride in places such as Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, London, Newcastle, Birmingham etc. etc.
No, I live near Newcastle and regularly cycle there, but a Brompton lives in the cab with me when I’m tramping and I spend a fair bit of time cycling in London, Bristol and York. Of course I see cyclists going through a red light (usually to get ahead of the traffic just before it turns green) and cycling without lights. It’s just that they don’t appear from my observations to be in a majority. I also see many motor vehicles going through lights just as they turn red (which is totally incompatible with the cyclists’ red light behaviour), using mobile phones, breaking the speed limit and tailgaiting! Just because a group of road users break the law, doesn’t justify dismissing their suggestions.
albion1971:
Carryfast you completely misunderstand me.First of all I take it your ex Army seeing your so concerned about Army drivers.
Every recruit that joins the armed forces these days is put through an LGV cat C (not all C+E) driving test.The ones that eventually become tank transporter drivers are ones that are drivers by trade and they are picked out to be above average.
I totally agree that a tank transporter driver needs to be very aware when driving and most are but what I am saying is that some drivers no matter what they drive become complacent and do not realise they are missing mirror checks.As I said earlier I have come across many a driver(military and civilan) who think they are ok with their mirrors when in actual fact they are pretty poor.
The only way that can be addressed is for current drivers to be assessed because once they pass that basic test most develop bad driving habits without even realising.
I’m not ex army because being conscripted would have been bad enough from my point of view let alone joining up voluntarily.
I was just referring to the issues which ‘might’ apply within the army and which might explain at least some of your bad experiences and views concerning army trained drivers.The fact is it’s either a case of a driver being a driver by trade or not and the latter is just a compromise.It’s obvious that the job of being a driver within the army is a specialist skilled one that the average driver won’t be up to just like in civilian conditions.It’s also obvious that those jobs are few and far between in the army and usually over subscribed by hopeful applicants and every other type of ‘driver’ is just trained at a lower level to get a lower grade licence probably on the basis of quantity of drivers being what matters in that case not quality.( Which I already knew which is one of the reasons why I never let the army careers officers convince me with any bs that joining up would automatically be a route to being given the job of a class 1 driver by trade within the army when I left school ).
Which leaves that issue of mirror ‘checks’.As any driver by ‘trade’ would know there’s no such thing as ‘mirror checks’ in just the same way as there’s no such thing as looking ahead through the windscreen ‘checks’.The use of mirrors when driving a truck is/should be an instinctive constant scanning of the mirrors on a constant basis wether it’s moving or stopped at lights or junctions or roundabouts etc etc.That is one of the first things that any driver is/should be trained into from the start of their driver training.I really can’t believe that any driver by ‘trade’,especially one with a background in driving army equipment at the highest levels,could possibly ever get into any so called ‘bad habits’ in which that essential basic requirement in driving any LGV gets forgotten.In any type of case where that issue does apply as you’ve described it then it could only be owning to a catastrophic failure in basic driver training and/or a driver that doesn’t view the job in a way that allows full control of the vehicle.
However having said that it would be putting cyclists into a dangerous false sense of security to let them think that even when a driver is using the mirrors correctly that those cyclists would always be noticed when carrying out some of their often suicidal ideas concerning riding bicycles at the side of trucks.
All this could be avoided if cyclists were required by law to wait behind whatever vehicle is infront of them in a queue, not simply ride down the side so that two objects are jostling for the same space. It would not be tollerated if a small car decided he was more important than everyone else at a queue and drove down the white line between two sets of vehicles who are correctly occupying their respective lanes and if cyclists wish to use the road then they should be subject to the same responsibilities and requirements. If a truck is at a red light, wait behind him like every other road user has to do. By pushing down the side of an already positioned and stationary truck at a set of lights is blatently asking for trouble and has nothing to do with sharing the road. A truck which due to its physical size already needs the entire lane to manouver safely cannot share that space with any object, let alone one that can not be seen. Some people are hell bent on suicide it would seem.
Its always sad whenever someone loses their life on the road ( or anywhere else for that matter ), but someone is always at fault, and of course its very easy to blame the cyclist. I often see cyclist on dark winter mornings, with NO lights whatsoever, yet when i was a young rider, i would often get stopped by the police and told off. However there is no policing in that department today, which is why everyone gets away with a lot.
We could plan for many regulations, like compulsory insurance ( that means a registration ) compulsory safety clothing, and god knows what else, but if its not enforced, where does it lead, yes we see them coming up the nearside, and also the outside in central london, to get to the front of the queue, we see them weaving in and out, wobbling about, knocking mirrors etc etc, but things wont change, unless, we look to Holland, build a whole lot of new cycle lanes, in every major town and city, then give cyclist priority, that is the only way it will stop, for motorists are not allowed into cycle lanes as we know, so that separates us and them, the only problem is MONEY, and no government will pay, same really as the crime rates, simple answer, build more prisons…but that costs MONEY.
truckyboy:
but things wont change, unless, we look to Holland, build a whole lot of new cycle lanes, in every major town and city, then give cyclist priority, that is the only way it will stop,
No it won’t, because cyclists don’t like using cycle lanes and will regularly drive alongside one on the road rather than using it! I see it all the time. Apparently they have to ride too slowly (carefully?) on cycle paths as the surface is not as good as the road. What a waste of money. Pointless building any more.
robinhood_1984:
All this could be avoided if cyclists were required by law to wait behind whatever vehicle is infront of them in a queue, not simply ride down the side so that two objects are jostling for the same space. It would not be tollerated if a small car decided he was more important than everyone else at a queue and drove down the white line between two sets of vehicles who are correctly occupying their respective lanes and if cyclists wish to use the road then they should be subject to the same responsibilities and requirements. If a truck is at a red light, wait behind him like every other road user has to do. By pushing down the side of an already positioned and stationary truck at a set of lights is blatently asking for trouble and has nothing to do with sharing the road. A truck which due to its physical size already needs the entire lane to manouver safely cannot share that space with any object, let alone one that can not be seen. Some people are hell bent on suicide it would seem.
Spot on. As the lights change, they want you to miraculously find an extra 6 foot to manoeuvre round them!
Truckulent:
you obviously spend your time riding the cycle paths of York and rarely ride in places such as Manchester, Leeds, Bristol, London, Newcastle, Birmingham etc. etc.
No, I live near Newcastle and regularly cycle there, but a Brompton lives in the cab with me when I’m tramping and I spend a fair bit of time cycling in London, Bristol and York. Of course I see cyclists going through a red light (usually to get ahead of the traffic just before it turns green) and cycling without lights. It’s just that they don’t appear from my observations to be in a majority. I also see many motor vehicles going through lights just as they turn red (which is totally incompatible with the cyclists’ red light behaviour), using mobile phones, breaking the speed limit and tailgaiting! Just because a group of road users break the law, doesn’t justify dismissing their suggestions.
All of which makes it surprising you think that cyclists are mostly law abiding road users…I think many would disagree.
My point isn’t anything to do with cyclists and car drivers etc. breaking the law, although plenty of them do so. It’s to do with the fact that other road users are less vulnerable when it goes wrong. Cyclists persist in their antics despite the fact that if it goes pear shaped, they get hurt.
All roads users have a responsibility to each other. But, cyclists seem very keen to take risks in an attempt to ‘get ahead’. I’d say that in the majority of cases, if you feel the need to swerve in and out of traffic in your blatant attempts to reach the front of the queue before the lights change, you should set off a bit earlier and take your time, much safer!
I saw one idiot a few weeks ago, all decked in hiviz and lycra with an (illegal) flashing red light attached to the back of his head, try to overtake a line of cars heading uphill. The lights changed and he was left cycling up the middle of the road as he couldn’t keep up, before swerving in front of a bus to reach the kerb again…it was dark and raining at the time.
Sorry, but there are just two many of these idiots about. I know not all cyclists are like that but until the lycra loonies are curbed, all cyclists will be tarred with the same brush unfortunately. It isn’t fair, but then life isn’t!
albion1971:
Carryfast you completely misunderstand me.First of all I take it your ex Army seeing your so concerned about Army drivers.
Every recruit that joins the armed forces these days is put through an LGV cat C (not all C+E) driving test.The ones that eventually become tank transporter drivers are ones that are drivers by trade and they are picked out to be above average.
I totally agree that a tank transporter driver needs to be very aware when driving and most are but what I am saying is that some drivers no matter what they drive become complacent and do not realise they are missing mirror checks.As I said earlier I have come across many a driver(military and civilan) who think they are ok with their mirrors when in actual fact they are pretty poor.
The only way that can be addressed is for current drivers to be assessed because once they pass that basic test most develop bad driving habits without even realising.
I’m not ex army because being conscripted would have been bad enough from my point of view let alone joining up voluntarily.
I was just referring to the issues which ‘might’ apply within the army and which might explain at least some of your bad experiences and views concerning army trained drivers.The fact is it’s either a case of a driver being a driver by trade or not and the latter is just a compromise.It’s obvious that the job of being a driver within the army is a specialist skilled one that the average driver won’t be up to just like in civilian conditions.It’s also obvious that those jobs are few and far between in the army and usually over subscribed by hopeful applicants and every other type of ‘driver’ is just trained at a lower level to get a lower grade licence probably on the basis of quantity of drivers being what matters in that case not quality.( Which I already knew which is one of the reasons why I never let the army careers officers convince me with any bs that joining up would automatically be a route to being given the job of a class 1 driver by trade within the army when I left school ).
Which leaves that issue of mirror ‘checks’.As any driver by ‘trade’ would know there’s no such thing as ‘mirror checks’ in just the same way as there’s no such thing as looking ahead through the windscreen ‘checks’.The use of mirrors when driving a truck is/should be an instinctive constant scanning of the mirrors on a constant basis wether it’s moving or stopped at lights or junctions or roundabouts etc etc.That is one of the first things that any driver is/should be trained into from the start of their driver training.I really can’t believe that any driver by ‘trade’,especially one with a background in driving army equipment at the highest levels,could possibly ever get into any so called ‘bad habits’ in which that essential basic requirement in driving any LGV gets forgotten.In any type of case where that issue does apply as you’ve described it then it could only be owning to a catastrophic failure in basic driver training and/or a driver that doesn’t view the job in a way that allows full control of the vehicle.
However having said that it would be putting cyclists into a dangerous false sense of security to let them think that even when a driver is using the mirrors correctly that those cyclists would always be noticed when carrying out some of their often suicidal ideas concerning riding bicycles at the side of trucks.
Again you seem to misunderstand the situation.No the job of the average army driver is not a specialist skilled one and there are no compromises or lower training levels.
As I said all Armed Forces recruits have to pass an LGV test whether they are traded as a driver or not.The ones that are drivers to trade go on to further training after passing their test.eg drops vehicles,cross country driving,skid training and many other courses but only a chosen few are selected to be offered tank transporter jobs and then the choice is up to them to do the required training.
I am not ex services myself. Before I worked for the MOD I worked for a civilian training company and my main point is that you get good and bad drivers everywhere and there are very few drivers anywhere that do not have bad driving habits.
Again I can confirm that many already qualified drivers(military and civilian)do not use proper mirror checks although before they are assessed they reckon they are top notch.So if they are not checking properly when they are being assessed what will they be like when they are not being watched.
.If not why not or if so there’s no way that such standards could possibly include the posibility of sub standard use of mirrors. 
