We all know the current DCPC is a load of tosh 
I have always said that if it were to come in (which it has) the 1st course that should be mandatory should be basic tacho rules and regs.
all course structure should be based on what a driver should legaly know for drivingā¦
It shows in the threads that there are a lot of drivers out there that dont know what they are talking about or are still working to old regās even 20yrs down the line, why !!! because they cant be fussed to keep up on regs.
so Yes Iām all for the DCPC but in a format that really teaches the driver what he/she should really know but in going a step further any TM or Traffic Clerk should also have acreddited training in drivers regs so that they show they understand the regs as much as the driver⦠this would mean not any old snotty 17- 18 yr old can sit at a desk and hand out keys and notes to a driver and say get on with it ā¦
Training needs to start at the top so everyones involved
nick2008:
all course structure should be based on what a driver should legaly know for drivingā¦
Therein lies the problem with your idea - there is no test to accertain whether any driver on that course has assimilated the content correctly - they could leave leave the course just as wise as when they came in !!
ROG:
nick2008:
all course structure should be based on what a driver should legaly know for drivingā¦
Therein lies the problem with your idea - there is no test to accertain whether any driver on that course has assimilated the content correctly - they could leave leave the course just as wise as when they came in !!
Obv the other part is to have a test Rog
thats the whole point
nick2008:
Obv the other part is to have a test Rog
thats the whole point
Hi Nick,
Some DCPC providers do have a simple tick-box type test at the end of a course, because good teaching practice dictates that some form of confirmatory questioning should be used.
However, as ROG correctly points out, a ātestā isnāt actually a requirement of DCPC as the rules currently stand.
Blimey!! Did I really use the words āROGā and ācorrectlyā in the same sentence??

nick2008:
We all know the current DCPC is a load of tosh 
I have always said that if it were to come in (which it has) the 1st course that should be mandatory should be basic tacho rules and regs.
all course structure should be based on what a driver should legaly know for drivingā¦
It shows in the threads that there are a lot of drivers out there that dont know what they are talking about or are still working to old regās even 20yrs down the line, why !!! because they cant be fussed to keep up on regs.
so Yes Iām all for the DCPC but in a format that really teaches the driver what he/she should really know but in going a step further any TM or Traffic Clerk should also have acreddited training in drivers regs so that they show they understand the regs as much as the driver⦠this would mean not any old snotty 17- 18 yr old can sit at a desk and hand out keys and notes to a driver and say get on with it ā¦
Training needs to start at the top so everyones involved
Iām not so sure about the drivers ācant be fussed to keep up on regsā bit, is it reasonable to expect all drivers to study the regulations as many of us here have, is it reasonable to blame drivers for the misinformation being handed down to them from those who are supposed to be in the know.
Iāve said all along that if thereās going to be a Driver CPC then it should result in a test of whatās been learned, I agree completely that TMs/traffic clerks should have to do at least basic training in Drivers hours/Tachograph regulations and I donāt mean once in a lifetime but at least as often as the drivers ouselves have to do it.
dieseldave:
Some DCPC providers do have a simple tick-box type test at the end of a course, because good teaching practice dictates that some form of confirmatory questioning should be used.
Yes Dave but good teaching practice also dictates that the information being taught is correct, whatās the point of ticking the boxes if the information in those boxes is incorrect, itās simply giving more weight to misinformation 
The big problem with the Driver CPC is that itās only regulated in a manner thatās aimed at ensuring profit rather than improved knowledge or skill.
Is there really any point in regulating the drivers training hours when the training content goes unregulated ?
On RT.Com I was being pestered by a pop up that I eventually clicked on and read this.
The Level 2 BTEC Award in Transporting Passengers by Taxi and Private Hire is designed to support and enhance the knowledge of existing or prospective drivers who wish to develop or begin a career in transporting passengers. It will provide career opportunities for persons seeking a career in driving a passenger transport vehicle, employed passenger transport drivers who will undertake this qualification as part of their continuing professional development and existing passenger transport drivers who wish to return to the industry after an absence and require their qualifications to be updated.
What is the structure of these NVQs?
To achieve the whole qualification, the learner must successfully complete the six core units and one specialist unit from a choice of two.
Mandatory Units
Unit 1 Customer Service for Passenger Transport
Unit 2 Equality and Diversity in Passenger Transport
Unit 3 Passenger Transport and Disability Awareness
Unit 4 Transporting Passengers Safely
Unit 5 Carriage of Luggage and Parcels by Taxi and Private Hire
Unit 6 Map Reading and Route Planning
Optional Units
One specialist unit from the following two:
Unit 7 Taxi and Private Hire Regulations (UK)
Unit 8 Taxi and Private Hire Regulations (London)
At the end of the programme there will be an online assessment which the candidate must pass.
If we must have the DCPC, the training must be structured, much like an ADR or Operator CPC and failure will mean resitting it, it would cut down on the excess of lorry drivers,
For instance I have been in chemical transport for a large part of my driving career, not being clever about it, but ADR & tanker work to me is reasonably simple. I could do part or most of my 35 hours training on it, then go and get a job driving an aggregate tipper or refuse cart and I wouldnāt have a clue. We must at least have a pass and fail system, and the cost must be borne by the employer or the agency. If they leave a company within 2 years, than allow a clause to be drawn into the contract of employment so that the driver pays back a percentage of the cost.
tachograph:
dieseldave:
Some DCPC providers do have a simple tick-box type test at the end of a course, because good teaching practice dictates that some form of confirmatory questioning should be used.
Yes Dave but good teaching practice also dictates that the information being taught is correct, whatās the point of ticking the boxes if the information in those boxes is incorrect, itās simply giving more weight to misinformation 
The big problem with the Driver CPC is that itās only regulated in a manner thatās aimed at ensuring profit rather than improved knowledge or skill.
Is there really any point in regulating the drivers training hours when the training content goes unregulated ?
Hi tachograph,
If you mean regulated in a way that ensures profit for JAUPT, then Iād agree.
The rest is left to market forces.
The DCPC course content has to be approved by JAUPT and thatās where the system might currently be falling down.
If you take a driversā hours course as an example, the provider submits the course to JAUPT for approval before it can be used.
JAUPT will usually write back asking for clarifications and alterations, and Iāve not known a course to be approved at the first time of asking yet. What they actually do with it, or whether somebody properly checks the alleged āfactsā to be taught is anybodyās guess cos I canāt see any transparency in their system. From my dealings with approvals, it does seem to be somewhat haphazard. Somebody I know has proved that point, but my lips are sealed.

If you then take an ADR course as another example, then that has to be approved by SQA before JAUPT ever get to see it. Trust me, SQA donāt miss a trick when it comes to approving an ADR course, because all the verifiers including the chief verifier are all very qualified in ADR matters. It should also be remembered that SQA is also in charge of the DGSA qualification, so thereās no shortage of qualified knowledge and just about a zero chance of anybody sneaking any ADR misinformation through the system. Iāve known an ADR course to be submitted to JAUPT for approval, but they still asked for clarifications though. 