Recently the drivers union were in the spot light for two issues.
The first was the request for a judicial revue of the road transport regulations.
The second was that some C P C students who attended a driver C P C course , and apparently larked about so much that the session was cut short by a small amount.
As the session should have lasted for a designated time the union was in breach of the law for cutting the training session short.
The D L A issued a notice to the police and arrests were made,its all very dodgy really.
What a waste of time
The union lost the licence to issue driver C P C training.
all a bit dodgy.
The U R T U appear to be a hard working union interested in driver issues.
Its a shame they lost the case.
the U R T U fell foul by reducing the hours on the last day because some were rowdy
the lessons last /must ;last 7 hours.
If the lesson is reduced because they finish earlier then as it is . you get nicked.
now that is heavy handed.
did you know you can do the same course over and over again.
you do not have to do each module.
you can do the same one 5 times and pass,
I do not think you can fall asleep
Ross v stobart:
the U R T U fell foul by reducing the hours on the last day because some were rowdy
the lessons last /must ;last 7 hours.
If the lesson is reduced because they finish earlier then as it is . you get nicked.
now that is heavy handed.
did you know you can do the same course over and over again.
you do not have to do each module.
you can do the same one 5 times and pass,
I do not think you can fall asleep
yes, and that is why the DCPC is a total waste of time in its current format
It’s quite possible that there could be a time when it was advisable to do the same subject twice in a five-year cycle. If there was a change in hours law, or you switched from paper to digital tacho, for example. Or, if you were coming to tachos and EU hours from domestic (if you switched from bins or milk collection to general haulage for example) you might what to do the course twice because it’s a lot to take in over 7 hours.
I suspect that was why the legislation was drafted as it is.
They knew drivers would no be so stupid as to spend money doing the identical course twice in six months or whatever.
GasGas:
It’s quite possible that there could be a time when it was advisable to do the same subject twice in a five-year cycle. If there was a change in hours law, or you switched from paper to digital tacho, for example. Or, if you were coming to tachos and EU hours from domestic (if you switched from bins or milk collection to general haulage for example) you might what to do the course twice because it’s a lot to take in over 7 hours.
I suspect that was why the legislation was drafted as it is.
They knew drivers would no be so stupid as to spend money doing the identical course twice in six months or whatever.
I think there are two reason at least for forming the driver C P C regulations.
The first has got to that its to an advantage for the driver and employer that the mobile worker gains qualifications in safety and other modules of the coarse.
The second is an advantage and a disadvantage as the driver will have less chance to claim of being unaware in some tricky situations.
The boss can say you should have know.
police and V O S A will say the same.
So best to pay attention and take it all in.
I still think the regulator/enforcement over reacted by arresting some.
It must be a first prosecution for the U R T U and the D L A on part of the D F T.
Considering that the R T R working time regulations have never been enforced since 2005 (until recently) its amazing that they threw the book at the U R T U.
I have completed 4 modules so I still have to sit one more 7 hour class.
so if the lesson finishes 5 mins short its an offence, What a joke,
The D F T remind me of the stairs they had at the Blackpool fun house in 1970.
It was one foot forward,then backwards, up,down, sliding around, roundabout and then back where you started.
Being ‘unaware’ of the law is no defence against breaking the law, even though no one can know all the law.This especially true if you are taking part in an activity (like driving a motor vehicle) where you require a licence.
I beg to differ.
Without going into to much detail, I have heard that being unaware of the law is no defence, but it could be used to explain why you broke the law,
Its easy for anyone to state that they are unaware of the law,and if so to say was to aquit yourself of any crimes,then it would be impossible to discern who was lying or not,unless there was specific evidence either way.
Gorillaz - Stylo
by GorillazVEVO-2 years ago- 13,521,417 views
Music video by Gorillaz performing Stylo. (P) 2010 The copyright in this audiovisual recording is owned by EMI Records Ltd
OFFICIAL.
I did the same course yesterday for the 3rd time in 3 years (driver’s hours). My mate who organises the course has the view that they are the most significant issue that he has with drivers, so he keeps sending them on the same course so that they he no excuse when it comes to infringements and disciplinary.
Going back to the original post regarding the URTU …
They were an approved DCPC training centre and therefore knew the rules - there aren’t that many to remember. They knew the limit was 20 delegates and had 40+. they knew a course must be 7 hours not including breaks.
They said the drivers were messing about - I know a driver that was there and he told me they weren’t messing about (he also said the few hours they did was completely boring with some guy just reading from some notes). if the drivers had been messing about then surely the URTU would have cut the course short, let everyone go but NOT uploaded the course data on the DSA website as it hadn’t been a 7 hour course.
As it was they went ahead and registered the course as having been 7 hours long when it wasn’t more than 41/2 including two 40 minute breaks. They knew full well they were cheating.
The drivers had the training hours withdrawn - and the driver I know said this was only right as he had not received any training worth having (I think he got his money back).
How the URTU got away with no legal action I don’t know, but it has set a precedence. Any other trainers can now over crowd a room, cut the course short and then say “Well that’s what the URTU did and they got away with it”.
In my opinion the URTU lied about what happened to cover up that they were delivering shoddy DCPC training.
: